Sie sind auf Seite 1von 25

The elemental hydrodynamic characteristics of prismatic planing surfaces are discussed

and empirical planing equations are given which describe the lift,
wetted area,
center of pressure, and porpoising stability limits of planing surfaces as a function of
speed, trim angle, deadrise angle, and loading. These results are combined to formulale simple computational procedures to predict the horsepower requirements running
are
trim, draft, and porpoising stability of prismatic planing hulls. Illustrative
included to demonstrate the application of the computational procedures.
l

FUNDAMENTAL research on the hydrodynamics of


planing surfaces has been actively pursued in both this
country and abroad for well over 40 years. The VLL~ULCH
ImpeljUS for this
research was
motivated
by the
of
based aircraft and to a somewhat lesser
of planing boats. In recent
ever,
research emphasis has been on
with application to planing boats and

Numbers in brackets designate References

Cf

friction-drag coefIicient
V j 2Ab2

wide attention
followed by
Sedov [5
researchers
describing the
dead rise

end of paper.

D f cos

to gravity,

distance between T
(measured normal to

Ib

= lift coefficient, zero deadrise, =


V 2b2
lift coefficient, deadrise surface,

CL{3

V 2 b2
=

Cp =

dynamic component of lift coefficient


hn,",ur,n+ component of lift coeffiOlS"LaIICe

also

D
due

where
b
Df

to

rnc:1JlOml.1
D'
COS'T

1:1 sin

keel, ft

'T

1964
Reprinted from MAR!NE TECHNOLOGY, Vol. 1( No.1, pp. 71-95

CG

_)..b--

'---_~IP-"---V

Fig. 1

\'7 ave rise on a flat planing surface

LEVEL WATER
SURFACE
SPRAY THICKNESS

u.s.
of
Stevens Institute of
undertook
of the
a theoretical study .and
phenomenon of planing.
study produced 16 technical reports (listed in the Appendix), which consider
planing-surface lift, drag, wetted area, pressure distribuspray
tions, impact forces, wake
dynamic stability, and parallel
surfaces. 'Vhere
possible the ONR sponsored
utilized existing
planing data and theoretical results but in many areas
additional
results and new theoretical
were provided
the Davidson
In 1949, Korvin-Kroukovsky and
lished a summary report on the then
of
lift, drag, and wetted
utilized these results in deVelOrnng
tational procedure for
In
Savitsky
ONR study, developed an extensive
\vhich increased the
-,--"'-"'VV.LunJV

STAGNATION LINE

Fig. 2

Typical pressure distribution on Rat

The planing coefficients


used in the subsequent analysis are based on
law of similitude
and are the same as those used in the
of waterbased aircraft and
Each
IS
cally defined in the seetion on nomenclature. It ,vill
be noted that the beam is the
dimension i'ather than the
considered
the naval
The
USl:,mC;alJJlOn for this is that for
of the boat varies with
the wetted
)J.la,HH.lF,

UU,ll.lV.l.l0

Area of Planing Surfaces

In

The purpose of the


suIts of the studies
[9] to
characteristics of
faces and then to combine these results to
computational
to
power requirements
matic planing hulls. Some
the material
is repeated in this paper since
had a limited distribution
and is
out of print.
of Prismatic

A knowledge of the elemental


istics of simple planing surfaces
the design of
boats. In this section of the
to the
of

characterIS

surconstant
assumed to have constant
beam and a constant
trim for the
wetted
Variations from
conditions will be
the

72

surface

"'""" ..HF,u,""vvu

over
water pressure is
forward thrown spray
this sense is

~------------~------------~--------------.-----------~

w
()

LL

0:::
::J
(f)

0:::
W

3 ~------------~--------------+-------------~--~r-------~

-.l

>

W
-.l
Z

o
o

(j)

~------------4-------------~---?L---------r-----------~

I-

A= 1.60 A,-0.30 AI (0<

0:::

:::?!

