SNAME Transactions, Vol. 110, 2002, pp.

1-29

Resistance and Propulsion Characteristics of the

VWS Hard Chine Catamaran Hull Series '89
Burkhard MLiller-Graf, Visitor, VWS Berlin, Dejan Radoj~i6, Member, University of Belgrade, and
Aleksander Simi6, Visitor, University of Belgrade

Hard chine catamaran with length-to-beam ratio of the demihulls of t 1.55 at V=5t kt

In 1989:77e Berlin Model Basin (VWS) started an R&D program for the development e " a
systematic series of hard chine catamarans. The series was intended to investigate the
hydrodynamics of high-speed passenger and cargo catamarans of 20 to 60+ m length operating at
speeds of 35 to 45 kt. Four length-to-beam ratios of the demihulls were tested (LwL/BwLo, = 7.55,
9.55, 11.55 and 13.55), with three midship deadrises (tim = 38~ 27~ and 16~ and different hull
forms (symmetric, semi-symmetric and asymmetric hard chine forms and round bilge designs),
afterbodies and propulsion configurations ~dly wetted controllable and fixed-pitched propellers,
surface piercing propellers and water-jets). An enormous quantity of data was gathered during
443 resistance tests' and 132 self-propulsion tests carried out with relatively large models of
between 3.6 and 5.1 m length, at speeds of up to 11 m/s. Tests were performed over a wide speed
range, ranging from hump to planing speeds. Due to space limitations, only grouped results of
the (so called) standard configuration (consisting of 12 models) are presented, although some
non-standard configurations are also discussed. An immense stock of data are represented by the
mathematical models - obtained through regression analysis -Jbr resistance, trim, hull-propulsor
interaction coefficients and delivered power. The tests and results were validated for trial
conditions and thus are believed to be reliable.
For completeness the development of the VWS planing catamaran Series '89 is described in
the first half of the paper, which # derived from several papers written by the first author. The
regression models for predicting resistance and powering make up the core of this paper and are
given in the second half. The paper covers its subject from a practical rather than theoretical
viewpoint and will be of value to those who make performance predictions. The regression
models are suitable for implementation in software and can replace "manual" powering
predictions for the Series '89 planing catamarans.

NOMENCLATURE
INTRODUCTION

Ae/Ao
AFz
Av

m2
m2
m2
m
m

mx

BT
BXDH
CAA
CBM

CDp
CM
Fn (FnL)
Fnw2
g

m/s 2

Kr
Ko
LWL

PB

Pn

m
kW
kW

PID
S (SWVO)

m2

TH
tx

Vs
Vw
WSC

m/s
m/s

WT
Z

A (DISWAP)
ACv
V (DISV)
fiw

t
m3
deg
deg

EB
ER
ES

rio
q.
rim
"qo
fIR
0
v

PA
PS

deg
m2/s
kg/m 3
kg/m3

Blade-area ratio
Area ofzink anodes
Above-water transverse area
projection
Area of two hull openings
Hull spacing at WL
Maximum breadth ofdemihull
Air allowance coefficient
Block coefficient
Structural rough, allowance coeff.
Midship coefficient
Froude number based on length
Volumetric Froude number
of the demihulls
Acceleration of gravity (9.81)
Thrust coefficient
Torque coefficient
Length of waterline
Brake power
Delivered power
Propeller pitch-diameter ratio
Wetted surface of the hull at rest
without transom area
Draugh without keel
Thrust deduction fraction
Ship speed
Wind speed
Wetted surface coeff. (S/(V/2) 2n)
Wake fraction
Number of propeller blades
Displacement mass
Roughness allowance (0.0003)
Displacement volume
Angle of deadrise amidship
Angle of transom wedge
Specific brake power (P~/AgVs)
Residuary drag-weight ratio (Ra/Ag)
Specific total resistance (RTs/Ag)
Quasi propulsive efficiency (PE/Po)
Hull efficiency
Gear and shaft losses
Propeller open-water efficiency
Relative rotative efficiency
Running trim angle
Kinematic viscosity
Mass density of air (1.226)
Mass density of water

Subscripts
CAT
DH
DW
MH
S
TR
x

Catamaran
Demihull
Deadwood
Monohull
Ship
Trial condition
Horizontal
Axial (inclined)

Catamarans can fulfill most of the requirements for

high-speed passenger transportation, i.e. low power,
large deck area, box shaped superstructures, good
transverse stability, good course keeping and
maneuverability. Consequently, in the 1980's a great
need arose for this type vessel. However, only a few
references concerning high-speed catamarans had been
published (cf. Michel 1961, Clement 1962, Turner and
Taplin 1968, Moss 1969, Thomas 1970, Fry and Graul
1972, Yermontayev, et al. 1977). These references did
not give all information necessary for hull design,
resistance and propulsion predictions, and seakeeping
predictions. Confronted with a demand from shipyards
for reliable powering predictions for high-speed
catamarans, in 1988 the Berlin Model Basin (VWS)
together with the German shipbuilding industry planned
a comprehensive R&D program for high-speed
catamarans.
At about the same time systematic
experiments were initiated in other institutions too, for
instance at the University of Southampton (lnsel and
Moland 1992, Moland, et al. 1996, Moland and Lee
1997, Moland, et ai. 2001) and MARINTEK
(Werenskiold 1990).
This paper provides an overview o f the VWS
planing catamaran Series '89 and the results o f the tests
on the series. The details of the VWS Series '89 are
documented in a number of papers and reports by the
first author (Mtiller-Graf 1989, 1993a,b,c, 1994, 1996,
1999a,b, 2000).
In addition Mtiller-Graf (1991)
describes the novel spray rail system used on the
designs, and Mtiller-Graf (1997) provides an in depth
description of the resistance components, and trial and
tank conditions. The other two authors are responsible
for the numerical modeling of the enormous quantity of
experimental data that were originally available only in
the graphical form. As a tool, regression analysis was
used throughout the numerical analysis - a few related
papers treating the hydrodynamics of high-speed craft
are Radojcic (1991), Radojcic and Matic (1997), and
Radojcic, et al. (1997, 1999, 2001).
Zips (1995)
presents a regression analysis for evaluation of the
Series '89 residuary resistance; this mathematical model
is simpler and also less accurate than the models
presented in this paper.
P r e l i m i n a r y Series a n d Results

To limit the number of form variants, the VWS

R&D program started with a small preliminary series to
answer the first questions one confronts when designing
a high speed catamaran - which section shape and
section symmetry properties should be chosen for the
semi-planing and planing speed ranges.

Resistance and Propulsion Characteristics

In 1988 most passenger catamaraas were 30-40 m

long and had service speeds of 30-38 kt (corresponding
to length Froude numbers Fn = 0.7-1.2). Hard chine
section shapes were selected for the l:,reliminary series
since for speeds above Fn = 0.8 this section shape is
optimal for resistance - it facilitates flow and spray
separation (reducing frictional resistance) and the
development of hydrodynamic lift (r,~ducing pressure
and frictional resistance through the emergence of the
hull).
Three hard chine catamaran variants were designed
and tested (see Figure 1):

$,m

a~

M o d , N o I. 2 5 1 4 0

4-- . . . .

-}-- .....

--7-7-'--~,

9 A form having symmetrical sections with the

centerplane at BxDu/2,
9 A form with asymmetrical sections having the
centerplane at the tunnel side of the demihull, and
9 A semi-symmetrical form having the centerplane at
BXDH/4 on the inner or tunnel side of the demihull.
For the purpose of comparison, a fourth variant - a
monohull - that was composed of two asymmetrical
demihulls with no lateral separation was included in the
series.
All four variants had model lengths of 3.9 m and
were tested in calm water at two displacements, 4 to 6
different transom wedge inclinations, and speeds
corresponding to Fn = 0.25-1.35.
To determine the interference drag for a tunnel
width of BT/LwL = 0.167 (which was found to be the
mean value of 96 actual catamarans having waterline
lengths of 20 to 40 m) the resistance of a single
demihull of each section type was tested at the half
displacement of the catamaran configuration and at the
same inclinations of the transom wedge. Propulsion
tests were also performed for the design displacement
and for the optimum wedge inclination, with fixed-pitch
and controllable-pitch propellers of various diameters
and pitch ratios. Consequently, on the basis of the
results of 56 resistance tests, 12 propulsion tests and 3
seakeeping tests, the effect of section symmeto, on
resistance, propulsion and seakeeping characteristics
were determined. The results were presented in 80
diagrams and are briefly discussed below.
a)

The resistance tests indicated the following trends:

9 Relative to an equivalent monohull (which was

composed of two demihulls with asymmetrical section
shapes) the catamaran with symmetrical sections has a
resistance reduction of 20.25 percent over a speed
range corresponding to Fn = 0.5-1.0. This is shown in
Figure 2.
Mod N r .

OK Modelt

/
:

~'~////

~"

Kotamamn

Sch[Ifstyp

- -

25140

~ymmetrisch

Rumpfform:

....

2555.0

osymmelr, sch

--

2544 0

5emi--3ymmeV.

--

~l
t~/B.
L W L / ( V / 2 ) '/:~

/III

: MonomuII
symmetr
: 1116

--

--

--

--

--

6.197
4 919

8r/L~L

0,0

0,167
Mod Nr.2535,Z

J_ _ _ _ J _ _ = ~

___L_

r---

L___J

. . . . [ 4 ~2- - , ] ,oo

Figure 1 - Section plan of considered hulls during

series development stage

BczucJ3~mP f, Knic~spont--Monohull,

I -

554

__%'b_-___L_FL--]

L____ L

LmgenOe
1116

,,

--

K;tom:tch
r

: 3~777

~II~

~,-a"

~. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Figure 2 - Resistance test - catamarans compared to the

monohull

Resistance and Propulsion Characteristics

The interference resistance due to the presence of a

second hull, has its maximum at Fn = 0.45-0.5, the
hump speed. The symmetrical form has the largest
interference drag of the three section types. However,
compared with an equivalent catamaran having the
NPL round bilge hull form (lnsel and Moland 1992),
the symmetric hard chine hull form has remarkably
smaller interference drag. This is illustrated in Figure 3.
9 The influence of hull spacing is shown in Figure 4.
Catamarans having the standard hull spacing of BT/LwL
= 0.167 are compared to a monohull and a catamaran
with infinite hull spacing. Below Fn = 0.7 the lowest
residuary resistance-to-weight ratio (eR) was obtained
by a catamaran with infinite hull spacing; while the
monohuli had higher values of eR over the entire speed
range.
9

1.6-

I
1.5- ~l x
9 ~,~
'

.~

KOIOm.MOO.Nt.
~-----4
I
/"/

_.~

Rumplform
2514.0/-I symmet/i$r
2535.0/ 1 oiymmetrisch

- I ....

\ t

"

~ .

o9

--

'

~ ~

_\_

,a'~ - J ~ - l - : / b --'--= ~ - ~ - - 4 -

&
= I 1 1,6 t
Lm/8.
= 7.554
L,~(~t/2) '/~ = 6,197

-I- . . . .

. . . .

~--

-~ .....

" " - ,rO~,::.......

-1- . . . .

1- . . . .

1.2

~-- - - 4:

~---II

1.3

I;4

1'15

--"

-~--.-

b)

The propulsion tests of the preliminary Series

demonstrated that:

9 The symmetrical form had the lowest delivered

power and highest propulsive efficiency, while the
asymmetrical form had the highest delivered power and
lowest propulsive efficiency.
9 The semi-symmetrical form had delivered power and
propulsive efficiencies similar to those of the
symmetric form.
c)

The seakeeping tests showed that:

9 The seakeeping qualities of the three catamaran types

were more affected by the wave length and height, and
the wet-deck clearance (above the undisturbed free
surface) than by the section symmetry.
9 With regard to ride comfort, which is an essential
requirement for passenger catamarans, the catamaran
with semi-symmetrical sections showed the lowest
vertical accelerations at wave heights that were no
greater than the wet deck clearance.
9 The symmetrical form had vertical accelerations that
were 5 to 10 percent greater than the accelerations of
the semi-symmetrical form.
9 The asymmetrical form had the largest vertical
accelerations and the least speed loss.
Selection of the Final Section Symmetry

08 J

Figure 3 - Interference resistance due to the presence of

the second hull
Mod.NO.:

Modelltyp:

[3r/Lwt"

2535.0

Katomaran

0.167

----

2535.1

2 Demlhulls

--'--

2535.2

Monohull

0.0

O.20-

Rumpfform

osymmetrisch

L,L/BOH
o. ,s

--

--

-~

I
-

o.1o . . . .

o.o~

-t

O.O

O.OO

~
5

~-

//'1
f

--

" - - ~ . ~

I/

20-

I
O.e I
15

T H E L A Y O U T O F T H E SERIES
Basic Requirements

!
-

--

_J

V~/

-/,U, x l
i

I 0.4

10

- 2 ~ - -

;'~'----

Jff,--

,]

--

r ~s/7" ;
i ,_?" 5

4 - - ~

[
.

~
J//~//~J~ ~
I ' / / d
~/.~/'/
;

7.55

. . . .

I
,

~1

~/" [

Fo
O.8
i

25

'

,,16,

-1.0
,

I
30

1.2
I

3 5 k n 40

Figure 4 - Interference of hull spacing

The preliminary tests clearly demonstrated that the

symmetrical form required the lowest propulsive power
for speeds corresponding to Fn -- 0.7-1.2 (the speed
range for which the catamarans are designed). This
form also showed acceptable seakeeping qualities at
significant wave heights of up to 2.0 m, which prevail
in European coastal waters. Consequently, it was
decided the VWS Hard Chine Catamaran Series '89
would consist only of forms with symmetric sections, a
transom wedge, and external spray rails.

Resistance

and

The series was initially developed for high speed

planing catamarans having waterline lengths of 25 to
35 m and carrying 150 to 200 passengers. However,
the scope of the series was extended to take into
account the following design requirements:
9 Hull lengths 20 to 80 m.
9 Displacement 25 to 1000 t.
9 Service speed 35 to 40 kt, top speed 45 kt.
9 The form parameters were selected for best
performance at speeds in the range corresponding to
0.8 < Fn < 1.4.

