Vous êtes sur la page 1sur 12

1

Theoretical and Experimental Investigation of


Resistance of High-Speed Round-Bilge Hull Forms



Prasanta K. Sahoo
1
, Lawrence J. Doctors
2
, (M), Martin R. Renilson
3
, (AM)



ABSTRACT


Computational fluid dynamics (CFD) techniques are becoming increasingly popular in analysing
flow problems in almost all branches of engineering, especially in resistance prediction of ships
where complex fluid flow exists. While towing-tank tests provide better absolute accuracy, the
knowledge of the importance of modification to hull forms is limited. In this respect, CFD
techniques and theoretical formulations have an added advantage of permitting rapid
modifications to hull forms to be undertaken so that a comparative study of results can be made
within a few hours.

In this paper the results of a comparative study on resistance of high-speed round-bilge hull forms
using CFD techniques, theoretical analysis and experimental results are presented. This paper
provides a study of the following:

Analysis of calm-water resistance tests of a systematic series of 14 high-speed round-bilge
displacement hull forms and the subsequent development of the regression equation.

The result of modelling the same 14 models in HYDROS, a program which uses robust panel
methods to calculate resistance.

Corresponding results of the 14 models using SHIPFLOW (CFD), a sophisticated ship-
resistance program developed by FLOWTECH International of Sweden, which employs a
combined potential-flow boundary-layer viscous-flow zonal approach.

This study includes an examination of different versions of the computer programs in order to
determine the importance to transom-stern hulls of the various assumptions, such as freedom to
rise and trim, and the nature of the free-surface boundary conditions.

1
Lecturer, Department of Naval Architecture & Ocean Engineering, Australian Maritime College. On part secondment to
Australian Maritime Engineering Co-operative Research Centre, PO Box 986, Launceston, TAS 7250, Australia
2
Head, Department of Naval Architecture, The University of New South Wales, Sydney, NSW 2052, Australia.
3
Head, Department of Naval Architecture & Ocean Engineering, Australian Maritime College, PO Box 986, Launceston,
TAS 7250, Australia.
2



1. INTRODUCTION

1.1 Background

Over a ten-year period, starting in 1979, a major
research project on combatant-vessel design was
conducted at the Maritime Research Institute Netherlands
(MARIN). This program was initiated as an outcome of
the growing belief that a significant improvement in the
performance of transom stern, round-bilge monohulls
could be obtained, especially with regard to their calm
water resistance and seakeeping characteristics. The
project was jointly sponsored by the Royal Netherlands
Navy, the United States Navy, the Royal Australian Navy
and MARIN.

Extensive testing in calm water and waves was
carried out on a systematic series of high-speed
displacement hull forms (HSDHF), as described by Blok
and Beukelman (1984), Van Oosanen and Pieffers (1985),
MARIN Report 30 (1987) and Robson (1988). The test
data for 40 models were analysed and included in a
powerful computer system. However, except for the
parent hull, the results of the tests and the analysis were
not published.
1.2 AMECRC Systematic Series

The AMECRC systematic series is based on the
HSDHF systematic series. The work on this project
started in 1992, as described by Rikard-Bell (1992). The
parent model is very similar to that of the HSDHF series
and has the following parameters: L/B = 8.0, B/T = 4.0
and C
B
= 0.396. The series transformation procedure is
based on the variation of L/B, B/T and C
B
and range of
parameters for all models are as follows:

Model L/B B/T C
B
Model
Disp.(kg)
L/
1/3

1 8 4 0.396 6.321 8.653
2 6.512 3.51 0.395 11.455 7.098
3 8 2.5 0.447 11.454 7.098
4 8 4 0.447 7.158 8.302
5 4 4 0.395 25.344 5.447
6 8 2.5 0.395 10.123 7.396
7 4 2.5 0.396 40.523 4.658
8 4 2.5 0.5 51.197 4.308
9 8 2.5 0.5 12.804 6.839
10 8 4 0.5 8.002 7.998
11 4 4 0.5 32.006 5.039
12 8 3.25 0.497 9.846 7.464
13 6 3.25 0.45 15.784 6.379
14 6 4 0.5 14.204 6.606

Table 1: Systematic Series Parameter Range

This 'parameter space' or series 'cube' is shown in
Figure 1. The parameters of each of the 14 models can be
identified from this figure. All models have the same
length of 1.6 m and the influence of change of the series
parameters on the hull shape is illustrated in Figure 2,
where all the body plans are presented in the same scale.
1.3 Calm-Water Resistance Tests

Two independent performance prediction models,
C
R
-Fn and R
R
/W-Fn

, are presented, evaluated and


commented on in this paper. They were developed using
the 'classic' multiple regression analysis approach and a
novel, non-linear estimation approach, which allows use
of a loss function different from the least-squares one. On
a similar basis, an improved wetted-surface area
estimation model was developed. The results of the
analysis are implemented as performance prediction
software, which incorporates a prediction correction
based on the performance of the 'closest' series model.



