Professional Documents
Culture Documents
AP Physics
11 December 2018
The Effect of Varying Hull Designs on the Acceleration of Ships
The purpose of this experiment was to the determine which ship design has the
fastest acceleration (m/s2 ) through water. Every day thousands of ships cross Earth’s
many waterways. These ships carry cargo, tourists, and people just seeking a good
time out at sea. Gasoline is used to power these vessels, and large ships can burn
through thousands of gallons of gas each day. To make travel more fuel efficient,
large vessels have to be designed in a way that decreases drag. A way to find the drag
forces acting on a ship is by taking its overall acceleration over time, the greater the
acceleration the less drag is acting on the ship. In order to test which ship design is the
most efficient, five of the most common ship designs (catamaran, trimaran, planing,
axe, and a researcher designed thin catamaran) were tested and compared to each
other. Each design was pulled through a pool of water using a tow rope and 25g mass.
The acceleration of the first half second of each trial was then taken. An A-NOVA
was used to see if there was a significant difference between all of the boat designs.
After the A-NOVA showed there was a significant difference between all five
designs, two separate 2-Sample t-Tests were conducted. One 2-Sample t-Test
compared the thin catamaran and the speed boat design, and the other 2-Sample t-Test
compared the thin catamaran with the thick catamaran. Both of the tests had very
small p-values which indicates that the improved design was the fastest ship of them
all. The improved design had the fastest acceleration of all of the designs.
Table of Contents
Introduction……………………………………………………….……….………….......1
Review of Literature…………………………………….…………...………….…..........3
Problem Statement……………………………………….…………………………..…...9
Experimental Design…………………………..………….…...……………...................10
Conclusion…………………………………………………………………………….....30
Acknowledgements…………………………………………………………....………....35
Works Cited……………………………………………………………………………...52
A.Weidemann - J.Weidemann 1
Introduction
At any given moment, there are five to six million shipping containers crossing
the ocean on thousands of massive cargo ships. By contributing to roughly 90% of the
world trade, ships play a much larger role than many think. Ships are also used to cart
around sun seeking vacationers to tropical destinations, and even to protect countries.
Around the world, their importance has put an emphasis on designing the best and fastest
boats. Navies and shipping industries are constantly trying to improve upon each design,
as better boats save money, travel faster, and use less fuel by reducing the amount of
resistance faced. This research is important because many of the things that keep the
world running are transported on the decks of ships, and ultimately faster ships mean
faster shipping. Some common cargo ships are the axe hull and the trimaran due to their
stable nature. Catamarans and speedboat hulls are more often used for transporting
Many factors including the hull size, number of hulls, and shape of hulls
drastically change the amount of form drag faced and therefore change the boating
experience. During travel, drag opposes the motion of the ship. Because of this, certain
hulls are used for specific jobs or cruisers. The purpose of this experiment was to
determine whether a boat that significantly reduces drag can be crafted. In this
experiment, four boat designs (axe hull, trimaran, catamaran, and a speedboat) were
towed in a tank to record their acceleration. The qualities of the fastest boat, the
catamaran, were then used and improved upon in order to create a thinner and sleeker
catamaran. Towing the boats proved which one faces the least amount of drag faced as it
A.Weidemann - J.Weidemann 2
reflects the acceleration of each design. This experiment differs from many others as this
one analyzed acceleration rather than using computer simulation to look at the flow of the
water.
The fields of marine engineering and naval architecture are always battling form
drag when making ships. The findings of this research pertain mostly to medium sized
ships like ferries and small cargo ships. Specifically, faster designs like catamarans would
make excellent ferries as they are fast and use minimal fuel. To test the ships moving
through water, model ships were pulled through a tub of water using a tow rope and
constant 25 gram mass. The findings from this experiment will help boat designers
determine how to build these ferries, recreational vessels, naval vessels, and small cargo
ships.
A.Weidemann - J.Weidemann 3
Review of Literature
Many variations of boats and ships travel the seas every day. From freighters
shipping goods around the world, to recreational vessels speeding around on lakes, each
has to face the force of the waves and the water. Because the water is making contact
with the ship in movement, it creates form drag (“Reducing Drag”). This type of drag
acts on the body of the boat and reduces its speed. It is crucial that the design of the ship
limits and reduces the forces that oppose its motion, as that would allow it to travel while
burning less fuel. The key parts in limiting the drag from the water are the hull and bow
of the ship. These two parts make up the entire front end of the boat and are the first parts
Figure 1. The Two Different Types of Hulls. Photograph from “Making Boats: Hull
The bottom of the body of any ship is called the hull, and, as shown in Figure 1
above, there are two main types. The two categories include displacement and planing.
