Universal Journal of Fluid Mechanics 2 (2014), 35-54

www.papersciences.com
 

A Mathematical Scheme for Calculation of Lift of Planing Crafts

with Large Mean Wetted Length and a Comparative Study of
Effective Parameters

Parviz Ghadimi1, Sasan Tavakoli2, Abbas Dashtimanesh3

1, 2
Department of Marine Technology, Amirkabir University of Technology, Tehran,
Iran
3
Engineering Department, Persian Gulf University, Bushehr, Iran
[email protected]

Abstract
By the current paper, lift force that is an important characteristic of a planing hull is calculated. To
accomplish this task, Morabito’s mathematical model that has been previously derived for
prediction of total pressure distribution on planing hulls is utilized. These equations are not
restricted to any specific mean wetted length and can be used for planing hulls with large value of
mean wetted length. Mathematical modeling has been accomplished by integrating the bottom
pressure which leads to determination of the lift of planing hulls. Results of the presented method
are compared against the results of Savitsky’s formula and favorable agreement is displayed.
Finally, a parametric study is conducted to examine the effects of various physical factors such as
trim angle, deadrise angle, average wetted length, and speed coefficient on the lift force.
Percentages of contribution of hydrodynamic and hydrostatic lifts are also investigated.

Key Word and Phrases

Lift, Mathematical Modeling, Planing Hulls, Empirical and Practical equations, Large Mean Wetted
Length, Calm Water, Hydrodynamics, High Speed Crafts (HSC)

1. Introduction
Among different types of high speed crafts, planing hulls are the most common. Specific
geometry of these crafts generates hydrodynamic lift on the bottom of the hull. This force and the
buoyant force support weight of the vessel. On the other hand, this force reduces the wave making
resistance of the boat. In order to compute the lift force, various methods have been proposed and
different experimental studies have been performed. Earlier stages of these studies involved the
modeling of planing crafts as a planing plate. In this context, Sottorf [1] studied forces of viscous
and perfect fluid acting on planing plates. He also presented some schematics of longitudinal and
transverse pressure distribution on these plates [2]. Wagner [3] on the other hand, tried to solve the
water entry problem that is very useful in determining the loads on planing boats. He used potential
theory and presented the velocity potential of the fluid for water entry of wedge shaped bodies.
Korvin-Kroukovsky et al [4] used non-dimensional analysis and extracted an empirical formula for
lift by some assumptions such as neglecting the surface tension. Pierson and Leshnover [5]
analytically studied the pressure distribution and hydrodynamic forces acting on these hulls. In
addition, Kapryan and Boyd [6] carried out a series of tests for measuring bottom pressure
distribution of planing hulls with various deadrise angles. Because of many parametric plots, their
efforts [6] were considered very useful. Furthermore, Shuford [7] conducted an experimental
research in which hydrodynamic lift was investigated and some important results were presented.
In addition to all of the surveyed studies, Savitsky [8] developed a unique mathematical model
for prediction of performance of planing boats. In his work, lift force and some other
hydrodynamic characteristics were calculated by using empirical equations. Brown [9] also
established an empirical relation for calculating the lift coefficient. Payne [10] analytically
determined hydrodynamic force acting on the planing plates in steady and unsteady conditions.
Later, he [11] presented a scheme in which pressure distribution and dynamic force can be
computed by using thin wing methodology.

