In designing energy saving devices, it is extremely
POWERING ENHANCEMENT OF FAST
important to anticipate the performance of the most
optimised device in conjunction with the hull form. Case
in point, as reference [1] explains the primary reasons for
the effectiveness of these devices on small high speed
crafts are significantly different from that on large ships
such as destroyers. On small planing crafts, the vertical
forces from a wedge, flap or interceptor may change the
trim angle by about 4 to 5 degrees. Fixing an optimal
trim angle for the most effective planing surface is the
key to minimising resistance. Interestingly on a destroyer
size ship, the action of these devices affects the trim by
about 0.1 to 0.3 degrees. This has little measurable
resistance effect. The major powering benefit, in fact, is
credited to the induced change in the flow field around
the hull. These flow field changes reduce the aft body
drag and modify the wave resistance. Another observable
benefit is that a stern flap or wedge cuts down the rooster
tail significantly thereby reducing wake. In particular it is
the pressure field change that improves propulsive
performance of fast displacement ships. It is critical to
identify these effects before recommending these devices
on ships. Since computational efforts are not completely
able to elucidate the performance of such devices when
fitted to ship hulls, hydrodynamic model tests and full
scale sea trials are still the most reliable option.
Another important consideration is the speed range
selected for optimisation. Reference [1] suggests that
these devices are effective across medium and high
speeds. They have a resistance penalty in the low speed
ranges. For instance, the initial wedge design on DDG 51
decreased delivered power by 7% at high speed. At the
same time, it had a powering penalty up to 4% at lower
speeds [1]. If powering benefits are not achieved around
the operational speed of the ship, the gain in the higher
speeds may be easily offset. It again depends on whether
the aim is to increase the top speed or to decrease
delivered power in the operational speed range. In the
former case, a low speed penalty does not matter much.
However, the latter scenario is most prevalent. Therefore
it is equally important to reduce low speed penalty when
looking at powering benefits in the high speed zone.
In ship-building industry, cost involved in any activity is
a critical element. Reference [4] gives an idea regarding
economics of stern flaps and wedges. An attempt is made
to assess the optimisation process based on performance
enhancement from economic perspective. This paper
discusses experimental investigation at NSTL into
optimisation of hydrodynamic performance enhancers on
three different hull forms – fast displacement hull form,
planing craft and foil assisted catamaran. The towing
tank at NSTL has a length of 500 m, width 8 m, depth 8
m and a maximum carriage speed of 20 m/s.
Measurement of resistance, heave and trim of the model
at various steady state speeds is carried out using a
Kempf and Remers Dynamometer.
2.
DISPLACEMENT HULL
The effectiveness of stern wedges, flaps and interceptors
in improving the powering performance of a fast
displacement hull form of 138m length was studied at
NSTL. Extensive model tests were done on a 1:26.135
model, including resistance and propulsion tests, using
these devices and their combinations. Figure 2 shows the
ship model fitted with these devices. Significant work
done in reference [1] shows that stern wedge-flap
configuration performs better than stern wedges or flaps
in isolation. “Cross-over” speed i.e. the speed at which
resistance begins to reduce is an important factor here.
The approach at NSTL was to first arrive upon an
optimum wedge-flap configuration and then research on
the possibility of interceptors. As a first step, the best
stern-wedge configuration had to be identified.
Wedge chord length Wedge angle (deg)
1 % of LBP 8 10 12 14 15.5
1.5 % of LBP 8 10 12 14 15.5
Table 1: Wedge variants tested
Contour Flap angle (deg)
Flap1: Radius = 1˚ 10 12 14
Flap2: Along WL 10 12 -
Table 2: Flap variants tested
Appended hull resistance tests were done to optimize for
the best stern-wedge configuration. Stern wedges tested
were of sharp V shape cross-section at constant angle
chord-wise and faired edges along the hull span-wise.
Variants of wedges tested are given in Table 1. The
change in resistance may be attributed to the change in
dynamic trim/sinkage and reduction of the effective wake
width at the transom. The minimum effective wake width
happens for the 14˚ wedge of 1% chord length. Decrease
in effective wake width suggests lesser wastage of
energy and thus lesser resistance. The rooster tail shifts
further aft of transom at higher speeds corresponding to
28-30 knots which is an indication of lesser effective
wake length. Lesser wake lengths improve the resistance
performance of the vessel. The 10˚ wedge of 1% chord
length gave the best resistance reduction from 22 knots to
32 knots. A resistance reduction of about 2.2% was
achieved at 30 knots. The reduction in dynamic
trim/sinkage is highest with this wedge configuration.
This is indicative of better resistance performance of the
ship. This wedge configuration was selected for further
hydrodynamic studies with stern flaps.
 Figure 2: Stern wedge, flap and interceptor fitted on Fast Displacement Hull

