th
11 International Conference on Fast Sea Transportation
T-Craft Calm Water Resistance and Motions, and Seakeeping in Regular Waves
Shanti Bhushan1, Frederick Stern2 and Lawrence J. Doctors3
1
Center for Advanced Vehicular Systems, Mississippi State University, Starkville, Mississippi, USA
2
IIHR-HydroScience and Engineering, The University of Iowa, Iowa City, Iowa, USA
3
The University of New South Wales, Sydney, Australia
ABSTRACT
Prescribed and variable cushion pressure models, and rigid,
hinged and imaginary seal models are implemented in
URANS/DES solver CFDShip-Iowa V4 and validated for T-
Craft resistance, motions and seakeeping. The hinged-seal
model resistance predictions are within 8.5% of the
experiments, better than rigid and imaginary seal without
resistance models. However, they are numerically expensive
and not well suited for transient simulations. The variable
cushion pressure model (due to motions) predicts impulsive
pitch and heave motions better than the prescribed model,
where the results are within 5.4% of the experiment. The
seakeeping response show a peak close to the natural
frequency and approach unity for larger wavelengths. V4
predictions compare well with the experiments for smaller
wavelengths, but differences are observed for larger
wavelengths. The differences are probably due to
overprediction of the aft and underprediction of the forward
cushion pressures. A variable cushion pressure model with
leakage and fan flows and an imaginary seal model with
resistance are identified to be well suited for T-Craft
applications, which will be investigated next.
KEY WORDS
T-Craft, Cushion pressure and Seal models, Seakeeping
1.0 INTRODUCTION
The transformable craft (T-Craft) vessel has retractable side
skirts which allows it to operate as a surface-effect ship
(SES) in deep-water and as an air-cushion vehicle (ACV) in
shallow-water/beach at speeds >40 knots. As demonstrated
in Fig. 1, numerical modeling for T-Craft involves
predictions and interactions of: hydrodynamics, cushion
flows and seals. Hydrodynamics includes prediction of the
water flow, resistance and motions. Cushion flows include
prediction of the gauge cushion-pressure (Pc) as a function
of leakage, fan flow and change in cushion volume, and
interaction with the hydrodynamics via free-surface
boundary condition. Seal modeling includes prediction of
seal resistance, seal deformation and leakage, and
interaction with the hydrodynamics via boundary conditions
and with the cushion flow via leakage and seal deformation.
Literature review shows that the hydrodynamics have
been solved using either potential-flow or Unsteady
Reynolds Averaged Navier Stokes (URANS) solvers;
cushion flows are either solved as compressible flow or
74
FAST 2011, Honolulu, Hawaii, USA, September 2011
modeled as prescribed Pc, variable Pc with or without
leakage and fan flows; and seals have been modeled as
rigid, hinged solid body or imaginary surfaces with or
without resistance. The models have been applied to SES
resistance and seakeeping in deep-water.
Doctors et al. (1974, 2009) used a potential-flow solver
with prescribed Pc and imaginary seals with resistance for
SES JJMA calm water resistance simulations for Fr = 0.2-
0.9. The results showed that the seal resistance accounts for
up to 50% of the total resistance for Fr <0.5, but are not that
important for higher Fr. The seal resistance are mostly due
to pressure resistance on the bow seal and show significant
dependence on the assumed seal planing surface shape. Lin
et al (2010) used a potential-flow solver for hydrodynamics,
solved for cushion flows either using compressible Euler's
equations or modeled using a variable Pc model including
leakage and fan flows, and modeled seals as imaginary
surface without resistance for T-Craft simulations. The
simulations included seakeeping in head and bow waves for
two wavelengths and demonstration for T-Craft motions in
multi-body configuration. The variable Pc model
underpredicted and overpredicted motions compared to the
experimental data (EFD) for Fr = 0 and 0.6, respectively.
However, the results were in good agreement with the EFD
when the cushion flow was solved. Milewski et al. (2007,
2009) coupled a potential-flow solver for hydrodynamics,
variable Pc model with leakage and fan flows and hinged-
seal model for SES/ACV simulations. The solver was
applied for LCAC motions and seakeeping in SS3 and SS4,
and T-Craft seakeeping for Fr = 0. They reported good
agreement with EFD for the LCAC simulations, but under
predicted pitch and heave response for T-Craft.
Maki et al. (2009) used a single-phase level-set
URANS solver with prescribed Pc and imaginary-seals
without resistance for JJMA resistance predictions. The
solver predicted the pressure and frictional resistance from
the surface pressure and shear distribution, whereas the seal
resistance was added a posteriori from the linear theory
predictions. The total resistance was significantly under
predicted compared to both EFD and linear theory due to
the underprediction of pressure resistance. Mouravieff and
Imas (2010) and Neu et al. (2010) used a two-phase
URANS solver for hydrodynamics, cushion flow was solved
as compressible ideal gas with leakage and fan flows and
rigid or imaginary without resistance seal models for SES
© 2011 American Society of Naval Engineers
simulations. The leakage was computed from the excess
instantaneous Pc over the static cushion pressure Pc0. A
constant inflow body-force model was used for the fan flow.