  35
 P. Ghadimi, S. Tavakoli & A. Dashtimanesh
 

Numerical method is another approach for determining the lift force. One of the most important
studies in this regard is the effort by Savander et al [12]. They used boundary element method
(BEM) for computing the pressure distribution and lift force in steady planing problem. Numerical
method was also utilized for examining the water entry problem by Zhao et al [13] and Song [14].
In the meantime, Ghadimi et al [15] used smooth particle hydrodynamic method (SPH) for
determining the pressure distribution on planing plates. SPH method can also be used more
generally for prediction of performance of planing hulls. On the other hand, Morabito [16]
modified some practical equations of Smiley [17] and established a semi-empirical model for
pressure distribution. Yen et al [18] also used both numerical and experimental model for
investigating the lift of planing cylinders. Recently, Tavakoli et al [19] used Morabito’s
observation and modeled dynamic pressure distribution on the bottom of planing vessels.
Subsequently, Ghadimi et al [20] proposed a computational procedure for determining three-
dimensional total pressure acting on the bottom of the planing surfaces by means of Morabito’s
approach [16].
As useful as Savitsky’s [8] empirical relation is, it can’t be used for many of real planing hulls
in which deadrise angle and beam are not fixed from the stern to bow. On the other hand, this
equation can’t be used for a planing hull with large value of L/b and can only be used for the
condition L/b>4. Accordingly, in this paper, hydrodynamic and hydrostatic lifts in planing hulls
with large value of L/b is investigated. Subsequently, this scheme can be considered as the first step
of investigating the planing boats with large value of L/b such as Series 65. In this context, existing
equations of the pressure distribution which were derived in the mentioned studies are described
and the proposed computational procedure by Ghadimi et al [20] will be utilized. These equations
include hydrodynamic and hydrostatic pressure distributions and effect of transom stern on the
pressure. The equation related to pressure distribution is used for determining the lift force. A
computational procedure is presented for prediction of lift force of the planing hulls and a computer
program is developed in MATLAB. The computer program is validated by comparing its outputs
against empirical equations of Savitsky’s model [8]. Effects of different parameters such as trim
angle, mean wetted length, and deadrise angle on the lift force are investigated. Finally,
percentages of contribution of hydrodynamic and hydrostatic lifts are studied for planing hulls with
different deadrise angles and speed coefficients.

2. Mathematical Formulation
Weight of a planing hull is supported by the lift force which consists of two terms;
hydrodynamic and hydrostatic terms. Lift coefficient, based on the beam squared, is denoted by CL
and lift coefficient, based on the bottom area, is denoted by CL,S. These coefficients are obtained
from equations (2.1) and (2.2) (Morabito ([18]).
L (2.1) 
CL   
0.5 V b
2 2

L (2.2) 
C L,s   
0.5 V 2 b 2 
Here, L is the lift force acting on the bottom of the boat, ρ is the density of the water, V is the
forward moving velocity, b is the beam and λ is the non-dimensional mean wetted length given by
L (2.3)
 M
b
where LM is the mean wetted length. As pointed out earlier, lift force consists of two terms;
hydrodynamic lift which is generated by hydrodynamic pressure and hydrostatic lifts which is
produced by the buoyant pressure and the submerged volume. Equation (2.4) was presented by
Savitsky [8] for determining the lift force in planing plates:
0.00552.5 (2.4)
CL 0   1.1 (0.012   2
) 
Cv

  36
 P. Ghadimi, S. Tavakoli & A. Dashtimanesh
 

In this equation, τ is the dynamic trim angle (degree) and CV is the speed coefficient that can be
computed by
V (2.5)
CV   
gb
where g is the gravitational acceleration. As evident in Eq. (2.4), lift force is a combination of two
1.1
forces. First term τ 0.012 λ0.5 expresses hydrodynamic lift and is only a function of trim angle
and mean wetted length. However, the second term is recognized as hydrostatic lift which is also a
function of speed coefficient in addition to mean wetted length and trim angle. For determination of
lift force acting on the bottom of the hull, Savitsky [8] introduced the relationship
C L  C L 0  0.0065 C L0.06   (2.6)
where   is the deadrise angle (degree). Equations (2.4) and (2.6) are very useful in predicting the
performance of planing hulls. However, they are restricted and can only be used for the following
situations:
 0.60  CV  13.00
 2    15
 4
On the other hand, by having values of hydrodynamic and hydrostatic pressure, lift force can be
obtained through Morabito’s [18] approach.

2.1. Hydrodynamic pressure

As mentioned earlier, first investigation of the pressure distribution was conducted by Sottorf
[2]. He divided the three-dimensional pressure distribution into two segments [2]; longitudinal
pressure distribution and transverse pressure distribution. His idea led many researchers to focus on
pressure distribution from these points of views. By the current research, longitudinal view is
adopted. Accordingly, pressure area of a planing boat must be explained. The projected area of a
planing hull is illustrated in Fig.1. In this figure, two areas are obvious; the pressure area in which
hydrodynamic forces and resistance are produced and the spray area in which whisker spray and its
resistance are generated. These two areas are separated by a stagnation line which was introduced
by Pierson and Leshnover [4].