(1~

+ 0.30

I)

AI ~4)

w
m
I

:r:

I<..9

Z
W
-.l

o
W
lIW

3:

~~~~~~~~~-L~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

WETTED LENGTH-BEAM RATIO BASED ON WAVE RISE

Fig. 3

Wave-rise variation for flat .... ,,,.,,,.,,0- surfaces

at a short distance aft of the


line. At very
small values of trim
the
line and
root line are
coincident. As the trim
creases) the
line moves farther aft of the sprayroot line.
data from all available
SOurces are shmvn
in the form of A versus Al in
3. Here A
the
mean 1vetted
and Al
the calm-1vater
length-beam ratio
length-beam ratio obtained horn the relation Al
sinT) where d is the
of the
of the
1964

1.60 Al

Al

and
The

0.30

0.30

wave-rise relation is

(0 ~ Al ~ 1)
(1 ~ Al ~

form of

..--_ _C~.HINE

ON

2--

3.00

r----,---;--y--,---,:-----,--------------,

SPRAY ROOT LINE

2.00

(J)

:?!
<!

W
ill

1.50

-l

I
~

-l

/.00

1-----\-_+_4--Jr---l~-~:____+_--~,...__j.----

12

16

20

TRIM ANGLE, DEGREES


Fig. 6

Lk - Lc versus trim and deadrise

two equations since,


usually
than
duced to
very
= Al
empirical wave-rise nr."n+".,Y\ similar in form to
was
J.
also
As with all
some
bound must be
range of applicability of
discussions in [9] conclude that
is
in the trim range from 2 to
CUfJIJUvCU11J1v

24

. A :::; 4.0;

0.60 :::;

:::; 2;3.00.

Wetted Pressure Area of Deadrise

In the case of
section of the bottom surface with

Surfaces

the inter-

two oblique lines


and
4.
to a trim
15 deg there appears to be no nOtlc:eaOle
of water
at the keel line. For
trim
'-'~J''''H.J.lJ''.J.''''-' and
indicate a
water at the keeL
Aft of the initial
there is a rise of the
,vater surface
the spray root line
ahead of
line of calm water intersection. The location of the
line is
seen from underwater
such as that shown in
It is generconvex, but
found that the
since the curvature is
Thus the
of a
measured
HJJ.J."" UJ.J.>.J

Cv =

Cv

2,01

Gv

Gv

Fig.7

Variation of shape of

the transom to the


The difference between the
chine
with

of wetted area with speed coefficient.


in., T =

is defllled

b
T

I'he wave rise in the spray-root area is accounted for


the
consideration.
the
wave rise for a two-dimensional
a
fluid surface vertically, and found that
actual wetted
width of the
was
times the wetted width defined
the calm-water intersection with the bottom.
The motion of deadrise
surface can be represented as a
the
water flow between two
of
of the planing surface. To an observer located between these two planes, the passage of
the prismatic Vee planing surface will
identical
to the vertical
of a
the
case, the
wave-rise factor
is
applicable, and the difference between
wetted
keel length and chine length for a
surface is given by
b
7r tanT
It is seen that this
is a factor
times the corresponding length defined
the level-water intersection
with the Vee planing surface. A
of this
is given in Fig. 6. Since the wetted keel
defined in terms of the draft of the aft end of
1.J1.1,';'l1JlGbtJ.lv

then the mean wetted


fines the pressure area is
d

jJJlGLl1..1l1'>;

A, which de-

b
evidence indicates that
for
deadrise and trim combinations
coefficient is
than
2.0. This indicates a
and water
full
of the
deadrise surfaces of 10
<.V1J1.J1.J.vU> ....Hv at
= 1.0.
= 1.0 and T ::::; 4,
than those
breakdown of the
spray-root
evidence for 30deg deadrise surfaces
similar effects except
at
= 1.0, the
formation breaks down
when T ::::; 6. It
for
= 1.0, the sprayroot formation
to break down
for a
deadrise, the trim is reduced to a value such that
theoretical value of
to
1.66b. This

of 4
and at five values of
The calcur = 17 It is seen
at
3.02
and
the spray-root line is one continuous line and
the value of