Propulsion

Characteristics

9 Applications were as surveillance craft, passenger

and car ferries, and lightweight cargo carriers.
9 The form of the afterbody was to be suitable for
installation of fully wetted propellers, surface
piercing propellers, or water jets.
,, The variation of the hull foITa parameters would be
limited to those values which could be realized by
full-scale craft.
9 The beam-to-draft ratios would be in accordance with
the length-to-beam ratios of catamarans suitable for
full-scale vessels.
Parent Hull

rapidly with increasing length-to-beam ratio. The

waterline length of catamarans grows with increasing
length-to-beam ratio if the displacement and the beamto-draft ratio are held constant. Length-to-beam ratios
of LwL/BxD, = 7.55; 9.55; 11.55 and 13.55 were chosen
for the catamaran series. The four selected length-tobeam ratios represent the main ranges of value for
length, LWL = 10-20 m, LWL = 20-30 m, LWL = 40-50 m
and LWL= 60-70 m, respectively.
Because the beam-to-draft ratio was kept nearly
constant for the series, the waterline length increased
for the fictive hull designs as shown by the following
table:
LwL/BxDH 7.55

The parent design of the catamaran series

corresponds to a passenger ferry having the following
main dimensions:
Length overall
Breadth overall
Length of waterline
Breadth max. at DWL of demihull
Draft with deadwood
Draft without keel
Draft of transom
Displacement
These corresponds
parameters:

to

LOA

LWL 23.50
BXDH 3. 107
'F
2.310
'I'H 1.510
'FTR 0.809
A
111.6

following

Length-to-beam ratio
Slenderness ratio
Beam-to-draft ratio
Transom draft-to-hull draft ratio

28.00 m

BOA 10.50 m

principal

m
m
m
m
m
t
form

LWL/BXDH 7.55
LWL/(V/2)m6.20
BXDH/TH 2.05
'FTR/TH
0.54

All hull variations of the series are derived from the

geometry of this parent design.

LWL (m)

9.55
26.7

23.5

Beam-to-draft ratio
Although it does not have a significant effect on
the performance of catamarans operating near the
planing region, beam-to-draft ratio has a great influence
on several particulars of the proposed catamaran series.
Because only realistic values o f BXDH/Tn were used
(Figure 6), an increase of the length-to-beam ratio
automatically led to an increase of waterline length. In
addition, a large change in draft causes a large shift of
the intersection of the chine with the water surl'ace.
This can have a disproportionate effect on the
resistance.
....

ANEN

- -

LWL/(O[SV/2)

(hell

--'--

XAB/LWL

ongte

of

entrence)

I/]
MA:2=S4,3t.

& : ,8 =

38

de 9 ,

9 " 18 =

16

deg.

DISVt2=53,03m

I
[9-

. . . . .

I
0 .2

.......

I
__

XAB/LWL

....

deg.,

r .....

~z _~T~.=~,
7 "

LO~/co,sv/2>"Y

{. . . .

27

I-

~-r---=~

O : /~ =

3 Hul],,*,~,thout D e a d w o o d

IO-

Length-to-beam ratio
The length-to-beam ratio of the demihulls has the
second greatest effect on resistance and propulsion in
smooth and rough water. ]'he resistance decreases

13.55
36.2

Larger length-to-beam ratios than LwL/BxD~{ =

13.55, which are of great interest for low wash
catamarans, were not included in the series.

Hull Form Particulars

Length-displacement ratio
The length-displacement ratio of the demihull
LWL/(V/2) v3 has the greatest effect on the wave
resistance of catamarans. Length-displacement ratio
increases with the length-to-beam ratio as shown by
Figure 5. A systematic variation of the slenderness
ratio at each length-to-beam ratio wa.,; omitted to avoid
unrealistic beam-to-draft ratios. A variation o f 4
percent in the slenderness ratio could be obtained by
altering the design displacement by 10 percent.

1 l .55
31.2

.....

'

i2"__f.~__L __ - -

L -- -- -- d

12

,,,,~

,s I

3=
JS*

10

II
LWLZBXOH

13

14

--

Figure 5 - Length-displacement ratio, waterline

entrance angle and LCB position
Transom-draft ratio
The transom-draft, TTR (index "TR" should not be
confused with "Trial Condition" used in later sections),
which increases with craft speed and which becomes
equal to the hull draft in the planing region, should,:be
suitable for installation of the three propulsor types);:In
the case of the fully wetted propellers, the blades should

Resistance and Propulsion Characteristics

not reach below the baseline to protect the propellers

against damage by grounding. Consequently, three
transom draughts, each best suited for one propulsor
type, were chosen:
9 TTR/TH=0.54

9 TTR/TH= 0.68

9 TTRIT H = 0.95

Form coefficients ofdemihulls

The form coefficients of the demihulls - midship
section coefficient, CM and block coefficient, C B - are
presented in Figure 7.

This is a standard ratio and is well

suited for fully wetted free running
propellers.
This ratio is optimal for free running
surface piercing propellers, but also
for both propeller types operating in
tunnels.
This ratio is optimal for the
installation o f waterjets.

....

8XDH/TH
& : # =

8TR/BXDH

m~
.'kot

'L
I

==o-T- o6
~ , , .-/J r o.s"

. . . . -~ . .
o5+o~

Resistance

and

16 deq

~
~
~=
. . .

-'

L--

J.___

#~__

~ - I - . . . . %~
. . . . . . 1--'__-~ I
~--L- . . . . . . ~ .......
r- /
= - -I- - - -....... . . r. ......
.
= - ~I . . . . .
I

L
-- I
L

" __L___L._
I

I...
7

I,,.
9

__

J
I

1'3

14

[.

10

12

11

LWL/BXDH --

Figure

6 - Beam-to-draft

....

ratio and transom-beam

ratio

CM
& : #

CBM

38

deg.

; O : #

MA/2 = 54.3 t : DISVf2 = 53.03 m 3

27

deg.

; z

: #

16 d e ( ] .

Hull w i t h o ~ Deadwood

0.9-

I
-- L- _ _
I

0.8

I
w_L-_ ......
I

. . L. . . . . .L .
I
t
_ L_ _ _ _L=L-=----__

O,7-

r
~" 0.6-

I
-- Y__
I

0.59

o.,-

= 38 ~ This deadrise is used with TTR/T H = 0.54

and results in the greatest warp of the
bottom.
9 13M= 27 ~ This deadrise is used with TTR/TH = 0.68
and causes a medium warp.
9 ]3M = 16 ~ This deadrise is combined with TTR/TH =
0.95 and results in small warp (almost
constant deadrise). This type of afterbody
is considered to be optimal for planing
speeds and for the application of waterjets.

Waterline entrance angle

The half waterline entrance angle ANEN depends
on length-to-beam ratio, length-displacement ratio and
the position of the LCB. This angle decreases with
increasing length-to-beam ratio as shown by Figure 5.
It also decreases with decreasing deadrise [3M.

9 : # =

--L------

I 2.5~o., I

9 13M

Transom-beam ratio
A transom beam equal to the maximum waterline
breadth, shifts the longitudinal center of buoyancy too
far aft (aft of 0.4 LWL from the stem), as has been seen
in previous catamaran design studies. For a nearly
optimum LCB position of 0.4 to 0.42 LwL, a transom
beam ratio of BTR/BxDH= 0.92 was chosen (Figure 6).

O ; B = 2 7 deg.;

I 8TR/BXDH

--

0.8

o.oJ:O
Deadrise
The deadrise - its distribution over the length of
the hull and the twist or warp of the afterbody bottom affect the resistance, the powering performance and the
seakeeping qualities. Additionally, the magnitude of
the deadrise in the afterbody depends to a great extent
on the type of propulsor that is to be installed. To
determine the effects of deadrise on the resistance and
powering performance characteristics of slender
planing catamarans, three values o f midship deadrise
were chosen. Each value is well suited for one of the
propulsor types and for one of the transom drafts. In
each case the deadrise decreases to !3TR = 6 ~ at the
transom9 The chosen midship deadrise angles are:

.38 deg.;

M A / 2 = 5 4 3 t . OISVr2=53,03m3 Hul[withoulOeadwood

'

'

I
L-_ ......
I

I
~-_ ....
I

~- _L#_"
- - - - .~._. . . . . .
J
I
I
-~' 1
-- t~,__-k_
._-~
j

I
I csM
~.-L--=-__ " _ _ / ~ - _
. - - t ~
k----_~

I,

I
~_ J
I

I
-- I - - - - - - - *
EE

I , , .TT-~.,

,0

,,

,2

LWL/SXDH

,~

I
J
J

,q

,,

--

Figure 7 - Form coefficients of demihulls

....

L,

SWVO/(01SWAPf2)2J3

Hull wlth deodwood MAWAPF2=~BT;{)ISWAp/.z=5433m3

$WH/(DISV/2)2/3

/~, : ~ = 3 8 d e g . ; o : ~ = 2 7 d e q . ; I : ~ =
Hull without deodwood MAI"2=54,3{.OISVf2=S3(X3mO

,,

-F---T--

,o

--!
/

~s

i
--L

L
I

--F--

--L~"~"--""~--L------J-~J

'-

-~-

- P - - ~ J - - - - J
9

I0

11

12

LWL/BXDH

8 - Wetted

I,,,I,,.I.,.I
8

Figure

-- J-_~_J
I ~ -r

8.

i ,- ; . ; . ! , ; ,

16 d e g .

surface

coefficient

13

14

--

ofdemihulls

LCB-position
The position of the longitudinal center of buoyancy
was kept constant for each value of midship deadrise.
As shown by Figure 5, with decreasing deadrise, the
position of the LCB is shifted aft, from XA8 = 0.42 Lwt.
atlgM=38 ~ to X A B = 0 . 4 L w L a t I 3 M = 2 7 ~ and XAB=
0.38 LWL at 13M= 16~

Propulsion

Characteristics

To investigate the effect of shifting LCB forward,

designs with an LCB position 2.5% of LwL further
forward (denoted as position 2AB) was developed.
Three hulls of length-to-beam ratio, Lwt./Bxon = 9.55
were designed for XAB/LwL= 0.445 (the afterbody was
widened a bit and the forebody was refined). However,
this is not a standard LCB position.
Section shape
Small catamarans of 20-30 m length and with
service speeds of 35-45 kt are operating just below the
planing region, as indicated by the Froude numbers of
Fn = 1.0-1.2. The larger catamarans of 40-50 m length
are running at even lower Froude number of Fn = 0.9,
i.e. in the upper part of the semi-displacement region.
Consequently, for Froude numbers of Fn = 0.9-1.2 a
hard chine section shape was adopted, since it reduces
the resistance by generating hydrodynamic lift and
causes separation of the flow.
The standard models have sections that are slightly
convex with large deadrise and small flare in the
forebody, and waterline entrances that are fine and
straight. The afterbodies have a transom with straight
buttocks lines and straight sections from about 0.7 LWL
aft (measured from the stem). The hard chine is
inclined over the whole length.
For incrcased hull lengths of 60 m and more, the
Froude number can drop to Fn = 0.75 or less. At these
lower Froude numbers, the hull operates in the middle
of the semi-displacement region. Generally, for this
condition, round-bilge section shapes have lower
resistance than hard chine forms. Therefore, a roundbilge form was included in the program for hulls having
medium deadrise. As monohulls with round bilge
sections in the forebody and hard chine sections in the
afterbody are known for their excellent resistance and
seakeeping characteristics, this section combination was
chosen for the medium deadrise of the design with the
largest length-to-beam ratio. However, the round bilge
forms do not belong to the standard hulls that are
treated here in more detail.
Section symmetry
As was indicated by the previous investigation,
forms with symmetrical section guarantee the lowest
resistance at Fn = 0.6-1.2, when compared with an
asymmetrical or a semi-symmetrical section tbrm. For
this reason, symmetrical sections were chosen for most
of the VWS catamaran series. Asymmetrical and semisymmetrical models with LwL/BxoH = 7.55 were
included in the Series.
ratio
The gap ratio BT/LwL, which is the dimensionless
clearance between the demihulls at the waterline, was

Gap

kept constant for the entire series. The reasons are the
following:
9 The chosen value of BT/LwL = 0.167 is an average
value for catamarans with hull lengths up to 40.0 m.
9 An increase of this value for values of LwL/BxDH <
10, causes an increase in resistance at speeds
corresponding to Fn = 0.8-1.2.
9 In general, increasing the hull separation to reduce
the interference resistance at Fn < 0.6 was not of
interest for the planing catamaran series.
Vertical hull clearance ratio
The vertical hull clearance ratio, HCL/LwL,
represents the height of the wet deck above the water
surface divided by the waterline length. An average
HCL/LwL = 0.06 was chosen for the resistance and the
propulsion tests. For the seakeeping tests a larger value
of HCL/LwL = 0.09 was used. Additionally, this larger
HCL/LwL was employed for the low length-to-beam
ratios, LwL/BxoH < 9.55.
Appendages
To investigate the effect of fully wetted and surface
piercing propellers on propulsive efficiency and the
hull-propulsor interaction coefficients, the following
appendages were provided at each demihull:
9 All variants (standard configuration, as depicted in

Figure 9)
One deadwood to carry the tail shaft and to
protect
the
propeller
against
grounding
(deadwood area = 18--20 percent LwL-T).
One spade rudder (rudder area = 1.4-1.7 percent
LwL-T, NACA 0015 profile).
9 All variants with a midship deadrise of 13M= 38 ~
One inclined shaft with a single arm bracket and
one spade rudder.
One free running shaft for surface piercing
propellers behind the transom with a split inflow
flap and one rudder.
9 The variants with LwL/Bxo~ = 7.55 and 9.55 and a
midship deadrise 13M= 27 ~
One tunnel with a height of 20 percent of the fully
wetted propeller diameter and one spade rudder.
One tunnel with ~, height of 30 percent of the fully
wetted propeller diameter and one spade rudder.
One tunnel with a height of 20 percent of a
surface piercing propeller diameter with a split
inflow flap and a twin spade rudder arrangement.
One tunnel with a height of 30 percent of a
surface piercing propeller diameter and a twin
spade rudder arrangement.
-

Resistance and Propulsion Characteristics

I
Lo~er stde of ~el-deck a13720 m~n abo~e BL

~ ~.~,-.~ r

I)WI,

~'

I
SM 3 8 - 7 , 5 5 - 0 W 6

,',

ASM 2 1 - 7 . 5 5 - 0 W 6

SSM 5 8 / 2 6 - 7 , 5 5 - 0 W 6

Figure 9 - Transom and deadwood

Propellers
Several propellers were used for propulsion
experiments. These were:
9 Fixed-pitch propellers (standard configuration)
D M = 0 . 1 9 m , P/D0.7= 1.4, AE/A0 = 1.10, d~/D =
0.21, Z = 3, cupped trailing edge with modified
NACA 16 profile. Note that with this propeller an
exceptionally high q0 = 0.73 was achieved at
speed of V = 41 kt.
9 Controllable-pitch propellers (two types)
DM = 0.16/0.19 m, P/D0.7 = 1.0-1.5/0.8-1.6,
AE/A0 = 0.83/0.77, dB/D = 0.30/0.29, Z = 4.
9 Surface-piercing propellers
DM = 0.30 m, P/D0.7= 1.5, AE/A0 = 0.66, da/D =
0.26, Z = 6.

