This article was downloaded by: [University of Sussex Library]

On: 16 January 2015, At: 21:16

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

Ships and Offshore Structures

Publication details, including instructions for authors and subscription information:
http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/tsos20

Practical evaluation of resistance of high-speed

catamaran hull forms—Part II
a b b
P. K. Sahoo , S. Mason & A. Tuite
a
Australian Maritime College , Launceston, Australia
b
Incat Crowther Pty Ltd , Sydney, Australia
Published online: 09 Sep 2008.

To cite this article: P. K. Sahoo , S. Mason & A. Tuite (2008) Practical evaluation of resistance of high-speed catamaran
hull forms—Part II, Ships and Offshore Structures, 3:3, 239-245, DOI: 10.1080/17445300802263831

To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/17445300802263831

PLEASE SCROLL DOWN FOR ARTICLE

Taylor & Francis makes every effort to ensure the accuracy of all the information (the “Content”) contained
in the publications on our platform. However, Taylor & Francis, our agents, and our licensors make no
representations or warranties whatsoever as to the accuracy, completeness, or suitability for any purpose of
the Content. Any opinions and views expressed in this publication are the opinions and views of the authors,
and are not the views of or endorsed by Taylor & Francis. The accuracy of the Content should not be relied
upon and should be independently verified with primary sources of information. Taylor and Francis shall
not be liable for any losses, actions, claims, proceedings, demands, costs, expenses, damages, and other
liabilities whatsoever or howsoever caused arising directly or indirectly in connection with, in relation to or
arising out of the use of the Content.
This article may be used for research, teaching, and private study purposes. Any substantial or systematic
reproduction, redistribution, reselling, loan, sub-licensing, systematic supply, or distribution in any
form to anyone is expressly forbidden. Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at http://
www.tandfonline.com/page/terms-and-conditions
 Ships and Offshore Structures
Vol. 3, No. 3, September 2008, 239–245

Practical evaluation of resistance of high-speed catamaran hull forms—Part II

P.K. Sahooa∗ , S. Masonb and A. Tuiteb
a
Australian Maritime College, Launceston, Australia; b Incat Crowther Pty Ltd, Sydney, Australia
( Final version received 21 May 2008)

This study attempts to extend the analysis of several resistance prediction procedures based on experimental work carried
out by researchers and, subsequently, wave resistance estimation as illustrated in Part I of this study by Sahoo et al. (2007).
All the methods used have been analysed and compared with results obtained from towing tank tests, CFD analysis by use of
SHIPFLOW and a computational analysis is software package CATRES, whose operation is based around thin ship theory.
Downloaded by [University of Sussex Library] at 21:17 16 January 2015

The results obtained from each of the resistance prediction methods have been investigated, and the limitations and areas of
effectiveness for each of the resistance methods have been determined in relation to the vessels tested. Throughout this study,
the primary objective of validating the resistance equations developed in Part I of this study has been achieved. The level to
which the resistance prediction tool can be utilized during the designing of high-speed catamarans was further determined
through the analysis of the results.
Keywords: catamaran; resistance; wave resistance; computational fluid dynamics

Nomenclature S Wetted surface area

At Immersed transom area 1+k Form factor
B Demi-hull beam at the waterline 1 + γk Viscous form factor for catamarans
BT Beam-draught ratio y Vertical coordinate
CB Block coefficient CB = ∇/LBT α A correction factor dependent on type
CF International Towing Tank Confer- of stern
ence ’57 ship model correlation line βM Deadrise angle at amidships in de-
CF = 0.075/ (Log10 Rn − 2)2 grees
CT Total resistance coefficient δW Transom wedge angle
CWCAT Wave resistance coefficient for cata-
Displacement
maran configuration ∇ Volumetric displacement
CR Residuary resistance coefficient
Fn Froude number (based on length)
Fn∇ Froude number based on volumetric Introduction
displacement In current practice, there are three generally accepted meth-
g Acceleration due to gravity, ods for the determination of the resistance characteristics
9.81 m/s2 of any vessel, as follows:
iE Half waterline entry angle in degrees
Kpi partial form factor as used in r Statistical analysis of experimental data, in which resis-
catamaran resistance prediction tool tance data for a range of Froude numbers are analysed
CATRES for geometrically similar models with varying L/B, B/T ,
L or LWL Waterline length CB and/or L/∇ 1/3 values, such that resistance parame-
L/B or LWL /BXDH Length/beam ratio (demi-hull) ters such as CT or RT /
could be estimated with some
L/∇ 1/3 Slenderness ratio degree of accuracy for any model existing within the
RT /
Total resistance to displacement ratio parameter space.
s Separation (measured between demi- r In computational fluid dynamics (CFD) method, which
hull centre planes) behaves as a numerical towing tank, wave resistance data
s/L Separation ratio (between demi-hull could be obtained more readily since rapid transforma-
centre planes) tion of hull form parameters (within parameter space)