Mouravieff and Imas (2010) applied the solver to SES XR-
100B resistance predictions and demonstrated a seakeeping
case. The resistance predictions compared well with EFD
for Fr > 0.8, but were overpredicted by up to 40% for lower
Fr. The seakeeping simulation showed significant plowing
through the water with high-amplitude breaking bow waves.
Neu et al. (2010) applied the solver for T-Craft resistance
for Fr = 0.1 to 0.6 and seakeeping for Fr = 0.6 for two
wavelengths. The resistance predictions were up 100%
higher than EFD at Fr = 0.4, and showed significant
plowing which caused violent motions. The imaginary-seal
simulations on the other hand under predicted resistance by
50%. They shortened the seals to be above the waterline at
static conditions, which resulted in resistance and
seakeeping response within 10% of EFD.
Bhushan et al. (2010) implemented a prescribed Pc
model in URANS/Detached Eddy Simulation (DES) solver
CFDShip-Iowa V.4 (V4). The model was validated for
straight-ahead and yawed ACV wave resistance predictions
in calm deep and shallow water, and the linear and nonlinear
trends for large Pc and water depths were compared. The
objective of this research is to extend the above study by
implementing prescribed and variable Pc models with and
without leakage and fan flows, and rigid, hinged and
imaginary with and without resistance seal models in V4.
The seal models are validated for T-Craft resistance and
motion predictions for Fr = 0.2 to 0.6. The Pc models are
validated for T-Craft impulsive pitch and heave motions and
applied to regular wave seakeeping for Fr = 0 and 0.6 over a
range of encounter frequencies (fe) = 0.3 to 2.
2.0 COMPUTATIONAL METHODS
2.1 CFDShip-Iowa V.4
CFDShip-Iowa V4 solves the URANS/DES equations for
the water phase in absolute inertial earth-fixed coordinates
(refer to Carrica et al., 2007 for details and references). The
turbulent eddy viscosity is obtained from the solution of the
2.2 Cushion Pressure Models
Prescribed. In this approach the cushion-pressure is
prescribed, based on the static conditions which remains
constant throughout the simulation, i.e., Pc(t) = Pc0.
Fig. 1. Cushion cross-section with transverse seals showing
flows through the fans, cushion and leakage.
Variable without mass flux. The model is derived
assuming: ideal gas law at constant temperature P/=
Constant; adiabatic conditions inside the cushion PV =
Constant, where P is absolute pressure and γ= 7/5; and no
flow velocities inside the cushion. Neglecting the mass flux
in the forward and aft cushions in Fig. 1, Pc(t) at time t can
be obtained using the instantaneous mean cushion height
hc(t), Pc0 and static cushion height h0 as below:
𝛾
[𝑃𝑐 𝑡 + 𝑃𝑎 ] 𝑕𝑐 𝑡 𝐴𝑐 = [𝑃𝑐0 + 𝑃𝑎 ][𝑕0 𝐴𝑐 ]𝛾
𝑕0 𝛾
⟹ 𝑃𝑐 𝑡 = (𝑃𝑐0 + 𝑃𝑎 ) − 𝑃𝑎 (1)
𝑕 𝑐 (𝑡)
where Pa is the atmospheric pressure. It must be noted that
the variation in Pc(t) is governed by the change in hc(t) due
to motions and change in wave elevation height.
Variable with mass flux. If there is mass flux 𝑚 in the
cushion (discussed in Section 2.3), this would result in a
density change for the compressible air inside the cushion.
Assuming that the cushion air is atmospheric at the static
condition, the density change is expressed in terms of static
cushion volume (Vc0 = h0×Ac), where Ac is cushion area:
𝑚 = 𝑉𝑐0 𝜌 (2)
The ideal gas law relation gives,
𝑃𝑐 𝜌
(𝑃𝑐 + 𝑃𝑎 )/(𝑃𝑐0 + 𝑃𝑎 ) = 𝜌/𝜌𝑎 ⇒ = (3)
(𝑃𝑐0 +𝑃𝑎 ) 𝜌𝑎

two-equation blended k- /k- turbulence. The location of Substituting Eq. (2) in Eq. (3) yields,
the free surface is given by a „zero‟ value of the level-set (𝑃𝑐0 +𝑃𝑎 )
function, which is advected as a material surface. Negligible ∆𝑃𝑐 𝑡 = 𝑚 ∆𝑡 (4)
𝜌 𝑎 𝑉𝑐0
shear stress is assumed in the air phase which provides the Equation (4) is combined with Eq. (1) to obtain the variable
