American Journal of Mechanical Engineering, 2017, Vol. 5, No.

5, 199-204
Available online at http://pubs.sciepub.com/ajme/5/5/2
Science and Education Publishing
DOI:10.12691/ajme-5-5-2

Hydrodynamic Characterisation and Structural Design

Analyses of an Airboat
Ibelema Faango Keribo2,*, Daniel Tamunodukobipi1,2,3
1
Department of Marine/ Mechanical Engineering, Niger Delta University, Wilberforce Island, Bayelsa State, Nigeria
2
Department of Marine Engineering, Rivers State University, Port Harcourt, Nigeria
3
Energy Mechanics Resource Center, Korea Institute of Science and Technology, Seoul, Korea
*Corresponding author: ibkeribo@yahoo.com

Abstract This paper presents the structural design and hydromechanics performance characterization of a
prototype airboat of length= 2.42m, beam= 1.11m, draught= 0.32m, and powering =30 kW. Modified Savitskys
model and test-data are utilized for the analysis. The results show that the hull-trim increases from static trim to a
peak value of 5.2 at Fn =2.50 in the non-planing speed regime; and then decreases to a plateau in the planing-speed
regime. This phenomenon is explained by the aftward drift of the point of action of the resultant lift force towards
the centre of gravity. For higher Froude number, bottom-velocity ratio increases towards unity: i.e. a reduced wake
effect. Resistance curve for airboat is Ogive shape, rather than parabolic; whereas the effective power is parabolic.
Correlation of analysis and test data shows a good agreement, except at transition speed. Therefore, the analysis is
valid for characterizing airboats parameters.
Keywords: hydrodynamic design of airboat, stability analysis of planing hull, resistance and speed characteristics,
design and structural analysis of airboat
Cite This Article: Daniel Tamunodukobipi, and Ibelema K. Faango, Hydrodynamic Characterisation and
Structural Design Analyses of an Airboat. American Journal of Mechanical Engineering, vol. 5, no. 5 (2017):
199-204. doi: 10.12691/ajme-5-5-2.

crafts [2]. Designers of airboat planing hulls encounter

1. Introduction
The difficult operational terrains for oil/gas explorations
and exploitations in the Niger Delta Area of Nigeria have
placed significant emphasis on the use of low draught,
high-speed surface-planing crafts (HSCs), for deployment
of personnel and delivery of logistics between companies
shore-base and operational fields. By ABS standard: a
vessel with Froude number of V ( ) 2.36 is a high-speed
L
craft [1]. Conventional marine vessels with submerged
propellers are largely incapacitated by discontinuous water
bodies, craggy shallow waterways, semi-submerged obstacles
(water hyacinths), mudflats and swamps [2,3]. These
challenges have necessitated the design, development and
increasing usage of all-terrain pliable, high-speed airboats.
Less than a decade ago, the use of aircrafts as a palliative
measure was popular. However, the associated huge
expenses of hiring and the non-availability of safe landing
platforms in the mangrove-forest fields have coerced oil
firms to resort to cheaper but more reliable recourse
means of transport. Airboat and hovercrafts invariably
emerged as the most suited for their operations.
1.1. Definition of Problems
Hydrodynamic phenomena affecting HSC hulls are in
various ways more complex than those of displacement
problems resulting from widely varying friction drag
(aero-hydrodynamic effects), hull trim and draught. Also,
the trade-off between buoyancy and hydrodynamic lifts is
difficult to optimize. Savitsky [4] established that repeated
random dynamic impacts and porpoising during heavy
weather are crucial considerations for hull form, stiffeners
and material selection. However, a light hull structure for
better hydrodynamic performance is readily achieved at
the expense of structural strength for safety. Most authors
present airboat designs without adequate theoretical
analysis for optimal performance. Sverre [5] argued that
an optimal design must entail theoretical modeling,
detailed experimentation and results validation. Thus,
predicting performance characteristics of planing boat
is necessary but rigorous because of the myriad of
widely varying operating conditions which combine in
various proportions, depending on the terrain, to influence
a vessel hydro-mechanics [6]. Invariably, this heightens
the need for a comprehensive virtual tool for modeling
and analyzing airboat parameters for reliability, good
sea-keeping and energy efficiency under any conditions [6].
1.2. Methodology
Therefore, this paper presents a detailed structural and
hydromechanics design, and performance characterization
of airboat. It utilizes a modified Savitskys model [4]
with the inclusion of thrust-induced-moment trim change
for the hydrodynamic characterization. Several relevant
200 American Journal of Mechanical Engineering

