Conceptual Design and Hydrodynamic Analysis of a

High-Speed Sealift Adjustable-Length Trimaran

K. J. Maki (AM), L. J. Doctors (M), R. M. Scher (M), W. M. Wilson (V), S. H. Rhee (AM),
A. W. Troesch (FL), R. F. Beck (FL)

This paper describes a novel adjustable-length trimaran design for service as a high-speed sealift vessel. Different
numerical hydrodynamic tools were exercised to assess the performance of the vessel. An extensive model test program
that included powering and seakeeping experiments was conducted to elucidate utility of the numerical predictions.

KEYWORDS: calmwater resistance; seakeeping; multihull;
model testing; thin-ship theory; computational fluid dynamics;
strip theory
INTRODUCTION
For ship designers the increasing emphasis on rapid and flex-
ible support of logistic missions represents several distinct tech-
nical challenges. Among these, one of the most difficult is the
desire for significantly higher speeds than previous sealift ship
classes, capable of carrying substantial military payloads over
trans-oceanic stage lengths, but without prohibitive increases in
ship size, power, and fuel consumption (especially in view of re-
cent trends in oil price). The need for operational flexibility in
logistics in unconventional warfare places a premium on the abil-
ity to use less developed, “austere,” ports, with inherent limita-
tions on ship size, including stringent constraints on length and
draft. Finally, the developing doctrine of Sea Basing demands the
ability to transfer a variety of cargoes, especially rolling stock,
between ships in open water. If these challenges are to be suc-
cessfully addressed, innovative ship configurations are clearly re-
quired: accordingly, certain fundamental changes in design meth-
ods and philosophy may have to occur. What these changes will
be, and specifically what impacts on design criteria and ship op-
erating methods will result, will undoubtedly be a field of contro-
versy for some time.
Evolving mission needs for logistics in expeditionary warfare
have not yet converged to a single view. However, several inde-
pendent visions of the future, paralleled by recent concept stud-
ies and designs, have included a doubling of transit speed, from
the conventional 20 to 24 knot regime of present sealift ships, to
speeds exceeding 40 knots; cargo payloads from several hundred
to several thousand tons, and stage lengths varying from about
2500 to about 6000 nautical miles.
Ship length constraints for austere port operations (quite
apart from limited acquisition budgets and operating costs) de-
mand solutions that differ markedly from the conventional, large,
sealift ship (with whatever increased power, weight saving, and
variation of form coefficients go with it). While designers strive to
generate concepts that will fulfill future logistic needs, including
some hull-form types that are quite unprecedented, the state-of-
the-art hydrodynamic analysis tools that they rely on are under-
developed and unvalidated in these new operating regimes. The
development of new ship concepts, and new design tools, must
accordingly advance together.
Recently, US Office of Naval Research (ONR) supported
concept studies and hydrodynamic tool development for High-
Speed Sealift (HSSL) to Austere Ports. The design ground rules
called for the following major capabilities:
• Unrefueled range: 5000 nautical miles at average speed of
43 knots

1
 • Full mobility, including 43 knot speed, through Sea State 4
• Military payload of 4000 short tons (representing approxi-
mately the weight and stowage area for vehicles of a Stryker
battalion task force)
• Austere port access: maximum over-all length 170 m; max-
imum draft 6.5 m
• At-sea transfer of vehicle cargo (nominally through Sea
State 4)
This paper summarizes the design and hydrodynamic charac-
terization of a vessel to meet these mission requirements, and is
organized as follows. First, our most desirable design candidate
is described with details about the unique challenges that accom-
pany its unconventional form. Next, the experimental measure-
ments and numerical predictions used during the design process
are introduced and discussed. Then, the calm-water resistance
and seakeeping motion results are presented. Finally, the paper
concludes with a summary of the merit of the different numerical
tools in predicting vessel performance.
DESIGN CONCEPT
The Adjustable-Length Trimaran
Clearly, the speed, range, and payload requirements of high-
speed sealift present a naval architectural challenge of a high
order, even without the addition of severely constrained length
and draft for austere port access. With these dimensional con-
straints, especially the length constraint, the problem has re-
peatedly shown itself to be beyond the reach of conventional
ship designs with presently available material, machinery, and
fuel technologies. Credible concept-level designs, whether they
have been of “conventional” (long centerhull) trimaran, catama-
ran, or monohull configuration, displacement, heavy-planing, or
cushion-borne, do not converge (carrying payload and fuel for the
desired range) except by exceeding the 170 m austere port length
constraint by a considerable margin, and in some cases breaking
the draft constraint as well.
However, suppose we envision a trimaran in which the
three hulls are of approximately equal length (the austere-port-
constrained length) and of nearly equal displacements. As the
results presented subsequently will demonstrate, a trimaran of
this type, with the hulls staggered (instead of directly alongside
one another), can achieve substantial wave resistance advantages
compared with other configurations. With an appropriate stagger
for a given transverse separation of the hulls, wave cancellation
can be achieved and the wave resistance of the trimaran can be
less than that of a slender monohull of equivalent displacement
and over-all length.
At this juncture, we must acknowledge the paper by Day,
Clelland, and Nixon (2003). This paper covered an extensive
discussion and investigation into eight different configurations of
monohulls and multihulls. In particular, the three authors studied
a so-called Arrow configuration for a trimaran, which is similar
to the subject of the present work, in that the central subhull was
2
(a) Sidehull (b) Centerhull
Figure 1: Vessel Geometry
located forward of the two sidehulls. They demonstrated both ex-
perimentally and theoretically (as we shall here) that the (total)
resistance of a trimaran is lower over most of the speed range in
this configuration.
Their work was both theoretical and experimental in nature;
it was based on earlier work by Tuck and Lazauskas (1998),
whose theoretical and numerical investigations were very thor-
ough. We must also emphasize that trimarans are, by no means,
a new concept. For example, at one of the historic meetings
on wave resistance, Narita (1976) considered trimaran layouts
in which the two sidehulls were staggered both forward and aft.
They demonstrated that both positive and negative staggers lead
to similar reductions in wave resistance.
Returning now to our mission requirements, the over-all
length of the trimaran with sidehull stagger unfortunately exceeds
the austere-port-length constraint. That is the dilemma.
An unconventional solution can be proposed, however. Sup-
pose that the hulls are structurally connected and locked in a stag-
gered configuration during transit, even though the over-all length
exceeds the austere port constraint. On arrival then, the vessel
mechanically alters its configuration for port access by retracting
to a more compact length. On departure, the vessel extends and
locks into its transit configuration again. This is not a trivial de-
sign problem, but on the other hand it does not appear to be out
of reach with present technologies.
Body plans of sidehull and centerhull for our notional
adjustable-length trimaran are shown in Figure 1; principal char-
acteristics of the hulls are listed in Table 1. Transom configura-
tions permit the installation of a single waterjet propulsor in each
hull, an arrangement considered most suitable for model testing.
However, propulsion-machinery selections (for an actual vessel)
might ultimately favor single or twin waterjets in one, two, or all
three subhulls.
Design Challenges of the Adjustable-Length
Trimaran
Locking, Retraction and Extension The principal design chal-
lenge is apparent: mechanical systems required for structural con-
nection of the retractable hull must be capable of supporting the
 Table 1: Nominal Particulars of HSSL ALT Subhulls
Center- Side-
Item Symbol Units
hull hull
Displacement mass ∆ t 5827 5964
Waterline length L m 168.1 168.6
Waterline beam B m 10.03 10.04
Draft T m 6.510 6.510
Waterplane-area coefficient CW P 0.7770 0.8091
Maximum section coefficient CM 0.7860 0.7863
Block coefficient CB 0.5174 0.5279
Prismatic coefficient CP 0.6583 0.6714
Slenderness coefficient L/∇1/3 9.424 9.375

