HYDRODYNAMIC PERFORMANCE ENHANCEMENT USING STERN WEDGES,

STERN FLAPS AND INTERCEPTORS

Shiju John, MD Kareem Khan, PC Praveen, Manu Korulla and PK Panigrahi
Naval Science & Technological Laboratory, India

SUMMARY

Improving the hydrodynamic performance of ships is a major research area which has introduced various innovative
concepts like stern wedges, stern flaps and interceptors. Latest studies include the relative merits of these devices in
various permutations and combinations to improve the hydrodynamic benefits. The premise of operation of wedges,
flaps and interceptors has been established through model tests and sea trial data. Experimental studies were carried out
in High Speed Towing Tank at Naval Science & Technological Laboratory (NSTL) India, on a variety of hull models
fitted with these devices. Model tests were performed on fast displacement hull forms, planing crafts and foil assisted
catamarans to study the effects of these devices on hydrodynamic performance. The present paper outlines this work and
also attempts to chalk out the importance of selecting the best configuration of performance enhancer devices without
disregarding cost effectiveness.

KEYWORDS: stern wedge-interceptor, stern wedge-flap, trim enhancement, economic feasibility

NOMENCLATURE

∆ Weight of ship (N)

τ Trim angle (degree)
B Buoyancy (N)
Dint Induced drag force (N)
Dk Viscous drag force parallel to keel (N)
N Normal component of planing craft lift
force (N)
Nint Induced lift force (N)
PD Delivered Power (kW)

1. INTRODUCTION

The last few decades have seen a lot of innovation in the

form of energy saving devices to bring down the power
required to propel ships. Among them the emergence of
stern wedges, stern flaps and interceptors as
hydrodynamic performance enhancers has been
remarkable. These devices have proved effective in
reducing the resistance of fast displacement hull forms,
planing crafts and other advanced marine crafts.

