See

discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.net/publication/276309496

Recent Advances in the Hydrodynamic Design

of Fast Monohulls

Article · January 2005

DOI: 10.1179/str.2005.52.1.003

CITATIONS READS

3 402

1 author:

Gregory Grigoropoulos
National Technical University of Athens
82 PUBLICATIONS 200 CITATIONS

SEE PROFILE

Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects:

Added resistance in waves via potential and viscous flow methods View project

All content following this page was uploaded by Gregory Grigoropoulos on 15 September 2016.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

 RECENT ADVANCES IN THE HYDRODYNAMIC DESIGN OF
FAST MONOHULLS
by
Gregory Grigoropoulos, Assoc. Professor NTUA

ABSTRACT

During the last decade, significant effort has been spent to improve the
performance of fast monohulls. Thus, in spite of the development of
various alternative multi-hull and dynamically supported vehicles, they
continue to dominate the market both for commercial and recreational
vehicles, as well as for naval combatants. In this work, recent advances in
the hydrodynamic design of fast monohulls are presented and discussed.
Their merit is compared to the current state of development of the other
advanced hull forms.

1 Introduction

Fast monohulls still dominate the market of (car-) passenger ships and naval
combatants, although fast multi-hulls, hydrofoils and air-supported vehicles possess a
remarkable portion, especially at the higher speed range. An overview of the speed-
length relationship of commercial ships is provided in Fig.1, from Levander, (2001),
enriched by Grigoropoulos and Loukakis (2002). Fast monohulls operate in the upper
region of this figure, at speeds corresponding to Froude numbers in excess of 0.50.
This is also the case of modern naval ships, which tend to reduce their size at the same
speed, since modern efficient weapons can be accommodated in smaller platforms. A
common characteristic of this type of hull forms is the large immersed transom stern.

50
Fast Cat
Fn=1.00 Fn=0.60

40
Fast Mono
Fn=0.35
Speed [knots]

30
Displacement Fn=0.25
Type Ferries

20

10

0
0 50 100 150 200 250 300
Length WL [m]

Fig.1: Fast designs of the 90s (Levander, 2001, Grigoropoulos and Loukakis, 2002).

1
 Systematic resistance series constitute still a major source of ready to use
information for the designer. Although nowadays the presentation of systematic results
for a series of hull forms is not as customary as it was three or four decades ago, four
systematic series of high-speed monohulls have been developed in the last decade. The
series, which have advantageous resistance performance in the semi-displacement or
pre-planing speed regime (Froude Number range = 0.40 – 0.90), are:

 VWS D-Serie, Berlin (Kracht, 1996)

 SKLAD series, Zagreb (Gamulin, 1996)
 AMECRC systematic series (Bojovic, 1997)
 NTUA series of double-chine hull forms (Grigoropoulos & Loukakis, 1999)

The latter two of the series have also improved seakeeping characteristics. All four
series are presented in Section 2. The above series extend the scope of the following
older systematic series of fast monohulls:

 KTH/NSMB round-bilge & hard-chine series (Nordström 1936, Clement 1964).

 EMB Series 50 (Davidson and Saurez, 1948)
 HSVA C' Series (Kracht and Grim, 1960)
 Series 62 single chine (Clement and Blount, 1963)
 Series 63 (Beys, 1963)
 Series 64 (Yeh, 1965)
 SSPA Methodical Series (Lindgren and Williams, 1968)
 Series 65 (Holling and Hubble, 1974)
 NPL Series of round-bilge hulls (Bailey, 1976)
 Japanese Series of planing craft (Nagai, Tanaka and Yoshida, 1976).
 BK Series of semi-planing hull forms (Yegorov, et al, 1978)
 MBK Series of semi-planing hull forms (Yegorov, et al, 1978)
 TU Delft Series of Deep-V hulls based on Series 62 (Keuning & Gerritsma, 1982)
 NSMB Series of round-bilge, semi-displacement hulls (Oossanen & Pieffers,
1984)
 NRC Series of naval ships (Schmitke et al, 1979 and Murdey & Simoes Re, 1985).
 US Naval Academy Series (Compton, 1986)
 VTT Series (Lahtiharju et al, 1991)

Series based on testing of models smaller than 1 m in length have been

excluded from the above list. Based on one or more of the aforementioned series, or on
an extended data base of model tests, a series of regression methods are available to the
designer of a fast monohull to estimate its resistance during the preliminary design
phase, the more important of which are:

 Van Oortmerssen method (Van Oortmerssen, 1971)

 Mercier and Savitsky method (Savitsky and Brown, 1976)
 Series 62/65 regression method (Hadler et al, 1978)
 Tang method (Ping-zhong et al, 1980)
 Jin’s regression method for round bilge hulls (Jin et al, 1980)
 Holtrop method (Holtrop, 1984)

2
 Compton method (Compton, 1986)
 Japanese Series of planing craft (Nagai and Yoshida, 1993).
 Radojcic’s regression equations for various systematic series (Series 62, TU Delft
Series, Series 65, NPL Series) including the recent SKLAD Series (Radojcic et al,
1999) and NTUA Series (Radojcic et al, 2001).

The derived simple formulae permit an easy selection of optimal design

parameters within the permissible range of the series. However, these readily
applicable relations should be used only within the restricted ranges of the design
parameters in the series of the database. On the other hand, Fung (1991) developed a
speed-independent regression model on the basis of a large database of 526 test
conditions of numerous ship types. Following an extensive statistical analysis, he
claims his method to be useful for the optimisation of the hull form parameters during
the early stages of ship design, as it is statistically reliable within a wide range of
speeds and hull form parameters.

More experimental and theoretical background, as well as physical insight, form

the basis of semi-empirical methods, which address the resistance of prismatic hull
forms. The assumption of a prismatic hull form, which greatly simplifies the modelling
of planing hulls, is reasonable in the case of pure planing hulls for the underwater part
of the hull. However, the assumption breaks down at lower speeds when the fore body
comes into contact with the water. Such methods are:

 Shuford method (Shuford, 1958), modified by Brown and Klosinski (1980)

 Savitsky method (Savitsky, 1964), including Blount and Fox correction factor for
pre-planing regime (Blount and Fox, 1976)
 Lyubomirov method (Yegorov et al, 1978)

Almeter (1993) describes and compares the older methods. He comments,

however, on the validity of semi-empirical equations that: “Data can be found to justify
almost any equation”.

Furthermore, Almeter (1999) proposes a simplified method to estimate the

resistance of a planing craft on the basis of a parent one with different proportions and
loadings. The method is valid for craft with similar body plans. Its major advantage is
that it is independent of hull proportions, which allows the prediction to be based on a
parent craft with different length to beam and beam to draft ratios.

According to this method, R/W ratio is plotted versus log10 An, where An is the
W
so-called Almeter number A n  , for various Clement numbers
0.5  LCG B m V 2

Cn  , where LCG is measured from the transom. Both, parameters of
9/4
LCG B 3m/ 4
the method, An and Cn are non-dimensional. Almeter claims that, for log(An) > -1.0,
the vessel sails in displacement mode and its RT/W ratio is highly affected by its
displacement expressed in terms of Cn number, while at planing speeds (log(An) < -1.0)
the RT/W ratio is predominantly a function of An. The method is implemented in the
case of NTUA series, the only hard chine series described in this work.

3
 Regression analysis has also been applied in conjunction with numerical methods
to improve the reliability of their prediction. Hanhirova et al (1995) used Michell’s
Integral as treated by Tuck (1987) and applied regression analysis to derive two 13-
parameter mathematical models for the difference ΔCW = CR – CW, for low and high
L/B ratios, respectively. It should be noted that wave resistance derived by Michell’s
Integral is not affected whether the ship/model is free to trim and sink or fixed in
position, being proportional to its breadth squared.

