See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

net/publication/290563566

Planing hull seakeeping in irregular head seas

Article  in  Transactions of FAMENA · January 2014

CITATIONS READS

2 694

3 authors:

Ermina Begovic Carlo Bertorello

University of Naples Federico II University of Naples Federico II
43 PUBLICATIONS   247 CITATIONS    21 PUBLICATIONS   63 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE

Silvia Pennino
Parthenope University of Naples
11 PUBLICATIONS   41 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE

All content following this page was uploaded by Ermina Begovic on 18 February 2016.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

 Ocean Engineering 112 (2016) 253–264

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Ocean Engineering
journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/oceaneng

Statistical analysis of planing hull motions and accelerations

in irregular head sea
E. Begovic a,n, C. Bertorello a, S. Pennino b, V. Piscopo b, A. Scamardella b
a
University of Naples Federico II, Department of Industrial Engineering, Via Claudio 21, Naples, Italy
b
University of Naples “Parthenope”, Department of Sciences and Technology, Naples, Italy

art ic l e i nf o a b s t r a c t

Article history: The paper focuses on the analysis of experimental seakeeping data in irregular head sea relative to
Received 12 March 2015 constant deadrise and warped model representative of current design trends for planing hull forms. Tests
Accepted 7 December 2015 have been performed at four volumetric Froude numbers ranging from 2 to 4 in one sea state. Due to
non-linear nature of high-speed craft dynamics, measured motions and accelerations have been statis-
Keywords: tically analysed with the aim to find the best-fit distributions. Obtained results for heave and pitch
Planing hull confirm that Rayleigh and Cartwright distributions can be applied with good confidence for statistical
Experimental seakeeping tests analysis of heights and maxima/minima respectively. Weibull distribution was found to be the best-fit for
Vertical accelerations statistical analysis of vertical acceleration maxima at CG and bow. Finally, the mean of 1/3rd highest
Statistical analysis
vertical accelerations for both models have been compared with Fridsma’s data showing the covered
Likelihood estimator
range of velocities and sea states. The procedure for model-ship correlation is shown to make the results
Weibull distribution
available in design practices.
& 2015 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

1. Introduction motions and vertical accelerations, respectively. Zarnick and

Planing hulls show different hydrodynamic features, in com-
parison to displacement vessels, due to motion non-linearities,
mainly related to large changes of wetted surface, predominance
of hydrodynamic lift, rapid variation of running trim and impulsive
loads. Motion analysis plays an important role, as vertical accel-
erations represent one of key-design factors for the assessment of
onboard comfort level (Scamardella and Piscopo, 2014a,b),
operational limits and structure scantlings. Moreover, they have
direct effects on the overall design, in terms of attained speed,
structural weight, cost and payload (Scamardella and Piscopo,
2014c).
Experimental assessment of planing hull behaviour in waves is
still the most reliable method, due to the difficulties in mathe-
matical and numerical models to simulate strongly non-linear
phenomena. Based on works carried out by Fridsma (1971),
planing hull seakeeping performances in irregular sea have been
assessed by statistical analysis, as the spectral one, based on first-
order response amplitude operators (RAOs), cannot account for
vertical motion and acceleration non-linearities. Since milestone
Fridsma's work, Cartwright and exponential probability density
functions have been applied for statistical analysis of heave/pitch
n
Corresponding author. Tel.: þ 39 081 7683708; fax: þ 39 081 2390380.
E-mail address: begovic@unina.it (E. Begovic).
Turner (1981) extended Fridsma's tests of prismatic hulls with
high L/B ratio (7 and 9) in irregular waves. Authors highlighted
almost no advantages in overall rough water performances of such
very slender hulls and beside a small reduction in added resis-
tance, higher impact accelerations have been noted. As regard
exponential distribution for accelerations, they noted that it works
well only if the data are composed mainly of impact spikes,
reporting that in their campaign, only 30% of data are related to CG
position and 86% of data taken at bow are fitted well by above
mentioned distribution. During 1990s, the Enlarged Ship Concept
(ESC) by Keuning and Pinkster (1995, 1997) was the most sig-
nificant work on the topic. It was mainly based on the idea of
increasing the ship length by about 25%, keeping constant all other
design features, such as vessel beam and depth, speed, payload
and functionalities. Hydrodynamic hull optimisation was focused
on bow sections only and considerable improvements of calm
water resistance and motion amplitudes in a seaway were
obtained. Keuning et al. (2002) proposed a further extension of the
above-mentioned concept, known as the Axe Bow Concept (ABC).
From relevant tests, Keuning et al. (2011) and Keuning and Van
Walree (2006) reported considerable reductions of vertical accel-
eration peak values in comparison to the ESC design. Grigor-
opoulos et al. (2010) and Grigoropoulos and Damala (2011) pre-
sented seakeeping results in regular and irregular waves for a
systematic series of five double-chine wide-transom hull forms,
with warped planing surfaces and length to breadth ratio ranging

