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

net/publication/237453464

CHARACTERISTICS OF HYDRODYNAMIC DERIVATIVES IN MANEUVERING

EQUATIONS FOR SUPER HIGH-SPEED PLANING HULLS

Article · January 2000

CITATIONS READS
6 231

3 authors, including:

Toru Katayama
Osaka Prefecture University
100 PUBLICATIONS   273 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE

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

Damaged Stability View project

Roll Damping in Time Domain View project

All content following this page was uploaded by Toru Katayama on 01 July 2016.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

 The Proceedings of the 10th (2000) International OFFSHORE AND POLAR
ENGINEERING CONFERENCE, Yol.4, pp.434-444 (ISOPE2000)

CHARACTERISTICS OF HYDRODYNAMIC DERIVATIVES IN

MANEUVERING EQUATIONS FOR SUPER HIGH-SPEED PLANING
HULLS
Yoshiho IKEDA, Toru KATAYAMA and Hideaki OKUMURA
Department of Marine System Engineering, Osaka Prefecture University
Sakai, JAPAN

ABSTRACT In order to broaden the knowledge, measurements of hydrodynamic

In this study, characteristics of hydrodynamic derivatives in
maneuvering equations for a super high-speed planing hull, whose
speed is in a range of 2.0-6.0 of Froude numbers, are
experimentally investigated. The hydrodynamic forces acting on a
small model are measured by an oblique towing test, a PMM test,
and a newly developed PMM test in which roll, pitch and heave
motions are measured under free condition. Measured data show
that the derivatives significantly depend on running attitudes at
high speed. This fact suggests those effects of motion modes other
than the horizontal motions should be taken into account in the
mathematical model of maneuvering motion for planing hulls. On
the basis of the measured hydrodynamic forces, course keeping
qualities, turning performances and stability qualities of such hulls
at high speed are discussed.
forces acting on a captured planing-hull in oblique towing and in forced
pure sway and yaw motions by PMM, and of motions of a partly
captured hull forced to move by PMM test are carried out.
MODEL AND EXPERIMENTAL PROCEDURE
The model ship used in the experiments is a 1/4-scale model of a
personal watercraft, and its body plan is shown in Fig.1. The model size
is 0.63m long as shown in Table 1. The model is towed by a high-speed
carriage in the 70m-towing tank of Osaka Prefecture University, whose
maximum speed is 15m/s.
0.1 s.s.9.5

W.L. s.s.8.7

KEY WORDS: High-speed, maneuverability, hydrodynamic forces, s.s.0 s.s.7.9

planer motion mechanism, planing craft
s.s.7.1
s.s.6.3
s.s.5.5
s.s.1.6
s.s.5.5
INTRODUCTION
0
High-speed planing craft are widely used for many purposes. Some –0.1 0 0.1
types of such craft run at very high speed, up to six of Froude numbers.
C.L.
Even in calm water such craft sometimes suffer serious situations due to
instability, like porpoising, bow diving, large heel, difficulty of course Fig.1 Body plan of model ship
keeping and so on (Dand (1996), Blount et al. (1992), Ibaragi et al.
(1996), Katayama et al. (1995), Katayama et al. (1997)). Therefore
maneuvering quality of such craft is important for its safety. Table 1 Principal particulars of model
The maneuvering performance of a planing hull is different from that
of a displacement type of conventional ship, because the maneuvering length LOA 0.63m
motions affect the attitudes and speed of the craft, and the change of breadth B 0.223m
attitudes also affects the maneuvering characteristics. We should treat depth D 0.1m
the maneuvering motion of planing hulls as six degrees of freedom, draft D 0.07m
instead of in two degrees of freedom for a displacement type of ship weight W 5.976kgf
conventional ship. However we have very limited knowledge on the KG 0.107m
characteristics of the hydrodynamic forces acting on a planing hull in LCG from transom 0.255m
maneuvering motion and their effects on its maneuvering performance dead rise angle β 22deg.
(Kobayashi et al. (1995)).
 In oblique towing tests and fully captured PMM tests, the model is
fixed by a 6-components load-cell to measure all the forces and
moments acting on the hull. Attitudes, rise and trim, of it are
systematically changed for each speed. In partly captured PMM tests, U yaw angle
roll, heave and pitch motions are measured under free condition, and the
load cell measures sway force, surge force and yaw moment acting on forward β (+)
the model. speed