with that com1.0, the
a broken line
forward ~A ,~~r"~
l.va,UJ.1Jl,>;

...

ment of the
keel which would
section with the bottom.
pnen1011'len.on is in evidence
"",,'O,;,_,'I,nT portion of the line is reduced.
IvQ'Ul.U;;:;-vUl;;:'

Wetted-Spray Area of Deadrise Planing Surfaces

The total wetted bottom area of a


surface is
actually divided into two
is aft of the
spray-root
to as the
area and the other is forward of the e<"""O.,"' ..
ferred to as the
The pressure area)
has been defined
sections of this
is the load-carrying area of the
bottom.
area contributes to
but is not
forward
to support any
of the load.
The flow directions in both wetted areas have been
determined
of tufts such
4 and 5
sketch of the flow direc8 of this
Y'r'AT

.J..:JAjJvJl.l1.1tvH.UW1.

and nel:LQI'lSe
[13]. The
root line forward to
tween the keel and spray
of the bottom is
tan <I>

llla
,;:,vl.1.v1.Gb11.UC;U

1964

that the
to break-

where:

measured in

A
1

TAND:: TAN q) COS

f3

TANT

TAN a::

TAN

f3

FLOW DIRECTIONS'
SPRAY LINES

SPRAY EDGE

LK
VIEW OF BOTTOM ON PLANE PAR ALLEL TO KEEL

Flow direction along planing prism and extent of spray area

and

The. total
along the

Lift of Flat

Surfaces

projected on a plane
1

4 tan<p
In making visual observations of the wetted chine
1-'H"'U~.HF1 run) it is
to
intersection and the
the chine.
9 illustrates
It is seen that the
of the

u.J..JUJ.JlJ.:",'l.UW'U

Lift of Planing Surfaces

discussions \vill first


surfaces and
to account
78

and static effects.


be recalled that the fluid-flow directions over
PA""''''O area of a
combination
UU~UH~~J flow
across both

Characteristic features of vee-bottom


surface.
B-transom; C-keel; D-chine;
spray;
edge; G-spray-root region

DAn

For surfaces of very


small span
A
the flow is
in a transverse direction and lift is r."'.... ~"""+,
Hence for a normal low
lift can be
in the form
CD)

= AT

tanr

If the difference between tanr and

r1.1

is

rll::.,,,I,-,,,,.c,rj

can be written

BT2

For the range of A-values


to
the second term takes the
of a srnall correction to
the first term and it is found that
can be
VA.llll'';I,lit:;U by
r to the 1.1 power. I-Ienee
1J.l<-<>UJ.U""

Sottorf's analysis of. Hl~'U-,,""":C' 1


hydrostatic term is HV:F-,"" ,F-, H./.l V ,
trim
the
varied as
to be of the form:

+
there are several ways
lift. The form
of

jJ.iQ,lll.Ll5;::..

nr"n""rl

lift and
is
The constants
and n are
the
formula to the
collection of pH111lng
data contained in the
literature. The mechanics of this evaluation are described
As a result
of this
the
for a

where is a constant to be determined.


The
of lift for a flat
A,
b) mean wetted
of trim r can be written
(11)

that (A
C011-

OCTOBER; 1964

0.60 :::;

0.05

TO

TO

0.04

0.03
-

TI.I

2.14

II. 21

3.35

10

12.59
13.98

4.59

II

5.87

12

15.39

7.18

13

16.80

8.50

14

18.23

9.85

15

19.67

\-----j------t--------,t---t----+--+----Tt----:;r<-i:------.7""--1

f-.

"" o
U

..J

0.01
T

1.1

(0.0120

2 )

+ 0.0055

o ~~~~----~----~------~----~----~----~----~
1.0

Fig. 10

3.0

Lift coefficient of a flat planing surface; {3

is
in
a wide range of
this
at a fixed value of ~
contribution to lift is

surface at very low

2.0

4.0

the resultant lift and that corstatic lift


!-,","u>uU"6 surface.
coefficient for three
The solid curves

since this is the range of

between the
load is limited to
of

0.5 ,,-------,----,.----,---...,.-------,

0.4

i------t----+---l---+--yL,.LA

0.3

1----I----+---J---:T~Sf_:,-L-----l

0.2

1------+---+--,4~,..f---I_---I

0.1

0.09 .----,..-0.2

0.1

0.3

0.4

0.5

0.08 I----+---.----..----.--.---..----.----+---I---,.L---l

0.07

I__----+---~----J----L---~-----+-----+_-

=c

La