Doctors and Day (1997) proposed a similar hybrid method. They modelled the
hollow cavity in the water flow observed behind the transom stern, taking into account
that its length varies with the speed of the vessel. Then, they used the traditional thin-
ship or perturbation analysis of Michell (1898) and Lunde (1951). Slenderness of the
hull is increased by means of the transom stern hollow. They also included two form
factors in their analysis, one accounting for an empirical frictional correction and the
other for wave resistance, to be considered as accurate in the limit of a very thin hull
form. The authors determine these factors by matching numerical results to
experimental ones. They suggested that their hybrid method should be used to reduce
model tests required to investigate a realistic range of trims and displacements.

Both hybrid methods apply to multihulls as well.

The arsenal of the naval architect in the prediction of the hydrodynamic

performance of fast monohulls encompasses potential flow CFD methods, such as:

 Tulin’s linear 3-D potential flow method for slender hulls at high Froude numbers
suitable for fast displacement ships (Wang et al, 1995),
 the combined potential-flow, boundary-layer viscous-flow zonal approach used by
SHIPFLOW panel code (1997), although the analytical results of CW underpredict
in a consistent way the experimental values for CR (Sahoo et al, 1999),
 3-D vortex lattice methods, where in accordance with Wagner’s theory (1932), the
hull is considered to be the underside of a wing. Lai and Troesch (1995) applied a
3-D boundary condition and assumed a jet region of zero pressure on the leading
and side edges of the wing,
 added mass methods based on Wagner’s theory, as the one proposed by Payne
(1988) and recently updated by Singleton (2004), and
 Zarnick’s low aspect ratio strip method, as extended by Akers (1999) to predict
dynamic panel pressures.

In addition, there are some recent attempts to use free-surface viscous codes
(Reynolds Averaged Navier-Stokes Equation solvers) as reported by Capponetto
(2000). These codes give the designer a better understanding of the planing
phenomena, especially if the actual free surface is used instead of the simplistic
symmetry plane in the boundary conditions.

Although such CFD methods provide promising results (Pemberton et al, 2001),
they require experience to obtain reliable results in the prediction of the performance of
high-speed craft. There are used, however, in comparative studies when modifications
on hull forms of existing vessels or members of systematic series are evaluated. This
procedure, which is quite common in the hydrodynamic design of advanced
monohulls, encompasses the local and global modification of the hull form and the

4
fitting of a suite of appendages to improve the efficiency of their calm water
performance.

The Enlarged Ship Concept (Keuning and Pinkster, 1995) was the only method
dealing with the global hull form parameters in the conceptual design and aiming at
improving both the resistance, seakeeping and manoeuvring characteristics of the
vessel. A review of these methods and their effect on the behaviour of the vessels is
presented in Section 3.

On the way to the development of NTUA series Grigoropoulos and Loukakis

(1995) compared experimentally the parent hull form of the series against four other
“equivalent” hull forms, i.e. with the same length, beam, displacement and trim (Fig.2).
These results show that in the pre-planing region there can be differences in resistance
due to the shape of the underwater part of “equivalent” hull forms, but these
differences are of moderate significance only. On the same Figure, the prediction of
resistance based on the NPL method is shown. The round bottom hull forms have, as
expected, lower resistance in the lower speed range and higher at higher speeds.
0.20

Series 62 with spray rails

Delft Series with spray rails
Double-cline based on Series 62 with spray rails
NTUA Series without spray rails
0.15
Rounded variant of NTUA Series with spray rails
NPL Series Prediction (Bailey, 1976)
RΜ / Δ

0.10

0.05

0.00
0.00 0.20 0.40 0.60 0.80 1.00 1.20
Fn

Fig.2: Experimental calm water resistance over displacement ratio (RM/Δ) for five
“equivalent” high-speed hull forms and prediction by NPL Series. The best
case with respect to the fitting of spray rails is plotted.

During the last decade, some novel ideas were proposed with excellent
performance in a prescribed range of displacements and speeds. These novel types of
monohulls are described in a Section 4 of the paper.

Finally, in an attempt to evaluate the relative merit of fast monohulls compared to

other types of advanced vehicles, their advantages and disadvantages are presented and
discussed in Chapter 5 of the paper.

5
2 Systematic Series of High-Speed Light-Displacement Monohulls

VWS D-Series

The series originates from a twin-screw round bilge hull form, and refers to
relatively broad and short ships. Kracht (1992, 1996) reported on the resistance, wake
and propulsion tests carried out with the 13 models of the series. All models had a
common LBP = 6.00 m. For each CP value three models with common 103C = 3.0 and
varying B/T have been constructed, while a forth model had B/T =3.75, as the parent
one, and a 103C = 3.5. Especially for Cp = 0.600 a fifth model with B/T =3.75 and
103C = 4.0 was built. The body plan of the parent model is shown in Fig.3. Its form
parameters are given in Table 1, while the variation of CP and C coefficients and B/T
ratio within the series is shown in Table 2.

C L
WL 13 13

WL 12 12

WL 11 11

WL 10 20 10

WL 9 19 9
18
WL 8 8
17
WL 7 7
16
WL 6 0 15 6
1 14
WL 5 5
2 13
WL 4 12 4
3
WL 3 4 11 3
7 5
WL 2 8 6 10 2
9
WL 1 1
basis BL

A.P. St. 2 St. 20 F.P.

Fig.3: Body plan of the parent model of D-Series (model 2521).

Table 1: Form Parameters of parent hull form of D-Series

Parameter Value
Prismatic Coefficient CP = /(AM LBP) 0.620
B/T ratio (amidships) 3.75
Slenderness coefficient 103C = 103/LBP3 3.00
Sectional Coefficient CX at maximum Section (Section 9) 0.8065
Longitudinal Centre of Buoyancy LCB/LBP (fwd of transom) 0.475

Table 2: Form Parameters varied to generate D-Series

CP 0.600 0.620 0.646

B/T 3.500 3.750 4.000
103C 3.000 3.500 4.000

Tests have been carried out at three displacements and speeds corresponding to
Fn = 0.15 – 0.80. The effect of appendages (bossing, V-bracket and rudder) was
investigated at the intermediate displacement. At the same displacement, wake and

6
self-propulsion tests have been carried out. Finally, the effect of trim by bow and by
stern has been investigated for the intermediate displacement of the last three models
of the series.

The results presented are: model test raw data for the naked hull and the hull with
appendage resistance, open water propeller characteristics, self propulsion and wake
tests as well as residual resistance coefficients CR, running trim and dynamic CG rise,
velocity field at the propeller disk, propulsive performance coefficients, wake fraction
w, thrust deduction factor t and relative rotative efficiency ηR. The resistance curve in
terms of the non-dimensional coefficient CTL = RTm / (Δ Fn2) for the naked parent hull
of the series is given in Fig.5, along with the respective of SKLAD Series.

SKLAD series

SKLAD series were a designer oriented series developed at Brodarski Institute

(Zagreb, Croatia) during the 70s and first published in 1996 (Gamulin). The body plan
of the parent model of the series is shown in Fig.4 and its characteristics are presented
L WL B WL
in TableC3. =0.450 =6 =4
B WL B WL T

20

19
18

16
14
12
10

2
4
6
8

0 1 19 20
AP FP

Fig.4: Body plan and bow and stern profiles of the parent model of SKLAD series

The series consists of 27 models with all combinations of the form parameters
shown in Table 4, split in three groups according to the CB values. Each group has
constant CP, CX, CWP and position of LCB (-0.087 LBP, -0.09186 LBP and -0.091 LBP
for CB = 0.35, 045 and 0.55, respectively). The models were derived from the parent
and the basic forms for CB = 0.35 and 0.55, so that the model displacement was always
constant (M = 0.230 m3), while LWL/BWL, BWL/T and CB were constant in each group.
They were tested at level keel, for speeds corresponding to volumetric Froude numbers
Fn = 1.0 – 3.0 and displacements in the range of the non-dimensional coefficient M =
LWL/1/3 = 4.50 to 8.50.