RESULTS OF OBLIQUE TOWING TESTS load cell

Mz (+)
Schematic view of the setup of the tests and the coordinate system yaw
used here are shown in Fig.2. Measured forces and moments are
non-dimensionalised as follows, moment

Fx (1)
C Fx =
0.5 ρSyU
2
C.G. Fy (+)
Fy (2) side force
C Fy =
0.5 ρSyU
2

Mx
Fx (+)
C Mx = (3) drag force
W⋅B
My (4)
C My = Top view
0.5ρ SxLU
2

Mz (5)
C Mz =
0.5 ρSyLU
2

C Fz =
Fz (6) load cell
0.5ρ SzU
2

Fz (+)
The yaw angle and the attitudes of the model are systematically lift force
changed as shown in Table 2. Measured forces and moments for side force
C.G.
various advanced speeds are shown in Fig.3. The results demonstrate Fy (+)
that all the forces and moments are in proportional to square of
advanced speed. This fact suggests that we can obtain the
hydrodynamic coefficients of constant value for each attitude at any
speeds. Mx (+)
heel moment
Table 2 Experimental conditions

condition A B C D E F
H: rise(mm) 35 45 55 35 45 45 Φ (+) heel angle
C.L.
φ:heel(degree) 20 30 10 10 10 20
τ:trim(degree) 2 4 4 4 2 2 Posterior view
β:yaw(degree) 10 10 10 10 10 10

In Figs.4 and 5, the measured yaw moment and side force, which load cell
U
play important roles in maneuvering performance, are shown for
various attitudes, which means rise, heel and trim. The results show that forward speed
both the coefficients are in proportional to yaw angle. It should be noted Fz (+)
that the yaw moment is very sensitive to the change of each attitude, lift force My(+)
and that the side force depends only on trim. These results suggest that trim moment
appropriate hydrodynamic forces for corresponding attitudes should be drag force
used for prediction of maneuvering performance of a planing craft. The Fx (+)
yaw moment shown in Fig.4 increases with rising or floating of the hull. rise C.G.
This fact demonstrates that the course keeping ability of a planing craft H(+) duct
increases as the advanced speed increases.
τ
The lift force, the trim and the heel moments are shown in Figs.6, 7 trim angle
and 8 respectively. Significant dependences of these hydrodynamic
forces on yaw angle and other attitudes suggest that attitudes of a craft
must change drastically in maneuvering motion. It should be noted that Side view
the negative heel moment is found as shown in Fig.8, which means
negative restoring moment causes very large heel in turning motion of a
high-speed planing craft. Fig.2 Schematic views of experimental setup and coordinate system
 drag force roll moment
Fx(kgf) Mx(kgfm)
10
0.5
: Condition A
: Condition B
: Condition C
5 0.25

0 0
0 5 10 U(m/s)
0 5 10 U(m/s)

side force trim moment

Fy(kgf) My(kgfm)
15 2
: Condition A
: Condition B 1
10 : Condition C
0
0 5 10 U(m/s)
5
–1 : Condition A
: Condition B
0 –2 : Condition C
0 5 10 U(m/s)

vertical lift force yaw moment

Fz(kgf) Mz(kgfm)
15
: Condition A 1 : Condition A
: Condition B : Condition B
10 : Condition C : Condition C

0.5
5

0 0
0 5 10 U(m/s) 0 5 10 U(m/s)

: measured
: mean line ( Fi , Mi = AU2 )
(A : experimental coefficient )

Fig.3 Effects of advanced speed on hydrodynamic forces acting on a fully captured and obliquely towed model
 Fn=2.0 Fn=2.0
CMz Rise CFy
0.1 1
: H= 35mm Rise
: H= 45mm
0.05 : H= 55mm : H= 35mm
: H= 45mm
0.5 : H= 55mm
0
0 10 20 30
β(deg.) β(deg.)
0
–0.05 0 10 20 30

at heel angle φ=20deg. & trim angle τ=4deg. at heel angle φ=10deg. & trim angle τ=4deg.

C Mz Heel CFy Heel

0.1 1
: φ= 0deg. : φ= 0deg.
: φ= 10deg. : φ= 10deg.
: φ= 20deg. : φ= 20deg.
0.05 : φ= 30deg. : φ= 30deg.
0.5
0
0 10 20 30
β(deg.) β(deg.)
–0.05 0
0 10 20 30

at rise H=45mm & trim angle τ=4deg. at rise H=35mm & trim angle τ=2deg.