design sea loads, and still be able to retract and extend under some
other (presumably less severe) set of loads. This is not completely
without precedent. Locking and bearing mechanisms sized to
carry loads (of magnitudes appropriate for primary ship struc-
tures) have been used in commercial marine applications such
as integrated and articulated tug-barge (ATB) systems. Simi-
larly, mechanical systems for retraction and extension of large ob-
jects, under substantial forces, have been developed for other ma-
rine and offshore applications, such as jack-up drilling rigs, off-
shore structure launching appliances, and heavy-lift derricks and
cranes. However, the additional challenge for a high-speed ship
application is to provide the required system capabilities (lock-
ing, retraction, and extension) at an acceptable weight penalty.
Figure 2 shows a concept for an adjustable-length trimaran
with a retractable centerhull section. The centerhull is locked
in the extended position for transit, with locking mechanisms,
broadly similar to the devices that are used on integrated tug
barges: that is, sliding wedges or rams, sized to take the structural
loads required for open ocean operation at high speed. For access
to an austere port, the locks would be disengaged, and the center-
hull would be retracted along a system of guides which need only Figure 2: Adjustable-Length Trimaran Concept with Retractable
take the loads required in port, sheltered waters at relatively low Centerhull Section Extended and Retracted
speeds. Based on current practice and commercial systems used
in integrated tug barges, a structural locking system can be de-
veloped at a reasonable weight, provided that appropriate design In fact, such an arrangement would permit at least one geomet-
loads can be established. ric advantage in terms of freeboard constraint on the centerhull.
In seakeeping model tests that will be described below, forces However, in other important respects, especially structural conti-
and moments were measured at the connections between the port nuity and arrangements for cargo stowage and access, a concept
and starboard cross structures and the sides of the centerhull. The with the centerhull connected underneath the cross structure of a
highest irregular wave case tested was a representative Sea State 7 “catamaran section” seems more reasonable.)
spectrum (Bretschneider, 7.5 m significant wave height, 15 sec- A concept for locking the centerhull is shown schematically
ond modal period), in head seas, at 25 knots. Based on a pre- in Figure 3. Notionally, the locking system consists of opposed
liminary analysis of those results it is considered likely that ver- pairs of horizontal sliding wedges driven (for example) by a jack
tical bending moments and shear forces will govern the design screw. To lock the centerhull, the wedges are driven outboard and
of the locking system, at least in a configuration where the cen- engage corresponding “buckets” fixed in the cross structure. Two
terhull which retracts under the cross structure between the two assemblies, separated longitudinally, transmit the vertical bend-
side hulls. (Conceptually, there are other ways of performing this ing moment and shear, and also resist longitudinal forces and
retraction. For example, the port and starboard cross-structures torsion of the centerhull about the longitudinal axis. One pair
and hulls could slide fore and aft along the sides of the centerhull. of locking wedges is located near the aft end of the centerhull,

3

Figure 3: Adjustable-Length Trimaran Concept; Section Showing
a Possible Location of Locking and Retraction Systems
and engages with buckets located near the mid-length of the cross
structure. The other pair is located near the mid-length of the
centerhull, and engages the cross-structure as far forward as prac-
ticable. Thus, the lever arm between the two sets of locks is ap-
proximately half the length of the centerhull.
In oblique seas and during maneuvers, of course, there are
also significant lateral bending moments and side forces acting
on the centerhull. These forces also have to be transmitted by the
locking wedges, although primarily as loads along the axis of the
actuating screw, rather than as shear in the wedges. Model test re-
sults in oblique seas have only been obtained in irregular waves up
to 4 m significant height. Consequently, firm conclusions on the
appropriate design loads cannot be drawn yet. However, if ver-
tical bending and shear loads do indeed govern the design of the
locking members, as is expected, it appears that an opposed pair
of locking wedges of the type shown in Figure 3 would have to
be capable of transmitting an extreme load of about 8300 tonnes.
This is hardly a small load, and it reflects to a great extent the
influence of high speed. However, it is within the shear capacity
of practical forgings and weldments, not much different in size
from those currently used on large articulated tug-barges. In ad-
dition, while ATB coupling systems must incorporate bearings to
permit rotation under load, the locking wedges of the trimaran
do not, and this simplifies the design of the system. The dimen-
sions of the wedge (diameter or largest dimension of the cross-
section) would be on the order of 1500 mm, and the material
thickness around the perimeter of the section about 120 mm. In-
ternal diaphragms could also be required inside the wedge to help
maintain the desired distribution of contact forces, and to transfer
forces to the jack screw.
Apart from locking the centerhull in its extended position at
sea, the system must also provide a means of retracting and ex-
tending the centerhull. Guides for this motion may take the form
of rails with wheeled carriages or slides. The loads on the guides
are expected to be modest by comparison with the loads on the
locking system, but certainly not negligible. The effects of weight
distribution and trim, which can vary widely depending on fuel
and cargo loads, will be at least one possible driver of load re-
quirements on the guides, even in calm water. Types of actuators
4
to move the centerhull could include rack and pinion (similar to
systems used for jack-up drill rigs), traction wheels, winches and
cables, ball screws, or other linear actuators. Some care is obvi-
ously needed with regard to buoyancy and trim in an adjustable-
length vessel. Just because the entire trimaran is in static equi-
librium with the sections locked in a certain position, it does not
follow that when the locks are released each section will still be in
equilibrium individually. Thus, the guide system may be carrying
both a force and a moment when the locks are released, and there
would be situations when the centerhull would tend to move along
the guide simply because of an excess of buoyancy or a trimming
moment in one section or the other.
Weights for the locking and retraction systems were included
in estimates for the adjustable-length trimaran, and amount to
somewhat over 250 tonnes, including additional foundations.
This is not an insignificant weight. However, the penalty has to
be compared with the added propulsion machinery and fuel that
would be associated attempting to meet speed and range require-
ments on an over-all length limited to 170 m, instead of 50 percent
longer.
Arrangement In the arrangement implied by Figures 2 and 3,
the centerhull contains fuel tankage and propulsion machinery
spaces, but for reasons that should be apparent no cargo or habit-
ability spaces. The cross-structure of the catamaran section con-
tains all the cargo stowage areas, cargo access arrangements, ac-
commodations, and ship control spaces, in addition to propulsion
machinery rooms and most of the auxiliary machinery. There is
no superstructure on the centerhull section, of course, because
of the need to retract it under the cross-structure. This limita-
tion, in effect, restricts the freeboard of the centerhull to the wet
deck height of the catamaran section. This in turn can have a
considerable influence on performance and seakeeping, as dis-
cussed in subsequent sections. The solution to excessive wetness
of the centerhull forward, without excessive height of the catama-
ran section, remains a practical challenge for design trade-offs.
[In this connection it is noted that according to Michell’s theory,
staggering the centerhull aft offers the same magnitude of wave-
resistance advantage as does forward stagger. Aft stagger results
in a rather strange looking planform (Figure 4) and possibly cer-
tain additional machinery-arrangement and maneuvering issues
as well, because of the unusual longitudinal location of the out-
board propulsors. From the purely seakeeping perspective, how-
ever, it does allow the higher-freeboard catamaran section to be
forward, even if this may only mean that a bow-wetness concern
has been exchanged for wet-deck slamming.]
Other Design Issues In principle, the adjustable-length tri-
maran may (and probably will) have propulsion machinery lo-
cated in all three hulls. Intakes and exhausts from centerhull
propulsion engine(s) present an unusual arrangement and gas-
plume problem. It can be assumed that retraction and extension
operations will be performed with the center engines secured, as
this would only be done at low speeds in sheltered water. Even so,
on arrival the center engines and machinery spaces would still be
rather hot, and the machinery and enclosures would still be radiat-

Figure 4: Adjustable-Length Trimaran with Aft Stagger of the
Centerhull
ing. Several alternative approaches for air management have been
considered, of which the most promising is to route intake and ex-
haust for the centerhull engines through vertical trunks incorpo-
rated in the catamaran section. This allows a conventional exhaust
location with respect to the catamaran superstructure. However it
demands the design of a watertight seal detail (at or near the level
of the wet deck of the catamaran section). These seals must be
made effective when the centerhull section is extended, and then
can be “broken” before disengaging the locks and retracting the
centerhull section. The development of seals for these arrange-
ments is not a trivial design problem, but it is considered feasible.
Distributive systems and personnel access to the centerhull
present another peculiar challenge to the designer. Important sys-
tems that have to be able to connect the centerhull and catamaran
sections are electric power, fuel fill and transfer, and internal com-
munications, control and monitoring. The centerhull and catama-
ran sections can (and probably will) have independent ballast and
bilge systems, firemain, seawater cooling, and other auxiliary sys-
tems such as lubrication oil, fire extinguishing, compressed air,
and ventilation. However, there are sound reasons to keep the
electric generating plant entirely in the catamaran section, and in
this case electric power to the centerhull will have to be trans-
ferred by internal “festoon” or cable and reel systems. Signal
connections that must be hard-wired may also use a similar fes-
toon or cable and reel, or possibly some wireless connections can
be incorporated. Fuel fill and transfer systems, due to large hose
sizes, may be somewhat more difficult, however, systems can be
connected after the hull is extended, and disconnected prior to re-
tracting. Personnel and material access arrangements presumably
will require a system of double watertight hatches to trunks, with
locations provided for use in the extended and retracted hull posi-
tions. Details of these systems have not been developed, but they
are considered feasible.
The adjustable-length trimaran is an interesting vehicle for
the extremely challenging HSSL speed, range, payload, and aus-
tere port access constraints. At least to the level of a concept
design weight estimate, it meets the basic HSSL mission require-
ments. In exchange for this, however, the concept presents sev-
eral unusual design challenges. Apart from primary structural
loads and locking arrangements, which are obviously key areas
for further analysis, the low freeboard of the centerhull (assuming
5
stagger with the centerhull forward) is a leading concern. While
wetness of the centerhull is not necessarily an intractable design
issue, it will require careful attention. The relatively small reserve
buoyancy and breadth forward has been observed (during model
tests) to permit wave impacts to occur on the forward surfaces
of the cross structures. Also, asymmetric pitch responses (bow
down peaks substantially greater than bow up) of the kind noted
for tumblehome wave-piercing forms in general, may become a
limitation in severe seas states. Further hydrodynamic research
and the development of appropriate analytic tools, as discussed
below, will be extremely helpful if this concept is to be further
developed.
DESIGN ANALYSIS
In this work, several different numerical methods were
used to predict resistance and seakeeping performance of the
adjustable-length trimaran. Resistance was predicted with a
program that uses thin-ship theory, and a code that solves
the unsteady Reynolds-Averaged Navier-Stokes (RANS) equa-
tions. The seakeeping performance is simulated using a velocity-
potential formulation and strip theory. The adjustable-length tri-
maran represents a unique case in terms of the importance of hull
interactions, forces and moments, and the geometry and propor-
tions of both the below water and above water portions of the
hull and cross structure. In order to make a quantitative assess-
ment of the accuracy of the performance predictions, a suitable
benchmark was needed. Accordingly, a large model test program
was conducted at the Maritime Research Institute Netherlands
(MARIN).
Experiments
A 1-to-34 scale model was used for experiments in the pow-
ering and seakeeping basins. Calm-water resistance was mea-
sured with the center and sidehulls arranged in different con-
figurations, and the motion and inter-subhull force components
were measured with the model self-propelled in a range of sea
states. The resulting dataset comprehensively describes the major
elements of hydrodynamic performance of an adjustable-length
trimaran. It also provides unique guidance for the design of
unique structural and mechanical systems required to make an
adjustable-length trimaran feasible.
Resistance Test Program The three individual hulls were con-
structed out of wood and connected together using aluminum
beams which allowed for easy reconfiguration. The model was
operated in six different loading configurations of varying beam,
length, and displacement, as listed in Table 2 and viewed in Fig-
ure 5. Essentially, this consisted of three different staggers of
the sidehulls and two different offsets s2 /2 of the centerplane of
the sidehulls from the centerplane of the centerhull. During the
planning phase of the experiments, we had intended that the draft
should be identical for all test configurations. Unfortunately, the
freeboard proved to be too small for the reduced dimensions of
Configuration 4 and Configuration 5; as a result, an excessive
amount of spray impacted on the bridging cross structure con-
necting the three subhulls. This deficiency in the design of the
trimaran could easily be corrected in any planned extension to the

