Savitsky 1

R-344
LABORATORY
REPORT SIT-DL-48-344 NOVEMBER 1948
WAVE CONTOURS IN THE WAKE OF A 10 DEADRISE PLANING SURFACE by B.V. Korvin-Kroukovsky Daniel Savitsky William F. Lehman
PREPARED UNDER SPONSORSHIP OF THE U.S. NAVY OFFICE OF NAVAL RESEARCH PROJECT NO. NR 062-012 EXPERIMENTAL TOWING TANK STEVENS INSTITUTE OF TECHNOLOGY Hoboken, N.J.
-O
R-344
DAVIDSON LABORATORY
WAVE CONTOURS IN THE WAKE OF A 10 DEADRISE PLANING SURFACE
by B.V. Korvin-Kroukovsky Daniel Savitsky William F. Lehman
STEVENS INSTITUTE OF TECHNOLOGY CASTLE POINT STATION HOBOKEN, NEW JERSEY 07030
t-
R-344
DAVIDSON LABORATORY
by B.V. Korvin-Kroukovsky Daniel Savitsky William F. Lehman
STEVE-NS INSTITUTE OF TECHNOLOGY

CASTLE POINT STATION HOBOKEN, NEW JERSEY 07030
p e t
TECHNICAL REPORT SIT-DL-84-9-344 NOVEMBER 1948 WAVE CONTOURS IN THE WAKE OF A 10 DEADRISE PLANING SURFACE by B.V. Korvin-Kroukovsky Daniel Savitsky William F. Lehman Prepared for U.S. Navy Office Of Naval Research under Project No. NR 062-012
33 I
Prepared under sponsorship of U.S. Navy Office of Naval Research Project No. NR 062-012 (E.T.T. Project No. CC839)
Report No. 3hh by B.V. Korvin-Kroukovsky Daniel Savitsky William F. Lehman
. NOVEMBER 19U8
Experimental Touring Tank Stevens Institute of Technology Hoboken, New Jersey
TABLE OF CONTENTS
SUMMARY . INTRODUCTION SYMBOLS MODEL AND APPARATUS TEST PROCEDURE RESULTS AND DISCUSSION Longitudinal and Transverse Sections Through Wake Curves for Estimating Afterbody Wetted Area Effect of Deadrise Angle on Centerline Profile Through Wake CONCLUDING REMARKS REFERENCES TABLE Is PLANING TEST RUNS OF 10 DEADRISE PLANING SURFACE PRISMATIC 10 DEADRISE PLANING SURFACE DETAILED LOCATION OF MEASURING ROD POSITIONS CHARTS Relation between Height of Longitudinal, <t. Wave Profile ' and Aspect Ratio at Various Distances Aft of a 10 Deadrise Planing Surface for Cy = 36 Relation between Height of Longitudinal <^ Wave Profile and Load Coefficient at Various Distances Aft of a 10 Deadrise Planing Surface for Cy = 3.69 Variation of the Longitudinal <, Wave Profile with Aspect Ratio and Trim in the Wake of a 10 Deadrise Planing Surface at Various Speed Coefficients Variation of the Longitudinal ^ Wave Profile with Load Coefficient and Trim in the Wake of a 10 Deadrise Planing Surface at Various Speed Coefficients Comparison ol Relations between <, Profile Wave Height and Aspect Katio for 10 and 20 Deadrise Planing Surface at C v = 369 Comparison of Relations between <^ Profile Wave Height and Load Coefficient for 10 and 20 Deadrise Planing Surface at Cy = 369 Comparison of < f c . Profile Wave Heights for 10 and 20 Deadrise Planing Surface at Aspect Ratio of 3.00 Experimental Wave Contours Aft of Step for Each Test Run
1 1 2 3 3 U $ 6 8 9 10 H 12 13
lU 15> 16 20 2k 2 26 27
- 1 SUMMARY
Model tests were made at the Experimental Towing Tank, Stevens Institute of Teclinology, to determine the shape of the wave contours in the -wake of a 10 deadrise prismatic float planing with parts of the chines submerged. The tests were run at various forward speeds and loadings, with trijns of k 8# and 12. Measurements of the water displacement relative to level water were made over an area in the wake extending from the step to six beams aft, and for a distance of three beams on each side of the planing surface centerline. These wake data are presented in the form of transverse and longitudinal sections through the wake for each test run. The longitudinal contours in the wake taken along the planing surface centerline indicate a consistent variation with trim, speed, and aspect ratio. These contours are presented in a form that enables seaplane designers tc readily estimate the contact area between the forebody wake and afterbody bottom for a range of pertinent planing conditions. The general shape and features of the wake of a 10 deadrise planing surface are basically similar to those of a 20 deadrise planing surface. A reduction in deadrise angle, however, slightly reduces the height of the centerline profile but does not materially affect the relations between change in wave height and change in aspect ratio or load coefficient. The study was made under the sponsorship of the Office of Naval Research, Navy Department.
INTRODUCTION
The development of methods for rationally evaluating afterbody planing forces on a seaplane has long been handicapped by the absence of either experimental or theoretical data defining the shape of the forebody wake in which the afterbody must perform. A research program has been undertaken at the Experimental Towing Tank, Stevens Institute of Technology, to investigate and define the shape of the wake formation behind a prismatic planing surface at various forward speeds and wetted lengths. A series of planing tests were conducted on several Vee-bottom surfaces having deadrise angles of 10, 20, and 30. Ref, 1 presents the experimentally obtained wave contours in the wake of a 20 deadrise planing surface for planing conditions simulating the two-step planing stage of either the landing or take-off run of a seaplane. This report presents and discusses the wave contours in the wake of a 10 deadrise planing surface and compares these data with those obtained in Ref. 1 to
- 2 -
indicate the effect of planing surface deadrise on the trailing wake. All the tests were made under the auspices of the Office of Naval Research, Task Order IV, Contract N6onr 2 l | . 7 * The tests on the 10 deadrise planing surface were made over a range of velocities and test loadings that resulted in partial chine submergence in order to simulate the two-step planing stage of a landing or take-off. As in Ref. 1, the wake data are presented in the form of transverse and longitudinal sections through the wake formations. Also, the longitudinal wave profiles along the planing surface centerline are summarized in the form of plots which enable the seaplane designer to readily estimate the afterbody planing area for various planing conditions. These longitudinal centerline profiles are compared with the 20 deadrise profiles presented in Ref. 1.
SYMBOLS
The various terms and hydrodynamic coefficients used in this report are as follows: C^ O. Load Coefficient = A/wb^ - A/ V 2 b 2 = (L, + L ) /2b Speed Coefficient = V//gF Lift Coefficient Aspect Ratio where: A b w V g p L^ Lc also: d load on water, lb. beam of planing surface, ft. specific weight of water, lb./c\i.t. (62.3 lb./cu.ft. for these tests) = horizontal velocity of planing surface, ft./sec. = acceleration of gravity, 32.2 ft./sec.2 = mass density of water, w/g . .= wetted keel length, ft. = wetted chine length, ft. = =
' distance of keel below level water, measured at step, normal to level water, beams. H = height of wave profile along planing surface centerline, measured normal to keel extended aft, beams, p = angle of deadrise of planing surface, deg. T" . = planing surface trim, angle of keel to horizontal, deg.
R-3UU -3 MODEL AND APPARATUS
