A study on hydrodynamic characteristics of a planing hull by CFD simulation and modified M-S method

References

• Begovic E, Bertorello C. 2012. Resistance assessment of warped hullform. Ocean Eng. 56:28–42.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Bilandi RN, Dashtimanesh A, Tavakoli S. 2019. Development of a 2D+T theory for performance prediction of double-stepped planing hulls in calm water. Proc Inst Mech Eng Part M J Eng Marit Environ. 233:886–904.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Bilandi RN, Vitiello L, Mancini S, Nappo V, Roshan F, Tavakoli S, Dashtimanesh A. 2020. Calm-water performance of a boat with two swept steps at high-speeds: Laboratory measurements and mathematical modeling. Procedia Manuf. 42:467–474.
   Google Scholar
• Çakıcı F, Sukas ÖF, Usta O, Alkan AD. 2015. A computational investigation of a planing hull in calm water by U-RANSE approach. International Conference on Advances in Applied and Computational Mechanics; Aug 5–7; İzmir. https://doi.org/10.13140/RG.2.1.4707.8245.
   Google Scholar
• Dashtimanesh A, Tavakoli S, Sahoo P. 2017. A simplified method to calculate trim and resistance of a two-stepped planing hull. Ships Offshore Struct 12:S317–S329.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• De Luca F, Pensa C. 2017. The Naples warped hard chine hulls systematic series. Ocean Eng. 139:205–236.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• De Marco A, Mancini S, Miranda S, Scognamiglio R, Vitiello L. 2017. Experimental and numerical hydrodynamic analysis of a stepped planing hull. Appl Ocean Res. 64:135–154.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Doustdar MM, Kazemi H. 2019. Effects of fixed and dynamic mesh methods on simulation of stepped planing craft. J Ocean Eng Sci. 4:33–48.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Duman S, Sener B, Bal S. 2018. LCG effect on resistance, lift and trim characteristics of R/V Athena hull. Trans RINA Intl J Small Craft Tech. 160:43–56.
   Google Scholar
• Faltinsen OM. 2005. Hydrodynamics of high-speed marine vehicles. New York (NY): Cambridge University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Fridsma G. 1969. A systematic study of the rough-water performance of planing boats (Part I). Hoboken (NJ): Davidson Laboratory, Stevens Institute of Technology, Castle Point Station. Report, 1275.
   Google Scholar
• Ghadimi P, Tavakoli S, Chekab MAF, Dashtimanesh A. 2015. Introducing a particular mathematicalmodel for predicting the resistance and performance of prismatic planing hulls in calm water by means of total pressure distribution. J Nav Archit Mar Eng. 12:73–94.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Ghadimi P, Tavakoli S, Dashtimanesh A. 2016. Calm water performance of hard-chine vessels in semi-planing and planing regimes. Polish Marit Res. 23:23–45.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Ghadimi P, Tavakoli S, Dashtimanesh A, Djeddi SR. 2013. Three-dimensional mathematical investigation of dynamic and hydrostatic pressure distributions on planing hulls. J Comput Eng. 2013:1–13.
   Google Scholar
• Hirt CW, Nichols BD. 1981. Volume of fluid (VOF) method for the dynamics of free boundaries. J Comput Phys. 39(1):201–225.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Hosseini A, Tavakoli S, Dashtimanesh A, Sahoo P. 2020. Performance prediction of hard-chine planing hulls using different CFD models. Proceedings of ASME 2020 39th International Conference on Ocean, Offshore and Arctic Engineering.
   Google Scholar
• ITTC. 2011. Recommended procedures and guidelines practical guidelines for ship CFD applications 7.5-03-02-03.
   Google Scholar
• Judge C, Mousaviraad M, Stern F, Lee E, Fullerton A, Geiser J, Schleicher C, Merrill C, Weil C, Morin J, et al. 2020. Experiments and CFD of a high-speed deep-V planing hull––Part I: calm water. Appl Ocean Res. 96:102060.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Kapryan WJ, Boyd GM. 1955. Hydrodynamic pressure distributions obtained during a planing investigation of five related prismatic surfaces. NACA Technical Note 3477.