Table 3: Form Parameters of the parent hull form of SKLAD series

Parameter Value
Length between perpendiculars LBP = 1.0129 LWL (m) 4.250
Prismatic Coefficient CP = /(AM LBP) 0.715
Sectional Coefficient CX at maximum Section 0.621
LCB/LBP (positive forward of midship section) -0.09186
Half-angle of entrance iE 12.0o

7
 Table 4: Form Parameters varied to generate SKLAD series

LWL/BWL 4.00 6.00 8.00

BWL/T 3.00 4.00 5.00
CB 0.350 0.450 0.550

The results are presented in the form of constant value curves for residual
resistance coefficients CR, running trim, dynamic rise of the centre of gravity (CG) and
running wetted surface, on CB, LWL/BWL axes. Graphs are provided for each BWL/T and
testing speed, corresponding to Fn = 1.00-2.50 (step 0.25) and 3.00 The last two
results were non-dimensionalized by 1/3 and 2/3, respectively, while CR was derived
on the basis of the running wetted surface. Since 22 ships have been constructed using
the hull form of the series, a reliable relation for the ship to model correlation
allowance DCF, as a function of ship Reynolds number ReS is provided:

DCF = (14.77 – 0.7438 ln ReS) .10-3

300

250

200
CTL = RTm /(Δ Fn 2)

150

100
VWS Series Parent Model D1
SKLAD Series Parent Model
50 Prediction for SKLAD Parent Model by NPL Series
Prediction for VWS Parent Model via NPL Series
0
0.00 0.20 0.40 0.60 0.80 1.00 1.20 1.40
Fn
Fig.5: Experimental results for the parent models of the VWS and SKLAD Series and
predictions for these models using NPL Series.

An allowance of 3.5% per screw (including shaft and bracket and rudder) is
superimposed on the naked hull total resistance. The effect of LCB shift has been
investigated only for the members of the parent model group (2nd group). Finally,
values for the propulsive coefficients w, t and ηR are provided.

In Fig.5 the experimental results for the parent models of VWS and SKLAD
Series are compared with the respective predictions using NPL Series. Since the size
and the displacement of the tested models for these series are different, the non-
dimensional resistance coefficient CTL = RTm (Δ Fn2) has been used for the
comparison. As it can be concluded from this figure, there are significant differences in

8
the prediction of the resistance of the two parent models in the pre-planing region,
where NPL predicts intermediate and quite similar for both model values. Thus, the
development of systematic series of modern hull forms is quite significant for the
profession.

AMECRC systematic series

These series were developed at the Australian Maritime Cooperative Research

Centre (AMECRC). The series consists of 14 semi-displacement round-bilge, transom-
stern models with straight entrance waterlines and buttock lines, based on the NSMB
Series (Oossanen and Pieffers, 1984), with which they share the parent hull. The hull
forms of the series can be used as workboats, launches or corvettes.

Following the policy of NSMB series, AMRCRC publishes the description of the
series and some regression formulae correlating residual resistance with the varied hull
form parameters (Bojovic, 1997), avoiding the presentation of the complete resistance
results. Only for the parent model, selected on the basis of its superior seakeeping
qualities, MARIN published the hull geometry (Fig.6) and the test results.

20

19

18

17
16
15
14
13
12
0
11
1
2 10
3
4
5
6
9
8
7
BL

Fig.6: Body plan of the parent model of HSDHF and AMECRC series

Table 5: Form Parameters common to all models of AMECRC series

Form Parameter Value

Prismatic Coefficient CP = /(AM LBP) 0.626
Waterplane area coefficient CWP 0.796
Transom Area / Maximum Sectional Area AT/AX 0.296
Transom Beam / Maximum Beam BT/BX 0.964
LCB/LBP (forward of transom) 0.446

All members of the series share the form parameters of Table 5. Their common
waterline length LWL =1.60 m was quite small, due to the size of AMECRC towing
tank. The parameters of the parent model of both series and the range of their variation
are given in Table 6. It is obvious that the form parameters of the parent model do not
have intermediate values within the range of their variation within AMECRC series. In

9
addition, to calm water resistance tests performed for speeds 0.4 to 4.0 m/sec
(respective Fn = 0.10 to 1.00), seakeeping tests in regular head waves for speeds
corresponding to Fn = 0.285, 0.570 and 0.856 have been carried out.

Table 6: The parent model and the range of parameters in AMECRC and NSMB series

Parameter Parent Model AMECRC Series NSMB series

LWL/BWL 8.00 4.00 – 8.00 4.00 – 12.00
BWL/T 4.00 2.50 – 4.00 2.50 – 5.50
CB 0.396 0.396 – 0.500 0.350 – 0.550

Bojovic (1997) provides multi-parametric plots of the non-dimensional parameters

CR and RR/W (W = weight) using iso-LWL/BWL, BWL/T and CB curves per speed,
expressed in terms of Fn and Fn, respectively. Furthermore, a multiple regression
analysis and two non-linear estimation techniques are applied on the results.

The NTUA Series of double-chine hull forms

The NTUA series is based on a proposal of Savitsky et al (1972) for a novel

“High-Speed Planing Hull for Rough Water” with wide transom, warped planing
surface, double chine and very fine bowlines. Blount and Hankley (1976) verified the
improved performance characteristics of the hull form in rough seas by full scale
testing of two high-speed craft, one with the novel hull form and the other with a
traditional hard chine. Actually, the CG acceleration data of that craft could be
compared favorably with traditional hard-chine craft at twice the sea intensity!

During the 90s, various versions of this hull form became popular, especially in
the European short-sea shipping. Exploiting the advance of structural technology, large
ships around 100 m in length, with quite light (around 1000 mt) displacement were
constructed. Propelled by modern engines (Diesels with very high power density and
Gas Turbines) and using extensively water jets, they usually operate at speeds
corresponding to Fn greater than 0.40 and mostly around 0.60.

During the same period, a systematic Series of double-chine, wide transom hull
form with warped planing surface has been developed at the Laboratory for Ship &
Marine Hydrodynamics (LSMH) of the National Technical University of Athens
(NTUA). The Series are appropriate for the preliminary design of fast monohull ships
operating at high but pre-planing speeds (respective Fn =0.55 to 0.85-0.90).
Furthermore, the parent model of the series has been tested at DERA (now QINETIQ)
premises up to a speed corresponding to Fn = 1.80, demonstrating a very satisfactory
performance in the planing regime, too.

The NTUA double-chine series ended up consisting of five (small) models with
LOA/BM = 4.00, 4.75, 5.50, 6.25 & 7.00 and five larger versions of the previous models
to accommodate the very light displacements. Each small model (and/or its larger
version) was tested at six displacements corresponding to a volume of displacement
coefficient CDL= /(0.1.LWL)3 = 1.00, 1.61, 22.3, 3.00, 3.61 and 4.23, to cover the
needs of both large and small fast ships. The lines plan of parent form of the Series
with L/B = 5.50 is shown in Fig.7. The deadrise angle ranges from 10o in the stern
region to around 20o amidships rising to 70o in the bow region.

10
Fig.7: Lines plan of the parent hull form of the NTUA systematic series (the body
plan has been scaled up by a factor of three).
0.20 0.80
L/B = 5.5, CDL = 1.0

R/(Δ*Fn2), DYNAMIC TRIM [deg], C.G.-RISE/LWL [%]

RT / Δ
DYNAMIC TRIM
DYNAMIC C.G.-RISE/LWL
0.16 R / (Δ*Fn2) 0.60

0.12 0.40
RT / Δ

0.08 0.20

0.04 0.00

0.00 -0.20

0.00 0.20 0.40 0.60 0.80 1.00

Fn
Fig.8: Resistance, C.G. rise and dynamic trim of the parent hull form in the pre-
planing region.

Grigoropoulos and Loukakis (2002) presented the resistance characteristics for the
series (residuary resistance coefficient CR, running trim and dynamic CG rise). CR
values were estimated on the basis of static LWL and wetted surface, as it was found to
be sufficient for the series. In addition, existing full-scale data and Laboratory
seakeeping experiments (see e.g. Grigoropoulos and Loukakis, 1995) in head waves
indicate excellent rough water performance characteristics for the Series. Thus, it was

11
decided to slowly construct an extensive series both for resistance and seakeeping,
bearing in mind the absence of systematic seakeeping results for other series and the
lack of series suitable for large fast ships operating at very light displacements.

