Sie sind auf Seite 1von 8

International Journal of Maritime Engineering

A TOOL FOR THE PREDICTION OF WAVE WAKE IN DEEP WATER


A Robbins, BMT SeaTech, UK and M R Renilson, QinetiQ, UK

SUMMARY
To determine the hull form parameters affecting wave wake, a testing program was conducted utilising a computational
fluid dynamics program, (CFD), and scale model tests. A parent hull form was chosen, which was representative of a
typical low wave wake high speed catamaran. From the parent hull form, multiple variant hull forms were created. Their
wave wake was obtained for a range of speeds in deep water using CFD, and the free surfaces recorded and analysed
using a decay method. The CFD was validated though scale model testing.

From the results, regression analysis was used to develop a simple prediction tool. The regression analysis was then
validated though the trial of a test hull form, which was unrelated to the original hull series. Given key hull form
parameters the wave wake height for a vessel can be predicted. The tool allows the designer to rank hull forms relative
to each other, within a given variable range.

NOMENCLATURE 1 INTRODUCTION

AT Transom area The environmental impact of vessels has lead to new


A T / AX Transom area to max. section area criteria being placed on vessel design and operations.
ratio Engine emissions, noise, and wave wake are now all
AX Maximum sectional area major concerns for the designer. Such concerns are no
B Maximum beam longer of secondary importance simply contributing to
B/T Beam-draft ratio “good design”, but in some cases have become a prime
CB Block coefficient = ∇/L.B.T concern and contractual requirement.
CP Prismatic coefficient = ∇/L.Ax
E Wave Energy Many major cities and towns are situated on
Fn Length Froude number = ∇/√(g.L) waterways, and as increasing road congestion pushes
Fnh Depth Froude number = ∇/√(g.H)
more people to utilise these waterways, environmental
g Acceleration due to gravity
issues move to the forefront. To enable these areas to
Hc Maximum wave height (Reference)
Hhsc Maximum wave height (High speed) reach their potential of becoming viable transport
HW Maximum wave height routes, vessel wave wake must be taken into
HW’ Maximum wave height/length consideration to minimise the environmental impact.
H Water depth Such wave wake concerns take the form of the erosion
IEN Half angle of entrance of riverbanks, and/or unfriendly or dangerous wave
L Waterline length elevations to other water users. This is likely to be as
L/B Length - beam ratio important as vessel deadweight and speed.
L/∇1/3 Length - volume ratio
S Demi hull separation When a vessel is travelling in shallow water the wave
S/L Separation - length ratio wake generated by the vessel is influenced by water
t Time depth. In addition, as the wave propagates from the
T Draught water depth where it has been generated into the
Thsc Wave period (HSC criteria) shallower water close to the shore the effect of the
TW Wave period shoaling bottom will modify the wave system. Both
V Vessel speed these factors add a considerable complexity to the study
WSA Wetted surface area of vessel generated wave wake, and are outside the
x Longitudinal axis (positive forward) present study, however they are both topics which need
y Transverse distance from sailing line to be addressed further in the future to obtain a fuller
∆ Displacement understanding of the phenomenon.
β Decision parameter (HSC Criteria)
γ Decay coefficient
A designer faced with the wave wake criteria has few
γ’ Decay coefficient non
options due to the high costs associated with standard
dimensonalised by
displacement = γ / ∇ (4/3) scale model testing. This is primarily resistance and
λ Wavelength propulsion based, and generally does not include wave
∇ Volume wake measurement. To gain such information the
ρ Density of water designer would have to run a model in a wave wake
tank, i.e. one which has sufficient width and depth to
measure the full wave pattern. This wave wake

