Lecture 12 PLANING VESSELS I

Prepared by: Ravi Kota (ravi.kota@ntnu.no)

CONTENT:
Introduction, 2.5D (2D+t) theory for Steady Lift Forces SAVITSKYS FORMULA Free-Surface Profile behind Transom Dynamic Stability Porpoising Wave-Induced Motions Maneuvering

INTRODUCTION
By definition,
Fn = U > 1.0 , gL

It is more common to use Breadth-Froude-number, FnB for planing analysis instead of length. For steady flow, hull weight during planing is predominantly supported by hydrodynamic lift rather than buoyancy. Planing vessels are usually characterized by Chines a sharp corner around the bilge of the planing hull cross-section, generally running through the length of the hull. Chines are essential to cause flow-separation which produces the steady lift forces and trim on the hull.

o Double-Chine Hulls Upper-chine line to maximize waterplane area with increased beam at low speeds, while lower-chine line causes flowseparation at planing speeds. o Stepped Planing Hulls A notch in the keel line of the hull profile to cause separation followed by reattachment of the flow of the longitudinal flow ahead of the transom. The intent is to reduce the skin-friction resistance on the hull by creating a partially-ventilated section, just aft of the notch. The notch or the step is located as much aft as possible so that the lift forces generated forward are not adversely affected.
Stepped Planing Hull

Flow separation here, to minimize wetted area

Trim-tabs and Interceptors are often used to control the trim angle of the hull. Interceptors should be within the boundary layer of the flow.

2.5D (2D + t) THEORY FOR STEADY VERTICAL FORCES IN PLANING

The analysis of steady-vertical forces on a prismatic planing hull is analogous to the analysis of the water-entry problem of a 2-D wedge. To understand this, consider an Earth-fixed plane through which the planing hull is passing with a steady forward speed, as shown in the figure. It can be inferred that for an observer on this plane, the effect of the hull passing through would seem like a wedge dropping into calm water, with a steady vertical velocity V = U, as shown in the figure.

U, steady forward speed

Mean Water Line

, trim angle

Earth-fixed Plane
t = t0 V = U t = t1 t = t2

Water-Impact of a 2D Wedge view of planing hull from Earth Fixed Plane

SIMPLIFIED LIFT CALCULATIONS FROM 2.5D THEORY

From the theory of water-impact of a 2D wedge, Vertical force,

f 3 = d a33 V , dt

where a33 is the 2D, infinite frequency heave added-mass of the wedge, In the body-fixed system, then, with X = Ut, t being the time, and V = U,

we can write,

f 3 = U d a33 U dx

Then, the total lift force on the hull is the sectional force, f3, integrated over the length of the hull

i.e.

L= U
X bow

Xt

d a U ) dx dx ( 33

Noting that X is measured from the bow, for a prismatic hull,

d a = 0 , (AFTER THE CHINES ARE WET since the wetted beam of dx 33 the section is constant after flow-separation occurs at the chine) So that,

( )

L = U 2 a33 ( X t )

From this formulation, the following important conclusions can be made, as essential for lift to be generated on the hull 1) The hull must have a transom stern, so that a33(Xt) 0, 2) The vessel must have a positive trim angle, 3) Flow separation from the chines is essential for trim. (Due to flow-separation at the chines, the center of the lift force distribution along the hull length is located forward of lcg, and thus produces a trimming moment.) 4) From the expression for f3 it can be seen that hull sectional pressures (and hence forces) become negative when , the local trim angle is negative. This occurs when ( = dz/dx), the slope of the hull surface is negative, i.e. when the keel line and the buttock lines are convex. Negative pressures may lead to cavitation and hence dynamic instabilities.

Negative local trim angle here, danger of cavitation. 5) Also, note that a33 =C ( )

(beam) 2 , where is the local deadrise angle,

From this, we can infer two conditions which may adversely affect the lift force on the hull

o da33/dx < 0 if d(beam)/dx < 0. This must therefore be avoided.

Avoid

o From Wagners wedge-impact theory, it is known that the added-mass increases with decreasing . Generally, for planing hulls the deadrise angle decreases from bow to stern. This is beneficial since this ensures that d(a33) /dx > 0. If the hull longitudinal sides are warped (warping is out of plane twisting or bending of a plate), then it should be noted that the warping be in the direction that prevents d(a33) /dx < 0 and hence possibility of cavitation is avoided.

