Asymmetrical planing catamarans are increasingly used in moderate to very high-speed applications due to some tempting qualities such as less wetted surface and better seakeeping behavior. The present numerical study attempts to provide new insight into hydrodynamics of such vessels by highlighting the distinguishing aspects and employing novel appropriate approaches to deal with them. A systematic investigation has been carried out on a prismatic geometry at various demihull separations (including zero separation, that is, symmetric monohull) and different trim angles in a wide range of speed coefficients, using a computational fluid dynamics solver. Obtained numerical results of steady-state resistance and lift forces are compared against different empirical methods. In order to offer an adequate explanation about the nature of forces and interference mechanisms, an analysis has been performed on viscous and pressure resistance components. Furthermore, the ability of the employed numerical method in estimation of wetted area pattern at the bottom of the planing hulls has been evaluated to provide explanation for some observed hydrodynamic behaviors of the asymmetric planing catamarans. It is seen that a significant reduction is reached in wetted surface area of catamaran configuration in comparison with corresponding monohull.
PaynePR. Contributions to planing theory. Ocean Eng1995; 22(7): 699–729.
2.
AlmeterJM. Resistance prediction of planing hulls: state of the art. Mar Tech1993; 30(4): 297–307.
3.
SavitskyD. Hydrodynamic design of planing hulls. Mar Tech1964; 1: 71–95.
4.
MoraesHVasconcellosJLatorreR. Wave resistance for high-speed catamarans. Ocean Eng2004; 31: 2253–2282.
5.
LugniCColagrossiALandriniM. Experimental and numerical study of semi-displacement monohull and catamaran in calm water and incident waves. In: 25th symposium on naval hydrodynamics, St. John’s, NL, Canada, 8–13 August 2004.
6.
TarafderSSuzukiK. Wave-making resistance of a catamaran hull in shallow water using potential-based panel method. J Ship Res2008; 52(1): 16–29.
7.
FengDWangXZhangZ. Time-domain nonlinear wave making simulation of the catamaran based on velocity potential boundary element method. In: ASME 2010 29th international conference on ocean, offshore and arctic engineering, Shanghai, China, 6–11 June 2010, pp.621–628.
8.
SternFWilsonRColemanH. Comprehensive approach to verification and validation of CFD simulations. Part 1: methodology and procedures. J Fluid Eng: T ASME2001; 123: 793–802.
9.
PintoABrogliaRCampanaE. RANS analysis of the interference effect in catamarans. In: 9th numerical towing tank symposium (NuTTS), Le Croisic, France, 1–3 October 2006.
10.
ZaghiSBrogliaRDi MascioA. Experimental and numerical investigations on fast catamarans interference effects. J Hydrodyn Ser B2010; 22: 545–549.
11.
BrogliaRZaghiSDi MascioA. Numerical simulation of interference effects for a high-speed catamaran. J Mar Sci Technol2011; 16: 254–269.
12.
DoganTK. URANS and DES for Delft catamaran for static drift conditions in deep water. Master’s Thesis, University of Iowa, Iowa City, IA, 2013.
MorabitoMG. Experimental investigation of the lift and interference of asymmetric planing catamaran demi-hulls. In: 11th international conference on fast sea transportation (FAST 2011), Honolulu, HI, 26–29 September 2011, pp.320–328.
15.
SavitskyD. Some interference effects between two flat surfaces planing parallel to each other at high speed. J. Aeronaut. Sci1954; 21(6): 419–420.
SavitskyDProwseRELuedersDH. High speed hydrodynamic characteristics of a flat plate and 20° dead-rise surface in unsymmetrical planing conditions. NACA Technical Note 4187, 1958. Washington, DC: NACA.
18.
BrownPW. An experimental and theoretical study of planing surfaces with trim flaps. Report no. 1463, 1971. Hoboken, NJ: Davidson Laboratory, Stevens Institute of Technology.
19.
Korvin-KroukovskyBVSavitskyDLehmanWF. Wetted area and center of pressure of planing surfaces. Report no. 360, 1949. Hoboken, NJ: Davidson Laboratory, Stevens Institute of Technology.
FaltinsenOMZhaoR. Numerical predictions of ship motions at high forward speed. Philos T R Soc Lond1991; 334: 241–252.
22.
ZhaoRFaltinsenOMHaslumHA. A simplified nonlinear analysis of a high-speed planing craft in calm water. In: Proceedings of the FAST’97, conference, Sydney, Australia, July 21–23, 1997, pp. 431–438.
23.
SunHFaltinsenOM. Dynamic motions of planing vessels in head seas. J Mar Sci Technol2011; 16(2): 168–180.
24.
VorusWS. A flat cylinder theory for vessel impact and steady planing resistance. J Ship Res1996; 40(2): 89–106.
25.