 
Fig.1 The projected Area of a planing hull [21].

Observations by Smiley [17] led him to draw a schematic of the pressure distribution, as shown
in Fig.2. This figure reveals some facts about hydrodynamic pressure distribution. These facts are
explained in detailed by Morabito [16] and listed as follows:
(1) Existence of a maximum pressure that results form the intersection of keel and calm
water line,
(2) A peak pressure line which is near the stagnation line and a maximum pressure can be
seen at the intersection of this line and a longitudinal section,

  37
 P. Ghadimi, S. Tavakoli & A. Dashtimanesh
 

(3) As the distance of the point from transom decreases, a decrease in longitudinal pressure
distribution is observed,
(4) Hydrodynamic pressure is zero at the transom stern,
(5) Although value of pressure in maximum pressure line decreases as the distance from the
center line increases, this reduction is very small in comparison to the reduction of
pressure in longitudinal section, and
(6) Value of hydrodynamic pressure in the chine is also zero.

Fig.2 Three-dimensional hydrodynamic pressure distribution over the bottom of a planing hull [17].

Pressure distribution over the center line has a maximum value at the intersection of the center
line and the peak pressure line and subsequently decreases as its distance from this intersection gets
smaller. Morabito [16] proposed a new equation for determination of the dynamic pressure which
can be applied to any type of longitudinal section. He applied boundary conditions like PL/q at X=0
and at the transom for establishing this relation. Through his efforts, equations (2.7) through (2.12)
were derived which is later used for computing the lift force.
2 (2.7)
PL CX 3
 PT PY  
q (X  K)
( y  X ) (2.8)
PT   
( y  X )1.4  0.05

1 (2.9)
C  0.006 PY  3  
C1.5 (2.10)
K  
Pmax 1.5
2.5888( )Y
q
PYstag (2.11)
0.5  Y
 [1.02  0.25Y 1.4 ]  
PN 0.51  Y
0.5  Y (2.12)
PY  [1.02  0.05(   5)Y 1.4 ]  
0.51  Y
In the above equations, PL is the hydrodynamic pressure, X is the non-dimensional distance from
the intersection of calm water and keel. C and K are two dependent variables, PT is the transom
effect function and has a specific value in each longitudinal section, while PY is the effect of chine
and also has a specific value in each longitudinal strip. Y is the non-dimensional distance from the
keel and λy is the non dimensional wetted length of each longitudinal section introduced by
Morabito [18].

  38
 P. Ghadimi, S. Tavakoli & A. Dashtimanesh
 

2.2. Bouyant pressure

For a displacement hull, bouyant force is equal to the submerged volume. However,
determination of this force in a planing craft is complicated. This complexity is caused by the
transom stern and the chine. Shuford [7] assumed that this force is half of the submerged volume
and Zarnick [22] another technique dealing with this issue. Morabito [16] expressed that
hydrostatic pressure is affected by both transom and chine and can be obtained using equation
(2.13).

PB gH ( X , Y ) (2.13)
 PT PY
q q

where H(X,Y) denotes the depth.

2.3. Lift coefficient

Determination of the lift coefficient requires integration of the total pressure over the bottom of
the planing hull. In this regard, Total pressure (PTotal) is determined by the summation of the
hydrostatic and hydrodynamic forces as shown in equation (2.14). Subsequently, lift coefficient is
calculated using equation (2.15).

PTotal PL PB (2.14)
 
q q q

 0.5  y (2.15)
PTotal
C LS  
 0.5
0 q dxdy cos
Hydrostatic and hydrodynamic lift coefficients can also be calculated using equations (2.16) and
(2.17). CLS is considered as hydrostatic lift coefficient and CLD is considered as the hydrodynamic
lift coefficient.

2.4. Computational Procedure

After presenting mathematical model and its formulation, it is necessary to develop a
computational procedure for determining the lift force. First, hydrodynamic and hydrostatic
pressures are determined and then total pressure is computed using the proposed procedure by
Ghadimi et al [20]. Accordingly, a mesh is generated on the bottom of the planing hull.
Subsequently, bouyant and hydrodynamic pressures are determined in each longitudinal section.
This computation procedure starts at the center line (Y=0) and finishes at the chine. On the other
hand, pressure is calculated from the point X=0 to X=λy for different longitudinal sections. Finally,
lift force and hydrodynamic and hydrostatic coefficients are computed.