As it is obvious in Fig.8, the series have very good resistance trend as speed
increases, together with negligible squat and very small dynamic trim angle in the
region of Fn = 0.60 - 0.90. Furthermore, the resistance characteristics of the Series
compare favorably with other hull forms appropriate for the pre-planing Fn range,
while the proposed hull form possess also a wide transom, present in all modern
designs of fast monohull ships.

Prediction methods and the experimental results of NTUA series

On the basis of the experimental results for NTUA series, some of the methods
reviewed in the paper are evaluated. Thus, in order to investigate the applicability of
Almeter’s method, already described, the experimental results of hull forms of NTUA
series with different L/B ratios but similar Cn numbers are plotted in Fig.9 in the form
of R/W vs. log10An. Although the hull forms differ, their R/W curves are quite similar
in accordance with Almeter’s suggestion that Cn number is a critical test parameter.

0.60

Cn = 0.068 , CDL = 1.61 L/B = 7.00

0.50 Cn = 0.070 , CDL = 1.61 L/B = 5.50
Cn = 0.070 , CDL = 1.61 L/B = 6.25
Cn = 0.070 , CDL = 1.61 L/B = 6.25
0.40
Cn = 0.073 , CDL = 2.23 L/B = 4.00
Cn = 0.077 , CDL = 2.23 L/B = 4.75
R/W

0.30

0.20

0.10

0.00
-2.00 -1.50 -1.00 -0.50 0.00 0.50 1.00
Log10An

Fig.9: Plot of R/W vs. log10An according to Almeter’s method (1999) for the member
hull forms of NTUA series at similar Cn numbers.

Furthermore, as it can be deduced from Fig.10, the R/W ratio for hull forms with
varying Cn number rises quite smoothly in the planing regime (log10An < –1.50), while
Cn affects it significantly at lower (displacement and semi-displacement) speeds.
However, the hump at An = 1.00, described by Almeter (1999) is not present. It should
be noted, however, that, since NTUA are suitable for large and rather light monohulls,
Cn range is 0.04 - 0.17, while the respective ranges of Series 62 (Clement and Blount,
1962) and TU Delft Series of Deep-V hulls based on Series 62 (Keuning and

12
Gerritsma, 1982) are 0.05 - 0.47 and 0.03 - 0.51, where the larger values correspond to
small craft situations.

0.60

0.50 Cn = 0.042 , CDL = 1.00,

Cn = 0.070 , CDL = 1.61
Cn = 0.094 , CDL = 2.23
0.40 Cn = 0.126 , CDL = 3.00
Cn = 0.149 , CDL = 3.62
Cn = 0.169 , CDL = 4.23
R/W

0.30

0.20

0.10

0.00
-2.00 -1.50 -1.00 -0.50 0.00 0.50 1.00
Log10An

Fig.10: Plot of R/W vs. log10An according to Almeter’s method (1999) for the parent
hull form of NTUA Series (L/B = 5.50) at different Cn numbers.
450
NTUA Experimental Results
400 Regression Method of Radojcic et al (2001)
VTT Hard Chine Hulls (Lahtiharju, 1991)
350 Savitsky Method (1964)
BOAT-3D Prediction (Payne, 1988)
CTLm = RTm /(Δ Fn2)x103

300 NPL Series Prediction (Bailey, 1976)

VTT Round Bilge Hulls (Lahtiharju, 1991)
250

200

150

100

50

0
0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8 0.9 1.0
Fn

Fig.11: Non-dimensional resistance coefficient CTLm for the parent model of NTUA
Series at CDL = 1.61 predicted by Savitsky, BOAT-3D, VTT for hard-chine and
round-bilge hulls, NPL and Radojcic methods and derived from model tests.

13
 In another test of widely available prediction methods, the experimental results of
the NTUA series have been compared with the predictions of six such methods. In
Fig.11, Savitsky method, BOAT-3D code based on the added mass method of Payne
(1988), NPL series and three regression methods are compared with the experimental
results of the parent model of NTUA series for a light displacement corresponding to
CDL = 1.61. As it was expected, regression method of Radojcic et al (2001), based on
NTUA series provides very accurate predictions. On the other hand, the semi-empirical
method of Savitsky and the added mass method of BOAT-3D, in close agreement
among themselves slightly overestimate the experimental results. Both of these
methods are suitable for higher (planing) speeds.

Among the other three methods, which are based on model tests of different than
the double-chine hull forms, NPL series, based on interpolation of model tests of round
bottom hull forms, provides consistent predictions for the higher speeds, while in the
lower speed region (Fn < 0.50) it demonstrates the better performance of the round
bottom hull forms, as it was also the case for the model tests of Fig. 2. On the other
hand, the VTT methods, based on the regression analysis of their own results, as well
as on results of older series, predict consistently lower resistance values throughout the
pre-planing speed region, but they also predict lower resistance values for hard chine
hull forms than for round bilge ones, which is not the usual case. Therefore, the rather
obvious conclusion that one should be very careful in assessing the expected resistance
of his design, when using prediction methods based on different type hull forms, can
be drawn.

3 Modifications to improve the Performance of Fast Monohulls

Depending on their speed, high-speed monohulls experience dynamic lift to a

certain degree. At the lower speed range, corresponding roughly to Fn between 0.4 and
0.9, their underwater shape is rounded with straight entrance waterlines and buttock
lines and a transom stern. At higher speeds, they are designed with one or more hard
chines and straight sections to take advantage of the extra dynamic lift available at
these speeds. In this section some methods for improving their performance, as the
fitting of stern wedges or flaps and of spray rails are reviewed and discussed.

As Savitsky (1964) has demonstrated, the performance of prismatic planing hulls

in calm water is dominated by the displacement and its longitudinal distribution
expressed by LCG, the breadth over chine and the deadrise angle. In the case of non-
prismatic hulls with varying deadrise, the respective longitudinal distribution of
breadth over chine and deadrise angles should be taken into account. For any given
combination of these design parameters the hull is planing at any speed with a specific
dynamic trim. Thus, the problem of optimizing the design of a planing hull form is
reduced to finding out the optimum combination of these parameters, resulting in
reduced horsepower requirements. The achieved dynamic trim angles in this case, are
closely associated with the specific hull form, so that it could be said that, instead of
seeking for reduced resistance, the designer aims at the specification of the associated
dynamic trim over speed curve.

Since the displacement and the LCG are usually predetermined by the owner’s
requirements, the main task of the designer is to determine an optimized combination

14
of longitudinal distribution of breadths and deadrise angles, resulting in reduced calm
water resistance. When this objective cannot be achieved, stern wedges or adjustable
trimming flaps should be used to reduce the running trim by stern of a planing hull.
The stern wedges are simple constructions and they can produce high lift forces,
resulting in an improved hydrodynamic performance of the vessel in a limited speed
range. On the contrary, the trimming flaps permit the fine tuning of the dynamic trim to
its optimum value, corresponding to the minimum resistance for a given speed.
However, their constructional details do not allow for very heavy loading.

Grigoropoulos and Loukakis (1995, 1996) fitted spray rails and stern wedges,
respectively, on the parent model of the NTUA series without clear (positive or
negative) effect. They tested the model at speeds corresponding to Fn up to 1.10 using
stern wedges with lengths 2, 5, 7.5 and 10% of LWL. The optimum wedge length was
found to fall in the range of 2% to 5% of LWL. At each wedge length, the model was
fitted with different span-beam ratio wedges, concluding that the full span wedges are
the most efficient. One year later, Grigoropoulos (1997) combined the effect of stern
wedges with spray rails on the same hull form without achieving significant
improvement in the performance of the model. It seems that the model without the
wedges runs at a nearly optimum trim. Grigoropoulos and Loukakis (2001) drew
similar results when they investigated the effect of static trim on the performance of
the parent model of NTUA series.

OPV-2
OPV-1
Knuckle
Knuckle
Spray rail 1
Knuckle - Spray rail 1
Spray rail 2



OPV-3

Spray rail 1

Spray rail 2


Fig.12: Body plans of the tested models (Grigoropoulos and Damala, 1999).