The 10 deadrise planing surface was tested in Tank No. 3 of the Experimental Towing Tank (Ref. 2 ) . The model .was of laminated white pine having a beam of 0.U16 ft and a constant angle of deadrise over its entire length. The principal lines and dimensions defining the size and shape of the model are shown on Fig. 1. Dark stripes, spaced at intervals of 0.20 beams, were painted across the keel and chine from the step to the bow in order to facilitate the measurement of the wetted keel and chine lengths. The shape of the wave contours in the wake of the 10 deadrise planing surface v/as obtained from underwater photographs of streamlined measuring rods which were towed in the wake behind the model. The shape of the wake contours was determined by noting the intersection of the displaced water surface with the rodso A detailed description of the sliape and location of the measuring rods*, along with a description of the underwater photographic set-up and equipment used in these tests are given in Ref 1. The overall accuracy in measuring the displacement of the water surface was estimated to be approximately 2 percent of the beam.
TEST PROCEDURE
The 10 deadrise planing surface was towed in smooth water with no yaw at fixed trims of ki> Qe and 12 and was unrestrained in vertical motion. At each trim, the bowing speed was varied between 11 ft./sec. and 20 ft./sec. while the load on the water Y/as adjusted to correspond to various amounts of chine submergence. As in the case of the 20 deadrise models the condition of partial chine submergence was maintained throughout the testsp since for most seaplanes, the afterbody planing forces resulting from afterbody contact with tlie roach of the forebody wake have a major effect on the resultant trim in the region of the hump speed* In this semi-planing stage*, the seaplane usually runs with the chines partially submerged. In those planing stages wherein the chines are not submerged,, the afterbody T/ould probably be in contact with the spray generated by the forebody rather than with the solid water in the roach; however,, it is not e:<pected that the forebody spray would result in any appreciable afterbody planing forces. The test conditions given in Table I (page 11) were established by using the condition of partial cliine submergence as a criterion. It will be noted from this ts.buls.tion that at each test trim, the planing surface was towed at several, aspect ratios. The smallest aspect ratio
R-3W4
at each test trim corresponds to approximately the shortest wetted lengths at which the chines are initially submerged when the float model is towed in smooth water. The largest aspect ratio tested corresponds to approximately the longest wetted lengths that occur in the region of the hump speed for most conventional seaplanes. Several intermediate aspect ratios were also investigated at each test trim. In order to investigate the effect of velocity on the wake shape, the model was towed at a series of planing speeds at each test trim. The range of speed coefficients covered in these tests corresponds to those just below and somewhat above typical hump speeds for most seaplanes. The shape of the wave contours in the wake is obtained from individual underwater photographs of each of seven transverse rows of measuring rods spaced at intervals of 1 beam length aft of the model. The detailed location of these measuring rods in the wake is given in Fig. 2. The procedure involved in obtaining the underwater photographs of the wake intersection with the measuring rods is exactly similiar to that used in the tests of the 20 deadrise planing surface described in Ref. 1. The wetted keel and chine lengths, from which the test aspect ratios of Table I are evaluated, were obtained from underwater photographs of the wetted bottom area (see Fig. 6 of Ref. 1 ) .
RESULTS AND DISCUSSION
A summary of the planing test conditions for the 10 deadrise planing surface is given in Table I. Included in this tabulation are the nondimensional velocity, loadp and lift coefficients for each test run, along with the test aspect ratios obtained from the underwater photographs of the wetted bottom areas. These nondimensional coefficients are tabulated in order to facilitate the identification of each test run by whatever method of defining planing parameters may be specified. The walco data obtained from the planing tests are presented in three groups of charts (Figs. $ through 39)* each group is discussed separately in the following sections. Figs. 16 through 39 present a detailed description of the wake shape for each test in the form of longitudinal and transverse section plots drawn through the area surveyed. Figs. 5 through 12 illustrate the variation in the longitudinal wave profile along the planing surface centerline, with change in planing parameters; these charts have been so arranged as to be directly applicable to the determination of afterbody wetted areas for various planing conditions. On Figs. 13 through 1$, a comparison is made between the centerline profiles for the 10 and 20 deadrise bottoms, in order to illustrate the effect of deadrise on forebody wake shape.
-5 Longitudinal and Transverse Sections Through Vfake The displacement of the water surface obtained from the underwater photographs of the measuring rods is plotted on Figs 16 through 39 to determine the shape of the transverse and longitudinal contours through the wake For each test condition, transverse contours were draivn at each of the seven transverse stations at which rod measurements were made, and longitudinal contours were drawn through the area between the planing surface centerline and 0U0 beams outboard of the centerline. As with the 20 deadrise tests, the height of the wave contour at the longitudinal .centerline, and the height and location of the wave crest were not directly measured,. However, by using the method of fairing described in Ref 1, these quantities were fairly accurately definedThe shape of the transverse wave contour at the step station immediately adjacent to the sides of the planing surface (shown by a short dashed line) was veiy difficult to determine by the method of measurement used in these testsj consequently, no reliable test data concerning the shape of this portion of the curve were obtainedo The theoretical results given in Fig. 2 of Kef. 3 for defining the shape of the free streamline of the discontinuous flow past a submerged wedge were therefore utilized to calculate the shape of this region of the transverse wave contours at the step. The calculated curves for the 10 deadrise model faired into the experimental curves very satisfactorily for every planing test run. In general,, the characteristics of the wake contours for the 10 deadrise planing surface are similar to those described for the 20 deadrise bottom in I t e f < > 1- That is,, the hollow,,, or trough, formed immediately aft of the planing surface first increases in depth and area with increasing distance aft of the planing surface. Then, as the distance aft is further increased, the area and depth of the trough are decreased and the' water surface at the model centerline is raised above the original level water position to form the so-called "rooster tail", or roach, of the waive. Also, for wave profiles in transverse planes through the wake*, the area of the trough below level water is always larger than the area of water raised above level water,a fact wliich-nffas first apparent in the analysis of the 20 deadrise wake data.'1 A partial, qualitative explanation for this area deficiency is that some of the water displaced by the planing surface is converted into spray thrown out to* the sides c The underwater photograph on Fig. 7 of Ref. 1 clearly shows the motion of some of the displaced water to be that of a high velocity stream flovri.ng outward from keel to chine along the stagnation line at the forward end of the wetted area. This flow along the stagnation line is responsible for the formation of most of the so-called main spray associated with planing surfaces. The characteristics of the wave crests, formed by the intersection of the raised and hollowed areas of the wave in. any transverse section, are substantially similar for both deadrise planing surfaces* namely, the width between v;ave crests is never less than approximately 1-1/2