© 2005: Royal Institution of Naval Architects


measurement can be as expensive and time consuming 2.1 HULL WAVE MINIMISATION
as resistance testing.
Hull wave minimisation is the most obvious way to
An alternative is the use of CFD, which enables the reduce a hull form’s wave wake. By altering certain
designer to run the vessel in a virtual tank. From such hull form parameters the wave wake produced by a
experiments both resistance and wave wake data can be vessel can be reduced. Success is dependent on
extracted. However using a CFD program can be as knowing which parameter to alter and by how much. A
expensive as actual physical scale model testing, also box diagram of likely parameters is shown in Figure 1.
requiring specialist knowledge and resources.
3 MEASUREMENT
Due to the commercial implications of wave wake,
little data has been published. There has been much As the issue of wave wake has become increasingly
academic coverage of the subject, but as yet there has important, so too has a method by which to assess it by.
been no commercially available empirical methodology There is no accepted standard for wave wake
for wave wake prediction. The question remains; “How assessment, however, there are criteria currently
does the designer, with little or no wave wake utilised in commercial tenders to measure a vessel’s
experience, know what constitutes a good wave wake wave wake characteristics.
hull form?”
The suitability of a proposed wave wake measure was
This paper describes a simple regression analysis described by Macfarlane and Renilson, [1 & 2]. A
prediction method as an aid to designers. The suitable measure should be: independent of location;
regression analysis is based on CFD prediction of high independent of sample size; easy to understand; easy to
speed, low wave wake catamarans, in deep water. It is a measure; and able to rank vessel’s wake performance.
simple method of estimating a vessel’s wave wake and
of ranking one hull form over another. Essentially if a vessel’s wave wake can be measured
then it can be used to compare and rank it against other
2 OPTIMISATION OF WAVE WAKE vessels.

There are two main approaches for reducing a vessel’s 3.1 WAVE ENERGY METHOD
wave wake: hull wave minimisation and hull wave
cancellation. The first is the reduction of the hull forms The wave energy criterion is simply a measure of the
wave making, the second being the maximisation of energy contained in a single wave. This measure is an
positive interference between the wave trains. attempt to address the inequalities of the simplistic
maximum wave height, and period measures.
For most vessels, speed and hull configuration are fixed
or at least limited by commercial or structural Waves of similar heights yet different periods will have
constraints. Therefore frequency and possible different energies contained within them, and visa
interference considerations are known, and so it is the versa. It is the combination of height and period that
wave height that is the main variable influencing wave determines the energy in the waves.
wake. This assumption has lead to the primary focus of
attention of this work being placed on the hull shape The energy in a wave can be obtained from equation
generating the wave wake. 3.1. The output units are expressed as Joules per metre
of wave front.
WAVE /WAKE
REDUCTION
Wave Energy E = Hw2.Tw2 (3.1)

MINIMISATION
MAXIMISATION Stumbo et al, [4, 5 & 6], used this kinetic energy
OF HULL WAVE
OF HULL WAKE
GENERATION
CANCELLATION criterion to establish their wave wake measure. This
criterion required that the sample wave cut be taken
300m from the vessel’s sailing line. They proposed that
the maximum wave amplitude for a vessel to be
LENGTH/ CP AT/AK Fn S/L ASYMMETRY POSITIONING
DISPLACEMENT PRISMATIC TRANSOM FROUDE DEMI HULL ASYMMETRIC ARRANGEMENTS
VOLUME RATIO COEFFICIENT AREA RATIO NUMBER SEPARATION DEMI HULLS OF DEMI HULLS

considered low wash is no greater than 280mm at


300m, and also that the corresponding energy density
L/B B/T IEN
LENGTH/BEAM TRIM BEAM/ ½ ANGLE OF
RATIO DRAUGHT ENTRANCE
RATIO

functions is no greater than 2450 J/m, for the highest


wave amplitude.
Figure 1. - Wave Wake Reduction Diagram

© 2005: Royal Institution of Naval Architects


3.2 HIGH SPEED CRAFT METHOD 0.7

Kofoed-Hansen & Kirkegaard, [7], describe a criterion 0.6

for the operation of HSC within Danish waters, 0.5

equaqtion 3.2. This criterion is a measure of wave


effects upon a shore, and references the wash from a 0.4

Hw=γ.y-1/3
HSC with the benchmark wash of a conventional CFD

Hw'
PREDICTED

vessel. 0.3

Danish Wake Criteria Hhsc = β3/2. √ (Tc / Thsc) . Hc (3.2) 0.2

0.1

Hhsc is maximum wave height (of the high speed craft),


measured in 3m deep water, and Thsc its corresponding 0
1 1.1 1.2 1.3 1.4 1.5 1.6 1.7 1.8 1.9 2 2.1 2.2 2.3 2.4 2.5

period. Hc is maximum wave height of the benchmark Offset from Sailing Line (x/L)

conventional craft, measured in 3m deep water, and Tc


its corresponding period. β is the decision parameter,
usually taken as unity. Figure 2. – Wave Decay

