05 High Speed Hulls & Propulsors PDF

Hull Form and Propulsor Technology
for High Speed Sealift

revised:
13 February 1998
Edited by:
CHRIS B. MCKESSON, PE
JOHN J. MCMULLEN ASSOCIATES, INC.

7726 CLOVER BLOSSOM LANE NE
BREMERTON, WA 98311-3910
THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK
1. Introduction and Lexicon _______________________________________________9

1.1 The Sustention Triangle ___________________________________________________ 9
1.2 The problem with the sustention triangle______________________________________ 9
1.3 The Sustention Cube _____________________________________________________ 10
1.3.1 First Axis: Static Lift or Dynamic Lift____________________________________________10
1.3.2 Second Axis: Aero- Lift or Hydro- Lift ___________________________________________10
1.3.3 Third Axis: Powered or Passive _________________________________________________10
1.3.4 The Sustention Cube and its Contents ____________________________________________10
1.3.4.1 Passive Hydrostatics _______________________________________________________11
1.3.4.2 Passive Hydrodynamics ____________________________________________________11
1.3.4.3 Passive Aerostatics ________________________________________________________11
1.3.4.4 Passive Aerodynamics _____________________________________________________11
1.3.4.5 Active Hydrostatics _______________________________________________________11
1.3.4.6 Active Hydrodynamics _____________________________________________________12
1.3.4.7 Active Aerostatics ________________________________________________________12
1.3.4.8 Active Aerodynamics ______________________________________________________12
1.4 Conclusion _____________________________________________________________ 12
2. Hull Forms / Vessel Types______________________________________________13

2.1 Displacement Ships ______________________________________________________ 13
2.1.1 Hydrostatic Displacement: Ships ________________________________________________13
2.1.1.1 Historical Origin _________________________________________________________13
2.1.1.2 Dominant Physics_________________________________________________________13
2.1.1.3 Significant development milestones___________________________________________15
2.1.1.4 Current activities _________________________________________________________15
2.1.1.4.1 Savitsky Monohull (Idea) _______________________________________________15
2.1.1.4.2 Kvaerner Monohull (Design) ____________________________________________16
2.1.1.4.3 Sumitomo Monohull (Design) ___________________________________________16
2.1.1.4.4 Halter Sponson-Assisted Monohulls (Design) _______________________________17
2.1.1.4.5 Incat Catamarans (Built)________________________________________________17

2.1.1.4.6 Aker Finnyards Catamaran ______________________________________________17
2.1.1.4.7 Asymmetric Catamarans________________________________________________18
2.1.1.5 R&D Needs / Engineering Challenges ________________________________________18
2.1.1.6 Transport Effectiveness State of the Art _______________________________________19
2.2 Dynamic Support Ships___________________________________________________ 21

2.2.1 Hydrodynamic Support ________________________________________________________21
2.2.1.1 Planing & Semi-Planing Hulls_______________________________________________21
2.2.1.1.1 Historical Origin ______________________________________________________21
2.2.1.1.2 Dominant Physics _____________________________________________________21
2.2.1.1.3 Significant development milestones _______________________________________21
2.2.1.1.4 Current activities______________________________________________________23
2.2.1.1.5 R&D Needs / Engineering Challenges ____________________________________26
2.2.1.1.6 Transport Effectiveness State of the Art ____________________________________26
2.2.1.2 Ski Craft ________________________________________________________________28
2.2.1.2.5 R&D Needs / Engineering Challenges _____________________________________30
2.2.1.3 Hydrofoils _______________________________________________________________31
2.2.2 Aerodynamic Support _________________________________________________________36

2.2.2.1 Aircraft _________________________________________________________________36
2.2.2.2 Ekranoplans _____________________________________________________________36
2.3 Powered Support Ships ___________________________________________________ 38

2.3.1 Hydrostatic Support___________________________________________________________38
2.3.1.1 Air Cushion Vehicles ______________________________________________________38
2.3.1.1.1 Hovercraft ___________________________________________________________38
2.3.1.1.2 Surface Effect Ships ___________________________________________________39
2.3.2 Aerostatic Support____________________________________________________________46
3. Propulsors___________________________________________________________47
3.1 Waterjets ______________________________________________________________ 47
3.1.1 Dominant Physics ____________________________________________________________47
3.1.2 State of Development _________________________________________________________47
3.1.3 Current Activities & R+D Needs ________________________________________________47
3.1.4 Propulsive Efficiency State of the Art_____________________________________________47
3.2 Propellers ______________________________________________________________ 48

3.2.1 Fully Wetted Propellers________________________________________________________48
3.2.2 Ventilated propellers __________________________________________________________48
3.2.2.1 Dominant Physics_________________________________________________________49
3.2.2.2 State of Development ______________________________________________________49
3.2.2.3 Current Activities & R+D Needs _____________________________________________49
3.2.2.4 Propulsive Efficiency State of the Art _________________________________________49
4. Centers of Activity in High Speed Ships ___________________________________51

4.1 Major Conferences and Shows _____________________________________________ 51
4.1.1 Fast Ferry International________________________________________________________51
4.1.2 FAST ______________________________________________________________________51
4.1.3 HIPER _____________________________________________________________________51
5. Enabling Technologies ________________________________________________53

5.1 Hydrodynamics _________________________________________________________ 53
5.2 Structure_______________________________________________________________ 53
5.3 Propulsion______________________________________________________________ 53
5.4 Electrical and Auxiliary Machinery _________________________________________ 53
5.5 Command and Control ___________________________________________________ 53
6. Appendices __________________________________________________________55
6.1 Membership of subgroup Hullforms, Hydrodynamics, and Propulsors __________ 55
6.2 McKesson white paper on sealift state of the art_______________________________ 59
6.3 State of the Art Propulsors for High-Speed (40-50 knot) Ships ___________________ 63
6.4 Comments on Resistance of Different Concepts _______________________________ 71
6.5 Halter Marine Group Sponson Assisted Monohull _____________________________ 75
6.6 Notes on The Dominant Physics of High Speed by Dr. Daniel Savitsky ____________ 81
Hull Form and Propulsor Technology

for High Speed Sealift
This report presents an introduction and summary of the state of the art of high speed ship hull form and
propulsor technologies. This report is the product of the High Speed Sealift Technology Workshop held
21-23 October 1997.
This report is intended to serve as a resource for persons contemplating the development or employment
of high speed ships for cargo transport.
The High Speed Sealift Technology Workshop gathered approximately 200 persons considered expert in
various technologies relevant to high speed sealift. These delegates were divided into subgroups with
particular focus areas. This report deals specifically and exclusively with the discussions in the
Hullforms, Hydrodynamics, and Propulsors subgroup. The membership of this group is listed in
Appendix 6.1.
Over a period of two an a half days these delegates hammered out a consensus of what level of
performance is attainable in the near, mid, and far terms. This report attempts to present that consensus.
The consensus is amplified by including relevant background material, references, etc. Also included is
an indication of the other resources available for continued study of this subject.
The discussions at the workshop were focused by a nominal mission statement. The sealift need was
presented as:
Speed: 40 - 100 knots
Range: 5,000 - 10,000 n. mi
Cargo: 2,000 - 5,000 short tons
75,000 - 150,000 square feet
Other: Shallow Draft

The above figures present design challenges. One white paper, prepared by McKesson and distributed at
the workshop (included as Appendix 6.2) shows that for a certain state of the art it is impossible to
develop a ship with a range greater than 7800 miles. This conclusion is driven entirely by what level of
ship performance - specifically L/D - represents the state of the art. McKessons analysis is flawed, in that
it ignores the effect of fuel consumption on ship weight (and hence drag) as pointed out by Doctors,
Appendix 6.4. Nonetheless, Doctors enhancement merely changes the numerical value of the limits (such
as the 7800 n. mi above) while concurring with the basic role played by L/D.
It was in order to gather a consensus regarding L/D state of the art that the group met.
The product of the workshop was a consensus. Consensus implies that a variety of opinions were distilled
down to one. Of course, there will be cases wherein a member of the group will feel that his opinion is
not adequately represented. In recognition of the legitimacy of these opinions we have provided for
inclusion of minority positions. The group wishes it clearly understood that such minority positions do
not represent a simple inability to manage the committee, but are rather a natural outcome of the
uncertainties found in this study.
1.
Introduction and Lexicon
The following material was prepared by Chris McKesson of John J. McMullen Associates in order to
provide a common lexicon for the workshop.
1.1
The Sustention Triangle
The "sustention triangle" is a commonly used device for characterizing ship types. This triangle is
illustrated in Figure 1. It is a conceptual device for understanding what makes the boat float. Traditional
ships float because they are immersed in water and buoyed up by Archimedes' force. This is called
"buoyant lift" and occupies the lower left corner of the triangle.
There are other ways to hold ships up. The reader may be familiar with hovercraft, for example, where
the ship is lifted on a bubble of air. Hovercraft have operated between England and France for thirty years
now. Hovercraft are examples of "powered lift" craft, as depicted on the lower right corner of the triangle.
Another lift type one may be familiar with is "dynamic lift". A water ski works by dynamic lift. It does
not float, but when pulled fast enough through the water it generates a good lift force and raises the entire
payload up out of the water. Hydrofoils and hydroplanes are both dynamic lift craft.
1.2
The problem with the sustention triangle
The sustention triangle is a good concept, one that has been in use for decades and has done good service.
It does, however, have some flaws. In general these flaws may be characterized by one typical example:
The model does not distinguish between hydrofoils and WIGs. Both of these are dynamic lift craft.
HYDROFOIL
SUBMERGED
FOIL
HYDROFOIL
SURFACE
PIERCING
DYNAMIC LIFT
FOIL ASSISTED
CATAMARAN
SWATH
WAVEPIERCER
CATAMARAN
MONOHULL
HOVERCRAFT
SURFACE
EFFECT SHIP
BUOYANT LIFT
POWERED LIFT
Figure 1 - This figure illustrates the conventional sustention triangle. This is a concept model which
characterizes a ship by its means of support.
1.3
The Sustention Cube
It is the authors conviction that a design space should consist of mutually orthogonal axes. Consider
therefore what the axes of the sustention space are. The result of this consideration leads directly to the
sustention cube, as follows:
1.3.1 First Axis: Static Lift or Dynamic Lift

Does the lift of the craft require that the craft be moving? The test for this is whether the crafts lift
balance changes when forward speed is applied. Obviously planing craft change their lift balance as they
come up to speed, thus clearly making them dynamic lift craft. Barges, on the other hand, may be the
epitome of passive lift craft
1.3.2 Second Axis: Aero- Lift or Hydro- Lift

Is the lift created by the displacement of air or of water? Barges are hydrostatically supported. Airships
(blimps) are aerostatically supported. Hydrofoils and planing craft are hydrodynamically supported.
Airplanes and WIGS are aerodynamically supported.
1.3.3 Third Axis: Powered or Passive

Alternatively these terms may be active or passive. The test for this is whether the lift is due to the
active motion of some component of the craft, or on the other hand is the lift due to the basic shape
(geometry) of the craft? Most ships get their (static) support from their hull form, thus making them
passive hydrostatic craft. Note that planing craft and airplanes should be labeled as passive craft. They
require power to generate the speed that activates their lift, but the lift itself is the result of the shape of
the bottom, or the shape of the wing.
1.3.4 The Sustention Cube and its Contents

