This article was downloaded by: [Australia Maritime College] On: 10 September 2008 Access details: Access Details:

[subscription number 778557058] Publisher Taylor & Francis Informa Ltd Registered in England and Wales Registered Number: 1072954 Registered office: Mortimer House, 37-41 Mortimer Street, London W1T 3JH, UK

Ships and Offshore Structures

Publication details, including instructions for authors and subscription information: http://www.informaworld.com/smpp/title~content=t778188387

Practical evaluation of resistance of high-speed catamaran hull formsPart II

P. K. Sahoo a; S. Mason b; A. Tuite b a Australian Maritime College, Launceston, Australia b Incat Crowther Pty Ltd, Sydney, Australia Online Publication Date: 01 January 2008

To cite this Article Sahoo, P. K., Mason, S. and Tuite, A.(2008)'Practical evaluation of resistance of high-speed catamaran hull

formsPart II',Ships and Offshore Structures,3:3,239 245

To link to this Article: DOI: 10.1080/17445300802263831 URL: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/17445300802263831

PLEASE SCROLL DOWN FOR ARTICLE

Full terms and conditions of use: http://www.informaworld.com/terms-and-conditions-of-access.pdf This article may be used for research, teaching and private study purposes. Any substantial or systematic reproduction, re-distribution, re-selling, loan or sub-licensing, systematic supply or distribution in any form to anyone is expressly forbidden. The publisher does not give any warranty express or implied or make any representation that the contents will be complete or accurate or up to date. The accuracy of any instructions, formulae and drug doses should be independently verified with primary sources. The publisher shall not be liable for any loss, actions, claims, proceedings, demand or costs or damages whatsoever or howsoever caused arising directly or indirectly in connection with or arising out of the use of this material.

Ships and Offshore Structures Vol. 3, No. 3, September 2008, 239245

Practical evaluation of resistance of high-speed catamaran hull formsPart II

P.K. Sahooa , S. Masonb and A. Tuiteb
a

Australian Maritime College, Launceston, Australia; b Incat Crowther Pty Ltd, Sydney, Australia ( Final version received 21 May 2008)

Downloaded By: [Australia Maritime College] At: 00:22 10 September 2008

This study attempts to extend the analysis of several resistance prediction procedures based on experimental work carried out by researchers and, subsequently, wave resistance estimation as illustrated in Part I of this study by Sahoo et al. (2007). All the methods used have been analysed and compared with results obtained from towing tank tests, CFD analysis by use of SHIPFLOW and a computational analysis is software package CATRES, whose operation is based around thin ship theory. The results obtained from each of the resistance prediction methods have been investigated, and the limitations and areas of effectiveness for each of the resistance methods have been determined in relation to the vessels tested. Throughout this study, the primary objective of validating the resistance equations developed in Part I of this study has been achieved. The level to which the resistance prediction tool can be utilized during the designing of high-speed catamarans was further determined through the analysis of the results. Keywords: catamaran; resistance; wave resistance; computational uid dynamics

Nomenclature At B BT CB CF Immersed transom area Demi-hull beam at the waterline Beam-draught ratio Block coefcient CB = /LBT International Towing Tank Conference 57 ship model correlation line CF = 0.075/ (Log10 Rn 2)2 Total resistance coefcient Wave resistance coefcient for catamaran conguration Residuary resistance coefcient Froude number (based on length) Froude number based on volumetric displacement Acceleration due to gravity, 9.81 m/s2 Half waterline entry angle in degrees partial form factor as used in catamaran resistance prediction tool CATRES Waterline length Length/beam ratio (demi-hull) Slenderness ratio Total resistance to displacement ratio Separation (measured between demihull centre planes) Separation ratio (between demi-hull centre planes)

S 1+k 1 + k y M W Introduction

CT CWCAT CR Fn Fn g iE Kpi

Wetted surface area Form factor Viscous form factor for catamarans Vertical coordinate A correction factor dependent on type of stern Deadrise angle at amidships in degrees Transom wedge angle Displacement Volumetric displacement

In current practice, there are three generally accepted methods for the determination of the resistance characteristics of any vessel, as follows:

r Statistical analysis of experimental data, in which resistance data for a range of Froude numbers are analysed for geometrically similar models with varying L/B, B/T , CB and/or L/ 1/3 values, such that resistance parameters such as CT or RT / could be estimated with some degree of accuracy for any model existing within the parameter space. r In computational uid dynamics (CFD) method, which behaves as a numerical towing tank, wave resistance data could be obtained more readily since rapid transformation of hull form parameters (within parameter space)