R-3JUU
- 6beams, and the maximum height of the wave crests is nearly 0.30 beams, usually occurring between 1 and 2 beams aft of the step. The height of the wave crests increases noticeably vdth increasing trim and aspect ratio but increases only slightly as the speed increases. The angle between the line drawn through the peaks of the wave crests and the planing surface centerline, as seen in plan view, is large at small planing speeds and low angles of trim but decreases as each of these parameters is increased. The planing speed has a major effect in changing this angle and, at velocity coefficients of approximately 5 and larger, the line of wave crests is almost' parallel to the float centerline. Thus, it is seen that reducing the planing surface deadrise angle from 20 to 10 does not have any pronounced effect upon the overall shape and general features of the trailing wake. A comparison of the experimental wake contours of the 20 deadrise planing surface given in Figs. 18 through 38 of Ref. 1 with those of the 10 deadrise planing surface presented on Figs. 16 through 39 of this report shows that the wave contours for similar planing conditions are not very much different. Many of the differences that do exist are probably small enough to be obscured by the experimental scatter of the data. One distinction between wave contours that was noticed, however, was that the longitudinal centerline profiles for the 10 deadrise planing surface, plotted on the keel axis extended aft, are slightly lower than those for the 20 deadrise bottom. This difference will be discussed further in the sections that follow. Curves for Estimating Afterbody Wetted Area The longitudinal contours of the wake along the planing surface centerline are of primary importance in determining the size and position of the afterbody wetted area. Thus* the longitudinal centerline profiles given in Figs. 16 through 39 have been analyzed and then arranged into a series of charts (Figs. $ through 12) from whioh the designer can determine, with a minimum of effort, the shape of the longitudinal centerline profile of the wake for various planing conditions of a 10 deadrise forebody. By combining these profile shapes with the lines of the afterbody, the magnitude and position of the afterbody contact area can thus be readily estimated for most two-step planing conditions. The shape of the centerline profile through the wake of the 10 deadrise planing surface is defined with respect tb the planing surface keel which is extended aft and used as a coordinate system (Figs.5 through 12). This method of presentations which is similar to that used in Ref. l f is advantageous in that all the centerline profiles given in the section plots (Figs. 16 through 39) can be compared on a common basis from which the effects of variables of the planing process can be graphically illustrated. It will be noted that the centerline profile curves are divided into two groups of plots. Figs. 5 through 8 illustrate the effect on the shape of the centerline profile by varying the aspect ratio and trim angle at four different speed coefficients. Figs. 9 through 12 show the variation in profile shape with varying load coefficients and trim angles at the same four speed coefficients. Although either group of figures would suffice
R-3UU - 7in defining the centerline profile, both groups are presented so that these data can be applicable when a forebody planing condition -is specified either in terras of aspect ratio or load coefficient. The summaries of the centerline profile curves shown on Figs. 5 through 12 are quite comprehensive, illustrating the shape of these curves over a range of aspect ratios and load coefficients at each of four separate speed coefficients. An examination of the planing test conditions listed in Table I shows that an extensive investigation of the effect of variation in X and C^ was made only at one speed coefficient; namely, Cy = 36S>. In order to establish the range of centerline profile curves at other speed coefficients, a procedure exactly similar to that described in Ref. 1 was employed: relations between change in wave height and change in aspect ratio or load coefficient were established from the test data obtained at Cy - 36Q and then these same relations were assumed to exist at other test speed coefficients. Thus, the height of the centerline profile curve obtained at a particular value of X or C A and at a test Cy other than 3,69 was increased or decreased by the relations established at Cy = 3-&9 to derive the centerline profile heights corresponding to larger or smaller values of X or C^ respectively. The detailed calculations involved in this procedure are not presented in this report. However, the relations between change in height of the centerline profile, at various distances aft of the step, and aspect ratio established at Cy => 3&9. are shown on Fig. 3 for each trim tested. The relations between change in profile height and change in load coefficient also established at a Cy of 3&9 are shown on Fig. k* The test points plotted on these charts were obtained by transforming the test data given in the section plots on Figs. 16 through 39 to the coordinate system, using the planing surface keel, extended aft, as the abscissa. It will be seen that a linear variation exists between the aspect ratio or load coefficient and the centerline profile height at any distance aft of the planing surface. The wave height increases with increasing aspect ratio or ' load coefficient and, up to a distance of six beams aft of the step, the rate of increase in wave height is generally larger at greater distances aft of the step. As with the 20 deadrise data, the range of X and CA for which the 10 deadrise profile curves were established at speed coefficients other than 3O) corresponds to the range of wetted lengths in which the linear relations of Figs. 3 and k were determined. Thus, all wave profiles in this report correspond to the planing condition with partial cliine submergence. The equation given on Figs. $ through 8 for determining tlie depth "d" of the aft end of the keel below level water in terms of X and X is derived by the procedure described in Appendix I of Ref. 1. * Basically, the general characteristics of the centerline profile curves were not noticeably affected by reducing the deadrise angle from 20 to 10. It will be seen that an increase in trim angle, aspect ratio, or load coefficient increases the height of the centerline profile, with increases in trim having the greatest effect. An increase in planing speed reduces the height of the curves at any station aft of the step and moves the roach further aft. The angle of the tangent drawn to the curve of the centerline profile at the step is always less than the trim angl-j the difference between these angles is larger at high trims than at low