The last description above now leads us into discussions of the total shape of the sustention cube. Figure 2
presents a depiction of the cube. The corners are defined by combing the following pairs, to label the
eight corners:
Passive or Active
Hydro- or Aero -Static or -Dynamic
Thus the eight corners are:
Passive Hydrostatics
Passive Hydrodynamics
Passive Aerostatics
Passive Aerodynamics
Active Hydrostatics
Active Hydrodynamics
Active Aerostatics
Active Aerodynamics
Let us now consider the population of each of these corners in turn:
10
PASSIVE
-STATIC
HYDRO-
AERO-DYNAMIC
ACTIVE
Figure 2 - This figure illustrates the sustention cube, a new model which offers broader applicability
by covering more of the design space than the triangle.
1.3.4.1
Passive Hydrostatics
Conventional ships and barges.
1.3.4.2
Passive Hydrodynamics
Planing craft (their shape determines their efficiency.) Hydrofoils.
1.3.4.3
Passive Aerostatics
Blimps
1.3.4.4
Passive Aerodynamics
Airplanes and WIGs
1.3.4.5
Active Hydrostatics
Can we imagine a craft which has some moving component that would generate lift, not dependent on
forward speed? Consideration of this corner of the cube leads to the concept of hydrocopter. Consider
11
a machine that looks something like a helicopter with its rotor in the water. Would this not be an active
(it has moving parts) hydro- (obviously) -static (its lift balance doesnt change with speed) craft?
1.3.4.6
Active Hydrodynamics
Continuing the excursion into the unknown an attempt has been made to conceive a craft using active
hydrodynamics. Consider what this means: It requires ahead speed to make lift, it uses moving parts, and
it does this in the water. The only concept this author can imagine is a sort of hydrofoil using Fletner
rotors. Like a hydrofoil it requires ahead speed, but it also requires the rotation of the rotors to generate
Magnus-effect circulation.
1.3.4.7
Active Aerostatics
This is a helicopter: Requires power, but does not require ahead speed.
1.3.4.8
Active Aerodynamics
Perhaps the autogyro: It requires ahead speed and moving parts to fly.
1.4
Conclusion
The Sustention Triangle has done good service for decades as a mental model of the advanced vehicle
design space. This note has proposed a logical expansion of the venerable triangle which includes all
existing vehicle types. It also, like a good mental model, can be used to provoke thought about new
vehicle types.
This is only a small contribution to the literature of advanced vehicle design, but in the interest of more
comprehensive models the author is pleased to offer it.
12
2.
Hull Forms / Vessel Types
In this section are presented discussions of each of the several vessel types discussed at the workshop.
This section is organized along the axes of the sustention cube discussed in Section 1.
An attempt has been made to distinguish between design concepts and actual built craft. The reader is
counseled to be alert to references to idea design or built in this regard.
Wherever possible each discussion of a craft type ends with a presentation of the Transport Factor (TF)
state of the art for that craft type1. TF values are presented in tabular form, and are graphed against both
dimensional speed and against non-dimensional speed. The use of two separate speed scales identifies the
role of economies of scale in this analysis.
The TF versus Speed graphs also include a contour which approximately marks the boundary of the
current state of the art. The values for this contour were provided by Dr. Kennell in private
correspondence. The purpose in including this curve is only to aid the reader in flipping back and forth
between different graphs. It is in no way intended as a measure or critique of any craft.
In the graphs of TF versus Froude number a similar comparative line is included. This line is not
identical to Dr. Kennells line.
2.1
Displacement Ships
2.1.1 Hydrostatic Displacement: Ships

2.1.1.1
Historical Origin
It is impossible and unnecessary to present here a history of the development of the displacement hull
form. Let it suffice to point out that this hull concept dates to prehistoric times.
2.1.1.2
Dominant Physics
The lift/drag performance of displacement ships at high speeds is dominated by wave making drag. A
displacement form moving through the water pushes the water aside as it moves. This disturbance of the
water requires energy, specifically propulsive energy from the ship.
Two major parameters affect the wavemaking resistance of the ship: Speed and Slenderness.
Ship wavemaking drag increases rapidly with increasing speed. It is not possible to state a specific law
for this increase - a law that holds true for all ships - but it is common to refer to a cubic increase in drag
with speed. Specifically, it is commonly understood that ship propulsive power will increase as the cube
of ship speed. Thus a doubling of ship speed will require an octupling (8=23) of installed power.
Transport Factor is a measure of merit developed by Dr. Colen G. Kennell of the David Taylor Model
basin. Dr. Kennells paper Design Trends in High Speed Transport was distributed to workshop
attendees. Transport Factor is defined as:
TF = 1.6878 / 550 * 2240 * (Full Load Displ. in Long Tons) * (Speed in knots) / (Total Installed SHP)
13
This cubic relationship is close to true for normal speeds. But at very high displacement speeds the
curve becomes even more steep. It is common for naval architects to limit their investigation of
displacement ships to a speed length ratio of about 1.30. (Speed length ratio is the ratio of ship speed in
knots divided by the square root of the ships length in feet. This is also known as the Taylor quotient Tq,
after ADM David W. Taylor.) Above a speed-length ratio of 1.3 the increase in drag with increasing
speed becomes greater-than-cubic.
Speeds greater than 1.3 are present in some displacement hull designs. The dominant question is how
important is wavemaking? for the particular design. If one can make the wavemaking problem of lesser
importance overall, then one may more readily consider speeds higher than Tq=1.3.
The tool (or one tool) for this is ship slenderness. A slender ship disturbs the water less, and thus has
less wavemaking drag. It also has more surface are and thus more frictional drag, but this does not suffer
the same steep growth with speed as does the wavemaking drag. Slenderness is measured as the Length
over Displacement ratio (L/1/3).
One participants graph of the behavior of several slender ships is presented in Figure 3 below. It clearly
shows that, for a constant 7500 ton displacement, increasing the slenderness leads to increased speed, at a
given power level. Note also that it clearly shows the diminishing returns of this approach: It is
questionable whether extending the range beyond the slenderness of 12.0 would result in any further gains
in speed.
Figure 3 - Parametric investigation of the effect of slenderness upon total drag for a 7500t monohull
The benefits of slenderness are also utilized in the catamaran concept. Here two slender hulls are joined
in a fashion that provides good arrangeability and stability.
14
2.1.1.3
Significant development milestones
Frequently mentioned as a high performance displacement ship is the liner SS United States. One
conference participant provided data both on the United States herself, and on what might be
accomplished in developing a 1997 version of this ship, using latest enabling technologies.
United States as built had a sustained speed of 35 knots on a power level of 161,500 hp. Her machinery
plant was capable of 240,000 hp, of which only approximately two-thirds were used for sustained speed.
Her other characteristics are as follows:
LBP
940
Displacement, Full Load
45,450
Fuel Capacity
10,306
Range
10,000
Cargo Capacity
5,750
Sustained Speed
35
Power at Sustained Speed 161,500
ft
LT
LT
n.mi
LT
knots
hp
It may be postulated that the following improvements are possible for United States:
Item
Reduction in
Power at 35 knots
Add bow bulb
5%
Add Stern Flap
8.5%
Use high strength steel
and gas turbine machinery
(weight reduction)
5%
Increase propulsive
efficiency through use of
contra-rotating propellers
11%
TOTAL
29.5%
Given the above stated improvements, United States performance would increase as shown in Figure 4
2.1.1.4
Current activities
Workshop participants presented several ideas, design concepts, and built craft for a displacement-hulled
fast sealift ship. These are discussed below:
2.1.1.4.1
Savitsky Monohull (Idea)
A simple but insightful proposal is for a very large monohull. If one limits Taylor quotient to 1.3, then a
50 knot speed requires a length of approximately 1500 feet. Such a ship, it was claimed, would have
approximately the following characteristics:
LBP
Range
Fuel Load
Cargo Capacity
Power
Slenderness
1500
10,000
10,000
20,000
500,000
ft
n.mi
LT
LT
hp
15
Figure 4 - Possible improvements in performance of SS United States using latest technology

Note that this idea does not rely on slenderness, but on using size to lower the Tq associated with 50
knots. This becomes particularly apparent if one compares this ships TF performance on Figure 5 versus
Figure 6.
2.1.1.4.2
Kvaerner Monohull (Design)
Figure 3 above presents summary data on the slender monohull studies conducted by Kvaerner Masa
Yards. This data might be used to represent the following two hypothetical 50-knot ships, both based on
the contour of Mc=12.0:
LBP
Displacement
Speed
Power
Basis
Ship 1
235
7,500
38
60
Extrapolated
Ship 2
1500
54,400
50
465,000
m
tonne
knots
MW
ft
LT
knots
SHP
A further example of current slender ship projects are the BathMax slender ships developed jointly by
Bath Iron Works and Kvaerner Masa Yards.
2.1.1.4.3
Sumitomo Monohull (Design)
A comprehensive discussion of a displacement type slender high speed ship was presented by Takarada et
al at FAST 93. The resulting design had the following characteristics:
16
LBP
228
Beam
23
Draft
8.5
Range
5,000
Speed
50
Cargo Capacity
1,000
Power
6 x 33,100
Displacement
23400
Slenderness
8
2.1.1.4.4
m
m
m
n.mi
knots
LT
kW
tonnes (Estimated by McKesson)
Halter Sponson-Assisted Monohulls (Design)
Since conclusion of the workshop one participant provided data on a family of slender hulls, where
stability is improved by fitting sponsons or outriggers. This work, previously published by Nigel Gee &
Associates (Fast Ferry International, May 1997), was not discussed at the workshop but is reproduced in
Appendix 6.5.
2.1.1.4.5
Incat Catamarans (Built)
The slender ship concept is also descriptive of the catamaran. Catamaran state of the art may be described
by the following data points:
VESSEL
FULL LOAD
INSTALLED
DISPLACEMENT PROPULSION
POWER
74 m
850 tonnes
4 x 4050 kW
81 m
1100 tonnes
4 x 5500 kW
86 m
1250 tonnes
4 x 7080 kW
91 m
1400 tonnes
4 x 7080 kW
96 m (design) 1700 tonnes
4 x 7200 kW
130 m (design) 5000 tonnes
4 x 22000 kW
SERVICE SPEED
AT FULL LOAD
CALM WATER
36.0 knots
38.2 knots
42.8 knots
42.0 knots
37.8 knots
63. knots
SLENDERNESS
(per hull)
9.8
9.9
10.0
10.3
10.1
9.6
Correspondence with INCAT has suggested that catamaran L/D performance can be described by the
curve: L/D = 25600 x (Speed in knots)-2.
INCAT are also pursuing the development of partial aerodynamic support (See the discussion below under
EkranoCat, Section 2.2.2.2.4). They expect an overall L/D of 15 at 80 knots for such a craft. Doctors
work suggests that the L/D will maintain at higher speeds, as the aerodynamic contribution becomes
stronger.
2.1.1.4.6
Aker Finnyards Catamaran
The largest existing catamaran is the Aker Finnyards STENA HSS 1500, with the following
characteristics:
LOA
B
Draft
Speed
Power
Displacement
Deadweight
125
40
4.5
40
68
4500
1500
m
m
m
knots
MW
tonnes (Estimated by McKesson)
tonnes
17
Payload
Fuel Load
Range
Slenderness
2.1.1.4.7
1300
200
500
9.5
tonnes
tonnes
n.mi
per hull, based on displacement above.
Asymmetric Catamarans
Catamarans at high Froude number have substantial wavemaking drag. As such many researchers have
looked for means of reducing wavemaking drag. One recently studied avenue of research is the
asymmetric catamaran. By staggering the hulls of the craft relative to each other a favorable interference
may be set up which reduces total drag.
This was proposed most recently in a paper by Sding at FAST 97. He reports that at a Froude number of
approximately 0.43 (corresponds to a Taylor quotient of 1.44) he attained a 50% reduction in the drag of a
catamaran.
The problem in Hr. Sdings work is that the catamarans he tested were not at the limits of slenderness.
His approach of staggering the hulls results in an increase in the overall length of the ship. It has been
suggested (by Dr. Doctors in particular) that simply stretching the ship to this increased length, with the
attendant increase in slenderness, would result in an equal or greater reduction in drag. Unfortunately a
comprehensive comparative research program has not been carried out.
2.1.1.5
R&D Needs / Engineering Challenges
A long slender ship, particularly one with extreme characteristics, suffers from the following
disadvantages:
Difficult to turn
May be unstable, requiring active stabilization. Some concepts may be statically unstable,
which would require changes in international rulemaking, since all such rules currently
require some level of passive static stability.
May be of too large draft to be interesting. Few designers have provided draft data, but
simple parametrics have suggested that draft may become quite large - say over 40 feet - at
displacements of 60,000 LT +.
At 1500 length there are limited production and maintenance facilities.
Development of such a ship would benefit from the following R&D efforts:
High Rn Friction studies
Correlation allowance reduction through the use of very smooth surfaces
Comprehensive study of the benefits of staggered hull arrangements versus increased ship
length
18
2.1.1.6
Transport Effectiveness State of the Art
Data has been added to the transport factor data file to represent the updated United States, the 1500 foot
slender monohull, the catamarans, and several derivative concepts. The data is presented in Table 1,
below. Plots of Transport Factor versus Speed and versus Volume Froude Number is given in Figures 5 &
6.
Table 1 - Characteristics of State of the Art displacement ships
Ship or Concept
Speed
(knots)
SHP
Aker Finnyards HSS 1500
40.
95000
500
1300
Aker Finnyards HSS 1100 (design)
40.
65000
400
600
Aker Finnyards Swath 2000 (design)
40.
125000
1000
2000
6000
13.20
INCAT 130m (design)
63
118008
4300
2000
5000
18.35
INCAT 130m (design)
58
93870
4300
2000
37.8
39500
1700
11.18
INCAT 91m
42
38855
1400
10.40
INCAT 86m
42.8
38855
1250
9.46
INCAT 81m
38.2
30200
1100
9.56
INCAT 74m
36
22222
850
9.47
Sumitomo Monohull (design)
50
266300
234002
30.18
Kvaerner Parent (design)
38
80460
7380
23.96
Kvaerner Offspring (design)
50
465000
54400
40.21
37.25
240000
10000
5750
45450
48.49
SS United States 1997 (design)
39.5
240000
10000
5750
43178
48.85
1500'Slender Monohull (design)
50
525000
10000
20000
67000
43.86
INCAT 96m (design)
SS United States - As Built
Displacement estimated by the editor.
19
Range Payload Displacement