(a) Configuration 1
(b) Configuration 2
(c) Configuration 3
(d) Configuration 4
(e) Configuration 5
(f) Configuration 6
Figure 5: Bottom View of the 6 Hull Configurations
Figure 6: Image of Model in Configuration 4
6
project. The final test matrix operated Configurations 1 to 3 and 6
in the heavier departure-displacement, and Configurations 4 and 5
in the lighter arrival-displacement.
The model was attached to the carriage and towed with a
vertical heave staff and gimbal so that the model was free to
heave and pitch. The longitudinal location of the tow point cor-
responded to the longitudinal center of buoyancy of the trimaran
(which varied depending on the stagger of the sidehulls). Sand
strips were applied to the bow of each hull to stimulate turbulence.
An image of the model, arranged in Configuration 4, is shown in
Figure 6 where details of the bow geometry and the location of
the sand strips can be seen.
The same models were used for the seakeeping tests which
required the installation of a water jet in each hull. The water jet
openings were covered for the resistance tests so that the hulls
were effectively bare.
Seakeeping Test Program The seakeeping test program was
conducted in MARIN’s Seakeeping and Manoeuvring Basin. We
concentrated our interests regarding motions on Configuration 6,
because this is the heavy-load long-range fuel-efficient mode for
which the adjustable-length trimaran was specifically designed. It
is this configuration that would pertain to the vast majority of the
operational time and that would present the principal concern for
the operators of the vessel. The three hulls were connected us-
ing force frames so that the six degree-of-freedom inter-subhull
forces could be measured, and a portion of the hull structure was
attached in the bow region to facilitate and measure under-deck
slamming. The inertial properties of the seakeeping model are
summarized in Table 3.
A water jet was installed in each hull so that the model could
be tested in a self-propelled condition. The nozzles on the outer
hull jets were steerable and controlled by an autopilot to keep the
model on course.
The wave test conditions for the model tests with respect to
motions fell into two broad categories: regular waves and irreg-
ular waves. For each category, the model was operated in dif-
ferent combinations of two forward speeds, 25 and 43 kn, wave-
heading angles between 0 and 180 degrees, and wave steepness
or sea state. The wave conditions are noted in Table 4. Because
of the vast quantity of data that was collected, we shall constrain
our discussion in this paper to just the two cases of a 90-degree
heading and a 150-degree heading. The reason for this choice is
that we firstly desired to compare the regular-wave analysis with
the irregular-wave analysis. This eliminates the cases of the 0,
120, 180, and 285-degree headings. Secondly, the cases of 0 and
180-degree heading are less interesting, because some modes of
motion are (ideally) zero.
The regular seas tests at the 150 degree heading used wave-
lengths spanning one-half to six times the overall ship length. The
beam seas tests were conducted at wavelengths between one to
seven times the ship beam. All regular seas tests were done with
a wave amplitude of 1 m, though repeat tests were done near fre-
quencies of large response. For the 150 degree heading, addi-
 Table 2: Details of Model Experiments for Resistance

Overall Overall Sidehull Sidehull Displace- Speed

Config- Draft
Length Beam Stagger Offset ment Range
uration T (m)
L (m) B (m) r2 (m) s2 /2 (m) ∆ (t) U (kn)
1 168.6 56.0 0.0 23.0 6.51 17,760 20–56
2 210.6 56.0 −42.5 23.0 6.51 17,760 20–60
3 253.1 56.0 −85.0 23.0 6.51 17,760 20–54
4 168.2 40.0 0.0 15.0 5.19 12,340 20–54
5 210.2 40.0 −42.5 15.0 5.19 12,340 20–48
6 253.1 40.0 −85.0 15.0 6.51 17,760 20–58

Table 3: Details of Seakeeping Model

Item Symbol Units Value

Configuration 6
Longitudinal center-of-gravity from transom LCG m 109.68
Vertical center-of-gravity above keel KG m 10.00
Mass radius of gyration about longitudinal axis kxx m 12.92
Mass radius of gyration about lateral axis kyy m 51.00
Mass radius of gyration about vertical axis kzz m 54.90

Table 4: Details of Model Experiments for Seakeeping

Displace-
Config- Speed Heading Wave
ment
uration U (kn) β (degrees) Types∗
∆ (t)
6 17,760 43 0 I
6 17,760 43 90 R&I
6 17,760 43 120 I
6 17,760 43 150 R&I
6 17,760 43 180 R&I
6 17,760 25 180 I
6 17,760 43 285 R
6 17,760 43 300 R&I

∗ R (Regular), I (Irregular)