- 8trims, but decreases -with increasing planing speed. In applying the curves on Figs. $ through 12, a linear variation may be assumed to exist for all variables. Thus, by linearly interpolating between the appropriate curves, the shape of the centerline profile curve may be obtained for most two-step planing conditions that may be specified. Having thus determined the shape of the longitudinal centerline profile, superposition of these profile curves on the lines of the afterbody will indicate the size and position of the afterbody area in contact with solid water in the wake. By combining the wetted area, local afterbody trim, and planing speed with appropriate planing force equations, an estimate of afterbody planing forces can be obtainede
3hk
Effect of Deadrise Angle on Centerline Profile Through Wake A qualitative discussion of the effect of deadris(e on the overall characteristics of the wake contours has been presented in the previous sections. It has been shown that a reduction in planing surface deadrise from 20 to 10 does not have any pronounced effect upon the general shape or features of the planing surface wake. Nevertheless, since the centerline profile through the wake is of primary importance in determining the area of the afterbody in contact with the wake, a more detailed investigation of the effect of deadrise on the shape of this curve has been made. A comparison of the centerline profile curves was made at the four test speed coefficients and at an aspect ratio of 3.00. This large aspect ratio was used as a basis for illustration since the profile curves are highest at the largest values of aspect ratio tested, a condition which tends to minimize the effect of the experimental scatter of the data. Prior to investigating the actual centerline profile shapes, a comparison was made of the experimentally obtained linear relations between wave height and aspect ratio and between wave height and load coefficient for the 20 and 10 deadrise planing surfaces. These results, which are for a Cy of 3*69i> are presented on Figs. 13 and lh The 20 deadrise relationships were obtained from Figs. 8 and 9 of Ref. 1, while the 10 deadrise data are those given in Figs. 3 and .h of the present report. It will be noted thatfl in general, the linear relations for both deadrise angles have slopes which are very nearly identical for each tested trim and at all distances aft of the planing surface. Thus, the change in wave profiles resulting from a change in aspect ratio or load coefficient is almost exactly similar for both the 10 and 20 deadrise planing surfaces. One apparent effect of reduction in deadrise which can be seen from the plots on Figs. 13 and ll|, is that the test data for the 10 deadrise surface fall somewhat lower than the 20 deadrise data despite the fact that the curves drawn through both sets of test points are of nearly identical slope. Thus, it can be concluded that a decrease in deadrise angle will slightly reduce the height of the centerline profile, but will not materially affect the relation between change in wave height and change in aspect ratio or load coefficient. A detailed comparison between centerline wave profiles for both deadrise planing surfaces is made at each test speed coefficient (see
- 9Fig. l). For the reasons previously presented, the comparison is made for an aspect ratio of 3*00 at each test trim and speed. A similar comparison plot is not presented for the centerline profile curves at equal load coefficients since it is believed that the effect of change in deadrise angle will be the same at either a constant aspect ratio or a constant load coefficient. It is seen from Fig. 1$ that the shape of the profile curves is generally similar for both deadrise surfaces and that most of the 20 deadrise curves are slightly higher than the 10 deadrise curves. Although the difference in wave profile heights is small, and might be considered by some observers to be within the experimental scatter of the data,the consistency of these results leads t6 a corroboration of the conclusion that reduction in deadrise angle will reduce, to some extent, the height of the centerline profile curves. For all practical purposes, however, the effect of change in deadrise from 20 to 10 can be regarded as negligible.
CONCLUDING REMARKS
The 10 deadrise wake data, which are presented in the form of transverse and longitudinal sections through the wake for each test run, indicate the following: 1) The general shape and features of the wake of a 10 deadrise planing surface are basically similar to those of a 20 deadrise planing surface: a) The plot of longitudinal contour through the wake along the planing surface centerline indicates a consistent variation with trim, speed, and aspect ratio, and is most effective in determining afterbody wetted area. b) The width between wave crests in any transverse section through the wake is such as not.to interfere with afterbody bottoms of most seaplanes. c) The wave profiles in transverse planes through the wake are such that the area of the trough below level water is always larger than the area of water raised above level water. 2) A reduction in deadrise angle slightly reduces the height of the centerline profile, but does not materially affect the relation between change in wave height and change in aspect ratio or load coefficient. 3) The reduction in centerline profile height resulting from a reduction in deadrise angle is small enough to be regarded as being negligible, for all practical purposes.
-10REFERENCES
1* Korvin-Kroukovsky, B.V# Savitsky, Daniel, and Lehman, William F.t "Wave Contours in the Wake of a 20 Deadrise Planing Surface". Stevens Institute of Technology, Experimental Towing Tank Report No 337, June 191*8. Sherman M. Fairchild Publication Fund Paper No. 168, Institute of the Aeronautical Sciences, New York. 2# Fried, Waltert "The No. 3 Tank for Model Seaplane Tests" Stevens Institute of Technology, Experimental Towing Tank Report No 28, October i& Korvin-Kroukovsky, B.V., and Chabrow, Faye R#t "The Discontinuous Fluid Flow Past an Immersed Wedge"* Stevens Institute of Technology, Experimental Towing Tank Report No. 33k, October 19U8. Sherman M Fairchild Publication Fund Paper No. 16, Institute of the Aeronautical Sciences, New York.
R-3UU
-11TABLE I
PLANING TEST RUN> OF 1 0 DEADRISE PUNING SURFACE (Beam = 0. kl6 ft.)