(n.mi)
(LT)
(LT)
Transport
Factor
45002
13.02
5000
1000
0.00
0.00
Displacement Hulls
200.00
180.00
160.00
140.00
TF
120.00
100.00
80.00
60.00
40.00
20.00
0.00
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
100
SPEED (knots)
Figure 5 - Transport Factor of Displacement Ships versus Speed. Open spots mark designs. Filled spots
mark ships which have been built.
Displacement Hulls
200.00
180.00
160.00
140.00
TF
120.00
100.00
80.00
60.00
40.00
20.00
0.00
0
0.5
1.5
2.5
3.5
Volume Froude Number
Figure 6 -Transport Factor of Displacement Ships versus Froude Number. Open spots mark
designs. Filled spots mark ships which have been built.
20
2.2
Dynamic Support Ships
2.2.1 Hydrodynamic Support

2.2.1.1
Planing & Semi-Planing Hulls
The consensus of the workshop attendees, without much discussion, was that conventional fully planing
hull forms are not suitable for consideration for the sealift mission because of their inherently low L/D
ratio. No further space will be devoted to them. Discussion in this section focuses on the Semi-Planing
concept. Note also that Ski craft, which are in fact fully planing, are considered in Section 2.2.1.2.
2.2.1.1.1
Historical Origin
Planing hulls trace their origin to the invention of the internal combustion engine. Only when fairly high
power / light weight machinery became available was the dynamically supported craft practical. Planing
and semi planing craft have received considerable attention since the first decades of this century.
2.2.1.1.2
Dominant Physics
A planing hull is lifted by the generation of a high pressure on the bottom. Unlike an airplane wing there
is flow over only one surface - the bottom - and in consequence a planing hull is less efficient than a wing.
The poor lift-to-drag ratio of a planing hull results from a) lift on the bottom surface only and b) poor
aspect ratio. A separate problem is the poor ride in rough water.
The dominant concerns in planing hull naval architecture concern:
1.
The proper placement of the pressure center, so that the boat rides at an appropriate and stable
attitude.
2.
The shaping of the planing surface for maximum lift-to-drag ratio: Generally the bottom is shaped
such that the wetted portion of the planing surface possess a fairly low aspect ratio, being several
times longer than it is wide. A gain in aspect ratio may be accomplished by incorporating steps in
the bottom, but the resulting aspect ratio is unfortunately still quite low.
3.
Control or elimination of drag effects from secondary phenomena such as spray.
A distinction is introduced between Planing and Semi-Planing hulls. Semi-Planing hulls receive only a
(small) portion of their support from dynamic effects.
For purposes of this workshop the line between Planing and Semi-Planing was drawn at a volume-Froude
number of 3.
2.2.1.1.3
A major milestone in the development of large semi-planing ships is motoryacht Destriero. Destriero is a
67m private motoryacht, depicted in Figure 7 below.
21
Figure 7 - Motoryacht Destriero, holder of the transatlantic speed record.

Destrieros principal characteristics are as follows:
LOA
67.7
LBP
60.0
BOA
13.0
Draft
5.21
Hull Construction
Aluminum
Full Load Range, SS 4
3,000+
Displacement
approx 1000
Machinery
3 x GE LM 1600
3 x KaMeWa 125
Power
38,535
m
m
m
m
n.mi
tonnes
waterjets
kW
Destriero successfully established the speed record for transatlantic crossing in 1992. She averaged 53+
knots, over 3100 n.mi, while carrying a payload3 of 100 tonnes. During this crossing she consumed
approximately 500 tonnes of fuel. She also demonstrated that weight reduction will lead to speed rise: At
her departure, at a weight of about 1100 tonnes, her full power speed was about 42 knots. At the finish
line, at a weight of about 550 tonnes, her speed was 63 knots. This is illustrated particularly in the speedtime profile for the crossing, presented in Figure 8.
This payload was an excess of fuel of 100 tonnes, which was placed on board because the master didnt
trust the designers assurance that it wasnt necessary. Having now demonstrated the performance, such a
crossing could be duplicated without carrying this 20% fuel reserve.
22
Figure 8 - A speed-time history of Destriero's Atlantic crossing, showing the speed rise as fuel was
consumed
2.2.1.1.4
Current activities
The state of the art large semi-planing cargo transport is surely the Fast Ship Atlantic (FSA) project. This
project has been the subject of many analyses and reports, which will not be repeated here.
The thrust of the workshop discussion was to establish the credibility of the FSA performance claims. At
one point discussion also entered into assessment of the economics of FSA service, but workshop
participants were admonished by the sponsors not to deal in economics, as this was the subject of separate
tasking. The consensus of the workshop participants was that the performance claims of FSA are
credible.
It is also valuable to call attention to the FSA-derivative sealift ship developed as a 13A project by USN
personnel studying at MIT, a design designated SOCV. This project is described in the students report,
available at http://web.mit.edu/welsh/www/13a/sealift.htm. That study presents the development of a
design with the following characteristics:
Ship Characteristic
Quantity
Design Full Load Displacement

Length Overall (LOA)
Length Between Perpendiculars(LPP)
Beam (BWL)
Draft at Design Displacement(T)
Depth at Station 10(D10)
Endurance In Commercial Mode
Endurance In Sealift Mode
Maximum Speed
Max Sustained Speed (@ Seastate 6)
Commercial Cargo Capacity
Military Cargo Capacity
Propulsion Plant:
Power Transmission:
Bow Thruster:
Ship Service Power:
39,475 tonnes
260 m
229 m
45 m
10.5 m
32 m
4000 nm @36.5 knots
12,000 nm @ 27 knots
37.5 knots
36.5 knots
1528 TEU @ 6.35 net tonne / TEU
10,000 long tons; 200,000 sq ft RO/RO
6 GE LM-6000, 240 MW (320,000 BHP)
Mechanical Gearsets; Waterjet Propulsor
One Tunnel @ Bow
Allison 501-K34 @ 2500 KW ea.
It is interesting to note that the FastShip SOCV, in its sealift mode, has an overall lift-to-drag ratio of 22.4
(including the effect of the propulsive coefficient.) This is at a speed of 27 knots, which does not meet the
23
speed goal of the workshop. These figures emphasize the difficulty of achieving the required efficiency
with a displacement of semi-planing design.
One particular point of discussion both in the 13a study and at the workshop was the ability of the ship to
maintain speed in waves. Figures 9, 10 and 11 were presented at the workshop, which show that because
of her high power level the FSA is able to maintain speed. Other ships, wherein minimum calm water
drag has been assiduously sought, do not have the power to maintain speed in high seas. This results in
schedule uncertainty.
Figure 9 - Involuntary Speed Reduction in Head Seas - FastShip design compared with two other
displacement ships.
24
Figure 10 - Added power in waves - FastShip TG-770 design compared with SL-7.
H1/3=4.88m, Tz=8.5 secs
Figure 11 - Changes in power requirement, calm water to 4.85m H1/3 bow sea, FastShip design vs
SL-7
25
2.2.1.1.5
The semi-planing ships discussed, up to and including the FastShip Atlantic design, are technologically
acheivable today. There are no critical R&D needs. They represent Near Term performance capabilities.
Advances above Near Term performance levels are probably limited by the availability of higher powered
machinery units and propulsors.
2.2.1.1.6
The designer of Destriero, Mr. Donald Blount, prepared and provided the following figure depicting the
capability of Destriero if used as a cargo carrier. It presents contours of range and cargo load for three
different design points: Full Load (FL = 550 tonnes fuel), Mean Load (ML = fuel), and Overload (OL
= 110% fuel). In all cases speed is 50 knots in SS 4.
Data has been added to the transport factor data file to represent Destriero and FastShip. The data is
presented in Table 2, below. A plot of Transport Factor versus Volume Froude Number is given in Figure
13.
Figure 12 - The transport effectiveness of m/y Destriero
26
Table 2 -Characteristics of State of the Art semi-planing ships

Ship or Concept
Speed
(knots)
SHP
Destriero
53.1
60000
Destriero
56.31
Destriero

(n.mi)
(LT)
(LT)
1054
6.41
52300
795
5.88
57.2
40570
566
5.49
Destriero
61.8
50560
590
4.96
Destriero
50
51675
2000
260
1100
7.32
TG-770 (design)
42
480000
4800
13600
30480
18.33
36.5
320000
4000
10000
39475
30.95
SOCV (design)
3106
Transport
Factor
Semi-Planing Hulls
50.00
45.00
40.00
35.00
TF
30.00
25.00
20.00
15.00
10.00
5.00
0.00
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
100
SPEED (knots)
Figure 13 - Transport factor of Semi-Planing hulls versus Speed. Filled spots designate ships which
have been built. Open spots designate designs.
27
Semi-Planing Hulls
50.00
45.00
40.00
35.00
TF
30.00
25.00
20.00
15.00
10.00
5.00
0.00
0
0.5
1.5
2.5
3.5
4.5
Figure 14 - Transport factor of Semi-Planing hulls versus Froude Number. Filled spots designate
ships which have been built. Open spots designate designs.
2.2.1.2
Ski Craft
2.2.1.2.1
Historical Origin
2.2.1.2.2
Dominant Physics
Ski craft are a form of planing craft. As the title implies, they use long slender skis as planing surfaces.
They are fully dynamically supported. Ski craft will suffer from the very low aspect ratio of their planing
surfaces, which implies large induced drag. The very slenderness of these surface may lead to benefits to
ride quality in rough water.
2.2.1.2.3
A milestone in ski craft development was the ski-supported jet seaplane developed in the 1960s - Figure
15. Many people have studied ski craft, including workshop participant Dr. Daniel Savitsky. Dr.
Savitsky said, in private correspondence to the editor for inclusion in this report:
The hydrodynamics of hydroskis aare well understood and documented in
many publications available in the open literature. Assuming that the ski runs
at an optimum trim angle of 4.5 degrees, has zero friction (obviously
ridiculous) and has an OPC of 0.65, then its TF will be approximately 8.0.
This is not an attractive TF despite the fact that all friction drag has been
neglected. ... I believe that the proposers should provide some documentation
28
to support the reality of their assumptions prior to including these concepts in