L or LWL L/B or LWL /BXDH L/ 1/3 RT / s s/L

Corresponding author. Email: p.sahoo@amc.edu.au

ISSN: 1744-5302 print / 1754-212X online Copyright C 2008 Taylor & Francis DOI: 10.1080/17445300802263831 http://www.informaworld.com

240

P.K. Sahoo et al. method and the accuracy of the total resistance obtained at various Froude numbers. By doing this, the effectiveness and accuracy of the resistance prediction methods, in particular the regression equations, could be achieved.

can be undertaken easily and data harvested within a short span of time. SHIPFLOW and CATRES are examples of CFD analysis tools used in determining the wave resistance of marine vessels. r Application of amended Michells integral or slender body (thin ship) theory to high-speed marine vessels. All three methods have their advantages and disadvantages, which are primarily concerned with accuracy, cost and time. Although CFD and analytical methods are becoming more accurate and are being recognized as legitimate sources for the calculation of ship resistance and, thereby, optimising hull forms, there still remains the necessity to validate the results. Results obtained from these sources need to be validated for accuracy and any potential sources of uncertainty so as to have a degree of condence in these results. It is the purpose of this study to provide a comparison of a variety of resistance calculation methods, and ultimately to validate a series of resistance regression analysis equations previously developed in Part I. This will be achieved by determining the resistance characteristics of three different catamaran hull forms that are currently in operation in the high-speed ferry industry. By comparing the results obtained from these various sources, it is possible to compare, both graphically and numerically, the characteristics of each resistance prediction

Summary of various methods Molland et al. method (1994) Table 1 depicts the summary of range of parameters and its use in the regression model, as illustrated in Part I of this study.

CATRES CATRES is a resistance prediction method, utilizing thin ship theory, which was developed by the Maritime Research Institute Netherlands for use on semi-planing catamarans with symmetrical hull forms. The total resistance of the vessel is determined through the summation of four separately determined resistance components: RW = Twice the wave resistance of a single demi-hull RWi = Wave interference resistance RHS = Hydrostatic resistance for the drag of an immersed transom RFR = Viscous resistance.

Downloaded By: [Australia Maritime College] At: 00:22 10 September 2008

Table 1. Range of validity for catamaran conguration. Parameters L/B L/ 1/3 B/T CB LCB/L (%) Deadrise angle at amidships M Half angle of entrance in degrees 1 + k Molland et al. (1994) 7.015.1 6.279.5 1.52.5 0.397 43.6 iE 1.411.48 Equation 7 and Table 7 of Part I Equation 8 and Table 8 of Part I Zips (1995) 7.5513.55 Pham et al. (2001) 10.4020.80 6.3012.60 1.52.5 0.500.60 1627 Schwetz and Sahoo (2002) 8.8015.0 6.309.56 1.472.31 0.460.68 4049 2.138 Sahoo et al. (2004) 10.015.0 8.0411.2 1.52.5 0.400.50 2344 5.410.71

1638

CWCAT

Part I Residuary Table 17 of Part I resistance of catamaran, CR 012 Transom wedge, W Type of hull form NPL round bilge Chine

Equation 13 and Table 11 of Part I

Equation 17 Part I and Table 20 of Part I

Equation 21 Part I and Table 25 of

Chine

Round bilge, semi-swath and chine

Round bilge

Note: LCB indicates longitudinal centre of buoyancy, reference from the transom; NPL, National Physical Laboratory.

Ships and Offshore Structures

Table 2. Vessels operating locations. Vessel Seastreak New York New York Water Taxi Jet Cat Express (Catalina) Yard built Gladding Hearn Shipbuilders Gladding Hearn Shipbuilders Nichols Bros Boat Builders Area of operation ManhattanCentral New Jersey New York Long BeachCatalina Island

241

Downloaded By: [Australia Maritime College] At: 00:22 10 September 2008

The values of the wave resistance and the wave interference resistance are both determined using thin ship theory. Due to the slenderness of the hulls, they can be represented by a distribution of Kelvin sources in their centre planes. When combined, the sources produce a ow eld that satises the hull boundary condition. Numerical differentiation is used to determine the perturbation velocities (velocity differences with respect to the ship speed), obtained from the velocity potentials induced in the Kelvin sources. The resistance is then found by integrating the perturbation pressure over the hull, obtained from the linearised Bernoulli equation. The wave interference resistance is calculated in a similar manner, where the effect of the second hull is accounted for by the addition of another plane of Kelvin sources. The viscous resistance (RFR ) is approximated by CATRES through the following formula: RFR = 1 SV 2 (1 + Kpi ) (CF + CA ) . 2 (1)

per Equation (2): RHS = g

At

ydAt ,

(2)

where At = immersed transom area. Test models The three vessels chosen to undergo analytical and experimental testing are all Incat Crowther-owned and Incat Sydney-designed passenger ferries that are currently operating in the United States of America as shown in Table 2. The vessels were chosen because of their high speed, ferry nature and the fact that towing tank tests on these three vessels had been conducted previously. The vessel particulars are shown in Tables 3 and 4. The line plans of the vessels are shown in Figures 1, 2 and 3.

