Catamaran
Catamaran
0
sqrt(L/g)
3
/
a
150
165
180
Heave motion - phase angle
-50
0
50
100
150
200
250
300
1.0 1.5 2.0 2.5 3.0 3.5 4.0
0
sqrt(L/g)
p
h
a
s
e
(
d
e
g
)
150
165
180
Figure 4 Heave motion response for Froude number 0.4
Pitch motion - RAO
0.0
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
1.0
1.2
1.4
1.0 1.5 2.0 2.5 3.0 3.5 4.0
0
sqrt(L/g)
5
/
k
a
150
165
180
Pitch motion - phase angle
0
60
120
180
240
300
360
1.0 1.5 2.0 2.5 3.0 3.5 4.0
0
sqrt(L/g)
p
h
a
s
e
(
d
e
g
)
150
165
180
Figure 5 Pitch motion response for Froude number 0.4
Figure 6 represents the roll response in bow waves. The
amplitudes are also dimensionalised by the wave slope. One
can say that the roll amplitudes of the catamaran model are very
small in bow waves, reaching to a maximum value of only 60%
of the wave slope for 150 heading.
More interesting are the vertical accelerations measured on the
model. Figure 7 presents the vertical acceleration responses
measured at the bow of the weather hull. The longitudinal
position is 15.3m forward of midship. The amplitudes are shown
in two vertical axis. One represents nondimensional values,
zL/ag, being z the vertical acceleration and g the acceleration
of gravity. The other represents acceleration amplitudes per unit
wave amplitude, divided by the acceleration of gravity. One can
observe the presence of a large peak of around 2g, for wave
lengths similar to the ship length. This is mainly related to the
high encounter frequency, which occurs simultaneously with
relatively large amplitude of the vertical motions. Also the
"adverse" effects of heave and pitch on the vertical
accelerations tend to sum up for this condition.
The relative vertical motions between the ship and the waves
was measured at the two bows, and at each bow inside and
outside. The longitudinal position is 16.1m forward of midship
for the inside sensors and 17.3m for the outside sensors. The
response curves showed that for head and bow waves there are
small differences in the relative motions inside and outside of
the hulls. For this reason results are presented only for the
outside of the weather hull. Figure 8 shows the relative motion
amplitudes divided by the wave amplitudes and the related
phase angles. The peak of the transfer function is about 3.5 for
waves of the same length as the ship.
Roll motion - RAO
0.0
0.1
0.2
0.3
0.4
0.5
0.6
0.7
1.0 1.5 2.0 2.5 3.0 3.5 4.0
0
sqrt(L/g)
4
/
k
a
150
165
Roll motion - phase angle
0
100
200
300
400
500
1.0 1.5 2.0 2.5 3.0 3.5 4.0
0
sqrt(L/g)
p
h
a
s
e
(
d
e
g
)
150
165
Figure 6 Roll motion response for Froude number 0.4
- 6 -
Vertical acceleration at the bow - RAO
0
20
40
60
80
100
1.0 1.5 2.0 2.5 3.0 3.5 4.0
0
sqrt(L/g)
(
z
L
)
/
(
a
g
)
0.0
0.5
1.0
1.5
2.0
z
/
a
g
[
m
-
1
]
150
165
180
Vertical acceleration at the bow - phase angle
50
100
150
200
250
1.0 1.5 2.0 2.5 3.0 3.5 4.0
0
sqrt(L/g)
p
h
a
s
e
(
d
e
g
)
150
165
180
Figure 7 Vertical acceleration at the bow for Froude number 0.4
Relative Motion at the Bow - RAO
0
1
2
3
4
1.0 1.5 2.0 2.5 3.0 3.5 4.0
0
sqrt(L/g)
r
/
a
150
165
180
Relative Motion at the Bow - phase angle
0
50
100
150
200
1.0 1.5 2.0 2.5 3.0 3.5
0
sqrt(L/g)
p
h
a
s
e
(
d
e
g
)
150
165
180
Figure 8 Relative motion at the bow for Froude number 0.4
Figures 9 and 10 represent the magnitudes of several
responses of the catamaran in head waves and for four Froude
numbers, respectively 0.0, 0.2, 0.4 and 0.6. Figure 9 shows the
heave and pitch nondimensional amplitudes. As expected, one
can observe that the resonance peak increases very much with
the the Froude number. Although the entire justification is not
straight forward due to the complexity of the phenomena
envolved, this increase of the resonance peak with the Froude
number is mainly due to the shift of the resonance frequency to
the longer wave lengths where the exciting forces are of higher
amplitude.