This criterion, while representing the concerns of shore The decay method was selected, as it is the best method
side users and recreational vessels, may prove difficult for ranking one hull form against another. Also through
to measure. This is mainly due to water depth, but also the use of multiple longitudinal cuts, the decay method
due to the criticality of the wave as it enters shallow is relatively independent from the exact sailing line of
water. The local topography of the coast where the the vessel.
measurement occurs may significantly affect results.
It is known that the decay coefficient, (-1/3), is not
3.3 WAVE DECAY FUNCTION always fixed, and does vary with vessel speed, [11],
however for this work the coefficient has been assumed
Renilson and Lenz, [8 & 9] describe a method which constant at -1/3. It is recognised that further work could
operates on the principle that the characteristics of be done on re-analysing the series with respect to decay
wave trains generated from different vessels decay at function
different rates and that the divergent waves are
dominant. It follows that if the decay of this wave train 4 PARENT HULL FORM & VARIANTS
can be determined, the wave measurement goals will be
achieved. 4.1 PARENT HULL FORM

It is known from Havelock, [10], that the divergent The parent hull form, (PHF), is the basis from which all
wave system decays at a rate approximately equal to other hull form variants are generated.
the inverse cube root of the distance from sailing line,
(for deep water). A vessel’s maximum wave height, A survey of current catamaran vessels was made, which
(Hw), can be calculated for a given offset from sailing included low wash and conventional hull forms. The
line, y, once gamma, γ is known, (equation 3.3). surveyed vessels were mainly commercial
car/passenger ferries, but some motor sailing and
Maximum Wave Height Hw = γ . y -1/3 (3.3) pleasure catamarans were included. The survey
provided parameter ranges within which the PHF was
To obtain γ for a vessel at a particular speed, a series of set.
longitudinal wave cuts must be taken at varying offset
from the vessel. The cuts are analysed for maximum The PHF met the following program aims:
wave elevation, and these maximums plotted as a
function of y. From this plot a curve of best fit is • Has perceived low wash characteristics;
obtained, and γ determined, (Figure 2.). • Is commercially viable;
• Is “scalable” within set parameters ranges
3.4 DISCUSSION & can be utilized in future work

The wash criterion used in this work is based on the The Parent hull form parameters can be seen in Table 1.
decay method. As the measurements are taken from The Parent hull form body plan can be seen in Figure 3.
CFD data, any physical measurement problems or bias
are not relevant.

© 2005: Royal Institution of Naval Architects


Parameter Value considered to be a low wash type, any change may be
B/T 1.764 minimal, compared to similar changes on a fuller
L/B 19.861 conventional catamaran hull. The challenge is to select
CP 0.625 the optimum combination of hull parameters and
L/∇1/3 11.135 interactions, as some display a distinct diminishing
S/L 0.4 return characteristic.
Trim 0°
The final list of variables selected (in no order of
merit), are as follows:
Table 1. PHF Parameters
• Froude number, (Fn)
• Length - Displacement Volume ratio, (L/∇1/3)
• Demi hull separation, (S/L)
• Prismatic coefficient, (CP)
• Length - Beam ratio, (L/B)
• Beam - Draught ratio, (B/T)
• Trim

It was desired that only one variable should be


investigated (varied) at a time. However apart from the
separation ratio, Froude Number and Trim, all variables
are interrelated. It should therefore be clarified that this
is a linear study of each variable, not a true parametric
study. Figure 4. illustrates the series tested, [17].