pressure-jump condition at the free-surface. The governing Pc model with mass flux:
equations are discretized using finite-difference schemes on 𝛾
𝑚 𝑕0
body-fitted curvilinear grids. Time marching is performed 𝑃𝑐 𝑡 = (𝑃𝑐0 + 𝑃𝑎 ) 1 + ∆𝑡 − 𝑃𝑎 (5)
𝜌 𝑎 𝑕 𝑜 𝐴𝑐 𝑕 𝑐 (𝑡)
using a second-order backward-difference scheme. The
convection and diffusion terms are discretized using a 2.3 Leakage and Fan Flows
second-order scheme. The pressure Poisson equation is The continuity equation for the air flow in the cushion
solved using the PETSc toolkit to satisfy continuity using a control volumes CV as shown in Fig. 1 at time t is:
projection algorithm. 6DoF motions are solved implicitly 𝑑
using multi-block grids with overset grid interpolation using  𝑑𝑉𝑐
𝑑𝑡 𝐶𝑉 𝑐
+ 𝐶𝑆
𝜌𝑎 𝑽 ∙ 𝒏 𝑑𝐴 = 0 (6)
SUGGAR. MPI based domain decomposition is used for 𝑚
multiple processor simulation. The first term on left is the rate of change of mass in the CV
(𝑚). The second term is mass flux through the control
surface CS, which includes leakage from the air gaps

© 2011 American Society of Naval Engineers 75

underneath the bow (AL,b) and stern (AL,s) seals and inflow
from the fan area (Afan). Thus the net mass flux is:
𝑚 = 𝑚𝑓 − 𝑚𝑏𝑜𝑤 − 𝑚𝑠𝑡𝑒𝑟𝑛
The flow velocity through the leakage area can be obtained
by applying Bernoulli's equation between points inside the
cushion and at the leakage gap (A and B shown in Fig. 1):
𝑃𝑐 𝑡 |𝑽.𝒏|2 𝑃𝑎 2{𝑃𝑐 𝑡 −𝑃𝑎 )}
= + |𝑽. 𝒏| =
𝜌𝑎 2 𝜌𝑎
The leakage velocity is not expected to be uniform
throughout the area. Thus, a contraction coefficient CD can
be used to obtain the averaged leakage flow, which gives:
2{𝑃𝑐 𝑡 −𝑃𝑎 )}
𝐴𝐿
𝜌𝑎 𝑽 ∙ 𝒏 𝑑𝐴 = 𝜌𝑎 𝐶𝐷 𝐴𝐿 = 𝑚𝑠𝑡𝑒𝑟𝑛 /𝑏𝑜𝑤
𝜌𝑎
Faltinsen (2005) recommended CD  0.6 and 1.0 for a
typical SES bow-seal and stern-seal, respectively.
The mass flow (𝑚𝑓 ) through the fans can be obtained
from the fan characteristics, i.e., P-Q curve. The P-Q curve
provides (𝑚𝑓 ) as a function of Pc(t) for a given fan speed
such that 𝑚𝑓 = 0 for Pc(t) = Pc0 and maximum 𝑚𝑓 for Pc(t)
= Pa (Faltinsen, 2005). Lin et al. (2010) approximated the T-
Craft fan curve as a straight line for their simulations. A
similar fan curve will be used in V4.
2.4 Seal Models
Rigid seals. The seals are discretized and allowed to move
along with the catamarans.
3.0 OVERVIEW OF EXPERIMENTAL DATA
The EFD data of interest for SES/ACV resistance, motions,
(7) seakeeping and maneuvering are summarized here. Everest
et al. (1967, 1968) procured wave resistance data for
straight-ahead and yawed ACV in deep and shallow water.
Ricci et al. (2008) procured data for a 1/12th scale LCAC
ACV in deep-water which includes: (1) calm-water
impulsive pitch and heave response at Fr = 0; (2) calm-
(8)
𝜌𝑎 water sinkage and trim for Fr = 0.1-1.8; and (3) pitch and
heave transfer functions in regular waves, SS3 and SS4.
Kramer and Wilson (2009) analyzed the drag, sinkage, trim
and Pc data for a 1/7 scale XR-1B SES model at various
forward and aft seal vertical settings with respect to heel
baseline in deep (1.06LPP) and shallow (0.2LPP) calm water.
(9)
This study focuses on the 1/30.21 scale T-Craft model
(operating in the SES mode) resistance and seakeeping data
in deep-water (Bishop et al., 2009). The dataset includes: (1)
calm-water resistance for Fr = 0.08 - 0.6; (2) time history of
impulsive pitch, heave and roll responses in calm water at
Fr = 0; time history of pitch, heave and roll motions and Pc
for seakeeping (3) at Fr = 0 in regular wave with wave
lengths /L = 0.66 - 5.0 at heading  = 0°, 20° and 90°; (4)
at Fr = 0.6 in regular head waves with /L = 1.32-1.97; and
(5) at Fr = 0 in SS4 with modal wave period  = 8.2 seconds
for  = 0°-90°. Impulsive motion experiments were also
performed with 50% and without cushion pressure, and
seakeeping experiments for T-Craft alongside or connected
to a cargo container or mobile landing platform.