SAVITSKYS FORMULAE FOR PRISMATIC HULLFORMS

0.6 CL = CL 0 0.0065 CL 0

CL 0 = lp

1.1 deg

(0.012

0.5 W

+ 0.0055

2.5 W

Fn

2 B

W B
In these formulae,

= 0.75

1 2 2 5.21 FnB / W + 2.39

C L0 and CL are lift coefficients defined as the lift forces normalized by (1/2U2B2), ( Lk + Lc ) , where Lk and Lc are keel- and chine- wetted lengths 2B respectively, and

W =

lp is the center of pressure of the lift force distribution on the hull measured from Transom.

The presence of Froude number in Savitskys formulation indicates two effects arising from gravity hydrostatic pressure forces and wave-generation. We neglect the wave-making effect noting it to be relatively small for increasingly large Froude numbers, hydrostatic forces are assessed. The intent is to understand how hydrostatic pressure forces are manifested in Savitskys formulation. For this purpose, we determine the submerged volume of a planing hull, as shown in the figure. x1 = location at which the chine intersects the mean water line,

vol. 1 x x = x1 vol. 2

vol. 3

2xtan tan x tan() For 0 < x < x1

Sectional Area till Chine Wetted station x1, A( x ) = Volume of the wedge till x1, Vol1 = A( x) dx =
0 x1

x 2 tan 2 ( ) tan( )

1 3 tan 2 ( ) x1 3 tan( )

Breadth of the section at x1,

2 x1 tan( ) =B tan( )

Volume of the hull from x1 to transom below chines, Vol 2 = ( Lk x1 )(0.25)( B 2 tan( ))

Volume between a plane through chines and MWL, Vol 3 = (0.5)( Lk x1 )2 B tan( )

Total Hydrostatic force, thus, FHS = g (Vol1 + Vol 2 + Vol 3) Or, in terms of a non-dimensional parameter, CLHS :=
FHS 2 Vol = 2 3 2 2 FnB B 0.5U B

Then, to account for suction pressure at transom occurring from flow-separation, we introduce a correction. This correction is done by reducing the keel-wetted length, Lk, by 0.5B. Doing so gives a good correlation of the Hydrostatic + Suction Pressure (CLHS) to Savitskys CL, as shown in Figure 9.13 (pp. 355). This approach is very approximate but gives an idea of the relative magnitude of the hydrostatic and suction forces, against hydrodynamic forces, per Savitskys formulae.

EXAMPLE OF PREDICTING RUNNING ATTITUDE & RESISTANCE OF A PLANING HULL USING SAVITSKYS FORMULA
Given, M = 27,000 kg lcg = 8.84m B = 4.27m = 10 U = 20.58 m/s To determine the trim angle and transom draft (i.e. running attitude) and resistance thus being able to estimate horsepower (EHP) requirements, in calm water.

Mg lcg

T FL N

Rv

STEP 1: Determine w. At equilibrium, lp = lcg, lcg 1 = 0.75 2 2 W B 5.21 FnB / W + 2.39 With given values of lcg, and FnB, we get w = 3.43. STEP 2: Determine . By definition, CL = FL / (1/2U2B2), Since FL = Mg, at equilibrium, we get C L = Mg = 0.067 (0.5) U 2 B 2

Then, using Savitskys formula for CL and CL0, and with the known value of in degrees, we get , thus,
0.6 CL = CL 0 0.0065 CL 0

1.1 0.5 CL 0 = deg (0.012 W + 0.0055

2.5 W 2 FnB

= 2.21 deg.

STEP 3: To determine wetted length, Xs = Lk Lc. From Wagners solution for a wedge impact on calm water, we have the beam of the local wetted section as c(t ) =

Vt
2 tan

In body-fixed system, if ts is the time at which the chine is wet, we can write, Xs = U ts and so, c(ts) = B/2, B U X s = 2 2 tan U B= Xs tan

So, with w = (Lk Lc )/2B and Xs = Lk Lc known, we get Lc = 11.5m, and Lk = 17.7m. Thus, transom draft, Ds = Lk sin() = 0.68m STEP 4: To obtain resistance, RT and EHP. Wetted Area, S = 63.3 m2 (includes spray-root wetted area. See discussion on pp. 361 for this) Viscous Resistance, RV = ITTC Formula, CF = 1 U 2 S ( CF + CF ) , 2

0.075 (log10 Rn 2) 2

Using an increase for Average Hull Roughness (AHR) = 150m, based on the following empirical formula (see pp. 31, Eqn 2.86),

103 CF = 44 ( AHR / L )

1/ 3

10 Rn 1/ 3 + 0.125

Gives, RV = 29,603 N. Note that to calculate Rn and (AHR/L), L = Lk is used. To this, we add the resistance due to Lift-induced pressure drag,

RP = (FL )()
to get a total hull resistance, RT = 39,285N This will imply that the power required (EHP) = RT U = 820 kW = 1,115 hp