An algorithm is presented in Fig.3 and a computational program is developed. Inputs of the

program are the deadrise and trim angles, speed coefficient, and mean wetted length. Lift force and
pressure distribution are the outputs of the proposed model.

  39
 P. Ghadimi, S. Tavakoli & A. Dashtimanesh
 

 
Fig.3 Computational algorithm for determining the lift force of the planing boats.

This computational method can also be used for λ>4 and lift of the crafts with the mean wetted
length can be computed. On the other hand, this computational method can easily be adjusted for
the planing boats with variable deadrise angle and beam in their length.

3. Validation

At this stage, it is necessary to validate the proposed method and the developed computer
program. Hence, results of the presented model are compared against those by Savitsky’s equation
[8]. For a better comparison, values of CL/τ1.1 are compared instead of lift coefficient. The
predicted values of CL/τ1.1 using the presented technique are compared against Savitsky’s model at
four various speed coefficients of CV =1, 2, 4 and 6 and are plotted via mean wetted length for a
planing plate. Then, hydrostatic term and total lift are compared against Savitsky’s equation,
separately. Thus, predicted hydrostatic lift is compared against equation (2-3) and this comparison
is illustrated in Fig.4. As evident in this figure, favorable accuracy is displayed. Total lift is
computed and a comparison is illustrated in Fig.5. Favorable agreement is also achieved for the
total lift of the planing plate.

  40
 P. Ghadimi, S. Tavakoli & A. Dashtimanesh
 

(a) (b)

(c) (d)

Fig.4 Comparison of the predicted hydrostatic term of C L / 

1.1
against Savitsky’s method.

  41
 P. Ghadimi, S. Tavakoli & A. Dashtimanesh
 

(a) (b)

(c) (d)

Fig.5 Comparison of the predicted total lift C L / 

1.1
against Savitsky’s method.

The predicted hydrodynamic pressure distribution is also compared against some of Kaprayan
and Boyad’s [5] results and this comparison is shown in Figs.6 and 7. Therefore, values of P/q are
determined in three different longitudinal sections. Nondimensional beam of these rows are
Y=0.025, 0.25, and 0.475. Predicted hydrodynamic pressures by the proposed method are very
close to the experimental data of Kapryan and Boyd [6].
 

  42
 P. Ghadimi, S. Tavakoli & A. Dashtimanesh
 

(a) (b) (c)

Fig.6 Predicted pressure distribution compared against Kaprayan and Boyd’s [5] result for a planing plate
with   4 and   5.14 (a) Y  0.025 (b) Y  0.25 (c) Y  0.475 .

(a) (b) (c)

Fig.7 Predicted pressure distribution compared against Kaprayan and Boyd’s [6] result for a planing hull
with   20 ,   4 and   5.14 (a) Y  0.025 (b) Y  0.25 (c) Y  0.475 .

4. Parametric Study : Results and Discussion

Effects of different parameters on lift are analyzed. These parameters include deadrise and trim
angles, mean wetted length, and speed coefficients. On the other hand, contributions of
hydrodynamic and hydrostatic lifts are investigated.

4.1. Hydrodynamic lift

First, effects of trim and dearise angles are investigated on the hydrodynamic lift force. Figure 8
shows the effect of increasing the trim angle on the hydrodynamic term in planing hulls. As evident
in this figure, increasing the trim angle causes an increase in hydrodynamic lift, while slope of the
resultant curve decreases with a decrease in the deadrise angle. Figure 9 illustrates the effect of
deadrise angle on hydrodynamic lift. As shown in this figure, hydrodynamic lift decreases by
increasing the deadrise angle and greater value of the hydrodynamic lift is observed for a planing
hull with zero deadrise angle.

  43
 P. Ghadimi, S. Tavakoli & A. Dashtimanesh
 

Fig.8 Effects of trim angle on hydrodynamic lift of planing hulls with CV  4 ,   1 and various deadrise
angles.

Fig.9 Effects of Deadrise angle on hydrodynamic lift with CV  4 ,   2 .5 and various trim angles.