On the contrary, the investigations of Grigoropoulos and Damala (1999) were

more successful. They investigated experimentally the combined effects of spray rails
and stern wedges on the calm water performance of three high-speed round-bottom
hull forms. The calm water performance of the three models of offshore patrol vessels
(OPV), depicted in Fig.12, has been optimized via stern wedges and one or two spray

15
rail series in the bow region (Müller-Graf, 1991). The three models have been tested at
a series of speeds up to Fn = 1.00, 0.75 and 0.60, respectively. The extensive
investigation aimed at determining the particular effects of the aforementioned
appendages on the resistance of these models, in conjunction with the modification of
their displacement, trim angle and vertical location of the centre of gravity. The
experimental results were thoroughly analysed to investigate the necessity of fitting
one or two series of spray rails in combination with stern wedges, and to specify the
most efficient design parameters, such as the form and location of these appendages.
The following major conclusions were drawn:

 The efficiency of spray rails, when fitted according to the guidelines provided in
the literature (see e.g. Lindrgren and Williams, 1968) is restricted at Fn > 0.85.
 The lift generation seems to dominate the influence of the wedges on the
resistance of high-speed vessels. On the other hand, wedges reduce the trim by
stern at speed, thus partly counteracting the effect of lift.
 Finally, stern wedges improve the propulsive performance of fast monohulls,
leading to even higher attainable maximum speeds.

Karafiath and Fisher (1987) focused their interest in the effect of stern wedges on
the propulsive efficiency of large naval ships. Since analytical results of the
hydrodynamics of the wedge effect on semi-displacement hull form were not available,
they combined experimental data with analytical results derived using a potential flow
code (Dawson, 1979) to conclude that a properly designed stern wedge may lead to a
6% reduction in the delivered power. However, they claimed that the modification of
the flow field around the after body of the ship by the wedge, and not the trim change,
causes the principal changes in powering performance. More recently, Cusanelli and
Karafiath (2001) reviewed the efforts in David Taylor Model Basin, since 1989 to
design stern wedges (ending at the transom) and flaps (extending aft of the transom)
for improving the performance of destroyers and frigates as well as 52-m long patrol
coastal boats. In the later case, reduced span flaps were fitted.

Other appendages that are fitted mainly on hard chine, high-speed monohulls are
the T-foils, i.e. foils with reverted “T” cross section that are fitted in the bow region of
the bottom, as well as interceptors in the stern region. Both of these devices, which are
met in hard-chine hulls, are active. The T-foils are trim tuning and anti-pitching
devices, fitted when fine bows result in poor pitch damping, while the action of
interceptors is quite similar to that of the trimming flaps.

In the previous paragraphs local modifications and add-ons to improve the

performance of a fast monohull in calm water are presented. Local modifications,
however, cannot affect the seakeeping characteristics of ships. Only a variation of the
main (global) hull form parameters during the conceptual design can significantly
affect the seakeeping performance of a ship.

Along these guidelines Keuning and Pinkster (1995) proposed the Enlarged Ship
Concept (ESC). The authors used an existing and quite successful design of patrol boat
(Stan Patrol 2600) as “base” design, which they lengthened by 25% and 50%, whilst
keeping all other design parameters, such as beam, speed, payload, etc. constant.
Although the calculated building cost is increased by 6% in the latter case, the enlarged
ship has the following advantages over the base boat:

16
 The Fn is reduced for the same speed.
 The L/B and L/1/3 ratio are increased, which is beneficial both for calm water
resistance and seakeeping.
 The pitch radius of gyration is increased.
 The position of the prime working areas on board is optimized with respect to
vertical motions.

Keuning and Pinkster (1997) and Keuning et al (2001) further refined the concept
by proposing two modifications of the bow shape, over some 25% of the length, both
below and above the still waterline, the TUD 4100 and the Axe bow, in order to
improve the seakeeping behaviour. The aim of this bow modification was to reduce the
non-linear hydrodynamic forces in particular at the fore ship (Fig.13).

Fig.13: Bow refinement of ESC for improving seakeeping performance.

Both bows (TUD 4100 to a lesser extent) result in:

 Reduction of the flare of the bow sections

 Narrowing and increase of length of waterlines
 Deepening of the fore foot
 Increase of freeboard.

Keuning et al (2001) studied the behaviour (i.e. heave and pitch motions) in both
head- and following irregular waves of the three systematic bow shape variations. They
also investigated the manoeuvring characteristics for these variations. Since the

17
proposed bow modifications were suspected to increase the sensitivity of the ships with
the sharper and deeper bows to broaching in following waves, they also studied this
aspect of the behaviour in waves.

The results of the comparison between these three designs, with the modified bow
shapes, lead to the conclusion that the seakeeping performance of AXE 4100 hull form
is superior to that of TUD 4100, which in turn is better than the ESC 4100. The
comparison was made in terms of significant or extreme vertical acceleration in the
bow region and slamming. The authors consider extreme values as more critical for
limiting the operation of the vessel. On the contrary, manoeuvring characteristics and
broaching tendency of the modified hull forms are inferior.

4 New trends in the design of fast monohulls

Ten years ago, Paragon Mann (www.vsvboats.com) designed a series of hybrid

slender, wave piercing hull forms ranging 16 to 50 m in length, denoted as VSV, which
are appropriate for very high speeds. This hull form possesses a high for its length L/B
ratio (L/B > 5.50), a sharp bow profile with a very low entrance angle and wedge-
shaped waterlines. The hull form was tested in the 380-ft towing tank of U.S. Naval
Academy Hydromechanics Laboratory (Schleicher et al, 1997) against a conventional
planing hull form. Although the two models had the same waterline length and
payload, the wave piercing hull form displaced 20% less and exhibited lower resistance
that the conventional hard-chine one, especially in the pre-hump region and no
porpoising tendency. The LCG position was critical for both the improved calm water
resistance and dynamic stability characteristics. Furthermore, VSV hull form had
reduced seakeeping responses at high speeds, low radar signature for military
operations and very good manoeuvring characteristics. Two VSV hulls with LOA = 16
and 22.86 m, operating at speeds in the 50 kn range are currently produced by
Halmatic.

On the other hand, in the case of large monohulls (frigates, littoral combat ships,
cruisers and passenger ferries), impact loads (bow slamming) result in severe distress
of the structure in the bow region. Thus, the designers proposed to reverse the
inclination of the bow stem profile resulting in a wave-piercing configuration, which
reduces significantly bow fatigue due to wave loads. Furthermore, this tumblehome
hull form design offers significant power savings due to reduced calm water resistance,
while it is also critical to meeting low Radar Cross Section (RCS) signature objectives.
The concept has already been incorporated in the new four-year US Navy Project
awarded in 2001 to Northrop Grumman led Gold Team, denoted as DD(X) and aiming
at the design of a high-performance, low operational cost frigate.

Furthermore, a similar concept incorporating a protruding bow bulb, developed by

Chantiers de l’ Atlantique and Principia Marine has been adopted for the 240-m, 38-
knot fast ferry ROPAX 2000 designed within the VRSHIPS-ROPAX Project (Fig. 14).
The vessel will be propelled by a combination of a pair of waterjets and a pair of pods.

18
Fig.14: Artistic view and preliminary body plan of the ROPAX 2000 high-speed ferry.

5 Pros and cons of advanced fast monohulls

In this Section, advanced fast monohulls of displacement, semi-displacement and

planing type are compared against other types of modern vehicles. Furthermore, the
hard-chine hull form is compared against the other competitive type of monohulls, the
round bilge hull form. All comparisons refer to similar-sized ships and they are based
on the following characteristics (Repetto, 2001):

 Platform stability, deck area, volume space and draft weight and trim sensitivity.
 Range of speed and propulsion configuration
 Seakeeping and maneuvering characteristics
 Global and local strength, slamming loads
 Survivability (stealth characteristics and vulnerability)
 Acquisition and operating costs.