-0.0065

(3c

La

__I__~-+~L-~

0.60

0.06

I__----+----r----,.----,------,-----+----I--"r--f--:.,,-:::-b.,c----l

0.05

1--------+---+-----+---+-----+---+--"fIL--~-_"tif!.!---=-

0.03

I------+----+----+---_f----"L----+-"r---,!----..~--+-------+-----l

0.02 I-----+----I--...,-L

0.01 1------+-

0.02

0.04

0.06

CL
1

OCTOBER,

GAI.JGvUGu.

0.10

Lift coefficient of a deadrise planing surface

that the calcuload. It is


12 that in the range 0.60 ~
~ 1.00, the motion of the
surface reduces
the lift below the value whjch would be
on a
purely
basis. This effect is some'.yhat
similar to
vessels
at low
load is
load.
reaction of the fluid
as the
on the 1-'H."'H.LlJ.F, bottom increases
mcreases.

approaches zero, it is
lated load should

0.08

Lift of Deadrise

Surfaces

trim and mean wetted


In(3reaS]nQ' the deadrise

IS

--TOTAL PLANING LOAD=6/1/2Pg

::: T

1.1 [

- - - - EQUIVALENT DISPLACEMENT LOAD=l}.11I2

0.0120 \

1/2

Cv

+ 0.0055
2

b=(\-0.30) TANT

0.70

lAO

2.80

0.60

1.20

2.40

0.50

1.00

2.00

0.40

0.80

1.60

0.30

0.60

1.20

0.20

0.40

0.80

0.10

0.20

0.40

f'I)

-0

en

Q..
N

"-

""<J

o '----1_--1._--1._--'=_-'-_....1
o
2
3
Fig. 12

o ~~--~--~--~~--~
o
2
3

ULU. .lU>'JV

where

82

Planing load versus calculated displacement load for a flat planing surface at various velocity coefficients

creases so that full


pressures are no
developed; hence the
lift is reduced. In effect
then, the presence of
causes the
line
to be
aft and leads to a lift reduction not unlike
that on a swenL-r)~WK
To formulate an
the U~U'UH."s=..
of a deadrise
the lift coefficient of a Vee
was
with that of a flat
It was found in
of r, A, and
lift of a dead rise surface can be ref)re:se11tE~ci

(3

00

lift coefficient for a dead rise


deadrise

",~.~"n+,,~.~
T,

A) and

as

U,-"evU.l.lUv >JLli.

For convenience in use)


11.

at the same

.l(;~\J'-'

is

due to

to the bottom the resistance


13 to be
pressure forces is shown in
~

tanT
to the bottom
13 to be

vVhen the viscous


the total

IS

tanT

COST

[9 J to be com-

The friction C01llDon ient


the

0) FRICTIONLESS

FLUID

where
Schoenherr [14] turbulent friction coefficient

= average bottom velocity


The

bottom

D=l':!. TANr

l':!. TANr

from
was based
the case of a zero
tribution to
lift is
to be

U""",,,,-1.1.O'-'

b) VISCOUS

Fig. 13

load on the bottom is

The

(21)

The average
Pd

pressure is
'Ab 2 cos

Applying Bernoulli's A.-.,,...,+,,,,,,, between the free-stream


conditions and the
'"'~/"',",''''f' and
conditions on the bottom of

for!3 = 0
The average bottom
is
in an
coefficient for deadrise surfaces
The ratios
have been
for four dead rise
and
the results are
14 in a convenient form
for use
the
It will be
used in
IS
OCTOBER, 1964

FLUI D

Drag components on a planing surface

where
is plotted in
turbulent-friction cO(~rnClent,
defined,

and Cf is the Schoenherr


The
number is
js the kinematic UlC,nr.C,.t-u

An exact definition of the


The

Drag-lift Ratio of Planing Surfaces

From
surface can be calculated as
D

tan

ratio of a

rtnr1E'",nn'

the second term of the


for
T12b2 results

111

D
L1

tanT

variations in
curve for
of A and
I t is
each test trim over
also seen
= 1 there is a very
rapid increase
the ratio
for all test trims. At
T > 2 and at
> 1, the ratio
stant for any combination of
For T = 2,the curve of
constant value for ratios of
The above variations of
can be associated with
observed
of the flow conditions around the
It vvas found
at
> 2.0 there
Qt:n-,o,'nT',,,,.. of the fluid from the chines and
at
:::; 1.00 the
of flow

from
is
force is increased and hence the ratio
until complete flmv
has occurred
chines and transom.
If