7
tional waves of varying amplitude, namely 0.5 and 0.25 m, were
tested at the most interesting ship-to-wavelength ratio of unity.
Additional beam seas tests were conducted at the large-response
frequency corresponding to the wavelength-to-beam ratio of 1.6.
For this repeat frequency, an amplitude of 0.5 m was used.
The irregular seas results that are analyzed in this paper
were generated using Pierson-Moskowitz-type spectra. The wave
power spectrum of a given test is defined by the significant wave
height, and the peak period. We thoroughly tested the condition
that simulates Sea State 4, because the mission requirements man-
date that the vessel operate fully in this environment. Accord-
ingly, the largest portion of the test matrix was attributed to a sig-
nificant wave height and peak-wave period corresponding of 2 m
and 8.8 s, values that emulate Sea State 4. Additional irregular
seas conditions were tested using peak periods that ranged from
12 to 31 s, and significant wave heights up to 7.5 m.
Numerical Tools
Resistance Using Thin-Ship Theory In the current work, we
describe an exhaustive investigation into the resistance of a can-
didate for a high-speed sealift trimaran. The purpose of the effort
was twofold: to consider a suitable trimaran design and to test our
available computational tools. Computations were performed in a
“blind fashion”, in that the experimental results for the resistance
were not initially made available to those persons performing the
calculations. Of course, the opportunity was later provided to
learn from the comparisons of theory and experiment and, conse-
quently, to improve the software.
The software developed by Doctors and Day (1997), Doctors
(1999), and Doctors and Scrace (2003), based on extensions to
the Michell (1898) theory, represented one focus of our computa-
tional work. The other principal computational focus was based
on computational-fluid dynamics (CFD) as described later in this
paper.
The current version of our thin-ship software contains a num-
ber of enhancements, as follows:
• The program can handle any number of subhulls up to six, by
employing additional centerplane source distributions. The
transverse velocities induced by one subhull should be cor-
rected for by the use of laterally-directed centerplane dipole
distributions; however, this is ignored for the sake of con-
siderable simplification to the coding of the software. It can
be shown that our simplification is reasonable, provided the
relative lateral spacing between the subhulls of the multihull
is sufficiently large. We admit that in the current project,
we have been burdened with a stringent design requirement
on the overall beam of the vessel. This implies that we are
testing this simplifying assumption to the limit.
• An enhanced model for the transom-stern flow has been un-
der development for 11 years now. The current model allows
for a realistic extension to the vessel by means of a virtual ex-
tension to the vessel in order to represent the presence of the
transom-stern hollow. This has been described by Doctors
and Beck (2005), Maki, Doctors, Beck, and Troesch (2006),
8
and Doctors (2007). In this way, the effective hydrodynamic
length of the subhulls grows with increasing vessel speed in
a physically realistic manner that has been substantiated by
numerous towing-tank experiments.
• The transom-stern model includes a procedure for estimat-
ing the progressive unwetting or ventilation of the transom.
This feature permits a practical estimate of the transom-stern
or hydrostatic drag suffered by such vessels. This proce-
dure has been detailed by Doctors, Macfarlane, and Young
(2007). In that later publication, the previous very exten-
sive experiments on transom-stern ventilation were repeated
in a more accurate manner, through the use of specially de-
signed “wetting probes” mounted around the transom stern.
We now possess much more reliable data for this purpose
and have, in the process of the investigation, verified that the
critical value of the transom-stern Froude number to obtain
full ventilation is around 2.5 — at least in the case of a tran-
som stern with a rectangular cross section at model scale.
• As a special task inspired by the model experiments to be
described here, a further procedure was incorporated in the
computer code in order to take into account the viscous in-
teraction between the subhulls. This simplistic procedure
makes an allowance that the subhulls are in the “shadow”
of each other to some degree, as seen in a profile or a side
view. This shadow will be greatest when the subhulls are
abreast of each other and will be particularly strong when
they are of similar size. In the present theory, the local gap
between the subhulls below the loaded waterplane was com-
puted. From this, an estimate of the increase in local water
speed was obtained. This increase in speed was applied to
the usual formula for frictional resistance, thus leading to an
approximate technique for determining the frictional form
factor.
Of course, it is clearly understood that a number of physical
phenomena is neglected here. Neglected effects include the de-
formed shape of the free surface and the fact that the flow would
tend to skirt around the outside of the vessel, in cases where the
intersubhull gap is very small. However, we wished to preserve
the characteristically simple approach of the software as well as
its fast computational behavior.
The reader is referred to the work of Maki, Doctors, Rhee,
Wilson, Beck, and Troesch (2007), for our first publication on
this research and development project.
Seakeeping Using Strip Theory The computer program
KORVIN consists, broadly speaking, of two main modules.
The purpose of the first main module is to compute the two-
dimensional (sectional) hydrodynamic coefficients. The approach
utilized here is a direct enhancement of that developed by Doc-
tors (1986) for the case of an infinite fluid domain, without a free
surface. In the current case, we are concerned with a ship section
oscillation at or near the free surface; the mathematical analysis
was presented in detail by Doctors (1988). It is effected through
the use of the boundary-element method (BEM), also called the
panel method.
The surface (more precisely, the line boundary) of the sec-
tion is subdivided into a series of approximately equal straight
segments, typically 20 to 40 in number. A source strength, pul-
sating harmonically in time, is distributed uniformly along each
line segment. The influence of the source panel on the field point
is derived analytically. The resulting simultaneous equations for
the source strengths are solved in the usual way, thus giving the
source strengths.
The source strengths are complex with respect to the time.
One can then compute the velocity field and, in particular, the
induced pressures on the field panels. The in-phase pressures
are next integrated around the section to yield the added mass.
The integrals of the out-of-phase pressures are used to obtain the
damping coefficients. Two particularly effective enhancements
are also employed in the computer program. The first enhance-
ment is to integrate the induced velocities over the field panel as
well as the source panel, when computing the matrix of influ-
ence coefficients. This approach is sometimes referred to as the
Galerkin technique. The Galerkin technique provides more accu-
rate results. That is, fewer panels are required in order to obtain
a prescribed level of accuracy, compared to the original work of
Frank (1967).
It should be mentioned here that other methods exist for en-
hancing the convergence rate of the basic panel method. These in-
clude the use of higher-order singularities by Hess (1975), curved
panels by Bristow (1977 and 1978), and a spline fit by Inoue,
Kuroumaru, and Yamaguchi (1977).
We also claim that our approach is simpler to apply than these
approaches. Moreover, it is more elegant and robust than that of
Barnell (1984), for example, who effected the field-panel inte-
gration numerically. It is clearly better to do this algebraically if
feasible.
The second enhancement in the software is to utilize a “lid”
over the internal free surface of the section. This feature pos-
sesses the considerable advantage of eliminating the problem of
the “irregular frequencies”, without any other special treatment.
The irregular-frequency problem was described, for example, by
Adachi and Ohmatsu (1979), and Haraguchi and Ohmatsu (1983).
The second main module of the software is based on the strip
theory of Salvesen, Tuck and Faltinsen (1970). This paper has
become the core reference for the strip theory, in which the sec-
tional hydrodynamic properties of the ship are integrated along
the length of the ship in order to obtain an approximation to the
three-dimensional hydrodynamic coefficients of the ship.
In the case of a multihull vessel, as in the present study of
the motions of a trimaran, the program can be executed using two
different methods. In the first method, the abovementioned two-
dimensional sections are taken right through all through subhulls.
It is considered that this should be the appropriate form of anal-
ysis for a stationary or low-speed vessel. That is, the sections
of one subhull would interact hydrodynamically with the corre-
9
sponding sections of the other subhull and this must be taken
into account in the theory. In the second method, the subhulls
are assumed to behave independently, from the hydrodynamic
viewpoint. This second approach is assumed to be more appro-
priate for the vessel when traveling at a high forward speed and
the waves generated by one subhull are swept downstream before