http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.oceaneng.2015.12.012
0029-8018/& 2015 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
254 E. Begovic et al. / Ocean Engineering 112 (2016) 253–264
from 4 to 7. Reported non-dimensional heave/pitch motions and
vertical accelerations at Froude numbers 0.34 and 0.68 are valu-
able results for performance prediction in preplaning speed
regime.
Recently, three planing hull systematic series have been pre-
sented by Soletic (2010); Taunton et al. (2010, 2011) and Begovic
et al. (2012, 2014a,b), achieving some improvements of previous
state of art. Soletic (2010) focused on seakeeping analysis of the US
Coast Guard (USCG) systematic series, developed by Metcalf et al.
(2005) and Kowalyshyn and Metcalf (2006), based on four models
derived by the MLB 47 foot USCG boat. Heave/pitch motions and
vertical accelerations at five locations were measured in irregular
waves, at the same relative speeds and significant wave heights, as
the ones analysed by Fridsma (1971). Important conclusion con-
cerns typical values of the ratio of vertical accelerations along the
boat and CG acceleration, lower than in Fridsma’s work.
A systematic series of four monohedral planing hulls tested in
calm water is presented in Taunton et al. (2010) while the results
of experimental campaign for the same models in irregular head
seas at three speeds (6, 10 and 12 m/s) are reported in Taunton
et al (2011). The authors performed statistical analysis of motions
maxima and minima and accelerations at the centre of gravity and
at bow, finding that Gamma distribution is more suitable for ver-
tical acceleration statistical analysis than the exponential one, and
confirming that Cartwright probability density function can be
applied with good confidence to heave and pitch motions analysis.
In Begovic et al. (2012, 2014a,b) a series of one monohedral and
three warped hull forms, developed by a systematic variation of
deadrise angle along the hull has been studied in calm water and
regular waves. Bow to CG vertical acceleration ratio aBOW/aCG was
given for all wave frequencies and three tested speeds confirming
the results by Soletic (2010) in wide range of encounter fre-
quencies. The general opinion of lower bow accelerations for high
bow deadrise angles has been observed in smaller super harmo-
nics of warped hulls, only. For the considered hulls, the more
warped the hull is (i.e. the higher the bow deadrise angle is), the
number of higher order harmonics and their values are lower.
Begovic et al. (2014b) performed several experimental tests on
monohedral hull motions in irregular head sea waves. Analysed
sea states and vessel speeds were the most representative for
realistic service and environmental conditions of Mediterranean
Sea. Vertical motions and accelerations results at a speed range
corresponding to the preplaning and the beginning of the planing
regime, i.e. FrV ¼1.084, 1.355 and 1.888, covered a range of speeds
and wave heights where no results are available in literature. The
value of 0.5 g of bow acceleration has been considered a limit for a
pleasure boat and it has been reached at the highest speed and
sea state.
Present work is focused on the experimental assessment of
seakeeping performances in irregular head waves of monohedral
hull comparable directly with the Fridsma's models and warped
planing hull model. The work is filling gaps in two aspects
Fig. 1. Monohedral model.
observed in the literature; the first one is the sea state and the
second one is the best-fit distribution for statistical analysis of
heave/pitch motions and vertical accelerations. More in particular,
all relevant works are considering sea states proposed by Fridsma
(1971) defined as significant wave height and chine beam ratio
H1/3/BC ¼ 0.222, 0.444 and 0.666. These values of significant wave
heights lead to very severe conditions, appropriate for the phe-
nomenon study but far from practical application, and therefore
the reported experimental campaign is done at H1/3/BC lower than
0.2. As regards statistical distribution of acceleration peaks, it can
be noted that except the works of Zarnick (1978) and Taunton
(2011) there are no contributions on “validity” of statistical dis-
tributions applicable for planing hulls. To such extent, exponential,
Gamma and Weibull distribution has been considered as possible
candidates for acceleration at centre of gravity and at bow. All
performed statistical analyses are discussed focusing on planing
hull seakeeping state of art. The “goodness” of considered dis-
tributions are compared through likelihood estimator value (LE).
The predicted 1/3rd highest acceleration mean values at CG and
bow are compared with results of time-domain analysis. Finally,
the procedure for model-ship correlation is shown to make the
results available in design practices.
2. Model description
Experimental tests in irregular sea have been performed on
two different models, namely a monohedral prismatic hull and a
warped hull. The former, shown in Fig. 1, from the series devel-
oped by Begovic et al. (2012, 2014a,b), has a 16.7° constant
deadrise angle. Resistance tests, reported in Begovic and Bertorello
(2012), were performed at volumetric Froude numbers FrV ranging
from 0.65 to 4.52; seakeeping tests in regular waves, reported in
Begovic et al. (2014a), were carried out at FrV ranging from 1.92 to
3.25, while results for irregular waves and an heavier displace-
ment version are presented in Begovic et al. (2014b). The warped
model, shown in Fig. 2, is hard chine with deadrise angles ranging
from 14° at transom up to 26.5° at amidships. Bow rake is smaller
according to contemporary design trends and a stern platform is
fitted. Calm water and aerodynamic performance assessments are
reported in Bertorello and Oliviero (2009) and Fossati et al. (2013).
Warped scale model is relative to an existing 40 ft LOA motor yacht,
scale ratio λ ¼10. Main data for both models and relative ships in
scale 1:10 are listed in Table 1.
3. Experimental set-up
Seakeeping tests were performed at the University of Naples
“Federico II” Towing Tank. Both models are tested in irregular
waves at four speeds. The monohedral one at: 3.40, 4.60, 5.75 and
6.30 m/s, corresponding to volumetric Froude numbers: 1.92, 2.60,
 E. Begovic et al. / Ocean Engineering 112 (2016) 253–264 255

Fig. 2. Warped model.