L/B
Length / Beam
Range 10 - 40
( Parent 20 )
B/T Fn
Beam / Draught
Froude Number
Range 0.78 - 3.9
Range 0.4 - 0.6
( Parent 1.76 )

Figure 3.. Parent Hull Form


A literature search was conducted for hull form PARENT
variables which potentially affected a vessel’s wave S/L HULL L / V 1/3
Hull Separation Length / Volume
wake. These variables formed the basis of the survey. Range 0.2 - 0.6 Range 7 - 15
( Parent 0.4 ) ( Parent 11 )
The range to be tested of each variable was determined
from the ranges given in the industry survey, from
other systematic series, [12, 13, 14, 15 & 16], and with
practical constraints in mind.
Cp Trim
Prismatic Coefficient Static Trim
4.2 VARIANTS Range 0.575 - 0.675 Range +0.5 degrees
( Parent 0.625 ) ( Parent 0 deg)

There are six hull form variants within the series, as


recognised in the literature review. It was found that the
effects and relative importance of each parameter varies Figure 4. – Star Series
with Froude number. This only complicates the picture,
with the possibility of a speed dependent series being 5 METHOD
applicable.
The wave pattern for the parent hull form and variant
The L/∇1/3 ratio appears to be the dominant parameter hull forms were all obtained using CFD over a range of
at higher speeds, even more so than the previously speeds in deep water. Longitudinal wave cuts were then
assumed L/B ratio. L/B influence seems to become taken from the calculated free surfaces, and analysed
more significant at lower speeds. using the decay method.

Some hull variables have had a greater influence on Accordingly, for each hull form at each speed a wave
wave wake reduction than others. The effect of a decay coefficient, or γ, was obtained. From these
variable can depend upon vessel speed and the parent
hull form. For example, if a hull form is already

© 2005: Royal Institution of Naval Architects


values, regression analysis was used to develop a physical tank data with the predictions using CFD. The
simple prediction method. results of this correlation have given confidence to the
use of CFD as a prediction tool.
5.1 CFD
Over the speed range of Fn 0.4 to 0.6, there is good
Shipflow was the CFD package used for this project. agreement between the predictions and experimental
Shipflow is programmed by Flowtech and enables the values, for maximum wave height, (HW) & the
user to predict the resistance and flow properties of ship associated wave period, (TW), for the three outboard
hull forms, [18]. wave cuts. Closer to the vessel, accuracy declines for
HW, see Figure 5.. This is also true on a visual
5.2 GRID SIZE AND RESOLUTION STUDY inspection of wave cuts.