is defined to exist when the fluid breaks
the transom and
Cer)tlo'n of
can be
> 4 and at
= 2,
J:'H,~"UUb occurs when the
rlrd,,,,,',rl

84

has been used to


the ratio
10 and 20 deadrise surfaces at trim
and 8 0. 1\1ean wetted len,2'1Jl1-Dlea:m
and
comAs
for T
stant when
was
suIts of this corl1nlLlta,tlO
the effect of
lift ratio. Each "0,,.,,,r\11T
of five different VV"HVJ.U~~UJ.\JUU
age, there was appr<)Xlm2~tel
values
combination.
For more exact values
it is recommended that
detailed evaluations of
be carried out for
specific cases.
It is evident from
16 that for any
there is an
trim
for lowest ratios of
Small decreases in trim
below the ontm1UIl1

VI AVERAGE BOTTOM VELOCITY


V FORWARD PLANING VELOCITY

>
"'-..,.
0.90
>-

/3
0.80
1.00 T=

"'>-. ,.

0.90

T=

!----==--~""'-----_+_----+_---___1

/3= 20 0
2.00

1.00

3.00

2.00

1.00

A
Fig. 14

A
Magnitude of average botton velocity for a planing surface

tan r which is the


The difference
,'o,-"'oc'c>n't,, the

tan r and the curves


due to viscous
that at low trim
the total
friction
pressure
for f3 = 0 is
one
pressure
and one
friction drag.
foregoing trends in resistance variation with trim
and deadrise have been shown by
in cross plots of their specific test data.
the results of computations and includes a
of the fact that Dill ratios -for a
trim
essentially independent of various combinations
Ix providing that
~ 2 for T = 2, and
for T ~ 4
Center of Pressure of

Surfaces

It has been shown in [9] that the resultant center of


pressure of planing surfaces can be
evaluated
considerations of the
and
force
of the lift. The center
taken to be at
of pressure of the
75 percent of the mean wetted
forward of the transom, while the center of pressure of the
force
forward of the transom.
is assumed to be 33
are
These distances are, of course,
OCTOBER,

964

3.00

in the
this paper.
the 1l10ments taken about
transom for each
cornp(ments of the total load and then rinnri',nO'
,,.v,r\'Y'c,,,.co,r\Y) for the distance
. . . . '>'"""',,,,'" +rn'nu",rl of the transom.
and
force

'-"'-'\./\'.d..-' UU..U.l.V

_U.""U..l,Ll.r,

5.21 Ix 2

2.39

where
is the ratio of the
distance from
the transom to the center of pressure divided
the
mean wetted length.
A
between
and actual test data is
17 of reference
Excellent
the formula and data.
17 of this paper.
coefficient are
value
determined from this chart.
.....,Tr,h,I,T"

>J~'~""'"'

limits

is defined as the combined oscillations of a


and in
of sustained or

0.30

T= 4

0.20
OIl:;

f--

0.10

T=IO

'--

-I

V
I

VI

0.30
T=6

f--

0.20

0./0

Vr

T=15

~/

f--L

OIl:;

r-

VI

I
1.0

!
2.0

3.0

4.0

CV

0.60

T=2
040
{J =20 0

OIl:;

b= 9"

0.20

4.0

Fig. 15

Variation of drag-lift ratio with speed coefficient

of certain
be obtained

36

derivatives which could


In
the eXT)erllmEmtli.!

eXl)er.lm!~ntal1}

0.20

0.16
<J
'-

0.12
I
VI SCOUS DRAG
f-

lJ...

:::::i

0.08

I
t9

TANT

TANT

0:::
0

0.04

PRESSURE DRAG

PRESSURE DRAG

2.0
TRI M ANGLE, DEGREE S

Fig. 16

6.0

8.0

TRI M ANGLE, DEGREES

Variation of drag-lift ratio for prismatic planing surfaces

of tests of constant deadrise


to determine
The . . . "",..,.,'"\<:",

to avoid
,vith the trim
results in minimum resistance. It was shown
16 that a trim
of
4 to 5 reDOrD()ls]~ng limits
In
as 1 to 2 to
achieve
boat.
because of
the boat at an n,-,h'":rr,,',,

as a guide
hulls.
which
surfaces.
combinations of
which
the limit curves indicate stable
operation while those above the line indicate the existence
of porpoising.
It is seen that, as the lift coefficient is rlPI"l'p>1c:.~'rj
loaded hull
T

inertias.
is to move
If this cannot be
and if
the addition of a small transverse