Hinged seals. The bow and stern seals are discretized 4.0 SIMULATION CONDITIONS, DOMAIN,
separately and a small gap is left between the seals and the BOUNDARY CONDITIONS AND GRIDS
catamaran. The seals pitch and heave along with the Table 2 summarizes the simulations performed without Pc,
catamarans and rotate () along the Y-axis about a fixed and prescribed and variable without mass flux Pc models
pivot point on the deck. The rotation is governed by the which includes: (1) resistance and motions using rigid,
moment created by the pressure and frictional force hinged and imaginary without resistance seal models at Re =
distribution (M) on the exterior wetted seal surface and the 2.4 to 7.3×106, Fr = 0.2 to 0.6; (2) impulsive heave, pitch
restoring moment due to Pc acting on the interior seal face: and roll response using imaginary seals without resistance at
𝑑2𝜙 1
Fr = 0; seakeeping response in regular head waves using
𝑘 = 𝑀 − 𝑃𝑐 𝑕𝑠 2 𝐵𝑐 (10) imaginary seals without resistance at (3) Fr = 0 for fe = 0.35
𝑑𝑡 2 2
where, k is an arbitrarily chosen moment of inertia and hs is to 0.96, and (4) Fr = 0.6 for fe = 0.8 to 2.0.
the seal length. This is an approximate model and ignores Table 1: T-Craft particulars and natural Frequencies.
important physics, i.e., seal should rotate about water line Parameter (Unit) Model-scale Full-scale Non-dimensional
LPP (m) 2.52 76.35 1 LPP
and moment if inertia should be based on the wetted length. B (m) 0.7366 22.25 0.29 LPP
Lc (m) 2.23 67.14 0.885 LPP
Imaginary seals without resistance. The seals are not Bc (m) 0.546 16.50 0.216 LPP
discretized and their interaction with hydrodynamics are T (m) 0.044 1.33 0.0175 LPP
neglected. T without Pc (m) 0.13 3.93 0.051 LPP
h0 (m) 0.088 2.66 0.0347 LPP
Imaginary seals with resistance. The interaction of the VCG below deck (m) 0.00635 0.19 0.00252 LPP
imaginary bow seal with hydrodynamics is modeled as a 2D Catamaran Aw (m2) w/o cushion 0.3181 290.36 0.0501 LPP2
Catamaran Aw (m2) w cushion 0.4752 433.7 0.0744 LPP2
planing surface (Doctors and McKesson, 2006). The seal Volume of water displacement (m3) 0.055163 1519.5 0.00345 LPP3
resistance is computed from the planing-surface pressure Buoyancy (N) 540.0675 14.875×106
distribution and length. The bow seal interacts with the CB w/o Pc (with Pc estimated) 0.229 (0.256)
Pc0,fwd (N/m2) 220.61 6664.63 Pc/gL= 0.0101
hydrodynamics via a free-surface pressure distribution (PBS) Pc0,aft (N/m2) 296.442 8955.51 Pc/gL= 0.0136
obtained from the linear theory. A similar model is not Weight (N) 856.6 2.354×10 6

available for the stern seal, which is expected to mostly fn,B (Hz) without Pc 0.85 0.154 1/L Scaling
fn,P (Hz) (over rigid surface) 39.04 1.34 1/L Scaling
leak. Thus is modeled as imaginary seal without resistance. fn,P,fs (Hz) (over free-surface) 2.15 0.354 1/L Scaling
fn (Hz) 1.303 0.223 1/L Scaling

76 © 2011 American Society of Naval Engineers

 The T-Craft geometry is simplified for the ease of grid
generation as shown in Fig. 2. The simplifications include:
replacing bow seal fingers with a flat surface and stern seal
lobes with a curved surface; removal of the transverse seal;
and modification to the deck. No significant changes are
expected due to the deck and stern-seal modifications as
they are expected to be in the air. The particulars of the hull
are shown in Table 1. Half domain simulations are
performed for X = [-1.5, 5]LPP, Y = [0,2]LPP and Z = [-
4,1]LPP, where LPP is the ship length.
A body fitted hull grid specifies the wall boundary
conditions, whereas the inflow, outlet and far-field boundary
conditions are specified using a Cartesian background grid
as shown in Fig. 2. A refinement block is used for proper
overset grid interpolation close to the hull grid. The
pressure-jump boundary condition is modified to include
Pc(t) over the cushion area Ac (Bhushan et al., 2010).
Fig. 2. (a) T-Craft grids and boundary conditions for
simulations. Inset shows the simplified geometry. A multi-block grid consisting of 7.2M and 5.5M points
are used for imaginary and discretized seal simulations,
respectively.
Table 2: Summary of simulations performed for T-Craft Validation.
Simulation Modeling
# Objective
Functional Area Conditions Seal Pc Model
Rigid, hinged and None, prescribed and
Resistance and Re = 2.4-7.3×106
1 imaginary without variable without  Compare and validate seal models
Motions Fr = 0.2 - 0.6
resistance mass flux
None, prescribed and
Impulsive Imaginary without  Validate natural frequency using EFD
2 Fr = 0, Heave, Pitch and Roll variable without
Response resistance  Validate Pc model w/o mass flux
mass flux
Fr = 0, Ak = 0.05, (f=fe Hz, /L, A/L) = (0.35, 5.0, 0.0397);
(0.437, 3.2, 0.0254); (0.525, 2.22,0.0176); (0.612, 1.63,
3 Seakeeping  Validate seakeeping predictions using
0.013); (0.7, 1.25, 0.01); (0.787, 0.986, 0.0078); (0.875, 0.8, None, prescribed and
Imaginary without EFD
in regular head 0.0063)(0.962, 0.66, 0.0052) variable without
resistance  Evaluate limitations due to absence of
waves Fr = 0.6, Ak = 0.05,(f Hz, fe Hz /L, A/L) =(0.8, 0.437, 3.2, mass flux
seal and leakage model
4 0.0254); (1.06, 0.525, 2.22,0.0176); (0.612, 1.32,1.63,
0.013); (0.7, 1.63,1.25, 0.01);(0.787, 1.97,0.986, 0.0078)

5.0 CALM WATER RESISTANCE AND MOTIONS compared to the without Pc case. The wave elevation inside
As shown in Fig. 3, imaginary seal simulations under the cushion shows peaks and troughs as observed for ACV
predict CT by 35-50%D compared to the EFD data (D). simulations (Bhushan et al., 2010). Breaking waves are
Variable Pc simulations do not show significant influence on predicted towards the leading edge of the cushion for Fr =
the CT predictions. Simulations without Pc predicts 50% 0.2, which moves inside the cushion for Fr = 0.3 and 0.4.