Modern vehicles, monohulls and multihulls are classified into three major
categories according to the way their weight is supported, i.e. hydrostatic buoyancy,
hydrodynamic lift and powered lift. These categories form the corners of the classical
sustentation triangle (Fig.15a), while along the sides and inside the triangle hybrid hull
forms can be found. Thus, advanced monohulls (semi-displacement and planing) are
located along the side connecting hydrostatic buoyancy with hydrodynamic lift. The
sustentation triangle evolves to a pyramid if aerodynamic lift is also taken into
consideration (Fig. 15b).

On the basis of the above classification of ship types advanced monohulls are
firstly compared with displacement ships, including SWATH, conventional
displacement catamarans and trimarans. SWATHs, which operate at speeds exceeding
the limitation of Fn = 0.50, inherent to the surface displacement ships, are superior
with respect to seakeeping and offer a large deck. However, due to their increased
wetted surface, they higher installed power requirements and their draft (which is

19
large) and trim, are sensitive to displacement changes. Their acquisition and operating
cost is higher than that of monohulls. In order to increase the attainable speed of
SWATHs, the stern is modified to that of a planing catamaran.

Hydrostatic Buoyancy Aerodynamic Lift

(displacement hull) WIG

Hydrodynamic
Lift

Powered Hydrodynamic Hydrostatic Powered

Lift Lift buoyancy Lift

(a) (b)

Fig.15: Classical sustentation pyramid and triangle (Repetto, 2001).

Displacement catamarans operate at higher speeds at the same cost, offer larger
deck area, reduced roll motions, higher initial stability, better maneuverability and
survivability. However, they suffer from structural problems in the transversal box
connection and have higher vertical responses. Displacement trimarans, on the other
hand are expected to further increase the advantages of catamarans, while they reduce
their disadvantages.

At the hydrodynamic corner of the sustentation triangle the hydrofoils are located.
Both types of them the surface piercing and the fully submerged achieve higher
cruising speeds, higher level of comfort up to wave heights, which prevent foil borne
mode, and excellent maneuverability. Even in hull borne mode of operation in very
rough seas, foils reduce both vertical and lateral motions. On the other hand, their
principal disadvantage is their limited payload capability and their large draft.

On the side of the triangle connecting the hydrostatic and the hydrodynamic lift,
semi-displacement and planing monohulls and multihulls are located. The latter
combine the characteristics of multihulls with high-speed. Furthermore, since the
length of planing catamarans is comparable with their breadth, the combined pitch
roll dynamic response (cork screw motion) emerges to be a major cause of discomfort
for the passengers in rough seas, which has to be reduced by the use of active motion
controls.

On the same side of the triangle wave piercers are found. This type of
unconventional hull forms encompasses displacement and hybrid monohulls, as well as
hybrid catamarans. The fitting of a tumblehome bow offers improved calm water
resistance characteristics both at intermediate (displacement mode) and high (planing)
speeds, reduced structure loading due to impact loads (slamming) and low radar cross

20
section signature. Thus, as explained in the previous section, wave piercers have
become popular, recently.

At the power lift corner of the sustentation triangle Air Cushion Vehicles (ACV)
are located. Among the pros of these vehicles are the ability to operate at very high
speed, their low vulnerability to underwater explosions, their small draft and
underwater signatures and their amphibious operation. On the contrary, they are
affected by winds, they are sensitive to trim and have high acquisition and maintenance
costs, due to seals and lift fan systems and specific electronic equipment for ride-
control devices.

A popular type of hybrid hull forms is the Surface Effect Ship (SES), a crossover
between displacement catamaran and ACVs, which operates at speeds in excess of 40
kn, with reduced underwater signature levels, good platform stability, shallow draft
and large deck area. It also has better calm water transport efficiency ET for volumetric
Froude numbers Fn > 2 (Blount, 1993). The non-dimensional calm water transport
efficiency ET is defined as ET = ΔV/P, where P is the total power used for propulsion
and dynamic lift. However, this type is not amphibious and suffers from significant
speed loss in head seas, higher production and maintenance costs.

The top of the sustentation pyramid is allocated to Wing in Ground (WIG)

vehicles, which can be seen as a crossover between an ACV and an aircraft. These
vehicles, which operate at speeds in the range of 50 to 250 kn, have a very high
transport efficiency expressed as the amount of fuel used per passenger per kn. Many
of them designated as “ekranoplans” are in operation in the Russia and Ukrania since
the early 60s. However, only a sufficiently large WIG, weighting around 5.000 t,
would fulfill all expectations concerning efficiency and seaworthiness, while a power
several times larger than that required for cruising is necessary for taking-off the craft.

On the basis of the above discussion, monohulls can provide a suitable solution to
most of the operational requirements, because of their inherent flexibility of the hull
type. Thus, they constitute a very competitive and popular type of advance vehicles.
On the other hand, among high-speed monohulls hard-chine and round bilge hull forms
compete strongly each other. The evolution of hard chine hulls lead to the development
of deep-Vee hull forms, studied and experimentally evaluated extensively by Serter
since early 60s (Serter, 1982), and the double chine ones with warp which were
described in the section on NTUA Series.

Proceeding now to the comparison of the two major monohull competitors, the
hard chine and the round bilge hull form, the former one (deep-Vee and double chine)
possesses better seakeeping qualities resulting in reduced power requirements in
confused seas, better maneuvering, dynamic stability and course-keeping
characteristics. Its calm water performance is, in general, inferior to that of an
equivalent round bilge hull at the lower speed range up to Fn less than about 0.45 (see
Fig.2), while it becomes superior at higher speeds (Blount, 1995). Finally, hard chine
hull provides more internal space than the round bilge one and it can easily be fitted
with water jets for operation in shallow waters.

21
6 Discussion - Conclusions

In this paper recent (last decade) advances in the hydrodynamic design of high-
speed monohulls are presented. Firstly the outline of three new round-bottom and one
double-chine hull form Series is presented. All series are wide-transom and appropriate
both for commercial and naval ship applications ranging from relatively small fast
ships (yachts, patrol boats) to large ships (ferries, corvettes). The former operate at
speeds well in excess of Fn = 0.50, while the latter operate at speeds around the hump
(Fn = 0.40 to 0.60).

Since, the performance of these vessels in the above speed range is very sensitive
to local modifications and to appendages fitted, the effect of stern wedges, adjustable
trimming flaps, ands spray rails was presented. The combination of these appendages
adjusts the trim of the vessel to the optimum one, corresponding to the minimum
resistance, while they also reduce the running displacement by offering lift, especially
at the higher speed range. Similar is the effect of T-foils and interceptors. In addition,
the Enlarged Ship Concept to improve the calm and rough water behaviour of a vessel
by varying its global hull form characteristics is presented and discussed.

The new trends in the design of high-speed monohulls are expressed in terms of
two novel monohull designs presented, one appropriate for small patrol boats and
pleasure craft and the other for large surface combatants and ferries. The former
combines a very slender bow with wide transom, while the latter possesses a
tumblehome bow form, with or without a bow bulb, reducing resistance in calm water
resistance and slamming in rough water. They both constitute promising monohull
solutions.

Finally, in order to support the view that monohulls are a very attractive choice for
most of the design dilemmas about the type of the hull form to be used, the advantages
and the disadvantages of high-speed monohulls over the other competitive advanced
hull forms are presented. In addition, the major monohull types are compared each
other and their relative merits are summarized. Only the widely recognized
characteristics of the various hull forms were taken into consideration for the
comparisons presented in the section.