bottom at the transom 'will Imver the
a small cost in added resistance.
It may
of
this
compare
1964

4.0

Method for
Prismatic

to

speed ranges and for al'biand inclinations of the


shaft
line relative to the center of
of the
In
[8]
a
procedure for
which was based on the
elemental
available at
reference
(7]. No consideratiori was
to the effect of propeller thrust on the hull lift and
moment and,
since porpoising information was
time availlimits were not defined. The
Dl'!eSEmt,ed in this paper
on
much lower speed coefficients
and, in addition, the
pressure is much
DuCane

tions of the hull at a


of
location.
mornents

and center
shows the

where

T=
D.A

thrust, lb
of boat, lb

CG

= inclination of

line relative to
resultant of pressure forces
to
bottiom,Ib
a = distance between
and CG
ea~3lU'ed normal
to
ft
j = distance between T and CG
,-.\A normal
to shaft
ft
c = distance between
and CG -'U'-''-''''-''~U'-''--' nonnal
to
ft
fJ
deadrise
ft
b

ili,-,U,OILH

moment is
the viscous
can be assumed
the center of
of EoebePs
are included in this paper.
There are in the literature test results on related series
of planing boats which provide excellent
informa-tion on families of specific hull
Davidson and
Suarez
present the results for
Series 50, a
DTIVIB. Clement
of
boats
" " T n ... "'.... '"

n"o"n+"n

presEmt,ed In
the perare similar in
conditions
those

transom to spray root


ft
tral1sorn, ft

For Vertical1CJu"IhIA.LUI
D.o

Forces:

Slnr

For Horizontal

Forces:

J11oments:
a -

Performance Prediction

of a
it be a mernber of a tested series.
method involves the determination
and
\vhich will
for
TH'lQn-,Q1"l

88

s1nr

COSr

= 0

Table 1
drodynamic
Planing Hull

REQUIRED:

EQUILIBRIUM TRIM (Tt )

at which (30) = 0
line AR interpolation' between
and T = 3

Osl39FT

POWER REQUIREMENT

LCG=29.0 FT

':0.50FT

PORPOISING LIMIT

VCG"2.0 FT

" 4

fj,

Horizontal Drag Force

::60,000 L8

:: 14FT (AVERAGE)

j3

:: 10

:40 KNOTS (67.5 FT/SEC)

V=40 KNOTS

(AVERAGE)

D = 9424 - (9434 - 8304) 10


D = 9095lb
"'0.069

5 = 1115 hp
6_7 _.

_----::c-::-

Equilibrium Mean Wetted length-Beam Ratio

At = 3.85 - (3.85 - 2.60) 10 = 3.29

Aeb

+ ::----

Lc

Aeb -

b tan

36.1 ft

0.186

It 59

2,14
.085

315
.085

(2) / (1)

.0397

.025<4

).,

Flqure 10
Figure 14

Vm

II!!

Cf

Cf

-LCI

Vrrl- b/v

Schoenherr
ATlC Stands'd
6.

Cf

(])

(8)

pl~b2( :f + 6 :f)
2 CO'l/3

3.85
67.0
3.61 x 108
.001]4

40

.085
.0185

2.60

1,86

66.6

66.2
108

2.42

.00184

108

1.7)

.00192

.0004
.00214

.00224

.00232

7.340

5.160

.760

11

tan,.

,0349

.0524

.0698

12

lIn,.

.0349

.0524

13
14

co'!'!'

2~ ___

.0698
.9976
4188
3760

15
16

f}.

(10) /cOH

2094
7340 __

.9986
3144
5160

tllln,.

Of/COS'!'

(14) + (15)

94J

8304

7948

17

Cp

Figure 17

.59

.65

18

Cpi--b

31.6

23.5

.70
18.2

-2.6

5.5

10.8

19
20

21

OCTOBER,

1: ..

Figure II

Draft of Keel

0.0345 1 / 2

1: .. ]0

CLa
Clo/'!' 1. I

10

at Transom
d = Lk sinTe = 55.9 X tan 2.3
d == 2.24 ft

"',l

1:1.1

Cf
T

'T

Wette,d Chine length


.

Source
,..,

2,

4
5

I tv

Quant

Wetted Keel length

Lk

Row

LeG - (18)

(b/4)tanB
II

22

$ln('T+~)

23

I - s n'T sln('T + c)

.616

616

616

(20)

1. 39

1.3~

I .3~t

.1045
9964

.1219

(12) (22)

.9964

.1392
.990)

-2.59

5.46

10.70

'leG -

24

(23) (cofr)

25

f sin,.

35

(24) - (25)

27
28

6. (25)

(a - f)

(21) - f

.89

29

Dda - f)

(10) (28)

6540

.1Q

(27) + (29)

Eq 35

149,960

0174

0352

.0349

-2.6
-156,500

5.53
332,000

10.73
645,000

89
4600
336 600

.89
3350 __
648350

Table 2

Computational Procedure Hydrodynamic Performance of Prismatic PlanHull


When all Forces Pass Through CG)

!J.
60,000 LB
LCG = 29.0 FT

POWER REQUIREMENT