lower CT that those with prescribed Pc, which suggests that
the wave resistance due to Pc accounts for almost 50% of
the drag. Rigid seal simulations over predict CT by 37%D.
Higher CT predictions are due to bow seal plowing
accompanied by breaking bow waves as shown in Fig. 4(a).
The large bow waves are due to the presence of a stagnation
point on the bow seal which causes the water to ride up.
Hinged-seal simulations predict CT within 8.5%D of the
EFD. The improved predictions are due to the decrease in
bow seal plowing as shown in Fig. 4(b). The bow seal
rotation is observed to be 5.2° and 18.7° for Fr = 0.4 and
0.6, respectively, whereas for both the cases the rotation of
the stern seal is < 0.1° as they are mostly in air.
As shown in Fig. 5, imaginary seal simulations without
Pc show diverging wave patterns outboard and inboard of
the catamaran. However, both prescribed and variable Pc
simulations show diverging waves only outboard of the
catamaran which are attached to the catamaran. Further, the Fig. 3. T-Craft resistance, sinkage and trim predictions
diverging wave peaks and troughs are significantly larger in calm-water using V4 are compared with EFD.

© 2011 American Society of Naval Engineers 77

 Both hinged and imaginary seal simulations show
steady motions for higher Fr, and unsteady motions for
lower Fr due to Pc induced bow wave breaking. The rigid
seal simulations show large amplitude motions for higher Fr
due to the breaking bow waves. As shown in Fig. 3(b), both
imaginary and rigid seal simulations predict almost constant
sinkage around -0.003 to -0.006LPP for the entire Fr range,
which agrees well with limited EFD data. But the hinged-
seal simulations show significantly higher values, probably
due to the additional vertical force acting on the rotated bow
seal. Both the rigid and hinged seal models predict the trim
trend well when compared with EFD, whereas imaginary
seal predictions are significantly underpredicted. The best
predictions are obtained using hinged seal, but trim is over
predicted by 20% for Fr = 0.6. Overall, motions do not
show significant influence on the Pc model, and the Pc
variation are <4.5% as motions are small.
(a) (b)
Fig. 4. Wave elevation contours for T-Craft with (a) rigid
seals and (b) hinged seal with prescribed Pc at Fr = 0.6.
(a) (b)
Fig. 5. Wave elevation contours for T-Craft with imaginary
seals (a) without Pc and (b) with prescribed Pc at Fr = 0.4.
6.0 IMPULSIVE MOTIONS
6.1 Analytic Estimates of Natural Frequency
Natural frequency due to buoyancy. If T-Craft without Pc is
impulsively displaced downwards by a distance z, the water
displaced by the catamarans, proportional to the water-plane
area Aw×z, would produce a restoring force. This results in a
mass-spring-damper system with spring constant kB for the
heave motion. The damping component of the system is not
considered here as it does not affect the natural frequency
(fn) estimates. The solution of such system gives:
1 𝑘𝐵 1 𝜌 𝑤 𝑔𝐴𝑤
𝑓𝑛,𝐵 = = (11)
2𝜋 𝑀+𝑀𝐴 2𝜋 𝑀+𝑀𝐴
where, M is the mass of T-Craft and 𝑀𝐴 is the added mass
assumed equal to M following Milewski et al. (2007).
78
However, larger values are expected due to small draft. This
gives fn,B = 0.85Hz for model-scale and 0.173Hz for full-
scale as shown in Table 1.
Natural frequency due to Pc over a rigid surface. If an ACV
hovering over a rigid surface is pushed down, Pc would
increase due to the decrease in cushion height if there is no
leakage and fan flows. Further neglecting the seal buoyancy,
the change in Pc would result in a restoring force which can
be linearized using Binomial series expansion. This results
in a mass-spring system with spring constant
𝛾(𝑃𝑐0 +𝑃𝑎 )𝐴𝑐 1 𝛾𝑔 (𝑃𝑐0 +𝑃𝑎 )
𝑘𝑃 = and 𝑓𝑛,𝑃 = (12)
𝑕0 2𝜋 𝑃𝑐0 𝑕 0
This gives fn,P,r = 39.05 Hz for model-scale and 1.34Hz for
full-scale T-Craft as shown in Table 1.