The increase of the vertical motions with the Froude number is
followed by the other related vertical responses, namelly the
vertical acceleration at the bow and relative motion at the bow
(figure 10).
Heave motion - RAO
0.0
0.5
1.0
1.5
2.0
2.5
1.0 1.5 2.0 2.5 3.0 3.5 4.0
0
sqrt(L/g)
3
/
a
Fn = 0.0
Fn = 0.2
Fn = 0.4
Fn = 0.6
Pitch motion - RAO
0.0
0.4
0.8
1.2
1.6
1.0 1.5 2.0 2.5 3.0 3.5 4.0
0
sqrt(L/g)
5
/
k
a
Fn = 0.0
Fn = 0.2
Fn = 0.4
Fn = 0.6
Figure 9 Heave and pitch nondimensional amplitudes in head
waves
Finally the mean added resistance in waves is presented in
figure 11. The left side graph shows the mean added resistance
in head and bow waves for Froude number 0.4. The right side
graph shows the same response in head waves for four Froude
numbers between 0.0 and 0.6. The amplitudes are
nondimensionalised by g B L
a
2 2
/ , where the term
represents the mass density of the water and B is the beam
overall at the waterline.
- 7 -
Vertical Acceleration at the Bow - RAO
0
20
40
60
80
100
1.0 1.5 2.0 2.5 3.0 3.5 4.0
0
sqrt(L/g)
z
L
/
a
g
0.0
0.5
1.0
1.5
2.0
z
/
a
g
Fn = 0.0
Fn = 0.2
Fn = 0.4
Fn = 0.6
Relative Motion at the Bow - RAO
0.0
1.0
2.0
3.0
4.0
1.0 1.5 2.0 2.5 3.0 3.5 4.0
0
sqrt(L/g)
r
/
a
Fn = 0.0
Fn = 0.2
Fn = 0.4
Figure 10 Vertical acceleration and relative motions
amplitudes in head waves
The procedure to obtain the mean added resistance forces is
the following. Firstly, the total towing force is measured using
two load cells with the model at speed in waves. This is an
oscillatory force. Secondly, the mean value of the towing force is
calculated. Finally, the mean added resistance in waves is the
difference between the mean towing force in waves and the
resistance to the advance in still water. The later was measured
at the initial stage of the tests.
The mean added resistance in waves is a second order quantity
proportional to the square of the wave amplitude, and with a
magnitude much smaller than the first order forces. For these
reason a high degree of accuracy is needed in the experiments.
The small degree of dispersion of the experimental points in
figure 11 suggest that these forces were measured accurately.
The results in figure 11 show a large peak for the
nondimensional frequency of 2.5, which is mainly related with
the energy spent with the large vertical relative motions at the
bow.
Mean added resistance in waves
0
2
4
6
8
1.0 1.5 2.0 2.5 3.0 3.5 4.0
0
sqrt(L/g)
R
w
a
/
(
g
a
2
B
2
/
L
)
150
165
180
Mean added resistance in waves
0
2
4
6
8
10
1.0 1.5 2.0 2.5 3.0 3.5 4.0
0
sqrt(L/g)
R
w
a
g
a
L
Fn = 0.0
Fn = 0.2
Fn = 0.4
Fn = 0.6
Figure 11 Mean added resistance in head waves.