our report. Otherwise you might present them as unsubstantiated claims
which some members of the workshop did not accept.
Figure 15 - The 1960 Convair Y2FY Sea Dart - Ski supported jet seaplane
2.2.1.2.4
Current activities
Ski Craft have been actively proposed by Newport Technologies Ltd. They have a website depicting
several design concepts at http://members.aol.com/advtransys/private/fp.htm. There are no photographs
on this site of actual built craft, however discussions in the workshop indicated that the company has a 10foot demonstration craft with surprisingly good performance. The testcraft has the following
characteristics:
LOA
Displacement
L/D
Speed
10 ft
514 lbs
2.6
29 knots
This testcraft has been towed up to 108 knots, at 1400 lbs all-up weight. No drag data has been provided,
except the anecdotal evidence that one man could pull in the tow line.
The Newport Technologies testcraft was tested in the David Taylor Model Basin, but only at speed up to
about 30 knots. Up to this speed it exhibited behavior similar to any planing craft. This is consistent with
the L/D value quoted above.
From this testcraft the developers have conceived several variants. One is depicted in Figure 16 below.
This is a proposed 27 foot sport boat. Newport Technologies reports that they have secured a contract to
build two 83-passenger 65-foot ferries, with a service speed of 100 knots. The boats will weigh 83000 lbs
and have 4000 hp installed. Construction is scheduled to start in mid January 1998.
Figure 16 - Newport Technologies proposed 27-foot ski-supported sport boat
29
The inventors have scaled the performance of their testcraft and arrived at a proposed concept for a
vehicle with the following characteristics:
LOA
410
LWL
360
Beam
150
Draft - skis up
14
Draft - skis down
40
Power
4x92,000
Speed
250
Range
13015
Displacement
10,000
Fuel Capacity
2,000
Payload
8,000
ft
ft
ft
ft
ft
lb thrust turbofan (GE 90)
knots
n.mi
tons
tons
tons
The performance claims for this craft were met with a certain amount of incredulity during the workshop.
Not all of this incredulity was expressed during the session - several people spoke to the session chairman
privately to express their concern. However all acknowledged that it would be hasty to make a judgement
in the absence of good data. It was unanimously decided that the Newport Technologies testcraft should
be instrumented and its performance conclusively and comprehensively measured. The ferries mentioned
above would make excellent test platforms if they are indeed built.
2.2.1.2.5
The inventors of the ski craft acknowledged a need for better characterization of friction at very high
Reynolds Numbers, corresponding to speeds up to 300 knots.
Also, as mentioned above, there is insufficient basic understanding of the performance of ski-craft.
Based on illustrations provided on the website for a cargo transport variant, it is this editors opinion that
there are significant rulemaking issues, regarding rules for reserve buoyancy, stability, and structural
loads.
In view of the basic nature of these concerns, the small size of the present testcraft, and the very large
jump in scale being envisioned for a sealift ship, ski craft must be considered a far term technology for
sealift. The following comments prepared by Newport Technologies apply:
Research & development has been ongoing in high speed planing craft with designs
which have been demonstrated to have performance levels above standard planing craft
designs - this work has been going on the part of Quadrimaran and Newport
Technologies and others. Quadrimaran has validated scaling from model scale of 60 ft
to full scale of 100 ft. Newport Technologies has validated math models to a scale of 10
ft / 1000 lbs. Estimates of performance of 10,000 tons at 200 knots have been made by
Newport Technologies and are assumed to have a very large variance. Quadrimaran has
made estimates of a ~7000 t 60 knot ship and is judged to have moderate risk. The risks
are principally associated with the hydrodynamic drag elements friction and spray. The
flat planing surface used by both groups differ in aspect ratios. The Quadrimaran uses
an L/B of under about 10 and Newport Technologies of over about 20. The
Quadrimaran design utilizes aerodynamic lift unlike the Newport Technologies design
which does not. Both designs are observed to be decoupled from the sea waves and are
observed to perform with low accelerations without slamming. Near term extrapolations
of high sped planing hulls to large sealift ships needs to be preceded by continued
research and construction and testing of intermediate size ships.
30
2.2.1.2.6
Insufficient data exists to present ski craft TF.
2.2.1.3
Hydrofoils
2.2.1.3.1
Historical Origin
The following is excerpted from the February 1985 issue of the Naval Engineers Journal:
Engineers and naval architects have been intrigued with the possibilities envisioned by this concept for
many years. A United States patent for a hydrofoil was defined in the late 1880s, about the same time as
the early airplane and airfoil patents. The earliest record of a successful hydrofoil flight is 1894 when the
Meacham brothers demonstrated their 14-foot test craft at Chicago, Illinois. This compares with the
Wright brothers' first airplane flight in 1903. The early attempts to exploit the hydrofoil concept were
frustrated by lack of suitable structural materials and power plants. However, advancement in these areas,
much of it stemming from aircraft developments, have permitted development over the past 30-40 years of
the technology necessary to achieve and demonstrate reliable and effective hydrofoil ships for both
military and commercial applications.
2.2.1.3.2
Dominant Physics
A hydrofoil ship is supported by hydrodynamic lift, generated by circulation around submerged wings.
The particular hydrofoil concept discussed at the workshop - Peter Paynes DynaFoil - has as its
specialty a design intention of recapturing the downwash from one wing, by correct placement of a second
wing. When successful this recapture results in elimination of the induced drag due to lift. The
hydrodynamic drag on the craft is then only the viscous drag on the two wings.
Viscous drag is minimized by minimizing wetted area. But reducing the foil area, for a given craft weight
and speed, requires increasing foil loading. Ordinarily increasing the foil loading would result in a large
drag penalty, as drag due to lift behaves roughly as loading squared.
The DynaFoil concept would eliminate this drag, permitting the use of very highly loaded foils, with
small area and thus small frictional drag.
There are many other innovative features of the DyanFoil which are described by the inventor below. It
was, however, the particular issue of downwash recovery which has been the most contentious.
Dr. Savitsky offers this comment:
The hydrofoil concept is based on the speculation that the aft foil of a tandem
foil system will capture the energy related to the induced drag of the forward
foil by working in the upwash if the forward foil. This was an idea postulated
by Dr. Vannevar bush some 40 years ago. (I believe he was the scientific
adviser to President Eisenhower and most influential in establishing maro R&D
programs in the US). It is believed that Bush encouraged a major hydrofoil
program for the US Navy. In any event, extensive model tests and analytical
results failed to demonstrate the beneficial upwash effects postulated by Bish
for realistic configurations. In fact, the aft foil was in a downwash wake and
thus experienced no wake energy recovery. Also, the higher [the] speed, the
less likely is the development of upwash at the rear foil.
31
2.2.1.3.3
Three hydrofoil ships may be used to mark the milestones on the hydrofoil development ground:
USS PLAINVIEW - AGEH 1
Displ
320
LOA
212
Speed
50
Power
30000
Year
1969
Number
1
Overall4 L/D 3.7
LT
ft
knots
HP
USN PHM Class

Displ
239
LOA
145
Speed
48
Power
18000
Year
1977
Number
6
Overall L/D 4.4
Canadian Navy Bras dOr
Displ
237
LOA
150
Speed
50-60
Power
22000
Year
1969
Number
1
Overall L/D 4.1
LT
ft
knots
HP
LT
ft
knots
HP
The L/Ds of these craft are clearly too low to achieve the required sealift goals. The lift-to-drag ratio must
be increased by a factor of 5 to 10 or more. It is toward exactly this end that the DynaFoil project is
aimed.
The following description of the DynaFoil was provided by her inventors.
Includes the effect of propulsive coefficient
32
33
34
35
Current activities
The DynaFoil concept referred to above is the work of Payne Associates, Inc. They have produced
several technical papers on the subject5. These papers are in the nature of presentations of the physical
argument. The physical argument is sufficiently cogent to be intriguing. Unfortunately Payne Associates
have not found sponsorship which would allow them to build a conclusive large scale demonstrator. Their
existing demonstrator craft was built specifically to explore the idea of a sprung-foil suspension system,
not the recovery of upwash.
2.2.1.3.4
Many engineering challenges will be present in the development of a large size DynaFoil. These will
include:
Proof of the physics through modelling, both physical and virtual
Engineering of a large foil retraction system
Development of a suitable control system
2.2.1.3.5
Insufficient data exists to present DynaFoil TF values. Conventional hydrofoil TFs are already
represented in the dataset.
2.2.2 Aerodynamic Support

2.2.2.1
Aircraft
Aircraft were not discussed at the workshop
2.2.2.2
Ekranoplans
Ekranoplans of the Russian pattern were not discussed at the workshop. The discussions focused on the
WIG-like behavior of certain other concepts, specifically an Ekranocat, Quadrimaran, and Wild Thing.
2.2.2.2.1
Historical Origin
The pure Ekranoplan is a wing-supported vehicle which operates in ground effect. By operating in
ground effect very high lift coefficients may be obtained with very little induced drag. Unfortunately the
enhancement from the ground effect is greatly offset by the typically low aspect ratio of the lifting surface.
Ekranoplans were invented in the (then) Soviet Union and extensively tested, including construction of
large military transports.
E.g: On minimizing the Resistance of Hydrofoils Peter R. Payne, working paper 380-21-R9, available
from Payne Associates, 300 Park Drive, Severna Park, MD 21146-4416.
36
The craft considered at the workshop were of two sorts: A ram/gap multihull, which generates an air
cushion effect through ahead speed (Quadrimaran and Wild Thing) and an aerodynamically shaped
superstructure which generates a small amount of lift to enhance ship performance.
2.2.2.2.2
Dominant Physics
2.2.2.2.3
Russian ekranoplan development dates from 1949. A major milestone is the 1965 KM Caspian Monster
which attracted the attention of intelligence agencies world wide )see Figure 17). Since that time Russian
designers have fielded about a dozen different types of WIG craft.
Partial aerodynamic support craft of the type considered in the workshop have not received the same level
of centralized attention. However, as commercial ship developers have reached for higher and higher
speeds additional attention has been paid to aerodynamic alleviation.
2.2.2.2.4
Current activities
The EkranoCat is an Australian concept6. In this concept a catmarans superstructure is faired into an
airfoil shape. This generates a some lift which contributes to the ships performance. Because of the end
Figure 17 - The 1965 Soviet Ekranoplan "KM" - Caspian Monster
Analysis of the Efficiency of an Ekranocat: A Very High Speed Catamaran with Aerodynamic
Alleviation Lawrence J. Doctors, International Conference on Wing in Ground Effect Craft (WIGs 97),
RINA, London UK December 4-5 1997.
37
plate effect of the ships sidehulls there may be no induced drag for this component, and thus the L/D of
the house may be significant
However, we see that, even if full stagnation pressure were generated under the cross structure (a Cl of 1)
at 50 knots this would result in a force of 9 lbs per square foot. On a craft the size of the Stena HSS 1500
this represents about 5% of the ships weight. While 5% of the ships weight is nothing to be sneered at,
it is not a sufficiently large contribution to the lift of the craft to warrant putting the craft in a class by
itself. Indeed, partial air support of this sort should best be considered an enabling technology.
At what speed would the air support become significant? The Aker Finnyards Swath 2000 Project
(design) weighs 6000 tons on a foot print of 150m x 40m. This yields a weight of 204 psf. This is
consistent with SES of this size, which have cushion heads on the order of 1 meter.
Ram air at stagnation pressure will produce a pressure of 204 psf at a velocity of about 240 knots. At such
speeds full air support becomes possible for surface craft of this size. Indeed, behavior of this sort is seen
in offshore powerboat racing, where ram-air supported tunnel boats become airborne at speeds in the
neighborhood of 200 knots.
The EkranoCat work of Dr. Larry Doctors showed an ability to carry 50% of the weight of a notional craft
at a length Froude number of 2.0. For a 100m catamaran this corresponds to a speed of about 116 knots.
2.2.2.2.5
No discussions took place regarding the R&D needs of aerodynamically supported craft. The impression
left is that these concepts are nearer to basic research than they are to operational deployment at sealift
sizes.
2.2.2.2.6
Insufficient data exists to present TF for air supported craft.
2.3
Powered Support Ships
2.3.1 Hydrostatic Support

2.3.1.1
Air Cushion Vehicles
2.3.1.1.1
Hovercraft
Pure hovercraft received only passing reference at the workshop. It is interesting to note Dr. Doctors
FAST 97 paper in which he shows that pure hovercraft have the lowest drag of any large fast marine
transport. In the light of this observation, why are there no current advocates of large hovercraft for
sealift? It appears that the complications of the lift system and skirts are the main disadvantage of the
pure hovercraft.
38
2.3.1.1.2
Surface Effect Ships
2.3.1.1.2.1
Historical Origin
Again quoting from the February 1985 Naval Engineers Journal:

Mr. Allen Ford invented the SES, then called a captured air bubble (CAB), in 1960, as a solution to the
problem of excessive lift power required to maintain the air gap of a ground effect machine (GEM) when
traveling over water. This invention has since been developed to obtain a more efficient open-ocean ship.
As compared to an air cushion vehicle (ACV), the SES hull, which pierces the water surface (hence, nonamphibious), has less air leakage, better longitudinal stability, and an acceptable form for utilizing water
propulsion systems, which, at speeds to about 120 knots, are more efficient than air propulsion. The
shape of the hull with its hydrodynamic stability surfaces can be significantly varied in planform to meet
all design requirements, from small, calm-water "air-lubricated" barges to large ocean-capable ships. The
practical design speed regime of such ships varies from - 15 to + 70 knots.
2.3.1.1.2.2
Dominant Physics
2.3.1.1.2.3
Again quoting from the February 1985 Naval Engineers Journal:

To date. over 460 SESs have been developed and are operational throughout the world. The U.S. Navy's
interest has been focused upon the technology required to optimize these ships and demonstrating this
technology by the development of many testcraft prior to their introduction as mature mission systems in
the fleet.
Although the top speed of most operational SESs is below 40 knots, the historical thrust was to develop a
80-100 knot capability. This was initiated in 1969 with the award of construction contracts to Aerojet
General for the SES-100A and to Bell Aerospace for the SES-100B testcraft. Both of these 100-ton
testcraft were extensively operated to successfully validate the architectural and engineering technologies
developed in parallel with their design and subsequent modifications. Most noteworthy in performance.
the SES-100B established a sustained speed record of 91.9 knots in a slight chop and operated at 35 knots
in 6-8 feet waves. The SES-100A was modified in 1978 to become a 1/4-scale version of the then on
going U.S. Navy 3000-ton, 80-knot prototype (called the 3K SES) contract design and construction
program. Unfortunately for the advancement of modern ships, the 3K SES program was terminated on 7
December 1979, just three weeks prior to the initiation of hull construction. This singular termination
based mainly on the lack of a military mission for this large prototype caused the total frustration of
Admiral Elmo Zumwalt's thrust, as Chief of Naval Operations (1970-1974), for a "100-knot Navy."
However, a political decision cannot alter physical laws, and an extensive high performance and SES data
base has been developed and continues to be expanded and applied towards more modern surface ships.
2.3.1.1.2.4
Current activities
Three major activities were discussed at the workshop. These were the Ingalls Surface Effect Vehicle
point design, the Japanese TSL-A, and the ongoing development of the seal-less SES by Harley
Shipbuilding. These are addressed separately below:
a)
Ingalls SEV
The Ingalls SEV has been much discussed and published. Significant milestone publications include the
Naval Engineers Journal, May 1989.
39
Ingalls produced the attached matrix of calculations showing the predicted performance for the SEV at a
variety of loading and machinery options. This data is consistent with other SES data. No participant at
the workshop suggested, either publicly or privately to the chairman, that the Ingalls data was
unbelievable.
c)
Techno Super Liner
The TechnoSuper Liner program was a Japanese government funded development program. Over a
period of about 4 years the team researched several hull forms for development of a ship with the
following requirements:
Cargo
Speed
Range
1000 tonnes
50 knots
500 n.mi
The team centered on development of SES and Hydrofoil options. Two testcraft were built. One was a
hydrofoil of 15-20m length. The second was a 70m SES. It is clear from the allocation of prototyping
funds that the SES was perceived to be a better solution to the design challenge.
The 70m SES, named Hisho, has been built and has demonstrated carriage of cargo at speeds up to 54
knots. Hisho is depicted in Figure 18 below.
Figure 18 - The 70m TechnoSuper Liner demonstrator "Hisho"
b) Harley SES
One perceived problem with large SES is the existence of the fabric seals. This was identified in 1989 as
a major development issue. Harley Shipbuilding Corporation has been developing an SES concept that
has no seals. This craft is depicted in the Harley patent document illustration, reproduced as Figure 19
below.
40
Figure 19 - The patent illustration for the Harley SES

The craft is, obviously, a type of SES Catamaran. Each hull contains an air cushion. Because of the
catamaran configuration the air cushions are of high L/B and thus do not show a pronounced drag hump.
The concept uses a V-shaped planing bow in lieu of a bow skirt. The air is admitted aft of this bow. The
role of the stern skirt is played by a gentle decrease in the inverse deadrise of the cushion area. Harley
shipbuilding provided the following summary of their concept:
What is unique about the Harley SES, is that it is the first to successfully
combine Dynamic Lift and Air Cushion Lift, and the result is far more lift than
just pure air cushion lift. This is of great significance. Also added to this is the
Catamaran Lift from the air forced between the hulls at speed. The
combination of these three lifting elements do connect to provide great lift to
the vessel, particularly as speed increases and load increases.
Also this design gives much structural friendliness; it allows lighter structure
from structurally friendly design including shorter span between hulls, and
measured low loads from softer ride; and the lighter high-strength composites,
further combine to allow much more weight to be allowed to cargo.
Model Testing has indicated that a 730 Harley SES could carry as much as
20,000 tons and cruise at 50+ knots. The model testing has also indicated that
80-100 Knot continuous can be achieved carrying 5,000 to 10,000 tons.
41
The elimination the flexible seals can solve a long list of problems that have
characterized previous SESs and other air cushioned vessels: among these
problems are frequent seal breakage, the high cost of the seals, the poor ride
quality caused by the seals, the high hump drag inherent in traditional SESs,
the center of gravity sensitivity, the limited sea state capabilities, the very high
blower requirements, the limited containment of the air cushion (typically with
large losses and variations due to the flexible seals), the high structural loads
the traditional conventional SESs typically have, and most significantly, the
limited weight carrying ability universally demonstrated in all SESs and air
cushioned vessels with flexible seals.
The Harley tests have indicated very significant gains in weight carrying
abilities over conventional SES and air cushioned designs with its combination
of dynamic planing lift and air cushioned lift and catamaran lift. Further
testing of Harleys new 55' SES soon to be in the water will provide further
information and further confirmation of the very promising results
demonstrated in their 7 model testing programs.
The Harley 26'xl0 SES with the single 115 hp outboard has demonstrated 52
knots on the GPS. This was shown on video tape during the hull forms
workshop. Compared to modem catamaran design, this has shown dramatic
improvement as compared to current state of the art catamarans of this size.
The Navy XR-3 25 foot SES reached 25 knots with twin 50 hp outboards,
similar power to Harley's 26 foot SES.
Harley Shipbuilding also claims that highly significant weight savings on full
sized ships (400 - 800) can be achieved by the use of most modern composite
technologies, not heavily used in the current marine industry in any sector.
Aircraft composite technologies have gone much further than marine
demonstrations of composite technologies, and Harley has used its aircraft
background to apply some of its aircraft composite expertise to high speed
marine vessels, and believes there is much weight to be saved, and therefore
much more weight to be carried in cargo, with the proper application of the
ever improving and well proven aircraft composite technologies.
The Harley design through planing dynamic lift and air cushioned lift does get
nearly the entire vessel out of the water, and this is certainly a key element in
highly significant drag reductions and load carrying abilities.
In Harley Shipbuilding's model test program, models were tested against
comparative V-hulls of same length and weight, twin Hulls, Catamarans, Air
Slip-Stream Cat designs, SESs, and other skirt-free SES designs (ie. Air Ride
Craft); and Harley's tests, particularly when both vessels were given significant
loads to carry (not lightship conditions), efficiencies of between 2 times and in
some cases up to 4 times were universally observed in the model testing. The
minimum improvement was 2 times the efficiency of the next closest test model
in the comparative testing in these conditions.
Harley points out that the only really high speed ships built to date have been
SESs, i.e. theSES-100A at 80 knots, and the SES-100B at 92knots. Each of
these were quite heavy ships for their length, particularly by today's standards.
No other designs for real ships have produced these speeds on real ships, to our
knowledge. Harley believes that only some sort of air cushioned ship can reach
these speeds and carry any significant load. Getting the vessel out of the water
42
as much as possible, but still maintaining the higher lift pressure that can be
generated between the vessel and the water by maintaining contact, yet with air
pressurization, is where the greatest lifts can be achieved.
Harley Shipbuilding is not the only inventor of the skirt-free SES idea. In the USA Don Burgs Air Ride
craft are very similar, and the same concept has been developed and tested in Russia. A monohull using
this concept Linda has been built, and several catamaran versions have been designed. Figure 20
depicts the Linda craft (apologies for the poor quality of the photograph.)
Figure 20 - Russian Skirt-less SES Monohull "Linda"
2.3.1.1.2.5
The hull design of the skirt-less SES has not been optimized.
2.3.1.1.2.6
Data has been added to the transport factor data file to represent the SES craft. This includes multiple
datapoints on the Ingalls SEV and the one known datapoint for the Harley SES. The data is presented in
Table 2, below. A plot of Transport Factor versus speed is given in Figure 21, TF versus Volume Froude
Number is given in Figure 22
43
Table 3 - TF Data for Surface Effect vessels

Ship or Concept
(all are designs except for Harley)
Speed
(knots)
Power
(SHP)
GT 185
85
35000
4500
440
7.35
SEV - WITH 8 LM 2500+ TURBINES
52
381800
12,000
1,735
28,465
26.65
57
381800
12,000
34
25,399
26.07
37
381800
8,000
17,202
42,951
28.61
63
381800
8,000
176
19,909
22.58
37
381800
4,000
21,177
39,638
26.40
69
381800
4,000
27
15,107
18.77
37
381800
25,153
36,325
24.20
74
381800
68
11,240
14.98
SEV - WITH 8 LM 6000 TURBINES
70
560,304
12,000
2,936
29906.2
25.68
78
560,304
12,000
36
25385.9
24.29
48
560,304
8,000
17,279
43810.3
25.80
85
560,304
8,000
44
19889.5
20.74
48
560,304
4,000
21,468
40319.1
23.74
91
560,304
4,000
173
15395.2
17.19
48
560,304
25,657
36829
21.69
97
560,304
82
11254
13.39
SEV - WITH 8 GE 90 TURBINES
101 1,430,670
7,000
3,781
30784.2
14.94
117 1,430,670
7,000
172
25620.9
14.40
74 1,430,670
5,000
17,134
43740.1
15.55
119 1,430,670
5,000
-22
20747.5
11.86
74 1,430,670
3,000
20,502
40934.9
14.55
124 1,430,670
3,000
216
16914.4
10.08
74 1,430,670
25,553
36725
13.06
132 1,430,670
254
11426
7.25
1.5625
4.06
Harley SES (built)
43
115
44

(n.mi)
(LT)
(LT)
TF
ACVs & SES

50.00
45.00
40.00
35.00
TF
30.00
25.00
20.00
15.00
10.00
5.00
0.00
0
50
100
150
200
250
SPEED (knots)
Figure 21 - Transport factor of SES & ACVs, dimensional speeds. Filled spots designate ships which
have been built. Open spots designate designs.
ACVs & SES
50.00
45.00
40.00
35.00
TF
30.00
25.00
20.00
15.00
10.00
5.00
0.00
0
Figure 22 - Transport Factor for ACVs and SESs, non-dimensional speed Filled spots designate
ships which have been built. Open spots designate designs.
45
10
2.3.2 Aerostatic Support

Aerostatically supported vehicles were not discussed at the workshop.
46
3.
Propulsors
3.1
Waterjets
3.1.1 Dominant Physics

See Black et al, Appendix 6.3.
3.1.2 State of Development

Commercial off-the-shelf waterjets are available up to 60,000 SHP, designed for operation at speed of 30
to 60 knots. Larger units are planned.
The performance of modern waterjets is depicted in Figure 23. That figure presents bands of performance
based on actual operating experience. The consensus of the workshop committee was that the figure was
accurate from own experience.
The figure only presents data to 60 knots. INCAT have stated that waterjet propulsion is viable to 80
knots, with OPC of about 0.60 at that speed.
It is important to note the definition of overall propulsive coefficient, as used in the figure. This is the
ratio of bare hull EHP to trials SHP. As such it includes appendage drag as a component of OPC. This is
because different propulsors have different appendage suites and it seems appropriate to allocate the
appendages to the propulsor - to make the propulsor pay for its own appendages.
3.1.3 Current Activities & R+D Needs

The current focus of commercial development is toward increasing power. The conventional path for
increasing power has been to make ever larger jet units. This, however, is running against geometric
constraints in the latest generation of fast ships. Ship designers are asking for large powers on small
transoms, requiring the development of units with ever higher power/diameter ratios.
Manufacturers are addressing this need by investigating various combinations of multi-stage, axial, and
inducer-type pumps.
3.1.4 Propulsive Efficiency State of the Art

The state of the art for large waterjets on high speed ships is depicted above in Figure [[]]. As shown, the
propulsive efficiency is 0.70 to 0.75 in the speed range 40 to 60 knots.
47
Figure 23 - State of the Art Performance for Waterjets and other Propulsors
3.2
Propellers
3.2.1 Fully Wetted Propellers

Fully wetted propellers did not receive much discussion at the workshop. The consensus was that their
performance is well understood and documented. Tacitly the attendees endorsed Figure 23 as describing
the performance of Fully Wetted Propellers.
3.2.2 Ventilated propellers