Table 1 position and one at bow. Weight of all instruments is a part of

Model main data. models’ ballast and was considered in inertia properties determi-
nation. Encounter head waves were measured by two BAUMER
SI MODEL SHIP
UNDK 301U6103/SI4 ultrasonic gauges, the former located on the
Monohedral model Warped model MONO WARP side at LCG, the latter at centreline, 3.48 m ahead from CG. All data
were sampled at 500 Hz by the LabVIEWs homemade software.
LOA (m) 1.900 1.219 19.00 12.19 Sea state was described by JONSWAP spectrum, with 3.3 peak
LA–B (m) 1.500 1.090 15.00 10.90
parameter, according to the ITTC – Recommended Procedures and
BC_STERN (m) 0.424 0.360 4.24 3.60
BC_MS (m) 0.424 0.360 4.24 3.60 Guidelines (1999) “In the absence of specific wave spectrum data
BOA (m) 0.424 0.425 4.24 4.25 the ITTC should be used for open ocean and JONSWAP spectrum
TAP (m) 0.096 0.070 0.96 0.70 should be used for fetch-limited seas.”
St.trim (deg) 1.66 2.32 1.66 2.32
Sea state parameters, i.e. significant wave height H1/3 and peak
Δ (N/kN) 319.7 111.0 327.7 113.8
βSTERN (deg) 16.7 14.0 16.7 14.0 period TP for model and for full scale (1:10) ship are reported in
βMS (deg) 16.7 26.5 16.7 26.5 Table 3 for both models. As the aim of the experimental programme
βBOW (deg) 16.7 55.2 16.7 55.2 has been to have a data on realistic service and weather conditions,
the tests are performed in sea state corresponding to H1/3/BC ¼0.131
and 0.183. Moreover, according to ITTC – Recommended Procedures
Table 2
and Guidelines for irregular waves testing – the minimum number
Model mass and inertial properties.
of encounters for displacement vessels is 50, standard is more than
Models LCG (m) VCG (m) k44-air k55-air k44-air/BC k55-air/LOA 100 and more than 200 is considered an excellent practice. ITTC
(m) (m) (adim) (adim) High Speed Marine Vehicles Committee (2011) reports that “If only
RMS of motions and accelerations are required, 75 wave encounters
Monohedral 0.697 0.143 0.128 0.583 0.302 0.307
Warped 0.395 0.119 0.102 0.316 0.284 0.259 will give a sufficient accuracy”. To get a sufficient number of
encounters, more than 120, the runs were repeated 8–15 times,
depending on model speed, and all data are merged into one time
history. Example of one complete record is reported for the warped
model at FrV ¼3.88 in Fig. 4, where measured and theoretical
absolute wave and encounter spectra are also shown. In Table 3 the
values of 0th order spectral moment for ideal and measured
encounter spectra are reported, for all FrV. It can be observed that in
most cases the differences in target and obtained significant wave
height are from 0.5% up to 3%. For the highest tested speed, the
difference is 10% for the monohedral hull, and for warped hull is 6%.
Higher error for monohedral hull is due to the lower number of
repeated runs and encounter waves participating in wave record. It
can be commented that the ultrasound gauge at high speed loses
resolution, therefore 6% error can be considered very reasonable for
high speed craft testing. For the motions and accelerations uncer-
tainty analysis, it has been considered valid the result from regular
Fig. 3. Experimental set-up at the University of Naples “Federico II” Towing Tank. waves testing, Begovic et al. (2014a); for pitch and heave motions
uncertainty up to 2.6% is reported. Acceleration measurement pre-
3.25 and 3.57 and the warped one at: 3.25, 4.87, 5.75 and 6.50 m/s, cision is very difficult issue due to the filtering technique and post
i.e. at volumetric Froude numbers: 2.19, 3.28, 3.88 and 4.38. Before processing data analysis; the result reported in regular waves
performing seakeeping tests, the model centre of gravity location campaign of 5% of standard uncertainty for 95% confidence level can
and relevant radii of gyration were measured by an inertial bal- be considered very reasonable.
ance. Roll and pitch time histories were measured by the Cross
Bow CXL04GP3-R-AL accelerometer, to find natural periods, based
4. Statistical analysis of maxima and minima
on 100 oscillations, repeating the measure three times, at a sam-
pling frequency of 1000 Hz. Centre of gravity longitudinal (LCG)
For each measured variable in considered test case, mean is
and vertical (VCG) coordinates, as well as roll (k44-air) and pitch
removed from single time record before merging them all to one
(k55-air) radii of gyration are reported in Table 2 for both models. file. In this respect, heave motion mean value is the average calm
The LCG position for both models was set from tests in calm water, water CG rise from planing hull-floating position, while pitch
with the aim of assuring a realistic scenario representative of a motion mean value is the still water trim. Downward positive
planing hull in service. Models were towed at constant speed, free acceleration maxima refer to impact with the water. A typical
to heave and pitch and restrained for all other motions. They were acceleration record for warped model is shown in Fig. 5, where
connected to the towing carriage through a mechanical arm apt to maxima and minima are highlighted. Before performing any sta-
measure heave and pitch, as shown in Fig. 3. Two Cross Bow tistical analyses, a “Z-test” (Sprinthall, 2011) is carried out for all
CXL04GP3-R-AL accelerometers have been installed: one at CG measured responses, to check that sampled data define a
256 E. Begovic et al. / Ocean Engineering 112 (2016) 253–264

Table 3
Target JONSWAP spectrum parameters and obtained values.

Models FrV (adim) H1/3MODEL TP-MODEL H1/3-SHIP TP-SHIP H1/3/BC m0_ideal (m2rad/ m0_measured (m2rad/ Error_m0 (%) Error_H1/3 (%)
(m) (s) (m) (s) (adim) s) s)

Monohedral 1.92 0.0555 1.17 0.555 3.71 0.131 0.000191 0.000191  0.021  0.39
2.60 0.0555 1.17 0.555 3.71 0.131 0.000191 0.000195 2.073 0.64
3.25 0.0555 1.17 0.555 3.71 0.131 0.000191 0.000175  8.396  4.66
3.57 0.0555 1.17 0.555 3.71 0.131 0.000191 0.000234 22.487 10.25

Warped 2.19 0.066 2.02 0.66 6.4 0.183 0.00027 0.000291 7.778 3.39
3.28 0.066 2.02 0.66 6.4 0.183 0.00027 0.000285 5.556 2.31
3.88 0.066 2.02 0.66 6.4 0.183 0.00027 0.000268  0.741  0.78
4.38 0.066 2.02 0.66 6.4 0.183 0.00027 0.000308 14.074 6.36

0.06

0.04

0.02

-0.02

-0.04

-0.06
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 110

x 10

0
0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20 22 24

Fig. 4. Recorded wave data and wave spectrum for warped model at FrV ¼ 3.88.

BOW ACCELERATION RECORD

4
aBOW/g

-1

time (s)
-2
60 62 64 66 68 70 72 74 76 78 80

Fig. 5. Typical acceleration registration and maxima definition for warped model at FrV ¼ 3.88.
 E. Begovic et al. / Ocean Engineering 112 (2016) 253–264 257

Table 4
Candidate distributions for wave, heave and pitch motion maxima and minima.

Distribution Function Unknown variables

 
Normal p1ffiffiffiffi exp  ðη2σ
 μÞ 2
Mean (μ)
2
σ 2π
Standard deviation (σ)
    1  11
Extreme value Location parameter (α)
exp  1 þ kη β α 1 þ kη β α
1 k k
β Scale parameter (β)
Shape parameter (k)
n   pffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffi  2  R pffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffi2  2 o
Cartwright p1ffiffiffiffi η2
ϵ exp  2ϵ þ η 1  ϵ2 exp  η2
η 1  ϵ =ϵ
exp  x2 dx Bandwidth parameter ε
2π 2 1

Table 5 Table 6
Candidate distributions for acceleration maxima at CG and bow. Heave and pitch motion results for monohedral model.