Displacement hulls sit deeper in the water and use their sleek shaping to slip through the
water with decreased drag. In order to do this, the surface area of the front must be
A.Weidemann - J.Weidemann 4
minimized as more surface area means more drag. Planing hulls are not used in large
ships like a cargo ship or a naval ship because they are far too heavy. Because of this,
Figure 2. How a Displacement Hull Functions. Photograph from “Boat Hull Types and
Figure 2 shows how a displacement hull is able to force its way through bodies of
water. As the boat moves, the sharp hull of the ship directs water off to the side of the
ship and allows it to pass through. The current boating market has designed a
displacement hull that is fuel efficient and low powered, and it is becoming the more
Some ships utilize two or three hulls. These ships, called catamarans and trimarans,
are unique designs that focus on reducing the surface area by using multiple thin hulls
(Armstrong and Clark). Catamarans can act as both displacement crafts and planing
crafts, as the size of the boat mainly determines if it has to displace water. Just like single
hull ships, larger catamarans must use displacement hulls and smaller catamarans are able
Figure 3. USS Coronado. Photograph from Affairs, From PEO LCS Public. “Coronado
Figure 3 shows the USS Coronado which is the newest ship in the United States
Navy to be a trimaran. Due to its high speed and performance, the Navy has begun
constructing more ships that follow the design of the USS Coronado.
Multiple hulls bring multiple advantages. Catamarans and trimarans have the
potential to be much faster than their single hulled counterparts. Catamarans also offer an
increased level of stability, which deep cutting single hull boats often lack. The wider the
ship is, the more stable it will become. This allows the ship to move much quicker than
monohull ships. Multihull ships usually weigh less. which further increases the speed of
Figure 4. The Bow. Photograph from “Parts of a Boat - Bow, Stern, Starboard, Port,
Oct. 2018.
Figure 4 above shows a common design for a bow, which is the front part of the
hull. Its shape is what allows the ship to cut through the water and decrease the amount of
drag the water puts on the boat (Khasnabis). If a bow does not displace water easily, it
will be much more difficult for the ship to cut through the water and waves. Another
important factor of a good bow for a boat is its ability to decrease bouncing bouncing. At
higher speeds, boats create waves by bouncing, which in turn cause more friction from
Figure 5. Axe Hull. Photograph from Khasnabis, Sudripto. “Types of Bow Designs Used
Bows come in many shapes. One common type of bow used on displacement type
ships is the axe shaped bow shown in Figure 5. An axe bow is shaped like an axe, where
A.Weidemann - J.Weidemann 7
the front of the boat is sharp and usually not titled. Since the bow has a V shape, it easily
displaces water off to the sides of the ship, and it allows the ship to move through large
waves with little trouble. The axe shaped bow maximizes water length and reduces the
total wave slamming of the ship. Both maximizing water length and reducing slamming
is an efficient way of decreasing the resistance a ship faces. However, the axe shaped
The bulbous bow, which is used in many freighters and large ships, has been the
topic of past research. The bulbous bow is a bulb like projection found at the front of the
ship, and it supposedly decreases the drag that acts on the ship as it travels. It works by
changing the way that water flows around the boat by creating a wave that disrupts the
other waves acting on the ship. A group of researchers in the Department of Naval
that bulbous bows do have a large effect. They found that over time, the ship’s fuel
efficiency increases by a significant margin. In fact, some ships with a bulbous bow have
seen such a decrease in drag that their fuel efficiency increased up to fifteen percent
found similar effects from bulbous bows. They pulled different ship designs through the
water and used a computer to model its wake (Leal et al.). Instead of using computer
modeling, this experiment included finding the velocity of five different boat designs as
they were pulled through water with a constant amount of force. Ships with lower drag
Drag has a significant effect on ships as they travel. Because drag opposes the ships
motion, boat makers have been creating different designs focused on reducing surface
area and maximizing speed. Each of these designs differ in shape, but they all rely on the
idea that a decreased surface area decreases the amount of resistance on the body. To test
this, the mass of each boat was kept the same. The boats were also water resistant due to
the fact that any water that was taken in increased each boat’s mass during trials.
A.Weidemann - J.Weidemann 9
Problem Statement
Problem:
To determine whether the design of a ship hull can be modified to reduce drag
Hypothesis:
While being pulled through a body of water, a catamaran designed with both long
and thin hulls will have the smallest amount of drag out of all of the other designs being
tested.
Data Measured:
In this experiment, the acceleration reached by small boats being pulled through
water was recorded. This acceleration was recorded in meters per second squared (m/s2 )
and was the dependent variable. The acceleration depended on which of the five boat
designs was tested. The individual independent variable was hull design and it had five
different designs including an axe hull, a speedboat design, a catamaran, a trimaran, and
an improved design. Each design was tested thirty times and compared in an ANOVA
test to determine if there were any differences within the variations of boat used. Two
Two-Sample t Tests were then used to conclude if the differences in the accelerations
were significant.
A.Weidemann - J.Weidemann 10
Experimental Design
Materials:
Procedure:
1. Place the large tub on a large, even surface. Fill it with water until it is ¾ full.
2. Set up Smart Pulley by attaching it to the clamp between the photogate. Set up
Vernier LabQuest Mini to record velocity in the LoggerPro Software (Appendix A).
3. Attach the 25 gram weight to the fishing string and attach to the pulley.
4. Assign each boat a number 1-5, and randomly pick a boat for each trial.
5. Use the scale to record the mass of the boat before it is place in the water.
7. Start collecting data in the LoggerPro Software and release the boat allowing the
mass attached to the pulley to pull the boat along the water.
9. Using the scale, find the mass of the boat to check if it remained constant
throughout the trial.