Figure 1: AMECRC Systematic Series [ Bojovic and
Sahoo (1998), p 546]



Figure 2: AMECRC Systematic Series Body Plans
[ Bojovic and Sahoo (1998), p 546]
3


1.4 Multiple Regression Analysis

The general purpose of multiple regression is to
analyse the relationship between several independent
variables and a dependent variable. In general, multiple
regression allows the researcher to ask (and hopefully
answer) the general question 'what is the best predictor of
... ?'. In the simplest case, one dependent and one
independent variable, fitting of a regression line to a
number of points could be visualised in a scatter plot. In
the multivariate case, when there is more than one
independent variant, the regression line cannot be
visualised in the two dimensional space, but can be
computed in the following form:

p p 2 2 1 1
X b + ... X b X b a Y + + + =

(1)


It is evident from Equation 1 that a linear relationship
between variables is assumed. There are virtually no
limits on the form that the independent variable may take
provided that no variable is directly (linearly) related to
another variable, or the sum of the other variables.
Actually, a common polynomial 'non-linear' regression
model could also be implemented as a linear model (i.e.
X
2
= X
1
2
, X
3
= X
1
3
and so on...). These types of models,
which include some transformation of the independent
variable in a linear equation are known as non-linear in
the variable (StatSoft, 1994).

1.5. Speed-Dependent Versus Speed-Independent
Regression Model

Ship-resistance regression models may be broadly
categorised into two groups: speed-independent and
speed-dependent models. In speed-independent regression
models, ship speed is not included as an independent
variable, and separate regression equations must be
generated at a series of discrete speeds covering the range
of interest.

Fung (1995) discussed the fact that the major
shortfall of speed-independent regression models is that
the predicted resistance curves do not always vary
properly with speed, despite the high statistical
correlation, which may be achieved at any individual
speed. This is because the resistance computed at one
speed is not directly linked to that at another speed since
the speed variable is not explicitly included in the
regression.

In speed-dependent regression models ship speed is
explicitly included as an independent variable, providing
direct control over the nature of variation of resistance
with speed. Detailed discussion of these two types of
models can be found in the paper by Fung (1993).
According to MacPherson (1993), the speed-independent
model provides a superior analysis as it allows the
different contributions of the various hull-form
parameters, at different speed, to come into play. A
speed-independent model was used in the analysis of the
AMECRC Systematic Series results.

2. REGRESSION ANALYSIS OF CALM WATER
RESULTS

2.1 Regression Mathematical Models

It was decided to use a speed-independent regression
model, as it is simpler than the speed-dependent one,
while equally reliable. Speed-independent regression
models are usually either of C
R
-Fn or R
R
/W- Fn

type.
Literature study reveals that no advantage is gained by
use of any of these models, although some arguments
could be found that the residuary resistance, assumed to
be independent of viscous effects and therefore wetted
surface area, should not be non-dimensionalized using
surface area, as in C
R
. While a clear correlation exists
between C
R
and R
R
/W, and Fn and Fn

, Equations (2)
and (3),
2
2
1
2/3
R
2
2
1
R
R
Fn S
W
R
=
V S
R
C


(2)

1/3
L
Fn
Fn


(3)


still these two mathematical models are completely
independent. On another note, care was taken to assure
the accuracy of wetted surface area (WSA).

2.2. Selection Of Independent Variables

MacPherson (1993) and Fung (1991), suggested as a
general rule-of-thumb that the number of data points
should exceed the symbolic form:

N
data
> N
par
(N
par
+3)/2 (4)

in which N
par
is the number of parameters incorporated in
the regression equation. This is the case for random data
and the authors' belief is that more than the suggested
number of parameters could be used in the case of
systematic series data. Table 2 presents the parameters
considered to have a constant value for all models.

The initial regression analysis, described by Bojovic
(1995), was conducted using L/B, B/T, C
B
, L/T and L/
1/3

as basic independent variables. Square and reciprocal
4


LCB 5.4% aft from amidships
C
P
0.626
C
WL
0.796
A
T
/A
X
0.296
B
T
/B
X
0.964

Table 2: Hull parameters common for all Systematic
Series models.

values of the basic variables then extended the set of
independent variables. It is obvious that the L/T is derived
from L/B and B/T. It should also be noted that L/
1/3
is a
function of L/B, B/T and C
B
:

3
B
2
1/3
C
T
B
B
L
L


(5)


This led to the development of the regression model
which had the following form, for Fn

between 0.90 and


2.25 at each speed:
1/3
3
1/3
2 1 R
L/
1
b L/ b b /W R

+ + =

(6)

It is known (Lewis, 1988) that the performance of
this type of vessel is best described by length-volume
ratio. Initially, it was intended to also include in the
regression model the following parameters: half angle of
entrance, i
E
, deadrise amidships,
M,
and deadrise at
transom,
T
. While it was expected that inclusion of these
parameters could only improve the regression equation,
their presence in the equation was found to be impractical
as their values might not be known in the initial design
stages. Being highly correlated to basic series parameters
L/B, B/T and C
B
, these parameters were considered
represented by them and were left out of the independent
variables' set.