38-7,55-DW6

ASM 2 1 - 7 . 5 5 - 0 W 6

SSM 5 8 / 2 6 - - 7 . 5 5 - 0 W 6

Figure I 0 - Stem contour and tunnel top

according to the results of extensive investigations by
the first author (Mtiller-Graf 1991).
FINAL SCOPE OF THE CATAMARAN
SERIES '89
The final scope of the planing catamaran hull
Series '89 is presented in Figure 11 (the shaded blocks
represent the standard configuration whose resistance
and propulsion characteristics are discussed here).
Body plans of the standard demihull fomls are shown in
the Figure 12.

M O D E L CONSTRUCTION AND TEST

PROCEDURE

Transom wedge/flap
Since transom wedges and flaps are the most
effective devices to reduce the resistance of slender
catamarans, all demihulls were equipped with
adjustable transom flaps. Each resistance test was
carried out with flap deflections ofSw = 0 ~ 4 ~ 8 ~ 12~
However, propulsion tests were conducted only for
5w = 8~ (optimal stern wedge angle). The length of the
wedges in all cases was 2.8% LWL.
Spray rails
All demihulls were equipped with a spray rail
(Figure I 0) on both sides of the forebody. These spray
rails served to:
9 Reduce the wetted area and deck wetness,
9 Improve the visibility from the bridge and from the
superstructnre,
9 Prevent spray from climbing up the tunnel sides to
the wet deck.
t
The spray rails are a combination of an integrated
and an external one. For a better separation of the spray
from the hull, a triangular cross-section was used for
the external part of the spray rail. The change in spray
rail design parameters over the hull length was chosen

A model scale ratio, k = 7 was chosen for the entire

series. This scale ratio avoids tank wall and shallow
water effects and guarantees the installation of the
model propulsion unit in each demihull, since
~, --> LWLS/ 1.25 hTANK,
~- --< LwLS/0.50 BTANK,
RNMIN~ 4-106 forthe hull, RNMIN > 4-10s for the propeller.
The models were made of wood and GRP, and had:
Lwc = 3.66-5.12 m, AM = 274-366 kg and BT/Lwc =
0.167.
Turbulent flow at Reynolds numbers Rn < 2-106
was stimulated by square studs, 2.5 x 2.5 mm, by 3 mm
high, spaced 25 mm apart and placed on the hulls 0.1 m
abaft the stem.
A total of 443 resistance and 132 propulsion tests
were carried out in the deep water basin of VWS
(dimensions: 240 na x 8 m x 4.8 m) with model speeds
of V = 2 - 1 1 m/s.
Additional propulsion tests were performed to
detemaine the effects of propeller tunnels with a height
of 0.6 D and 0.3 D (60 and 30% of the propeller diameter). The results of these investigations are presented
in Mtiller-Graf (1995).

Resistance and Propulsion Characteristics

.......................

,
I

,
................

: ...........

r i76"
...............................
-7 :;;;g7!

' ..............

-- q . . . . . . . . . .
i

[:;:7~ymm'~g'r'r

~r]

[ syrn:m.h,ard ,r
. . . . . . . . . . . . . ] .....................
r

L~_y,m.~.:~?::~__52~_92_..,i
.....................
1.

{G= 58,"

[ .........

[ ..................

...........................

le:

,.,.,..
srm,

l
symm.ha~'d>ahlne,? ]

_.

_-z:>eze

m
"..7

.............

U" . . . . . . . . .

i #t,:'.'- 2 7 . . . . . . . .

o~a77~;i';'2--]

'

[s

:;'~~

['=i ,ym=.hard:"eh!,,. 7:(-] {-,,--'~m'~r176 ,chin.-,, i

I
7
syrnm.hard ~ehlne: ;','j

ray> :;;a/k-

t
................................

~'mm
herd

-q ]

.....

rou~d
~hff~o

h.

2:~.

forth,

O~t~rbod~'

I : ~<,Z.2...L_J

[--.ymm:ho~e,~,!..~ : ] [:%~y~,...,,/d "~hr,, ."1

chine

7~'7 s ~ t m h a.................
:.tiord
,chin'S-.

s i ........
re&third

, chine ~',(

+ 2Ag]

Figure 11 - Scope of the VWS planing hull catamaran Series '89

(shaded blocks indicate standard configuration)
The models were free to trim and heave and were
driven (in the standard configuration) by propellers of
0.19 m diameter. The towing force was applied to each
demihull at the longitudinal center of gravity and was
adjusted for running trim and heave to be in line with
the propeller shaft axis.
The towing lbrce was
measured by means of two resistance dynamometers,
one in each hull, as shown in Figure 13.
Because the short measuring times, at model
speeds greater than V= 6.5 m/s do not allow adjustment
the propeller revolutions so that the required friction
deduction or towing force can be obtained exactly, the
propulsion tests were performed using a modified
"British Method". Under this proceedure, two runs at
different thrust-loadings were made for each test speed,
and the propeller speeds, forces and torques were
interpolated for the correct values.
The VWS test procedure is unique since models
are tested under trial condition at a propeller loading
which is equal to that of the full-scale vessel. Thus,
none of the obsolete speed independent trial allowances
had to be applied at lhe obtained power. Additionally,
the full-scale power is corrected for Reynolds number
effects on the model propeller9 The measured forces
and torques were much larger than in other European
towing tanks:
9 The model resistance was up to 120 kg (1180 N).
9 The trust of each model propeller reached values of
up to 50 kg (490 N)

9 The torque of each model propeller reached value of

up to 2.5 kgm (24.5 Nm).
9 The rate of rotation of the model propellers reached
values of up to 45 s q (2700 rpm).
9 The towing carriage was run at speeds of up to
11 m/s.

RESULTS O F TESTS
The comprehensive resistance and propulsion test
results were used to develop a set of design charts for
predicting resistance, propulsive efficiency and hull
propulsor interaction coefficients under tank and trial
conditions. Using these coefficients reliable predictions
of tile powering performance of fast catamarans can be
obtained.
The original experimental results were presented in
several formats. One of these was residual resistanceto-weight ratio:
ER = (RTM-- RVM) / PM VM g = RR/pMVM g
Graphically c~ is given as cR = f (Lwc/BxoH, Fnw2, 13M,
~3w), where
LwL/BxDtt -- 7.55--13.55;
Fnva = 4.0/3.5/3.0/2.5/2.0/1.5/ 1.25/ 1.00/0.75/0.50;
~M = 38~176
~ and
8w = 0~176176 ~

Resistance and Propulsion Characteristics

i-

/- " 7-'T77T/I

!/////iI~

,J ' " ''

~-U//~TJ

~'~--

,'/

(,n

$C~
r

~atr

\ ~';

Mod.No. 2514.1
SM 38-7.55-DW6

CL
Mod.No. 2555.1
SM 27-7.55-DW6

SM 16-7.55-DW5

"O

Mod.No. 2601.1
SM 38-9.55-DW6

Mod.No. 2602.1
SM 27-9.55-DW8

Mod.No. 2603,1
St,4 16-9.55-DW8

(-.

E
0

i/-7~

('3
:3"

~. /

/ !//h|

O~

:Tili--i:
CL
Mod.No. 2563.1
Si~ 38-11.55-DW6

c[ ..................

Mod,No. 2,564.1
SM 27--! 1.55-DW8

Mod.No. 2565.1
SM 16-- 11,55-DW8

Mod.No. 2570.1
SM 38-13.55-DW8

Figure 12 - Section plan o f demihulls

Mod.No. 2571.1
SM 27-13.55-C)W8

Mod.No. 2572.1
SM 16--13.55-0W8

: "+ ~~"- &'pn, 9 Tn r~ t!~ 42

i;e:,

ma!,~r ,'~,,tmnr

tnr,;'~ .

]'~1 a,,;:~h-" ,,~ st , ,:'

[',

9 "Midship-deadrise-independent" models for the

evaluation of dynamic trim, propulsive coefficients
and specific power ratio (0, riD, rio, flu, WT, tx and
gBTR)-

9 Models for wetted surface coefficient and length-todisplacement ratio (WSC and Lwc/(V/2)ll3).
All three of the regression models are expressed by a
single equation of the following form:
X = Y'coefl] - F n v / f f

I3M hi" (~W cl"

(LwL/BXDI-I)d',

where
X = (ca, l-tx, riH, 0, riD, 1- WT, rio, CBTR,WSC, LWL/(V/2)I/3).

Figure 13 - Towing set-up for catamarans at the VWS

with two electric resistance dynamometers
The propulsive efficiency rio, the hull propeller
interaction factors, tx and Wv, the hull efficiency riH,
and the relative rotative efficiency riR, are presented in
the same functional form as the residuary resistance,
except that only one wedge angle, 8w = 8~ (which is
found to be an optimum value) is presented.
For quick evaluation of installed power, the value of
specific power relative to the brake power CWrRis given
for the same values of Lwc/BxDn, Fnv/2, [3M and 8w = 8~
as above,
eBTR based on delivered power, PDTR,
corrected for the mechanical losses, riM, due to gear and
propeller shafting, is
EBTR=: PDTR/(qM A g Vs)
The specific power, eur~{, and propulsive
coefficients include the effects of the Reynolds number
correction on the model propeller.

MATHEMATICAL

MODELS

Through the application of regression analysis,

three groups of mathematical models, for the reliable
evaluation of power, have been derived:
9 "Speed-independent" model for the residuary
resistance-to-weight ratio of (oR).

The polynomial terms and corresponding

coefficients for each equation are given in Tables 3 to
12 of Appendix 1. The terminology used, as for
instance "speed-dependant" (and analogous to that
"midship-deadrise-independent"), as well as the tools
and "tricks" applied in developing the regression
models are given in Radojcic (1991), Radojcic and
Matic (1997), and Radojcic, et al. (1997, 1999, 2001).
The decision not to delve into the development of the
regression models is based on the desire to present
practical powering prediction formulas for catamaran
Series '89 - to concentrate on the catamaran hydrodynamics only - and not to become immersed in the
mathematics. Since the general equation given above,
along with the polynomial terms and coefficients look
daunting, actual examples using the three groups of
regression models are given in the Table 1.
An important part of all regression models are the
boundaries of applicability that are explicitly given in
Table 2. Nevertheless, it must be emphasized that the
regression models should only be used to predict the
perlbnnance of a new hull whose characteristics
(including secondary hull form parameters) are similar
to those of the data underlying its derivation, i.e. to the
catamaran Series '89.
The accuracy and quality of the regression models
is depicted in graphical form, Figures 14 to 16, and in
statistical form - Appendix l's Table 3 (at the bottom)
and Table 13. The graphical presentation of the errors
is important to the naval architect (end user) and the
statistical values provide a good measure of model

Table 1 - Application examples for three math model groups

- Residuary drag-weight ratio for Fnva = 2.50:
CR= -5.538630171 + (-9.917725821) 9(LwL/BxDH)v2 + . . . + (-7.85099E-05) " ([3M)1/2 9(SW)l - (LwL/BxDH)3
-

Quasi propulsive efficiency for ]3M= 16~

rid = -1697.527857 + (-208.6648087) 9(LwL/BxDH)1/4+ . . . + 1.275101545 " (Fnw2)2 9(LwL/BxDH)2

- Wetted surface coefficient:

WSC = -963.4005565 + 173.5484274 9(LwL/BxDu)I/2 + . . . + 6.7 t 128E- 10 9([3M)4 9(Lwt/BxDJ.04

Resistance and Propulsion Characteristics

11

Table 2 - Boundaries of applicability for three math model groups

Mathematical model

Continuous boundaries

Discrete boundaries

ER

LwdBxDH~ (7.55 + 13.55)

~M = (16 o + 38o)

Fnw2= 0.50, 0.75, 1.00, 1.25, 1.50, 2.00, 2.50, 3.00, 3.50, 4.00
~W= 0o, 4o, 8o, 12~

l-tx, qU, 0, qD, 1- Wr, qO,

EBTR

LwL/BxD.=(7.55 + 13.55)
Fnv/2 = (0.75 + 4.00)

~M = 16~ 27~ 38~

3w = 8~

WSC, LWL/(DISV/2)I/3

LwdBxD. = (7.55 + 13.55)

]3M= 16~ 27~ 38~

validity. Predictions using all of the derived regression

models are shown in Figure 17. The absence o f
instabilities between the points used to derive the
regression models is shown in Figures 20 and 24, as
well as in Figures 14 to 17.

indispensable in powering performance predictions

based on conventional resistance predictions.
Propulsive efficiency (q_D)
At trial conditions the propulsive efficiency (or
quasi-propulsive efficiency), lID, is defined as
qD = PETR/ PDTR,

EVALUATION PROCEDURE
where
The performance evaluation procedure, adopted by
VWS Berlin, is described below.

PETR = RTTR V

[kW]

RTTR

[kN]

PDTR

[kW]

Total Resistance

Total resistance (with appendages) for towing tank

conditions is obtained from
RTTK= RR + Rv
for volume Froude numbers (based on a demihull)

qD is composed of three main components

Fnv/2 = V / (g (V/2) m) = 0.5-4.0.

Here

qD= q0*qHqR
which include four subcomponents

RR= 8R PS Vs g
and
RF = 0.5 PS (CF+ACF) 2 S Vs 2,

where

CF(ITTC_1957)= 0.075 / (log Rn - 2) 2 and ACF = 0.3-10 -3.

S (or SWVO) is wetted surface with deadwood and
rudder. Consequently, the total resistance at towing
tank condition is
RTTK = s PS Vs g + 0.5 Ps (CF+ ACF) 2 S Vs z [kN]

Hull Propulsor Interaction Coefficients at Tral

Conditions

The hull propulsor interaction coefficients are the

components of the propulsive efficiency. They are

12

Effective power at trial

condition
Sum o f the hydrodynamic
and aerodynamic resistance
components
under
trial
condition
Delivered power at trial
condition.

qv = qo F ~ [(1 - tv)/(1 - Wv)] (qwq0)

q0* Reynolds number effects corrected open water
efficiency of the model propeller under trial
conditions (explained in the Powering Predictions,
Trial Conditions section)
qtt Hull efficiency under trial conditions (for inclined
shaft)
qR Relative rotative efficiency under trial conditions
qB Propeller efficiency behind the hull
FRN Reynolds number correction factor for model-scale
to full-scale open water propeller efficiency.
Propeller efficiency (q_o)
T h e open water propeller efficiency is the largest
component of the propulsive efficiency. In the present
case rl0TR is determined for the trial condition, based on
open water test results either for a systematic propeller
series or an appropriate propeller design. At present, a

Resistance and Propulsion Characteristics

~,t

p,~, = 3 8 ~

16 ~

o'

Fnva-4

%.

oll

t108

0 12

i .........

: ......

i..

-:-

o n7
o lo

o n9

--:"~.~

. . . . . .