The stern wedge is a wedge faired into the stern form as

shown in Figure 1(a) [1]. The stern flap represents an
extension of the hull aft of the transom in the form of a
flat plate. The flap is mounted to the transom at an angle
relative to the centreline buttock of the ship as illustrated
in Figure 1(b) [2]. Interceptor is a flat plate fitted
vertically at the transom of a ship, covering a portion or
full breadth of the transom and protruding a few
centimetres below the transom as shown in
Figure 1(d) [3]. These devices create a vertical lift force
at the transom and cause the flow to slow down under the
hull at a location extending from its position to a point
generally forward of the propellers. This decreased flow
velocity will cause an increase in pressure under the hull,
which in turn, causes reduced resistance due to the Figure 1: (a) Stern wedge; (b) Stern flap; (c) Flow
reduced afterbody suction force (reduced form drag) [2]. modification due to wedge/flap (d) Flow modification by
interceptor
In designing energy saving devices, it is extremely
important to anticipate the performance of the most
optimised device in conjunction with the hull form. Case
in point, as reference [1] explains the primary reasons for
the effectiveness of these devices on small high speed
crafts are significantly different from that on large ships
such as destroyers. On small planing crafts, the vertical
forces from a wedge, flap or interceptor may change the
trim angle by about 4 to 5 degrees. Fixing an optimal
trim angle for the most effective planing surface is the
key to minimising resistance. Interestingly on a destroyer
size ship, the action of these devices affects the trim by
about 0.1 to 0.3 degrees. This has little measurable
resistance effect. The major powering benefit, in fact, is
credited to the induced change in the flow field around
the hull. These flow field changes reduce the aft body
drag and modify the wave resistance. Another observable
benefit is that a stern flap or wedge cuts down the rooster
tail significantly thereby reducing wake. In particular it is
the pressure field change that improves propulsive
performance of fast displacement ships. It is critical to
identify these effects before recommending these devices
on ships. Since computational efforts are not completely
able to elucidate the performance of such devices when
fitted to ship hulls, hydrodynamic model tests and full
scale sea trials are still the most reliable option.
Another important consideration is the speed range
selected for optimisation. Reference [1] suggests that
these devices are effective across medium and high
speeds. They have a resistance penalty in the low speed
ranges. For instance, the initial wedge design on DDG 51
decreased delivered power by 7% at high speed. At the
same time, it had a powering penalty up to 4% at lower
speeds [1]. If powering benefits are not achieved around
the operational speed of the ship, the gain in the higher
speeds may be easily offset. It again depends on whether
the aim is to increase the top speed or to decrease
delivered power in the operational speed range. In the
former case, a low speed penalty does not matter much.
However, the latter scenario is most prevalent. Therefore
it is equally important to reduce low speed penalty when
looking at powering benefits in the high speed zone.
In ship-building industry, cost involved in any activity is
a critical element. Reference [4] gives an idea regarding
economics of stern flaps and wedges. An attempt is made
to assess the optimisation process based on performance
enhancement from economic perspective. This paper
discusses experimental investigation at NSTL into
optimisation of hydrodynamic performance enhancers on
three different hull forms – fast displacement hull form,
planing craft and foil assisted catamaran. The towing
tank at NSTL has a length of 500 m, width 8 m, depth 8
m and a maximum carriage speed of 20 m/s.
Measurement of resistance, heave and trim of the model
at various steady state speeds is carried out using a
Kempf and Remers Dynamometer.
2. POWERING ENHANCEMENT OF FAST
DISPLACEMENT HULL
The effectiveness of stern wedges, flaps and interceptors
in improving the powering performance of a fast
displacement hull form of 138m length was studied at
NSTL. Extensive model tests were done on a 1:26.135
model, including resistance and propulsion tests, using
these devices and their combinations. Figure 2 shows the
ship model fitted with these devices. Significant work
done in reference [1] shows that stern wedge-flap
configuration performs better than stern wedges or flaps
in isolation. “Cross-over” speed i.e. the speed at which
resistance begins to reduce is an important factor here.
The approach at NSTL was to first arrive upon an
optimum wedge-flap configuration and then research on
the possibility of interceptors. As a first step, the best
stern-wedge configuration had to be identified.
Wedge chord length Wedge angle (deg)
1 % of LBP 8 10 12 14 15.5
1.5 % of LBP 8 10 12 14 15.5
Table 1: Wedge variants tested
Contour Flap angle (deg)
Flap1: Radius = 1˚ 10 12 14
Flap2: Along WL 10 12 -
Table 2: Flap variants tested
Appended hull resistance tests were done to optimize for
the best stern-wedge configuration. Stern wedges tested
were of sharp V shape cross-section at constant angle
chord-wise and faired edges along the hull span-wise.
Variants of wedges tested are given in Table 1. The
change in resistance may be attributed to the change in
dynamic trim/sinkage and reduction of the effective wake
width at the transom. The minimum effective wake width
happens for the 14˚ wedge of 1% chord length. Decrease
in effective wake width suggests lesser wastage of
energy and thus lesser resistance. The rooster tail shifts
further aft of transom at higher speeds corresponding to
28-30 knots which is an indication of lesser effective
wake length. Lesser wake lengths improve the resistance
performance of the vessel. The 10˚ wedge of 1% chord
length gave the best resistance reduction from 22 knots to
32 knots. A resistance reduction of about 2.2% was
achieved at 30 knots. The reduction in dynamic
trim/sinkage is highest with this wedge configuration.
This is indicative of better resistance performance of the
ship. This wedge configuration was selected for further
hydrodynamic studies with stern flaps.
 Figure 2: Stern wedge, flap and interceptor fitted on Fast Displacement Hull
Figure 3: Transom flow pattern for selected configurations showing differences in "breakaway", "neckdown" and
hydrodynamic lengths at full scale speed of 28 knots
Two stern flaps were designed for comparative study.
The different configurations of stern flaps used during
the resistance tests are given in Table 2. These flaps were
tested along with the 10˚ wedge of 1% chord length.
Flap2 of 10˚ was found to perform the best when fitted
with the 10˚ wedge. This configuration reduces
resistance from a speed of 24 knots to 32 knots. The
resistance at 30 knots was reduced by 2%. However what
is more significant is the reduction in effective wake
behind the hull and the height of the rooster tail. Stern
flap caused a considerable “neck down” of the transverse
width of the stern wave pattern. “Neck down” is
explained in reference [1].
However, it was felt that there is still scope for
improving on the powering performance. Motivated by
the hydrodynamic performance of interceptors, it was an
intuitive decision to go for a combination of stern wedge-
interceptor at this stage. Interceptor of protrusion type
was used with 1mm, 2mm and 4mm protrusion (at model
scale) below the 10˚ wedge. The wedge – interceptor
combination of 10˚ wedge and 1mm interceptor was seen
to be the most effective among these variants. Interceptor
of 1mm alone was tested by removing the wedge and at
this stage seemed to perform better than the wedge-
interceptor configurations. Wedge-interceptors could
bring down resistance only after a speed of 24 knots
while interceptor alone was slightly better at reducing
resistance from 22 knots onwards. The reduction at 30
knots was of the order of 1.5%.
The performances of these devices were also studied
from propulsion point of view. Self-propulsion tests were
conducted to evaluate the effect on delivered power and
propulsive efficiency. Propulsion performance of the
stern wedge/flap/interceptors gave a comprehensive
insight into their effectiveness. The results are
summarised in Table 3. The following are the major
observations:
• Delivered Power (PD) is reduced by all the
energy saving devices in a speed range of
22knots to 32knots.
• The wedge – interceptor combination of 10˚
wedge and 1mm interceptor proved to be the
 optimized configuration in terms of delivered
power reduction. Thrust deduction fraction (t)
and effective wake fraction (w) was
considerably low for wedge-interceptor
configuration. Lower thrust deduction fraction
indicates increase in thrust power and lower
effective wake fraction indicates accelerated
flow onto the propeller which facilitates higher
propeller thrust.
“breakaway” speed to 26 knots from 30 knots.
“Breakaway” is explained in reference [1]. The
interceptor variations indicate a clean
breakaway at 28 knots. Also, the effective
increase in hydrodynamic length is slightly
better for the stern flap-wedge combination as
seen in Figure 3. The lengthening effect is
expected to give powering benefits at high
speeds by reducing wave making resistance.