Assuming that the previous regression model,
Equation 6, actually suggests that the best predictor, has
the following form:

3
2 1
m
B
m m
C
T
B
B
L


(7)
A couple of different independent variable sets were
tried until the final set consisted of 86 variables of the
form presented in Equation 7 where:

3
6
3
4
3
2
3
0
3
3
3
3
2
3
1
3
0
2
3
6
3
4
3
2
3
0
1
, , , m
, , , m
, , , m
+ + + =
=
=

(8)

It is believed that this selection of variables provided
enough freedom for regression analysis to select either
separate or coupled influences of basic series parameters.
The selection of m
i
values was such as to enable
obtaining of combinations, which correspond to:

3

1/3
2
1/3
1
1/3
L
,
L
,
L

(9)


This set of independent variables was used for the
multiple regression analysis (MRA). The MRA model
was applied both to the C
R
-Fn and R
R
/W input values.
The regression equation obtained still contained the sum
of a few variables at certain Froude numbers. It was
believed that this suggests the existence of an even better
predictor in the form similar to Equation 7. That is why
the non-linear estimation (NLE) was applied in the
following form:
5
4 3
b
B
b b
2 1
R
C
T
B
B
L
b b
W
R

+ =

(10)

The NLE method estimated the b
i
-coefficients by
minimising the loss function which was initially set to be
the same as the one built into the MRA model - the least
squares function, and is given by:

Loss function =(observed function - predicted function)
2


2.3. Prediction Evaluation

The Royal Australian Navy (RAN) was involved in
HSDHF research conducted at MARIN. The outcome of
this research was never published, but was implemented
as software available to participants only. Naval
Engineering Service of Department of Defence kindly
provided performance prediction of Model 13
performance using the software developed at MARIN.
Actually two predictions were provided, using RESDS
and REFDS modules of HOSDES software. RESDS
calculates the resistance of a ship based on the MARIN
HSDHF series and provides the most suitable comparison
for the AMECRC regression methods. REFDS calculates
the resistance of a general fast displacement type of ship.
Its database is much larger and is based on HSDHF series,
NPL series, Series 64, Canadian HSDHF series and
selected ships from the MARIN database.

Results of the comparison are presented in Figures 3
and 4. It can be seen that both prediction methods, MRA
and NLE, estimate the calm-water performance of Model
13 reasonably well. Their estimates are closer to the
interpolated values than HOSDES predictions. The
explanation for the considerable difference between these
predictions is still uncertain. Reasonably good agreement
for Fn>0.40, C
R
estimation methods (with and without the
5


Figure 3: R
R
/W-Fnv for Model 13- Comparison of
Interpolated values and Prediction [ Bojovic (1996), p
18].
Figure 4: C
R
-Fn for Model 13- Comparison of
Interpolated values and Prediction [ Bojovic (1996), p
18]
Model 13 included in the database) exhibit a 1%
relative difference. The following regression equations for
wetted surface area (WSA) were obtained from MRA and
NLE methods respectively (Bojovic, 1996):

C
S
= 3.3283+ 0.7449(L/B)
2/3
C
B
-2/3
+0.352(B/T)
C
B
-2/3
+4.63E-02 (L/B)
2/3
(B/T) C
B
-1
-0.0379
(L/B)
4/3
C
B
-1
- 1.3672(B/T)
1/3
C
B
-1/3
(11)

C
S
= 0.889+6.669E-02(L/B)
0.35274
(B/T)
1.477

C
B
-0.9057
+ 1.644C
B
-0.4423

(L/B)
.3812
(12)

Respective R
2
values are 0.99866 and 0.99885. The two
following formulas describe series geometry related to the
position of the initial transverse metacentre (Bojovic,
1996):

KB / T = 0.8986 - 0.5389 C
B
(13)
BM C
B
T / B
2
= 0.05567 (14)

3. SHIPFLOW THEORY

A basic overview of the features of the CFD code
SHIPFLOW (SHIPFLOW Release Notes, 1997) is
provided here. The method is based on a zonal approach
where the flow is divided into three different zones with
different solution methods, as shown in Figure 5. In Zone
1 the program uses the potential-flow method employing
Rankine sources on the hull and part of the free surface
where either a first-order or second-order discretization is
implemented. In the potential flow method the
SHIPFLOW code can be run in both linear and non-linear
mode.