Natural frequency due to Pc over a free-surface. Assuming a
case similar to above, but the free-surface depresses due to
Pc. The restoring force is then represented as a series spring
system with spring constants due to free-surface (kfs) and kP
(Milewski et al. 2007) as below:
−1
1 1
𝑘𝑃,𝑓𝑠 = + 𝛾 (𝑃 𝑐0 +𝑃 𝑎 )𝐴 𝑐 (13)
𝜌 𝑤 𝑔𝐴𝑐
𝑕∗
𝐹𝑟𝑒𝑒 −𝑠𝑢𝑟𝑓𝑎𝑐𝑒
𝐶𝑢𝑠 𝑕 𝑖𝑜𝑛 𝑃𝑟𝑒𝑠𝑠𝑢𝑟𝑒
1 𝑘 𝑃,𝑓𝑠
𝑓𝑛,𝑃,𝑓𝑠 = (14)
2𝜋 𝑀+𝑀𝑎
which gives fn,P,fs = 2.15 Hz for model-scale and 0.0354 Hz
for full-scale T-Craft as shown in Table 1.
Natural Frequency due to both buoyancy and Pc over a free-
surface. In this case the restoring force is represented as a
series and parallel spring system with
1 𝑘 𝐵 +(1−𝐴 𝑤 /𝐴𝑐 )𝑘 𝑃 ,𝑓𝑠
𝑓𝑛 = (15)
2𝜋 𝑀+𝑀𝑎
This gives fn = 1.304Hz for model-scale and 0.223 Hz for
full-scale T-Craft as shown in Table 1.
T-Craft fn lies in between the natural frequencies due to
buoyancy and Pc on a free-surface, but is dominated more
by the buoyancy. fn due to buoyancy, Pc over the free-
surface shows 1/L scaling, whereas that due to Pc on a
rigid surface show 1/L scaling.
Analytic estimates of pitch fn cannot be obtained as the
moment of inertia of the water-plane area and the catamaran
is not available. Castiglione et al. (2010) obtained <10%
variation between the heave and pitch fn for Delft
catamaran. A similar behavior is expected for T-Craft
without Pc as its catamaran is similar to that of Delft.
Milewski et al. (2007) reported that the LCAC pitch fn is 3
times lower than that for heave. Thus a lower fn is expected
for T-Craft pitch.
6.2 Impulsive Heave and Pitch
As shown in Table 3, EFD data for T-Craft without Pc
shows that the heave and pitch fn are within 3%. For cases
with Pc case, pitch fn is 12% lower than heave fn as
expected. The heave fn compares within 6% and 13% of the
analytic values for without and with Pc cases, respectively.
© 2011 American Society of Naval Engineers
 For cases without Pc, V4 fn predictions compares within
1% of the EFD. The pressure coefficient response on the
hull due to impulsive Pc shows f = 1.8 Hz, which is close to
fn due to Pc on a free-surface. For cases with Pc, V4
predictions are 6%D lower and 4.5%D higher than the EFD
using prescribed and variable Pc models, respectively.
Table 3: Model-scale T-Craft impulsive heave and pitch fn.
f (Hz)
Geometry
Heave %fn (E%D) Pitch %fn (E%D)
Without Pc 0.85 -
Natural frequency fn
Only Pc 2.15 -
for heave
With Pc 1.30 - (a)
EFD (D) Without Pc 0.895 5.80 0.872 -
EFD (D) With Pc 1.13 13.1 1.0 -
Without Pc 0.90 (-0.5) 0.88 (-0.9)
CFDShip-Iowa V4:
Only Pc 1.80 16.3 -
T-Craft with
Constant Pc 1.06 (6.2) 0.93 (-7.0)
imaginary seals
With Pc 1.18 (-4.44) 0.95 (-5.0)
As shown in Fig. 6, V4 motion predictions for without
Pc case are in overall good agreement with the EFD. For
cases Pc, prescribed model is over predictive, where the
amplitudes are even larger than the without Pc case. This is
expected, as in the prescribed Pc case the buoyancy
restoring force is lower due to depression of wave-elevation
inside the cushion. On the other hand, the variable Pc model (b)
predictions are in good agreement with the EFD.

(c)

Fig. 6. T-Craft impulsive heave and pitch response in calm-
water at Fr = 0 using V4 are compared with EFD.
7.0 SEAKEEPING
7.1 Fr = 0
EFD data in Fig. 7 shows pitch and heave transfer functions
around 0.3 for higher fe and the response overall increases
with the decrease in fe. However, large oscillations are
observed for lower fe (larger ), i.e., sharp decline at fe =
0.525Hz (/L=2.2) followed by large transfer functions >1.2
at fe = 0.437Hz (/L=3.2). The pitch lags the head wave by
90º and heave is in phase with the wave for lower fe (large
), which is in good agreement with Irvine et al. (2008). As
fe increases ( decreases) the pitch phase lag increases to -
180º, switches sign to +180º lead and the lead decreases
thereafter. A similar behaviour is observed for the heave
phase, but the switch from lag to lead occurs at higher fe.