4.2. Total Lift

In order to investigate the effect of different parameters on the lift force, it is calculated using
the proposed method for planing hulls with deadrise angle of 40 at three speed coefficients of
Cv=1,2 and 3 and three trim angles including τ=2, 6 and 12. In all of these cases, total lift
  44
 P. Ghadimi, S. Tavakoli & A. Dashtimanesh
 

coefficient is computed for 1≤ λ≤ 8. Figures 10, 11 and 12 show the results for these deadrise
angles. All of these figures illustrate that lift force increases by an increase in the mean wetted
length.
Increasing speed coefficient while keeping other parameters constant causes a decrease in the
lift force. A comparison between cases a, b, and c of each figure confirms this fact. This fact can
also be found in Savitsky’s formula. In his equation, there is an inverse relationship between
hydrostatic lift and Cv2 while there is no relation between CV and hydrodynamic lift.
With regard to the trim angle, while other parameters are fixed, this parameter has a direct
relation to the lift. Increasing the pressure distribution by increasing the trim angle is the main
reason behind this change. All these cases include three trim angles and signify this fact. On the
other hand, at higher trim angles, slope of the resultant plot of the lift via the mean wetted length is
greater and the lift force increases, more intensely. Three illustrated plots in cases a, b, and c of
each figure confirms this fact.

(a)

(b)

  45
 P. Ghadimi, S. Tavakoli & A. Dashtimanesh
 

(c)

Fig.10 Total lift coefiicient of planing hull with  0 (a) CV  1 (b) CV  2 and (c) CV  3 .

(a)

  46
 P. Ghadimi, S. Tavakoli & A. Dashtimanesh
 

(b)

(c)

Fig.11 Total lift coefiicient of planing hull with   20 (a) CV  1 (b) CV  2 and (c) CV  3 .

  47
 P. Ghadimi, S. Tavakoli & A. Dashtimanesh
 

(a)

(b)

  48
 P. Ghadimi, S. Tavakoli & A. Dashtimanesh
 

(c)

Fig.12 Total lift coefficient of planing hull with   40 (a) CV  1 (b) CV  2 and (c) CV  3 .

4.3. Contribution of hydrostatic and hydrodynamic lift components

The weight of a planing hull is supported by both hydrodynamic and buoyant pressure. Here,
percentage of contribution of these two components is investigated. Accordingly, percentages of
contribution of these components have been computed for a planing hull with zero deadrise angle
and a planing hull with deadrise angle of 20 degrees at CV=2 and τ=2. The obtained results are
displayed in Fig.13. Figure 13 indicates that for both planing hulls at λ=1, hydrodynamic term has
the most contribution, while in the planing hull with β=0, this contribution is 86.9% and for the
other planing craft (β=20), this contribution is 83.02%. For both cases, contribution of hydrostatic
term increases by increasing of the mean wetted length. At a specific mean wetted length (λ=3),
percentage of contribution of hydrostatic and hydrodynamic components for both hulls are equal.
Furthermore, at λ=7, hydrostatic component has the most contribution. At this mean wetted length,
percentage of contribution of hydrodynamic term for the planing boat with β=20 is 83.1%, while
for the other hull (β=0), this contribution is about 81.2%.

Effect of speed coefficient on this contribution is also investigated and is shown in Fig.14 for a
planing hull of β=0 at τ=4 and at two different speed coefficients CV=2 and 4. This figure proves
that contribution of hydrodynamic lift at CV=2 is larger than at CV=4 and has the largest value at
λ=1 which is approximately equal to 94%. Furthermore, at CV=4, it can be concluded that
contribution of hydrostatic term is larger at λ≤6 while contribution of hydrodynamic term becomes
larger at a mean wetted length between 6 and 7, and at CV=2, hydrostatic term becomes larger at
λ>3.

  49
 P. Ghadimi, S. Tavakoli & A. Dashtimanesh
 

(a)

(b)

Fig.13 Percentages of contribution of hydrodynamic and hydrostatic lift coefficients for planing hulls with
CV  2 and   4 (a)   0 and (b)   20 .