Before the parametric series of hull forms were run, 1.00

three key operational variables had to be known. These 0.90

variables were: the overall grid size, the panel 0.80

resolution inside that grid; and the sampling resolution 0.70

used when taking longitudinal cuts. These variables 0.60

affect the solution accuracy, and the time taken to CFD

Hw'
0.50
EXPT

calculate that solution. A study of these variables was 0.40

completed to understand their effect on solutions. 0.30

0.20

Overall grid size should be large enough to capture the 0.10

wave train fully at the positions which longitudinal 0.00

wave cuts are taken. The longitudinal grid resolution


0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8 0.9
Froude Number

has a large impact upon solution accuracy, where as


transverse grid resolution has a lesser effect. Figure 5. Hw as a function of Fn

The grid resolution sets a practical limit for the It was concluded that CFD is valid wave wake
sampling rate used when taking longitudinal wave cuts. prediction tool, within the given Froude number range.
The panel resolution should be as high as possible,
within computational limits. The longitudinal direction 7 RESULTS
should be the primary concern when allocating grid
resolution. The first aim of the work was to determine which
variables had a significant effect on vessel’s wave
The grid size should be as large as possible, within wake. The second aim was to create a simple method
computational limits. The grid shape should be seven for calculating/predicting a vessels wave wake within a
vessel lengths downstream for every one taken given variable range.
outboard. Longitudinal cuts should be taken no closer
than one vessel length from the demi hull centreline, 7.1 VARIABLE RANKING
and at a sample rate of no less than half the longitudinal
grid resolution. Each variable was ranked on its decay function. The
higher change in the decay function, γ, the more
For a decay curve to be established, longitudinal cuts influence the variable has on vessel wave wake.
should be taken over at least one vessel length, with
approximately five to ten cuts taken per vessel length
The percentage change of γ’, (%δγ’), across each
outboard.
variable, was obtained for each Froude number. This
was determined by calculating the difference between
6 VALIDATION
the high and low value of γ’ divided by the γ’ for the
A CFD package is an excellent tool for establishing the PHF, for a given Fn, (i.e. (% δ γ’= (Variable γ’ (hi) ±
relative performance of hull forms. It is standard Variable γ’ (low)) / PHF γ’ )).
practice to correlate CFD predictions with physical
data, such as scale model testing or full-scale trials. In From Table 2. it is clear that the L/∇1/3 variable has the
doing so it is then possible to predict a hull forms largest absolute change in γ’. This is closely followed
performance, in absolute terms. In order to correlate the by the L/B variable and third is the S/L variable.
CFD, scale model tests were conducted at the AMC’s Grouped together are the B/T, CP and Trim variables.
Wave Wake Facility, (WWF). In this last grouping the variables change ranking
according to Froude number.
A series of tank tests were conducted using the PHF.
The data from this has been used to correlate actual The variables have been listed in order of overall affect.

© 2005: Royal Institution of Naval Architects


• Length - Displacement Ratio, (L/∇1/3)
• Length - Beam ratio, (L/B) γ’ 0.45 = [ -0.26 x (L/B)0.59 x (L/∇1/3)-1.25 ] + [ 0.09 x
• Demi hull separation, (S/L) (B/T)-0.27 x (CP) 0.17 ] + 0.01
• Prismatic coefficient, (CP)
• Beam – Draught ratio, (B/T) γ’ 0.5 = [ -0.32 x (L/B)0.86 x (L/∇1/3)-1.87 ] + [ 0.07 x
• Trim (B/T)-0.41x (CP)0.20 ] + 0.01

γ’ 0.55 = [ -0.36 x (L/B)0.92 x (L/∇1/3)-2.01 ] + [ 0.07 x


(B/T)-0.43 x (CP)0.20 ] + 0.02
% δ γ’
Fn L/∇1/3 L/B S/L CP B/T Trim γ’ 0.6 = [ -0.40 x (L/B)0.95 x (L/∇1/3)-0.82 ] + [ 0.06 x
0.40 101% 89% 21% 7% 15% 11% (B/T)-0.44 x (CP) 0.25 ] + 0.02
1st 2nd 3rd 6th 4th 5th
0.45 112% 88% 33% 7% 10% 6% 7.4 SEPARATION CORRECTION
1st 2nd 3rd 5th 4th 6th
0.50 104% 81% 27% 13% 10% 4% The separation variable is non hull form dependant.
1st 2nd 3rd 4th 5th 6th Therefore this was removed from the main polynomial
0.55 101% 79% 25% 13% 6% 3% and added as a separate correction term to it. It is
1st 2nd 3rd 4th 5th 6th believed that this correction is only valid for relatively
0.60 99% 75% 35% 11% 6% 3% small changes in separation.
1st 2nd 3rd 4th 5th 6th
The separation corrections at the different Froude
Numbers are as follows
Table 2. – Percentage change of γ
S/L Correction 0.40 = [ 5.06 x 10-5 x (S/L)-3 ] + 0.02
S/L Correction 0.45 = [ 9.28 x 10-5 x (S/L)-3 ] + 0.02
7.2 REGRESSION ANALYSIS
S/L Correction 0.50 = [ 1.03 x 10-4 x (S/L)-3 ] + 0.02
S/L Correction 0.55 = [ 9.54 x 10-5 x (S/L)-3 ] + 0.02
The second aim of the program was to create a simple
S/L Correction 0.60 = [ 8.01 x 10-5 x (S/L)-3 ] + 0.02
method for calculating/predicting a vessel’s wave
wake, within a given range. It was envisaged that the
7.5 TRIM CORRECTION
method would be similar to the method used by Holtrop
and Mennen, [19 & 20], and Sahoo et al’s work, [21].
The Trim variable is also non hull form dependant, and
can also be removed from the main polynomial. It is
Typically a regression analysis allows the relationship
believed that this correction is only valid for relatively
between several independent variables and a dependant
small changes of Trim.
variable to be known.
The Trim corrections at the different Froude Numbers
The results show that some variables were of major
are as follows
influence and other of relatively minor influence. It
follows that a grouping of minor and major variables in
a polynomial would provide the most accurate solution. 0.030

This regression analysis is speed independent. That is, 0.025

speed is not included as a dependent variable.