Discussion of ventilated propellers centered on debates and anecdotes of performance values. The
consensus was again to endorse Figure 23 as descriptive.
48
3.2.2.1
Dominant Physics
3.2.2.2
State of Development
3.2.2.3
Current Activities & R+D Needs
3.2.2.4
Propulsive Efficiency State of the Art
Surface propeller performance is shown in Figure 23. Again, that figure is truncated at 60 knots. INCAT
have provided the opinion that surface drives at 80 knots are off-the-shelf technology up to 22 MW per
shaft, with a resulting propeller diameter of about 3 meters.
49
50
4.
Centers of Activity in High Speed Ships
How does one stay abreast of the developments in high speed ship technology? The following list presents
three major recurring conference which are attended by, indeed in some cases organized by, workshop
participants.
4.1
Major Conferences and Shows
4.1.1 Fast Ferry International

Fast Ferry International magazine holds an annual conference dealing specifically in technology and
operational issues of fast ferries and other fast ships. Fast Ferry International magazine was once
Hovercraft Magazine. The magazine has shown a tendency to evolve as the fast ship industry evolves.
Thus, as most fast ships today are ferries, sot he magazine treats primarily of ferries.
The result of this desirable chameleon behavior is to suggest that the Fast Ferry conference will remain a
center of discussion for fast ships, whatever their vocation.
Fast Ferry 1998 is to be held in Copenhagen 24-26 February 1998. For more information see
www.fastferry.co.uk/conference.html.
4.1.2 FAST
The FAST series of conference proceedings is one of the major reference works in the technology of fast
ships. Held every two years since 1991 (hence FAST 91, FAST 93, FAST 95, and FAST 97). The
proceedings may be ordered from:
Fast International Foundation
Mr. Kjell Holden, Director
Marintek
Norwegian Maritime Technology Research Institute
Otto Nielsensv. 10
POBox 4125 Valentinlyst
Trondheim N-7002 NORWAY
tel: +47-73-59-55-00
fax: +47-73-59-58-70
e-mail: kjell.holden@marintek.sintef.no
FAST 99 will be held in Seattle Washington August/September 1999. See:
www.baird.com.au/fast/index.htm
4.1.3 HIPER
HIPER 99 is a new conference scheduled for 24-26 February 199, in Zevenwacht South Africa. For more
information see www1.sun.ac.za/local/academic/fak_ing/meg_ing/HIPER_99/HIPER_99.html.
51
52
5.
Enabling Technologies
Enabling technologies are those which contribute to the success of the advanced craft. For example,
lightweight structure is of benefit to all of the various craft. This section provides a brief overview of the
different enabling technologies and their states of development. This section may be considered to be
orthogonal to the Enabling Technologies entries specific to each of the vehicle types.
5.1
Hydrodynamics
Resistance - Air Lubrication: Much of the research on high speed ships has been directed at reducing
wave drag. As a result many of the most promising high speed concepts (videlicet the SES and the
Slender hull) find themselves dominated by frictional drag.
Workshop participants spoke of no successful large scale friction reduction techniques. Many have been
explored, such as latorres Ship Hull Drag Reduction Using Bottom Air Injection7 but there are few if
any operational ships with such systems
Successful friction reduction would bear much fruit for high speed ships.
Resistance - High Rn Friction
Resistance - Correlation allowance: For example, at 60 knots for a length of 200m the Reynolds number
is around 6x10^9. The ITTC friction line predicts Cf=0.00124, while a typical Ca is 0.0004. Hence a
perfectly smooth surface would save 25% of frictional resistance.
5.2
Structure
5.3
Propulsion
5.4
Electrical and Auxiliary Machinery
5.5
Command and Control
Weather routing
Collision Avoidance
Ocean Engineering, volume 24, No 2, pp 161-175, 1997
53
54
6.
Appendices
6.1 Membership of subgroup Hullforms, Hydrodynamics, and

Propulsors
NAME
COMPANY
ADDRESS
PHONE/FAX/EMAIL
Allison, John
Band Lavis and

Associates
900 Ritchie Highway Severna

Park, MD 21146
410-544-2800
202-262-1030
410-647-3411 (fax)
Black, Dr. Scott D.
NSWCCD, Code
5400
9500 MacArthur BoulevardWest

Bethesda, MD 20817-5700
301-227-4304
black@oasys.dt.navy.mil
Blount, Don
Donald L. Blount &

Assoc.
2550 Ellsmere Ave., Suite K

Norfolk, VA 23513
757-857-1943 757-8574160
73430.2366@compuserv
e.com
Bowden, John
Ingalls Shipbuilding MS 1090-11 P.O. Box

601-935-6832601-935149Pascagoula, MS 39568-0149 6838 (fax)
bowdenjo@ingalls.com
Clifford, Bob
INCAT
18 Bender Drive Moonah

Tasmania 7009 Australia
Conradi, Trond
Quadramaran
International
263 McLaws Circle Williamsburg, 804-220-2355 804-253VA 23187-1959

8110 (fax)
quad@bellatlantic.net
Daskovsky, Mark
Payne Associates
300 Park Drive Severna Park, MD 410-647-4943

21146-4416
daskovsky@aol.com
Davis, Michael J.
**CO-CHAIR
NSWCCD, Code
5500
9500 MacArthur Boulevard West

301-227-1228
mdavis@dt.navy.mil
Doctors, Prof. Larry
Univ. of New South

Wales
Sydney, NSW 2052, Australia
+61 2 9385 4098

+61 2 9663 1222 (fax)
l.doctors@unsw.edu.au
Enlund, Hakan
Aker Finnyards
P.O. Box 139FIN-26101 Rauma

FINLAND
358 2 83 611 or 358 2

836 4178358 2 836 2366
(fax)
hakan.enlund@finnyards
.fi
Fung, Siu
NSWCCD
9500 MacArthur Boulevard

West Bethesda, MD 20817-5700
Giles, David L.
Fastship Atlantic
123 Chestnut Street, Suite

204Philadelphia, PA 19106
55
61 (0) 3 6273 0677 61

(0) 3 6273 0932 (fax)
rclifford@incat.co.au
215-574-1770
215-574-1775 (fax)
Goubault, Phillipe
Band Lavis and

Associates
900 Ritchie HighwaySeverna Park, 410-544-2800202-261MD 21146

1030410-647-3411
bla@access.digex.net
Harley, Howard
Harley Shipbuilding 300 South 1st Street Bartow, FL

33830
941-533-2800941-5330787 (fax)
harleyship@aol.com
Hoyt, John G.
NSWCCD, Code
5500
9500 MacArthur BoulevardWest

301-227-1216
hoyt@oasys.dt.navy.mil
Karafiath, Gabor
NSWCCD, Code
5200
9500 MacArthur Boulevard West 301-227-7005

karafiat@dt.navy.mil
Latorre, Prof. Bob
University of New
Orleans
School of Naval Architectureand 504-280-7180

Marine Engineering New Orleans, 504-280-5542 (fax)
LA 70148-2225
Maloney, Ken
Univ. of New
Orleans
School of Naval Architecture &

Marine Engineering
New Orleans, LA 70148-2225
McKesson, Chris
**CO-CHAIR
John J. McMullen
Assoc., Inc.
7726 Clover Blossom Lane

Bremerton, WA 98311-3910
360-613-2540 360-6985867 (fax)

chrism@hurricane.net
McMahon, John F.
NSWCCD, Code
5400

301-227-4306
mcmahon@oasys.dt.nav
y.mil
Ozawa, Dr. Hiroomi
Mitsui Engineering & 6-4, Tsukihi 5-chome, Chuo-ku,

Shipbuilding Co. Ltd. Tokyo 104, Japan
Peterson, Dr. Frank
NSWCCD, Code
5400
9500 MacArthur Boulevard West 301-227-1418

fpeterson@oasys.dt.nav
y.mil
Platzer, Greg
Bird-Johnson
Company
110 Norfolk StreetWalpole, MA

02081
508-668-5638
Reed, Dr. Arthur M.
NSWCCD, Code
5050

301-227-4309/2092
Savitsky, Dr. Dan
Davidson Laboratory Stevens Institute of Technology

Hoboken, NJ 07030
201-216-5307/5300
201-216-8214 (fax)
dansavit@aol.com
Scher, Dr. Robert
JJMA
Suite 7152341 Jefferson Davis

Highway Arlington, VA 22202
703-418-0100
bscher@jjma.com
Schreiber, Dr. Will
University of
Alabama
Dept. of Mechanical Engineering 205-348-1650 205-348P.O. Box 870276 Tuscaloosa, AL 6419 (fax)
35487-0276
wschreiber@coe.eng.ua.
56
81-3-3544-3345 81-33544-3041 (fax)

ozawa@mes.co.jp
edu
Sherer, Otto
AME
Suite 602 1725 Jefferson Davis

HighwayArlington, VA 22202
703-413-9200
scherer_ott@advmar.co
m
Sipila, Heiki
Kvaerner-Masa
Yards.
FINLAND
Svensson, Rolf
KaMeWa
Manager, Development and

Projects Engineer,Jet-Propulsion
Systems Box 1010 S-681 01
Kristinehamn, SWEDEN
Vorus, Prof. Wm
Univ. of New
Orleans
504-280-7180504-280School of Naval Architecture &

Marine Engineering New Orleans, 5542 (fax)
wsvna@uno.edu
LA 70148-2225
Wilson, Dr. Michael
NSWCCD, Code
5400

Wooden, Bruce
Newport
Technologies
239A Eustis Avenue Newport, RI 202-289-1100

02840-3363
spsyw@aol.com
Gerard, Joe
US Army
46 550 840 00
46 550 181 90 (fax)
301-227-5862
gerarjt@dcsopspo3.army
.mil
Hoffman, Russ
207-442-3747
rhoffman@biw.com
Chuck Fortenberry
LMI
703-917-7421
forten@lmi.org
Jim Sandison
NAVSEA 03D3
703-412-2958
sandison_james@navse
a.hq.navy.mil
Ingram, Thomas
ABS Wash DC
ABS Americas, 1421 Prince

Street, Alexandria, VA 22314
57
703-519-0801fax 703519-1898
tingram@eagle.org
58
6.2
McKesson white paper on sealift state of the art
INTRODUCTION - The A-Ha!

Ive been thinking about the sealift question, wondering: What can be done? What are the
critical technologies? Where should we focus our questions?
I have surprised myself by finding a very simple relationship between three parameters. In
consideration of them the sealift technology question becomes:
n What is the highest total vehicle L/D we can attain?
n What is the highest propulsor efficiency we can obtain?
n What is the lowest fuel consumption we can attain?
If we accept that the current state-of-the-art is:
n L/D=208
n OPC = 0.6
n SFC = 0.5 lbs/hp-hr
Then the maximum possible range is 7800 nautical miles - and thats for a ship which is 100%
fuel - no payload, no crew, no structure.
Find this hard to believe? So did I. Consider the following:
THE DERIVATION
Assume:
Lift/Drag ratio of 20:1
Then:
Drag = 112 lbs for every LT of ship displacement
So:
EHP = Drag*Speed/326 for every LT of ship displacement
Assume:
Propulsive Coefficient = 0.6
Then:
SHP = EHP/0.6 for every LT of ship displacement
=Drag*Speed/326/0.6
=Drag*Speed/195.6
Further:
Speed is "X" knots
Range is "Y" nautical miles
Time "T" is Y/X hours
Assume:
Fuel Consumption is SFC=0.5 lbs/ HP-Hour
This L/D is approximately representative of an SES at 65 knots. L/D is a function of speed. Other
deisgn speeds will have different L/D State of the Arts.
59
Fuel Load then is:

Fuel (lbs) = SFC*SHP*T
Fuel (lbs) = 0.5 * ( Drag * Speed / 195.6 ) * Range / Speed
The "Speed" in the numerator cancels the "Speed" in the denominator....
Fuel (lbs) = 0.5 * ( Drag / 195.6 )* Range
Fuel (lbs) = Drag * Range / 391.2
Substitute the equation for drag (=112 lbs/LT)...
Fuel (lbs) = (112 lbs for every LT of ship displacement) * Range / 391.2
So finally, for every LT of ship displacement, given the assumptions we made about L/D, SFC,
and PC, this reduces to:
Fuel = 0.286 * Range ( that's pounds of fuel per ton of ship, with range in nautical
miles.)
The zinger is this: Assume a range of 7832 n mi....
Fuel = .286 * 7832 = 2240 lbs / LT of ship
One ton of fuel for every ton of ship. Doesn't leave a lot for the ship, the payload, etc?
Obviously this depends on what you assume for L/D, SFC, and PC. I used L.D=20 throughout,
based on Dr. Genalis' comments. The values of SFC and PC used above may be little
conservative. The figure below shows the contours for two sets of assumptions.
THE IMPLICATIONS - So What?
Given the obvious truth of the derivation - so what? How does this focus the R&D effort?
It does this by casting all of our questions into one of four bins:
n Improvements to L/D
n Reductions in SFC
n Improvements in OPC
n Reductions in light ship weight
R&D Questions
The following R&D questions are posed as topics to keep in mind:
L/D
Conventional SES at 70+ knots attain L/D 20. Have we seen any higher L/Ds at
similar or greater speed? (Its no fair comparing to a lower speed design. Von Karman
shows that L/D increases with decreasing speed.)
SFC
The best diesel-burning technology gets about 2.5 hp-hrs per pound of fuel. I have seen
reports that suggest that hydrogen fuel runs 5 hp-hrs per pound. What fuel consumption
rates do other machines or fuels offer?
OPC
Surface drives attain OPCs of 0.6 - 0.75 at speeds of 75 - 100 knots. Have we seen any
reports of higher efficiencies (again: at similar speeds.)
Weight Lastly of course, what technologies have been presented that offer the opportunity to
significantly reduce light ship weight?
60
100%
L/D=20, QPC=.6, SFC=.5
L/D=20, QPC=.75, SFC=.4
Percent
of ship
which is
Fuel
0%
0
1000
2000
3000
4000
5000
6000
7000
8000
9000
10000
RANGE (n mi)
Figure 24 - Shows the influence of three parameters on the ship's total required fuel load. For the
most conservative set of values it is impossible to exceed 7832 nm of range.
CONCLUSION
If we listen with our ears tuned to these four questions, we will come away from the conference
with a menu of technology possibilities. By then subjecting these technology possibilities to a
modest amount of cost/benefit analysis we will quickly be able to define the bounds of feasibility
for the fast sealift question.
I offer this as a foundation for discussions amongst the sealift technology team.
Respectfully,
Chris B. McKesson, PE
61
1.1
62
6.3 State of the Art Propulsors for High-Speed (40-50 knot)

Ships
State of the Art

Propulsors for High-Speed (40-50 knot) Ships
Scott D. Black, John F. McMahon, Thad J. Michael
For the propulsion of a large, high-speed cargo ship, there are a large number of propulsor
configuration options available. Some propulsors are more suitable for particular ship configurations than
others. This survey paper will describe the possible propulsor types available, their strengths and
shortcomings, and will also try to provide guidance on what types of hullforms these propulsors are best
suited for.
In Table 4, a list of propulsor types, configurations and arrangements are shown below. Each of
these elements will be described as to how they are applicable to the problem of propelling a 50 knot cargo
ship.
Table 4: Potential Propulsor Design Configurations
TYPES:
Subcavitating Propeller
Transcavitating Propeller (Newton-Rader)
Super-Cavitating Propellers
Fully Submerged Propellers
Partially Submerged Propellers
Ventilated Propellers
Waterjets
CONFIGURATIONS:
Single Blade Row
Contra-Rotating
Pre/Post-swirl
Ducted/Ring
Grim-wheel
ARRANGEMENTS:
Shaft and Struts
Podded Propellers (Tractor/Pusher)
Tunnel Sterns
Bulbous Stern
TECHNOLOGIES/FEATURES:
Advance Blade Section Design
Tip Vortex Free (Winglets)
Controllable Pitch Propellers
Propulsor Types
The propeller types can be classified by the flow regime in which they operate. The subcavitating
propellers operate with little or no cavitation present on the blades. Transcavitating propellers will have
63
sheet cavitation on the blade surface which collapses before the trailing edge. This type of cavitation
causes erosion and vibration problems. Transcavitating propellers are generally avoided. Supercavitating
propellers operate with a cavity over their entire suction surface. This cavity may be filled with either
water vapor (super-cavitating) or air (ventilated/surface piercing). The cavity collapses beyond the
trailing edge of the blade, thus avoiding erosion and vibration problems.
Propellers may have different blade sections over their span, for instance super-cavitating
sections may be used near the tip where higher velocities (and lower s) exist while trans- or sub-cavitating
sections may be used near the hub.
It is expected that above 40 knots, cavitation will be unavoidable for all types of propulsors
except waterjets. The presence of cavitation introduces the potential for erosion as well as efficiency
reduction, vibration and noise problems. The inception of cavitation can be delayed by designing for the
most uniform flow possible into the plane of the propeller. If the inflow varies significantly during the
propeller rotation, cavitation and unsteady forces can be expected.
Super-Cavitating
Fully cavitating propellers have been shown to have a reduction in velocity approaching the
propeller plane. This results in an increase in pressure and, at times, a negative thrust deduction value.
This also occurs with ventilated propellers. Supercavitating-type propellers can operate either fully or
partially submerged.
Fully submerged propellers can employ pod-strut or inclined shaft mountings. Either pusher
(propeller aft) or tractor (propeller forward) pod mountings can be used. Fully submerged propellers can
operate either supercavitating or superventilated, if ventilating air is introduced.
Partially submerged propellers, which almost always will be superventilated, are usually transommounted. The partially submerged propellers have lower efficiencies than conventional props at low
speeds and higher levels of vibration and noise. For large diameter partially submerged props, the use of
transcavitating sections with little ventilation is suggested. (RAINS)
One way of avoiding cavitation and its detrimental effects is by means of natural or forced
ventilation. Natural ventilation can be achieved in partially submerged propellers. If the blade suction
side becomes fully ventilated, cavitation erosion will be completely avoided.
Caja found that efficiencies of about 0.74% can be expected for partially submerged
propellers.[15] Tests at SSPA comparing partially submerged propellers and waterjets for SES at speeds
of 40-50 knots concluded that partially submerged propellers were superior to waterjets for SES.[4] The
air-water mixture likely to be present around the SES may reduce the vibrations experienced by partially
submerged propellers.
Super cavitating and ventilated propellers are essentially single operating point designs and not
directly adaptable to varying loads. When operating in a fully wetted condition such as when accelerating
through the low speed range, they require a higher torque than when cavitating and may overload the
engine. Controllable pitch may be used to lessen or even overcome this condition.
Waterjets
Waterjet propulsors are ducted propulsors buried within the ship itself. They usually use axial
flow or mixed flow pumps with a downstream stator blade row to remove the swirl from the flow. This
laboratory has done a preliminary design of a unit that uses a centrifugal pump and there is at least one
centrifugal unit available commercially. Waterjets are competitive candidates for any ship in the 30-50
knot speed range and are usually, if not always, the propulsor of choice for any type of planning hull.
There are two more or less unique characteristics of waterjets that lead to their being the propulsor of
choice. One is that they all use vectored thrust to steer and stabilize the ship and so eliminate the control
surfaces. The other is that the interaction between the propulsor and the ship results in a added forward
thrust rather than the negative thrust characteristic of external propulsors. Another favorable aspect of
waterjet propulsors is that they have the superior off-design performance that is characteristic of all ducted
propulsors.
The fact that the propulsor is buried inside of the ship thereby using up some of the useful space
implies that the propulsor and the ship cannot be analyzed
64
separately. This is of paramount importance. John Allison and Phillipe Goubault of Band-Lavis
[2] have developed a computer program that performs such an analysis on a ship having a prescribed
mission. It is common practice to use such a program to select the best waterjet characteristics for a given
mission.
Such a system analysis usually leads to a unit with a relatively low mass flow rate as compared to
an external propulsor be it an open propeller or some sort of podded unit. Low mass flow rates necessarily
imply high jet velocities which, in turn, imply relatively low efficiencies. Waterjets viewed separately from
the ship they are propelling commonly have efficiencies that are lower, by as much as perhaps 10 points,
than an equivalent open propeller. However, elimination of the control surfaces and, to a lesser extent, the
favorable hull interaction effect can, and usually does, make up the difference. If the hull is planing,
elimination of the control surfaces more than makes up the difference. For ships of the size and speed
required for this project waterjets are almost certainly the propulsor of choice. Furthermore, waterjets in a
wide variety of sizes are already commercially available.
The project ship will probably have to operate over a wide range of loading conditions. The
favorable off design characteristics of waterjets, as well as other ducted propulsors, make them ideal for
this application. Such units typically have very flat KQ and KM vs. J curves (KM is defined as m 3 ). This
nD
implies that the torque and the mass flow rate are dependent upon the RPM and virtually independent of
the ship speed. It also implies that the non-dimensional flow inside the unit is invariant; that is the flow
angles and angles of attack remain nearly fixed regardless of the operating conditions. Not only does this
result in good off design performance but it also means that a unit does not have to be specifically
designed for a given ship. Manufacturers typically have one, more or less, universal design that they make
in a range of sizes. To a large degree one has only to pick the correct size for his or her application.
Although the non-dimensional internal flow is independent of the operating characteristics, the
flow at the inlet to the unit is not. Even though an off the shelf unit can be chosen for a given application,
the inlet (which is, in a sense, where the unit is matched to the ship) has to be designed specific to the
application. If the ship has a single operating point where it will operate at most of the time, then the
inlet can be designed for this point. It would probably be fairly sharp and not operate very well at
conditions far removed from the design point. Accelerating up to speed is such a condition and so ships
with inlets designed for a single operating point may not come up to speed very well. But the inlet can
also be designed to operate over a range of operating conditions. It would probably be well rounded and
the performance at any one operating point would not be as good as a unit designed for that specific point.
In summary, a waterjet type of propulsor utilizing vectored thrust could be expected to have a
design point power requirement at least equivalent to any type of open propeller and lower if the ship is
planning Furthermore, the waterjet has superior off design performance particularly if the inlet is
designed to operate over a wide range of operating conditions. Waterjets in the size required are already
commercially available.
Propulsor Configurations
The largest losses in a propulsor are those due to viscous effects, rotational losses,
momentum/wake losses and finite blade effects. The two areas in which some improvement can be
achieved are the viscous effects and the rotational losses. Research in advanced blade section design has
resulted in the design of blade sections with reduced sectional drag coefficients which can provide some
increase in propeller efficiency. The rotational energy lost behind a conventional propeller can be
recovered using either pre- or post-swirl vanes or through the use of contrarotating propellers. The use of
a Grim-wheel is also an option. These propulsor configurations recover the rotational energy normally
left in the wake and can achieve 5-15% gains in efficiency. In the
case of contrarotating propellers, some additional gain is realized since each rotor is carrying a
lower thrust. The mechanical losses, complexity, maintenance, weight, and cost of these complex
propulsor types must also be accounted for.
Some propulsor concepts, namely the podded propulsors and waterjets, allow for the reduction or
elimination of the rudders thereby reducing the appendage drag of the ship.
The following expression shows why, for purely inviscid flow, the use of large area, low thrust
propellers are the most efficient.
65
ideal =
2
1 + 1 + CT
CT =
Thrust
1
R 2V 2
2
Ducted Propellers
Ducted propellers or any propulsor where the propeller is placed in some form of duct work, have
different operating characteristics than open propellers. This is primarily due to the fact that the duct acts
so as to regulate the mass flow rate through the unit. The result is that the flow angles within the unit are
very nearly independent of operating conditions and so ducted units characteristically have superior off
design characteristics. In particular, their torque is dependent almost entirely upon RPM and almost
independent of
ship speed. If they are matched well with the engine at the operating condition, then they are
well matched at all conditions. The angles of attack at the inlet to the duct does depend upon operating
conditions and has to be suitable designed according to the mission of the ship.
Arrangements - Open Propellers
Shaft and Strut
Shaft and strut is the conventional design for naval vessels with submerged propellers. The shaft
and strut arrangement results in an increased appendage drag. Any submerged or partially submerged
propeller may be used with a shaft and strut arrangement.
Podded Propellers
Podded propulsors separate the propulsor from the hull by means of a strut. If the pod is
steerable, then the rudder may be eliminated, reducing appendage drag. There are three types of podded
propulsors: tractor, pusher, and a combination. The combination uses both tractor and pusher propellers
rotating in opposite directions to recover rotational energy and reduce blade loading.
The primary advantage of the tractor propeller system compared to a pusher system is that the
tractor propeller operates in uniform, or nearly uniform, inflow. This reduces the cyclic variation of
loading with the blade passing through the wake of the strut. As a result, higher propeller design stresses
can be used which result in higher propeller efficiencies.
The tractor system has the disadvantage that the propeller slipstream impinges on the strut,
providing a potential source of cavitation damage. This higher velocity slipstream also increases the drag
of the pod. The use of a stepped pod where ventilation occurs aft of a particular location allows for some
reduction in pod drag. When supercavitating propellers are used in a tractor configuration, the cavities
can connect with the strut cavity and cause ventilation. From a drag standpoint, the tractor pod-strut
system appears inferior to the pusher system.
The pusher pods have 5% less resistance than the tractor pods for similar size pods. (Roddy 83)
For propellers with equal open water propeller efficiency, the pusher pod is expected to have 4% higher
net efficiency.
Tunnel Sterns
The advantage of tunnel sterns is that they allow the shaft angle to be reduced, so that less of the
thrust is directed downward. A tunnel stern may also allow the use of a larger diameter propeller. The
disadvantages are that the hull efficiency will decrease while the thrust deduction and resistance will
increase. Blount reports that there is a reduction in the relative rotative efficiency for tunnel stern
applications.
A tunnel stern application of ventilated surface piercing props yielded efficiencies of about 0.60.65.
66
Bulbous/Skeg Sterns
Bulbous or skeg type sterns will have a high degree of propeller-hull interaction and a nonuniform inflow to the blades. A bulbous stern is not a likely candidate for this application. A bulbous
stern cannot be used with waterjets or surface piercing propellers.
Advanced Features
The design of non-conventional foil shapes for propeller blade design have advanced
significantly in the past twenty years. These blade sections can be designed to have reduced drag and
improved off-design performance. In practical terms, a slight increase in efficiency over conventional
designs can be expected by using this technology.
The use of winglets on the tips of airplane wings has also been applied to the tips of propeller
blades. This feature acts to reduce the losses associated with the tip vortex that forms from flow leaking
from the pressure side to the suction side of the blade. Alternatively, a higher loading is possible near the
tip when using these tip features. A higher loading near the tip will result in a higher efficiency for an
open (non-ducted or waterjet) propulsor. Gains of 3-5% for slower merchant ships have been published,
smaller gains are expected for the high tip speed applications considered here.
Controllable pitch propellers allow the pitch, or angle-of-attack, of the blades to be changed at
different ship or shaft speeds. This allows the propeller to operate at its design point for a wide range of
off-design conditions. Due to the wide variation in operations expected for this vessel, the use of
controllable pitch propellers will probably be a necessity. The penalties associated with controllable pitch
arrangements are that a slightly larger propeller shaft and hub are necessary this reduces the design
efficiency slightly. There is also a additional weight and cost associated with the machinery.
State of the Art
Most vessels in use today that operate at the 45-55 knot speeds are fast ferries, high-speed patrol
craft and pleasure/racing craft. These vessels are not faced with the high thrust loading associated with
cargo vessels so direct analogies are difficult. The propulsors in most of these vessels are either waterjets
or surface-piercing propellers.[4]
Podded propulsors with an electric motor located in the pod have been utilized in several ships since
the early 1980's. Units of 15-20,000 horsepower have been installed on a number of low speed
vessels.
Contra-rotating propulsors have been installed in a number of Japanese tankers with up to 36,000
shaft horsepower. These vessels operate at a speed of around 15 knots but the technology is available
for high power contra-rotating mechanisms.
The largest high-speed ferry is the semi-SWATH form catamaran Stena Explorer, with an overall
length of 125 m, a displacement of 4000 tonnes, and a loaded speed of 45 knots. The Stena Explorer
is propelled with waterjets.
The yacht Destriero a 1,000 tonne planning craft has three 18,000 horsepower KaMeWa waterjets
installed in it. This vessel achieved an average 53 knots during a trans-Atlantic crossing.
The FoilCat 2900 made by Westmarin West in Sweden is a hydrofoil assisted catamaran which uses
two 2000 kW, Z-drive tractor pods with transcavitating propellers to achieve an operating speed of 45
knots. The FoilCat 2900 has a displacement of 123 tonnes.
One of the Japanese Techno SupraLiner vessels is 70 m in length and through waterjet propulsion,
achieves 54 knots with 16,000 installed horsepower. There is a larger design for a 127 m vessel
powered by four 25,000 horsepower waterjets at 50 knots.
A Russian naval hovercraft has been converted to the fast ferry trade. This vehicle utilizes two tractor
propellers to achieve 60 knots in sea state 2.
Two high speed monohulls of 10,200 tonnes displacement are currently under construction at Riva
Trigoso. This 146m design is supposed to achieve 40 knots using two waterjets.[1]
67
Conclusions
The primary choice of the commercial market is waterjet propulsion. The problem of air
ingestion of waterjets on SES applications has led most of the SES concepts to favor surface-piercing
propellers. The off-design performance waterjets is a large advantage for that option. The use of
controllable pitch propellers for the propellers will also allow good off design performance. The use of
transcavitating propellers will have reasonable performance over a range of operating conditions but will
be less than optimum at all of them and have a great potential for erosion damage when partially
cavitating.
Table 5: Summary of Expected Propulsor Efficiencies for 50 knot Transport
Type
1
Waterjet
Surface Piercing3,4,5
Super Cavitating4,5
Ventilated4,6
Trans-cavitating6
PC
0.65
0.65-0.70
0.65-0.70
0.65-0.70
0.62-0.67
Displacement
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Hullform Applicability
Planing
SES
Hydrofoil
Y
Y
?2
Y
Y
?
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
WIG
N
N
N
N
N
Notes:
1.
Expect some drag reduction from the elimination of the rudders.
2.
Hydrofoil waterjets will require longer and more complex passage geometries. The losses will
result in substantially lower efficiencies.
3.
Surface piercing propellers will be fully ventilated.
4.
Controllable pitch blades will be needed.
5.
Generally surface piercing propellers are mounted on the transom of vessels, eliminating the drag
from struts and shafts.
6.
Propellers may be mounted on shafts or pods. Pods will have a reduced efficiency, but could be
made steerable to eliminate rudder drag.
7.
Air cushion vehicles can use water propulsors mounted on pods below the skirts. Difficulties in
maintaining the propeller/inlet submergence in a seaway may make the surface piercing option
infeasible.
Scott Black, Jack McMahon