11. After finishing, drain the water out of the tub and clean any additional spills
made. Wipe off the boats until they are completely dry. Clean up the lab space.
A.Weidemann - J.Weidemann 11
Diagrams:
Figure 6 shows the materials used to conduct this experiment. The materials not
pictured include the fifth boat that was built based off the best designs, the pump, and the
Figure 7 shows the materials used to operate the smart pulley in the experiment.
The smart pulley wheel was attached to the photogate and clamp, which was then
Figure 8 shows the setup of the smart pulley. The smart pulley had a string
running over it that turned it at a specific rate. This rate was registered by the photogate
on the outside of the pulley, and the information is sent into the LabQuest Mini. A clamp
Figure 9 shows the complete set up for trials. The string was connected to a mass
and one of the model boats. When the mass was dropped, it dragged the boat through the
A.Weidemann - J.Weidemann 13
water, and spins the wheel of the smart pulley. The velocity of the boat was then sent into
the computer with LoggerPro Software where it was saved and analyzed.
A.Weidemann - J.Weidemann 14
Table 1
Acceleration Recorded for Each Boat Design
Acceleration (m/s2)
Trial Axe Hull Speedboat Catamaran Trimaran Improved
1 0.7295 0.7787 0.7359 0.7075 0.7671
2 0.7261 0.7696 0.8237 0.7608 0.7375
3 0.7141 0.7481 0.7659 0.7443 0.8126
4 0.7352 0.7326 0.7978 0.7219 0.8152
5 0.7615 0.7491 0.7573 0.7176 0.7556
6 0.7388 0.7638 0.7403 0.7325 0.8011
7 0.7064 0.7352 0.7667 0.7268 0.8217
8 0.7091 0.7354 0.7991 0.7326 0.7441
9 0.7669 0.7383 0.8017 0.7232 0.7944
10 0.7268 0.7878 0.7333 0.7118 0.7842
11 0.7104 0.7344 0.7357 0.7357 0.7465
12 0.7474 0.735 0.7499 0.7499 0.794
13 0.7478 0.7509 0.7705 0.7705 0.7405
14 0.7137 0.7627 0.7205 0.7205 0.7762
15 0.7509 0.765 0.7042 0.7042 0.7981
16 0.7439 0.7547 0.7209 0.7209 0.8011
17 0.7365 0.7493 0.7046 0.7046 0.7509
18 0.7215 0.7896 0.7121 0.7121 0.7951
19 0.6975 0.7629 0.6997 0.6997 0.7952
20 0.7583 0.7541 0.7297 0.7297 0.8325
21 0.7437 0.7709 0.7689 0.7191 0.7692
22 0.7408 0.7318 0.8001 0.7098 0.7814
23 0.7447 0.7697 0.7592 0.7478 0.8025
24 0.716 0.7633 0.7415 0.7189 0.7818
25 0.7364 0.7592 0.7654 0.7319 0.8361
26 0.7115 0.7821 0.7876 0.7041 0.7633
27 0.7602 0.7825 0.7571 0.7448 0.7885
A.Weidemann - J.Weidemann 15
Table 1 displays the acceleration of each boat tested in the experiment. Five
different types of ships were tested 30 times each. The average and standard deviation are
shown.
Table 2
Observations
Boat Design Observations
The line came off pulley in trial 4, but the data was fine. In trial 18, the boat
Axe Hull became waterlogged and the trial was redone. In trial 22, the boat veered to the
side and may have caused slower results
Strange bump in the graph of trial 10. This could be from a collision as the boat
Speedboat
was released.
In trial 9, the boat became waterlogged, but the data was fine. The boat became
Catamaran waterlogged in trial 10 and had to be dried. This trials were repeated.
In trial 27, the trimaran was towed at an odd angle but they data was fine. This
Trimaran problem was then addressed in trial 28 when it happened again. The hook was
fixed and the trials were kept.
The boat became extremely waterlogged in trials 7-10. These trials had to be
Improved redone. The same problem occurred during trials 18-20. The boat was dried and
the trials were redone.
Table 2 displays the observations taken during the problematic trials of the
experiment. Some of the boats were much more susceptible to being waterlogged and this
could have affected some of the data taken through the entirety of trials. The waterlogged
boats were drained and repaired before being tested again. Every trial that showed a
A.Weidemann - J.Weidemann 16
significant problem was repeated to ensure that the issues would not impact the overall
experiment. These problems included the waterlogging and the towline falling off of the
pulley.
Figure 10 shows how the boat was held in position at the beginning of each trial.
Once data collection started the boat was released and pulled across the pool by the
Figure 11 shows how the smart pulley was operated during each trial. The boat
was attached to the towline. When the trial started the weight was released and the boat
was pulled across the pool. The photogate on the smart pulley then recorded the data and
Figure 12 shows the direction that the boat travels during the experiment. The
smart pulley accelerated the boat straight through the water after being released.
A.Weidemann - J.Weidemann 18
Figure 13. Graph of Velocity vs. Time and the Tangent Line.