For an immersed transom, CATRES introduces a correction for the resistance incurred due to the hydrostatic pressure of the ow, clear of the transom not being equal to zero, as

Results The hull forms of the three vessels have all undergone calm water resistance tests at the Australian Maritime College

Table 3. Main particulars of three chosen catamarans. Particulars of vessels, name (ID) Parameters Seastreak (2352) Waterline length (m) Displacement (t) Draft (m) Beam waterline (m) Beam waterline (demi-hull) CB Service speed (knots) Model scale 37.838 182.636 1.934 10.34 2.64 0.461 37 1:26.5 New York Water Taxi (2602) 20.781 57.304 1.642 8 2.2 0.372 26 1:14 Jet Cat Express (Catalina Express) (2621) 39.117 206.003 2.033 10.31 2.61 0.49 37.5 1:40

Table 4. Hull form characteristics of three chosen catamarans. Parameters Length/beam ratio Slenderness ratio Beam/draft ratio Block coefcient L/B L/ 1/3 B/T CB Seastreak 3.66 6.73 1.37 0.461 New York Water Taxi 2.60 5.44 1.34 0.372 Jet Cat Express (Catalina express) 3.79 6.68 1.28 0.49

242

P.K. Sahoo et al.

Baseline

Figure 1. Line plan for vessel 2352Seastreak.

Downloaded By: [Australia Maritime College] At: 00:22 10 September 2008

Ship Hydrodynamic Centre. The results obtained from the towing tank tests were non-dimensionalised so that these could be presented and compared with the regression models developed in Part I of this study. The results for all resistance methods have been plotted together (RT / against Fn ) to provide a simple graph that could be easily interpreted.

Discussion As can be seen from Figure 4 (Seastreak), the results obtained from the regression equations provide a relatively even spread of precision in relation to the results obtained from the towing tank results, which have been taken to be the datum for all comparisons as towing tank tests are considered to be the basis of any comparative analysis.

Baseline

Baseline

Baseline

Figure 2. Line plan for vessel 2602New York Water Taxi.

Baseline

Baseline

Figure 3. Line plan for vessel 2621Catalina Express.

Ships and Offshore Structures

243

Downloaded By: [Australia Maritime College] At: 00:22 10 September 2008

Figure 4. RT /

against Fn for various methods (Seastreak, 2352).

The method of Schwetz and Sahoo (2002) can be seen to follow the trend of the towing tank results, almost identically, while constantly producing results with a higher value of total resistance. It can be seen that the percentage difference obtained from the method of Schwetz and Sahoo (2002) in comparison to the towing tank results is approximately 1015%. The methods of Sahoo et al. (2004) and Pham et al. (2001) can be seen to be slightly more accurate than that of Schwetz and Sahoo (2002), although both these methods underpredict the results of the towing tank data, with the method of Pham et al. (2001) falling away from both the towing tank results and the Sahoo et al. (2004) results at both low and high volumetric Froude numbers. Throughout the speed range, CATRES compares favourably whereas SHIPFLOW consistently overpredicts the experimental data.

As can be seen from Figure 5 (New York Water Taxi), the methods of Pham et al. (2001) and Schwetz and Sahoo (2002) greatly underpredict the total resistance right across the speed range, with both resistance curves increasing at a decreasing rate, whereas the curve of towing tank resistance values is almost linear in nature. The results obtained from the Sahoo et al. (2004) and SHIPFLOW methods show curves that are almost identical in form as that of the towing tank curve, yet both underpredict the total resistance by a considerable amount. The curve obtained from the CATRES results does not match any of the other methods rising far sharper than the other predictions and levelling to eventually underpredict the towing tank results above a volumetric Froude number of approximately 2.5. As in both the previous cases, the data from various methods seem to uctuate appreciably from experimental

Figure 5. RT /

against Fn for various methods (New York Water Taxi, 2602).

244

P.K. Sahoo et al.