   Google Scholar
• Katayama T, Hayashita S, Suzuki K, Ikeda Y. 2002. Development of resistance test for high-speed planing craft using very small models: scale effects on drag forces. J Kansai Soc Nav Archit Japan. 39–47.
   Google Scholar
• Khazaee R, Rahmansetayesh MA, Hajizadeh S. 2019. Hydrodynamic evaluation of a planing hull in calm water using RANS and Savitsky’s method. Ocean Eng. 187:106221.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Kim DJ, Kim SY, You YJ, Rhee KP, Kim SH, Kim YG. 2013. Design of high-speed planing hulls for the improvement of resistance and seakeeping performance. Int J Nav Archit Ocean Eng. 5:161–177.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Lugni C, Colagrossi A, Colicchio G, Faltinsen OM. 2004. Numerical and experimental investigations on semi-displacement mono- and multi-hulls. 4th International Conference on High-Performance Marine Vehicles; Rome, September 27–29.
   Google Scholar
• Masumi Y, Nikseresht AH. 2017. Comparison of numerical solution and semi-empirical formulas to predict the effects of important design parameters on porpoising region of a planing vessel. Appl Ocean Res. 68:228–236.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Morabito MG. 2010. On the spray and bottom pressure of planing surfaces [PhD thesis]. Hoboken (NJ): Stevens Institute of Technology.
   Google Scholar
• Morabito MG. 2014. Empirical equations for planing hull bottom pressures. J Sh Res. 58:185–200.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Pennino S, Klymenko H, Scamardella A, Mancini S, Begovic E. 2016. Three-dimensional pressure distribution on planing hulls. Maritime Technology and Engineering III.
   Google Scholar
• Samuel KDJ, Fathuddiin A, Zakki AF. 2021. A numerical ventilation problem on Fridsma hull form using an overset grid dystem. IOP Conf Ser Mater Sci Eng. 1096:012041.
   Google Scholar
• Savitsky D. 1964. Hydrodynamic design of planing hull. Mar Technol. 1:25.
   Google Scholar
• Savitsky D, DeLorme MF, Datla R. 2007. Inclusion of whisker spray drag in performance prediction method for high-speed planing hulls. Mar Technol SNAME News. 44:35–56.
   Google Scholar
• Stern F, Wilson R, Shao J. 2006. Quantitative V&V of CFD simulations and certification of CFD codes. Int J Numer Methods Fluids. 50:1335–1355.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Stern F, Wilson RV, Coleman HW, Paterson EG. 2001. Comprehensive approach to verification and validation of CFD simulations-Part 1: methodology and procedures. J Fluids Eng Trans ASME. 123:793–802.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Su YM, Wang S, Shen HL, Du X. 2014. Numerical and experimental analyses of hydrodynamic performance of a channel type planing trimaran. J Hydrodyn. 26:549–557.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Sukas OF, Kinaci OK, Cakici F, Gokce MK. 2017. Hydrodynamic assessment of planing hulls using overset grids. Appl Ocean Res. 65:35–46.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Sun H, Faltinsen OM. 2007. The influence of gravity on the performance of planing vessels in calm water. J Eng Math. 58:91–107.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Taunton DJ, Hudson DA, Shenoi RA. 2010. Characteristics of A series of high speed hard chine planing hulls - Part 1: performance in calm water. Trans R Inst Nav Archit Part B Int J Small Cr Technol. 152:1–20.
   Google Scholar
• Wang H, Zhu R, Huang S, Zha L. 2020. Hydrodynamic analysis of a planing hull in calm water using overset mesh and rigid body motion method. Proceedings of the International Offshore and Polar Engineering Conference; October 11–16; Shanghai, China. p. 2352–2359.
   Google Scholar
• Xing T, Stern F. 2010. Factors of safety for Richardson extrapolation. J Fluids Eng Trans ASME. 132:0614031–0640313.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Yousefi R, Shafaghat R, Shakeri M. 2013. Hydrodynamic analysis techniques for high-speed planing hulls. Appl Ocean Res. 42:105–113.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Zhao R, Faltinsen OM, Haslum HA. 1997. A simplified nonlinear analysis of a high-speed planing craft in calm water. In: N. Baird, editor. Proc. FAST 97. Sydney; p. 431–438.
   Google Scholar