∗
Corresponding author. Email: [email protected]
ISSN: 1744-5302 print / 1754-212X online
Copyright 
C 2008 Taylor & Francis
DOI: 10.1080/17445300802263831
http://www.informaworld.com
 240 P.K. Sahoo et al.

can be undertaken easily and data harvested within a method and the accuracy of the total resistance obtained
short span of time. SHIPFLOW and CATRES are exam- at various Froude numbers. By doing this, the effective-
ples of CFD analysis tools used in determining the wave ness and accuracy of the resistance prediction methods, in
resistance of marine vessels. particular the regression equations, could be achieved.
r Application of amended Michell’s integral or slender
body (thin ship) theory to high-speed marine vessels.
Summary of various methods
All three methods have their advantages and disadvantages, Molland et al. method (1994)
which are primarily concerned with accuracy, cost and time. Table 1 depicts the summary of range of parameters and its
Although CFD and analytical methods are becoming more use in the regression model, as illustrated in Part I of this
accurate and are being recognized as legitimate sources study.
for the calculation of ship resistance and, thereby, optimis-
ing hull forms, there still remains the necessity to validate
the results. Results obtained from these sources need to CATRES
be validated for accuracy and any potential sources of un-
Downloaded by [University of Sussex Library] at 21:17 16 January 2015

CATRES is a resistance prediction method, utilizing thin

certainty so as to have a degree of confidence in these
ship theory, which was developed by the Maritime Research
results.
Institute Netherlands for use on semi-planing catamarans
It is the purpose of this study to provide a comparison of
with symmetrical hull forms.
a variety of resistance calculation methods, and ultimately
The total resistance of the vessel is determined through
to validate a series of resistance regression analysis equa-
the summation of four separately determined resistance
tions previously developed in Part I. This will be achieved
components:
by determining the resistance characteristics of three dif-
ferent catamaran hull forms that are currently in operation RW = Twice the wave resistance of a single demi-hull
in the high-speed ferry industry. RWi = Wave interference resistance
By comparing the results obtained from these various RHS = Hydrostatic resistance for the drag of an immersed
sources, it is possible to compare, both graphically and nu- transom
merically, the characteristics of each resistance prediction RFR = Viscous resistance.

Table 1. Range of validity for catamaran configuration.

Molland et al. Zips Pham et al. Schwetz and Sahoo et al.

Parameters (1994) (1995) (2001) Sahoo (2002) (2004)

L/B 7.0–15.1 7.55–13.55 10.40–20.80 8.80–15.0 10.0–15.0

L/∇ 1/3 6.27–9.5 6.30–12.60 6.30–9.56 8.04–11.2
B/T 1.5–2.5 1.5–2.5 1.47–2.31 1.5–2.5
CB 0.397 0.50–0.60 0.46–0.68 0.40–0.50
LCB/L (%) 43.6 40–49
Deadrise angle at 16–38◦ 16–27◦ 23–44◦
amidships β M
Half angle of iE 2.1–38 5.4–10.71
entrance in
degrees
1 + γk 1.41–1.48
Equation 7
and Table 7 of
Part I
CWCAT Equation 8 Equation 13 Equation 17 Part I Equation 21 Part I
and Table 8 of and Table 11 of and Table 20 of and Table 25 of
Part I Part I Part I Part I
Residuary Table 17 of Part I
resistance of
catamaran, CR
Transom wedge, δ W 0–12◦
Type of hull form NPL round bilge Chine Chine Round bilge, semi-swath and chine Round bilge

Note: LCB indicates longitudinal centre of buoyancy, reference from the transom; NPL, National Physical Laboratory.
 Ships and Offshore Structures 241

Table 2. Vessel’s operating locations.

Vessel Yard built Area of operation

Seastreak New York Gladding Hearn Shipbuilders Manhattan—Central New Jersey

New York Water Taxi Gladding Hearn Shipbuilders New York
Jet Cat Express (Catalina) Nichols Bros Boat Builders Long Beach—Catalina Island

The values of the wave resistance and the wave interfer- per Equation (2):
ence resistance are both determined using thin ship theory.