PORPOISING STABILITY

VCG= 2.0 F T
= 14FT (AVERAGE)
b

/3
V

= 10 (AVERAGE)
= 40 KNOTS

a = c= f::::

=0

V= 40 KNOTS (67.5 FT/SEC)

=0.069

Row
1

2
3
4

Quantity

CLa
'pI

A.

CLoh 1 1
'11.1

Value
,085

Igure 19
Figure 19

3.45

(1)/(4)

2.07

2.1+2

1"

2.23'

tan.

.039

l::J.\Jtan.

9
10

A.b 2

II

Re
Cf

12

13
14

vn;

2,340

0) b 2
~./!

675

Figure 14
Vrrf'-b/v

l::J. 'f
Cf + lJ. Cf

Schoenherr
ATTC Standard
l:l"""nhn<>"<it

(12) + (13)

p"~b2(f

66.9
3.22 x 10 8
.00177
.0004
.00217

l::J. ;f)

15

Of

16
17

Of/COST
D

(8) + (17)

9010

18
19

EHP

Ox V/550

1100

JCLf1~

20

7 pO'poising

procedure is recommended,
the
tional
as follows:
It can be shown that
90

Spurce
Figure 11
LCG/b

f3

6670
6670

,186

FIgure 18

4.5

COSE
LlL~tHVl10

are
cos

=1

1.00 - - - - - - - - - - - - - . - - - - . - - - - - . - - - - , - - - - - - , - - - - - - r - - - - - - ,
C =0.75- - - - - - - - P
5.21
+2.39
0.80

II

0..

0.60

0.40
l.L

0::
W

lZ
W
U

0.20

1----

. - - t - - - - - l - - - - - - + - - '>"=Lm/b

N= RESULTANT OF NORMAL
BOTTOM PRESSURES

VELOCITY COEFFICI
Center of pressure of planing surfaces

17

N
SO

COST

6. sinT

condition
in their
The moment c;u

E)

that

LtctLJIVLl.

COST

and

into

6. { - - ' - - - - - - ' - - - - - ' - COST

the conditions of
O. There are
wherein these

o
,\Vhen T) c) and
in equilibrium and the
are then
evaluated.

f = c

Performance Prediction

etnlods--U:::>moultatilonal Procedures

Case }Vhen Thrust Axis is Pm'aZZel to Keel


U.v").1~l~C

the shaft axis is


is assumed that E

can

Case When Thrust Axis and Viscous Force Coincide and Pass

General Case

Through Center of

to achieve
and care
OCTOBEP.

1964

I t is assumed

12

r--------,---------r--------~------~--------~

10
REGIME OF
PORPOIS ING
U)

W
0::

(!)

W
0
'

..J

(!)

::2E

a::
I-

4
REGIME OF
STABLE PLANING

0.10

0.15

Fig. 18

0.20

0.25

0.30

0.35

Porpoising lImits for prismatic planing hulls

by a mathematical foril1ulation or
initial information is ",,,,r,,,,,,r.rl
the
plots contained in this
; and Columns 3, 4
Given:
5 are the computed value
each of three as~;urrled trim
b)
Dimensions and lines of boat
angles. The last line of this tabulation contains the
of
L1
value of
for each of the
trim
Propeller shaft line location
E)
between the
and
Center of
location
c,
is obtained
results
Speed of boat,
Required:
calculate
Running trim
area, resistance and power
vVetted length
Total resistance
"'Y'r'l'ln,rll1"-C. for estimatDraft of keel (d)
boat. The
Power
the
Porpoising stability limit
The detailed computational
the
values is
trim
co 111eX~l,lnple is worked out.
The
~la.'lULi>; boat is
is to assume several values
carried out for the entire
the
restriction that
;::::
It will be
conditions for force and moment
value of trim angle that makes
Case When Thrust Axis is ParaJfet to Keel
zero is the required solution.
IS
the
The
to be evaluated;
Column 1 in Table 1 is the
this
Oolumn 2 is the source
92

1.8

2.6

2.2

3.0

P/b::

I-

3.0

- 2.6
2.2

.0

"E

1.8

..J
II

--<

f:

o r~~

T'

tIll

~~I I I I!

ILl I I I 11

III

LIL~ ~~Li ~~~

III

I I I I 1 I 11

IIt I

Cv=VI
Fig. 19

Nomogram for equilibrium conditions when all forces act through CG

Case When Thrust Axis and Viscous Force Coincide and Pass
Through Center of Gravity

For this

condition the emwetted area, and center


into one
such a
'\vhich is
as
19 of this paper. From this
the
trim and wetted area are
obtained without the
for
between assumed values of
Table 2
the
for the
,'C.l"'j"\rl,,f>C\r;

OCTOBER, 1964

~l

liLI Jlll

II IIII

bearn should be taken as


average in the
area of the hull. The trim
should be
average of the keel and chine buttock lines.