Distribution Function Unknown variables FrV v (m/s) Heave minima Pitch Minima
 
Exponential 1
exp  βη Scale parameter (β) Mean RMS r Mean RMS r
β
 
Gamma Shape parameter (α) 1.92 3.40 0.991 0.997 0.145 0.952 0.707 0.104
βα Γ ðαÞη
1 α1
exp  βη
Scale parameter (β) 2.60 4.60 1.020 0.944 0.133 0.925 0.672 0.067
 β 3.25 5.75 0.901 1.055 0.238 0.906 0.663 0.104
Weibull βα  β ηβ  1 exp  αη Shape parameter (α) 3.57 6.32 0.918 1.001 0.177 0.886 0.694 0.075
Scale parameter (β) 1.92 3.40 0.729 0.880 0.197 1.013 0.766 0.079
2.60 4.60 0.780 0.829 0.213 1.041 0.752 0.065
3.25 5.75 0.840 0.817 0.160 1.014 0.762 0.078
3.57 6.32 0.808 0.833 0.196 1.050 0.719 0.061

stationary zero-mean Gaussian process and the theory for prob-

ability density of maxima and minima can be applied (Rice, 1945).
Heights, maxima and minima of encounter wave, heave/pitch Table 7
motions and vertical accelerations ξ, are subsequently normalised Heave and pitch motion results for warped model.

by the process Root-Mean-Square (RMS)

FrV v (m/s) Heave minima Pitch minima
ξ
η ¼ pffiffiffiffiffiffiffi ð1Þ Mean RMS r Mean RMS r
m0

where relevant bandwidth parameter ε is defined as follows 2.19

3.28
3.25
4.87
1.013
1.054
0.906
0.939
0.081
0.143
0.994
1.060
0.813
0.620
0.072
0.022
qffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffi 3.88 5.75 1.057 0.942 0.079 1.035 0.579 0.056
ε ¼ 1  ð1  2rÞ2 ð2Þ 4.38 6.50 1.028 0.948 0.119 1.027 0.555 0.055
2.19 3.25 0.828 0.789 0.162 1.044 0.960 0.063
having denoted by r the bandwidth parameter ratio of negative 3.28 4.87 1.006 0.692 0.044 1.351 0.662 0.020
maxima (positive minima) to total maxima, for statistics of max- 3.88 5.75 0.982 0.711 0.077 1.376 0.508 0.013
ima (minima). Fridsma (1971) and Taunton et al. (2011) applied the 4.38 6.50 0.894 0.750 0.134 1.261 0.714 0.032

Cartwright probability density function, Cartwright and Longuet-

Higgins (1956) for heave and pitch motion analysis and the
exponential and Gamma ones for vertical accelerations.
In present analysis normalised wave, heave and pitch motions vector, to be determined by maximising relevant likelihood esti-
are fitted by three candidate distributions, namely normal, mator. The negative log-likelihood formulation depends on sample
extreme value and Cartwright, according to Table 4, where func- size (Edwards, 1972), while actual estimator, ranging from 0 to 1,
tions and distribution parameters are reported. Normal distribu- allows comparing several distributions independently from the
tion parameters: mean value μ and standard deviation σ, are length of data set, as follows:
derived from data set. Location α and scale β parameters for the
sffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffi
extreme value distribution, often applied to model the smallest or n  
∏ f ηi
n
largest value among a set of independent random variables, are LE ¼ ð3Þ
i¼1
determined by maximum likelihood estimate technique, corre-
sponding to 95% confidence interval. Finally, mean value μ, stan- having denoted by Π the product operator, n the number of
dard deviation σ and spectral bandwidth parameter ε of Cart- recorded maxima (minima) and f(ηi) the candidate distribution
wright distribution are derived from data set. Normalised vertical value in correspondence of the i-th maximum (minimum). Hence,
accelerations maxima at CG and bow are fitted by three different
the mean value of the 1/nth highest maxima and minima can be
candidate distributions: exponential, Gamma and Weibull,
derived
according to Table 5, where functions and distribution parameters
are reported. In all cases, shape α and scale β parameters are D E Z1
 
determined by maximum likelihood estimate techniques. η1=n ¼ n f η U η dη ð4Þ
The best-fit distribution is subsequently derived, maximising η1=n
the likelihood estimator factor (LE), that is the joint probability of
n independent observations η1,…ηn, having probability density having denoted by η1/n the lower bound of the tail area having 1/n
function f(ηi;θ), where θ is the unknown distribution parameter exceedance probability that can be derived by the inverse of
258 E. Begovic et al. / Ocean Engineering 112 (2016) 253–264

Table 8
Statistics of heave and pitch heights.

Monohedral Warped

FrV Heave Pitch FrV Heave Pitch

Mean RMS Mean RMS Mean RMS Mean RMS

1.92  0.0033 0.0041 2.5147 0.4972 2.19 0.0127 0.0237 6.6868 2.2611
2.60 0.0118 0.0043 2.5156 0.4754 3.28 0.0329 0.0281 4.3394 2.7785
3.25 0.0229 0.0047 2.1795 0.4262 3.88 0.0378 0.0293 3.9122 2.7364
3.57 0.0281 0.0048 1.7699 0.4264 4.38 0.0414 0.0319 3.8322 2.7607

Statistics of maxima
1
Measured heave spectrum Observations
x 10
0.8

Heave Maxima
Normal distribution
Extreme value distribution
0.6
2 Cartwright distribution
0.4

0.2

1.5
Power density (m2s)

0
-1 -0.5 0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5 3 3.5 4
ζ /sqrt(m )
0

Statistics of minima
1 1
Observations
0.8 Normal distribution
Heave Minima

Extreme value distribution

0.6 Cartwright distribution
0.5

0.4

0.2
0
0 2 4 6 8 10 0
-1 -0.5 0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5 3
Encounter Frequency (Hz)
- ζ /sqrt(m )
0

Fig. 6. Heave spectrum and normalised maxima and minima probability distributions for monohedral model at FrV ¼3.25.