Therefore Fn was removed as a variable from the 0.020

polynomial, and separate polynomials were created for CFD


0.015
each Fn. The product then interpolated between Fns if
γ'

Regr.

required. The Trim and separation variables were 0.010

excluded from the polynomial matrix as well.


0.005

7.3 REGRESSION ANALYSIS EQUATIONS


0.000
0.4 0.45 0.5 0.55 0.6

The following equation form gave the best combination Froude Number

accuracy, while also limiting the number of terms


within the polynomial. The average polynomial error
for each Fn was under 1%. The final form of the Table 6. - Percentage change of γ’
regression equations are as follows;
Trim Correction 0.4 = [ 0.014 x (Trim)3 ] + 0.04
γ’ 0.4 = [ 0.08 x (L/B)0.24 x (L/∇1/3)-0.16 ] + [ 0.09 x
Trim Correction 0.45 = [ 0.004 x (Trim)3 ] + 0.53
(B/T) 0.11 x (CP)-0.13 ] – 0.21

© 2005: Royal Institution of Naval Architects


Trim Correction 0.5 = [ 0.072 x (Trim)3 ] + 0.55 Gregor Macfarlane, Greg Davies, Prasanta Sahoo, and
Trim Correction 0.55 = [ 0.005 x (Trim)3 ] + 0.59 Norman Lawrence from the Australian Maritime
Trim Correction 0.6 = [ 0.005 x (Trim)3 ] + 0.57 College, Launceston, Tasmania. Grahame Parker of
Grahame Parker Designs, Sydney. Phil Hercus of
7.6 REGRESSION ANALYSIS VALIDATION International Catamaran Designs, Sydney. Andrew
Tuite of Crowther Multihulls, Sydney. Carl-Erik
In order to validate the regression equations, the wave Janson of Flowtech in Sweden.
pattern was obtained for an independent test hull form
using CFD. The resulting values of γ were then 10 REFERENCES
compared with the predicted values using the
regression equations. 1. MACFARLANE, G.J. and RENILSON, M.R.
“WaveWake – A Rational Method for
7.7 TEST HULL FORM Assessment” International conference for coastal
ships and inland waterways, London, RINA,
The test hull form was generated from the PHF. This 1999.
hull form had no variables the same as any of the hull 2. MACFARLANE, G.J. and RENILSON, M.R.
forms within the star series, see Table 3. “Assessment and Characterisation of Vessel
Generated Wave Wake.” SeaAustralia 2000,
Sydney, 2000.
3. U.S CORPS OF ENGINEERS. “Shore Protection
Parameter Value Manual” Coastal Engineering Research Centre,
B/T 1.764 Department of the Army, Waterways Experiment
L/B 19.861 Station, 1984.
CP 0.625 4. STUMBO, S., FOX, K., DVORAK, F. and
L/∇1/3 11.135 ELLIOT, L. “The Prediction, Measurement and
S/L 0.4 Analysis of Wake Wash from Marine Vehicles.”
Trim Marine Technology. Volume 36, pp 248-260,