: . . . . . .

' ~.~:~:.~L~

_~

~ .

~.- ~

. os

o n7
o o6
*

- ~ / .........................~_~:~:7-" ,~:...............

0 06

~"-~'-- ~

" "

~"~

~I~=~

o ol

)5

o O3

0o4

o II
:

o 1o

'Fnw-3

00'

o 09

'~=~i

0.08

~ - ~ J z : - . ~ ' . .

:.

: ....................: .......:

'

"

:-,,~..~ ~,.,,,.

~ O7

.....................

o o5

"

"

.: ..

_.~.::::.._~
...5"~,~

.-~ ,. .............. :.......... ..

~- ~ ~ _ ~_-~:;;~_~"~ ~

0 o4
i

o o3
o 08 -

0 04

0 10
*'x..,.

IV v , ~ - 2 O0

~'11~-2.oo

,. ........

0 09

~.~,,- . ..~-."--,.
,...-.

O,O7

-..

! .................

........................

:
0 08

"~...~

0 U6

~-.

,,.,. .

.
0 o7

,3

;0006
0.05
0 m~
....

_ _ ~ ' -~ ~ s

.
OO4
D O3
O 09

o n3
O.Og
g

'

icn ~a-

.~o

b 07 9
o o7
0 06
x

~J

or,6

uo5
o Os
o o,I

o t>4

0 03
o O4O

0.03
0 O45

Fnva=l
.

n ~35

,..

,oo
.

:..

.....................

,, : ~ . . ~ . . . . . . . . . . .

0 u20

;..........

x.,

......

. . . . . . . .

...............

~"~.~, '

-:~ ~

: ;~x~"-x<

-- : . . . . .

0 020 ~

IJ 0 1 0

~'nve

0010

l,-nva_o.5o

{)O8

0 008

0 006

o oo6

- ~ . . . . . ~:~~2-~:=-~ :,

Figure

"

~ ~~"~-~2

....

~"~~
i

~'
z_,~

0.5O

o oo4

~.......

o OO2

(I 0 0 2

o 01)s

:. . . . . . . .

'....

..... i

'=:-~-L~c~-~-:E72

~ u .

o olo

0 004

:..
:

hill5

:............. ............. :.....

0 o~n
.

F n v ~ -1.OO

. e.,o../".~-.5 ........
"x

0 025

- -

4-

$5

95

14 - Drag-weight

log
I15
L V C L : B.~DD H

125

135

ratio of the residual

7.5

resistance,

Fnv/2 a n d ~M = 1 6 ~ a n d 3 8 ~ ( d o t s a r e o r i g i n a l
- - 3 w = 0

---

gw=4

~,

Resistance

".......... 3 w = 8

and

0.000

---4-

' -----+---

85

95

= f ( L w L / B x l . ) H , (~w) g i v e n
VWS
~,

Propulsion

values

---

while

8w=12

IO5
115
L VVI-" L l X l ) 11

for different

lines arc calculated

125

135

values

of

values)

Characteristics

13

~m
3,5

= 38 ~

I~m =

Fnx~2

3.5

15

3.0

30-

Fnw2

x .................. i .......... ,. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

25

"

20
20

1x x

3.040

-~

215o

25

' .......................
. . . .

'

16

]
~

"

x !

"-

'

20

. . . .

C 15
@ 10

I,o

1.0

05

o5

: o"'] '~ .................

.............

80

"

........

~. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

0 75

- 0

05

-05
I

-io

0.80
Fnv~2

Fnw~
40
30

0 75

0 75

40

...~z_~~.:

'~',-,

0 70

0 70

3.0

" .

"

0.60

20

0.55
15 _.
......................

1.0

0 50
0 ~5o -

Fn~/z

.. ~ . . . . . . . . .

'

-40

0725

0.65

0 60

o 55 -

~-x,m~

.....

045

o,,o,

0.750

I5
-

o .1o
0.775 -

__

,
2

0 50

0.723

.....

F......

:
~v.:4,-::--'--~--"

'30

- ....

i
~

i
~" x

~'x

~r

~-

0700
2

0.700

o 675

0650

"

:i~

. . . . .

"

'

0 625
o 6no

0 600
0 100

0.575
010O

o 075

LO

Fnvl2

4(I

o 075

o ose

. .
3o

. . .

~ . .

0050

"

0,025

!
i

0025

60U

'

15
. . . . . . .~. . . .
0.75" ~
lO / :

4) 025
0050
-0075

'

oo009

~ x ' : ~ ' x " ' "~'~ ....

. . . . . . ' . . . . . . ' ......
~ ...........
:
:
.
:
.

-0.0"~
-00-q)

-0A00
Fnv/2

................. ~:,~7

o 050 -

1.0
z.o[5

,) 025 9

3o .

=:

40

o 200 -

o.75

. :

.........

i ...........

........................

~. . . . . . . . .

"

0.150

LO

~,

'

'.............. :- . . . . . . . . . . :.............

.......

0 75

-0 O25

i.s
LO

-0075

.................................... i ........................................ i ..............

4) 100
0075

~"

0 I00

0050

Fnvp

. .

. .

.,..*

-o 05o -

20

4,o

'

00o0

:.

-0 075
t I(.~

0650

15

0 625

20

~-~ 0675

0.75L0!

-0~50

1,100

Fn','/2 1

Fnv/~
1050
1050
[

.......

0.L7551,
2043000.

000
zo

;,---~*

15

'

o 950
=

~- o 900

'

'

0.8.~
0.~.;

O.8OO
o 750

0850
6.5

75

~5

")5
105
LWL/BXDI|

115

L~,~

135

65

75

85

95
10.5
L~V1/BXDH

115

t2,5

Figure 15 - Trim 0 and propulsive coefficients qD, qo, WT, tx and qH given as a f(LwL/BxDH, Fnv/2) for
[3M = 16 ~ and 38 ~ and 8w=8 ~ (dots are original V W S values, lines are calculated values)

14

Resistance and Propulsion Characleristics

L35

[J~

[I,~1 = 3 8 ~

16 ~

o $

o3

. . . .

~o2

......

~ _ ~

i
^

:-

~.o

...... : ............................i
^

.^^)

2o
.....

01
x x~

o.n

i
7.5

85

95

:,

:,

.
i

Io

12.5

; .............

. . . . . . .

L.x-.x-=

i ..............

~ ..........................

! xxx
' ^ ^Tx

x ^

Lo

0.75,

0O
75

13.5

i
::
::

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

~ . ~ * - - .

:,

10,5
1125
LWL"BXDH

04

~5.

7,5,5
i 3 55
055

'

95

85

LU.$
II5
GWLVBXDH

125;

13.5;

145

0,1

II 55
1355
55
7 55

/
,

Ii55

O3

0.3

BXI) H
0.2

01

0.1

0.0
0"7,5

1.25

I 75

"~25
-

2 75

3 25

3 75

0.0
0 75

,I 25

1,25

1 75

Fnv.:

2 25

2.75
lt-nv,a

Figure 16 - Specific power EBTR= f(LwL/BxDH, Fnvn_) and EBTR = f(Fnv/2, LwL/BxDH) tbr
and ~w=8 ~ (dots are original VWS values, lines are calculated values)

systematic high speed propeller series that has modem

blade section proliles with cuped trailing edges and that
takes into accotmt the effects of oblique inflow
conditions ~ = 6-12 ~ and the low cavitation numbers
typical of high speed vessels, does not exist. In most
cases the designer is dependant on the (old) GawnBurill Propeller Series having circular arc blade profiles
and somewhat lower propeller efficiencies (see for
instance Radojcic 1988).
Thrust which should be achieved by each propeller
follows from

KT/J2 = RTTR/ [Ps DS 2 V2

while,

4 25

16~ and 38 ~

RrrR,M =

R T M + [ ( R A A . S + RpAR,S + A R A w , S )

RTM

IN]

TXTR,M IN]
TvTR. M

[N]
[~

~so

[o]

[~

k
(l - W,r)2 (l - tx)eos~

3 "75

Trial resistance of the model is

TTRv= RTTR / (NpR (1 -- tx)COS~)

so that thrust coefficient is

~M =

3 25

/ (X 3

Ps)]PM.

Model resistance under tank conditions

F'orizontal thrust component under trial
condition
Axial thrust under trial condition
Shaft inclination underway relative to
horizontal - xr = ~so + 0
Shaft inclination at rest relative to
horizontal
Running trim
Scale ralio.

NpR]

RAA,S, RpAR,S, ARAw. S are drag components of the

trial conditions (given in the Powering Predictions,
Trial Conditions section).

o0 = 0.6-0.4 for Vs = 39-45 kt.

Thrust deductiuon factor (t_x)

The trust deduction factor indicates the change of
hull resistance due to the working propeller. In the
present case it is based on the horizontal thrust
component under trial conditions:
tx = 1 - (R'FTR. M/~.TxTR, M)

Wake fraction (wv)

The effective wake fraction of the model is
determined on the basis of the open water propeller
characteristics by means of the thrust identity at the trial
condition and is given by

respectively

WT = 1 -- ( V A M / V M ) = 1 - (JTTR,M nM DM) / V~,I

t x = 1 -- ( R T T R . M / ' Y ' T 4 t T R , M COS~./).

Resistance

and

Propulsion

Characteristics

15

I]M = 38 ~

05O

100

159

200 FII~/? 250

FI~/~ 250

~M = 16~

50e

3~:

400

300

350

353

i00

I,'O

2110 Filr/t~

~00

05r

LCO

i5~

20O FII~,~ 25~

3~r

35r

40O

2~0 FII~.,; 250

30C

35r

40O

250

7~0

~cp

050

10O

150

2~

OSO

100

150

20~ Flirt; 25~

300

3~0

400

tOO

150

20O /tllqzc~ 25~

300

3~

400

350

leg

!5r

200

2-~

3O0

3~

400

10O

150

20O FIIwz 25r

~r162

35r

4r162

c,~0

I~

I~0

.~co Flirt2 253

3oo

350

400

o5O

I~0

:50

20O 1:11r

2~0

330

35r

1;0

O~

I0)

!0O

_"3) Fllvn 253

300

J53

400

~",0

10t;,

200 Fll?,2

?~0

300

FII~r

I00

I5r

I'~

Figure 17 - eR, 0, WT, tx, rlH, q o , rio = f(Fnv/2, LwL/BxDn) for ~M = 16 ~ and 38 ~ and 8 w = 8 ~
LWL/BXDH:

16

~%3

- -

7.55

9.55

...........

11.55

Resistance and Propulsion Characteristics

....

13.55

{~

,~

VAM

Jill/S] Advance speed of the model propeller at

the axial inflow condition determined
from the thrust identity
JTTR,M
Advance ratio at axial inflow condition
determined from thrust identity under trial
condition
nM
[Sq] Rate of rotation of the model propeller
DM [m] Diameter of model propeller.
Hull efficiency (riH)
The hull efficiency is defined by the ratio
(1--tx)/(1--WT). However, here, riM takes into account
shaft inclination ~'. Consequently
tin = riH'e = (1 - tv)/(l -- WT)
Obviously, tv :~ tx. If needed, tv may be obtained from
above-mentioned relationship.
Relative rotative efficiency (riR)
The relative rotative efficiency is caused by the
inhomogeneous and oblique inflow conditions at the
propeller and by the effects of the rudder on the
propeller characteristics, riR is defined as the ratio of
the propeller efficiency in the "behind condition" to that
"in open water" and is given by riR=rlB/ri0. Propeller
efficiency behind the hull is
rib = TvTR,SVA/ PDTR= TvTP..SVA/ (2~ n QTP,)
POTR [kW]
QTR [Nm]

Delivered power under trial conditions

Propeller torque under trial conditions

Relative rotative efficiency, qR, has an almost constant

value. So rlR= 0.96 was adopted throughout.

P O W E R PREDICTION

where

Ra;,,s = CAA 0.5 pA (Vs + Vw) 2 Av

PA = 1.226" 10-3
CAA= 0.65
Vs
Vw= 3.34
Av=98.5

[t/In3] Mass density of air

Air allowance coefficient
Ira/s] Ship speed
Ira/s] Wind speed for Bn=2
[m 2]
Projected above-water transverse area

R~AR,S= 0.5 PS VS2 [CDp (Avz + Ax)]

CDp = 0.15
AFz = 0.075.0.05.16 = 0.06 m 2
Ax = 0.20-0.245-2 = 0.0c~8 in 2
CDp(Arz+ Ax) = 0.0237 m 2

area ofzink anodes

two hull openings

ARAw,s= 0.02 RTTK. (2% Of RTTK for wind of Bn=2).

Consequently, the total resistance under trial conditions
is
RTTR= R'rTK+ RAA+ Rp.,,R+ RAW

[kN]

Full-scale trial power and RPM determined by this

procedure do not need any other empirical allowances
or corrections, except that of the Reynolds number
corection for viscous scale effects on the model
propeller. The Reynolds numbers of the full scale
propellers are larger by at least a factor 10 than those of
the model propellers, thus the required torque becomes
comparatively smaller.
This effect increases the
propeller efficiency and decreases the required power.
The Reynolds correction for power and rate of rotation
is determined by the method of "equivalent profiles"
and dependes on propeller diameter, rate of rotation and
blade area ratio. For ;Series '89 the increase of the
propeller efficiency amounts to FRN = 1.03--1.07
corresponding to D = 1.0-1.4 m. Typically,
FRN = llO*/qO = 1.04,

Trial Conditions

where

The powering performance and the propulsive

coefficients were determined for the trial condition. At
the trial condition, the model propeller works at the
same thrust loading as the full-scale propeller.
Therefore, the following drag components of the trial
condition (which cannot be simulated at the model
tests) were taken into account:
RAA.S

[kN] Air and wind resistance of the full-scale

vessel
RpAR,S [kN] Parasitic drag due to the zink-anodes
and the inlet and outlet openings at the
bottom of the hull for cooling and
sanitary water
ARaw,s [kN] The added resistance in waves at the
trials due to rippling seas,

ri0* Reynolds number effects corrected open water

efficiency of tile model propeller
rl0 open water efficiency of the model propeller.
Powering Predicton Methods
As is indicated in Figure 18, powering predictions
may be performed for an actual propeller or for any
other new (installed) propeller. If an actual propeller is
considered, two approaches are available: a
conventional method and a short method. Other than
the method depicted in Figure 18, powering predictions
for any installed propeller may be performed by
increasing the power obtained with an actual propeller
by a quantity corresponding to the difference between
open water efficiency qo. ACTUALand q0, INSTALts

Resistance and Propulsion Characteristics

17

l-'owcr prcdicti<.t
I

a v;t !!a.l.,,!',!~

!.r ..............:L.......

i,,sl:,llcd p,'op~l !.~t]

b.f. 1<'!- .i
................