Statistics of maxima
Measured pitch spectrum 1
Observations
0.8 Normal distribution
Pitch Maxima

0.25 Extreme value distribution

0.6 Cartwright distribution

0.4
0.2
0.2
Power density (deg 2s)

0
-1 -0.5 0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5 3
0.15
ζ /sqrt(m )
0
Statistics of minima
1
0.1 Observations
0.8 Normal distribution
Extreme value distribution
Pitch Minima

0.6 Cartwright distribution

0.05
0.4

0.2
0
0 2 4 6 8 10
0
Encounter Frequency (Hz) -1 0 1 2 3 4
-ζ /sqrt(m )
0

Fig. 7. Pitch spectrum and normalised maxima and minima probability distributions for monohedral model at FrV ¼ 3.25.
 E. Begovic et al. / Ocean Engineering 112 (2016) 253–264 259

Encounter Wave Encounter Wave Encounter Wave

1 1 1
Observations Rayleigh distribution Observations Cartwright distribution Observations Cartwright distribution
Wave Heights
0.8

Wave Maxima

Wave Minima
0.6
0.5 0.5
0.4

0.2
0 0 0
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 -1 0 1 2 3 4 -2 0 2 4 6
ζ /sqrt(m ) ζ /sqrt(m ) - ζ /sqrt(m0)
0 0
Heave Heave Heave
1 1 1
Observations Cartwright distribution Observations Cartwright distribution

Heave Minima
Observations Rayleigh distribution

Heave Maxima
Heave Heights

0.5 0.5 0.5

0 0 0
1 2 3 4 5 -1 0 1 2 3 4 -1 0 1 2 3
ζ /sqrt(m ) ζ /sqrt(m ) - ζ /sqrt(m0)
0 0

Pitch Pitch Pitch

1 1 1
Observations Rayleigh distribution Observations Cartwright distribution 0.8 Observations Cartwright distribution
Pitch Heights

Pitch Maxima

0.8

Pitch Minima
0.6 0.6
0.5
0.4 0.4

0.2 0.2
0 0 0
1 2 3 4 5 -1 0 1 2 3 -1 0 1 2 3 4
ζ /sqrt(m ) ζ /sqrt(m ) - ζ /sqrt(m0)
0 0

Fig. 8. Statistics of normalised heights, maxima and minima of encounter wave, heave and pitch motions for monohedral model at FrV ¼3.25.

Table 9
PDF likelihoods of vertical accelerations for monohedral model.

FrV CG Bow

Exponential Gamma Weibull Exponential Gamma Weibull

1.92 0.181 0.217 0.205 0.177 0.190 0.186

2.60 0.197 0.231 0.224 0.203 0.211 0.211
3.25 0.207 0.240 0.239 0.212 0.220 0.221
3.57 0.209 0.261 0.260 0.214 0.224 0.224

Table 10
Normalised vertical acceleration significant maxima for monohedral model.

FrV CG Bow

Exponential Gamma Weibull Data Exponential Gamma Weibull Data

1.92 4.2556 3.4891 3.6628 3.6145 4.3539 3.8600 3.9468 4.0199

2.60 3.9226 3.2533 3.3326 3.2990 3.7930 3.4810 3.4704 3.4765
3.25 3.7232 3.1139 3.0971 3.0459 3.6412 3.3488 3.2773 3.2401
3.57 3.6872 2.9486 2.9234 2.9078 3.6107 3.2796 3.2462 3.2804

Table 11
PDF likelihoods of vertical accelerations for warped model.

FrV CG Bow

Exponential Gamma Weibull Exponential Gamma Weibull

2.19 0.353 0.357 0.358 0.295 0.298 0.297

3.28 0.394 0.400 0.398 0.318 0.319 0.318
3.88 0.265 0.272 0.274 0.286 0.287 0.288
4.38 0.304 0.313 0.314 0.336 0.341 0.342

relevant cumulative function, according to Eqs. (5) and (6) 5. Analysis of results
  1
1  F η1=n ¼ ð5Þ
n 5.1. Encounter wave and heave/pitch motions
 
1
η1=n ¼ F  1 1  ð6Þ Statistical analysis of normalised encounter wave, heave and
n
pitch was performed fitting relevant maxima and minima by the
260 E. Begovic et al. / Ocean Engineering 112 (2016) 253–264

Table 12
Normalised vertical acceleration significant maxima for warped model.

FrV CG Bow

Exponential Gamma Weibull Data Exponential Gamma Weibull Data

2.19 2.179 2.084 2.068 1.999 2.615 2.503 2.515 2.472

3.28 1.955 1.854 1.867 1.825 2.420 2.388 2.403 2.461
3.88 2.907 2.704 2.667 2.583 2.696 2.616 2.581 2.618
4.38 2.530 2.357 2.323 2.296 2.292 2.172 2.153 2.216

Table 13
Weibull distribution parameters for monohedral model.

FrV CG Bow

m0 RMS Tp Shape α Scale β m0 RMS Tp Shape α Scale β

1.92 0.0068 0.0825 0.5554 2.2683 1.4768 0.0755 0.2747 0.4058 2.2612 1.2885
2.60 0.0188 0.1370 0.3277 2.0900 1.5126 0.1611 0.4013 0.3277 1.9444 1.2432
3.25 0.0331 0.1818 0.3326 1.9790 1.5697 0.2295 0.4791 0.2742 1.8722 1.2817
3.57 0.0423 0.2056 0.2550 1.9802 1.7831 0.2777 0.5270 0.2550 1.8658 1.2945

Table 14
Weibull distribution parameters for warped model.

FrV CG Bow

m0 RMS Tp Shape α Scale β m0 RMS Tp Shape α Scale β

2.19 0.0532 0.2307 0.633 1.0877 1.1308 0.2004 0.4477 0.630 1.2969 1.1018
3.28 0.1942 0.4407 0.514 0.9762 1.1214 0.6901 0.8307 0.512 1.1653 1.0185
3.88 0.2764 0.5258 0.508 1.4816 1.2263 0.8472 0.9205 0.498 1.3359 1.1074
4.38 0.4043 0.6358 0.491 1.2900 1.2242 1.2889 1.1353 0.485 1.1537 1.1611

Measured BOW acceleration spectrum

0.8

0.7 Statistics of maxima

1.5
Distribution of BOW Acceleration Maxima

0.6

1
Power density (s)

0.5

0.4 0.5

0.3

0
0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5 3 3.5 4
0.2
ζ /sqrt(m )
0

0.1

0
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
Encounter Frequency (Hz)

Fig. 9. Bow acceleration spectrum and normalised maxima probability distributions for warped model at FrV ¼3.88.