Figure 13 above shows one of the graphs for a catamaran trial. The graphs for
each trial kept the same similar shape throughout with some deviation in slope. The slope
of the tangent line in the first 0.5 second interval was recorded for each trial. The slope of
this graph shows the acceleration of the boat. Using the first half second of each trials
This experiment was conducted to determine the effect that different ship designs
have on the resistance acting on the hull. In order to properly analyze this experiment,
quantitative data representing the acceleration of each ship was recorded. The data that
was collected was the acceleration of the towed boat through the first 0.5 second interval,
and was found using a smart pulley and a labquest mini. In order to ensure that the data
collected was valid and unbiased, each of the five ship designs were subject to the same
conditions and pulled by the same 25 gram weight. A simple random sample was
conducted by randomly picking a number and using the boat that corresponded with that
number for a block of trials. Ten trials of that specific boat design were completed before
moving on to the next randomly selected design. This experiment was comparative, as
each ship design was weighed against the others. A control group was not used in this
experiment due to there not being a relative even ground between boat design, but each
ship was tested thirty times in order to add repetition to the experiment. Repetition
decreases variability in the experiment. This is because of the Law of Large Numbers that
Figure 14 above shows the box plot of all of the trials collected. Each boat seems
different median with the improved sign having the largest acceleration (0.7684 m/s2).
The improved design’s median is followed by the catamaran (0.7606m/s2), the speedboat
(0.7544 m/s2), the axe hull (0.7358 m/s2), and then the trimaran (0.7226 m/s2). The
distributions appear relatively normal except for some right skewness in the catamaran
and trimaran boxes. Right skewed graphs have means that are on the right side of the
median. Other than the slightly skewed graphs, the mean is close to the median. The
catamaran’s distribution includes an outlier of 0.8237 m/s2, but it does not significantly
affect the mean. All of the graphs have roughly the same, smaller amount variation. The
improved catamaran had the largest variation (0.0986m/s2) followed by the catamaran
A.Weidemann - J.Weidemann 21
(0.0904m/s2), the speedboat (0.0755m/s2), the trimaran (0.0708m/s2), and the axe hull
(0.0694m/s2).
The boxplots shown in Figure 14 contain some overlap. The trimaran and axe hull
have significant overlap with each other, but because they do not overlap with the
improved design, the significance of their overlaps were not tested. There is also overlap
between the three fastest boats. This overlap of roughly fifty percent between the
speedboat and improved, and also the catamaran and improved design, may be significant
To test the significance between the populations of the boat and the significance
of the overlap between the improved design, catamaran, and speedboat, an A-NOVA test
of significance followed by two Two-Sample t Tests were conducted. The A-NOVA test
of significance shows whether or not there are significant differences between the five
different boat populations. The Two-Sample t Tests shows if the improved design is
In order to run an A-NOVA, three different assumptions must be met. The first of
the assumptions is that there are five individual simple random samples, one for each of
the five populations. This assumption was met because each design was assigned a
random number and then chosen in order to complete a simple random sample. Each boat
was independent from the others, and they were tested in random order.
The second assumption is that each sample comes from a population that has a
normal distribution. This assumption was met because each sample consisted of thirty
A.Weidemann - J.Weidemann 22
trials. Because thirty trials were recorded, the sampling distribution of the sample mean,
x̅, is normally distributed. This applies to all of the boat distributions recorded because
each consisted of thirty trials, which satisfies the assumption because of the Central Limit
Theorem stating that the sample comes from a normally distributed sample distribution
The last assumption is that all of the populations have the same standard
deviation. In order of the axe hull, speedboat, catamaran, trimaran, and improved, the
standard deviations were found to be 0.0189, 0.0200, 0.0223, 0.0186, 0.0282. These
values are all around the value 0.0200 and are roughly the same. Because the populations
Figure 15 above shows the null and alternative hypothesis for the A-NOVA test.
The symbol μ represents the populations for the different boat designs. The Null
hypothesis was used to test if there were any differences in the distribution and states that
if the null hypothesis is correct, there is no difference between the mean accelerations of
each population . The Alternative hypothesis states that not all of the distributions of
Table 3.