they can interact with the other subhull.
These ideas were studied by Doctors and Scrace (2004) on a
trimaran hull model similar to the RV Triton Trimaran Demonstra-
tor. It was shown that, at typical forward speeds, corresponding
to Froude numbers up to 0.3112, using the independent-subhull
analysis yielded superior predictions.
Further confirming this speculation, a second and more re-
cent application of the software to a trimaran by Hebblewhite,
Sahoo, and Doctors (2007) demonstrated that, indeed, better
correlation with theory appeared to be achieved through the
independent-subhull analysis for both low and high speeds.
This satisfactory outcome was confirmed even more power-
fully by Thomas, Doctors, Couser, and Hackett (2007). This third
example was for a catamaran at zero speed. It is true that gener-
ally very good agreement with experimental measurements for
the heave, yaw, and pitch motion responses was achieved with
both approaches, even in this very extreme limiting case. Never-
theless, the analysis assuming hydrodynamic interaction between
the two demihulls was markedly more accurate, as anticipated.
We note that there is very recent work that focuses precisely
on improving conventional strip theory for multihull vessel sea-
keeping. The Ph.D. thesis of Belknap (2008) developed a theory
that includes hull-interaction effects between hulls for the lower
ship speeds for which the effects are likely. In his work, a far-
field approximation is invoked, whereby the radiated waves from
one demihull section appear as incident waves to another demi-
hull section. The interacting sections are determined by the vec-
tor combination of the group velocity of demihull radiated waves
and forward speed of the ship. For very high speeds, all the ra-
diated waves are swept downstream and there is no interaction.
Comparisons of the theory of Belknap to model test data and 3D
computations have shown that it captures the correct trends and is
an improvement over conventional strip theories.
In the present investigation, however, the first two theories
will be plotted and compared with the experimental data in order
to test this hypothesis of hull-interaction.
Resistance Using RANS Computational tools continue to im-
prove in both speed and accuracy, and in particular, Reynolds-
Averaged Navier-Stokes (RANS) methods have demonstrated in-
creased capabilities in predicting the flow around ships and sub-
marines in recent years. Much of this is due to recent advances
in computing technologies, particularly parallel processing tech-
niques, and the application of complex unstructured meshing al-
gorithms that can more efficiently produce suitable computational
grids, even for complicated geometries. What is still required,
however, is to continue to study predictions to more clearly un-
derstand how these expensive simulations can be best utilized in
the design and analysis of marine vehicles. A review of applying
RANS techniques to a variety of surface ship configurations was
given in Gorski (2004). An assessment of different computational
tools was given in Wilson, Fu, Fullerton, and Gorski (2006).
The commercially available software FLUENT is a general
purpose Reynolds-Averaged Navier-Stokes (RANS) solver. It uti-
lizes a volume-of-fluid (VOF) method to predict the location and
evolution of the free surface. In the VOF approach, it is assumed
that the discrete volume elements that comprise the domain are
filled with a combination of separate fluids, in this case air and
water, and the sum of the volume fractions of each fluid in a con-
trol volume equals unity.According to this constraint, the advec-
tion of only a single phase must be computed.
FLUENT uses a cell-centered finite-volume method and can
utilize discrete volume elements that are constructed of an arbi-
trary number of sides, appropriately referred to as polyhedra. The
advantage of allowing an arbitrary number of sides per cell is that
different standard element types such as tetrahedra, hexahedra,
pyramid, and prismatic, can be used to generate the mesh. In the
latest version of the software, tetrahedral zones can be converted
into polyhedra using an agglomeration process where the tetrahe-
dral nodes become the polyhedral cell-centers. This conversion
has several advantages, the most prominent are the reduced cell
count and greatly improved mesh quality through reduced skew-
ness. The reduced cell count is an obvious advantage, and skew-
ness degrades accuracy and impedes solution convergence. Here
we use a cell skewness metric that assesses the deviation of the
cell face angles from those of a face belonging to an equiangular
cell. A value of 0 indicates a best-case equiangular cell, and a
value of 1 indicates a completely degenerate cell. In the present
simulations, the maximum skewness for the near-field region was
reduced from approximately 0.8 when discretized using tetrahe-
dral elements to 0.4 after converting to polyhedra. By reducing
both the cell count and the skewness, it is possible to reduce so-
lution times and enhance accuracy.
The computational grids used in the present study exploit
the advantage of using different element types in the different
regions of the domain where they excel, while also attempting
to reduce the difficulties and time associated with generating a
suitable mesh. The near-body mesh consists of boundary-layer
prisms that have a structured nature in the wall normal direction.
The use of prisms allows for a fewer number surface cells to cover
the body while providing the necessary spacing to resolve the vis-
cous layer appropriately. The farfield domain consists of hexahe-
dral elements which are aligned with the direction of the flow and
clustered near the free surface. The intermediate area between the
boundary-layer-prism cap and the farfield domain is connected
using tetrahedral elements which are converted into polyhedra us-
ing the previously explained procedure.
Figure 7 shows the surface mesh on the centerhull and the
vessel symmetry plane, and demonstrates the use of each of the
element types. The hexahedral elements are effective in solving
the undisturbed free surface locations due to the ability to allow
significant stretching in the streamwise direction without com-
10
promising accuracy. The polyhedra elements, on the other hand,
are better utilized in resolving the near-body regions that contain
complex geometry. Figure 7 also shows the predicted thickness
of the air-water interface, which is seen to occur over at most
two to three cells. While it is acknowledged that the use of the
polyhedra elements does compromise the interface resolution in
the near-body regions, it has been demonstrated that this does not
significantly impact the accuracy of the force predictions (Maki
and Wilson, 2008), which will be presented in the following. The
grids used in this work had a total cell count of approximately
1.6M cells, composed of 1.3M polyhedra and 0.3M hexahedra.
In the present study, the convective terms were discretized
using the QUICK scheme (Leonard and Mokhtari, 1990). This
scheme uses a weighted average of a second-order upwind
method and a second-order central interpolation method, which is
typically more accurate for structured grids aligned with the flow
direction. For unstructured regions of the domain, the scheme re-
verts to the second-order upwind method. Therefore, this scheme
is very appropriate for the present case, which involves a hybrid
mesh that contains both structured hexahedral elements which are
mostly aligned with the general flow direction, as well as poly-
hedra elements for flexibility in resolving the model geometry
and near-body flow. The discretization of the volume fraction
equation used a modified version of the high-resolution interface
capturing (HRIC) method (Muzaferija et al, 1998). The HRIC
scheme has been shown to be more accurate than the QUICK or
other second-order discretization schemes, and is less computa-
tionally expensive than using a complete geometric reconstruc-
tion of the interface, which is also available in FLUENT. The tur-
bulence closure was accomplished using a variant of the k − ω
model as described in Wilcox (1998). The pressure-velocity cou-
pling is based on a SIMPLE type segregated solution algorithm.
The simulations were performed as fully unsteady in time, march-
ing to an equilibrium solution. The time advancement was ac-
complished using first-order Euler-implicit differencing. Alge-
braic multi-grid (AMG) methods using pointwise Gauss-Seidel
iteration were used to aid in the solution convergence.
While the capabilities exist within FLUENT to perform pre-
dictions of the motions of the ship, the simulations in this effort
utilized experimental measurements for the sinkage and trim to
fix the attitude and position of the model. This provided a sig-
nificant reduction in the computational expense to perform the
calculations, and reduces the number of variables in comparing
the simulated and experimental drag forces. An effort is currently
underway to assess the accuracy and computational expense as-
sociated with dynamically predicting the sinkage and trim as part
of the solution process.
Results for Calm-Water Resistance
We turn to Figure 8, whose six parts show the experimental
and computed results for the abovementioned six configurations.
The symbols on these plots are listed in Table 5.
The curves for the total resistance (or the resistance compo-
nents) are all represented in a dimensionless form known as the
specific resistance. This is the ratio of the total resistance (or the
(a) Configuration 1, ∆ = 17,760 t, L = 168.6 m, B = 56 m (d) Configuration 4, ∆ = 12,340 t, L = 168.6 m, B = 40 m