candidate distributions, reported in Table 4. The normalised
mean values, standard deviations and bandwidth parameter
ratios of heave/pitch maxima and minima, at all speeds, for both
models are reported in Tables 6 and 7. Table 8 contains the mean
value and the Root-Mean-Square (RMS) of the recorded heave
and pitch. Statistical analysis examples for heave and pitch
motions of monohedral model at 4.60 m/s are shown in
Figs. 6 and 7. Measured power density spectrum and maxima/
minima histograms are reported, together with candidate dis-
tributions that mainly overlap each other. Presented results
confirm that Cartwright distribution can be applied with good
confidence for statistical analysis of heave/pitch maxima and
minima, even if the highest LE values have been obtained for the
extreme one, whose mathematical formulation requires not
 E. Begovic et al. / Ocean Engineering 112 (2016) 253–264 261

easily definable location, scale and shape parameters. Statistics of Finally to obtain dimensional values, using Cartwright dis-
heights, maxima and minima for encounter waves, heave and tribution (or Rayleigh for the heights), the values reported in
pitch are reported in Fig. 8 for the monohedral model at the same Tables 6 and 7 (Table 8 for heights) have to be multiplied by RMS
speed. Statistical analyses at other speeds are not shown, as they (given in Table 8) and, for the heave motion only, further multi-
are, due to the data normalisation, all graphically very similar to plied by the ship-model scale factor.
the previous ones.
As can be noted also from Fig. 8, Rayleigh distribution is always 5.2. Vertical accelerations at CG and bow
suitable for statistical analysis of encounter wave and heave and
pitch heights. Zarnick and Turner (1981) analysed measured heave The acceleration data have different character from the motions
and pitch data by Rayleigh, Gamma and Weibull distributions and and therefore also the analysis has been slightly different. From
concluded that, although the second one was slightly superior, due the time record, shown in Fig. 5, accelerations peaks, defined
to its complicate definition by three parameters, the Rayleigh positive while vertical velocity is increasing (positive down), have
distribution with maximum error of 10–15% can be acceptable for been identified and further analysed by candidate probability
engineering purposes. For all eight cases presented in this work, density functions reported in Table 5. Relevant likelihood estima-
differences in motion significant values obtained by Rayleigh and tors (LE) are reported in Tables 9 and 11 for the monohedral and
by Cartwright distribution have been from 1 to 10% and this result warped model, respectively. In all the cases LE maximum values
surely encourage to apply Rayleigh distribution also for planing occur for both Weibull and Gamma distributions, what implies
hull motions at design stage. that no preference could be given as regard the best-fit one.

Measured LCG acceleration spectrum

0.25

Statistics of maxima
1.5
Distribution of LCG Acceleration Maxima

0.2

1
Power density (s)

0.15

0.5

0.1

0
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
ζ /sqrt(m )
0.05 0

0
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
Encounter Frequency (Hz)

Fig. 10. CG acceleration spectrum and normalised maxima probability distributions for warped model at FrV ¼ 3.88.

LCG acc. spectrum at FrV = 3.57 LCG acc. spectrum at FrV = 3.25 LCG acc. spectrum at FrV = 2.60 LCG acc. spectrum at FrV = 1.92
0.8 0.8 0.8 0.8
BOW acc. spectrum at FrV = 3.57 BOW acc. spectrum at FrV = 3.25 BOW acc. spectrum at FrV =2.60 BOW acc. spectrum at FrV = 1.92

0.7 0.7 0.7 0.7

Power density (s) Power density (s) Power density (s) Power density (s)

0.6 0.6 0.6 0.6

0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5

0.4 0.4 0.4 0.4

0.3 0.3 0.3 0.3

0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2

0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1

0 0 0 0
0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5 0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5 0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5 0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5
Frequency (Hz) Frequency (Hz) Frequency (Hz) Frequency (Hz)

Fig. 11. Bow and CG acceleration spectra for monohedral model.

262 E. Begovic et al. / Ocean Engineering 112 (2016) 253–264

LCG acc. spectrum at FrV = 4.38 LCG acc. spectrum at FrV = 3.88 LCG acc. spectrum at FrV = 3.28 LCG acc. spectrum at FrV = 2.19
6 6 6 6
BOW acc. spectrum at FrV = 4.38 BOW acc. spectrum at FrV = 3.88 BOW acc. spectrum at FrV = 3.28 BOW acc. spectrum at FrV = 2.19

Power density (s) Power density (s) Power density (s) Power density (s)
5 5 5 5

4 4 4 4

3 3 3 3

2 2 2 2

1 1 1 1

0 0 0 0
0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5 0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5 0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5 0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5
Frequency (Hz) Frequency (Hz) Frequency (Hz) Frequency (Hz)

Fig. 12. Bow and CG acceleration spectra for warped model.

Table 15
Normalised and non-dimensional 1/3rd and 1/10th vertical accelerations for
warped model.

FrV CG Bow

〈η1/3〉 〈η1/10〉 〈ξ1/3〉 〈ξ1/10〉 〈η1/3〉 〈η1/10〉 〈ξ1/3〉 〈ξ1/10〉

2.19 2.1 3.1 0.5 0.7 2.5 3.8 1.1 1.7

3.28 1.9 2.8 0.8 1.2 2.4 3.8 2.0 3.1
3.88 2.7 3.9 1.4 2.1 2.6 3.9 2.4 3.6
4.38 2.3 3.4 1.5 2.2 2.2 3.2 2.5 3.6

Table 16
Principal parameters of planing hulls from literature and tested models.

Fridsma_10 Fridsma_20 Fridsma_30 Monohedral Warped Fig. 14. Mean of 1/3rd highest bow accelerations.