Ae/AO ~'~3. I':)?:

P ~; 1. It.)
short m e t h o d

[4L'lus 4.2+. ;";

,-~,"

b~,t

~ r:: K(!

conventional method
'e
f

. . . . .

........

". . . . . . . . . . .

'+t3,,:,. :!+
Figure 18 - Algorithm showing the evaluation of power prediction
(shaded blocks indicate values which are calculated by math model)

Conventional Method
The conventional method follows from everything
written up till now, i.e.
PETR= RTTRVs

and

PDTR= PETR/I"ID [kW]

PBTR= PDTR/1]M
where

[kW]

qM = qc qS. = 0.94

rio = 0.96 -- gear losses and qSH = 0.98 -- shaft losses.

Short Evaluation Method
The short method for brake power evaluation is
based on the specific brake power for trial conditions
s

P BTR=

BTR

AS

g Vs [kW]

As mentioned earlier, eBTR includes the effects the

Reynolds number correction of the model propeller.
All regression models presented are independently
derived. So, a good check of the model quality is to
compare independently derived PBTR by using the
conventional and short evaluation methods9 Detailed
algorithms for both procedures is given in Figure 19.
Figure 20 shows the final results obtained by each
method.
MAIN C H A R A C T E R I S T I C S OF THE
RESISTANCE AND PROPULSIVE
COEFFICIENTS
The main characteristics of the resistance and hullpropulsor interaction coefficients of the standard

18

catamaran configuration, as functions of speed and hull

form parameters, are described in the tbllowing
statements:
9 The effect of the length-to-beam ratio on the
interference resistance is largest for the smallest
length-to-beam ratio, LwL/BxDH= 7.55 and smallest
for the largest, LwL/BxD. = 13.55, see Fig. 21.
9 The midship deadrise does not have a significant
influence on the interference resistance. The smallest
deadrise, ~M = 16~ causes the least interference
resistance, see Fig. 22.
9 The transom wedge in combination with an external
spray rail was shown to be very effective in reducing
both the wave resistance and the frictional resistance.
The lift from the wedge decreases the running trim
and by this the wave resistance. The spray rail
reduces the frictional resistance. For the optimal
wedge inclination, 6w = 8~ the catamaran with the
smallest length-to-beam ratio has the largest
reduction in resistance (and vice versa), see Fig. 23.
9 Thrust deduction factor, tx reaches its maximum
values (tx > 0.1) in the hump speed region and
decreases and holds steady at tx < 0.05 for Fnw2 >
1.5-2.0.
With an increase in L/B, tx decreases
slightly over the whole speed range, see the 3-D
diagram showing tx in Fig. 24.
9 The speed dependence of wake fraction, WT is exactly
opposite to that of tx. Above the hump region it
increases with speed and holds steady at around 0.05
above Fnv/2 = 2.5 (depending on L/B ratio, lower L/B

Resistance and Propulsion Characteristics

I,\Vl/137~[)tt

i i: 'rs,~,>.

..................

.......
..............
"',JIr
;

e................
'!~2:le

1:),

,5:,

Fit:,

i-

~
.........................

i.,-

~L ...........................

k..........................

r ~3;7
............

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

,.~,

=:; ,, :/. ....

................................

..., . ,~ ~. .~*~'":
. . . ", e ;

( ?c, n v c n t i o n a I

V,

] .......................

i 2.

. . . . . . . . .*. . .?. . . .-='

. . . .,". . ~. . . . ~ '-'! ....
" *& ~,:. . . .9. . . . t"*'a

q r, ~-!~

*. ~. :'s#,
. . . . ~" ,,,,,~. :~
, x~x

:~[~'~r~
~{ .....

% t~ort2

meihod

nlethod

Figure 19 - Algorithm showing evaluation procedure for obtaining PBTR

(shaded blocks indicate values which are calculated by math model)

I~M

]IM = 1 6 ~

38 ~

12O00

120(10

10000

10000

--

6000

...........

.............

7 2 - ; ;

6O00

.....................................
-

2000

i ............... i .................. i ................

.- . . . . . . .

....

i
0

==-:--':'
7.5

8,5

95

'

105

'

'

11.5

_~o0o. . . . . . .

1.5

: ::

1.o
'

12.5

'

'

"'2

13.5

0.75

..........................

--

o ~
14.5

7.5

!
8.5

Fnva

"i.............. i . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

i .............

}. . . . . . . . . .
i

::................. ..................................

---

[ ......

-~ . . . .

9.5

10.5

i,

4 o ..

i ..........

............................

_..
,

! ...........

~ ~

..............

................. ...................

-7 ........

................

.........

.......

,,000
,o00

;. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

2...............
2252

8000

8O00

.............

~..............

3.o

!. . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

...................................

~~

i,

..................

i
I 1.5

2.(1

lls

0.75

.,

,,
12.5

13.5

14.5

LWL/BXDII

L '~.'L:BXD H

Figure 20 - PBTa = f(LwJBxDm Fnv/2) for [3M = 38 ~ and 16 ~ and 8w = 8 ~ calculated by conventional
( ............. ) and short ( ~ )
method ( A = l l l . 6 t ,
z=3, Ae/Ao=l.l
and P / D = I . 4 )
ratios correspond to slightly lower WT) , s e e the 3-D
diagram showing wr in Fig. 24.
9 Because it is a function of tx and WT, the hull
efficiency qH oscillates at lower speeds. Above Fnv/2
= 2.0-2.5 it holds steady in the range riH = 1.02-1.03,
depending on the L/B ratio and 13M.
9 The relative rotative efficiency riR shows small
oscillations around hump speed (depending weakly
on L/B ratio) and holds steady at 0.96-0.98 above
Fnv/2 = 1.0-1.5.
9 Propeller efficiencies (rio and riB) reflect the effect of
thrust loading, particularly at the hump speed. Both

efficiencies increase gradually from Fnwz = 1.3 to

their highest values of qo = 0.73 and qB = 0.70 for
speeds of around 40 kt (Fnwz = 3.5-4.0).
Propulsive efficiency tin depends on the thrust
loading and tracks the propeller efficiency. The
lowest values arise in the hump speed region where
riD = 0.45-0.65 (higher values correspond to higher
L/B ratios). Propulsive efficiency increases gradually
to an exceptionally high rid = 0.72-0.73 for Fnw2 =
3.5-4.0 (40 kt), see the 3-D diagram showing rid in
Fig. 24.

Resistance and Propulsion Characteristics

19

It should be noted, however, that the main

characteristics of resistance (actually eR), dynamic trim,
and propulsive coefficients are also given in Fig. 17.

NON-STANDARD CONDITIONS AND

CONFIGURATIONS
The standard conditions and the configurations that
are treated by the regression models are given in the
Mathematical Models section and are explained in the
Powering Prediction and Layout of the Series, and Final
Scope of the Series '89 Catamarans sections,
respectively.
Nevertheless, the influence of nonstandard conditions and configurations on the final
result - Delivered Power - is briefly depicted
graphically in Appendix 2.
The influence of Reynolds number corrections and
trial condition allowances are illustrated in Figures 25
and 26 respectively. The influence of section shape is
shown in Figures 27 and 28, while the effect of change
of longitudinal center of buoyancy LCB ("Symm. Hard
Chine + 2AB" as denoted in Figure 11) is shown in
Figure 29. The impact of varying propulsor types and
appendage configurations are depicted in Figures 3032.

,!

~,=

-I-l~'~

1.2 84-

/..\

Cotomoron type:

....

I [;.~,,~

i
1

--

9.5~-ow6

s~.-,~.~-~w~

'
Fn--

,~.~
......

6,

p,

I
I ........
'

9.5s

~-o . . . . . .

. . . .

?
V

LWL/BXDH

FINTRT[

--t4-i./--=~---i

l.O

s~B-

-' . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

h i I/ . \ ',k I
III/' ,\\1

~ ~..

.......

~@"

--6'--

2___C~

"......

og-

Figure 21 - The effect of length to beam ratio on the

interference resistance
13 7

C O N C L U D I N G REMARKS

..........yp:

~,

- -

38"

A novel and reliable method for predicting the

propulsive power of high-speed catamarans is
presented. The residual resistance, as well as the
components of the propulsive efficiency that are needed
for reliable evaluation of delivered power, may be
determined from the regression models. The regression
models are based on multiple linear regression analysis
of the large number of propulsion data from the VWS
hard chine catamaran Series '89.
The powering prediction method is reliable
because the propulsive coefficients for Series '89 were
obtained from self-propulsion tests under trial
conditions. Under these test conditions the model
propellers are working at a loading which is equal to
that of the full-scale propellers. Therefore, none of the
obsolete (speed independent) trial allowances for power
and RPM have to be applied to the power obtained by
these regression models.
This powering prediction method replaces a large
stock of data, concerning resistance, running trim and
propulsive coefficients. The n-aethod allows optimization of the hull-form parameters and prediction of
powering in early design stage for catamarans having
length-to-beam ratios of LwL/BxDH= 7.55 to 13.55 and
midship deadrise values of I3M = 16~ to 38 ~ with an
optimal wedge inclination of 8w = 8~ Residuary

20

resistance and hull-propeller interaction coefficients

versus speed are given for a large speed range - from
the hump speed to planing speeds (up to Fnvlz = 4,
FnL = 1.5).
Moreover, since the propulsive coefficients are
more influenced by length-to-beam ratio than by
section shape, these regression models may be used
relatively successfully for other catamaran forms
(series). So, powering predictions for round bilge hull
forms is possible if accurate resistance characteristics
are available.

Resistance

and

Propulsion

_A~

-_~

,24 :

...........

9 [
, ~'~-/:-',~

/.3J',

SM3B- 7.55-DW6

I: ',~

'A J

'\~I

t. . . .

FINTRT

,.~ . . . .

_ _ _ '. _ _ ~ _ - "

~
~

)~\

,,.

e,lL~

",..

.....

= 111 6 t
.

.1

-2222__ :

5 ....

.....

= o.,67
I

'_ . . . . .

~'

0.9

Figure 22 - The effect of midship deadrise on the

interference resistance
',\
r -"-~-

- 7

Kotomorontyp

'~'"~

- 'J ~

",_k-~?

i
1.0

"
}

-,-~_

oB J

~
'2

7 55
11.55

Fnv/z --

1,5

L__

LIB
7.55--0W6

........ SM27-11 5 5 - 0 w 8

"-.
0.9 t o - ~~o I ~

$M27-

20

~ . ~ .

" ...j

_-F_-~._

3.0

35

]
-p___~'_'LF'.--.

, l ~
L

J/
-=;'EJ

6.

- B"

Figure 23 - The influence of transom wedge on

resistance

Characteristics

40

PM = 380

{IM = 16 ~

0 65

0 60

.-+"

4.0

~~......... . - - .

: : >: . : . : ~ ~ , ,

'"

'

o :-+::-:'.:~::~:.-::+.-.i:~
"...........
F
2.0 ._
Br

~.

,,::::.....:~:"
....
+

,, '~

.-+ ~i.o ~

.~s

,J+

! ........

:++t
"

.- + "

.....

'

/,.+.

--+........ L.--7

0.02

-0.02

+,

,..z<

~!!~!iiii!!!:::?::~::::::i+~~-o,,

++
Fn++

3.0

3,5

: L.'+ : :

+................+iiiiiiii++I~

t+ + + + : + + + ~ +

"

.... !......... I-~176

~ ~ ~ : : ~

4.0

Fn+~"5

3.0

+i+ +.....I ~oo

~ -"<
,o ++

3.5

4.0

Figure 24 - 3D diagrams showing characteristics of qD, Wr and tx as a f(Fnv/2, LwL/BxDH

for ~M=16 ~ and 38 ~ and 6w=8 ~

Resistance

and Propulsion

Characteristics

21

REFERENCES

Clement, E. P. 1962. Graphs for Predicting the High Speed

Resistance of Planing Catamarans. lnternat. Shipbuild.
Progress, 9(99):464-77.
Fry, E. D. and Graul, T. 1972. Design and Application of
Modem High Speed Catamarans. Marine Tech., 9:34557.
Insel, M. and Molland, A. F. 1992. An Investigation into the
Resistance Components of High Speed Displacement
Catamarans. RINA Trans., 134:1-20.
Michel. H. W. 1961 The Sea-going Catamaran Ship, its
Features and its Feasibility. Internat. Shipbuild.
Progress, 8(85):390-401.
Moland, A. F., Wellicome, J. F. and Causer, P. R. 1996.
Resistance Experiments on a Systematic Series of High
Speed Displacement Catamaran Forms: Variation of
Length-Displacement Ratio and Breadth-Draught Ratio.
RINA Trans., 138:59-71.
Moland, A. F. and Lee, A. R. 1997. An Investigation into the
Effect of Prismatic Coefficient on Catamaran Resistance.
RINA Trans., 139:157-65.
Moland, A. F., Wellicome, J. F., Temarel, P., Cic, J. and
Taunton, D. J. 2001. Experimental Investigation of the
Seakeeping Characteristics of Fast Displacement
Catamarans in Head and Oblique Seas. RINA Trans.,
143:78-97.
Moss, J. L. 1969. Resistance Test Results for 1/12-Scale
Models of Three Planing Catamarans. Ship Hydrodynamics Laboratory, University of Michigan.
Miiller-Graf, B. 1989. Schnelle Fahrgastkatamarane (High
Speed Passenger Catamarans). Yearbook of STG,
83:179-95.
M~iller-Graf, B. 1991. The Effect on an Advanced Spray Rail
System on Resistance and Development of Spray of
Semi-Displacement Round Bilge Hulls. Proc. 1st FAST
Conf., Trondheim, pp. 125~41.
Mfiller-Graf, B. 1993a. Der Einflu6 der Spantsymmetrie auf
Widerstand, Leistungs-bedarf und Seeverhalten van
schnellen Gleitkatamaranen (The Effect of Section
Symmetry on Resistance, Powering Performance and
Seakeeping Qualities of High Speed Planing
Catamarans). Yearbook of STG, 87:206-13.
Mfiller-Graf, B. 1993b. The Scope of the VWS Hard Chine
Hull Catamaran Series '89. Proc. 2nd FAST Conf.,
Yokohama, pp. 223-37.
Mtiller-Graf, B. 1993c. Widerstand und Propulsion-Erste
Ergebnisse der VWS-Gleitkatamaran-Serie '89 (Resistance and Propulsion - First Results of the VWS Fast Hard
Chine Hull Catamaran Series '89). Erweiterter Text der
Arbeit Stir das Statusseminar des BMFT 1993, VWSReport 1230/93, Berlin Model Basin, pp. 1-54.
M011er-Graf, B. 1994. Die hydrodynamischen Eigenschaften
der VWS-Gleitkatamaran-Serie '89 (The Hydrodynamic
Characteristics of the VWS Fast Hard Chine Hull
Catamaran Series '89). Yearbook of STG, 88:205-18.
Mtiller-Graf, B. 1995. Alternative Propeller Concepts for
High Speed Planing Hull Catamarans. Proc. 3rd FAST
Conf., Lfibeck-Travem(inde, pp. 977-89.