Head and bow waves at Fn =0.4 (left side).
Head waves at several Froude numbers (right side).
COMPARISON WITH OTHER EXPERIMENTAL DATA
The hull form considered in this work is different from the ones
considered in other experimental studies and thus a direct
comparison is not possible. However some qualitative checks
will allow conclusions about the consistency of data and general
trends of the results.
The heave and pitch results from Hermundstad et al. (1999) in
head waves at Fn = 0.47, show resonance peaks for both
responses about 10% higher than the results presented here for
Fn = 0.40. However Hermundstad results of vertical motions in
head waves for Fn = 0.47 and 0.63 do not differ much in terms
of amplitudes, while the results present here show a large
increase of resonance peaks between Fn = 0.4 and 0.6. His
heave peaks for the two Froude numbers are approximately the
same and the pitch peak is even around 20% lower for the
higher speed. In the case of the present results between Fn =
0.4 and Fn = 0.6, the heave and pitch resonance increase
respectively 60% and 20%.
- 8 -
It is possible that the different behavior between the two hulls is
partly related with the different stern geometry. Both catamarans
have transom sterns, however Hermundstad's catamaran has a
tunnel stern, while the other has a conventional transom stern.
While the former two sets of results agree relatively well, the
results from Wahab (1971) show much larger resonance peaks
for heave and pitch motions, for head and bow waves at similar
Froude numbers (Fn around 0.4). Wahab's heave peaks are
about two times larger than those presented here and the pitch
peaks around 40% higher. It is believed that the difference is
mainly due to the lower relation Bdh/T, which is 2.0 for the
present catamaran and 1.33 for the ASR catamaran (Bdh is the
demi-hull beam at the waterline and T is the draft). In general,
this lower relation results in smaller damping as percentage of
critical damping, thus larger resonance peaks. Another
consequence is the shift of natural frequencies to longer waves
where excitation forces and moments are higher. This can also
be observed in the graphs: while the present catamaran has the
resonance peak for L L
w pp
/ . =10 , the ASR has for
L L
w pp
/ . = 12 .
Another characteristic which is believed to have some effect on
the vertical motion resonance amplitudes is the stern geometry.
For higher Froude numbers the transom stern generates lifting
effects which may have an influence on the heave and pitch
responses. The ASR has a conventional stern while the present
catamaran has a transom stern.
When the heave response from Fang et al (1996) in head waves
at Fn = 0.667 is compared with the same response of the
present catamaran at Fn = 0.6, one find a resonance peak
about 30% lower. The pitch peak is around 10% lower. The
relation Bdh/T for the V-1 is 2.3 , thus a little higher than for the
model studied here. In addition the hulls have a hard-chine
below the water-line along a large part of the length, thus it is
probable that viscous damping effects occur during the vertical
motion due to flow separation. These two characteristics of the
hulls result in relatively low resonance heave peaks. Comparing
different Froude numbers in Fang's heave and pitch data (Fn=
0.23 and 0.68), it is seen that only the higher speed shows
peaks of the transfer functions above 1.
Experimental results of the vertical motions are also presented
by Kashiwagi (1993) for a Wigley twin-hull in head waves. This
hull configuration does not have a transom stern, and it is
interesting to see that the vertical motions are quite resonant
even for a relatively small Froude number of 0.3. Similar results
were obtained by van't Veer and Sireger (1995) with another
Wigley twin-hull model.
CONCLUSIONS
The paper describes the results of model tests of a catamaran in
regular waves. The measured quantities are the heave, pitch
and roll motions, the relative motions at the bow, the vertical
accelerations and the mean added resistance in waves. The
influence of the heading and of the Froude number on the
catamaran behavior was investigated. Concerning the influence
of the heading, it was found that the vertical responses tend to
be slightly higher for head waves than for bow waves but the
differences are small. On the other hand, the vertical responses
are very sensitive to the Froude number, increasing with the
Froude number.