• The wedge-interceptor combination improves
the total propulsive efficiency at 30 knots to
0.68 from the actual value of 0.65. The least PD
is for wedge-interceptor.
• Stern wedge-flaps and wedge-interceptors
caused the maximum reduction in width of the
stern wave pattern. The total area of turbulence
and whitewater is reduced. The stern wedge-flap
combination reduces the transom flow
With a defined limited engine power, it was found that
these energy saving devices will help to increase the top
speed of the ship. The increase in top speeds for all the
tested configurations is given in Table 4. The vessel with
the wedge-interceptor would attain a speed 32.60 knots;
that is an increase in top speed of about 0.60 knots. Thus,
wedge – interceptor configuration was found to give
maximum powering benefit for the present hull form in
the speed range of 22 to 32 knots.

Vs Wedge 1%,10˚, Wedge 1%,10˚,

Wedge 1%,10˚ Interceptor 1mm
(knots) Flap2 10˚ Interceptor 1mm

16 17 17 13 23
18 14 17 10 17
20 15 17 11 7
22 0 -1 -2 -2
24 -1 -2 -2 -5
26 -1 -5 -7 -7
28 -2 -4 -9 -6
30 -1 -4 -6 -4
32 -7 -10 -10 -9

Table 3: Percentage change in Pd (kW) w.r.t. base hull

Configuration Increase in top speeds

Wedge 1%,10˚ 0.10

Wedge 1%,10˚, Flap2 10˚ 0.41

Wedge 1%,10˚, Interceptor 1mm 0.60

Interceptor 1mm 0.34

Table 4: Increase in top speed in knots wrt base hull at 32 knots

3. TRIM ENHANCEMENT OF PLANING
CRAFTS
The running trim is a critical point in the dynamics of a
planing craft. Planing crafts generally operate at an
equilibrium trim at any speed. Equilibrium trim is that
trim at which the weight of the craft, the propeller thrust,
the viscous drag and dynamic lift generated are in
equilibrium. The equilibrium condition of the planing
craft is represented by equations 29, 30 and 31 in
reference [5].
However, there is an optimum trim angle for every speed
at which the resistance of the planing craft is minimal.
More often the equilibrium trim is different from the
optimum trim. Thus, the planing craft generally runs at
the equilibrium trim thereby leaving room for resistance
reduction. The equation is quite simple. If we can force
the boat to operate at the optimum trim, resistance can be
reduced by a great deal. This is particularly important in
the hump zone and take-off speeds in the fully planing
zone. Optimising trim can be effectively done by the use
of trim reducing devices such as stern flaps, wedges and
interceptors. These devices control the trim of the
planing boat by providing an additional lift component at
the aft which also contributes in reducing the required
thrust. Refer Figure 4. The increased pressure at the aft is
also found to improve propulsive efficiency [1]. Also
interceptor increases the exit velocity at transom
resulting in clean separation at transom. The transom
hollow and rooster tail is thus reduced reducing wake [3].
Two problems which are related to planing craft trim are
discussed here. In the first case discussed in section 3.1
the focus is purely on trim reduction. On the other hand,
the second problem stated in section 3.2 is on resistance
reduction by trim enhancement. It is interesting to see
how the solutions evolve depending on the application.
The effectiveness of stern flaps, wedges and interceptors
are utilized in both the scenarios. One can see that these
devices are highly effective in modifying hydrodynamic
performance of planing crafts.
3.1 TRIM CONTROL FOR OPERATIONAL
REQUIREMENTS
A survey boat with a planing hull was reportedly facing
problems in that its hydrographic equipments which are
placed on the hull bottom were surfacing in the pre-
planing zone. As a result, the survey operations were
hindered even at low speeds such as 10 knots. Model
tests were done at NSTL on a 1:4.6 scale model and it
was found that the operational speed of 10 to 11 knots
was close to the hump trim. Waterlines on the boat model
at these speeds suggested that even though the hull
bottom did not come out of water it was too close to
surface. It could be that a combination of excessive trim
and heave was hindering its functionality by exceeding
the minimum depth of operation.