n No." 1 2
,
T
(deg.)
k 5
6
7 .
8 9
10
k k k k k k k k
0.8k
0.86 1.23 1.32 1.36 2.29 2.kl
A (lb.) 1.25 3.20
V (ft./sec.)
CV
CA
cL
0 . Okl 0 . Ok8 0 . Ok7
i.k5
1.92 1.06
13.50 19.99 ' 13.50 15.52

11.02 16.02
3.69 5-k7 3.69 k.25

3.02
0.28 0.71 0.32 O.k3 O.23 0.72 O.52 O.71 0.99 O.k2 0.77 1.01
d. Ok7
0 . 052 0 . 076 0. 076 0 . 105
3.25
2.32 3.20
3.36
0.30 O.kl 1.11 1.12 2.22 2.22
13.50 13.50 19.99 13.50 13.50 15.52

11.02
k.39 3.69
3-&9
8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8
12
k.k5 1.88
3.kk
11
12
13 Hi 15 16 17 18 19
20 21 22
k.5k 3.77 5-k3

7-16
2.35. 3.2k
O.32 0.33 1.19 1.20 2.20 2.27 2.96 3-Ok
7.25 5.90
2.kl
13.50 15.52 13.50

19.99
5.k7 3.69 3.69 k.25 3-02 3-69 k.25 3.69 5-k7 3.69 3.69 k.25 3.69 3-983.69
3.02
0.
,066
0.,061 0..DJ.2 0..112 0. 18k 0..178 0..177 0..237 0..088 0,.079 0,,187 0,.187 0,.291 0 .290 0 396 0 kl3
0.8k
1.21
1.59
1.61 sl.31
12
12 12 12 12 12 12
5.7k
7-59 8.90 10.25 11.80 8.kO
13.50 13.50
15.52
0.53
1.28 1.69 1.98 2.28 2.62
23
13.50 iu. 52 ' 13.50

11.02
2k
1.86
R-344 -12-
EXPERIMENTAL TOWING TANK

STEVENS INSTITUTE OF TECHNOLOGY HOBOKEN, NEW JERSEY
2
on
in
z <
UJ
LU
cr o
(/) Q: Q < LJ Q o
I or
a.
EXPERIMENTAL TOWING TANK STEVENS INSTITUTE OF TECHNOLOGY HOBOKEN.NEW JERSEY
R-344 -13-
0. UJ
<o
U.
I
S
8
ce o
_1V
*- -'
1
S
O
(0
Vi O (9
a. r
<
UJ
o z a*
UJ
o
>
u.
8
z
Q:
UJ
z <
<
UJ
H-
f-H-
o z g o
u.
3
-II
Q. UJ
h Hf-
O UJ
UJ Q
V >
z o
V >
-i i
i
1f-
+H
H 1-
cvi UJ
a:
-<**-
* m
2. 81
:
o
V)
1 ci
Si
cc Ul 2
EXPERIMENTAL TOWING TANK STEVENS INSTITUTE OF TECHNOLOGY HOBOKEN, NEW JERSEY r2.0-
1.8
UJ CD 1.6
<
6 BEAMS AFT
1.4
5 BEAMS
s o z
UJ U) UJ
1.2
4 BEAMS
-i.o6 BEAMS ÂFT 5 BEAMS
UJ .8 UJ :
3 BEAMS
4 BEAMS O
g
Ui
.6
: . 4
2 BEAMS
.2
I BEAM
ASPECT RATIO ( X )
FIGURE 3
RELATION BETWEEN HEIGHT OF LONGITUDINAL WAVE PROFILE AND ASPECT RATIO AT VARIOUS DISTANCES AFT OF A 10 DEADRISE PLANING SURFACE FOR C v = 3 . 6 9
J-
EXPERIMENTAL TOWING TANK STEVENS INSTITUTE OF TECHNOLOGY HOBOKEN, NEW JERSEY 2XJ
r = 4
in < UJ CD 1.8
r= i2
6 BEAMS AFT^-. -
1.6
-1.4 U< UJ -1.2 6 BEAMS AFT
5 BEAMS^--
UJ
o z
1.0 6 BEAMS AFT ySBEAMS _ / '4 B E A M S 3 BEAMS O 3 BEAMS . > ' 2 BAMS -.2 -6
_ o 0 '
4 BEAMS^
|X UJ
UJ " 8 UJ *: UJ
4 BEAMS^ 3 BEAMS____ L - 2BEAMS__ o . o o_ _ c
S2 UJ x
..
1 BEAM o __
_fi
.50
1.00
.50
1.00
1.50
1.75
.50 CA
1.00
1.50
2.00
2.50
2.75
LOAD COEFFICIENT,
FIGURE 4
RELATION BETWEEN HEIGHT OF LONGITUDINAL %_ WAVE PROFILE AND LOAD COEFFICIENT AT VARIOUS DISTANCES AFT OF A 10 DEADRISE PLANING SURFACE FOR C v = 3 . 6 9
q
"
O Q Q
q
*
O O
X
|"i . J. ,r
X '
q i '
O O
q
*i
"
<< C' < ' j - X
1l
Ii Vl'i iJi'i:
11 v*
!' Li I
o " o o
' o '"* o ' o o o p Q Q o
Hi
o o
K > |
o q
'#1 H
R-344
_, . . .
1 *
9 8
? ? i
cr
"'^liiiiSiSi
SfcKB
flfis
t
IB
jB-
. ti l*,b. rH
C M
""i
i , Y A.'1
l\'\!";TT-\ !\[7^j5\^
\ \ \ O ! J \ \ l \ l ! i ,;i " ' #
q
o q
q q ,
o o , 5 5
o 5
4i
ii
S W I 1
i n 'T,
R-344
O O O o > i
r.
q
to
it
CM
.1.'
i. I Ik'
UJ LU 0.
o o o oo
O n
*> o' o o
. Q
- i ~î . '
^llj , P U. Or
EXPERIMENTAL TOWING TANK STEVENS INSTITUTE OF TECHNOLOGY HOBOKEN, NEW JERSEY