Due to the slenderness of the hulls, they can be represented
by a distribution of Kelvin sources in their centre planes. RHS = −ρg ydAt , (2)
At
When combined, the sources produce a flow field that satis-
fies the hull boundary condition. Numerical differentiation where At = immersed transom area.
is used to determine the perturbation velocities (velocity
differences with respect to the ship speed), obtained from
Downloaded by [University of Sussex Library] at 21:17 16 January 2015

the velocity potentials induced in the Kelvin sources. The Test models
resistance is then found by integrating the perturbation pres-
The three vessels chosen to undergo analytical and ex-
sure over the hull, obtained from the linearised Bernoulli
perimental testing are all Incat Crowther-owned and Incat
equation.
Sydney-designed passenger ferries that are currently oper-
The wave interference resistance is calculated in a simi-
ating in the United States of America as shown in Table 2.
lar manner, where the effect of the second hull is accounted
The vessels were chosen because of their high speed, ferry
for by the addition of another plane of Kelvin sources.
nature and the fact that towing tank tests on these three ves-
The viscous resistance (RFR ) is approximated by CATRES
sels had been conducted previously. The vessel particulars
through the following formula:
are shown in Tables 3 and 4. The line plans of the vessels
1 are shown in Figures 1, 2 and 3.
RFR = ρSV 2 (1 + αKpi ) (CF + CA ) . (1)
2
For an immersed transom, CATRES introduces a correction Results
for the resistance incurred due to the hydrostatic pressure The hull forms of the three vessels have all undergone calm
of the flow, clear of the transom not being equal to zero, as water resistance tests at the Australian Maritime College

Table 3. Main particulars of three chosen catamarans.

Particulars of vessels, name (ID)

Parameters
Seastreak New York Water Taxi Jet Cat Express (Catalina
(2352) (2602) Express) (2621)

Waterline length (m) 37.838 20.781 39.117

Displacement (t) 182.636 57.304 206.003
Draft (m) 1.934 1.642 2.033
Beam waterline (m) 10.34 8 10.31
Beam waterline (demi-hull) 2.64 2.2 2.61
CB 0.461 0.372 0.49
Service speed (knots) 37 26 37.5
Model scale 1:26.5 1:14 1:40

Table 4. Hull form characteristics of three chosen catamarans.

Parameters Seastreak New York Water Taxi Jet Cat Express (Catalina express)

Length/beam ratio L/B 3.66 2.60 3.79

Slenderness ratio L/∇ 1/3 6.73 5.44 6.68
Beam/draft ratio B/T 1.37 1.34 1.28
Block coefficient CB 0.461 0.372 0.49
 242 P.K. Sahoo et al.

Baseline

Figure 1. Line plan for vessel 2352—Seastreak.

Downloaded by [University of Sussex Library] at 21:17 16 January 2015

Ship Hydrodynamic Centre. The results obtained from the Discussion

towing tank tests were non-dimensionalised so that these As can be seen from Figure 4 (Seastreak), the results ob-
could be presented and compared with the regression mod- tained from the regression equations provide a relatively
els developed in Part I of this study. The results for all re- even spread of precision in relation to the results obtained
sistance methods have been plotted together (RT /
against from the towing tank results, which have been taken to
Fn∇ ) to provide a simple graph that could be easily inter- be the datum for all comparisons as towing tank tests are
preted. considered to be the basis of any comparative analysis.

Baseline Baseline

Baseline

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

Baseline

Baseline

Figure 3. Line plan for vessel 2621—Catalina Express.

 Ships and Offshore Structures 243
Downloaded by [University of Sussex Library] at 21:17 16 January 2015

Figure 4. RT /
against Fn∇ for various methods (Seastreak, 2352).

The method of Schwetz and Sahoo (2002) can be seen to As can be seen from Figure 5 (New York Water Taxi),
follow the trend of the towing tank results, almost identi- the methods of Pham et al. (2001) and Schwetz and Sahoo
cally, while constantly producing results with a higher value (2002) greatly underpredict the total resistance right across
of total resistance. It can be seen that the percentage dif- the speed range, with both resistance curves increasing at
ference obtained from the method of Schwetz and Sahoo a decreasing rate, whereas the curve of towing tank resis-
(2002) in comparison to the towing tank results is approx- tance values is almost linear in nature. The results obtained
imately 10–15%. The methods of Sahoo et al. (2004) and from the Sahoo et al. (2004) and SHIPFLOW methods show
Pham et al. (2001) can be seen to be slightly more ac- curves that are almost identical in form as that of the tow-
curate than that of Schwetz and Sahoo (2002), although ing tank curve, yet both underpredict the total resistance
both these methods underpredict the results of the towing by a considerable amount. The curve obtained from the
tank data, with the method of Pham et al. (2001) falling CATRES results does not match any of the other methods
away from both the towing tank results and the Sahoo et rising far sharper than the other predictions and levelling
al. (2004) results at both low and high volumetric Froude to eventually underpredict the towing tank results above a
numbers. Throughout the speed range, CATRES compares volumetric Froude number of approximately 2.5.
favourably whereas SHIPFLOW consistently overpredicts As in both the previous cases, the data from various
the experimental data. methods seem to fluctuate appreciably from experimental

Figure 5. RT /
against Fn∇ for various methods (New York Water Taxi, 2602).
 244 P.K. Sahoo et al.
Downloaded by [University of Sussex Library] at 21:17 16 January 2015

Figure 6. RT /
against Fn∇ for various methods (Catalina Express, 2621).