technical data sheets for hull-form and performance
evaluation are used [7]. Formula-based stability analysis
and buoyancy lift predict its sea-keeping behavior [8].
Structural integrity analysis is based on shear/bending
stress calculations and mechanical properties of materials.
Model resistance test is performed in a towing tank,
and the results extrapolated to the full-scale airboat.
Correlation of theoretical and model test results is
conducted to validate the analysis. Nonetheless, the
mathematical model and design procedure advanced in
this paper may be useful as a good framework for
preliminary design and performance analysis of airboats.
1.3. Description of Airboat
Airboat is a hard-chine, structurally reinforced fiberglass
or aluminum, ultra-light HSC which is commonly powered
by a diesel engine. Its hull is flat-bottom with no protrusion
below the waterline. Some hulls may have gentle
dead-rise from the centre-line which diminishes
progressively towards the aft. Such feature facilitates easy
maneuvering in water, but at the expense of its stability
performance on ice or grassland. The bow is modified into
a 45 - 60 extended rake as shown in Figure 1. This
prevents water ingress into the craft from wave sprays or
during descent from land into water. Teflon layer on the
bottom provides protection against abrasive wear and
minimizes Coulomb friction on land. The side-chimes
serve as stabilizers and preclude sprays from flowing into
the side of the craft.
Overhanging tree branches, (Chensiyaun, 2010).
Airboat carriage capacity depends on buoyancy, mission,
and nature of route. Some airboats have buoyancy
sufficient for carrying more than 10 passengers and may
be unsinkable because of built-in floaters. In the absence
of floaters, a flooded airboat sinks very quickly (8-15
seconds). In some, passengers are sheltered from the harsh
environment using a fixed or retractable canopy. Airboat
can readily climb in and out of water having a bank
inclined as much as 45. Typically, airboats do not have
brakes and reverse motion. Stopping and reversing are
dependent on the operators maneuvering competence
(Ed Fitzgrald, 2009). Their characteristic Teflon-coated
flat-bottom in conjunction with the absence of protrusions
below the waterline enables them to safely glide over
delicate vegetation, marauding animals, craggy river
canals, grassland, and frozen lakes (Howcherg, 2001).
2. Structural Design and Model
Construction
The model is constructed with a 2mm-thick aluminum
sheet and finished using a 300 grit wet-and-dry paper.
Aluminum is chosen over fiberglass and steel for airboat
hulls because of its strength-to-weight ratio, toughness,
workability, corrosion resistance and durability [10]. On
the hull, 10 stations and 5 waterlines are marked out and
their respective displacements calculated using Simpsons
rule as shown in Table 1. Figure 2 presents the design
loading diagrams for the airboat floating at a draught
d = 0.158m in calm water. Based on the loading, the
maximum bending moment is calculated to occur at 1.2m
forward of the transom. Table 2 presents specifications for
the scantlings.
Table 1. Table of Offsets for the hull design of the model

Half breaths at Water-Lines

Coordinate KEEL WL1 WL2 WL3 WL4 WL5

0 98.25 102.5 105 110 111 111

1 93 102 105 110 111 111

2 91.5 101.5 105 109 111 111

3 91 100.5 105 109 110 111

4 90 100 105 109 110 111

5 180 100 105 109 110 111

6 180 100 105 109 110 111

Figure 1. Airboat (a) principal features and (b) aerial propeller in steel
cage 7 180 99 102.5 106.5 108 110

Unlike canonical marine vessels, airboat is propelled by 8 180 99 102.5 106 107.5 107.5
aerial propeller and steered by a pair of vertical aerial
rudders which direct a stream of forced air towards 9 180 99 102.5 106 107.5 107.5
starboard or portside as required for maneuvering. Both
propeller and rudders are mounted in a protective cage to 10 0 0 0 0 0 107.5
prevent damage resulting from flying objects or
 American Journal of Mechanical Engineering 201

Figure 2. Loading diagram for prototype airboat including: gravity loads and up-thrust

Table 2. Scantlings
Scantlings A (m2) Ah m3 m4 Ah2
Item H (m) height I local m4 moment
(mm) Area moment 2nd moment
Side stiffener 30x 30 x 3 3.6 x 10-4 0.32 1.152 x 10-4 3.684 x 10-5 -
-3 -4 -5
Side plating 320 x 3 1.92 x 10 0.16 3.072 x 10 4.9151 x 10 8.192 x 10-6