CMz CFy Trim

0.1 Trim 1
: τ= 0deg. : τ= 0deg.
: τ= 2deg. : τ= 2deg.
0.05 : τ= 4deg. : τ= 4deg.
: τ= 6deg. : τ= 6deg.
β(deg.) 0.5
0
0 10 20 30
β(deg.)
–0.05 0
0 10 20 30
at rise H=35mm & heel angle φ=20deg. at rise H=45mm & trim angle φ=20deg.

Fig.4 Effect of running attitude on yaw moment coefficient Fig.5 Effect of running attitude on side force coefficient
 Fn=2.0 Fn=2.0

C Fz C My Rise
Rise 0.02
: H= 35mm
0.2 : H= 35mm : H= 45mm
: H= 45mm : H= 55mm
: H= 55mm 0.01

0.1 β(deg.)
0
0 10 20 30
β(deg.)
0 –0.01
0 10 20 30

at heel angle φ=20deg. & trim angle τ=4deg. at heel angle φ=10deg. & trim angle τ=4deg.

Heel
Heel : φ= 0deg.
C Fz C My
: φ= 10deg.
: φ= 0deg. 0.02
: φ= 20deg.
0.2 : φ= 10deg. : φ= 30deg.
: φ= 20deg.
: φ= 30deg. 0.01
0.1
0
0 10 20 30
β(deg.)
0 –0.01
0 10 20 30
β(deg.)

at rise H=35mm & trim angle τ=4deg. at rise H=35mm & trim angle τ=6deg.

Trim Trim
CFz CMy
: τ= 0deg. 0.02 : τ= 0deg.
: τ= 2deg. : τ= 2deg.
0.2 : τ= 4deg. : τ= 4deg.
: τ= 6deg. 0.01 : τ= 6deg.
β(deg.)
0.1
0
0 10 20 30
0 –0.01
0 10 20 30
β(deg.)
at rise H=45mm & heel angle φ=20deg. at rise H=55mm & heel angle φ=10deg.

Fig.6 Effects of running attitude on vertical lift coefficient Fig.7 Effects of running attitude on trim moment coefficient
 RESULTS OF FULLY CAPTURED PMM TESTS

In the fully captured PMM tests, the model is forced to move in three
Fn=2.0 modes as shown in Fig. 9. A body fixed coordinate is used and whose
origin is not at the center of gravity, the motion can be expressed by
following equations.
Rise
C Mx Surge: m(u& − vr − xG r 2 ) + Fx A = Fx + Fx E (7)
: H= 35mm
m(v& + ur + xG r&) + Fy A = Fy + FyE
2
: H= 45mm Sway: (8)
0.3 : H= 55mm Heave: Fz A = Fz + Fz E (9)
β(deg.) Roll: − I XZ ⋅ r& + Mx A = Mx + Mx E (10)
0 Pitch: − I XZ ⋅ r2 + MyA = My + MyE (11)
0 10 20 30 Yaw: (I ZZ + mxG )r& + mxG (v& + ur ) + Mz A = Mz + Mz E
2
(12)

–0.3 where v and v& denote velocity and acceleration of sway motion
respectively, r and r& are angular velocity and acceleration of yaw
motion, u is advanced speed, m and I are mass and moment of inert ia of
–0.6 the model, xG is the distance between midship and the center of gravity.
F and M without any subscript denote hydrodynamic forces and
at heel angle φ=20deg. & trim angle τ=4deg.
moments acting on the model hull respectively, F and M with subscript
E are measured ones by the load cell, and F and M with subscript A
shows forces acting on the experimental apparatus except the model
Heel under the load cell. Hydrodynamic forces and moments acting on the
hull can be expressed by following mathematical models.
: φ= 0deg.
CMx : φ= 10deg. Fx = Fx &v&vv&2 + Fxr&r& r& 2 + Fx vvv 2 + Fxrr r 2 + Fx &v&r v&r& + Fx vrvr (13)