Figure 4: Force decomposition on planing craft

The planing craft has a hump trim which corresponds to

the hump resistance. The optimum trim usually happens
to be less than the hump trim. Hence, in the hump zone
resistance can be reduced by reducing trim. The planing
craft in the fully planing zone operates in the post hump
trim zone. As the speed increases in the fully planing
zone trim decreases. At some point it falls below the
optimum trim. Beyond this point the trim reduction
devices are of no use. Here, mechanisms to enhance the
trim by providing lifting surfaces ahead of the LCG are
effective. Modified spray rails which provide an
additional component of lift are an option.
Figure 5: Trim and heave reduction at model scale
Trim controlling devices were designed and fitted to the
model. Model tests were done and the results are
depicted in Figure 5. It can be seen that wedge-
interceptor is the best option in reducing trim and heave
at the operating speeds. But at fully planing speeds, the
trim reduction is too high that it causes the resistance to
shoot up. It is suggested that at high speeds the
interceptor be withdrawn. At 10 knots, the trim was
reduced by 1.2 degrees and at 12 knots by 2.2 degrees.
Heave was reduced by 4.7 mm at model scale.
Retrofits with either interceptor or to be more effective
wedge-interceptors are suggested as solutions. Since the
present planing craft has a Z-drive, practically putting a
stern-wedge may be difficult because of space constraints
at the transom. In that case, an interceptor is a much
simpler and feasible option.
3.3 TRIM CONTROL FOR RESISTANCE
REDUCTION
In the following example, the resistance of a planing boat
was required to be reduced in the speed range of 40 to 45
knots. The manufacturer was not able to meet the
contractual condition of achieving these speeds with the
installed engine power due to an increase in hull weight
during construction. Hydrodynamic model tests were
done at NSTL on a 1:13 model using stern interceptors,
Figure 6: Plots of model resistance against heave and trim corresponding to full scale speed of 40 knots and 45 knots
(Dark blue indicates the least resistance and dark red indicates highest resistance)
wedges and wedge-interceptors to find out a possible
solution. The optimum trim of the boat at these speeds
was identified as 4 degrees from model tests. It was
found that at the required speeds of 40 and 45 knots the
running trim was higher than the optimum trim. It was
anticipated that the resistance may come down by
augmenting the trim and lift of the craft. A combination
of optimum trim and heave was achieved by the use of
interceptors. Further research was done by testing with
wedges and a combination of wedge-interceptors. In all
cases it was found that a trim of 4 degrees and a heave up
of 45 mm to 50 mm at model scale gave the least
resistance. This is clearly visible in Figure 6.
A resistance reduction of 3.3 % was achieved at 40 knots
by an interceptor protrusion of 1.5 mm. The boat was
already fitted with conventional spray strips [6]. Further,
additional spray strips were designed so as to cut off the
remaining spray downwards and thereby provide an
additional component of lift at the forward. As a result,
the resistance reduced by 4.2% at 40 knots. At 45 knots,
the situation was slightly different. Trim reducing
devices would not help at 45 knots. The interceptor was
not effective in bringing down the resistance at 45 knots
even at a trim of 4 degrees and a heave of 50mm. By
putting the additional spray strips, the resistance could be
brought down by 1% at 45 knots.
3. PERFORMANCE ENHANCEMENT OF
FOIL ASSISTED CATAMARAN (FOILCAT)
Hydrodynamic performance evaluation of a twin hull
asymmetric catamaran, supported by foils, was
performed at the High Speed Towing Tank at the Naval
Science and Technological Laboratory (NSTL),
Visakhapatnam. An asymmetric catamaran supported by
two NACA 66 airfoil sections fitted at the bottom of the
hull was chosen as the basic form. See Figure 7. The
cross deck of the catamaran was designed to give a
planing lift to aid take-off at lower speeds.
Approximately 80 sets of calm water resistance tests
were conducted for two hull forms to optimise the hull –
foil configuration and to study the effectiveness of spray
rails and stern wedges in reducing the hump drag. Details
of the development of the foil assisted catamaran hull
form may be obtained from reference [7].
A number of features were introduced in the hull form so
at to reduce the resistance hump. These included a 6
degree deep ‘V’ shape stern wedge (about 6 percent of
Figure 7: Linesplan of foilcat with wave piercing hull (left); 1:6.5 model at NSTL (centre) and details of wedge (right)
Figure 8: Resistance & Trim plots of foilcat with wedge variants
Lwl) at the after end of the cross-deck and triangular
spray rails whose length and location were chosen so as
to reduce the resistance mainly near the hump speed.
Finally, the cross-deck was modified by adding a wave-
piercing form at the bow for better sea-keeping
performance [7].
A triangular stern wedge of length 100 mm, was
introduced as an integral part of the cross-deck at the aft