Nomenclature

AM the sectional area of the maximum ship section

An  
  0.5  LCG Bm V 2 , Almeter number
Bm chine beam
=  0.1L WL  , the volume of displacement coefficient
3
CDL
Cn 
=  LCG 9 / 4 B3/4 
m , Clement number

CR = R R ( 12  WS  V 2 ) , residuary resistance coefficient

CFS frictional resistance coefficient for the ship
CTLm = RTm / (Δ Fn2), non-dimensional resistance coefficient
CTm = R Tm ( 12  WS  V 2 ) , total resistance coefficient for the model
CTS = R TS ( 12  WS  V 2 ) , total resistance coefficient for the ship

22
CW = R W ( 12  WS  V 2 ) , wave resistance coefficient
CWP waterplane area coefficient
DCF ship to model correlation allowance CTS = CR + CFS +DCF
EHP effective horsepower
Fn = V gL WL , Froude number
1
Fn = V g 3 , volumetric Froude number
LCB longitudinal position of the centre of buoyancy
LCG longitudinal position of the centre of gravity
LOA overall length
LWL waterline length at rest
M = LWL/1/3
P total power for propulsion and dynamic lift in air-supported vehicles
RR residuary resistance
RT total resistance
RW wave resistance
T mean draught
t dynamic trim, (positive by stern)
V speed
W weight of the ship
WS wetted surface at rest
Δ displacement
ηR relative rotative efficiency
ρ water density
 volume of displacement

7 Acknowledgement

The author would like to acknowledge Professor Theodore Loukakis for his
continuous encouragement in the collection of the information presented in this paper,
as well as for providing valuable advising in the preparation of the text.

References

1. Akers, R.H. (1999). Dynamic Analysis of Planing Hulls in the Vertical Plane,
SNAME New England Section, 29th April.
2. Almeter, J.M. (1999). Resistance Prediction of Planing Craft from Similar Craft
Using the Almeter Method, Intl. Conf. On the Hydrodynamics of High Speed Craft,
24-25 November, London.
3. Almeter, J.M. (1993). Resistance Prediction of Planing Hulls – State of the Art,
Marine Technology, Vol. 30, No. 4, October.
4. Bailey, D. (1976). The NPL High Speed Round Bilge Displacement Hull Series:
Resistance, Propulsion, Maneuvering and Seakeeping Data, National Maritime
Institute, RINA Monograph No. 4.
5. Beys, P.M. (1963) Series 63 Round Bottom Boats, Stevens Inst. of Technology,
Davidson Laboratory, Rep. 949, April.

23
6. Blount D.L. (1995). Factors influencing the Selection of a Hard-Chine or Round-
Bilge Hull for High Froude Numbers, 3rd Intl. Conf. on FAST Sea Transportation
FAST’95, Travemünde, Germany, September.
7. Blount, D.L. and Hankley, D.W. (1976). Full-Scale Trials and Analysis of High-
Performance Planing Craft Data, Trans. SNAME, Vol. 84, pp. 251-277.
8. Blount, D.L. and Fox, D.L. (1976). Small-Craft Power Prediction, Marine
Technology, Vol. 13, No. 1, pp. 14-45, January.
9. Bojovic, P. (1997). Resistance of AMECRC Systematic Series of High-Speed
Displacement Hullforms, IV Symp. On High-Speed Marine Vehicles HSMV, pp.
4.19-4.35, Napoli, Italy, 18-21 March.
10. Brown, P.W. and Klosinski, W.E. (1980). An Experimental and Theoretical Study
of High Length-Beam Ratio Planing Boats in Rough Water, Stevens Inst. Of
Technology, Rept. SIT-DL-80-9-2133, Hoboken, N.J., June.
11. Capponetto, M. (2000). Numerical Simulation of Planing Hulls, Proc. of 3rd
Numerical Towing Tank Symp., 9-13 September, Tjarnö, Sweden.
12. Clement, E.P. and Blount, D.L. (1963). Resistance Tests of a Systematic Series of
Planing Hull Forms, Trans. SNAME, Vol. 71, pp. 491-579.
13. Clement, E.P. (1964), Graphs for predicting the resistance of round-bottom boats,
Intl. Shipbuilding Progress, Vol. 11, No. 114.
14. Compton, R.H. (1986). The resistance of a Systematic Series of Semi-Planing
Transom Stern Hulls, Marine Technology, Vol. 23, No. 4, October.
15. Cusanelli, D.S. and Karafiath,G. (2001). Advances in stern flap design and
Applications, 6th Intl. Conf. on FAST Sea Transportation FAST ‘01, Southampton,
U.K., 4-6 September.
16. Davidson, K. and Saurez, A. (1948). Tests of Twenty Related Models of V-Bottom
Motor Boats, EMB Series 50, DTMB Rept. 170, Bethesda, Md., December.
17. Dawson, C.W. (1979). Calculations with the XYZ free surface program for five
ship models, Proc. of the Workshop on Ship Wave Resistance Computations,
DTNSRDC, Bethesda, MD 20084, November.
18. Doctors, L.J. and Day, A.H. (1997). Resistance Prediction for Transom-Stern
Vessels, 4th Intl. Conf. on FAST Sea Transportation FAST ‘97, Sydney, Australia,
July 21-23.
19. Fung, S.C. (1991). Resistance and Powering Prediction for Transom-Stern Hull
Forms During the Early Design Stage, Trans. SNAME, Vol. 99, pp. 29-84.
20. Gamulin, A. (1996). A Semi-displacement Series of Ships, Intl. Shipbuilding
Progress, Vol. 43, No. 434, pp. 93-107.
21. Grigoropoulos, G.J. and Loukakis, T.A. (2002). Resistance and Seakeeping
characteristics of a Systematic Series in the Pre-planing Condition (Part I), Trans.
SNAME, Vol. 110, September.
22. Grigoropoulos, G.J. and Damala, D. (2001). The effect of trim on the resistance of
high-speed craft, 2nd Intl. EuroConf. On High-Performance Marine Vehicles
HIPER’01, Hamburg, 2-5 May.
23. Grigoropoulos, G.J. and Damala, D. (1999). Effect of spray rails and wedges on the
performance of semi-displacement hull forms, V Intl. Conf. On High Speed Marine
Vehicle, HSMV ‘99, Capri, Italy, March.
24. Grigoropoulos, G.J. and Loukakis, T.A. (1996). Effect of wedges on the calm water
resistance of planing hulls, 1st Intl. Conf. on Marine Industry MARIND’96, Varna,
Bulgaria, June.
25. Grigoropoulos, G.J. (1997). The use of spray rails and wedges in fast monohulls,
IV High Speed Marine Vehicle Intl. Conf. HSMV’97, Naples, March.