22

Mfiller-Graf, B. 1996. Gtitegrade der Propulsion van Gleitkatamaranen (Propulsive Coefficients of the VWS Hard
Chine Planing Hull Catamaran Series '89). VWS Report
No. 1255/96, Part I, II and III, Berlin Mode[ Basin.
Miiller-Graf, B. 1997. General Resistance Aspects of High
Speed Small Craft, Part I. 25th WEGEMT, Athens, pp.
1-75.
Mfiller-Graf, B. 1999a. Lefstungbedarf und Propulsionseigenschaften der shnellen Knickspant-Katamarane der
VWS Serie '89 (Power Requirement and Propulsive
Characteristics of the VWS Hard Chine Planing Hull
Catamaran Series '89). 20th Symp. Yachtenwurf und
Yachtbau, Hamburg, pp. 1-117.
Mtiller-Graf, B. 1999b. Widerstand und hydrodynamische
Eigenschaftender schnellen Knickspant-Katamarane der
VWS Serie '89 (Resistance and Hydrodynamic
Characteristics of the VWS Fast Hard Chine Catamaran
Series '89). 20th Symp. Yachtenwurf lind Yachtbau,
Hamburg, pp. 1-121.
Miiller-Graf, B. 2000. The Components of the Propulsive
Efficiency of the VWS Fast Hard Chine Hull Catamaran
Series '89 and their Application to the Power Prediction.
Proc. IMAM Conf', Ischia, pp. 1-25.
Radojcic, D. 1988. Mathematical Model of Segmential
Section Propeller Series for Open-Water and Cavitating
Conditions Applicable in CAD. Proc. SNAME
Propellers '88 Syrup., Virginia Beach, pp. 5.1-5.24.
Radojcic, D. 1991. An Engineering Approach to Predicting
the Hydrodynamic Performance of Planing Craft Using
Computer Techniques. RINA Trans., 133:251-67.
Radojcic, D., Matic, D. 1997. Regression Analysis of Surface
Piercing Propeller Series. Proc. 4th HSMV Conf.,
Sorrento, pp. 2.3-2.12.
Radojcic, D., Rodic, T. and Kostic, N. 1997. Resistance and
Trim Prediction for the NPL High Speed Round Bilge
Displacement Hull Series. RINA Proc. on Power,

Performance

and

Operability

of

Small

Craft,

Southampton, pp. 10.1-10.14.

Radojcic, D. Princevac, M. and Rodic, T. 1999. Resistance
and Trim Predictions for the SKLAD Semidisplacement
Hull Series. Oceanic Engineering lnternat., 3(1):34-50.
Radojcic, D. Grigoropoulos, G., Rodic, T., Kuvelic, T. and
Damala, D. 2001. The Resistance and Trim of Semidisplacement, Double-Chine, Transom-Stern Hull Series.
Proc. 6th FAST Conf., Southampton, 3:187-95.
Thomas, P. A. 1970. The Aquarius, A Major Development in
High Speed Water Transportation. SNAME South East
Section.
Turner, H. and Taplin, A. 1968. The Resistance of Large
Powered Catamarans. SNAME Trans., 76:180-213.
Werenskiold, P. 1990. Design Tool for High Speed Slender
Catamarans. Proc. of High Speed Marine Craft Conf.,
Kristiansand, pp. 1-8.
Yermontayev, S., Alframeyev, E. A. Teder, L.A. and
Rabinowich, Y. S. 1977. Hydrodynamic Features of
High Speed Catamarans. Hovercrq/? and tlydrofoil,
16(11-12):45-8.
Zips, J. M. 1995. Numerical Resistance Prediction based on
the Results of the VWS Hard Chine Catamaran Hull
Series '89. Proc. 3rd FAST ConJ'., LiJbeck-Travemfinde,
pp. 67-74.

Resistance and Propulsion Characteristics

APPENDIX

Table 3 - Polynomial tenaas, regression coefficients and important statistics for ER

~;R

0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
O
0
0
0
0
0
0
1/3
1/3
1/3
1/3
1/3
1/'3
1/3
1/.3
1/3
1/3
1/3
1/3
1/3
1/3
1/3
1/.3
1/3
1/3
1/3
1/2
1/2
1/2
1/2
1/.2
1/.2
1/2
1/.2
1/2
1/2
1/2
1/2
1/.2
1/2
1/2
1/2
1/2
1/2
1/2
1/2
1/'2
1/2

0
0
0
0
0
0
1/3
1/3
1/3
1/3
1/2
1/2
1/2
1/2
1
2
3
3
3
3
O
0
0
0
0
0
1/.3
1/3
1/3
1/3
1/2
1/2
1/2
1
2
2
3
3
3
0
O
O
O
O
O
1/3
1/3
1/3
1/2
1/.2
1/.2
1/2
1/2
1/2
1
1
1
1
2
2
2

Fnv/2

d
0
1/3
1/2
1
2
3
0
1
2
3
0
1
2
3
0
2
0
1/3
1/2
1
0
1t3
112
1
2
3
0
1/2
2
3
0
1/3
2
3
0
1/3
0
1/3
1/2
0
1/3
1/.2
1
2
3
0
2
3
0
113
1/2
1
2
3
0
1t3
1
3
0
1/3
1

0.50

1.00

0.75

-0.173909006
0.098273967

-0.000929905
4.79565E-05
1.40197501
-0.373589592
0.020557836
-0.000773178

0.012565673
-0.000272806
-0.052890922
-7 32486E-05

-112,2651783 -509.5614157
294.2994508 1408.766278
-199.8506111 -9945100187
11.28655 68.12267465
-0.650371987
-0 002683374 0.003227611
-0.111023232 28.89895758
-0.044838426
-0.001122606 0.004875129
0.000110826 0.000289405
-29.85438839
0.111640079
-0.004349477 -0.004101338
-0.000259073
-0.11416155 3.482000005
1.06422E-05 0.000135917

1.25

1.50

-31.32927612
19.14025823

-6.483827938

-0.15071261
0.005329248
-0 424619179
0.031895407
-0.000640324
0 770268435
0.236867941
-0.018451146
0.000356916
-0.15451443

-0 003437854
0.00022107 -0.009114445 0.006701751
0.007117478 -0.003990541
4.01738E-05
-3.6942E-05 -0.000632067 0.000162902
96.43339632 169.5730735 32.94677916
0.009026319 -248.0043541 -454 6815211 -19.99056577
166.1281198 311.7049875
0.003117269 -8.698809939 -18.03232553
-0.000367979 -0.035862798
0.154586141
0 003138442 0.004637667 -0.005429348
-1.800692237 -1.054333112
1.067690131
0.315020592
0.002477064 0.001171068
-0 004374674
0 000592035 9.70116E-06
1.05017E-05
-1.887287619
2.02892835 0 923845326 -0.651101585
-0.29069583
-0.018807273
-0.000134816 0.001996301
8.11248E-05
6929E-06
0.007377176
0 018872648 -0.007514197 -0.008648184 0.000561973
0.002719157 -2.99538E-05
0.00276436
-0.005103748
-0.00106922 -0 003154042
0.001985174 0.000225926
0.00088977 0.001295074
0.072769398 -5.604150947
-12.91833009
-0.064880292 6.381763374 -8.078625842
7.8291102
11.02887858
0.006109663 -1 373949176 -2.662200029
0.075233486 0.124254964
-0.06031789
-0.001941525
-0.00327813 0.002114272
-0.157843141 0.801038942 0.109010834 -3 742590843
-0.014155953
0.000215954
7.109E-06
0.000229064
1.38760275 -9.468603218
3.461746384
-0.85713938"7 24.22346633 -0.006271063 0.381620313
-17.27538509
0 068063834 1.253394711 -0 009874787 -0 038159823
0.015791792 -0.016039311
-0 0003327 0.000161663
-0.00019544
-0.096847187
0.03t30043
0.023652758 -0 352931053
-0 01943599 0.002942045 0.005742715 0 025398792
-1.71375E-05
1.66244E-05
-0.015355228 0.000833844 0.004159775 -0.025219485
0.012297817
0.02209567
-0.000717806 -0.000196319 -0.000422623 -0 001488523
5.54611E-06

2.00

2.50

-213.9264914
539.9987966
-370.4512859
1 787214421 25.31768871
-0.157478409 -0.375827222
0.004460691 0.006446521
5.0316972
-0.753512558
0.013447629 0.046551082
0.000773728
-0.00041311
0.077603426 -3 532728525
0.480056793
-0.011978316 -0.027533194
-0.000684932
-0.03429308
0.000333708 0.000199097
0.011157241
-0.030525933 -0.002236196
0.021737137 0.003218849
-0.001584395 -0.000631249
-273.8738375 23.91614886
782.3642726
-557 5559477 -17.87113665
38.40772215 3.459033128
-0.337995278
0.001123062 -0.001945232
-0.953287538 -9.988112947

4.35928E-05
0 83544657
-0.015614588

-0 006515007
0.000243565
6.759523003
1.032769296
1 6761E-06

-0.007775974
-0 000406371
0.00063966
180.1694818
-510.0190665
363.6322784
-25.57633917
0.264623868
-0.001965884
-0.04034625
-0.000164645

-5.92686E-05
0.000146368
0.017122595
-1.31558E-05
-0.000780421
-3.05483E-05

-0 054719271

3.00

3,50

4.00

580.110804 54 27603261
-1605.025331 -66.19286297
-9.917725821 1114 673987
7.541644475 -66 93925993 14.77337705
-0.545922051 0 078326823 -0.780955509
0.016109245 0.014394597 0.018708262
8 206185884
-1.275464296 0.932429098
0.158227557
0.007031444
0 1485776
3 855052774
-0
602500625
-1.053511336
-1.079438402
-0.01126624
0.098886531
-0.003000144 -0 003750377 -0.004510684
1.06464733
-0.00236895
0.00129706
6.05472E-05 0.001351622
-0.003847711 0.061737442 0.060719114
-0 18277075
0.003141962 -0.170204772
0.11997211 0 128987686
-0.000333281 -0.008100977 -0 008262745
-50.03192156
16.37966409
64.55774071
26 14833521
-15.05328
-15.21465888
-4.847018415
0.469421912 0.941812585 0.836166796
-0.02617229 -0 020484234
-0 014796664
-1.426699542 -21 43073246
0.754873832 7.050646806 2.813607718
-0.010719862 -0.070689132 -0.026902607
0.002221158 0 003126801 -0.001061452
-9.537350769 5.054527124 -5.710893352
5.760080214
-0.049218579 -0.025723379 0.014243209
0.000193775 0 000125952 0 000151197
-0.002691251
-0 024054204
0.006042155
-2 37297E-05
-5.538630171

-184.697891e
914.8184421
-699.4893401
32.83829292
1.632325762
-0.06706687s
-34 43201745
3.5420406,
-0.05069569,
0.010607503
5 91937003e
-0.814803057
0 018031341
-1 13373771~
0.002401112
-0.06395835~
0 019759092
0.02702024
-0.007566737
1065.91096~
-3400 21661~
2480.012934
-163 0347301
0.04876119~
-47.7306843~
-155 630310~
0.39269148(
-0.02798543~

193,96162~
0 430347911
-0.001713867
0.72536327z
-3.06526396~
0.06908706(
0.002504611
-0.001671212 0.06419381~
195.0958416 -409.915441;
-520.0213187 1309.600381
354 4516232 -955.6305101
-19.99299914 62.8784954~

0.000861132
0.00174897
70.96269449 79.04905394 35.01637327
-226.4090839 -245.3440866 -102.6309835
169.3310362 177.4981092 64.86303216
-13.31164085 -11 52650546
-O.28140209
0.155452352
-0 001102358 0.003470766 0,009054415 0.004301751
20.90150556 -4.464375693
0.003653487
-0.000727262 0.000892853 0.000801927
1.305224198 -9 201836071 -38.99368765 -14 33114167
37.96795411 72.07499564 59.07406792
-0.572817096 -29.99605577 -56.82947363 -43.62868441
0.054841699 2 401100421 4.416686893 3.175312549
-0.01476285 -0.029411169 -0 037819984
0.00060616
-3.58478E-05 0.000425268
0.705755958
-0 534546754
1 579376224
0.189678093
0 012981352 0.001442397 -0.094369396 -0.014264536
-7.85099E-05 -7.35919E-05 -2.83782E-05
-0.072182961
0.016518287
-0.034490417 0.031491026
-0.0031847
0.001824472
-0 000992014

-0.01883229!
-19.1379034~
-0.31968207~
0.01669992:
28.9351143~
-62.7181285:
42 0628194~
1.85372759~
-0.03870272z
-0 00525603~
0.43120527~
-0.66286442~
0.000992361
-0.53095662~
0.35691623"
-0.01674764~

No. o1 c a s e s

264

264

264

264

264

264

264

264

264

df

42

46

42

43

41

44

40

48

46

5~

0.9974
2014
0 00006

0 9942
811
0.00016

0 9992
6718
0.00018

0.9999
39912
0.0002

0.9997
18292
0.00025

0.9996
12573
0.00027

0 9994
9690
0.00036

0.9992
5825
0.00045

0.9979
2316
0 00057

0 9969236~
1225 5(
0.0007~

R~
F - test
S t a n d a r d er r o r

Resistance and Propulsion Characteristics

26,

23

IX)
-IX

Tab. 4

Polynomial temas and reg.

coeff, for 1-tx
| -tx

('I)
09.
:~
C)

d)
m
E3
Cb
"0

"O
r-

8
0
0
0
O
0
0
0
0
1/3
1/3
1/3
1/3
1/3
113
1/3
1/3
113
2/3
2/3
2/3
2/3
2/3
2/3
2/3
1

11

_%

1
1

:~0

41/3

0
23"

4/3
413
4/3
5/3
5/3
5/3
513

(D
-L
~"