L, m 1.143 1.143 1.143 1.90 1.09

B, m 0.229 0.229 0.229 0.424 0.360
L/B 5.0 5.0 5.0 4.48 3.03 Furthermore, it is worth to recall that likehood estimator LE has no
Δ, kg 7.16 7.16 7.16 32.6 11.32 physical meaning, LE is a goodness of fit parameter, useful only for
CΔ 0.60 0.60 0.60 0.471 0.243 comparing several candidate distributions. Therefore, the 1/3rd
β, deg 10 20 30 16.7 14–55
highest acceleration mean values at CG and bow are compared
V/L0.5 4–6 4–6 4–6 2.7–3.6–4.5–4.9 3.1–4.6–
5.4–6.1 with results, derived by time-domain analysis, as reported in
Tables 10 and 12 for monohedral and warped models, respectively.
Actual results suggest that Weibull probability density function
provides the closest values to the time-domain ones, what implies
8
it can be assumed as the best-fit distribution. Finally, Tables 13 and
14 report the process zero-order spectral moment (m0) and RMS,
7 the spectrum peak period (Tp) and both shape α and scale β
parameters of Weibull distribution for monohedral and warped
6 models, respectively.
Figs. 9 and 10 show a comparative analysis among candidate
5
distributions and data histograms, for vertical accelerations at bow
4 and CG of warped model at 5.75 m/s. In all the cases the expo-
nential distribution, although applied since Fridsma work, is the
3 worst, while Gamma and Weibull ones mainly overlap each other.
Besides, acceleration spectra show several distinct peaks at high-
2
order harmonic frequencies that have not been recognised for
1
encounter wave and heave/pitch motions (shown in Figs. 4–6).
This behaviour, typical for planing hulls, is due to the elementary
0 motions composition; small non-linearity in the motions results in
0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7
a significant contribution of the higher order harmonics in accel-
Fig. 13. Mean of 1/3rd highest CG accelerations. erations, as reported in Begovic et al. (2014a). In this respect,
 E. Begovic et al. / Ocean Engineering 112 (2016) 253–264
Figs. 11 and 12 report bow acceleration spectra at all speeds for
both monohedral and warped model, to highlight the incidence of
high-order harmonics, as function of model speed. Vertical accel-
eration spectra are plotted in the absolute frequency domain f,
according to the following equation, valid for the only head sea
condition:
sffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffi
8π U vU f e  
S ðf Þ ¼ 1 þ U Se f e ð7Þ
g The paper focuses on statistical analysis of planing hull motions
having denoted by v the model speed in m/s, g the gravity accel-
eration in m/s2 and fe the wave encounter frequency in Hz.
It has to be noted that the power spectra shown in Figs. 11 and
12 are dimensional and two important differences have to be
recalled. The first one is that the monohedral hull is almost twice
longer than warped, so respective FrV are lower and that the sea
state (H1/3/BC) has been lower. Nevertheless, it can be observed the
shape of acceleration spectra and order of magnitude of higher
harmonics with respect to the first one, more favourable for the
warped hull. As noted in Begovic et al (2014a), also here can be
observed that the high deadrise angles in bow region are very
efficient in diminution of higher order harmonics of bow
accelerations.
5.3. Design application
In current engineering practices, the mean value of the 1/nth
highest maxima is one of key-design parameters to be determined,
for both structure scantlings and seakeeping performance assess-
ment. In this respect, the lower bound value of Weibull tail area,
having 1/n exceedance probability, can be derived by Eq. (6) and
considering the Weibull cumulative distribution defined in (8)
pffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffi
η1=n ¼ α U β lnðnÞ ð8Þ
Hence, starting from Eq. (4) and denoting by Γ the incomplete
upper Gamma function, the normalised 1/nth vertical acceleration
mean value can be resembled as follows:
D E  
1 Finally the results reported in this paper extend the range
η1=n ¼ n U α U Γ 1 þ ; lnðnÞ ð9Þ
β investigated by other authors to lower H1/3/BC. Data trends high-
And dimensional vertical acceleration maxima, expressed in g,
become
D E D E
ξ1=n ¼ RMS U η1=n ð10Þ
for model and ship scale.
In present analysis Weibull distribution parameters (shape α
and scale β) of warped model, reported in Table 14, are applied to
estimate mean of 1/3rd and 1/10th highest maxima accelerations
at CG and bow, listed in Table 15 for all speeds.
Hence, a comparative analysis among actual results with
Fridsma’s experimental data can be performed. In this respect,
Table 16 reports main data for both monohedral and warped hulls
and three models tested by Fridsma, with deadrise angles 10°, 20°
and 30°. Figs. 13 and 14 show values of 1/3rd highest vertical
acceleration at CG and bow, as function of significant wave height
to vessel breadth ratio. Continuous and dashed lines refer to
experimental results by Fridsma, at 4 and 6 relative speeds,
respectively. Results reported in this paper extend the range
investigated by Fridsma to lower H1/3/BC. The trend of the diagram
in Fig. 13 relative to 20° Fridsma's model is coherent with the
results achieved in this work. For all tested speeds, vertical
accelerations at CG and bow of monohedral model exhibit small
variations. Vertical accelerations at CG of warped hull change
according to speed variations, while at bow remain almost con-
stant. From data trends shown in Figs. 13 and 14, sea state and
deadrise angle seems much more influencing factors than speed.
263
Although presented data are limited to H1/3/BC 0.18, it is presum-
able that for any deadrise angle value, when H1/3/BC overcome 0.3,
vertical accelerations are higher than 3g. This value is already over
the limits of comfort and safety for any HSC standard.
6. Conclusions
and accelerations in irregular head sea. Two models have been
tested in a wide speed range, for a H1/3/BC of about 0.15, considered
as realistic value for high speed craft service in Mediterranean Sea.
The work is filling gaps in two aspects observed in the literature;
the first one is the lower sea state and the second one is the best-
fit distribution for statistical analysis of heave/pitch motions and
vertical accelerations. Presented results confirm that Rayleigh and
Cartwright distributions can be applied with good confidence for
statistical analysis of heights and maxima/minima respectively, of:
encounter waves, heave and pitch. Furthermore, Rayleigh dis-
tribution for motions heights can be a valid alternative to Cart-
wright in design stage as this distribution is simpler to use and
max 10% error has been verified for all tested cases. Vertical
acceleration maxima statistical properties have been investigated,
to get the best-fit distribution; exponential, Gamma and Weibull
distributions have been considered as possible candidates for
accelerations at centre of gravity and at bow. The “goodness” of
considered distributions has been compared through likelihood