(b) Configuration 2, ∆ = 17,760 t, L = 210.6 m, B = 56 m (e) Configuration 5, ∆ = 12,340 t, L = 210.6 m, B = 40 m

(c) Configuration 3, ∆ = 17,760 t, L = 253.1 m, B = 56 m (f) Configuration 6, ∆ = 17,760 t, L = 253.1 m, B = 40 m

Figure 8: Calm-Water Specific Resistance at Model Scale Plotted at Full-Scale Speed

11

Figure 7: CFD Grid
resistance components) to the vessel weight W . It is important to
clarify that the calculations are all executed at model scale, in or-
der to be directly comparable with the model experiments. How-
ever, the results for resistance are plotted versus the prototype
velocity scale, namely the speed U in knots, but without any cor-
rection to the resistance due to the fact that the full-scale Reynolds
number is substantially greater. Thus, for a realistic prototype cal-
culation, one must perform the appropriate Froude extrapolation.
This would substantially lower the specific frictional drag and,
consequently, the specific total drag.
The plots also indicate the relevant values of the offset s2 /2
of the sidehull for the six configurations. This is measured be-
tween the centerplane of the centerhull and the centerplane of the
sidehull. Additionally, the stagger r2 of the sidehull is shown.
This is measured as the location of the sidehull transom ahead of
the centerhull transom. The value of r2 was zero or negative for
all the configurations, because we believe that sidehulls staggered
aft lead to a more practical design. Curiously, however, the theo-
retical resistance of the trimaran is lowered a similar amount for
positive and negative staggers. This fact can be demonstrated by
12
Table 5: Nomenclature for Plots of Resistance
Symbol Meaning
U Speed of vessel
W Displacement weight
fs Surface-velocity limit factor
r2 Stagger of sidehull
s2 /2 Offset of sidehull
∆ Displacement mass
RF Frictional resistance
RH Hydrostatic resistance
RT Total resistance
RW Wave resistance
Rair Air resistance
a study of the resistance formula attributed to Michell (1898).
We first consider Configuration 1 in Figure 8(a). The wave
resistance RW possesses its typical maximum at the “hump” con-
dition. This occurs for our vessel at a speed which varies accord-
ing to the configuration. Thus, for Configuration 1, the hump
speed is about 43 knots. This is coincidentally the design opera-
tional speed. The wave resistance is the resistance experienced by
the vessel due to the creation of the wave system associated with
the forward motion of the vessel through the water.
The hydrostatic resistance RH is seen to be relatively small,
indicating that little of the transom is immersed in the water. The
hydrostatic resistance is due to the presence of the transom stern.
It is defined and computed on the basis of the lack of hydrostatic
pressure on the face of the transom, due to the assumed clean
separation of the flow of water past the hull at the transom station.
It is clear that the presence of a transom gives rise to an
additional and unwanted resistance component in contrast to a
more traditional vessel with a streamlined stern. However, it is
not immediately obvious whether the total resistance increases as
a result of the transom. This is because the wave resistance is
also affected by the presence of the transom. The reader is re-
minded that the wave resistance is computed here assuming that
the effective vessel moving through the water is the actual vessel
combined with the added hollow in the water behind the tran-
som. Thus, Doctors (1999), in his extensive comparison between
different multihull configurations, demonstrated theoretically that
the presence of a modest transom resulted in a lowering of the to-
tal resistance — compared to the resistance of a vessel either with
no transom or a vessel with a substantial transom.
We should also add here that the reason for incorporating a
transom in a marine vessel may, in fact, not be related at all to
hydrodynamic considerations. The transom, because of its ge-
ometry, lends itself to the most convenient location for siting the
waterjets, which are often used for the propulsion of such vessels.
The frictional resistance RF is estimated from the 1957 ITTC
line and is seen to be the major drag component, at least at model
scale, for the higher-speeds, namely the 50 to 60 knot range.
 The air resistance Rair is the fourth drag component plotted
on the graph. We computed this drag component assuming that
the drag coefficient was 1.000, based on the frontal area of the
model ship. This drag component is negligible for our design.
The simple sum of these four components is indicated by the
first of the three curves for total resistance RT . This predicted
result may be compared with the experimental data as represented
by the symbols.
It can be seen that there is a total of four curves for the total
resistance RT . As indicated on the graphs, the first curve (indi-
cated by circular symbols) represents the experimental data de-
rived from the model tests. The other three curves for RT (each
with a different value of fs associated with it) were obtained from
the theoretical work, as explained in the following text.
It can be seen that this first prediction of the total resistance,
indicated by the symbol fs = 1, falls short of the experimental
resistance. This discrepancy increases with speed. It is believed
that most of this discrepancy can be traced back to the interactions
between the subhulls increasing the frictional drag, as noted ear-
lier in this paper. The symbol fs is a surface-velocity limit factor,
which we employed in our simple resistance-prediction software
(not the CFD computations, which requires no such correction
factors).
To emphasize this point, one has only to note that the sub-
hulls each possess a maximum local beam of approximately 10 m
at the waterline. With an overall subhull centerplane spacing s2
of 46 m, this leads to a minimum gap of 13 m. This suggests that
the water has been channeled from an initial width of 23 m down
to 13 m, implying a large increase in the local speed of the water
over the surface of the hull. On the other hand, it should be noted
that this effect will be much less on other parts of the subhull sur-
face. The current estimate of the velocity increase does take this
effect fully into account in the third theoretical prediction, indi-
cated by fs = ∞.
In the computer program, the local “geometric channel
width”, or gap, between the subhulls is computed. The ratio of
the subhull centerplane spacing to this local gap, which is always
greater than unity, provides an upper limit on the ratio of the lo-
cal water speed to the speed of the vessel. This ratio is termed
the “subhull surface-velocity ratio” in our analysis. (This ratio
is 23/13 = 1.769, at the point where the subhull local beam is
greatest, in the above example).
Frictional resistance essentially depends on the square of ve-
locity. But there is a weak Reynolds-number effect as well, lead-
ing to a drop in the frictional resistance coefficient with speed.
Thus, the computer subroutine calculates the average value of the
subhull-surface velocity ratio to the 1.8 power (rather than the
second power), over the surfaces of the individual subhulls.
This new factor is used to correct the frictional resistance
based on the standard 1957 ITTC formulation, for each subhull,
on an individual basis. This simple correction procedure is a one-
dimensional method. It no doubt ignores ameliorating effects due
to the true three-dimensional nature of the flow over the subhulls.
13
Thus, we also allow the possibility of moderating the intersubhull
influence, as detailed in the following paragraph.
It is considered that the prescription explained here overes-
timates the effect under study, as noted when the vessel speed U
exceeds 44 knots. Thus, yet another curve is shown, indicated by
fs = 1.2. The meaning of this is that the computer coding places
an upper limit on the subhull surface velocity of 1.2 times the
vessel speed.
The other five parts of Figure 8 pertain to the other five con-
figurations. On the whole, it is confirmed that the surface-velocity
limit factor fs = 1.2 does seem to be a reasonable compromise
for achieving the best correlation between theory and experiment.
One may note that the hump-like nature of the wave-resistance
curve for Configuration 1 is diminished for Configuration 4 and it
is essentially non-existent for the remaining four configurations.
This is to be expected because it is well known that longer vessels
(Configurations 2, 3, 5, and 6) possess hump-free wave-resistance
curves.
Figure 8(d) and Figure 8(f) also show some calculations
based on the FLUENT software. Because computational times
are much greater for these very extensive and detailed CFD stud-
ies, a limited number of computed points only is depicted here.
For this reason, we have chosen to use square symbols to indi-
cate the FLUENT predictions, whereas it is conventional to use a
curve for theoretical predictions. It is indeed most encouraging to
observe the excellent matching between the FLUENT data points
and the experimental data. This statement is particularly true for
Configuration 6, the laterally-closely-spaced, fully-extended con-
figuration, for which we are most interested in achieving high-
fidelity predictions.
The average relative difference between prediction and ex-
periment, when using the speed range of 20 to 50 knots in Con-
figuration 6, is 9.9% and 1.8% for the thin-ship theory and CFD
results respectively. For the less operationally important, and hy-
drodynamically more challenging Configuration 4, the average
differences were 16% and 8% respectively. When comparing the
two computational methods, we must recall the extra expense that
is associated with achieving the increased accuracy. The time re-
quired to complete a converged drag result for a single forward
speed is approximately 24 to 48 hours using 24 processors for the
RANS method and only about 1 second on a single processor for
the thin-ship theory code.
The RANS computation is also useful for the prediction of
the free surface elevation. For the adjustable-length trimaran ge-
ometry, the designer is concerned with wetness of the fore and
underdecks, the water level near the water jet intakes, and the
interference between the center- and sidehulls. A sample pre-
diction of free-surface elevation from the RANS computations
for an equivalent forward speed of 40 knots is shown in Fig-
ure 9. A closer examination of this figure also points out how
the contour of the wave elevation appears discontinuous along
the non-conformal grid interface separating the near-body region
from the outer domain. At the interface, the vertical dimension
of the polyhedral cells is much larger than that of the stretched-
 Table 6: Nomenclature for Plots of Ship Motions

Symbol Meaning
L Length of vessel
U Speed of vessel
g Acceleration due to gravity
ω0 Sea-wave radian frequency
γ Heading of vessel
A0 Wave amplitude
A2 Sway amplitude
A3 Heave amplitude
A4 Roll amplitude
A5 Pitch amplitude
A6 Yaw amplitude
ε2 Sway phase
ε3 Heave phase
ε4 Roll phase
(a)
ε5 Pitch phase
ε6 Yaw phase

hexagonal neighbors. Subsequently, the interpolation performed

during post-processing is more refined in the region of cells with
smaller spacing, thus leaving a visible discontinuity in the free-
surface contour. The consequence of this is only a reminder that
the method is solving an assumed continuous process discretely.
Because the focus of this effort was to examine the ability of the
tools to predict the model resistance, the rapid change in cell
spacing across the interface was deemed an acceptable way to
relax the mesh resolution requirements, while not significantly
impacting the resistance computation, as evidenced by the results
in Figures 8(d) and 8(f). Of course, if one were interested in ac-
(b) curately predicting the wave behavior further away from the hull,
then commensurate mesh resolution would be required. Wilson,
Fu, Fullerton, and Gorski (2006) have shown that increased grid
resolution enables a more accurate prediction of the wave eleva-
tion, but the effect on resistance prediction is still unclear and case
dependent since the wave field contributes to only a portion of the
total force.
It is conjectured that the RANS method more accurately rep-
resents the sidehull interference. The inter-hull wave field can be
seen in Figure 9(c), where the camera is placed in between the
center and starboard hull and faces aft. As pointed out earlier, the
subhull interaction increases with increasing forward speed and
hull closeness; hence, the discrepancy between the two computa-
tional methods grows as these parameters increase.
Results for Seakeeping
The five parts of Figure 10 present the results corresponding
(c) to the second row in Table 4, namely a heading of 90 degrees
(beam seas). Figure 10(a) is a plot of the response-amplitude op-
Figure 9: Free-Surface Contours erator (RAO) for sway, as a function of the dimensionless wave
radian frequency. The nomenclature used in these plots of ship
motions are presented in Table 6.