data as shown in Figure 6 (Catalina Express). The total re- gression models for resistance equations are determin-
sistance data obtained from CATRES overpredicts the total ing fairly accurate values for the tested vessels, bearing
resistance of the towing tank values by approximately the in mind that the regression models were developed on
same margin as Schwetz and Sahoo (2002). SHIPFLOW the basis of certain types of hull form, as illustrated in
and Sahoo et al. (2004) produce results with almost the Part I of this study.
same error in comparison to towing tank values, where (4) CATRES, considering the age of the program and the
SHIPFLOW slightly overpredicts the total resistance in the theory it is based on, performs extremely well. In the
lower speed range, eventually underpredicting the total re- case of New York Water Taxi, the majority of the re-
sistance above a volumetric Froude number of 2.8. The sistance prediction methods fail to produce accurate
total resistance curve of Sahoo et al. (2004) underpredicts results. This is thought to be due to a slightly more
the total resistance throughout the same speed range as what pronounced chine than what is present on the other
SHIPFLOW overpredicted the total resistance. The total re- two vessels, and a general form of the hull that is more
sistance obtained from the method of Pham et al. (2001) is suited to these two methods. However, this does not ex-
sufficiently accurate, although the curve underpredicts that plain the extent to which the other regression method
of the towing tank throughout the speed range. and SHIPFLOW underpredict the total resistance of
this vessel.
1. It may, however, be remembered that the regression
Conclusions equations were developed on the basis of a systematic
In this article, the authors have attempted to validate the series of specific hull forms that are totally unrelated to
various methods against three randomly chosen vessels, the randomly selected hull forms used for comparative
which are already in operation. Some conclusions that can analysis.
be drawn are as follows:

(1) There are some notable differences in the total resis-

tance curves obtained from the differing resistance pre- Final remarks
diction methods, both between methods for a particular The purpose of this study is to provide a comparison of
vessel and compared with the different vessels. a variety of resistance calculation methods, and ultimately
(2) In general, SHIPFLOW returns higher values of total to validate a series of regression analysis equations previ-
resistance compared with towing tank data except for ously developed and presented in Practical Evaluation of
New York Water Taxi. The overprediction could be Resistance of High-Speed Catamaran Hull Forms—Part I.
due to overcompensating for the interference effects It has been shown through this study that the developed
between the hulls or an inability to model the effect of regression equations are able to give reasonably accurate
following waves. predictions of resistance, with little input data about the
(3) The curve of RT /
, obtained from the regression meth- hull form and minimal time for the calculation process. It
ods, seems to maintain similar accuracies compared is, therefore, determined that with some refinement and op-
with towing tank results for different vessels. The re- timisation of the regression equations, the equations could
 Ships and Offshore Structures 245

provide viable first estimates of the resistance character- Pham XP, Kantimahanthi K, Sahoo PK. 2001. Wave resistance
istics of hull form in early design stages. The regression prediction of hard-chine catamarans through regression anal-
models are to be used with due care with regard to the ysis. Proceedings of the 2nd International Euro Conference on
High Performance Marine Vehicles (HIPER’01). Hamburg,
type of hull form (round bilge or chine) used in catamaran Germany. p. 382–394.
configurations. Sahoo PK, Browne NA, Salas M. 2004. Experimental and CFD
study of wave resistance of high-speed round bilge catamaran
Acknowledgements hull forms. Proceedings of the 4th International Conference
on High-Performance Marine Vehicles (HIPER’04). Rome,
The authors express their sincere gratitude to The Aus- Italy. p. 55–67.
tralian Maritime College, Australia (specialist institute of Sahoo PK, Salas M, Schwetz A. 2007. Practical evaluation of
University of Tasmania) and Incat Crowther Pty Ltd, Syd- resistance of high-speed catamaran hull forms–part I. J Ships
ney, Australia for their support and encouragement through- Offshore Struct. 2(4):307–324.
out the course of this study. Schwetz A, Sahoo PK. 2002. Wave resistance of semi-
displacement high speed catamarans through CFD and regres-
sion analysis. Proceedings of the 3rd International Euro Con-
References ference on High Performance Marine Vehicles (HIPER’02).
Molland AF, Wellicome JF, Couser PR. 1994. Resistance exper- Bergen, Norway. p. 355–368.
iments on a systematic series of high speed displacement Zips JM. 1995. Numerical resistance prediction based on results
Downloaded by [University of Sussex Library] at 21:17 16 January 2015

catamaran forms: variation of length–displacement ratio and of the VWS hard chine catamaran hull series ’89. Proceedings
breadth–draft ratio. Ship Science Report No. 71. Southamp- of the 4th International Conference on Fast Sea Transportation
ton, UK: University of Southampton. (FAST ’95). Vol. 1. Luebeck, Germany. p. 67–74.