;5/3

2
2
2
2
2
7/3
7/3
7t3
7/3
7/3
7/3
8/3
8/3
8/3
8/3
3
3
3
3
3

d
#M = 16 ~
#M = 270
#M = 380
0 582.9743125 3530.92917 -2952.250041
1/3 -838.4031467 -555.7488296 2915.26661i
2/3
-651.8353445
1 339 8417169
4/3 -79 55660778
7/3
1.017677851
8/3
-0 401288534 -6.778659381
3
0.25375395~
0
-15889.25018 -8691.700501
1/3
1449.326105 32866.94837
2/3 198.4283211
-40696.8480~
1
23438.6540s
4/3 -168 066824
-7022.837312
5/3
-3.878573982 946 514398~
7/3 2.815640455
8/3
30.064112~
3
0.098489155
0
29154.37403 -3226.456924
1/3
3163.82020~
2/3
70.48878096
4/3 -45.53842416
-62.5358185~
5/3 112.8178962
8/3 -1.141304574
-75.670920s
3
-0.058671275
0.608771(
0
18.02983154 -27517.47395
1/3
-4183.896989 -971.087279(
2 -31.07238746
7/3
0.159722886
8/3
88.74811477
3
-0.301893841
0
14305.11034 508.4011427
1/3 i-81.98165886 5376.565056
2/3
62.380076E
8/3 2.403544674
-56.68667611
0
-4268.871359
1/3
-2473.698696
2/3 41.15628117 -29.48358228
7/3!6.159156761
8/3 -2.963818778
17.06406637
0
979.8949915
1/3
-42 7731984~
2/3
18.58967113
5/3 -4 564213563
3
0.248764782
0
10.14775785 -226.8268865
1/3 -12 8881988 335.6204244
1 2.543686791
5/3
-0.104261691
8/3
0.002045042 -1.03999145s
3 -0 217205516
1/3
-78.13967182
1
1.916823684
8/3 -0.05608642
3 0.129735341
0
13.15790177
5/3
-0.131867724
7/3 0.040025677
8/3
0.057518745
3 -0.024540346

Tab. 5

Polynomial terms and reg.

coeff, for qH
~H
#M = 16 ~
#M = 2 7 ~
#M = 380
-448.919705 -6.868901638 -74.00031245
390.397
-85 7596
-36.9982441
-7.59002649(
0.051240292
-2.54393E-05 0 0004013~
930.1355384 137.8197734 104 443970(
-874.1077809 -5.412922148
207 3036743
289.9352487
0.000912759 0.722602251
-0.127501358
-0.00851354
4.14494E-06
-563.8221973 -438.653638 -39.5709248(
609.4217601
-19.2264585(
-169.6183198
-528.8288202
-1.5494561(
0.107077275
0.001241681
540.6594967
68.27922647
308.873390(
10.05251429
-0.295290847
0.017719729
-0.00046295(
-253.0026209
-32.22046574 -117.4065953
325.984184
2.09991534
-0.394290072
-0.167056815
0.011639937
3.45792279s
80 28435191
-694.498349~
0.681567816
0.00044662s
24.67086115
535.9963011
-0.138223976 -1.511624376
-1.88987E-07
-10.9378 40.33427999
-26 35622515
1.90388232 -221.357935s
0.085793454
4.09031E-06
-6.49539E-06
1.13999888 -23.00596965
11.0279156
0.130195846
48.5295622:
-0.044670575
-5.14165E-06
4.140266787
-1.803444086 -0 034293017
-4.442852827
-0.00012659
2 52155E-08 6.35951E-07

Tab. 6

a
o
o
o
o
o
o
1/3
1/3
1/3
1/3
1/3
1/3
1/3
1/3
1/3
2/3
2/3
2/3
2/3
2/3
2/3
1
1
1
1
1
4/3
4/3
4/3
i 4/3
]5/3
5/3
5/3
5/3
5/3
2
2
7/3
7/3
7/3
7/3
7/3
8/3
8/3
8/3
8/3
8/3
8/3
3
3
3
3
3

Polynomial terms and reg.

coeff, for 0

d
~M = 16 ~
#M = 2 7 ~
#M = 38 ~
0 -634.6364094 18463.00301 1839.12522(
1/3
-11497.74607
1
-29.06759571
4/3 604.6621485
7/3 -65.01351656 -0.073450332
3
-11.5411552E
0
-50269.1766
1/3 1060.793057 42073.7678
2/3
-9402.75787(
1
8983 26982
4/3 -2162.533542
-2788.014903
5/3
4.383497638
2
110.02518~
7/3 259.2957698
3
57.26172282
0
-460.20542
1/3
-46581.76531
4/3 2487.412038
2
-2.172519882
7/3 -377.0172583
3
-121.095000s
0
127172.7946
4/3 -1265.835277
2
180.7786529
7/3
162.61378 -0.186971675
3
0.888384857
133.420572
0
-153939.4243 11241.24289
1/3
32269.22872
2
-0.098061479
3
-80.33049354
0
61414.01976 -13293.77781
1/3 48.74603199 -17162.13935
2 -187.8661802
7/3
9 644877162
3
22.73054976
5/3 228.0192776
7/3 7.954483913
9
7639.734977
4/3 :-10 98788879
7/3
-0.295338037
813:
0.027083457
3 -1 049603559
-1.493165472
0
-4192.139521 -4391.407319
1/3
1460 905499
5/3 !-58.62118585
7/3 3.858210486
6/3
-0.01271968
3
0.65207657
0.242860882
0
1250.279699 778.622157
1/3
-447.3178958
5/3
14.9056878
2
0.07440728
8/3 -0.774906725

Tab. 7

Polynomial terms and reg.

coeff, for riD

]~D
a
d
~M = 16 ~
~3M= 270
[3M = 3 8 ~
0
0 -1697.527857 -3012.583635 -12558.5363.~
0
1/4 -208.6648087
-3054.76189~
0
1/3
5731.26044E
0
112
-2102.15127,
0 5/4 3295.227999 -120.5308326
0 3/2 -4563.078591 172.7186711
0 7/4 2362.038967 -93.84143003
0
2 -361.0569613 37.58570491
1/4
0
4500.543705 39616.96581 133642.444"
1/4 5/4 -4414.227614
1/4 7/4 -1116.935008
1/4 2
238.8224427 -219.1974048
1/3 0
-53801.22937 -169070.940~
1/3 3/4
2037.34653;
1/3 5/4 10423.73127
-71.30205z
1/3 2
272.7511588
] 1/20
18485.76499 47840.9594."
1/2 1/2 -11771.39585
-8233.13049"
1/2 3/4 8039.352139
1/2
1 -11420.54045
I/2 7/4
114.5430105
1/2 2
-t09.1135012 0.58209572
3/4 1/3
11729.7689i
3/4 1/2 10338.64064
3/4 3/2
-286 0566599
3/4 2 -2.457312631 17.12690239
1
0
-2287.002321
1 1/4
1409.688496
1 1/3
3116.363331
1 5/4
351.9875623
5/4 0 -8532.553146
5/4 1/4
-21171 56317
5/4 1/2
-1543.092524
5/4 3;2 ] 78.50071312
5/4
-5 640828598
0.025605665
3/2 0
10811.93813
3/2 1/4 1-4334.196865 1012.501108 1762234797
3/2 1/2
-177 629238~
3/2 3/4
455.7213029
3/2
1
-211,195996
3/2 3/2 -16.75099906
7/4 O 1-3129.261281
-32.75621964
7/4 1/4 1682.420119 -302.914761 -6141.698763
7/4 7/4
-0.048595877
7/4 2
-0.031617283
2
0 -2896904765 5.602032506-11.98810005
2
1/4
852.5390077
2 5/4
2.516913432
2 3/2
0.200206915
2 7/4 -2.96099444
2
2
1.275101545

Tab. 8

Tab. 9

Polynomial terms and reg.

coeff, for I-WT

qo
~M = 16 ~
~M = 2 7 ~
pM = 3 8 ~
0
0 -539.9646094 -323.7314017 -981.9975875
0
1/2 234.2081809 17.24569041 112 8867187
11 11428039
0
1 -53 35882643
0
3/2 5.841191206
0.075115522
0
2
1.86686E-05
0
4
1t2
0 1948.958149 1691.837213 4677.669318
1/2 1/2 -488 9153323 -46.54566534 -244.3071138
-103.90154
1/2
1 69.83654546
1/2 3/2 -9.520959406 -0.389823973
1
0 -3234,571716 -3794.580963 -9801.093132
1
1/2 272.310587 23,50016946 143.3682258
244.2701654
1
1 55.11461414
3/2
0 3310 487284 4787.039638 11657.77711
3/2
1 -120 2009263 23.61695962 -243 2524091
3/2 3/2 5.642199369
-0 271118211
3/2
2
-0.000126516
3/2 7/2
2
0 -2201 263462 -3626.708217 -8398.299289
2
1 53,70003012 -46,62886027 109.9143262
2
3/2 -1 596561157
0 005521356
2
5/2
-0.00017944
2 7/2
512 0 883 1813597 1614.474737 3560 79854
5/2 1/2 -11.39852858
5/2
1 -7.714356531 40.21291005 -26.84909772
2.943272484
8/2 3/2
0.043263618
5/2 5/2
5/2 9/2 7 23797E-06
3
0 -188 2890989 -357.1686594 -749.0763394
-19.33755989
3
1
-0 380231591
3
2
3
7/2 -0 000457294
7/2
0 15 82467515
1 094808976
7/2 1/2
5.335715856
7/2
1
-0.000717967
7/2
3
7/2 7/2 0 00020496 9.29276E-05
16.96658503 31.10439614
4
0
0 187102275
4
1/2 0 734772168
-0.935593781
4
1
0.044879284
4
3;2
0.06082328
4
2
-2.743963291 -4 399465274
9/2
0
9/2 1/2 -0 135893757 0.237815415
-0,012714277
9/2
2
9/2
4 -1.69973E-06
-6 91935E-08
9/2 9/2

[ - WT

33

(9
o~

O
(9

O_
"13

S
c-

5
O

(9
--%

#M = 16 ~
0
0 1-116.1918809
0
1/2 :40,67382787
0
1
0 3/2
0
2 4.174948152
0
3 -0,330798043
0 7/2
0
4 10.004183984
1/2
0
1/2 1/2 174.2014292
1/2 3/2 -84.37140405
1/2 5/2 4 530073464
1/2
4 90 OO2493759
1/2 912
1
0
1 1/2
1
1 -216 9905239
1 3/2 302.3030098
1
2 -55.46325021
1 5/2 "1,045376396
1 9/2
3/2
0
3/2 112 1 117.5244542
3/2 3/2 -188.6468083
3/2
2 45,57921322
3/2 5/2
3/2 9/2
2
0 204.3949549
221 122765
2
1
2
2 -12 06524797
2 9/2
5/2
0 -217 6285779
5/2 1/2
5/2
1 -113.1188212
5/2 3/2 27.1242057
5/2
2
5/2 9/2
3
O 85 75458413
3
1/2 20 11076638
5.04475576
3
1
3 3/2 -2.940023171
0 002537542
' 7/3 9/2
3
0 -16,27160518
7/2 1/2
7/2
1 0 595567253
4
0
4
1/2
4
1
912 0
9/2 1/2

Table 13 -

#M = 38 ~
13514812
-1128 195122
-0.217881315 812 3062999
-238.9348394
28.17577708
-0.000543264
9.72812E-05 -0.019268611
-1023 839208 -3925.540889
-593.5982772
0.354994523

0 01187141
2353.822124 10910.51458
5 836882114 823 4872384
-2.835718617
0.01278952

-0.621605961
-3043 630328 -15843 93045
-457.9694395

-0 001519587

O1

0.020584912
12957.0328

-0.010841703
-1224 646193 -5717.623437
99,9562774

0 001708786
0.002996035
393.8209279 929.2639667
-2.960285905 -30.20825658
-0.382117113

-75.26366791
2 370759179
0 09044661
8.629323052
-0.487424751

-0.000339686
238 783506

-122 882507

Tab. l0

0
0
0
0
8
1/2
1/2
1/2
1/2
1/2
1
1
1
1
1
312
3/2
3/2
2
2
2
2
5/2
5/2
5/2
5/2
3
3
3
3
7/2
7/2
7/2
7/2
4
4
4
4
9/2
9/2
9/2

0
1/2
1
3/2
2
0
1/2
1
3/2
3
0
1/2
1
3/2
9/2
0
1/2
3/2
0
1/2
3/2
2
0
1/2
2
5/2
1/2
3/2
3
7/2,
0
1/2
7/2
9/2
0
1/2
1
9/2
O
1/2
3

Polynomial terms and reg.

coeff, for ~;BTR
~M = 16 ~

gB'rR
#M = 270

Tab. l 1 Polynomial terms and reg.

coeff, for WSC
W.qC

pM : 38 ~

-75 11557898 165.5334799 -96.61876908:

180.6828927 -32.08809452 57.60677895
-59.3416869
7.129496756 -0.07020208
-0.366894267
-791.0198737 787.1852118
456.8424596 158.2762657 -408.64497
125.148006
-7 735620595 0.197880404
0 003509819
523 2678054 1509.767793 -2427.830358
342.6528228 -308.5285358 1203.907875
-75 99088211
-0.179780824
1.72793E-07
-873 113987 -1458.647011 3768 579813
301.4487727 -1923.488882
0 057200221
525 4931424 730.9175464 -3136.854141
-59,91777426 -151,539806 1819.309177
0.000186355
1.721986359
122.023611 -158.1428026 1240 467831
22.00522137 32.66818281 -1035 771938
0.102483347
-0.390363802
337,8549472
-2 345849016
-0 000947648
0.034894497
0.001194094
-196 5926231
-51.55778092
-0 001909626
-1 88073E-05
2 015783256 2.67191852 69.75198786
-0.526815762
-0 015124225
1 07596E-05
-0 380457604 -0.529539213 -8.03394756
0.101831902 0.671969008
4 44381E-05

b
0
0
1/4
1/4
1/4
2/3
1
I
3
4
4

coeff.

0
/;
4
/z
/~
4
/~
"~

-963 4005565
173.5484274
3.39391E-05
1870.596868
-1419.106142
9.9005E-06
-16 12995062
5.942104476
-7.49963E-07
2.58292E-05
6.71128E-10

0
4

Tab. 12 Polynomial terms and reg.

coeff, for LwJ(W2) v3
L/(V/2) m
b
0
0
0
0
/4
1
2
2
3
4 0

coeff.