estimator value (LE). The predicted 1/3rd highest acceleration
mean values at CG and bow are compared with results of time-
domain analysis. To such extent, Weibull distribution was found to
be the best-fit for statistical analysis of vertical acceleration
maxima at CG and bow; as it describes better experimental data
than exponential, and has simpler form than Gamma. In design
practices, the mean value of the 1/nth highest maxima is one of
the key-design parameters to be determined, for both structure
scantlings and seakeeping performance assessment and therefore
the procedure to calculate it from Weibull distribution is shown.
light sea state and deadrise angle as more influencing than speed.
It is presumable that for any deadrise angle value, when H1/3/BC
overcome 0.3, vertical acceleration are higher than 3g. This value is
already over the limits of comfort and safety for any HSC standard.
Acknowledgements
This work has been financed by the University of Naples
“Federico II”, within Research Project “Motions and Loads of HSC”
and by the Department of Science and Technology of the Uni-
versity of Naples “Parthenope”, under the Research Project PRO-
GETTO INSIST “Innovazione Tecnologica nei Sistemi di Trasporto”
POR Campania FSE2007/2013 CUP B25B09000040007-Research
Stream: “Ottimizzazione della tenuta al mare di mezzi navali”
and “Ottimizzazione della tenuta al mare di mezzi navali ai fini del
miglioramento del Comfort e della Sicurezza dei passeggeri e del
personale imbarcato”.
References
Begovic, E., Bertorello, C., 2012. Resistance assessment of warped hull forms. Ocean
Eng. 56, 28–42.
Begovic, E., Bertorello, C., Pennino, S., 2014a. Experimental seakeeping assessment
of warped planing hull. Ocean Eng. 83, 1–15.
Begovic, E., Bertorello, C., Pennino, S., 2014b. Planing hull seakeeping in irregular
head seas. Trans. FAMENA XXXVIII (3), 1–12.
264 E. Begovic et al. / Ocean Engineering 112 (2016) 253–264
Bertorello, C., Oliviero, L., 2009. Hydrodynamic resistance assessment for non
monohedral planing hull form. In: Proceedings of the 13th IMAM 2009 Inter-
national Conference. Istanbul, Turkey, pp. 703–708.
Cartwright, D.E., Longuet-Higgins, M.S., 1956. The statistical distribution of the
maxima of a random function. Proc. R. Soc. Lond. Ser. A Math. Phys. Sci. 237
(1209), 212–232.
Edwards, A.W.F., 1972. Likelihood. Cambridge University Press.
Fossati, F., Muggiasca, S., Bertorello, C., 2013. Aerodynamics of high speed small
craft. In: Proceedings of the 12th International Conference on Fast Sea Trans-
portation FAST 2013. Amsterdam, Holland.
Fridsma, G., 1971. A systematic study of the rough-water performance of planing
boats (Irregular Waves – Part II). Stevens Institute of Technology Davidson
Laboratory. Report no. 1495.
Grigoropoulos, G.J., Damala, D.P., Loukakis, T.A., 2010. Dynamic performance of the
NTUA Double-Chine series hull forms in regular waves. In: Proceedings of the
2nd International Chesapeake Power Boat Symposium. Annapolis, USA.
Grigoropoulos, G.J., Damala, D.P., 2011. Dynamic performance of the NTUA Double-
Chine series hull forms in random waves. In: Proceedings of the 11th Interna-
tional Conference on Fast Sea Transportation FAST 2011. Honolulu, Hawaii.
ITTC, 1999. Recommended procedures and guidelines – testing and extrapolation
methods high speed marine vehicles sea keeping tests, Report 7.5-02 05-04. In:
Proceedings of the 22nd International Towing Tank Conference. Seoul, South
Korea; Beijing, China.
ITTC, 2011. Recommended procedures and guidelines – seakeeping experiments,
Report 7.5-02 07-02. In: Proceedings of the 26th International Towing Tank
Conference. Fukuoka, Japan.
Keuning, J.A., Visch, G.L., Gelling, J.L, de Vries Lentsch, W, Burema, G., 2011.
Development of a new SAR boat for the Royal Netherlands Sea Rescue Insti-
tution. In: Proceedings of the 11th International Conference on Fast Sea
Transportation FAST 2011. Honolulu, Hawaii, USA.
Keuning, J A, Van Walree, F., 2006. The comparison of the hydrodynamic behaviour
of three fast patrol boats with special hull geometries. In: Proceedings of the
International Conference on High Performance Marine Vehicles HIPER. Laun-
ceston, Tasmania.
Keuning, J.A., Pinkster, J., Van Walree, F., 2002. Further investigations into the
hydrodynamic performance of the AXE bow concept. In: Proceedings of the 6th
Symposium on High Speed Marine Vehicles HSMV 2002. Castello di Baia, Italy.
View publication stats
Keuning, J.A., Pinkster, J., 1997. Further designs and seakeeping investigations in the
enlarged ship design. In: Proceedings of the 6th International Conference on
Fast Sea Transportation FAST 1997, vol. 1. Sydney, Australia, pp. 201–209.
Keuning, J.A., Pinkster, J., 1995. Optimization of the seakeeping behaviour of a fast
monohull. In: Proceedings of the International Conference on Fast Sea Trans-
portation FAST 1995, vol. 1, pp. 179–193.
Kowalyshyn, D.H., Metcalf, B., 2006. A USCG systematic series of high speed planing
hulls. SNAME Trans., 268–309.
Metcalf, B.J., Faul, L., Bumiller, E., Slutsky, J., 2005. Resistance tests of a systematic
series of U.S. Coast Guard planing hulls. Carderock Division, Naval Surface
Warfare Centre, Report No. NSWCCD-50-TR-2005/063.
Rice, O., 1945. Mathematical analyses of random noise. Bell Syst. Tech. J., 23–24.
Scamardella, A., Piscopo, V., 2014a. Passenger ship seakeeping optimization by the
overall motion sickness incidence. Ocean Eng. 76, 86–97.
Scamardella, A., Piscopo V., 2014b. Twin-deck Ro-ro/Pax ship seakeeping optimi-
zation by the motion sickness incidence. In: Proceedings of the 15th Interna-
tional Congress of the International Maritime Association of the Mediterranean
IMAM 2013 – Developments in Maritime Transportation and Exploitation of
Sea Resources, vol. 1, pp. 109–117.
Scamardella, A., Piscopo V., 2014c. The overall motion induced interruptions in
seakeeping optimization analysis. In: Proceedings of the 15th International
Congress of the International Maritime Association of the Mediterranean IMAM
2013 – Developments in Maritime Transportation and Exploitation of Sea
Resources, vol. 1, pp. 119–126.
Soletic, L., 2010. Seakeeping of a systematic series of planing hulls. In: Proceedings
of the 2nd Chesapeake Power Boat Symposium. Annapolis, Maryland, United
States.
Sprinthall, R.C., 2011. Basic Statistical Analysis, 9th Ed. Pearson Education Group.
Taunton, D.J., Hudson, D.A., Shenoi, R.A., 2010. Characteristics of a series of high
speed hard Chine planing hulls – Part I: performance in calm water. Int. J. Small
Craft Technol. 152 (B2), 55–74.
Taunton, D.J., Hudson, D.A., Shenoi, R.A., 2011. Characteristics of a series of high
speed hard chine planing hulls – Part II: performance in waves. Int. J. Small
Craft Technol. 153 (B1), 1–22.
Zarnick, E.E., Turner, C.R., 1981. Rough water performance of high length to beam
ratio planing boats. David W. Taylor Naval Ship Research and Development
Centre. Report No. DTNSRDC/SPD-0973-01.