A-NOVA Test Results
A-NOVA Results
F-Statistic 34.9436
p-Value 2.0473×10-20
Table 3 above shows the results of the A-NOVA statistical test. The A-NOVA
F-statistic was found by dividing the MSG by the MSE. An F-statistic means that the
With a p-value near zero, the null hypothesis is rejected. There is significant
evidence that not all of the mean acceleration for the five boat designs were the same. If
the null hypothesis were true, there would be a near zero percent chance of the difference
To run a Two-Sample t Test, multiple assumptions must be met. The first
assumption for the test is that data is from two random samples and both populations
were independent from each other. Each boat design was assigned a number and
randomly drawn and then ten trials were completed for the random design. The
The second assumption for a Two-Sample t Test is that both samples come from a
normally distributed sampling distribution. Thirty trials were completed for the designs
used in the test. The central limit theorem states that when thirty trials are completed the
sampling distribution can be considered normal. This satisfies the assumption for all of
The last assumption for a Two-Sample t Test is that both sample sizes were no
more than one tenth of the size of their real populations. Since a maximum of thirty trials
were completed, and thirty is less than one tenth the population of all trials that could be
H o : μS = μI
H a : μS < μI
Figure 16. Null and Alternative Hypothesis for Improved and Speedboat Design
Figure 16 shows the null and alternative hypothesis in the Two-Sample t Test
comparing the improved and speedboat design. The null hypothesis was used to test if the
accelerations of the improved and speedboat designs were equal. The alternative
hypothesis states that the acceleration of the improved design was significantly higher
than the acceleration of the speedboat design. The symbol μ represents the population
mean. Therefore, μs represents the population mean for the speedboat acceleration, and μI
Table 4
Results of Two-Sample t Test Between Speedboat and Improved Design
Two-Sample t Test Results
t-Statistic -4.69576
p-Value 0.00001
Table 4 shows the values involved in the Two-Sample t Test. These values
include the p-value and t-statistic. The test values were plugged into the formula for a
Two-Sample t Test as shown in Appendix E. The rest of the variables used in this test
can be found in Appendix G. This calculation showed the p-value of 0.00001. Since the
A.Weidemann - J.Weidemann 25
p-value is significantly lower than the alpha level of .05, there is strong evidence against
The null hypothesis was rejected. There is significant evidence that the mean
acceleration of the improved design is higher than the mean acceleration of the speedboat
design. If the null hypothesis was true, there would be less than a 0.001% chance of the
Figure 17 shows the p-chart of the Speedboat and Improved Design. As seen, the
chart does not indicate where the p-value would fall. The p-value is too small to be seen
on the chart. The minimum p-value that the chart can display is 0.0001, and the real
p-value is 0.00001. This suggests that the chance of this data happening by chance alone
is extremely small.
A.Weidemann - J.Weidemann 26
Table 5
2 Sample t Interval for Speedboat and Improved Designs
Two-Sample t Interval Results
Lower -0.0423
Upper -0.0170
Table 5 shows the results of the completed Two-Sample t Interval for the
speedboat and improved designs. The lower bound of the confidence interval was
represented by Lower and the value was found to be -0.042389. The upper bound of the
order to find these values the formula in Appendix F, and variables in Appendix G were
used. The interval was negative due to the improved design having a higher acceleration
than the speedboat design. This supports that the improved design does have a higher
We are ninety-five percent confident that the true difference in population mean
acceleration between the speedboat design and the improved design is between -0.042389
m/s2 and -0.017011 m/s2 . The t Interval provides evidence that the population mean
acceleration of the improved design is higher than the population mean acceleration of
the speedboat design. This supports the hypothesis that the improved design has a higher
The assumptions for the Two-Sample t Test that compares the Catamaran and
Improved design are the same. Since these trials were given the exact same treatment as
the trials in the aforementioned test, the assumptions are all met and it is okay to
H o : μc = μI
H a : μc < μI
Figure 18. Null and Alternative Hypothesis for Catamaran and Improved Design
Figure 18 above shows the null and alternative hypothesis for the Two-Sample t
Test comparing the catamaran and improved design. The null hypothesis tested if the
mean accelerations of the catamaran and improved design were equal. The alternative
hypothesis states that the improved design had a significantly higher acceleration than the
catamaran design. The symbol μS represents the population mean acceleration of the
improved design.
Table 6
Two-Sample t Test Results for Catamaran and Improved Designs
Two-Sample t Test Results
t Statistic -2.5610
p-Value 0.0066
Table 6 shows the results that were calculated in the Two-Sample t Test
comparing the catamaran and improved design. Using the values from Appendix H and
the formula found in Appendix E, the “t” value was calculated to be -2.5610. Using the
The null hypothesis was rejected. There is significant evidence that the improved
design’s acceleration was significantly higher than the acceleration of the catamaran. If
the null hypothesis was indeed true, there would be less than a one percent chance of the
Figure 19. The P-Chart for the Catamaran and Improved Design
Figure 19 shows the chart that shows the p-value of the Two-Sample t Test
comparing the catamaran and improved design. As shown the p-value of the test was very
small, and it further supports the hypothesis that the improved design had a faster
Table 7
Two-Sample t Interval for the Catamaran and Improved Designs
Two-Sample t Interval Results
Lower -0.0299
Upper -0.0036
Table 7 shows the variables used to calculate the Two-Sample t Interval. Using
the formula in Appendix F and values in Appendix H, the lower bound of the confidence
interval (Lower) was found to be approximately -0.0299. The upper bound of the interval
(Upper) was calculated using the same formula to be -0.0036. The interval was negative
due to the improved design having a higher acceleration than the catamaran design. This
We are ninety-five percent confident that the difference in the true population
mean acceleration of the catamaran and improved design is between -0.0299 m/s2 and
-0.0036 m/s2. The Two-Sample t Interval provides some evidence that the population
mean acceleration of the improved design is higher than the population mean acceleration
of the catamaran design. This supports the hypothesis that the improved design
Interpretation:
The A-NOVA statistical test resulted in a p-value of near zero. This means that
there was significant differences between the five different boat populations. This
difference was then examined further by using two Two-Sample t Tests to check if the
improved design was significantly faster. These two Two-Sample t Tests, which
compared the speedboat and the catamaran to the improved catamaran, resulted in
p-values that show significant differences. This means that it can be concluded that not
all of the boat designs had the same acceleration distribution, and that the improved
Conclusion
The purpose of this experiment was to see if a boat design that limited drag and
traveled faster could be designed. Throughout the experiment, trials were conducted by
pulling various boat designs through water using a tow rope and recording their
acceleration. In the beginning, four common boat designs including an axe hull,
catamaran, trimaran, and a speedboat were tested briefly. The results of this preliminary
testing were used to help design an improved boat. This improved boat was a longer and
thinner variation of the catamaran. The five boats were then tested in the same tank using
a tow string attached to a 25 gram weight. The accelerations for each boat were then
compared using an A-NOVA significance test. Two Two-Sample t tests were then used
to determine if the improved design was faster than the other two fastest designs, the
It was hypothesised that a catamaran with longer and thinner hulls would
accelerate faster than the other boats while being towed through water. This hypothesis
was found to be true as the acceleration of the improved catamaran was faster than the
rest. The slowest boat was the trimaran. An A-NOVA test of significance resulted in a
p-value of nearly zero meaning that there was significant differences between the boat
designs. This significant difference was investigated further to determine if the improved
catamaran was indeed faster than the other boats. With the regular catamaran and the
speedboat being the second and third quickest boats, they were both compared to the
improved design using Two-Sample t tests. The Two-Sample t test between the regular
catamaran and improved catamaran yielded a p-value of 0.0066, meaning that the
A.Weidemann - J.Weidemann 31
improved design was significantly faster than the regular design. The Two-Sample t test
comparing the speedboat and the improved design yielded a p-value of 0.00001 meaning
that the improved design was also significantly faster than the speedboat.