In Zone 2 the boundary layer is computed using a
momentum-integral method similar to the one developed
by Larsson (1975). It is based on streamlines, which are
automatically traced from the potential-flow solution.
Starting at the stagnation point, the method first computes
the laminar flow and checks the stability of the wave-like
disturbances in the layer. The program computes the ratio
of the amplitude at any point downstream of the point to
the amplitude at the point itself. The transition is assumed
to occur when the amplitude ratio has reached a certain
value of the most unstable frequency amplitude, or a
value set by the user.

In Zone 3 the governing equations are the Reynolds-
Averaged Navier-Stokes (RANS) equations, obtained by
averaging the time dependent Navier-Stokes equations
over the entire length and time scales of the turbulent
fluctuations. In the present version of SHIPFLOW used,
the diffusion of momentum longitudinally is neglected
and by this the velocity and turbulence are parabolized
meaning the solution may proceed from the inlet station,
plane by plane downstream. The RANS method has not
been used in the present paper since this procedure is used
only for slow speed hulls where there is a thick boundary
layer (wake region) at the stern.

4. HYDROS THEORY

The computer program used for this research is
HYDROS/4, an extensive set of modules developed at
The University of New South Wales over the last decade.


0
0.01
0.02
0.03
0.04
0.05
0.06
0.07
0.08
0.09
0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5
Fnv
R
R

/

W
RR/W(CRinterpol'd)
RR/Winterpol'd
RR/W(NLECR)
NLERR/W
RR/WMARINREFDS
RR/WMARINRESDS
0
0.001
0.002
0.003
0.004
0.005
0.006
0.007
0.008
0.009
0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8 0.9 1
Fn
C
R
CRinterpol'd
CR(RR/Winterpol'd)
NLECR
CR(NLERR/W)
CRMARINREFDS
CRMARINRESDS
6


Figure 5: The Zonal approach in SHIPFLOW
[ SHIPFLOW 2.3 (1997), figure 1].

The capabilities of HYDROS cover four main areas
of Hydrostatics, Statical Stability, Resistance in calm-
water and Performance in Waves. Some sophisticated
characteristics of HYDROS are:

Its ability to handle complicated hullforms, which
possess typical naval architecture geometric details,
such as chines and transom sterns, as well as
sections, which might or not pierce the water surface.
In this way, monohulls, catamarans, multihulls, and
small-waterplane-area twin-hull (SWATH) vessels
can be analysed.
The fact that the geometry of the vessel has to be
defined only once; thereafter, hydrodynamic
computations for different combinations of
displacement, draft, and trim can be effected by
altering only one or two items of input data (draft and
trim). HYDROS automatically re-generates the
required underwater geometry for the analysis.
It is highly modularised in nature, in which the
components of HYDROS communicate with each
other through the file system. This permits the user to
combine functions in a large number of ways. For
example, one original vessel can be analysed in a
regular wave system in different conditions. The
resulting response-amplitude operators from one such
condition can be used repeatedly to determine the
statistics of operating the vessel in different seaways.

The computer program was described fully by
Doctors (1995) and Doctors and Day (1997). The
resistance module applies traditional thin-ship theory to
the vessel, together with the standard modifications for
water of finite depth and channel of finite width (for the
purpose of simulating towing-tank tests). Furthermore,
the hollow in the water behind the transom stern of the
vessel is modelled in a realistic and plausible manner.
Finally, a novel technique for applying correction or form
factors to both the wave-resistance and the frictional-
resistance components is used.

The application of these correction factors was
detailed by Doctors(1998a). Finally, there is an additional
improvement in Doctors (1998b), in which the case of a
partially wetted transom stern is modelled; that is, the
hollow can be partly filled with slowly re-circulating
water, thus simulating the case of operation at relatively
low speeds.

5. RESULTS

In order to maintain uniformity and the make the best
of comparison between the various methods adopted here
it was decided to present the results of this investigation
in the form of R
T
/W against Fn in model scale. The
experimental drag as measured at various speeds were
divided by the weight of the model to obtain the
experimental R
T
/W for all 14 models tested. The models
were free to trim and sink in all cases. As illustrated in the
regression model, C
R
corrected values were first obtained
which were added to the corresponding C
F
(ITTC-57
ship-model correlation line) to obtain a set of values for
C
T
at various Fn. The C
T
values were then converted to
corresponding R
T
/W values.