Stepped Planing Hull

How can we predict the location of longitudinal flow re-attachment aft of the step? Or, more generally, what is the length of the hollow behind the transom of a planing hull? A key parameter to analyze the condition of dry-transom or flow-separation at step is the U , where D is the draft at the transom relative transom-draft Froude number, FnD = gD to calm-water line, and thus including the rise and trim of the hull. For flow-separation, FnD > 2.5. For stepped hulls, we use FnDs i.e draft at the step where flow-separation is of interest, rather than at the transom. We determine the free-surface profile in the centerplane of the hull, just aft of the transom (or step). Assumptions 2D Potential Flow in the X-Z plane as shown. Us is the steady flow velocity at the transom.

Mean Water Line

Ds

U
Us X

Velocity Potential at the transom is given as,

= Us X + Ar n cos(n )
The second term is due to flow-separation at the stern. In reference to the following figure, we assume r is small, Potential satisfies 2D-Laplace equation,

Note that sin(-) term does not arise due to body-boundary condition at = 0; X = -rcos(),
Z

HULL

Centerline Free Surface Profile

w

r X

Us

Then, from the Dynamic Free Surface Boundary condition i.e. satisfying Steady Bernoullis equation on the free-surface profile, we have, 1 1 p + gz + V 2 = pa + U 2 2 2 Noting that z is very small (close to the MWL), and with u and w being the velocities in X and Z directions due to the Arncos(n) term, we can write,
2 1 1 g ( D Z ) + ( (Us + u ) + w ) = U 2 2 2 Where Z is the free-surface profile coordinate in the axes system shown.

To the lowest order (zeroth order in u and w), then, we have

Us = 2 gD + U 2 To the next order, we would get, on Z = 0, Us u = 0 i.e., substituting for u, close to the stern, (r is small so that = on the free-surface),

u | = =

( Ar n cos ( n ) ) | = = 0 r cos ( n ) = 0
1 3 5 n = , , , etc. 2 2 2

But here, n = is not permitted. The reason is that the radial velocity due to the perturbation potential, Arncos(n), which is nAr n 1 cos ( n ) ,will yield a singularity for

r 0 , in this case. This singularity cannot be permitted since we are enforcing a smooth tangential flow at the transom by Kutta condition. Therefore, the lowest order of n = 3 . 2 Now, applying the Kinematic Free-Surface condition, we have, at Z = 0,

w=

1 n 3 1 Ar cos ( n ) | 3 = Ar 2 n= 2 2 r
=

Then, the free-surface profile can be approximated as dZ w = dX Us

Z

A 32 X Us

Comparing this against Savistkys empirical formula for free-surface profile (Eq. 9.19, pp.355), shows that the least-squares fit of the latter agrees well with the simplified analytical result above.

2D planing surface Vs 2D Foil in infinite Fluid

The assumption here is that the Froude number (FnB) is very high so that gravity effects can be neglected in the hydrodynamic pressures on the planing surface. Also, the situation that is being considered is when the vessel is supported by lift forces on a small area at the stern. This condition can justify assuming the planing surface to be of high-aspect ratio. For high-aspect ratio surfaces, 2D foil theory can be applied. For linearization, project the planing surface, at a trim angle, on a horizontal line segment of length equal to keel wetted length, and transfer body boundary conditions to the line. High frequency or high-speed assumption leads to the free-surface approximation of = 0. Now take the mirror-image of the flow about the mean-water line. By the freesurface condition of = 0 imposed, the flow in the mirrored domain would be ANTI-SYMMETRIC. The combined Body + Image flow would now be equivalent to the 2D flow over a flat-plate in an Infinite fluid Domain, at an angle of attack of . The fact that the flow leaves smoothly at the transom, will translate to the Kutta condition at the trailing edge of the flat-plate foil.

Lift on a 2D flat-plate in infinite fluid, at an angle of attack is given as C L = 2 In the case of a planing surface, = , and the fluid pressures are only from the semiinfinite domain.
CL = & L= 1 U 2 S CL 2

From 2D Foil theory, the pressure drag on a flat-plate at an angle of attack is Zero. This occurs because of leading edge suction pressures which exactly cancel out the anticipated Drag component of the normal pressure force. In the case of a flat-plate planing on a free-surface with a trim angle, the flow is not the same. A jet flow occurs near the Nose.

Jet Flow here Smooth Flow separation here

U This jet flow in the opposite to the direction of incoming stream, acts as a pressure drag on the planing surface.

Thus, for a 2D flat plate in Infinite Fluid, D = 0 But, for a 2D planing surface, D 0.

--- ooo ---