-2.0
10 OEAORISE 20 OEADRISE
to
UJ CD I
-1.8
6 BEAMS
-1.6
6 BEAMS
-1.4
5 BEAMS^
UJ X UJ UJ UJ -1.2 5 BEAMS 4 BEAMS \*u
6 BEAMS AFT SBEAMS
4 BEAMS -<-
m
UJ
-.8
o
UJ
"6
&
4 BEAMS 3 BEAMS " 2 BEAMS 2 BEAMS

o
CD
-.4
.
^_ _
'
UJ
- -
1 BEAM
^
=
IBEAM
ASPECT RATIO (X)
0 5
FIGURE 13
COMPARISON OF RELATIONS BETWEEN fc PROFILE WAVE HEIGHT AND ASPECT RATIO FOR 10 AND 2 0 DEADRISE PLANING SURFACE AT C v = 3 . 6 9
EXPERIMENTAL TOWING TANK STEVENS INSTITUTE OF TECHNOLOGY HOBOKEN, NEW JERSEY

2.0
10 DEAORISE 20 DEAORISE
en 2
UJ 1.8 CD
1
r-8
6 BEAMS
U_ -1.6
<t
5 BEAMS
Q UJ Q -1.4
6 BEAMS ^ ** 5 BEAMS^--
Z
X -1.2 UJ UJ UJ
"^7- -
4 BEAMS^-
6 BEAMS
BOD
>-
AFT -.8
XBÊAMS BEAMS
4 BEAMS^;
. ^
'
y' yy < 4 o LL 6 yy? UJ yy . y,'
UJ
3 BEAMS^^2 BEAMS

ÎPI
'
3 BEAMS
_
CD -.4
y,''
^,
<I HX
UJ
2 BEAMS____
1 BEAM
' t BEAMS -.2 ** ^^-"-^

" l BEAM
IBEAM___
^
X
.50
1.00
.50
1.00
1.50
1.75
.50
1.00
1.50
2.00
2.50 2.75
LOAD COEFFICIENT, CA
FIGURE 14
COMPARISON OF RELATIONS BETWEEN (fc. PROFILE WAVE HEIGHT AND LOAD COEFFICIENT FOR 10 AND 2 0 DEADRISE PLANING SURFACE AT C v = 3 . 6 9
4-
R-344 -26-
EXPERIMENTAL TOWING TANK

STEVENS INSTITUTE OF TECHNOLOGY HOBOKEN.NEW JERSEY
10 DEADRISE 20 DEADRISE
Cv 3.02
1.50
= 3.69
1.00
2 ui
CO
r--*
.50
= 4'
o
UJ Q
z
UJ X UJ
UJ UJ
DISTANCE AFT-BEAMS
DISTANCE AFT-BEAMS
i
I
a o
C D 1.50
UJ
eg
= 4.25
= 5.47
u.
UJ
5
CD
xl.00 o
UJ
.50
DISTANCE AFT - BEAMS 1 2 3 4 5 6 1
DISTANCE AFT- BEAMS

2 3 4 5 6
FIGURE 15
COMPARISON OF < f c _ PROFILE WAVE HEIGHTS FOR 10 AND 20
DEADRISE PLANING SURFACE AT ASPECT RATIO OF 3.00
TRANSVERSE CONTOURS
LONGITUDINAL CONTOURS
m
52
52 mo
o v S
M l
I I I I
. 1 1I I
DISTANCE FROM
- IN BEAMS
HORIZONTAL DISTANCE AFT OF STEP - IN BEAMS
FIGURE 16
EXPERIMENTAL WAVE CONTOURS AFT OF STEP

' T = 4 V = 13.50 A * 1.25 \=.84 RUN NO. I CA = .28 Cv s 3.69 7
TRANSVERSE CONTOURS
O EXPERIMENTAL A EXTRAPOLATED
i i LEVEL WATER ALONG
0.2 BEAM FROM
m x v m
0.4 BEAM FROM
115
ALONG WAVE CREST
I l l
I I I I
I I I
0 DISTANCE FROM - IN BEAMS
I I I I 1 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I II 1 2 3 4 5 6
FIGURE 17

T = 4 V = 19.99 A = 3.20 X=.86 RUN NO. 2 C A =.7I Cv 5.47
TRANSVERSE CONTOURS
i2 Hi
rn -r
o -<
DISTANCE FROM $_- IN BEAMS
FIGURE 18