Bottom plating 1000 x 2 2 x 10-3 0.001 2 x 10-6 2.0 x 10-9

Bottom stiffness W25 x 5:F25 x 3 6 x 10-4 0.014 8.4 x 10-6 1.176 x 10-7

ai = 4.88 x 10-3 aihi = 24.325 x 10-5 aihi2 = 8.611 x 10-5 I = 8.192 x 10-6

Using the scantlings and the bending moment of each

section, the structural analysis in Table 2 is summarized as ( GM T sin ) 10o

follows:
Section modulus to the bottom ZB = 6.468 x 10-4m3 GZ = (5)
1 2
GM T + 2 BM T tan sin > 10
Section modulus to the deck ZD = 2.480 x 10-4 o
Bending stress to the bottom B = 0.12183 mpa
Bending stress to the deck BD = 0.317742 mpa
Stability behavior of the airboat in calm water is w ggT
= tan 1 (6)
investigated to ascertain its seakeeping performance and W GM T
maneuverability. The analysis considers static and
dynamic stability. The associated metacentric heights Transverse stability is more crucial for airboat
from bottom (KMT and KML) and from CG (GMT and performance to avert capsize during maneuvering since
GML) for transverse and longitudinal are calculated, the length-to-beam ratio is always greater than unity. Thus,
respectively, from Eqs (1) to (4). the calculated transverse stability parameters are: KMT
=0.7289 m, KG = 0.3798 m, and GM T = 0.35m .The area
1 d B2
KM T = + + (1) under GZ curve = 0.05 rad.m, using Simpsons rules.

3 2 AWP 12d

1 d L2 3. Hydrodynamic Design and

KM L = + + (2)

3 2 AWP 12d Performance Analysis
GM T = KM T KG A proper hydrodynamic design of airboat is imperative
for swift motion, good maneuvering, dynamic stable
1 d B2 1 N (3)
= + + ( w y )i and energy efficiency. Principal parameters affecting

3 2 AWP 12d i 1
hydrodynamics of planing crafts are examined.
Mean wetted length-beam ratio is given by:
GM L = KM L KG
Lkeel + Lchine
=
L2 1 N
1 d (4) (7)
= + + ( w y )i 2b
3 2 AWP 12d i 1
V
Fn = (8)
While the righting lever (GZ) in metres and angle of 1
heel () in radians are obtained by: g 3
202 American Journal of Mechanical Engineering

V However, between Fn=5.25 and 5.75, the wetted surface

Fnb = (9) tends to increase. This phenomenon is due to the effect of
gb
spray. In general, at full planing speed, the changes in trim
By Savitsky [4], the Reynolds number (Rn) and and wetted surface are marginal and oscillate about their
coefficient of lift (CLb) are expressed as: mean values.

V b
Rnb = (10)

5
2 g 1.1 0.0055 2
CLb =
= 0.012 + (11)

b 2V 2
( Fnb )2
From Eq. (11) the trim can be written as given in Eq.
(12). Recall that airboat thrust is not along the axis of CG,
but has a bow-dipping moment arm, . This tends to
reduce Savitskys planing boat trim by a magnitude given
by Eq. (13)
CLb
1.1 = (12)
5
0.012 + 0.0055
2


( Fnb ) 2

Figure 3. Characteristic behaviors of trim and wetted surface as Froude
number varies

T Similarly, in Figure 4, the wetted length-beam ratio and

=tan 1 (13) the wetted surface slope from left to right as speed
W GM L increases. This is consistent with the change in draught
Hence, Savitskys trim value is corrected by deducting due to hydrodynamic lift. In contrast, Figure 5 presents a
slight but progressive increase in bottom velocity ratio.
the value of due to thrust induced moment.
This implies that a fully planing airboat has very little
Neglecting air drag, the resultant resistance for airboat is
wake effect.
given as;
1 C V 2 b 2
FO B
RT W tan + 2
= (14)
cos .cos
Note that the wetted surface and bottom velocity ratio
can be estimated, respectively, as;