In the CFD approach used by SHIPFLOW, it must be
remembered that it is only a tool to analyze different
types of hull forms so as to obtain a hull form with the
best wave-resistance characteristics. Potential-flow panel
methods like the method included in SHIPFLOW cannot
handle wave breaking and spray phenomena that occurs at
high Froude numbers. This means that the wave
resistance C
w,sfl
computed by SHIPFLOW, will be smaller
than the residuary resistance from experiments, C
R,exp
.
The computed results should therefore compare with a
wave-pattern resistance from experiments. Some of the
wave energy from wave breaking and spray is however
captured in the computations and the computed wave
resistance lies between the residuary resistance and the
wave-pattern resistance. The only way to directly
compute the total resistance from SHIPFLOW results is:

C
T,sfl
=C
W,sfl
+C
F,sfl
(15)

where C
F,sfl
is the friction component computed by
XBOUND module of SHIPFLOW. The C
T,sfl
value is of
interest when comparing different design alternatives of a
hull or when comparing different positions of the hulls in
a multi-hull configuration. In many cases it is enough to
study the variation of C
W,sfl
only. But, since the wave
resistance is under-estimated as described above, C
T,sfl

cannot directly be used for power prediction. It is
therefore necessary to make a correction for the
difference between C
W,sfl
and C
R,exp
.

In the work of Sirvio and Oma (1997) a constant
value (C
R,exp
- C
W,sfl
) for the correction was used and this
7


is probably appropriate for the catamaran hull if the
investigations are in the lower ranges of speed. The
friction component was therefore computed using the
ITTC-57 line and the total resistance computed from:

C
T
= C
F,ITTC57
+ C
W,sfl
+ (C
R,exp
- C
W,sfl
) (16)

Another approach, as suggested by Janson (1998), is to
compute a wave-resistance correction factor as :

K
cw
= C
R,exp
/ C
W,sfl
(17)

from cases where both experimental and computational
data are available. The total resistance is then computed
from:

C
T,corr
= C
W,sfl
K
cw
+ C
F,sfl
(18)

The K
cw
factor must be estimated from earlier
comparisons of C
R,exp
and C
W,sfl
. K
cw
varies with Fn and
may be large at high Fn where wave breaking and spray is
a large part of the resistance. K
cw
will also vary from one
hull to another depending on how much wave breaking
and spray is generated. At lower speeds where the
transom is not completely dry C
W,sfl
will be larger than
C
R,exp
since the computations assume that the transom is
dry. If this is not the case there will be too large a
hydrostatic contribution to the wave resistance in C
W,sfl
. A
too steep transom wave will also be computed at low
speeds if the transom is not dry.

C
T,sfl
= C
W,sfl
+ C
F,sfl
(19)

Janson (1998) also commented on the computation of
wave resistance for tankers and other ships which operate
at low Froude numbers. The wave resistance is a small
part of the total resistance at very low Froude number and
it is often difficult to compute this small wave resistance
value accurately. The computed results can, however, still
be used to compare different design alternatives from a
wave resistance point of view. The wave-pattern must
then be used to investigate the diverging wave system and
to determine which design alternative performs best.

In HYDROS all 14 models were subjected to exactly
the same simulations as the experiments. As explained
earlier a correction factor K
cw
, obtained in Equation 17,
was used to calculate the total resistance coefficients
which was transformed to R
T
/W values in order to
compare SHIPFLOW results with other methods. This
procedure naturally gives perfect agreement with
experimental results for all Froude numbers. To provide a
more realistic evaluation of results it was decided to use
the form factor of Granville (MacPherson, 1993) given
by:

2
B
L
B
C 18.7 1 k 1

+ = +

(20)


This results in the modified expression for calculating the
total resistance coefficient for SHIPFLOW as:

C
T,sfl
= C
W,sfl
+ (1+k)C
F,sfl
(21)
Figure 6: R
T
/W vs. Fn results for Model 1.
Figure 7: R
T
/W vs. Fn results for Model 2.

The Figures 6 to 19 depict the graphical overview of
experimental, theoretical, regression and numerical (as
per Equation 21) results for all 14 models.

Table 3 presents the root mean square errors of
R
T
/W with respect to experiment for all Fn values
between 0.3 and 1.0 in increments of 0.05. As can be seen
from the above table, SHIPFLOW consistently under-
predicts when compared with regression or HYDROS. It
0.00
0.02
0.04
0.06
0.08
0.10
0.12
0.14
0.16
0.18
0.20
0.20 0.30 0.40 0.50 0.60 0.70 0.80 0.90 1.00 1.10
Fn
R
T
/
W
Experiment RT/W
RegressionRT/W
ShipflowRT/W
HydrosRT/W
0.00
0.02
0.04
0.06
0.08
0.10
0.12
0.14
0.16
0.18
0.20
0.20 0.30 0.40 0.50 0.60 0.70 0.80 0.90 1.00 1.10
Fn
R
T
/
W
Experiment RT/W
RegressionRT/W
ShipflowRT/W
HydrosRT/W
8


is to be noted here that regression analysis for Model 7
and 8 have not been carried out beyond Fn=0.55 and 0.5
respectively, hence the high RMS errors when compared
with HYDROS.
Figure 8: R
T
/W vs. Fn results for Model 3.
Figure 9: R
T
/W vs. Fn results for Model 4.