Care should be taken to assure that the calculated
and wetted
do not result in wetted areas extendbow sections of the hull.
relations are not
for
"\vhere there are extrerne variand buttock lines. In
a
ations in deadrise
necessary area of
research is to define the forces
on bow forms over a range of trim
These data
will be of particular importance in the
of hulls for
hydrofoil-boat ""fJfJllv'''''u~v.u.

The author is indebted


Office of Naval
surface research at
interest in and support
The many Stevens
Stevens Institute of
staff members who contributed
Institute of
too numerous to mention indito this
to Prof.
research

10
11

H.
on
1932.
R. F.

i (The
Phenomena of
" NACA translation

Jr., ((The PlanTwo


Prismatic Surfaces
of Deadrise of 20 and 40," NACA
TN No. 2876,
1953.
13 J. D. Pierson
S.
of the
and
to
Vee-Planing Surfaces," Stevens Institute of
Davidson Laboratory
1950.
14 "Uniform Procedure for
tional Resistance and the
Data to Full Size," Bulletin No. 1-2 of
1948.
15 J. B. Parkinson, "Tank Tests to Show the Effect
of Rivet Heads on the vVater Performance of a ,,-,v'C~!-,.lU>.U'v
JJ NACA TN
1938.
16 F. VV. S.
of
Davidson

..L.ia>VVJ.U.U'VL

17 D.
tion in the
Stevens Institute of,
..l-n(H'lij~LLLL ~~~',","'~V 1952.

References

G. S.

on

Bottom
1934.
4 A.
Froude
No.
5 L. I.
for Sea Surface

"Tank
of Flat and VeeNACA TN
November

1947.
6

-,-"",.u.V'VU.

UDtm,lmn

Relation
February

1942.
22

F. VV. S.

1943.

and Center of Pressure of


Low
1954.
94

"The Effect of Deadrise


t'Oll'Dc.lslng,)) N ACA

of Cross Section and Plan Form," NACAReport 1355,


1958.
28 J. G. Koelbel, Jr., J. Stolz, and J. D.

Ii How
to
Planing Hulls," vol.
AIotor
Ideal
Series.
29 1(. S. 1\11. Davidson and A.
"Test of
Related 1Hodels of V-Bottom l\iotor Boats50,)) DT1V1B Report
1VIarch 1949.
E. P. Clement and D. L. Blount, {(Resistance
Tests of a
Series of
Hull
"
No. 10, presented at the Annual
vember 19G3 of
TRANS.
pp.

dinger, Joseph
A
Chines-Dry Planing Body.
{i

No.
Sherman l\1.
Publication Fund
Institute of the Aeronautical

1-<"''''f'>')'1:"

'-'V1\./LlV'-'0,

B. V.;
Daniel;
and
vVilliam F. uvVave Contours in the Vvake
of a 20 0 Deadrise
Stevens Institute
of Technology,
Tank
No.
337, June 1948.
l\1.
Publication l?und
Paper No. 1G8, Institute of the Aeronautical
New York.
'-''-'H:;'.Ll\A:;0.

10

Reports and Papers on Planing Published


Stevens Institute of Technology Under ONR Contract

1 Korvin-Kroukovsky, B. V. and
('The Discontinuous Fluid Flow Past an
Stevens Institute of
October 1948. Sherman
Tank Report No.
No. 169, Institute
Publication Fund
of the Aeronautical DClelJlCe,S,
2 Pierson, John D.
of the Fluid Flow in the
Regions of l?lat
Stevens Institute of
Technology,
Tank
No.
Octo bel' 1948.
)J

Technology,
November
tion Fund

Sherman
170, Institute of the Aeronautical

and Lehman, \Villiam


Surface, Including Test Data on a
" Stevens Institute of
Tank
No.

Sur-

Sciences,
3

for a vVedge
Institute of
No. 336, l::iet)telnbler
Publication Fund
No.
nautical Sciences, New York.
4
John D. and Leshnover,
and Loads
)) Stevens Institute
t!..iXpel:mllental Towing Tank Report No. 382,
Sherman N1:. Fairchild Publication Fund
No.
Institute of the Aeronautical
New York.
John
"On
Penetration of a Fluid
" Stevens Institute of
Tank
No. 381,
Shern1an 1\11:.
Publication Fund
No.
Institute of the Aeronautical Sciences, New York.
6
B.
ilLift of
Institute of
Published in Readers' Forum Section
,-,'-".un.1Vi,

Daniel and
Interference Effects between Two
Parallel to Each Other at
tute of
Published in -,-",-,'-"\.A 'v" ...,

"Sonle

1950.

VV1Hi'-'iV,,;.Y)

in Readers'
AeTlYnautical
June 1951.
8
John D.;
David
OCTOBER, 1964

J O?.i.:rnal

95