is shown in Figure 7. Three configurations of the wedges,
viz. θ = 3°, 6° and 8° were tested at displacements
corresponding to 90% and 100% of the all-up weight. A
comparison of the behaviour of the stern wedges is given
in Figure 8. The 6˚ stern wedge gave the most
encouraging result. The hump drag of the optimised hull
– foil configuration was reduced by 12%. The spray rails
reduced the hump drag by about 3% [8]. The resistance
reduction and trim reduction in the hump zone is clearly
seen in Figure 8.
4 ECONOMIC FEASIBILITY
Going by the powering performance improvement
exercise done on the fast displacement craft, it may be
seen that the low speed penalties are making the whole
scheme uneconomical. Reference [9] discusses scale
effects on the performance of stern flaps and wedges. It
compares among fast displacement ships the model test
results and the sea trial data of USS RAMAGE (DDG
61). The 1:20 model-scale stern flap experiments
indicated maximum reduction of 6.4% and an increase in
top speed of 0.4 knots. Also, a low speed penalty below
12 knots was predicted. However at full scale, stern-flap
reduced ship power by 5.6% to 15.4% and increased top
speed by 0.9 knots. There was no penalty at any speed.
The model scale tests under-predicted the stern flap
performance in the range of 12% at speeds of 14 to 18
knots, but only about 2% when approaching top speed.
Further, geosim studies indicated that “cross-over” speed
decreased with increasing model size. Also, the
resistance reduction improved with increasing model
size. The stern flap scaling multiplier technique proposed
in reference [9] is applied to the present model at NSTL.
The corrected estimation is that the full scale
performance with the best configuration gives a
resistance reduction of 12.6% at high speeds. The low
speed penalties are also nullified by applying this
correction. The annual savings in fuel consumption is
regarded as 4% as suggested by similar studies in
reference [4]. The fitment of a stern flap or wedge or
even an interceptor can cause very little effect on the
building cost of the ship roughly estimated to be of the
order of 1%. This is expected to be easily offset by the
annual fuel savings itself considering the powering
benefits. Besides, huge savings are expected to follow.
The planing craft in section 3.1 is currently operational.
Hence, the energy saving devices have to be retrofitted.
The cost of retrofit, if assumed to be of the order of 50
lakh Indian rupees, can be evened out by fuel savings in
1 year. Besides, the operational requirements can be
effectively met. For the planing craft mentioned in
section 3.2, the requirement of the owner is to achieve
the contractual condition failing which will invite huge
penalties. Therefore, the use of energy saving devices is
unavoidable. The installation cost of interceptors is
expected to be less than 5% of the total cost. It is
understood that differential interceptors are also
improving the turning ability of the vessel by enhancing
the heel.
The stern wedge designed on the foil assisted catamaran
has already been fitted by bending the aluminium plating
on the 10m technology demonstrator vessel. The drag
reduction at hump speed gave remarkable improvement
in performance. The cost of wedge fitment was
absolutely minimal. To complement this, the fuel savings
in the hump zone was remarkable.
5 SUMMARY
The following points are outlined for future works:
• In fast displacement ships, the performance of
wedge-flap combination is much better than flap
or wedge in isolation.
• The novel concept of wedge-interceptors on fast
displacement ships may become an even better
option for powering reduction subject to full
scale results.
• The reduction in effective wake width and wake
wash is more in wedge-interceptor and wedge-
flap combinations.
• Breakaway speed is reduced by 4 knots at model
scale by stern wedge-flap combination. The
interceptor combinations gave a reduction of 2
knots.
• Effective increase in hydrodynamic length is
best for stern wedge-flap.
• Planing craft trim is highly reduced by wedge-
interceptor combination. Reduction in trim by
interceptors is better than stern wedges.
• The powering performance of a planing craft is
better optimised by interceptors than a wedge.
• On high speed planing crafts, the importance of
spray rails is elucidated. Spray rails may be
designed in such a way to cut off spray and
provide an additional lift.
• Energy saving devices are equally effective on
hybrid crafts like foil assisted catamarans.
• The use of energy saving devices listed here
seems to be economically feasible.
7. ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
We would like to thank Prof. O.P. Shah, IIT Kharaghpur
and Shri VBS Ayyengar, Scientist, NSTL for their
guidance in pursuing this work. We also thank Sunny
Verma, Scientist, NSTL and the entire testing team of
HSTT, NSTL for helping with the study.
8. REFERENCES
1. KARAFIATH, G. et al, ‘Stern Wedges and Stern
Flaps for Improved Powering – US Navy Experience’,
SNAME Transactions, Vol. 107, 1999
2. YAAKOB, O., et al, 'Stern flap for resistance
reduction of planing hull craft: A case study with a fast
crew boat', Jurnal Teknologi, 41(A) Dis. 2004: 43–52