0.3 : φ= 20deg. Fy = Fyv& v& + Fyr& r& + Fyv v + (Fyr + Fxu&ru&)r

: φ= 30deg. + Fyvvv v 3 + Fy vvrv 2 r + Fy vrrvr 2 + Fy rrr r 3 (14)
β(deg.) Fz = Fz &v&v v& + Fz r&&r r& + Fz vv v + Fz rr r + Fz v&r& v&r& + Fz vr vr
2 2 2 2 (15)
0 Mx = Mx v& v& + Mx r& r& + Mx v v + Mx r r
0 10 20 30
+ Mx vvv v 3 + Mx vvr v 2 r + Mx vrr vr 2 + Mx rrr r 3 (16)
My = My v&v& v& + My r&&r r& 2 + My vvv 2 + My rrr 2 + My &v&rv&r& + Myvr vr (17)
2
–0.3
Mz = Mz v& v& + Mz r& r& + Mz v v + Mz r r
+ Mz vvv v 3 + Mz vvr v 2 r + Mz vrr vr 2 + Mzrrr r 3 (18)
–0.6
Hydrodynamic coefficients in Eqs.(13) to (18) are obtained by
at rise H=35mm & trim angle τ=4deg.
expanding measured data into Fourier series.

Trim Pure Sway r=0

C Mx : τ= 0deg.
: τ= 2deg.
0.3 : τ= 4deg.
: τ= 6deg.
Pure Yaw
β(deg.)
v=0

0
0 10 20 30

–0.3
Combined Motion

–0.6
at rise H=45mm & heel angle φ=0deg.

Fig.8 Effects of running attitude on heel moment coefficient Fig.9 Modes of forced motion in planar motion mechanism test
 In Fig.10 an example of measured forces in a pure sway mode are
shown. The thick broken lines in the figure show the predicted forces on
a quasi-static assumption, in which the measured hydrodynamic forces
by oblique towing tests are used. The predicted forces and moments are
in fairly good agreement with experimental ones. In Fig.11, one of these
examples in a combined mode is shown. They don’t reach good
agreement because the effects of yaw motion are not taken into account
in the prediction. It should be noted that hydrodynamic heave force and
pitch moment with double frequency of forced motions are acting on
the hull as shown in Fig.11. This fact means that heave and pitch
motions with higher frequency can be induced by sway and yaw
motions in maneuvering for the planing craft.

3 Fx 0.5
Mx
kgf kgfm
2
0
8 10 12
1
–0.5 sec.
0
8 10 12 sec. My
2 Fy 0
kgf kgfm 8 10 12 sec.

0 –0.3
8 10 12
sec.
–2 –0.6

4
Fz Mz
0.2
kgf kgfm
2
0
8 10 12
0
8 10 12 sec.
–0.2 sec.
Yaw Angular Yaw Angular
Velocity Velocity
5 5
rad. /s rad. /s
0 0
8 10 12 sec. 8 10 12 sec.
–5 –5

Sway Velocity Sway Velocity

5 5
m/s m/s
0 0
8 10 12 sec. 8 10 12 sec.
–5 –5

:measured :predicted on quasi-static assumption

Fig.10 Comparison of time histories between measured and predicted hydrodynamic forces obtained by pure sway test
 3 Fx kgfm Mx
kgf 1
2
0
1 10 12 14
sec.
–1
0
10 12 sec. 14 My
5 Fy
kgf kgfm 0 10 12 sec. 14
–0.2
0
10 12 14
–0.4
sec.
–5

4
Fz Mz
kgf 0.5
kgfm
2
0
10 12 14
0 sec.
10 12 sec. 14 –0.5
Yaw Angular Yaw Angular
Velocity Velocity
2 2
rad./s rad./s
0 0
10 12 sec. 14 10 12 sec. 14
–2 –2

Sway Velocity Sway Velocity

0.5 0.5
m/s m/s
0 0
10 12 14 10 12 14
–0.5 sec. –0.5 sec.

:measured :predicted on quasi-static assumption

Fig.11 Comparison of time histories between measured and predicted hydrodynamic forces obtained by combined motion test
RESULTS OF PARTLY CAPTURED PMM TESTS

Roll Amplitude (mm)

In order to know the effects of maneuvering motions on running
attitude of the craft, partly captured PMM tests, in which heave, pitch
: Pure Sway
20 : Pure Yaw
and roll motions are measured under free condition, are carried out. As
expected from the results shown in previous section, it is found that
large heave and pitch motions with double frequency and large roll
motion with the same frequency as that of forced PMM motions occur
in a special condition as shown in Fig. 12. The condition is found to be
10
that the roll natural frequency is half of the heave and pitch natural
frequencies, and that forced sway or yaw motion is given the model by
PMM apparatus. The roll, heave and pitch motions induced by the
PMM tests are shown in Figs.13, 14 and 15. We can see very large
amplitude motions occur near 0.7-0.8 second of forced PMM motion’s
period, which is almost same as the roll natural period of the model. In
0
0 0.4 0.8 1.2 1.6
order to clarify the mechanism of such a violent motion mentioned Period of forced motion(s)
above, more detailed investigations are needed on hydrodynamic forces
acting on the hull and appropriate ship motion equations for a planing
craft including maneuvering motion and ship motions.
1.6

Roll period(deg.)
Pure Sway Test U=5m/s T=0.8s 1.2
Heave(mm)

0
10 12 14 16
–20 sec.
0.8
–40

–60
0.4
20
(deg.)
Roll(deg.)