T = 4 V = 13.50 A = 1.45 X= 1.23 RUN NO. 3 C& = .32 Cv s 3.69
TRANSVERSE CONTOURS
HULL
O EXPERIMENTAL
OJOJ
1
DISTANCE FROM < f c - IN BEAMS
FIGURE 19

T = 4 V = 15.52 A = 1.92 \ = 1.32 RUN NO. 4 CA = .43 Cv = 4.25
TRANSVERSE CONTOURS
3
5 33
sm
^5
5
ALONG WAVE CREST
I I I I 3
x
DISTANCE FROM - IN BEAMS
FIGURE 20

T = 4 V = 11.02 A = 1.06 X * 1.36 RUN NO. 5 CL = .23 Cv = 3.02
TRANSVERSE CONTOURS
O EXPERIMENTAL 4 EXTRAPOLATED
113 1
u
3, i i i i I i i 1 i I i I i i I i i M I i i i i I i ii i 2 1 0 I I I II 0 I II 1 I I I I il 1 I 1 I I I I I I I I I I I I 2 - 3 4 5 6
DISTANCE FROM $_ - IN BEAMS
FIGURE 21

T = 4 V = 16.02 A = 3.25 X = 2.29 RUN NO. 6 CA = .72 Cv = 4.39
TRANSVERSE CONTOURS
m 5m
m 33
Is m
3 \.
2 DISTANCE FROM <_-IN BEAMS
FIGURE 22

T = 4 V = 13.50 A = 2.32 X= 2.41 RUN NO. 7 CA = .52 Cv s 3.69
OJ
TRANSVERSE CONTOURS
las
0 DISTANCE FROM <t - IN BEAMS
FIGURE 23

T = 4 V = 13.50 A = 3.20 X= 3.36 RUN NO. 8 C* = .71 Cv = 3.69
TRANSVERSE CONTOURS
HULL
CO 0.2 BEAM FROM
UJ
i.o
Si
Q4 BEAM FROM UJ
3
.5
-i
Hi1 "
CQ -
J>
ALONG WAVE CREST
I I I !
I
1 2
I I 3
I I I !
4
I I 5
I I I I 6
3\.
FIGURE 24

T = 8 V = 19.99 i : 4.45 \*.3O RUN NO. 9 CA = .99 Cv = 5.47
en 1
TRANSVERSE CONTOURS
Ctfo*
m wx
x<2 2
"
DISTANCE FROM < _ - IN BEAMS
FIGURE 25

T = 8 V = 13.50 A = 1.88 X= .41 RUN NO. 10 CA = .42 Cv = 3.69
TRANSVERSE CONTOURS
HULL
LONGrrUDINAL CONTOURS
rn
no m
1 I I I I I 1 I I I I I I 1 1 I I I I 1I I [ I I I I I [ 3 2 1 0
DISTANCE FROM - I N BEAMS
I I I I 1 I I I I I I I I I I 1 I 1 1 I M I I I I I II 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 HORIZONTAL DISTANCE AFT OF STEP - IN BEAMS
FIGURE 26

T * 8 V = 13.50 A = 3.44 -\UI RUN NO. 1 1 CA = .77 Cv 3.69
04 Ol
TRANSVERSE CONTOURS
m 5m
PI
ZO
gz m
I - IN BEAMS
M M I I I M 1M M I M M I M M I M M O t 2 3 4 5 6
DISTANCE FROM
FIGURE 27

T = 8 V = 15.52 A = 4.54 C& = 1.01 \ = 1.12 Cv 4.25 RUN NO. 12
TRANSVERSE CONTOURS
3
5m
1 Hi
5
m 30
g
3 2 I 0 1 2 3 4 5 6
FIGURE 28

T = 8 V = 11.02 A =3.77 X= 2.22 RUN NO. 13 CA = .84 Cv 3.02
TRANSVERSE CONTOURS
m
CO
<m
III
m
>
7*
III
3 2
MM
I II I
I
MM
MM 0 1 2 3
I l
l l
I I
DISTANCE FROM %_ - IN BEAMS
FIGURE 29

T = 8 V = 13.50 A = 5.43 \=2.22 RUN NO. 14 CL -- 1.21 Cv = 3.69
TRANSVERSE CONTOURS
l i
LEVEL VWCTER ALONG
(A
rn ^
<m
5m
FIGURE 3 0

T = 8 V = 15.52 A = 716 \=2.35 RUN NO. 15 CA = 1.59 Cv * 4.25
TRANSVERSE CONTOURS
5
m
g Is
7Z
DISTANCE FROM fc - IN BEAMS
FIGURE 31

T = 8 V = 13.50 A = 7.25 \=3.24 RUN NO. 16 CA = 1.61 Cv 3.69
TRANSVERSE CONTOURS
LEVEL WATER
00
z m
ml 5
z O o o-
LINE THROUGH / WftVE CRESTS " ^ J
3
v
DISTANCE FROM < _ - IN BEAMS
FIGURE 32

T = 12 V = 19.99 A = 5.90 \=.32 RUN NO. 17 CA = 1.31 Cv = 5.47
TRANSVERSE CONTOURS
m m S2 2
IIS
J2g2
1*3
"<2 O
FIGURE 33

T = I2 V = 13.50 A = 2.41 X=.33 RUN NO. 18 CA = .53 Cy * 3.69
TRANSVERSE CONTOURS
33
z =
I
o
is i
M i i I I i i i 1i i i i 1 i i i i I i ii i I ii i i 2 1 0 DISTANCE FROM - I N BEAMS
i i i i
i i i i
i i i i
FIGURE 34

T = 12 V = 13.50 A 5.74 X= 1.19
RUN NO. 19
CA = 1.28 Cv = 3.69
. 7
TRANSVERSE CONTOURS
LEVEL WATER
HULL
| O EXPERIMENTAL 4 EXTRAPOLATED
sr^
m
5m
a 30
FIGURE 35