The improved catamaran design was the fastest because of many unique points in
the design. Having multiple hulls decreases the surface area that comes in contact with
the water and therefore decreases the resistance faced. The thinner hulls on the improved
design also decreased the surface area further. The overall thickness of the hulls is why
the improved catamaran was faster than the original, thicker catamaran. The improved
design was also much more elongated than the regular catamaran. Hulls that are longer
and thinner have lower amounts of form drag (Caswell). The overall amount of surface
area in the water is directly related to the amount of drag faced. Ships with more
underwater surface area face more drag. Because the hulls were smaller, the improved
The monohull boats did not perform as well as the ships with multiple hulls. With
only one large hull, the ships had more surface area touching the water and therefore
more area for the water to come into contact. The speedboat was the fastest of the two
because of its smooth, flat hull. This allowed it to plane over the water and achieve
accelerations faster than the axe hull. The near planing speedboat was faster than the axe
hull and allowed it to be almost as fast as the catamarans. Because it planed on top of the
water, it faced a smaller amount of drag and accelerated faster. The axe hull was much
slower because it is specifically designed to cut through waves and decrease violent ship
movements (“Features and Benefits of X Bow Ship.”). Because the boats were pulled in a
A.Weidemann - J.Weidemann 32
controlled environment, the effect of waves were minimal and the axe shape increased
Out of all the boats, the trimaran had the lowest overall acceleration. This was due
to the crafting process when the boats were made. One goal of a trimaran design is to
decrease the size of the main hull even more and use two small extra hulls for stability
(Beck). The trimaran in this experiment was crafted in a way that did not decrease the
size of the hulls. It was three inches wider than the other boats and the hulls were much
thicker than the two catamarans. Because of this, the trimaran faced a large amount of
All of the results agreed with the current work in hydrodynamics besides the slow
acceleration numbers for the trimaran. Dr. Robert Beck, a naval architecture and marine
engineering professor at the University of Michigan said that the length and decreased
surface area of the catamarans are perfect for high speed vessels. This explains why the
improved catamaran was faster than all of the others including the basic catamaran. Dr.
Beck went on to explain that the axe hull is more effective for cutting through waves
rather than high speed travel. The results from this experiment reinforce the current
knowledge in the scientific world by showing that a well built catamaran faces less
resistance and therefore travel at a higher rate of speed. They also show that different hull
designs are made for different aspects of the shipping and boating world. These results
allow the scientific community to concentrate on finding a way to improve ships to make
them thinner to decrease the form drag acting on the ship. This experiment differed from
others because acceleration was recorded while the boat was being towed. Most of the
A.Weidemann - J.Weidemann 33
current work in the field of marine engineering uses computer models to examine the
flow and resistance of the water as it moves across the boat. Despite this difference, the
There were multiple errors in this experiment. As mentioned, the design of the
trimaran was not accurate and did not allow for the boat to travel through the water with
minimal resistance. This caused slower acceleration numbers than expected. Throughout
trials, all of the boats were susceptible to getting waterlogged and taking in water. The
aluminum casing used to create a smooth surface on the hulls was not sealed properly
which caused each of the boats, especially the improved catamaran, to take in water. This
water affected the mass of each ship and put them over the 230 gram mass that should
have been constant. The increase in mass caused a slower acceleration in some of the
boats and may have had an impact on the distributions of accelerations. The improved
catamaran design took in the largest amount of water and had to be dried out after a few
trials. If anything could be done differently, the width of the trimaran would be
significantly decreased in an effort to minimize the size of the three pontoons. A sealer
would have helped in keeping water out of the boats and keeping the accelerations
constant. Increasing the length of the tow tank would be a change that would help this
experiment if it was to be redone. If the boats were pulled for a longer distance, the
velocity could be recorded. Measuring the velocity would be a much more accurate way
of applying the idea of drag in real life as ships often face resistance while traveling at a
constant speed.