  50
 P. Ghadimi, S. Tavakoli & A. Dashtimanesh
 

Fig.14 Percentages of contribution of hydrodynamic and hydrostatic lift coefficients for a planing hull with
 0 and   4 (a) CV  2 and (b) CV  4 .
5. Conclusions
By the present research, a mathematical procedure was developed and presented for calculation
of lift force of the planing hulls. This method was based on semi-empirical equations of bottom
pressure distribution over prismatic planing hulls and can also be used for hulls with λ≥4 and
doesn’t exhibit any limitation for the mean wetted length. To validate the proposed method and
computational program, results of the developed code were compared against those by Savitsky’s
method [8] and favorable accuracy was displayed. On the other hand, the predicted pressure
distributions were compared against the experimental results of Kapryan and Boyd [6] and
accuracy of the prediction of hydrodynamic pressure was also verified.
Influences of some effective physical parameters are investigated and following observations are
concluded:
1) Increasing the trim angle causes an increase in the hydrodynamic component. This
effect is minimal at large deadrise angles.
2) Increasing the deadrise angle would cause an increase in the hydrodynamic component
of the lift coefficient.
3) Mean wetted length has direct relation with the total lift coefficient.
4) Increasing the running trim angle causes an increase in the total lift, while other
parameters are kept fixed. On the other hand, the slope of the resultant plot has a direct
relation with the trim angle.
5) Hydrostatic lift coefficient has an inverse relation with CV.
6) Percentage of contribution of hydrostatic and hydrodynamic component is investigated
for two different deadrise angles at CV=2 and 4, and τ=4. It is shown that contribution
of hydrodynamic lift decreases by an increase in the mean wetted length.
7) A study on percentages of contribution of both components is performed for a planing
hull with zero deadrise angle at two different speed coefficients and it is concluded that
at larger speed coefficients, contribution of hydrodynamic lift is greater.
This scheme can be considered as a first step of a method for investigating the performance and
dynamic motion of planing hulls with large values of L/b or planing hulls with variable deadrise
angles and beam in their length. Dynamic motion of these crafts and prediction of their
performance including prediction of the running trim angle and resistance are the future plans of
our study.

  51
 P. Ghadimi, S. Tavakoli & A. Dashtimanesh
 

Nomenclature

b Beam of the A variable for

planing hull determination of
pressure
C  A variable for distribution
determination of K 
pressure
distribution PB   Hydrostatic
pressure
C L0 Lift Coefficient of
planing plates PL   Pressure
distribution over
CL Lift Coefficient the planing hull
based on beam
squared PMax   Maximum
pressure acting on
C L,S Lift Coefficient the bottom of a
based on bottom planing hull
area
PT   Transom effect
C LS   Hydrostatic function
component of lift
coefficient PTotal   Total pressure

C LD   Hydrodynamic PY   Transverse
component of lift pressure
coefficient distribution ratio

C L Lift Coefficient of PYStag Ratio of pressure

planing hulls -   over stagnation
non-zero deadrise
PN
line to pressure
angles (Savitsky’s due to
equation)
V  Velocity of the
CV  V gB   Speed coefficient
craft

g  Gravity X  x/b  Non-dimensional

acceleration longitudinal
distance from the
H  Depth stagnation line

LM Mean wetted x  Longitudinal

length distance from the
stagnation line

Y  y  b  Non-dimensional
lateral distance
from center line

  52
 P. Ghadimi, S. Tavakoli & A. Dashtimanesh
 

y  Lateral distance length

from the center
line y   Non-dimensional
distance from the
 tan  Angle between transom stern at
  tan 1 ( )   stagnation line each longitudinal
2 tan 
and keel section