0
1/4
1
2
4
4
2
0
3/4
1/4

29 96173317
-22 23455773
2.07593765
-0 053750199
0.00028278
-0 000125747
O 001814593
6 000212214
-0.001845546
0.000169785
-3.32164E-06

-0.001618597
14.59114828
0.26419112

Important statistics for 1-tx, qH, 0, qD, 1 - WT, qO, gBTR, WSC and LWL/(V/2) 1/3
1-tx

~M
df
R2
F-test
Standard error
No, ofcases

~M = 2 7 ~
191.5348352

2418 832398
1 197713944

Polynomial terms and reg.

coeff, for qo

qH

16~
27 o
38 ~
16 ~
27 ~
38 ~
16~
27~
38~
26
26
28
23
25
28
23
20
21
0 988
0.988
0.9916 0.9944 0.9945 0.9903 0.9889 0.9847
0.982
628
629
826
1558
1447
718
975
818
657
0.00355 0.00235 0.00215 0.00436 0.00317 0.00457 0.08623 0.09223 0.11658
225
225
225
225
225
225
275
275
275

qo
16~
26
0.9987
6007
0.0028
225

1-WT

qO

EBTR

27 ~
38 ~
16 ~
27 ~
38 ~
16~
27 o
27~
38~
16~
22
28
27
25
28
29
20
24
22
28
0.9978 0.9936 0.9907 0.9857 0.9886 0.9977
0.999
0 9999 0.9983 0 9988
3730
1429
746
635
605
3152
8360
50128
5618
11678
0.00305 0.00503 0.00324 0.00356 0.00358 0.00216 0.00124 0.00043 i0.00492 0.00399
225
225
225
225
225
225
225
225
300
300

WSC
38 ~
19
0 9986
10794
0.00459
300

10
0.9996
17751
0.015021
75

L-/(V/2) v31
10
0.9999
30780
0.00517
75

r~

Trlol condlhon, with Rn Trio[ conddmn

Hull type:

A = 111.6 t; 6w = B deg;
Reference

concept"

w i ~ h ou~

Compored concept: with

;IV
Io%

~
~

I .....

ASM

Rn-correction

~- -:>~-~.-_::2

~5

_ -- -- =----

21-7.55-0w6

--7

0 =

Ot " - - .

........

P/D =

o5

---. . . .

cp
CP
CP
rp

t 008
%.008
1124~
1.235

P/D

P~/O

1.05
1.5o
1.41

1 20
1,40
1 322

i 40

--

,t~'k~

, . . . . . .

4
4
4
3

of the prop.

A . . . . .
t.~

....

j F~,/~

zo

10

,.

20

Vs

Hull type.
SM 2 7 - 7 55-DW8;
5M 2 7 - 9 . 5 5 - 0 W 8 ;

-z

--

So-

30

'

-- ~

--

410

kn

~-o510

- - SM 2 7 - I 1.55-DW8
......... SM 2 7 - 1 3 55-DW8
k

Figure 25 - Relative reduction of propulsive power due to the

Rn - correction

Took condlhon
Trlol cond~Pon

1,40

,.o

o.83
o 83
o 772
1.102

cOpdlhon
condlbon

I 33Om; AdAo = ! 102. z = 3

1 L _ 2 . . . .
B

Reference
Compared

-5~
PropAype

correchon

= B deg

X-3-I

e.,/=- --13. . . .

===::-q

111.6 t, 6w

Propeller type

of the propeller open woter

)
charocterlst~cs

no-correction

-T-2o

Z~ =

Figure

26

- Relative

increase

condition

characteristics

0s propulsive

power

due

to the

trial

a t [3M = 2 7 ~

8
t-

O
Trial condltion, with Rn -

A =

o ,o". I

corroctlon

Trioi condition, with Rn -

Hull type

= 8 deg

Propeller type: P/D =

D =

B"
03

111,6 t; 6w

LWL/BXDH

Z~

= 7.55

D =

......

iZ

1!0

~- ~

--~o~ L.....~

t; 6w

Vs

--

kn

symmctr*c,

r162
semi--symmetric,

SM38-7.55-OW6
ASM21-7.55-BW6
SSM58/26-7.55-DW6

Figure 27 - Relative change of delivered power due to section

symmetry at LwL/BxDH = 7.55

1.102, Z = 3

--5

-2B] k

'

'

',

....

~
15

",'

'

J--r24L-'--J
20
2
I
O

'

,'

] APDTR

Compored hull

q,

--i

I
f 'I'l'~

,30
,

.i

5 '--~' 410~i--Ij

.1__

symmetric hord chine hull. SM27-13.55-DW8

Compared hull

Figure 28

correction
deg.

P/O = 1 40

Reference hull
Reference hull
Compored hull - Compared hull - - - -

t . 3 3 0 m ; Ar

~~ 2ot L _ ~ . . . . . . .
_~ ~ o i L 0 5~ 2 I . . vs
E
0. . --.
. . .
t

It

1t ; 6

Propeller type;

1.40

1.235m; A[/AQ = 1,102; Z = 3

F_-5_--_

symmetric round bilge hull, RSM27-13.55-DW8

--

--

Forebody: round bllge, efterbody hord chine. RCSM27-t3.55-DW8

Relative change of propulsive power due to section

form at LwL/BxDH= 13.55

Trial cOndltlON, wRh Rn - correction

&

111.6 t;

6~

PropelJer lype:
[I i

Hul) type-

8 de9.

1.33Om, AcJAo = IAO2; z = 3

~v=27 dog,: o 400 LWL resp

o 4 2 2 LWL

I~u=16 dog.: 0350 LWL rasp.

0402 LWt.

.~o_J
.........
,/--_~
I

o 201~-

_ Lb

-~o"

"~#cc_

_ ~ --

Referenc e hull

-1

~i,~38--g 55-0W5

33

Compared hull

(,0

Reference hull
Compared hull - -

- o

t; 6w

L ......
/~-

Referencehull

SN38-9,59-DWg*2AB

j--~----_
.

"

'

..--~4~,,,
A

l____

,P,,,

Fn,/2

--

!,, ,~ ....

I .......
Prop type

I. . . . . . .

P/O

PO/D

AtZ'Ae

SM16 9 ~ - ~

Compared hul$ . . . .

'

li

n 724- --

~____] . . . . . . . .
.

[ ..... ,/,{,v ~ , ,

SMI-9.85-OWR+2AB

$1~27- 9.55-DWB
S~27-9.55-DWR+2Aa

--

ASM 2 1 - 7 55-DW6

A_____

........

l_

Hull type:

correction

dog

-- -iAPr4

Reference propeller.

FP

1.235

~ 40

--

I 102

CompGred propeller

CP

1 241

1 41

1.322

0.772

Compared propeller;

CP

1.008

1 50

1,40

0.03

Comporad propeller . . . . .

CP

1.008

1 05

1.20

O.83

Figure 30 - Relative change o f propulsive power due to the effect o f the

propeller parameter

Figure 29 - Relative change o f delivered power due to a 2%

shift of the longitudinal centre o f buoyancy

El.

111.6

[I -10
~ j L_,'J--[' . . . . . . .

Posit;on of LC8 before the transom"

#u-3e (leg" 0426 LWL rasp 0.44.4 LWL

--~~0,0LEZ-]0 _,
~iJ APmR
L

Trial condition, with Rn -

LWL/BXOH = 9.55

P/0 = 1.40

8
cO
Tank condition, with Rn -

O
23"

Reference propeller concept:

propeller behind O deadwood

Compared propeller concept:

propeller ~t oblique shaft

&

B"
(/3

correction

8 deg.;

P/D =

1.40

1 330m; A~/Ao = 1,102; z = 3

LWL/BXDH

7
k

g
"7

I
L

#o

2
<3

-1

10

8
i

~~.-__./

L-'IZ-

2~

L__I

11
I

12
I

13
I

T"~-~-L=

1 ......
L___J

Fnvl2

I
j

--.-~.~

Ms

o~., ~ !

....

,. . . .

2+0

I .........

2+

L Fn,+/ -

~. . . . . . . . .

-~3. 5. . . .

t .....

40

L~

.o

I --

....

_~ ) ~ Y0-5- S _ - . _0 - _ _ - _1.5
-i+

14
:

t
'

APo
' ----

~
......

Figure 31 - Relative change o f propulsive power due to

inclined shafts at 13M= 16~

IX)
"4

t; 6w

Propeller type,
D =

d)

111.6

....

,6.o

2.0

2,.o

a.a

~,.s

~ZoJ-

- -'
Reference

_l
huh :

with deadwood, SM 1 6 - 1 1 . 5 5 - D W 8

Compared hull : - - w i t h

oblique shafts with 6 dog inchnotlon, SM 1 6 - - 1 1 . 5 5 - L S 6

Compared hull : - - - - - w i t h

waterjet-propulsor w/o

deadwood, SM 1 6 - 1 1 . 5 5 - w / o D W

Figure 32 - Relative change o f propulsive power due to inclined

shafts and waterjets

Discussion
Siu C. Fung, Visitor, NSWCCD

John P. Hackett, Member

[The views expressed herein are the opinions of the discusser

and not necessarily those of the Department of Defense or the
Department of the Navy.]
The authors are to be commended for their landmark contributions in the development of catamaran hull forms. I consider this to be one of the most useful and must-read documents for hull form designers, particularly for those who are
interestcd in high-speed hulls and powering predictions. The
authors first systemically delineate the significance of hull form
parameters in reference to catamaran hull design then provide
a series of statistically-based equations for resistance and powering predictions. The discussion on hull form particulars provided by the paper is unequivocal and the equations are one of
the very few useful design tools for a catamaran. I only have
a few questions, and hope the authors would comment further.
1. In the section for Hull Form Particulars, the authors consider
that length-displacement ratio has the greatest effect on the
wave resistance and second to that is the length-to-beam
ratio. 1 wonder why length-to-beam ratio in lieu of lengthdisplacement ratio was chosen as one of the independent
variables for resistance prediction, see Table 3.
2. In addition to the length-to-beam ratio, the other two selected
independent variables by the authors for resistance prediction were angle of deadrise at midship (IBM) and angle of
transom wedge(~iw). Would the authors please clarify the selection process of the independent variables? This series consists of at least three different sizes of transom. Have the
authors ever considered the transom area, or depth ratio as
a useful parameter for resistance prediction?
3. The regression equation listed on p. 10 of the paper is expressed in the following form:
x

Zcoe ...

where 5w is angle of transom wedge and ci is one of the polynomial terms which can be found in Table 3. 1 believe the
above equation will not provide any valid answer if both 6w
and c are zero, since 0 ~ is considered as an undefined term.
In addition, based on my preliminary investigation, I am
able to duplicate most of the results shown in Fig. 14 by using the regression coefficients from Table 3, but not for less
than 4 deg. Would the authors offer further comments.
4. Tables 4 to 10 provide a series of equations for hull-propulsor interaction coefficient predictions based on discrete tiM.
According to the equations, the only hull form parameter
that may affect the interaction coefficients other than ]3M is
the length-to-beam ratio. However, based on my past experience on conventional monohulls, interaction coefficients
are heavily dependent on propeller type (e.g., FP, CRP,...etc.)
and wedge angle. The authors stated in the paper that at least
four different types of propellers were tested for this series
(standard type fixed-pitch, surface-piercing, and two types
of controllable-pitch). Would the authors clarify for what
type of propellers the regression coefficients shown in the
above tables are applicable?
Finally, I have to say a great deal of thanks are in order
from all of us who rely on works such as this. Hopefully we
can see more technical papers such as this from our Society in
the future.

28

I wish to thank the authors for a most interesting and timely

paper. With the U.S. Navy showing great interest in high-speed
craft, especially high-speed catamarans, this paper is truly
timely. I have the following observations and questions for the
authors. The authors' list of references, in its own right, provides a good bibliography of modem published technical data
on catamarans. Just as catamarans have become popular, so
too have catamarans propelled by waterjets. A hull form design to accommodate waterjets would have an increase in transom emersion. The paper indicates a Tr/T H = 0.95. Figure 32
shows waterjets performance in the 20--40 knot speed range
being 10-15% more effective than the baseline propulsion configuration. With that kind of performance and the reputation
waterjets have as the superior propulsor in the speed range of
30-50 knots, why were wetted propellers selected as the baseline configuration? Can the authors provide a curve similar to
Fig. 32 for surface piercing propellers?
The authors highlight a suggestive size range of applicability for Series 89. However, it would appear, if the hull form to
be evaluated by Series 89 falls within the critical nondimensional parameters of the series, acceptable representative answers should be obtained. Would the authors care to comment?
With the rudders located so far aft (rudder trailing edge even
with transom) and the high-speed nature of the craft, were rudder ventilation tests performed?
Could the authors in their written closing remarks provide
a sketch showing the stern profile, appendages, and surface
piercing propellers they investigated? Likewise, a body plan
of the round bilge catamaran configuration tested would be
enlightening.
Could the attthors provide a little clarification on their definition of "tunnel"? Early in the paper it appeared to mean the
water area between the demihulls, i.e., the hull gap. Later when
the authors define transom emersion it appeared to mean a recessing of the hull upward into the demihull in order to accommodate a large propulsor, similar to the design used in towboats. A sketch would help.
Again, I would like to thank the authors for journeying across
the Atlantic to provide us with such an excellent paper.

Daniel Savitsky, M e m b e r
On behalf of SNAME, 1 would like to thank the authors for
their generous contribution of this extensive collection of unique
test data to members of our profession. Since the catamaran hull
form has become the preferred configuration for high-speed ferries, this is indeed a timely addition to the tools of naval architects. I am particularly impressed that the authors present the
test results in a most practical graphic format that allows for
rapid estimates of the powering performance of these craft.
For those designers who prefer the use of analytical methods,
Dr. Radojcic and Dr. Simic have performed a regression analysis of the immense collection of model test data and defined
equations for all the components related to resistance and powering. It would be very useful if appropriate software expressing these analytical relations were available. Perhaps this will
be forthcoming soon.
Although the emphasis of this study was directed at the catamaran configuration, comparisons are nevertheless made with
the monohull forrn. In Fig. 2 of the paper the catamaran is shown
to have 20-25% less resistance than an equivalent monohull. I
would caution that this not be interpreted to be a general conclusion. Examining the waterline entrance angles of both forms,

Resistance and Propulsion Characteristics

it appears that the entrance angle of the tested monohull is nearly

twice that of the catamaran. This alone will result in the residual resistance of the monohull being significantly larger than
the slimmer catamaran hull for otherwise equal pre-planing
operating conditions. I made an estimate of the monohull resistance assuming that its waterline entrance angle was equal
to that of the catamaran and found that its total resistance was
then nearly equal to that of catamaran configuration. The "slim"
monohull will require a somewhat longer hull to achieve small
waterline entrance angles--but this may be tolerable if a subsequent reduction in installed power is to be achieved.
Another example of the low resistance attainable with sharp

bow, hard chine, monohulls in the pre-planing condition is

demonstrated by the model test results presented in Paper #4
of this conference (Resistance and Seakeeping Characteristics
of a Systematic Series in the Pre-Planing Condition). The test
data for a double chine monohull with "very fine bow lines"
show that, at LWL/V ~/3 =6.9; LWL/B=5.5; and Fn=0.8, the total resistance/weight ratio was equal to 0.11 (Fig. 6). This compares most favorably with the catamaran results reported in Fig.
4 of the present catamaran paper.
In conclusion, the, authors are to be congratulated for presenting a most practical and useful paper, which appears to be
of archival value.

Resistance and Propulsion Characteristics

29