3. PRAVEEN, PC and MD. KAREEM KHAN,

‘Interceptor for better Hydrodynamic Performance of a
Planing Hull’, International Workshop Conference &
Expo in Engineering and Marine Applications, 2010

4. CUSANELLI, D.S. et al, ‘Effect of Stern Flaps on

Powering Performance of the FFG-7 Flaps’, NSWC
Carderock Division, Technical Report

5. SAVISTKY, D., ‘Hydrodynamic Design of Planing

Hulls’, Marine Technology, Vol.8, No.4, Oct. 1964

6. SAVISTKY, D., DeLORME, M.F. and DATLA, R.,

‘Inclusion of Whisker Spray Drag in Performance
Prediction Method for High-Speed Planing Hulls’,
Marine Technology, Vol.44, No.1, Jan. 2007

7. SRINIVASAN, VB et al, ‘Experimental Investigation

on the performance of a High Speed Foil Assisted
Catamaran’, International Conference in Marine
Hydrodynamics, 2006

8. SRINIVASAN, VB et al, ‘An Investigation into the

performance of Hybrid High Performance Vehicles’, 5th
International Conference on High Performance Marine
Vehicles, Australia, 2006

9. CUSANELLI, D.S., ‘Scaling Effects on Stern flap

Powering Progress Report’, NSWC Carderock Division,
Technical Report, September 2009

9. AUTHORS BIOGRAPHY

The authors are scientists at the Hydrodynamic Research

Wing of the Naval Science & Technological Laboratory,
India. Their areas of work include improving
hydrodynamic performance of marine vehicles through
ship model experiments and computational fluid
dynamics, development of hybrid hulls and propulsors
and full-scale sea trials.