A.Weidemann - J.Weidemann 34
Further research into this field might include researching if bulbous bows are a
more efficient way of decreases drag in certain water conditions. On larger cargo ships,
catamarans may not be as effective due to the heavy cargo. Testing bulbous bows against
the same hulls used in this experiment would provide helpful answers for shipping and
large vessels. Additional research can be done on different shapes and designs of a
catamaran. This could include researching catamarans with more room between their
pontoons, or different shaped pontoons. Researchers can also attempt to figure out the
percent difference of each designs fuel efficiencies. This research has real life
applications in fields such as boat making and hydrodynamic research. Hull design can
greatly affect fuel efficiency, and ships that face less resistance are able to travel farther
and cheaper. This experiment shows that catamarans are the best for fuel efficiency, and
may indicate that ferries and other small passenger or cargo ships may want to utilize a
The purpose of this experiment was to determine if the amount of resistance faced
by a ship can be reduced by modifying its design. It was concluded that a catamaran with
thin and long hulls decrease the amount of resistance and allow the ship to travel at
Acknowledgements
This experiment was aided by many people along way. We would like to thank
Professor Robert Beck for taking the time to have an informational conversation with us
and helping us understand the scientific concepts behind our topic. We would also like to
thank Mr. McMillan, Mrs. Cybulski, and Mrs. Dewey for helping us and checking our
paper. Lastly, we would like to thank Colleen and James Paterson, along with our Mom
and Dad for purchasing materials and providing a place to design and craft our ships.
A.Weidemann - J.Weidemann 36
5. Click on the image of the photogate and verify it is set to Smart Pulley.
1. From the large block of foam, cut out five blocks with the dimensions for each boat.
2. Using tools such as a dremel and a file, sculpt the boats out of the foam. The shapes
in this experiment included an ace shape hull, a speedboat, a catamaran, a trimaran,
and an improved catamaran.
3. Cut out a small compartment in the cent of the bottom of the boat and add weights so
that each boat weighs 210g.
4. Wrap each boat in aluminum foil and sheet metal tape. Push the end of the hook into
the front of the boat creating a place to attach the fishing string.
Figure 20. Front and Side View of the Axe Hull Design
Figure 20 above shows the front and side view of the axe hull design. The
Figure 21 above shows the front and side view of the speedboat. The ship has one
Figure 22 above shows the front and side view of the original catamaran. It has
two hulls, which are thicker and closer together than the hulls on the improved
catamaran.
A.Weidemann - J.Weidemann 39
Figure 23 above shows the front and side view of the trimaran. The trimaran
utilized three hulls which were all thicker and closer together than the other designs. The
front of the three hulls were slanted to mimic real life hull.
Figure 24 above shows the front and side view of the improved catamaran design.
Similarly to the original catamaran, the improved catamaran has two hull. In contrast, the
hulls of the improved catamaran are much thinner and farther apart.
A.Weidemann - J.Weidemann 40
1. Screw the two 0.61m long pieces of lumber to the two 1.524m long pieces of lumber
to create the rectangular edge of the tub.
2. Screw the rectangular edge of the tub created in Step 1 to the bottom wooden board.
This will create a wooden tub.
3. Using heavy duty staples, staple a tarp to the edge of the tub. This created a tub that is
waterproof.
Figure 25 above shows the sides of the tubs created in Step 1 of Appendix C. The
Figure 26 above shows the tub after Step 2 in Appendix C. The edges were
attached to the bottom board. At this point, the tub is not waterproof.
A.Weidemann - J.Weidemann 41
Figure 27 above shows the tub after the tarp was inserted using heavy duty
Table 8
ANOVA Variables
Boat Design n x̄ sx
Axe Hull 30 0.7332 0.0189
Speedboat 30 0.7544 0.0201
Catamaran 30 0.7672 0.0223
Trimaran 30 0.7270 0.0186
Improved 30 0.7841 0.0282
Table 8 shows the values used in an ANOVA. The variable n represents the
amount of trials completed for each boat design. The mean value of each sample is shown
Figure 28 above shows the other calculations from the A-NOVA. MSError
represents the mean square error (MSE), and MS represents the mean square group
A.Weidemann - J.Weidemann 43
(MSG). The F statistic was found by dividing the MSG by the MSE. The F statistic of
34.9436 means that the MSG is 34.946 times larger than the MSE.
FIgure 29 above shows the formula and calculation of the x̄ statistic. The x̄
statistic acts like a weighted mean. It was found by multiplying each individual sample
mean by the number of trials completed and then dividing that number by the number of
trials in total. This is a way to weigh the means and give distributions with a more trials a
higher influence on the mean. The value 0.7532 that was calculated is similar to a
Figure 30 above shows the formula and calculation for the mean square group, or
MSG. The MSG was found by squaring the difference between the individual sample
means and the x̄ statistic and multiplying that by the number of trials in each
distribution. The MSG is a measure of variability among sample means between the
populations.
A.Weidemann - J.Weidemann 44
Figure 31 above shows the formula and the calculation for the mean square error.