The comparison of experimental data presented here with other
published by other authors, shows that the results agree with
each other and the differences may be attributed to the different
hull configurations.
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
The experimental work was developed in the project
Experimental Study of Motions on Catamarans which has
been funded by the Commission of the European Communities,
through the Spanwave Project under contract ERB FMGE CT95
0074.
REFERENCES
Centeno, R., Varyani, K.S. and Guedes Soares, C., (1999),
Experimental Study on the Influence of Hard Chine Hull
Spacing on Catamaran Motions, to be published.
Couser, P., Hudson, D.A., Price, W.G. and Temarel, P., (1995),
"Prediction of Hydrodynamic Loads and Motions of a High
Speed Catamaran in regular Waves", Proceedings of the 3
rd
Symposium on High Speed Marine Vehicles, Naples.
Faltinsen, O., Hoff, J. R., Kvalsvold, J. and Zhao, R., (1992),
Global Loads on High-Speed Catamarans, Proceedings of
PRADS92, ed. J.B. Caldwell and G. Ward, Elsevier Applied
Science, London and New York, Vol. 1, pp.1360-1375.
Fang, C. C., Chan, H. S. and Incecik, A., (1996), Investigation
of Motions of Catamarans in Regular Waves-I, Ocean
Engineering, 23, No. 1, pp. 89-105.
Fang, C. C., Chan, H. S. and Incecik, A., (1997), Investigation
of Motions of Catamarans in Regular Waves-II, Ocean
Engineering, 24, No. 10, pp. 949-966.
Hermundstad, O.A., (1995), Theoretical and Experimental
Hydroelastic Analysis of High Speed Vessels, Dr.Ing. thesis,
Dept. Marine Structures, Norwegian University of Science
and Technology, 153 pp.
Hermundstad, O.A., Aarsnes, J.V. and Moan, T., (1995),
Hydroelastic Analysis of a Flexible Catamaran and
Comparison with Experiments, Proceedings of the 3
rd
International Conference on Fast Ship Transportation
(FAST95), Schiffbautechnische Gesellschaft, Vol. 1, pp.
487-500.
Hermundstad, O.A., Aarsnes, J.V. and Moan, T., (1999), Linear
Hydroelastic Analysis of Catamarans and Monohulls,
Journal of Ship Research, Vol. 43, No. 1, March 1999, pp.
48-63.
- 9 -
Incecik, A., Morrison, B.F. and Rodgers, A.J., (1991),
"Experimental Investigation of Resistance and Seakeeping
Characteristics of a Catamaran Design", Proc. 1st Int. Conf.
on Fast Sea Transportation, (FAST'91), Norway, pp. 239-
258.
Kashiwagi, M., (1993), "Heave and Pitch Motions of a
Catamaran Advancing in Waves", Proceedings of the 2
nd
International Conference on Fast Ship Transportation
(FAST93), pp. 643-655.
Lee, C. M., Jones, H. D. and Curphey, R. M., (1973), Prediction
of Motions and Hydrodynamic Loads of Catamarans,
Marine Technology, 10, pp.392-405, October 1973.
Siregar, F.R.T. (1995), "Experimental results of a wigley hull
form with advancing forward speed in head waves",
Technical Report 1024, Delft University of Technology,
Ships Hydrodynamic Laboratory.
van't Veer, A. P. and Siregar, F. R. T., (1995), The Interaction
Effects on a Catamaran Travelling with Forward Speed in
Waves, , Proceedings of the 3
rd
International Conference
on Fast Ship Transportation (FAST95), Vol. 1, pp. 87-98,
Lbeck, Germany.
Wahab, R., Pritchett, C. and Ruth, L.C., (1971), "On the
Behaviour of the ASR Catamaran in Waves", Marine
Technology, 8, No. 3.