1999.
5. STUMBO, S., FOX, K., ELLIOT, L. “Hull Form
Table 3. Test Hull Parameters Considerations in the Design of Low Wake Wash
Catamarans.” Proceedings of the Fifth
International Conference on Fast Sea
As can be seen from Figure 7.1, the regression Transportation, FAST ’99, Seattle, 1999.
equations over predict γ’, by 5% at a Fn of 0.4 to 15% 6. FOX, K., GORNSTEIN, R. and STUMBO, S.
at a Fn of 0.6, with the general trend of the data being “Wake Wash: Issues and Answers” SNAME
similar. This is considered within the overall accuracy Pacific Northwest Section, 1993.
of this method, and therefore adequate for present 7. KOFOED-HANSEN, H. and KIRKEGAARD, J.,
purposes. “Technical Investigation of Wake Wash from Fast
Ferries.” Danish Hydraulic Institute, 1996.
8 CONCLUSIONS 8. RENILSON, M.R. and LENZ, S. “An
Investigation into the Effect of Hull Form on the
a) he current CFD technique predicts wave wake Wake Wave Generated by Low Speed Vessel’s”
sufficiently accurately for initial design purposes. Ship Hydrodynamics Centre Report, Australian
Maritime College, Tasmania, 1988.
b) The regression equations developed within this 9. RENILSON, M.R., and LENZ, S. “An
work provide a sufficiently accurate method of Investigation into the Effect of Hull Form on the
predicting a vessel’s wave wake within specified Wake Wave Generated by Low Speed Vessels”,
variable ranges. They can be used by designers at 22nd American Towing Tank Conference,
the initial stages of the design to assess the merits Canada, August 1989, pp. 424 - 429.
of a particular hull form, and to obtain an initial 10. HAVELOCK, T.H., “The Propagation of Groups
estimate of the wave height that it would be likely of Waves in Dispersive Media, with application to
to generate. Waves produced by a Travelling Disturbance.”
Proceedings of the Royal Society, London, 1908.
9 ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS 11. DOCTORS, L.J. and DAY, A.H. “The
Generation and Decay of Waves Behind High
All work completed for this paper was carried out at the Speed Vessel’s.” Proceedings of the Sixteenth
Australian Maritime College, (AMC), Launceston, International Workshop on Water Waves and
Tasmania. Floating Bodies, Hiroshima, Japan, 2001.
The authors gratefully acknowledge the following;

© 2005: Royal Institution of Naval Architects


12. YEH, H.Y. “Series 64 Resistance Experiments on
High speed Displacement Forms”. Marine
Technology, Volume 2, 1965.
13. MOLLAND, A.F., WILSON, P.A., TURNOCK,
S.R., TAUNTON. D.J. and
CHANDRAPRABHA, S.R. “The Prediction of
the Characteristics of Ship Generated Near Field
Wash Waves” Proceedings of the Sixth
International Conference on Fast Sea
Transportation, FAST ‘01, Southampton, 2001.
14. SODING, H. “Drastic Resistance Reductions in
Catamarans by Staggered Hulls.” Proceedings of
the Fourth International Conference on Fast Sea
Transportation, FAST ’97, Sydney, 1997.
15. COUSER, P. R., MOLLAND, A. F.,
ARMSTRONG, N. A. and UTAMA, I. K. A. P,
“Calm Water Powering Predictions for High
Speed Catamarans” Proceedings of the Fourth
International Conference on Fast Sea
Transportation, FAST ’97, Sydney, 1997.
16. DOCTORS, L. J., RENILSON, M. R., PARKER,
G.A. and HORNSBY, N. “Waves and wave
resistance of a high speed river catamaran.”
Proceedings of the First International Conference
on Fast Sea Transportation, FAST ’91 Trondheim,
Norway, 1991.
17. ROBBINS, A. “A Tool for the Prediction of
Wave Wake for High Sped Catamarans in Deep
Water.”Master of Philosophy Thesis, Australian
Maritime College, October 2004.
18. SHIPFLOW 1997 “SHIPFLOW 2.3 Release
Notes and Users Manual Update of FLOWTECH
International AB”.
19. HOLTROP, J. and MENNEN, G.G.J. “A
Statistical Power Prediction Method”
International Shipbuilding Progress, Volume 25,
October 1978.
20. HOLTROP, J. and MENNEN, G.G.J. “An
Approximate Power Prediction Method.”
International Shipbuilding Progress, Volume 29,
July 1982.
21. SAHOO, K., DOCTORS, L.J. and RENILSON,
M.R. “Theoretical and Experimental
Investigation of Resistance of High Speed Round
Bilge Hull Forms”. Proceedings Fifth
International Conference on Fast Sea
Transportation, FAST ’99, Seattle, 1999.

© 2005: Royal Institution of Naval Architects

Das könnte Ihnen auch gefallen