Propulsor Technology Department (540)
(301) 227-4304
Bibliography
[1]
Orders and developments. Fast Ferry International, pages 10-12, July 1997.
[2]
J. Allison and P. Goubault. Waterjet Propulsion for Fast Craft Optimized Integration of Hull
and Propulsor. In FAST 95, 1995.
[3]
R.A. Barr and R.J. Etter. Selection of Propulsion systems for High-Speed Advanced Marine
Vehicles. In AIAA/SNAME Advanced Marine Vehicle Conference, San Diego, CA, February
1974.
68
ACV7
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
[4]
J. Bjorklund and B. Allenstrom. SES Propulsion A Choice Between Water-Jet and Partially
Submerged Propellers. In RINA International Symposium on New Developments in Warship
Propulsion, London, England, November 1989.
[5]
D.L. Blout. Design of Propeller Tunnels for High-Speed Craft. In FAST `97, 1997
[6]
D.L. Blout and E. Bjarne. Design and Selection of Propulsors for High Speed Craft.
[7]
R.J. Boswell and W.L. Moore. A Review of the State of the Art of Fully Submerged, Partially
Submerged and Air Propellers with Emphasis on Application to the Coastal (Medium)
Development Craft (CMDC). Technical Report NSRDC-249, Naval Ship Research and
Development Center, February 1973. (UNCLASSIFIED)
[8]
T.B. Ibragimova, M.A. Mavlyudov, and A.A. Roussetsky. Basic Principles of Propulsor
Efficiency Comparisons. In FAST 95, pages 965-975, 1995.
[9]
C. Kruppa. Practical Aspects in the Design of High-Speed Small Propellers.
[10]
C. Kruppa and W. Wuhrer. Development of a Hybrid Propulsion System. In Propellers/Shafting

84 Symposium, Virginia Beach, VA, May 1984
[11]
T. Kudo and Y. Ukon. Calculation of Supercavitating Propeller Performance Using a Vortex

Lattice Method. In The Second International Symposium on Cavitation, Tokyo, Japan, April
1994.
[12]
J.J. Nelka. Technology Trends for Naval Propulsion. In Propellers/Shafting 84 Symposium,

Virginia Beach, VA, May 1984. Ships Machinery Committee, SNAME.
[13]
R.F. roddy. Hydrodynamic Performance of Propulsion Pods: Results of Experiments with a

Groundboard and Correlation with Analytical Predictions. Technical Report DTNSRDC/SPD0829-24, David W. Taylor Naval Ship Research and Development Center, March 1983.
(UNCLASSIFIED)
[14]
J.C. Rose and C.F.L. Kruppa. Methodical Series Model Test Results. In FAST `91, 1991.
[15]
A. Sanchez-Caja. Partially Submerged Propellers on Fast Large Ships an Analysis Theory. In

FAST 97, pages 167-174, 1997
[16]
J.O. Scherer and R.A. Barr. Model Studies of Tractor Propeller Propulsion System for an SES
Test Craft. Technical Report 816-3, Hydronautics Inc, December 1969.
[17]
Y. Ukon, T. Kudo, Y. Kurobe, and T. Hoshino. Design and Evaluation of New Supercavitating
Propellers. In The Second International Symposium on Cavitation, Tokyo, Japan, April 1994.
[18]
Y. Ukon, T. Kudo, Y. Kurobe, N. Matsuda, and H. Kato. Design of High Performance

Supercavitating Propellers Based on a Vortex Lattice Method. In International Symposium on
Propeller and Cavitation, 1995.
69
70
6.4
Comments on Resistance of Different Concepts
71
72
73
74
6.5
Halter Marine Group Sponson Assisted Monohull
75
76
77
78
79
80
6.6 Notes on The Dominant Physics of High Speed by Dr.

Daniel Savitsky
81
82
83
84
85
86
87

05 High Speed Hulls & Propulsors PDF

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

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

05 High Speed Hulls & Propulsors PDF

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Hull Form and Propulsor Technology

for High Speed Sealift

JOHN J. MCMULLEN ASSOCIATES, INC.

THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK

1. Introduction and Lexicon _______________________________________________9

1.4 Conclusion _____________________________________________________________ 12

2. Hull Forms / Vessel Types______________________________________________13

2.1.1.4.5 Incat Catamarans (Built)________________________________________________17

2.2 Dynamic Support Ships___________________________________________________ 21

2.2.2 Aerodynamic Support _________________________________________________________36

2.3 Powered Support Ships ___________________________________________________ 38

3.2 Propellers ______________________________________________________________ 48

4. Centers of Activity in High Speed Ships ___________________________________51

5. Enabling Technologies ________________________________________________53

Hull Form and Propulsor Technology

Speed: 40 - 100 knots

Range: 5,000 - 10,000 n. mi

Cargo: 2,000 - 5,000 short tons

75,000 - 150,000 square feet

Other: Shallow Draft

THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK

Introduction and Lexicon

The Sustention Triangle

The problem with the sustention triangle

The Sustention Cube

1.3.1 First Axis: Static Lift or Dynamic Lift

1.3.2 Second Axis: Aero- Lift or Hydro- Lift

1.3.3 Third Axis: Powered or Passive

1.3.4 The Sustention Cube and its Contents

Conventional ships and barges.

Planing craft (their shape determines their efficiency.) Hydrofoils.

Airplanes and WIGs

Hull Forms / Vessel Types

2.1.1 Hydrostatic Displacement: Ships

Significant development milestones

Savitsky Monohull (Idea)

Figure 4 - Possible improvements in performance of SS United States using latest technology

Kvaerner Monohull (Design)

Sumitomo Monohull (Design)

Halter Sponson-Assisted Monohulls (Design)

Incat Catamarans (Built)

Aker Finnyards Catamaran

R&D Needs / Engineering Challenges

At 1500 length there are limited production and maintenance facilities.

High Rn Friction studies

Correlation allowance reduction through the use of very smooth surfaces

Transport Effectiveness State of the Art

Aker Finnyards HSS 1500

Aker Finnyards HSS 1100 (design)

Aker Finnyards Swath 2000 (design)

INCAT 130m (design)

INCAT 130m (design)

Sumitomo Monohull (design)

Kvaerner Parent (design)

Kvaerner Offspring (design)

SS United States 1997 (design)

1500'Slender Monohull (design)

INCAT 96m (design)

SS United States - As Built

Displacement estimated by the editor.

Range Payload Displacement

Volume Froude Number

Dynamic Support Ships