W   Angle between   Density of water

calm water line
and center line   Trim angle

  Deadrise angle

  LM / B Non-dimensional
mean wetted

References
1. Sottorf W., ‘Versuche mit Gleitflächen, Werft-Reederei-Hafen’, [English Version: Experiments with
Planing Surfaces] , NACA Report No TM 739, 1934.
2. Sottorf W., ‘Analyse experimenteller Untersuchungon über den Gleitvorgang an der Wasseroberfläche,
Jahrbuch der deutschen Luftfahrtforschung’, [English Version : Analysis of Experimental Investigations of
the Planing Process on the Surface of the Water], NACA Report No TM 1064, 1944.
3. Wagner H., ‘Associated with Impacts and Sliding on liquid surfaces’, NACA Translation, 1932.
4. Korvin-Kroukovsky B.V., Savitsky D. and Lehman W.F., ‘Wetted Area and Center of Pressure of Planing
Surfaces’, Stevens Institute of Technology, Hoboken, New Jersey, Report No. 360, 1949
5. Pierson J.D. and Leshnovernover S., ‘A Study of the Flow, Pressures, and Loads Pertaining to Prismatic
Vee-Planing Surfaces’, Report SIT-DL-50-382, Davidson Laboratory Stevens Institute of Technology.
Hoboken, New Jersey, 1950.
6. Kapryan W.J. and Boyd G.M. Jr., ‘Hydrodynamic Pressure Distributions Obtained During a Planing
Investigation of Five Related Prismatic Surfaces’, Report NACA TN 3477, Washington, D.C., 1955.
7. Shuford C.L., ‘A Theoretical and Experimental Study of Planing Surfaces, Including Effects of Cross
Section and Plan Form’, NACA Technical Note 3939, Langley Aeronautical Laboratory, Langley Field, VA,
1957.
8. Savitsky D., ‘Hydrodynamic Design of Planing Hulls’, Marine Technology, 1 (1964), 71-95.
9. Brown P.W., ‘An Experimental and Theoretical Study of Planing Surfaces with Trim Flaps’, Davidson
Laboratory Report No. 1463, 1971.
10. Payne R.P., ‘The Normal Force on a Flat Planing Plate Including Low Length to Beam Ratios’, Journal of
Ocean Engineering, 8 (1981), 221-257.
11. Payne R.P., ‘The Dynamic Force on a Two-Dimensional Planing Plate of Arbitrary Camber’, Journal of
Ocean Engineering, 9 (1982), 221-257.
12. Savander B.R., Scorpio S.M. and Taylor R.K., ‘Steady hydrodynamic of planing surface’, Journal of Ship
Research, 46 (2002), 248-279.
13. Zhao R., Faltinsen O.M. and Aarsnes J , ‘Water entry of arbitrary two-dimensional sections with and
without flow separation’, Proceedings of the 21st Symposium on Naval Hydrodynamics, Trondheim,
Norway, National Academy Press, Washington, DC, 1996.
14. Song W., Arai M. and Maruo H., ‘Nonlinear Free Surface Flow, Numerical Approach to Water Entry of
Wedges and Experimental Appraisal’, 19th ICTAM, 1996.
15. Ghadimi P., Dashtimanesh A., Farsi M. and Najafi, S., Investigation of free surfaceflow generated by a
planing flat plat using smoothed particle hydrodynamics method and FLOW3D simulations, Journal of
Engineering for the maritime environment, 227 (2013), 125-135
16. Morabito M.G., ‘On the spray and bottom pressure of planing surfaces’, PhD thesis, Stevens Institute of
Technology, Hoboken, New Jersey, 2010.
17. Smiley R.F., ‘An Experimental Study of the Water-Pressure Distributions during Landing and Planing of a
Heavily Loaded Rectangular Flat-Plate Model’, NACA Technical Note NO. 2453, 1951.

  53
 P. Ghadimi, S. Tavakoli & A. Dashtimanesh
 

18. Yen T., Morabito M.G., Imas L., Dzielski J, and Datla R., ‘Investigation of Cylinder on a flat Free Surface’,
11th International Conference on Fast Sea Transportation, Honolulu, Hawaii, USA, 2011.
19. Tavakoli S., Ghadimi P., Dashtimanesh, A. and Djeddi S.R., ‘Mathematical Modeling of longitudinal
pressure distribution on planing hulls’, Global journal of Mathematical Analysis, 1 (2013), 53-65.
20. Ghadimi P., Tavakoli S., Dashtimanesh A., and Djeddi S.R., ‘Three Dimensional Mathematical Pressure
Distribution on Planing Hulls’, Journal of Computational Engineering,, 2013.
21. Savitsky D., DeLorm M.F. and Datla R., ‘Inclusion of Whisker Spray in Performance Prediction Methode
for High Speed Planing Hulls’, Marine Technology, 44 (2007), 35-56.
22. Zarnick E.E., ‘A non-linear Mathematical Model of Motions of a Planing boat in Regular Waves’ David
Taylor Naval Ship Research and Development Center, Bethesda, MD, United States, Technical Report No.
DTNSRDC-78/032, 1978.

  54