(d)
Fig. 7. (a) Pitch and (b) heave transfer functions, and (c)
pitch and (d) heave phases are compared with EFD data.
V4 predictions show that both the heave and pitch
transfer functions grow steadily with the decrease in fe and
approaches unity for lower fe (larger ). The pitch response
is consistently lower than the EFD, but the heave response
compares fairly well with EFD. The variable Pc model
shows 2 to 3% higher response than the prescribed Pc
model, which is an opposite trend to the impulsive cases.
Overall, the pitch and heave phases agree very well with the
EFD, but the heave phases are consistently 20º lower.
EFD Pc data in Fig. 8 shows good correlation with the
heave motions for lower fe (larger ), i.e., higher pressure
for both aft and forward cushions at heave minima and vice
versa. For larger fe (smaller ), Pc correlates better with the
pitch, i.e., minimum forward and maximum aft Pc at pitch
maxima and vice versa. This is expected as heave motions

© 2011 American Society of Naval Engineers 79

are dominant for large , whereas pitch is dominant for
small  for fixed wave slope. V4 results shows a similar
pattern in Pc variation, suggesting that the Pc model based
on adiabatic conditions captures the cushion flow well. But
predicts overall higher aft and lower forward Pc.
(a) fe= 0.35Hz, /L = 5.0 and A/L = 0.03972
(b) fe= 0.7Hz, /L = 1.25 and A/L = 0.01
Fig. 8. Time history of T-Craft pitch and heave with
imaginary seals with and without Pc at Fr = 0.
7.2 Fr = 0.6
Limited EFD data in Fig. 7 shows peak pitch and heave
response at fe = 1.64Hz. V4 predictions compare well with
EFD for higher fe, but shows peak pitch and heave response
around fe=1Hz. A peak response is expected in this region as
fe is close to fn, but the peak value of 1.1 is relatively lower
than expected. The lower peak is probably because Fr = 0.6
is larger than the expected maximum ship response Fr =
0.28 (Irvine et al., 2008). Similar to the Fr = 0 cases,
variable Pc simulations predict slightly larger motions than
the without Pc cases the phases compare well with the EFD.
The Pc variations correlate with the pitch in both EFD
and V4, but V4 overpredicts aft Pc and underpredicts
forward Pc. An analysis of the leakage area in Fig. 9 shows
that the aft seal leaks throughout the simulation and forward
cushion leaks close to Pc trough. This absence of leakage
model explains the higher aft Pc and lack of sharp trough in
forward Pc. The forward Pc is mostly lower than Pc0, thus
the underprediction could be due to the absence of fan
model. Predictions at fe = 1.34Hz and 2Hz suggests that the
80
motions are not significantly affected by the sharp drop in
forward Pc due to leakage. However, larger motions for fe =
1.34 Hz in V4 is probably due to the absence of leakage
from the aft cushion and fan flows into the forward cushion.
EFD data shows added resistance of 0.77lbs or 10% of
calm water CT, except for fe = 1.34Hz where the value is
negative. Similarly, mean pitch = 1º and heave = 0.002L
except at 1.34Hz. V4 results show an added resistance peak,
around fn, of 0.3lbs or 6.5% of the calm water CT. The mean
pitch and heave are 50% smaller than the calm water
predictions, which agree well with the EFD.
Fig. 9. Time history of pitch and heave and estimates of
leakage area for T-Craft with imaginary seals for fe=
1.32Hz, /L = 1.63, A/L = 0.013 and Fr = 0.6.
8.0 CONCLUSIONS AND FUTURE WORK
SES/ACV models and numerical methods are implemented
in URANS/DES solver CFDShip-Iowa V4 and validated for
T-Craft resistance, motions and seakeeping. The models
implemented include: prescribed and adiabatically varying
cushion pressure models without leakage and fan flows; and
rigid, hinged and imaginary without resistance seal models.
The seal models are validated for T-Craft resistance and
motions for Fr = 0.2 to 0.6. The cushion pressure models
are validated for impulsive heave and pitch simulations and
applied for seakeeping simulations for Fr = 0 and 0.6.
The rigid-seal simulations overpredict CT by 37%D,
imaginary seals without resistance are underpredictive by
42%D, whereas the hinged-seal predictions are within
© 2011 American Society of Naval Engineers
8.5%D of EFD. The hinged-seal model also predicts trim
better than the other seal models, but performs worst for
sinkage. Overall, hinged seal simulations are numerically
expensive and not suitable for transient simulations.
T-Craft natural frequency predictions compare within
5.4% of the EFD for both with and without Pc cases. For the
latter, the variable Pc model performs significantly better
than the prescribed model. V4 seakeeping predictions show
peak pitch and heave response around fe = 1Hz close to the
natural frequency and the response approaches unity for
larger wavelengths. V4 phase predictions compare very well
with the experiments, but the transfer functions are not
predicted well for lower fe. In both V4 and EFD, Pc peak
correlates with the heave for large wavelengths and with the
pitch for smaller wavelengths. This suggests that the
adiabatic model captures the overall physics well. However,
V4 predicts higher aft and lower forward Pc due to the
negligence of leakage and fan flows, respectively, which is
probably responsible for poor seakeeping response. V4
predicts peak added resistance of 6.5% at the natural
frequency, whereas limited EFD data shows added
resistance of 10%.