Actual variations of R
T
/W in percentage for various
methods have been presented in Figures 20 to 23 while
varying L/B ratio and slenderness ratio (L/
1/3
).

It is evident from the results of all 14 models that
SHIPFLOW has consistently under-predicted the
experimental results at higher Fn values and this may be
partly attributed to the empirical formula used for the
determination of form factor (1+k). From Figures 6 to 19
it is quite clear that predicted values for HYDROS lie
closer to experimental values than SHIPFLOW. The same
Figure 10: R
T
/W vs. Fn results for Model 5.
Figure 11: R
T
/W vs. Fn results for Model 6.

trend can be recognized from the computed RMS errors
presented in Table 3. Figures 20 and 21 depict R
T
/W
errors as a percentage against L/B ratios at Fn=0.30 and
Fn=0.50 respectively. At Fn=0.30 both SHIPFLOW and
HYDROS exhibit under-prediction by about 5% at higher
L/B ratio, when compared with experimental values. At
Fn=0.50 these values increase to about 17% below
experimental values at higher L/B ratio.

Figures 22 and 23 present errors in R
T
/W as a
percentage against slenderness ratio (L/
1/3
) at Fn=0.55
and Fn=0.80 respectively. It is interesting to note that
regression and numerical calculations show some form of
instability at lower values of L/
1/3
. However the trend
appear to be similar for all methods once the slenderness
ratio increases beyond 6.5. Here too SHIPFLOW under-
0.00
0.02
0.04
0.06
0.08
0.10
0.12
0.14
0.16
0.18
0.20 0.30 0.40 0.50 0.60 0.70 0.80 0.90 1.00 1.10
R
T
/
W
Experiment RT/W
RegressionRT/W
ShipflowRT/W
HydrosRT/W
0.00
0.02
0.04
0.06
0.08
0.10
0.12
0.14
0.16
0.18
0.20
0.20 0.30 0.40 0.50 0.60 0.70 0.80 0.90 1.00 1.10
R
T
/
W
Experiment RT/W
RegressionRT/W
ShipflowRT/W
HydrosRT/W
0.00
0.02
0.04
0.06
0.08
0.10
0.12
0.14
0.16
0.18
0.20
0.20 0.30 0.40 0.50 0.60 0.70 0.80 0.90 1.00 1.10
R
T
/
W
Experiment RT/W
RegressionRT/W
ShipflowRT/W
HydrosRT/W
0.00
0.02
0.04
0.06
0.08
0.10
0.12
0.14
0.16
0.18
0.20 0.30 0.40 0.50 0.60 0.70 0.80 0.90 1.00 1.10
R
T
/
W
Experiment RT/W
RegressionRT/W
ShipflowRT/W
HydrosRT/W
Fn
Fn
Fn
Fn
9


predicts experimental values by at least 17-18% as
slenderness ratio increases, whereas in case of HYDROS
it is within 10%. Some of the important observations that
can be made from this study are:
CFD analysis as an important and powerful tool in
the hands of an experienced designer, can provide
fruitful guidelines as to the merits of alternative
designs based on wave resistance.
The stage has been reached where CFD analysis can
stand on its own while evaluating various design
configurations. On this aspect it is the most cost-
effective solution when compared with traditional
tank testing, which could be costly and time
consuming.
Although numerical analysis is mature enough it is
still not at a stage where traditional tank testing can
be entirely ignored or replaced.
Figure 12: R
T
/W vs. Fn results for Model 7.
Figure 13: R
T
/W vs. Fn results for Model 8.
Figure 14: R
T
/W vs. Fn results for Model 9.
Figure 15: R
T
/W vs. Fn results for Model 10.