KimDJVorusWSTroeschAW. Coupled hydrodynamic impact and elastic response. In: 21st ONR symposium, Trondheim, 24–28 June 1996.
RoyceRAVorusWS. Pressure measurements on a planing craft and comparisons with calculation. In: 25th ATTC, Iowa City, IA, 24–25 September 1998.
28.
XuLTroeschAW. A study on hydrodynamics of asymmetric planing surfaces. In: Proceedings of FAST’99, Seattle, Washington, USA, 31 August – 2 September, 1999, vol. 99, pp.471–481.
29.
ZhouZ. A theory and analysis of planing catamarans in calm and rough water. PhD Thesis, University of New Orleans, New Orleans, LA, 2003.
30.
ZaghiSBrogliaRDi MascioA. Analysis of the interference effects for high-speed catamarans by model tests and numerical simulations. Ocean Eng2011; 38(17): 2110–2122.
31.
JamaluddinAUtamaIKAPWidodoB. Experimental and numerical study of the resistance component interactions of catamarans. Proc IMechE, Part M: J Engineering for the Maritime Environment. Epub ahead of print 24July2012. DOI: 10.1177/1475090212451694.
32.
HeWDiezMZouZ. URANS study of Delft catamaran total/added resistance, motions and slamming loads in head sea including irregular wave and uncertainty quantification for variable regular wave and geometry. Ocean Eng2013; 74: 189–217.
33.
CastiglioneTHeWSternF. URANS simulations of catamaran interference in shallow water. J Mar Sci Technol2014; 19(1): 33–51.
34.
SuYMWangSShenHL. Numerical and experimental analyses of hydrodynamic performance of a channel type planing trimaran. J Hydrodyn Ser B2014; 26(4): 549–557.
35.
JahanbakhshEPanahiRSeifMS. Catamaran motion simulation based on moving grid technique. J Mar Sci Technol2009; 17(2): 128–136.
36.
FridsmaG. A systematic study of the rough-water performance of planing boats. Technical report no. 1275, 1969. Hoboken, NJ: Davidson Laboratory, Stevens Institute of Technology.
KalitzinGMedicGIaccarinoG. Near-wall behavior of RANS turbulence models and implications for wall functions. J Comput Phys2005; 204(1): 265–291.
40.
WilliamsAGW. Aerodynamic forces on high speed multi-hulled marine vehicles. PhD Thesis, Cranfield University, Cranfield, 2008.
41.
BarthTJespersenDC. The design and application of upwind schemes on unstructured meshes. AIAA paper 89-0366, 1989.
42.
HänschSLucasDHöhneT. Comparative simulations of free surface flows using VOF-methods and a new approach for multi-scale interfacial structures. In: ASME 2013 fluids engineering division summer meeting, Incline Village, NV, 7–11 July 2013. New York: ASME.
43.
RhieCMChowWL. A numerical study of the turbulent flow past an isolated airfoil with trailing edge separation. AIAA paper 82-0998, 1982.
44.
MajumdarS. Role of underrelaxation in momentum interpolation for calculation of flow with nonstaggered grids. Numer Heat Tran1988; 13(1): 125–132.
45.
CelikIBGhiaURoachePJ. Procedure for estimation and reporting of uncertainty due to discretization in CFD applications. J Fluid Eng: T ASME2008; 130(7):078001
46.
RoachePJ. Perspective: a method for uniform reporting of grid refinement studies. J Fluid Eng: T ASME1994; 116(3): 405–413.
47.
OberkampfWLChristopherJR. Verification and validation in scientific computing. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2010.
48.
RoachePJ. Quantification of uncertainty in computational fluid dynamics. Annu Rev Fluid Mech1997; 29(1): 123–160.
49.
WagnerH. The phenomena of impact and planing on water. Technical report no. 1366, 1932. Washington, DC: NACA.
50.
SchoenherrKE. Resistance of flat surfaces moving through a fluid. Trans SNAME1932; 40: 279–313.
51.
MorabitoMG. On the spray and bottom pressures of planing surfaces. PhD Thesis, Stevens Institute of Technology, Hoboken, NJ, 2010.
52.
ZhaoRFaltinsenOM. Water entry of two dimensional bodies. J Fluid Mech1993; 246: 593–612.
53.
PaynePR. The water rise in front of a model planing hull. Exp Fluids1994; 17(1–2): 96–104.
54.
PiersonJDLeshnoverS. A study of the flow, pressures and loads pertaining to prismatic Vee-planing surfaces. Report no. 382, 1950. Hoboken, NJ: Davidson Laboratory, Stevens Institute of Technology.
55.
SavitskyDDelormeMFDatlaR. Inclusion of whisker spray drag in performance prediction method for high-speed planing hulls. Mar Tech2007; 44: 35–56.