T = 12 V = 15.52 A = 7.59 X= 1.20 RUN NO. 20 CA = 1.69 Cv 5 4.25
TRANSVERSE CONTOURS
2
gz m
en - - <=. **
m m
n
2 I
DISTANCE FROM 4 - IN BEAMS
FIGURE 36

T = 12 V = 13.50 A = 8.90 X= 2.20 RUN NO. 21 CA = 1.98 Cv s 3.69
TRANSVERSE CONTOURS
m 3 m gz m
5 S
FIGURE 37

T = 12 V = 14.52 A= 10.25 X=2.27 RUN NO. 22 Ct = 2.28 Cv = 3.98
TRANSVERSE CONTOURS
m
u
2 O S 55 m
<m
So
-)
^^ o
5
DISTANCE FROM $_ - IN BEAMS
FIGURE 38

T = 12 V = 13.50 A =11.80 X= 2.96 RUN NO. 23 CA = 2.62 Cv = 3.69
TRANSVERSE CONTOURS
DATA ARE INCOMPLETE AT THIS STATION
m m
Hi
z o
2 DISTANCE FROM - IN BEAMS
FIGURE 39

T = 12 V = 11.02 A = 8.40 X=3.04 RUN NO. 24 CA = 1.86 Cv 3.02

Savitsky 1

Uploaded by

Document Information

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Savitsky 1

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

R-344

REPORT SIT-DL-48-344 NOVEMBER 1948

REPORT SIT-DL-48-344 NOVEMBER 1948

WAVE CONTOURS IN THE WAKE OF A 10 DEADRISE PLANING SURFACE

by B.V. Korvin-Kroukovsky Daniel Savitsky William F. Lehman

REPORT SIT-DL-48-344 NOVEMBER 1948

WAVE CONTOURS IN THE WAKE OF A 10 DEADRISE PLANING SURFACE

by B.V. Korvin-Kroukovsky Daniel Savitsky William F. Lehman

STEVE-NS INSTITUTE OF TECHNOLOGY

WAVE CONTOURS IN THE WAKE OF A 10 DEADRISE PLANING SURFACE

Report No. 3hh by B.V. Korvin-Kroukovsky Daniel Savitsky William F. Lehman

Experimental Touring Tank Stevens Institute of Technology Hoboken, New Jersey

R-3UU -3 MODEL AND APPARATUS

RESULTS AND DISCUSSION

PLANING TEST RUN> OF 1 0 DEADRISE PUNING SURFACE (Beam = 0. kl6 ft.)

A (lb.) 1.25 3.20

13.50 19.99 ' 13.50 15.52

3.69 5-k7 3.69 k.25

13.50 13.50 19.99 13.50 13.50 15.52

k.5k 3.77 5-k3

13.50 15.52 13.50

13.50 iu. 52 ' 13.50

EXPERIMENTAL TOWING TANK

EXPERIMENTAL TOWING TANK STEVENS INSTITUTE OF TECHNOLOGY HOBOKEN.NEW JERSEY

-i.o6 BEAMS ^AFT 5 BEAMS

-1.4 U< UJ -1.2 6 BEAMS AFT

4 BEAMS^ 3 BEAMS____ L - 2BEAMS__ o . o o_ _ c

<< C' < ' j - X

' o '"* o ' o o o p Q Q o

EXPERIMENTAL TOWING TANK STEVENS INSTITUTE OF TECHNOLOGY HOBOKEN, NEW JERSEY

UJ X UJ UJ UJ -1.2 5 BEAMS 4 BEAMS \*u

6 BEAMS AFT SBEAMS

4 BEAMS 3 BEAMS " 2 BEAMS 2 BEAMS

ASPECT RATIO (X)

EXPERIMENTAL TOWING TANK STEVENS INSTITUTE OF TECHNOLOGY HOBOKEN, NEW JERSEY

y' yy < 4 o LL 6 yy? UJ yy . y,'

' t BEAMS -.2 ** ^^-"-^

EXPERIMENTAL TOWING TANK

DISTANCE AFT - BEAMS 1 2 3 4 5 6 1

DISTANCE AFT- BEAMS

COMPARISON OF < f c _ PROFILE WAVE HEIGHTS FOR 10 AND 20

DEADRISE PLANING SURFACE AT ASPECT RATIO OF 3.00

HORIZONTAL DISTANCE AFT OF STEP - IN BEAMS

EXPERIMENTAL WAVE CONTOURS AFT OF STEP

0.2 BEAM FROM

ALONG WAVE CREST

0 DISTANCE FROM - IN BEAMS

HORIZONTAL DISTANCE AFT OF STEP - IN BEAMS

EXPERIMENTAL WAVE CONTOURS AFT OF STEP

DISTANCE FROM $_- IN BEAMS

HORIZONTAL DISTANCE AFT OF STEP - IN BEAMS

EXPERIMENTAL WAVE CONTOURS AFT OF STEP

DISTANCE FROM < f c - IN BEAMS

HORIZONTAL DISTANCE AFT OF STEP - IN BEAMS

EXPERIMENTAL WAVE CONTOURS AFT OF STEP

ALONG WAVE CREST

DISTANCE FROM - IN BEAMS

HORIZONTAL DISTANCE AFT OF STEP - IN BEAMS

EXPERIMENTAL WAVE CONTOURS AFT OF STEP

DISTANCE FROM $_ - IN BEAMS

HORIZONTAL DISTANCE AFT OF STEP - IN BEAMS

EXPERIMENTAL WAVE CONTOURS AFT OF STEP

2 DISTANCE FROM <_-IN BEAMS

HORIZONTAL DISTANCE AFT OF STEP - IN BEAMS

4 BEAMS^ 3 BEAMS__ L - 2BEAMS o . o o_ _ c