24
26. Grigoropoulos, G.J. and Loukakis, T.A. (1995). Effect of Spray Rails on the
Resistance of Planing Hulls, 3rd Intl. Conf. on FAST Sea Transportation FAST’95,
Travemünde, Germany, September.
27. Hanhirova, K. Rintala, S. and Karppinen, T. (1995). Preliminary Resistance
Prediction Method for Fast Mono- and Multihull Vessels, RINA Intl. Symp. On
High-Speed Vessels for Transport and Defence, London, 23-24 November.
28. Hadler, J.B., Hubble, E.N., Allen, R.G. and Blount, D.L. (1978). Planing Hull
Feasibility Model – Its Role in Improving Patrol Craft Design, RINA Symp. On
Small Fast Warships and Security Vessels., March 7-, London
29. Holling, H.D. and Hubble, E.N. (1974). Model resistance data of Series 65 hull
forms applicable to hydrofoils and planing craft, DTNSRDC, Report 4121, May.
30. Jin, P., Su, B. and Tan, Z. (1980). A Parametric Study on High-Speed Round Bilge
Displacement Hulls, High Speed Craft, September.
31. Kanerva, M. (2001). From Handy Size up to Large Cruise Ferries, Elements
Required to Design and Build Successful Configurations, Euro-Conference
Passenger Ship Design and Operation, Crete, October 2001, pp. 83-111.
32. Karafiath, G. and Fisher, S.C. (1987). The effect of stern wedges on ship power
performance, Naval Engineers Journal, Vol. 99, No. 4, pp. 27-38, May.
33. Keuning, J.A., Toxopeus, S. and Pinkster, J. (2001). The effect of Bow Shape on
the Seakeeping Performance of a Fast Monohull, 6th Intl. Conf. on FAST Sea
Transportation FAST ‘01, Southampton, U.K., 4-6 September.
34. Keuning, J.A. and Pinkster, J. (1995). Optimization of the Seakeeping Behaviour of
a Fast Monohull, 3rd Intl. Conf. on FAST Sea Transportation FAST ’95,
Travemünde, Germany, September.
35. Keuning, J.A. and Gerritsma, J. (1982). Resistance Tests of a Series of Planing
Hull Forms with 25 Degrees Deadrise Angle, International Shipbuilding Progress,
Vol. 29, No. 337, September 1982, pp. 222-249.
36. Kracht, A. and Grim, O. (1960), Widerstand, Propulsion, Bewegung und Be-
anspruchung schneller Verdrangunsfahrzeuge in glattem Wasser und in regel-
mässigem Seegang, IFS-Bericht No. 167, Juli.
37. Kracht, A. (1996). Erweiterung der D-Serie: Breite, Schnelle Zweischrauben-
schiffe, Versuchsanstallt fuer Wasserbau und Schiffbau, Technische Universität
Berlin, Bericht Nr. 1267/96, January, Berlin, Deutschland.
38. Kracht, A. (1992). D-Serie, systematische Widerstands- und Lastvariations-
versuche”, Versuchsanstallt fuer Wasserbau und Schiffbau, Technische Universität
Berlin, Bericht Nr. 1202/92, Berlin, Deutschland.
39. Lai, C. and Troesch, A. (1995). Modeling Issues Related to the Hydrodynamics of
Three-Dimensional Steady Planing, Journal of Ship Res., Vol. 39, No. 1, March.
40. Lahtiharju, E., Karppinen, T., Hellevaara, M. and Aitta, T. (1991), Resistance and
Seakeeping Characteristics of Fast Transom Stern Hulls with Systematically Varied
Form, Trans. SNAME, Vol. 99, pp. 85-118.
41. Levander, K. (2001). Improving the ROPAX Concept with High-Tech Solutions,
Euro-Conference, Passenger Ship Design and Operation, Crete, October 2001, pp.
45-62.
42. Linde, J.K. (1951). On the Linearized Theory of Wave Resistance for
Displacement Ships in Steady and Accelerated Motion, Trans. SNAME, Vol. 59,
pp. 25-85, December.
43. Lindgren, H. and Williams, A. (1968). Systematic tests with small fast
displacement vessels, including a study of the influence of spray rails, SNAME
Diamond Jubilee Intl. Meeting, June.

25
44. Michell, J.H. (1898). The Wave Resistance of a Ship, Philosophical Magazine,
London, Series 5, Vol. 45, pp. 106-123.
45. Müller-Graf, B. (1991). The effect of an advanced spray rail system on resistance
and development of spray of semi-displacement round bilge hulls, 1st Intl. Conf. on
Fast Sea Transport. FAST 91, Trondheim, Norway, June.
46. Murdey, D.C. and Simoes Re, A.J. (1985), The NRC hull form series - an update,
MARIN Workshop on developments in Hull Form Design, Wageningen, October.
47. Nagai, T. and Yoshida, Y. (1993). Estimation of Resistance, Trim and Draft of
Planing Craft, Schifftechnik, Bd. 40, pp. 133-137.
48. Nagai, T., Tanaka, H. and Yoshida, Y. (1993). On the Planing Hull Form with
Minimum Resistance in Still Water, Soc. of Naval Arch. W. Japan, No. 52, 33-43.
49. Nordström, H.F. (1936), Some tests with models of small vessels, Teknisk Tidskrift,
Skeppsbyggnadskonst, publ. in english as Report No. 19 of SSPA, Göteborg, 1951.
50. Oossanen, Van P. and Pieffers, Jan B.M. (1985), NSMB-Systematic series of high-
speed displacement ship hull forms, MARIN Workshop on developments in Hull
Form Design, Wageningen, October.
51. Payne, P.R. (1988). Design of High-Speed Boats, Vol. I: Planing, Fishergate Inc.,
Annapolis, Maryland.
52. Pemberton, R., Turnock, S., Wright, A. and Blake, J. (2001). A Comparison of
Computational Methods for Planing Craft Hydrodynamics, 2nd Intl. EuroConf. On
High-Performance Marine Vehicles HIPER’01, Hamburg, 2-5 May.
53. Radojcic, D., Princevac, M. and Rodic, T. (1999). Resistance and Trim Predictions
for the SKLAD Semi-Displacement Hull Series, Oceanic Engineering Journal,
Vol. 3, No. 1, pp. 34-50.
54. Radojcic, D., Grigoropoulos, G.J., Rodic, T., Kuvelic, T. and Damala, D. (2001).
The Resistance and Trim of Semi-Displacement, Double-Chine, Transom-Stern
Hull Series, 6th Intl. Conf. on FAST Sea Transportation FAST ‘01, Southampton,
U.K., 4-6 September.
55. Repetto, R.A. (2001). Overview, Monohulls. An Overview on Advanced Marine
Platforms and their Comparison, Transactions of the Schiffbautechnische
Gesellschaft e.V., Vol. 95, pp.157-163, Hamburg, Germany.
56. Sahoo, P.K., Doctors, L.J. and Renilson, M.R. (1999). Theoretical and
Experimental Investogation of High-Speed Round Bilge Hull Forms, 5th Intl. Conf.
on Fast Sea Transport. FAST’ 99, Seattle, Washington, August.
57. Savitsky, D., Roper, J. and Benen, L. (1972). Hydrodynamic Development of a
High Speed Planing Hull for Rough Water, 9th O.N.R. Symposium, Paris, August.
58. Savitsky, D. (1964). Hydrodynamic Design of Planing Hulls, Marine Technology,
Vol. 1, No. 1, October 1964, pp. 71-95.
59. Schleicher, C., Schleicher, D. and Zseleczky, J. (1997). Investigation of a hybrid
wave piercing planing hull form, 4th Intl. Conf. on Fast Sea Transport. FAST’97,
Sydney, Australia, July 21-23.
60. Schmitke, R.T., Glen, I.F. and Murdey, D.C. (1979), Development of a frigate hull
form for superior seakeeping, Eastern Canadian Section of SNAME, April.
61. Serter, E.H. (1993). Hydrodynamics and Naval Architecture of Deep-Vee Hull
Forms. Research – Development – Designs, Hydro Research Systems S.A, March.
62. SHIPFLOW (1997). SHIPFLOW 2.3 Release Notes and User’s Manual Update of
FLOWTECH Intl. AB.
63. Shuford, C.L..Jr. (1958). A Theoretical and Experimental Study of Planing
Surfaces including the Effects of Cross Section and Plan Form, Nat. Advisory
Committee for Aeronautics, Techn. Note No. 509, November.

26
 64. Singleton, F.D. (2004). Planing Boat Time-Domain Simulation with Waves: A
Second Look, Digital Analytics, Houston, Texas, USA, www.DAofTX.com
65. Tuck, E.O. (1987). Wave Resistance of Thin Ships and Catamarans, Univ. of
Adelaide, Applied Mathematics Rept. T8701, January.
66. Tulin, M.P. and Hsu, C.C. (1986). Theory of High-Speed Displacement Ships with
Transom Sterns, Journal of Ship Res., Vol. 30, No. 3, pp. 186-193.
67. Wagner, H. (1932). Über Stoss- und Gleitvoränge an der Oberfläche von
Flüssigkeiten. Zeitschrift für Angewandte Mathematik und Mechanik, Band 12,
Heft 4.
68. Wang, Y., Sproston, J.L. and Millward, A. (1995). A Theoretical Determination of
the Wave Resistance of a Fast Displacement Hull with a Transom Stern, Journal of
Ship Res., Vol. 39, No. 2, pp. 102-107, June.
69. Yeh, H.Y.H. (1965), Series 64 resistance experiments on high-speed displacement
forms, Marine Technology, Vol.2, No.3, July.
70. Yegorov, I.T., Bun’kov M.M. and Sadovnikov, Yw.M. (1978). Propulsive
Performance and Seaworthiness of Planing Vessels (in Russian), NAVSEA
Translation No. 1965, October 1981.
71. Zarnick, E.E. (1978). A Nonlinear Mathematical Model of Motions of a Planing
Boat in Regular Waves, DTNSRDC, Rept. 78/032.

27
View publication stats