14
 Four sets of data are shown on each plot. The first set of data,
indicated as symbols (and denoted by “Exp reg”), show the exper-
imental results from the regular-wave tests. The second data (de-
noted by “Exp irreg”) is derived from the irregular-wave tests and
was obtained through a fast-Fourier transform (FFT); it is plot-
ted as a short-dashed curve. In this example, there were, in fact,
three separate irregular-wave runs. So, these are graphed as three
separate curves, joining the analysis points with straight line seg-
ments, without any smoothing. One can observe relatively close
repeatability for these three irregular-wave tests. Perfect repeata-
bility is not expected, even if the instrumentation were perfect,
because the irregular-wave system would have been different on
the three occasions, thus altering the outcome of the FFT analysis.
There is also close agreement between the irregular-wave
data (as a group) and the regular-wave data.
Finally, the last two curves show the multihull strip-theory
predictions, using either the combined-subhull concept (denoted
by “Theory comb”) or the separate-subhull concept (denoted by
“Theory sep”).
By way of clarification of the theoretical analysis, we point
out that we have tested two different approaches for handling the
critical matter of the wave interactions between the subhulls. It
is clear that these interactions will influence the motion behavior
of the vessel. In a more sophisticated strip-theory analysis, one
could account for waves created by one subhull impinging on its
neighbor or neighbors.
Utilizing the standard strip-theory simplification, one should
argue that the interaction due to the wave from a subhull section
must occur at a downstream location on the neighbor-subhull sec-
tion. The interaction would be further downstream for a greater
separation between the two subhulls under consideration and also
for greater forward speeds of the vessel. This was amplified upon
by Lloyd (1989), where he published a relevant formula for this
relative downstream location.
In strip theory used for the present calculations, the
combined-subhull concept assumes simply that these inter-
subhull interactions take place at the same ship section. Thus,
one can use the same ship-motion analysis, provided that the hy-
drodynamic coefficients are computed on the basis of a multihull
cross section. The method of Doctors (1988), which is effec-
tively an enhanced version of the original approach developed by
Frank (1967), was employed. It is certainly understood that this
approach will be suitable at low speeds and would be most appro-
priate at zero forward speed.
It should be pointed out that the problem with the combined
subhull concept is that because strip theory has divided the prob-
lem into a series of two-dimensional problems it is susceptible to
creating a “trapped wave” system between the subhulls. In two-
dimensions there are certain resonant frequencies at which waves
can build-up between the hulls. The build-up leads to unrealisti-
cally large hydrodynamic forces and in turn motion predictions.
For actual three-dimensional bodies, the energy build up between
the hulls does not happen because the energy can escape in the
15
longitudinal direction, and results in much smaller wave build-
up. This issue can be clearly seen in figures 10 and 11 where the
combined subhull predictions become very large and have wild
oscillations for certain frequencies.
On the other hand, the separate-subhull concept assumes that
the waves generated by a subhull section are swept downstream
before they can impinge on a neighbor-subhull section. This
method is more suitable for higher speeds. Indeed, it would be
entirely appropriate at speeds beyond the critical speed, when the
generated waves fail entirely to impinge on the neighbor subhull.
For the low-frequency part of the range, the predictions are
similar but this is not the case for the high-frequency part of the
range. For this wave-heading angle, the combined-subhull ap-
proach is perhaps slightly more faithful.
Heave motion for the 90-degree heading case is presented in
Figure 10(b). The correlation between the regular-wave tests and
irregular-wave tests is seen to be better for heave. We also note
that the separate-subhull predictions are superior to those from the
combined-subhull analysis. Roll motion is shown in Figure 10(c).
Similar comments can be made for this mode of motion, with the
exception that there are some differences between the experimen-
tal data towards the low-frequency end of the curve. We may dis-
cern undesired oscillations in the combined-theory calculations
at the higher frequency. It is assumed that these oscillations are
a result of the trapped-mode phenomena alluded to above. Pitch
is shown in Figure 10(d). All the data is of low magnitude be-
cause, as is well known for beam seas, there is little excitation of
pitch motion for most marine vessels. Finally, yaw is presented
in Figure 10(e). The quality of the results is high as for the pre-
vious subfigure. In both cases, it appears that the analysis of the
irregular data breaks down, to some extent, for low frequencies.
We now turn to the case of the 150-degree heading in the
five parts of Figure 11. Once again, the five parts of the figure
correspond to the standard modes of motion, numbered from 2
through 6. While there are general similarities for the results with
the case of the 90-degree heading, there are also some notable
differences. In Figure 11 for the sway, there are some unnatu-
ral responses at the low frequencies, not replicated in the much
smoother separate-subhull theory. Also, at a dimensionless wave
frequency of 2.50, there is a relatively large variation in the re-
sponse from the repeated regular-wave experiments. Heave in
Figure 11 is well predicted. Disturbingly for roll, in Figure 11(c),
we observe similar misbehavior for the experimental data that we
already referred to for the sway; it is even more exaggerated here.
Pitch in Figure 11(d) is well predicted. However, the experiments,
again, appear to be a little misbehaved, because the proper low-
frequency limit for the RAO of cos(30◦ ) = 0.8660 does not occur.
Lastly, the yaw in Figure 11(e), again, seems high for the experi-
ments.
In summary for the motion responses, it can be stated that in
almost all cases, the separate-subhull theory provides a smoother
and more realistic prediction of the experimental responses. This
was anticipated in the introductory comments on the theory, based
on our previous experience.
 (a) Sway (b) Heave

(c) Roll (d) Pitch

(e) Yaw

Figure 10: Seakeeping RAO, Beam Seas (γ = 90 deg), Configuration 6, U = 43 kn

16
 (a) Sway (b) Heave

(c) Roll (d) Pitch

(e) Yaw

Figure 11: Seakeeping RAO, Bow-Quartering Seas (γ = 150 deg), Configuration 6, U = 43 kn

17
 (a) Sway (b) Heave

(c) Roll (d) Pitch

(e) Yaw

Figure 12: Seakeeping RAO Phase, Beam Seas (γ = 90 deg), Configuration 6, U = 43 kn

18
 (a) Sway (b) Heave

(c) Roll (d) Pitch

(e) Yaw

Figure 13: Seakeeping RAO Phase, Bow-Quartering Seas (γ = 150 deg), Configuration 6, U = 43 kn