Figure 3: Transom flow pattern for selected configurations showing differences in "breakaway", "neckdown" and
hydrodynamic lengths at full scale speed of 28 knots

of 1mm alone was tested by removing the wedge and at

Two stern flaps were designed for comparative study.
The different configurations of stern flaps used during
the resistance tests are given in Table 2. These flaps were
tested along with the 10˚ wedge of 1% chord length.
Flap2 of 10˚ was found to perform the best when fitted
with the 10˚ wedge. This configuration reduces
resistance from a speed of 24 knots to 32 knots. The
resistance at 30 knots was reduced by 2%. However what
is more significant is the reduction in effective wake
behind the hull and the height of the rooster tail. Stern
flap caused a considerable “neck down” of the transverse
width of the stern wave pattern. “Neck down” is
explained in reference [1].
However, it was felt that there is still scope for
improving on the powering performance. Motivated by
the hydrodynamic performance of interceptors, it was an
intuitive decision to go for a combination of stern wedge-
interceptor at this stage. Interceptor of protrusion type
was used with 1mm, 2mm and 4mm protrusion (at model
scale) below the 10˚ wedge. The wedge – interceptor
combination of 10˚ wedge and 1mm interceptor was seen
to be the most effective among these variants. Interceptor
this stage seemed to perform better than the wedge-
interceptor configurations. Wedge-interceptors could
bring down resistance only after a speed of 24 knots
while interceptor alone was slightly better at reducing
resistance from 22 knots onwards. The reduction at 30
knots was of the order of 1.5%.
The performances of these devices were also studied
from propulsion point of view. Self-propulsion tests were
conducted to evaluate the effect on delivered power and
propulsive efficiency. Propulsion performance of the
stern wedge/flap/interceptors gave a comprehensive
insight into their effectiveness. The results are
summarised in Table 3. The following are the major
observations:
Delivered Power (PD) is reduced by all the
energy saving devices in a speed range of
22knots to 32knots.
The wedge – interceptor combination of 10˚
wedge and 1mm interceptor proved to be the
optimized configuration in terms of delivered
power reduction. Thrust deduction fraction (t)
and effective wake fraction (w) was
considerably low for wedge-interceptor
configuration. Lower thrust deduction fraction
indicates increase in thrust power and lower
effective wake fraction indicates accelerated
flow onto the propeller which facilitates higher
propeller thrust.
“breakaway” speed to 26 knots from 30 knots.
“Breakaway” is explained in reference [1]. The
interceptor variations indicate a clean
breakaway at 28 knots. Also, the effective
increase in hydrodynamic length is slightly
better for the stern flap-wedge combination as
seen in Figure 3. The lengthening effect is
expected to give powering benefits at high
speeds by reducing wave making resistance.

The wedge-interceptor combination improves
the total propulsive efficiency at 30 knots to
0.68 from the actual value of 0.65. The least PD
is for wedge-interceptor.
Stern wedge-flaps and wedge-interceptors
caused the maximum reduction in width of the
stern wave pattern. The total area of turbulence
and whitewater is reduced. The stern wedge-flap
combination reduces the transom flow
With a defined limited engine power, it was found that
these energy saving devices will help to increase the top
speed of the ship. The increase in top speeds for all the
tested configurations is given in Table 4. The vessel with
the wedge-interceptor would attain a speed 32.60 knots;
that is an increase in top speed of about 0.60 knots. Thus,
wedge – interceptor configuration was found to give
maximum powering benefit for the present hull form in
the speed range of 22 to 32 knots.

Vs Wedge 1%,10˚, Wedge 1%,10˚,

Wedge 1%,10˚ Interceptor 1mm
(knots) Flap2 10˚ Interceptor 1mm

16 17 17 13 23
18 14 17 10 17
20 15 17 11 7
22 0 -1 -2 -2
24 -1 -2 -2 -5
26 -1 -5 -7 -7
28 -2 -4 -9 -6
30 -1 -4 -6 -4
32 -7 -10 -10 -9

Table 3: Percentage change in Pd (kW) w.r.t. base hull

Configuration Increase in top speeds

Wedge 1%,10˚ 0.10

Wedge 1%,10˚, Flap2 10˚ 0.41

Wedge 1%,10˚, Interceptor 1mm 0.60

Interceptor 1mm 0.34

Table 4: Increase in top speed in knots wrt base hull at 32 knots