.b 2
S= (15)
cos .cos

VB 0.012 1.1
= 1 (16)
V .cos

4. Analytical Results and Discussion

In Figure 3, the trim obtained from analysis rises
sharply from 4.2 at Fn =1.75 to a peak value of 5.2 at Fn
=2.50, before descending gently to 2.8 at Fn =5.75. The
boat, between Fn =1.75 and 2.50, exhibits the
characteristics of a typical semi-displacement craft; while
at the peak, it transits to a surface planing craft. This is
because the point of action of the resultant lift forces drifts
aftward until it coincides with the CG at full planing. Then
a dynamic equilibrium is maintained with marginal
changes in trim as Fn .
The wetted surface decreases from 3.15 m2 at Fn =1.75
to 2.0 m2 at Fn =4.50, before describing a plateau. This
reduction is due to increasing hydrodynamic lift which
raises the boat out of water until a dynamic equilibrium is
achieved. During this period, there is a positive rise in CG.
Figure 4. Characteristic decrease of wetted surface and length-beam
ratio with increasing Fn
Figure 6 displaces the Reynolds number which
increases with higher valises of Froude number, in spite of
the progressive reduction in wetted length. It is because
the rise in velocity is two order of magnitude higher than
the reduction in wetted length. As consequence, the
friction coefficient CF, being the inverse of log(Rn),
decreases accordingly. The resistance and effective
velocity of the model are shown in Figure 7. Resistance
curve is steeper, especially in the regime of rising trim
(1.5Fn2.5). For higher values of Fn, the resistance
becomes more linear. Eventually, the entire curve assumes
an Ogive shape. In contrast, the effective power is rather
more of a parabolic curve before planing speed, and linear
 American Journal of Mechanical Engineering
after transition into the full hydrodynamic surface planing
regime (Fn2.5).
Figure 5. Increasing bottom velocity ratio with reduction in wetted
surface
Figure 6. Curves of friction coefficient and Reynolds number
Figure 7. Resistance and effective power curves for airboat model
5. Experimental Results and Validation
To characterize the resistance of a vessel, geometrical,
kinematical and dynamical similitude must be ensured
between the test model and analysis. This condition
is necessary for reliable comparison, reproducibility
and validation of results. The model resistance test is
203
conducted in the towing tank at Rivers State University,
and the procedure for the conduct of the resistance test is
in Ref. [5]. Figure 8 compares the resistance results of the
test and analysis. Generally, the prediction before
transition is in good agreement with test data. However, at
transition, the resistance value drops sharply before
climbing gradually at full planing regime. Nevertheless,
the disparity is slim, but subject to further investigation.
Figure 8. Comparison of test data and analytical results of resistance
6. Conclusion
Hydrodynamic design and structural analyses are
performed for an all-terrain pliable airboat to ensure swift
motion, good maneuverability, and safety. Modified
Savitskys model with the inclusion of moment-induced
trim change is implemented for the hydrodynamic
characterization. From the results, it is established that
stability and structural integrity for safety should not be
compromised for light hull in favour of better
hydrodynamic performance. This is because capsize in
waves and wreckage during dynamic loading could be
imminent. Also, it is found that the hull trim increases
from static trim to a peak value of 5.2 at Fn =2.50 in the
non-planing speed regime; before descending gently as it
transits into the planing speed regime. Such characteristic
behavior is explained by the aft ward drift of the point of.
References
[1] Kramer, R.H. (2005). US Navy High Speed Craft Comparison
of ABS and DNV Structural Requirements, ASME Journal, No.
D26-2005.
[2] Thien, P. Q., Hieu, N. K., and Vuong, P. M. (2015). Numerical
simulation of floating airboat: Estimation of hydrodynamic forces,
Intl J. of Mech. Engg and Applications.
[3] Lewis, E.V. (1988). Principles of Naval Architecture: Resistance,
propulsion and Vibration, 2nd Ed., SNAME, 601 Pavania Avenue,
Jersey City, NJ.
[4] Savitsky, D., (1964). Hydrodynamic design of planing hulls.
Marine Technol, 32(3): 78-88.
[5] Sverre S. (2014). Experimental Methods in Marine
Hydrodynamics, Lecture Notes, NTNU Trondheim, Norwegian
University of Science and Technology, Norway.
[6] Wood H.K. and Stapersma D. (2003) Design of Propulsion and
Electric Power Generation Systems. IMarEST. London.
[7] Blount, D.L. and Clement, E.P. (1963). Resistance tests of a
systematic series of planing hull forms. SNAME Transactions,
491-579
204 American Journal of Mechanical Engineering

[8] Derrett, D.R. (1997). Ship Stability for Masters and Mates, 4th
Ed. Butterworth Heinemann, London. PP 15-45
[9] Tamunodukobipi, D.T.; Ogbonnaya, E.A.; Koumako, K.E.E.
(2009). Characteristic Behavior of High Speed Craft at transition
from Bow-wetting to full planing. Journal of Engineering and
Applied Sciences 4(3) 189-196
[10] Kohansal, A.R., Ghassemi, H., and Ghaisi, M., (2010).
Hydrodynamic characteristics of high speed hulls, including trim
effects, Turkish J. Eng. Env. Sci. 34, pp. 155-170.