A variable cushion pressure model with leakage and fan
flows and an imaginary seal model with resistance (Doctors,
2009) are identified to be a viable model for T-Craft
applications. The final paper will also include
implementation and validation of the above model in V4 for
T-Craft resistance, motions and seakeeping including
impulsive roll-decay simulation. Future work involves
application of the model to seakeeping in bow and beam
waves, irregular head waves, seakeeping in shallow-water
and maneuvering. Future model development will focus on
coupled water, superstructure and cushion flows.
REFERENCES
Bhushan, S., Stern, F. and Doctors, L. J., "Verification and
Validation of URANS Wave Resistance for Air Cushion
Vehicles, and Comparison with Linear Theory,"
submitted to the Journal of Ship Research, 2010.
Bishop, R. C., Silver, A. L., Tahmasian, D., Lee, S. S., Park,
J. L., Snyder, L. A. and Kim, J., "T-Craft Seabase
Seakeeping Model Test Data Report," Naval Surface
Warfare Center Carderock Division, Technical Report,
NSWCCD-50-TR–2009/055, 2009.
Carrica, P. M., Wilson, R. V., and Stern, F., “An unsteady
single-phase level set method for viscous free-surface
flows,” International Journal of Numerical Methods in
Fluids, Volume 53, No. 2, 2007, pp. 229-256.
Castiglione, T., Stern, F., Bova, S. and Kandasamy, M.,
"Numerical investigation of the seakeeping behavior of a
catamaran advancing in regular head waves," submitted
to Ocean Engineering, 2011.
Doctors, L. J., "Representation of planing surfaces by finite
pressure element," Proc. Fifth Australian conference on
Hydraulics and Fluid Mechanics, Volume 2, pp 480-
488, December 1974.
Doctors, L. J., “A Study of the Resistance Characteristics of
Surface-Effect-Ship Seals,” Proc. High-Performance
© 2011 American Society of Naval Engineers
Marine-Vehicle Symposium, ASNE, Maryland, 11 pp,
2009.
Everest, J. T., and Hogben, N., “Research on Hovercraft
over calm water,” Trans. Royal Institution of Naval
Architects, Volume 111(3), 1967, pp. 343-365.
Everest, J. T., and Willis, R. C., “Experiments on the
Skirted Hovercraft of arbitrary planform and angle of
yaw with special attention to wave drag,” National
Physical Laboratory, Report 119, 1968, pp. 25.
Faltinsen, O. M., Hydrodynamics of high-speed marine
vehicles, Cambridge University Press, 1st edition, 2005,
pp. 141- 163.
Irvine, M., Longo, J., and Stern, F., „Pitch and heave tests
and uncertainty assessment for a surface combatant in
regular waves,‟ Journal of Ship Research, Volume 52,
2008, pp.146-163.
Kramer, M. R., and Wilson, R. A., "Implications of water
depth on surface effect ship operations: an analysis of
shallow- and deep-water effects and their applicability to
T-Craft," Department of Defense Report, 39 pp, 2009.
Lin, W-M., Zhang, S., Weems, K., Huan, J. and Whipple,
D., "Hydrodynamics and Dynamic Simulation of
Multiple Ships in Waves Including Surface Effect Ship
and Air Cushion Vehicle," T-Craft Tool Development
Review Meeting, Florida, Feb. 16-19, 2010.
Maki, K. J., Doctors, L. J., Broglia, R., McKesson, C., and
Mascio, A. D., "Calm-water resistance prediction of a
surface-effect ship," Proc. International ACV and
Surface Effect Craft Conference, London, 12 pp,
November 2009.
Milewski, B., Connell, B., Wilson, J., and Kring, D.,
“Dynamics of ACV Operating in a Seaway,” Proc.
Ninth International Conference on Numerical Ship
Hydrodynamics, Ann Arbor, Michigan, 2007.
Milewski, B., Petersen, B., Connell, B., and Kring, D., “The
Influence of Air Supply Models in Numerical
Simulations of Air Cushion Vehicle Motions,” Proc.
Tenth International Conference on Fast Sea
Transportation, Athens, Greece, 2009.
Mouravieff, A., and Imas, L., "SES Hydrodynamics
Application of CFD Simulation," T-Craft Tool
Development Review Meeting, Florida, Feb.16-19, 2010.
Neu, W., Bloxom, A. and Donnelly, D., "Numerical
Simulation of Free Surface Interactions with Surface
Effect Ships," T-Craft Tool Development Review
Meeting, Florida, Feb. 16-19, 2010.
Ricci, J. J., Becnel, A. J., Butler, M. L., Hoyt, J. G., and
Snyder, L. A., “Towing Tank Report on a Comparative
Study of Four LCAC Skirt Systems,” Naval Systems
Warfare Center, Panama City Division, Technical
Report, NSWC PCD/TN-E32-08/014, 192+xxxiv pp
2008.
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
This research is sponsored by the Office of Naval Research
under Grant N00014-10-1-0499 administered by Ms. Kelly
Cooper.
81