19
 We shall now discuss the phase angles corresponding to the
amplitudes in the previous two figures. The phases for the 90-
degree heading case are plotted in the five parts of Figure 12. On
the whole, the agreement between the separate-subhull calcula-
tions (definitely not the combined-subhull calculations) and the
regular-wave experimental data is seen to be very good. It should
be borne in mind, with plots showing angles, that an angle of 180◦
is equivalent to an angle of −180◦. Hence, some apparent gross
discrepancies (note the sole experimental point in Figure 12(d))
are actually areas of very close correlation.
Finally, the case of phase angles for the 150-degree head-
ing are shown in Figure 13. There is reasonable correlation for
the predictions emanating from the separate-subhull analysis. On
the other hand, the combined-subhull analysis is seen to contain
considerable oscillations due to undesired and unphysical (non-
existing) hydrodynamic interactions between sections of the dif-
ferent subhulls at the same station.
CONCLUSIONS
In this paper a novel design for a high-speed sealift vessel
has been described. Initially several candidates that utilized the
high-performance technologies of air-cushion assistance, multi-
hulls, and adaptive geometry were considered. The demanding
speed and range requirement of the vessel eliminated all of the
original prototypes. Subsequently, a standard trimaran necessar-
ily evolved into an adjustable-length trimaran that achieved dras-
tically reduced wave resistance by extending the centerhull.
The hydrodynamic performance of the adjustable-length tri-
maran was studied using three different numerical techniques to-
gether with a large model test program. Calm-water resistance
was predicted using a code based on thin-ship theory and the CFD
software FLUENT. Seakeeping motions were predicted using a
program based on classical strip theory. The powering experi-
ments tested the trimaran in six different configurations of vary-
ing overall length, beam, and draft. The seakeeping model tests
were done in a wide range of sea states, heading angles, and two
forward speeds, with the model possessing the lowest-resistance
large-length narrow-beam configuration.
The adjustable-length trimaran geometry has subhulls that
are located relatively closely to each other, and the subhulls are
heavily loaded, particularly upon departure. These attributes chal-
lenge the viscous prediction that is used for calculating total drag
with the thin-ship theory code. Consequently, the viscous predic-
tion was sensitized to the closeness of the hulls by estimating the
increase in velocity realized by the intersubhull fluid.
The accuracy of thin-ship theory resistance predictions was
satisfactory when compared to the experiments; the average nor-
malized difference was approximately 10%. The most distin-
guishing attribute of this code in the present endeavor is the com-
putational efficiency of generating predictions. The efficiency of
this code enabled the user to investigate new designs of greater
overall length in an effort to reduce fuel consumption. Further-
more, the ability of the code to accurately predict the effect of
change in length and beam on the resistance of the six different
20
hull forms was demonstrated in the comparison with the experi-
ments.
The CFD predictions were conducted on computational grids
that utilize polyhedral elements near the body, and hexagonal fi-
nite volumes clustered near the free surface in the far field. Two
of the six hull configurations were simulated, and the comparison
to experiment was encouraging. The average difference over the
tested speed range was approximately 5%. The difference relative
to experiment of the CFD results was generally smaller than that
of the thin-ship theory. It is important to emphasize the difference
in computational expense between the two methods: the CFD run
time is about one million times longer than the thin-ship theory
for each simulated forward speed.
Strip theory was used to predict the motion RAOs for the tri-
maran. The added mass and damping were determined in one
of two ways, either solving the boundary-value problem with all
subhull sections present at each station, or with a proper summa-
tion of the contributions to the forces of each individual subhull.
The comparison to experiment is encouraging, especially with the
predictions utilizing the separate subhull analysis. The designer
must accurately predict loads on the centerhull in order to design
the structure and articulation mechanism, and further analysis is
necessary.
The efficient velocity-potential based codes enabled the au-
thors to explore design tradeoffs, and even examine geometrical
variants that fell outside the originally defined parameter bound-
aries. In fact it was this capability that led to the novel adjustable-
length trimaran. Regardless of the advancement in the speed and
power of parallel computers, the velocity-potential based meth-
ods will always be orders of magnitude (in this study six) more
rapid. Conversely, for applications that can afford the extra ex-
pense, CFD is proving to deliver on its promise of higher accu-
racy. Furthermore, CFD provides additional details of the entire
flow domain while robustly handling breaking waves and viscous
effects.
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
The authors would like to gratefully acknowledge the sup-
port of the US Office of Naval Research through the High-Speed
Sealift (HSSL) Program, under the project title, “ONR BAA 05-
007: Architectural Concepts and Hydrodynamic Technologies for
High Speed Sealift to Austere Ports: Subtopic B: Computational
Approach and Hydrodynamic Tools”.
The authors would also particularly like to express their ap-
preciation to Dr Ir Frans van Walree, from the Maritime Research
Institute Netherlands (MARIN) in Wageningen, Netherlands, for
his considerable assistance with the execution of the seakeeping
tests and the subsequent analysis of the experimental data.
The CFD computations have been performed using resources
available at the Ship Engineering and Analysis TECHnology
(SEATECH) center, located at the Naval Surface Warfare Center
Carderock Division (NSWCCD) and the Air Force Research Lab-
oratory (AFRL) Major Shared Resource Center (MSRC) High
Performance Computing (HPC) facility.
REFERENCES
A DACHI , H. AND O HMATSU , S. 1979, “On the Irregular Fre-
quencies in the Integral Equation Solutions of the Time-
Dependent Free Surface Problems,” Proc. Society of Naval
Architects of Japan, Fall Meeting, pp 127–136, November.
BARNELL , A. 1984, “Boundary-Integral Methods for Solving
Potential Flows,” Massachusetts Institute of Technology, De-
partment of Ocean Engineering, Master thesis, 72 pp, Febru-
ary.
B ELKNAP, W.F. 2008, “A Computationally Efficient Method for
Nonlinear Multihull Seakeeping”, PhD thesis, Department
of Naval Architecture and Marine Engineering, Ann Arbor,
Michigan, USA.
B RISTOW, D.R. 1977, “Recent Improvements in Surface Sin-
gularity Methods for the Flow Field Analysis about Two-
Dimensional Airfoils,” Proc. American Institute of Aeronau-
tics and Astronautics Conference on Computational Fluid
Dynamics, Albuquerque, New Mexico, 11+i pp, June.
B RISTOW, D.R. 1978, “Improvements in Surface Singular-
ity Analysis and Design Methods,” Proc. Conference on
Advanced Technology Airfoil Research, NASA, CP 2045,
ATAR, pp 221–236.
DAY, A., C LELLAND , D., N IXON , E. 2003, “Experimental and
Numerical Investigation of ‘Arrow’ Trimarans”, Proc. Sev-
enth International Conference on Fast Sea Transportation
(FAST ’03), Ischia, Italy, Vol. 3, pp D2.23–D2.30, October.
D OCTORS , L.J. 1986, “Application of the Collocation and
Galerkin Approaches to Potential-Flow Solutions by the
Boundary Element Method,” Proc. Ninth Australasian Fluid
Mechanics Conference, The University of Auckland, Auck-
land, New Zealand, pp 400–403, December.
D OCTORS , L.J. 1988, “Application of the Boundary-Element
Method to Bodies Oscillating near a Free Surface,” Compu-
tational Fluid Dynamics — Proc. International Symposium
on Computational Fluid Dynamics ISCFD-Sydney, Elsevier
Science Publishers B.V., Amsterdam, pp 377–386.
D OCTORS , L.J. 1999, “On the Great Trimaran-Catamaran De-
bate,” Proc. Fifth International Conference on Fast Sea
Transportation (FAST ’99), Seattle, Washington, pp 283–
296, August–September.
D OCTORS , L.J. 2007, “A Numerical Study of the Resistance
of Transom-Stern Monohulls,” Ship Technology Research:
Schiffstechnik, Vol. 54, No. 3, pp 134–144, July.
D OCTORS , L.J. AND B ECK , R.F. 2005, “The Separation of
the Flow past a Transom Stern,” Proc. First Interna-
tional Conference on Marine Research and Transportation
(ICMRT ’05), Ischia, Italy, 14 pp, September.
21
D OCTORS , L.J. AND DAY, A.H. 1997, “Resistance Prediction
for Transom-Stern Vessels,” Proc. Fourth International Con-
ference on Fast Sea Transportation (FAST ’97), Sydney, Aus-
tralia, Vol. 2, pp 743–750, July.
D OCTORS , L.J., M ACFARLANE , G.J., AND YOUNG , R. 2007,
“A Study of Transom-Stern Ventilation,” International Ship-
building Progress, Vol. 54, No. 2, 3, pp 145–163.
D OCTORS , L.J. AND S CRACE , R.J. 2003, “The Optimisation of
Trimaran Sidehull Position for Minimum Resistance,” Proc.
Seventh International Conference on Fast Sea Transporta-
tion (FAST ’03), Ischia, Italy, Vol. 1, pp KL.1–KL.12, Octo-
ber.
D OCTORS , L.J. AND S CRACE , R.J. 2004, “Hydrodynamic In-
teractions between the Subhulls of a Trimaran during Rolling
Motion,” Proc. International Conference on Design and Op-
eration of Trimaran Ships, Royal Institution of Naval Archi-
tects, London, England, pp 31–39, April.
F RANK , W. 1967, “The Heave Damping Coefficients of Bulbous
Cylinders, Partially Immersed in Deep Water,” J. Ship Re-
search, Vol. 11, No. 3, pp 151–153, September.
G ORSKI , J. 2004, “Evolving Computational Capability for Ship
Hydrodynamics,” Naval Surface Warfare Center, Carderock
Division, Hydromechanics Department Technical Report,
NSWCCD-50-TR-2004/058, December.
H ARAGUCHI , T. AND O HMATSU , S. 1983, “On an Improved So-
lution of the Oscillation Problem on Non-Wall Sided Float-
ing Bodies and a New Method for Eliminating the Irregular
Frequencies,” Trans. West Japan Society of Naval Architects,
Vol. 58, No. 8, pp 9–23, August.
H EBBLEWHITE , K., S AHOO , P.K., AND D OCTORS , L.J. 2007,
“A Case Study: Theoretical and Experimental Analysis of
Motion Characteristics of a Trimaran Hull Form,” Ships and
Offshore Structures, Vol. 2, No. 2, pp 149–156, June.
H ESS , J.L. 1975, “The Use of Higher-Order Surface Singularity
Distributions to Obtain Improved Potential Flow Solutions
for Two-Dimensional Lifting Airfoils,” Computer Methods
in Applied Mechanics and Engineering, Vol. 5, No. 1, pp 11–
35, January.
I NOUE , M., K UROUMARU , M., AND YAMAGUCHI , S. 1977, “A
Method of Singularity with Spline Fit Distribution for Poten-
tial Flow Problems,” Memoirs of the Faculty of Engineering,
Kyushu University, Vol. 37, No. 2, pp 89–106, June.
L EONARD , B. P., AND M OKHTARI , S. 1990, “ULTRA-SHARP
Nonoscillatory Convection Schemes for High-Speed Steady
Multidimensional Flow,” NASA TM 1-2568 (ICOMP-90-
12), NASA Lewis Research Center.
L LOYD , A.R.J.M. 1989, Seakeeping: Ship Behaviour in Rough
Weather, Ellis Horwood Limited Publishers, Chichester,
England, 486 pp.
M AKI , K.J., D OCTORS , L.J., B ECK , R.F., AND T ROESCH ,
A.W. 2006, “Transom-Stern Flow for High-Speed Craft,”
Australian Journal of Mechanical Engineering, Vol. 3, No. 2,
pp 191–199.
M AKI , K.J., D OCTORS , L.J., R HEE , S.H., W ILSON , W.M.,
B ECK , R.F., AND T ROESCH , A.W. 2007, “Resistance Pre-
diction of a High-Speed Sealift Trimaran,” Proc. Ninth In-
ternational Conference on Numerical Ship Hydrodynamics,
Ann Arbor, Michigan, pp 64–78, August.
M AKI , K.J. AND W ILSON , W.M. 2008, “Steady Drift Force Cal-
culation on the Naval Destroyer Hull 5415,” Workshop on
Verification and Validation of Ship Manoeuvering Simulation
Methods (SIMMAN ’08), Copenhagen, Denmark, April.
M ICHELL , J.H. 1898, “The Wave Resistance of a Ship,” Philo-
sophical Magazine, London, Series 5, Vol. 45, pp 106–123.
M UZAFERIJA , S., P ERIC , M., S AMES , P., AND S CHELLIN ,
T. 1998, “A Two-Fluid Navier-Stokes Solver to Simulate Wa-
ter Entry,” Proc. Twenty-Second Symposium on Naval Hy-
drodynamics, pp 277–289, Washington, DC.
NARITA , S. 1976, “Some Research on the Wave Resistance of a
Trimaran”, Proc. International Seminar on Wave Resistance,
Society of Naval Architects of Japan, Tokyo, Japan, pp 381–
388, February.
22
S ALVESEN , N., T UCK , E.O., AND FALTINSEN , O. 1979, “Ship
Motions and Sea Loads,” Trans. Society of Naval Architects
and Marine Engineers, Vol. 78, pp 250–279, Discussion:
279–287, December.
T HOMAS , G., D OCTORS , L.J., C OUSER , P., AND H ACKETT,
M. 2007, “Catamaran Motions in Beam and Oblique Seas,”
Proc. Ninth International Conference on Fast Sea Trans-
portation (FAST ’07), Shanghai, China, Paper 53, pp 426–
433, September.
T UCK , E.O. AND L AZAUSKAS , L. 1998, “Optimum Hull Spac-
ing of a Family of Multihulls”, Ship Technology Research:
Schiffstechnik, Vol. 45, No. 4, pp 180–195, October.
W ILCOX , D. C. 1998, Turbulence Modeling for CFD, DCW In-
dustries, Inc., La Canada, California.
W ILSON , W., F U , T. C., F ULLERTON , A. AND G ORSKI ,
J. 2006, “The Measured and Predicted Wave Field of Model
5365: An Evaluation of Current CFD Capability,” Proc.
Twenty-Sixth Symposium on Naval Hydrodynamics, Rome,
Italy, September.