Model Regression SHIPFLOW HYDROS
1 0.00065 0.01474 0.00307
2 0.00646 0.01763 0.00308
3 0.00166 0.01707 0.00929
4 0.00054 0.01417 0.00656
5 0.00180 0.03085 0.00920
6 0.00165 0.01861 0.00412
7 0.12941 0.04467 0.01397
8 0.08907 0.08921 0.04518
9 0.00529 0.01440 0.00659
10 0.00157 0.01389 0.00668
11 0.06192 0.02758 0.00927
12 0.00293 0.01664 0.00822
13 0.00048 0.01734 0.00279
14 0.00119 0.01836 0.00449

Table 3: RMS Errors in R
T
/W with respect to
Experiment.
0.00
0.03
0.06
0.09
0.12
0.15
0.18
0.21
0.24
0.20 0.30 0.40 0.50 0.60 0.70 0.80 0.90 1.00 1.10
R
T
/
W
Experiment RT/W
RegressionRT/W
ShipflowRT/W
HydrosRT/W
0.00
0.02
0.04
0.06
0.08
0.10
0.12
0.14
0.16
0.18
0.20
0.00 0.10 0.20 0.30 0.40 0.50 0.60 0.70 0.80 0.90 1.00 1.10
R
T
/
W
Experiment RT/W
RegressionRT/W
ShipflowRT/W
HydrosRT/W
0.00
0.02
0.04
0.06
0.08
0.10
0.12
0.14
0.16
0.18
0.20 0.30 0.40 0.50 0.60 0.70 0.80 0.90 1.00 1.10
R
T
/
W
Experiment RT/W
RegressionRT/W
ShipflowRT/W
HydrosRT/W
0.00
0.02
0.04
0.06
0.08
0.10
0.12
0.14
0.16
0.18
0.20 0.30 0.40 0.50 0.60 0.70 0.80 0.90 1.00 1.10
R
T
/
W
Experiment RT/W
RegressionRT/W
ShipflowRT/W
Hydros RT/W
Fn
Fn Fn
Fn
10


Figure 16: R
T
/W vs. Fn results for Model 11.
Figure 17: R
T
/W vs. Fn results for Model 12.
Figure 18: R
T
/W vs. Fn results for Model 13.

Figure 19: RT/W vs. Fn results for Model 14.
Figure 20: R
T
/W Error (%) vs. L/B at Fn=0.30.
Figure 21: R
T
/W Error (%) vs. L/B at Fn=0.50

0.00
0.02
0.04
0.06
0.08
0.10
0.12
0.14
0.16
0.18
0.20
0.20 0.30 0.40 0.50 0.60 0.70 0.80 0.90 1.00 1.10
Fn
R
T
/
W
Experiment RT/W
RegressionRT/W
ShipflowRT/W
HydrosRT/W
0.00
0.02
0.04
0.06
0.08
0.10
0.12
0.14
0.16
0.18
0.20 0.30 0.40 0.50 0.60 0.70 0.80 0.90 1.00 1.10
Fn
R
T
/
W
Experiment RT/W
RegressionRT/W
ShipflowRT/W
HydrosRT/W
0.00
0.02
0.04
0.06
0.08
0.10
0.12
0.14
0.16
0.18
0.20 0.30 0.40 0.50 0.60 0.70 0.80 0.90 1.00 1.10
Fn
R
T
/
W
Experiment RT/W
RegressionRT/W
ShipflowRT/W
HydrosRT/W
0.00
0.02
0.04
0.06
0.08
0.10
0.12
0.14
0.16
0.18
0.20 0.30 0.40 0.50 0.60 0.70 0.80 0.90 1.00 1.10
Fn
R
T
/
W
Experiment RT/W
RegressionRT/W
ShipflowRT/W
HydrosRT/W
-10
-5
0
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
45
4 5 6 7 8
R
T
/
W

E
r
r
o
r

i
n

%
Regressiondiff. wrt Expt.
Shipflowdiff. wrt Expt.
Hydrosdiff. wrt Expt.
ConstantB/T=4&CB=0.5
-30
-25
-20
-15
-10
-5
0
5
4 5 6 7 8
R
T
/
W

E
r
r
o
r

i
n

%
Regressiondiff. wrt Expt.
Shipflowdiff. wrt Expt.
Hydrosdiff. wrt Expt.
ConstantB/T=4&CB=0.5
L/B
L/B
11


Figure 22: R
T
/W Error (%) vs. L/
1/3
at Fn=0.55.
Figure 23: R
T
/W Error (%) vs. L/
1/3
at Fn=0.80.

6. ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

The contributions of all industry participants, in
supplying the models, conducting the tests and providing
valuable guidelines throughout the project are gratefully
acknowledged. The authors would also like to extend
special thanks to Mr. Predrag Bojovic for the
development of the regression equation. The authors are
also indebted to Mr. Aminur Rashid for his invaluable
help in SHIPFLOW data analysis. We are grateful to Dr.
Carl-Erik Janson of FLOWTECH International AB for
guiding us through the complexities of SHIPFLOW
during the preparation of this paper. Last but not least, the
authors would like to thank Australian Maritime College
for financial support for this research work. In addition
the authors would like to express their gratitude to the
authorities at the University of New South Wales.

7. REFERENCES

Blok, J.J. and Beukelman, W. 1984 "The High-Speed
Displacement Ship Systematic Series Hull Forms -
Seakeeping Characteristics", Transactions, Society of
Naval Architects and Marine Engineers, Vol. 92:125-150.