Downloaded By: [Australia Maritime College] At: 00:22 10 September 2008

Figure 6. RT /

against Fn for various methods (Catalina Express, 2621).

data as shown in Figure 6 (Catalina Express). The total resistance data obtained from CATRES overpredicts the total resistance of the towing tank values by approximately the same margin as Schwetz and Sahoo (2002). SHIPFLOW and Sahoo et al. (2004) produce results with almost the same error in comparison to towing tank values, where SHIPFLOW slightly overpredicts the total resistance in the lower speed range, eventually underpredicting the total resistance above a volumetric Froude number of 2.8. The total resistance curve of Sahoo et al. (2004) underpredicts the total resistance throughout the same speed range as what SHIPFLOW overpredicted the total resistance. The total resistance obtained from the method of Pham et al. (2001) is sufciently accurate, although the curve underpredicts that of the towing tank throughout the speed range. Conclusions In this article, the authors have attempted to validate the various methods against three randomly chosen vessels, which are already in operation. Some conclusions that can be drawn are as follows: (1) There are some notable differences in the total resistance curves obtained from the differing resistance prediction methods, both between methods for a particular vessel and compared with the different vessels. (2) In general, SHIPFLOW returns higher values of total resistance compared with towing tank data except for New York Water Taxi. The overprediction could be due to overcompensating for the interference effects between the hulls or an inability to model the effect of following waves. (3) The curve of RT / , obtained from the regression methods, seems to maintain similar accuracies compared with towing tank results for different vessels. The re-

gression models for resistance equations are determining fairly accurate values for the tested vessels, bearing in mind that the regression models were developed on the basis of certain types of hull form, as illustrated in Part I of this study. (4) CATRES, considering the age of the program and the theory it is based on, performs extremely well. In the case of New York Water Taxi, the majority of the resistance prediction methods fail to produce accurate results. This is thought to be due to a slightly more pronounced chine than what is present on the other two vessels, and a general form of the hull that is more suited to these two methods. However, this does not explain the extent to which the other regression method and SHIPFLOW underpredict the total resistance of this vessel. 1. It may, however, be remembered that the regression equations were developed on the basis of a systematic series of specic hull forms that are totally unrelated to the randomly selected hull forms used for comparative analysis.

Final remarks The purpose of this study is to provide a comparison of a variety of resistance calculation methods, and ultimately to validate a series of regression analysis equations previously developed and presented in Practical Evaluation of Resistance of High-Speed Catamaran Hull FormsPart I. It has been shown through this study that the developed regression equations are able to give reasonably accurate predictions of resistance, with little input data about the hull form and minimal time for the calculation process. It is, therefore, determined that with some renement and optimisation of the regression equations, the equations could

Ships and Offshore Structures provide viable rst estimates of the resistance characteristics of hull form in early design stages. The regression models are to be used with due care with regard to the type of hull form (round bilge or chine) used in catamaran congurations. Acknowledgements The authors express their sincere gratitude to The Australian Maritime College, Australia (specialist institute of University of Tasmania) and Incat Crowther Pty Ltd, Sydney, Australia for their support and encouragement throughout the course of this study. References
Molland AF, Wellicome JF, Couser PR. 1994. Resistance experiments on a systematic series of high speed displacement catamaran forms: variation of lengthdisplacement ratio and breadthdraft ratio. Ship Science Report No. 71. Southampton, UK: University of Southampton.

245

Downloaded By: [Australia Maritime College] At: 00:22 10 September 2008

Pham XP, Kantimahanthi K, Sahoo PK. 2001. Wave resistance prediction of hard-chine catamarans through regression analysis. Proceedings of the 2nd International Euro Conference on High Performance Marine Vehicles (HIPER01). Hamburg, Germany. p. 382394. Sahoo PK, Browne NA, Salas M. 2004. Experimental and CFD study of wave resistance of high-speed round bilge catamaran hull forms. Proceedings of the 4th International Conference on High-Performance Marine Vehicles (HIPER04). Rome, Italy. p. 5567. Sahoo PK, Salas M, Schwetz A. 2007. Practical evaluation of resistance of high-speed catamaran hull formspart I. J Ships Offshore Struct. 2(4):307324. Schwetz A, Sahoo PK. 2002. Wave resistance of semidisplacement high speed catamarans through CFD and regression analysis. Proceedings of the 3rd International Euro Conference on High Performance Marine Vehicles (HIPER02). Bergen, Norway. p. 355368. Zips JM. 1995. Numerical resistance prediction based on results of the VWS hard chine catamaran hull series 89. Proceedings of the 4th International Conference on Fast Sea Transportation (FAST 95). Vol. 1. Luebeck, Germany. p. 6774.