The MSE was found by subtracting one from the sample sizes and multiplying it by the
standard deviation of the sample squared. This summation was then divided by the total
number of trials minus the total number of populations. The mean square error is similar
Figure 32 shows the formula and the calculation of the F statistic. The F statistic
is found by dividing the MSG by the MSE and was found to be 34.9838. A large F
statistic corresponds to a small p-value. A large F statistic of 34.9838 will yield a small
Figure 33. Two-Sample t Test Formula numbers should be subscripts, please fix.
Figure 33 shows the equation of a Two-Sample t Test. The equation uses the
mean acceleration of each sample population., x̄, standard deviation, s, and sample size,
n, of two independent populations to solve for ‘t’ and test for significance.
Figure 34. Sample Two-Sample t Test Calculation (Catamaran vs. Improved)
Figure 34 used the equation from Figure 32. This sample problem came from the
Catamaran and Improved Designs. When the variables are plugged in the t-value is found
to be -4.69576. When this “t” value is plugged in to the proper table the p-value is found
to be 0.00001.
A.Weidemann - J.Weidemann 46
Figure 35 shows the equation for a Two-Sample t Interval. The above equation
uses the means (x̅), standard deviation (s), and sample size (n) of the two independent
populations along with a t-star value to estimate the true mean difference between two
populations.
Figure 36. Two-Sample t Interval Substitution From Catamaran and Improved Design
The figure above used the equation from Figure 35. The t-star value was found
using Table C and is the ninety-five percent confidence value. When the values for the
means, standard deviations, and sample sizes are plugged in, the interval is from
-0.029999 to -0.003661.
A.Weidemann - J.Weidemann 47
Figure 37. Data from Two-Sample t Test Between the Speedboat and Improved Design
In this context, “x̄1“ represents the mean acceleration of the speedboat design,
and “x̄2“ represents the mean acceleration of the improved design. Another one of the
variables in the Two-Sample t Test is “sx” or sample standard deviation. The sample
standard deviation of the speedboat was represented by “sx1” and the sample standard
deviation of the improved design was represented by “sx2”. Both of the values for the
sample standard deviation were calculated using a calculator function. The population
sizes are represented by the symbol “n” with n1 being the speedboat design population
and n2 being the improved design population. Both of the populations were thirty due to
there being thirty trials completed for both groups. The “t” value was found, using the
Figure 38. Two Sample t Interval for Speedboat and Improved Designs
In order to do this the sample means, “x̄1“ and “x̄2“, must be used. The sample
mean “x̄1“ represents the sample mean acceleration of the speedboat design, and “x̄2“
represents the sample mean acceleration of the improved group. The “sx” values
represent the sample standard deviation of each design and n represents their population
sizes. The lower bound of the confidence interval was represented by CLower and the
Figure 39. Variables of Two-Sample t Test Comparing Catamaran and Improved Design
The variables and values used in the calculation are shown in the table above. The
variable sx represents the sample standard deviations for each of the groups. The value
calculated for the sample standard deviation of the catamaran (sx1) was found to be
approximately 0.0223, and the sample standard deviation for the improved design (sx2)
was found to be approximately 0.0282. The sample population for each group was
represented by the variable “n” and both sample populations were 30 due to trials
completed for each design. The sample mean acceleration of the catamara (x̄1) was
calculated to be approximately 0.7672 m/s2. The sample mean acceleration for the
Figure 40. Variables and Values for the Catamaran and Improved Designs Interval
In order to calculate the interval the sample means, “x̄1“ and “x̄2“, must be
used. The sample mean “x̄1“ represents the sample mean acceleration of the catamaran
design, and “x̄2“ represents the sample mean acceleration of the improved group. The
sample standard deviations (sx) of the data were also needed to perform the calculation.
The sample populations (n) of each data sets were both 30 due to 30 total trials being
completed. The lower bound of the confidence interval was represented by CLower and
Email: rbeck@umich.edu
Works Cited
Affairs, From PEO LCS Public. “Coronado (LCS 4) Begins Sailaway.” Affinity
Groups,www.public.navy.mil/surfor/lcs4/Pages/Coronado
Armstrong, Tony, and Tobias Clark. On The Effect Of Hull Shape On The Performance
Caswell, Chris. “What Hull Shape Would Be Best?” Bad Barnacles, 7 Aug. 2000,
www.boats.com/boat-buyers-guide/what-hull-shape-is-best/.
Chrismianto, Deddy, et al. Analysis of Effect of Bulbous Bow Shape to Ship Resistance in
Hull Shape and Stability." Ocean Navigator. N.p., n.d. Web. 10 Sept. 2018.
http://www.oceannavigator.com/January-February-2003/Hull-shape-and-stability/
Khasnabis, Sudripto. “Types of Bow Designs Used For Ships.” Marine Insight, Marine
Leal, Luis et al “Hydrodynamic Study of the Influence of Bulbous Bow Design for an
MI News Network. “Features and Benefits of X Bow Ship.” Marine Insight, Marine
“Passenger Ship Technology:Axe Bow Cuts into Fast Ferry Market.” Fairplay,
“Reducing Drag to Make Ships Go Further with Less Fuel.” American Physical Society,