Bojovic, P. 1995 "Regression Analysis of AMECRC
Systematic Series Calm Water Testing Results",
AMECRC IR 95/24: 1-37.

Bojovic, P. 1996 "Reanalysis of AMECRC Systematic
Series Calm Water Testing Results", AMECRC IR 96/10
Bojovic, P. and Sahoo, P.K. 1998 "A Study on Motion
Analysis of High Speed Displacement Hull Forms", Proc.
Seventh International Symposium on Practical Design of
Ships and Mobile Units, The Hague, The Netherlands:
545-553.

Doctors, L.J. 1995 "A Versatile Hull-Generator
Program", Proc. Twenty-First Century Shipping
Symposium, University of New South Wales, Sydney,
New South Wales, 140-158, Discussion: 158-159.

Doctors, L.J. 1998a "Intelligent Regression of Resistance
Data for Hydrodynamics in Ship Design", Proc. Twenty-
Second Symposium on Naval Hydrodynamics,
Washington DC, 16 pp.

Doctors, L.J. 1998b "An Improved Theoretical Model for
the Resistance of a Vessel with a Transom Stern", Proc.
Thirteenth Australasian Fluid Mechanics Conference (13
AFMC), Monash University, Melbourne, Victoria, Vol. 1:
271-274.

Doctors, L.J. and Day, A.H. 1997 "Resistance Prediction
for Transom-Stern Vessels", Proc. Fourth International
Conference on Fast Sea Transportation (FAST '97),
Sydney, Australia, Vol. 2: 743-750.

Fung, S.C. 1991 "Resistance And Powering Prediction
For Transom Stern Hull Forms During Early Stage Ship
Design", Transactions, Society of Naval Architects and
Marine Engineers, Vol. 99: 29-73.

Fung, S. C. and Leibman, L. 1993 "Statistically-Based
Speed-Dependent Powering Predictions For High-Speed
Transom Stern Hull Forms", NAVSEA 051-05H3-TN-
0100 : 71 + viii.

Fung, S.C, and Leibman. L. 1995 "Revised Speed-
Dependent Powering Predictions for High-Speed
Transom Stern Hull Forms", Proc. Third International
Conference on High-Speed Sea Transportation (FAST
'95): 151-164.

-120%
-100%
-80%
-60%
-40%
-20%
0%
20%
40%
60%
4 5 6 7 8 9
R
T
/
W

E
r
r
o
r

Experiment Regression
Shipflow Hydros
-120%
-100%
-80%
-60%
-40%
-20%
0%
20%
40%
60%
4 5 6 7 8 9
R
T
/
W

E
r
r
o
r
Experiment Regression
Shipflow Hydros
Slenderness Ratio
Slenderness Ratio
12


Janson, Carl-Erik. 1998 "Private Correspondences with
Dr. Prasanta K. Sahoo regarding the complexities of
SHIPFLOW".

Larsson, L. 1975 "Boundary layers of Ships (Three
Dimensional Effects)", Ph.D. thesis, Dept. of Applied
Thermo and Fluid Dynamics, Chalmers University of
Technology, Gothenburg.

Lewis, E.V. (Ed) 1988, Principles of Naval Architecture,
Vol. II- Resistance, Propulsion and Vibration, Section 9 -
High-Speed Craft and Advanced Marine Vehicles, Society
of Naval Architects and Marine Engineers, Jersey City,
New Jersey .

MacPherson, M. 1993 "Reliable Performance Prediction :
Techniques Using A Personal Computer", Marine
Technology, Vol. 30:4 : 243-257.

Maritime Research Institute Netherlands, 1987 "MARIN
High Speed Displacement Hull Form Designs", MARIN
Report 30.


































Rikard-Bell, M. 1992 "Report of Research -
October/November 1992", AMECRC IR 92/1 : 1-28.

Robson, B.L. 1988 "Systematic Series Of High Speed
Displacement Hull Forms For Naval Combatants",
Transactions, Royal Institution of Naval Architects, Vol.
130 : 241-252.

SHIPFLOW 1997 "SHIPFLOW 2.3 Release Notes and
Users Manual Update of FLOWTECH International AB".

Sirvio, J. and Oma, S. 1997 "Catamaran Hull Form
Development with CFD Computation, Correlation to
Model Tests and Full Scale Trials", The International
CFD Conference, Ulsteinvik, Norway.

StatSoft 1994 "STATISTICA for Windows", Manuals,
Vol. I - III.

Van Oossanen, P. and Pieffers, J.B.M. 1985 "NSMB-
Systematic Series Of High-Speed Displacement Forms",
Workshop on Developments in Hull Form Design,
Wageningen : 16.