10
Heel

0 0
10 12 14 16 sec. 0 0.4 0.8 1.2 1.6
–10 Period of forced motion(s)
–20
15
Pitch (deg.)

90 180
roll and sway velocity (deg.)

roll and yaw velocity (deg.)

Phase difference between
Phase difference between

10 60 150
5 30 120
0 90
0
10 12 14 16 sec.
20 –30 60
Sway

0
10 12 14 16 sec. –60 30
–20
–90 0
–120 –30
0 0.4 0.8 1.2 1.6
Fig.12 Time histories of ship motions obtained by partly captured PMM
test
Period of forced motion (s)

Fig.13 Results of roll motion obtained by partly captured PMM tests

 18
Heave Amplitude (mm)

Pitch Amplitude (deg.)

4
12

: Pure Sway 2
6
: Pure Yaw

0 0
0 0.4 0.8 1.2 1.6 0 0.4 0.8 1.2 1.6
Period of forced motion(s) Period of forced motion(s)

Pitch period(s) 0.6

Heave period(s)

0.6

0.4 0.4

0.2 0.2

0 0
0 0.4 0.8 1.2 0 0.4 0.8 1.2
Period of forced motion(s) Period of forced motion(s)
Time average of heave (mm)

Time average of pitch (deg.)

12

40
8

直進時のHeave
: running attitude
20 without planar
motion 4 直進時のPitch
: running attitude
without planar
motion

0 0
0 0.4 0.8 1.2 1.6 0 0.4 0.8 1.2 1.6
Period of forced motion(s) Period of forced motion(s)

Fig.14 Results of heave motion obtained by partly captured PMM tests Fig.15 Results of pitch motion obtained by partly captured PMM tests
CONCLUSIONS

Through an oblique towing tests for various attitudes, fully captured

PMM tests and partly captured PMM tests of a planing craft model,
maneuvering characteristics of a planing hull are experimentally
investigated. Following conclusions are obtained.
1. Hydrodynamic forces and moments acting on an obliquely towed
planing hull significantly depend on running attitude. Therefore
maneuvering motion and the running attitude are affected each
other for the planing craft.
2. In the prediction of the maneuvering performance of the planing
craft, all ship motions should be taken into account although
conventional displacement ship can be predicted by considering
only horizontal motions, which are sway and yaw motions.
3. Maneuvering motion can induce violent roll, heave and pitch
motions when the natural frequencies of heave and pitch motions
coincide with double of the roll natural frequency and the
maneuvering motion has the same frequency as the roll natural
frequency.

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

A part of the present study is supported by a Grand-in-Aid for

Scientific Research of the Ministry of Education, Science Sports and
Culture in Japan (10355037).

REFERENCES

Dand, I. (1996), “Directional Instability and Safety of High Speed

Marine Vehicles”, Proc. of the 5th International Conference on High
Speed Marine Craft Safe Design and Safe Operation
Blount, D. B. and Codega, L.T. (1992), “Dynamic Stability of Planing
Boats”, Marine Technology, Vol.29, No.1, pp 4-12
Ibaragi, H., Kijima, K. and Washio, Y. (1996), “Study on the
Transverse Instability of a High-Speed Craft”, Trans. of West-Japan
Society of Naval Architects, No.91, pp 39-50
Katayama, T. and Ikeda, Y. (1995), “An Experimental Study on
Transverse Stability Loss of planing Craft at High Speed in Calm
Water”, Jour. of the Kansai Society of Naval Architects, Japan,
No.224, pp 77-85
Katayama, T. and Ikeda, Y. (1997), “ A Study on Coupled Pitch and
Heave Porpoising Instability of Planing Craft (3rd report)”, Jour. of
the Kansai Society of Naval Architects, Japan, No.228, pp 71-78
Kobayashi, H. and Shimura, Y. (1995), “A Study on the
Maneuverability of High -Speed Boat ”, Jour. of the Kansai Society of
Naval Architects, Japan, No.223, pp 91-98

View publication stats