Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Development of a semi-empirical method for hydro-aerodynamic performance evaluation of an AAMV, in take-off phase

  • Technical Paper
  • Published:
Journal of the Brazilian Society of Mechanical Sciences and Engineering Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

An assessment of the relative speeds and payload capacities of airborne and waterborne vehicles accentuates a gap that can be usefully filled by a new vehicle concept, making use of both hydrodynamic and aerodynamic forces. A high speed marine vehicle equipped with aerodynamic surfaces (called an AAMV, ‘aerodynamically alleviated marine vehicle’) is one such concept. There are three major modes of motion in the operation of an AAMV including take-off, cruising and landing. However, during take-off, hydrodynamic and aerodynamic problems of an AAMV interact with each other in a coupled manner, which make the evaluation of this phase much more difficult. In this article, at first aerodynamic characteristics such as lift and drag coefficients, were calculated, using theoretical relations in extreme ground effect, and then a relationship was made between total aerodynamic lift force and effective weight force in the hydrodynamic performance. Then, taking into account the aerodynamic, hydrostatic and hydrodynamic forces acting on the AAMV, equations of equilibrium were derived and solved. The developed method was well-validated against experimental data, and finally, influence of different hydrodynamic and aerodynamic parameters on the performance of the AAMV was investigated. Time- and cost-saving in the preliminary design stage of an AAMV are some of the superiorities of the developed method over the numerical and experimental approaches.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3
Fig. 4
Fig. 5
Fig. 6
Fig. 7
Fig. 8
Fig. 9
Fig. 10
Fig. 11
Fig. 12
Fig. 13
Fig. 14
Fig. 15
Fig. 16
Fig. 17
Fig. 18
Fig. 19
Fig. 20
Fig. 21
Fig. 22

Similar content being viewed by others

Abbreviations

\(a\) :

Pitch moment arm of R f (m)

B :

Hull breadth (m)

C :

Pitch moment arm of N (m)

c :

Chord length (m)

e :

Ostwald coefficient

f :

Pitch moment arm of T (m)

g = 9.81:

Gravity (m/s2)

h :

Height above the surface (m)

\(L\) :

Aerodynamic lift (N)

N :

Hydrodynamic lift (N)

R :

Total resistance (N)

S :

Area of the aerodynamic surface (m2)

T :

Thrust (N)

W :

Weight (N)

V :

Speed of the AAMV (m/s2)

A h :

The frontal area of the planing hull

A T :

Area of the cross section in transom (m2)

A x :

Maximum of cross section area (m2)

B P :

Mean wetted breadth (m)

C L :

Lift coefficient

C f :

Viscous friction coefficient

D 1 :

Drag of the main wing (N)

D 2 :

Drag of the tail wing (N)

i e :

The angle of the entrance hull (degree)

L 1 :

Lift of the main wing (N)

L 2 :

Lift of the tail wing (N)

M 1 :

Aerodynamic moment of the main wing (Nm)

M 2 :

Aerodynamic moment of the tail wing (Nm)

R f :

Hydrodynamic frictional resistance (N)

C F0 :

Frictional drag coefficient

C D,f :

Friction drag coefficient

C D,i :

Induced drag coefficient

C D,p :

Pressure drag coefficient

D ah :

Aerodynamic drag of AAMV’s hull (N)

dD 1 :

Pitch moment arm of D 1 (m)

dD 2 :

Pitch moment arm of D 2 (m)

dL 1 :

Pitch moment arm of L 1 (m)

dL 2 :

Pitch moment arm of L 2 (m)

D ws :

Whisker spray resistance (N)

C Dah = 0.7:

Aerodynamic drag coefficient of the hull

S wet :

Wetted area of the hull (m2)

ρ air :

Air density (kg/m3)

ρ water :

Water density (kg/m3)

∇:

Displaced volume of water (m3)

τ :

Trim angle (degree)

ΔTO :

Take-off weight (N)

\(\Delta_{{}}\) :

Hydrodynamic weight (N)

\(\varepsilon \approx 0\) :

Angle between the direction of T and the keel (degree)

\(\beta \;({\text{beta}})\) :

Dead-rise angle (degree)

\(\lambda\) :

Mean wetted length

\(F_{n\nabla }\) :

Displacement Froude number \(V/\left( {g\;(\nabla )^{1/3} } \right)^{1/2}\)

AR:

Aspect ratio of the wing

CG:

Center of gravity

ACV:

Air cushion vehicle

LCG:

Longitudinal center of gravity (m)

L WL :

Length of water line (m)

MAC:

Mean aerodynamic chord (m)

VLM:

Vortex lattice method

WIG:

Wing in ground vehicle

AAMV:

Aerodynamically alleviated marine vehicle

HSMV:

High speed marine vehicle

ITTC:

International towing tank conference

NVLM:

Nonlinear vortex lattice method

References

  1. Meyer JR, Clark, DJ, Ellsworth WM (2004) The quest for speed at sea. Technical digest, Card rock Division, NSWC

  2. Olson RE, Allison MA (1960) The calculated effect of various hydrodynamic and aerodynamic factors on the take-off of flying boat. NACA Report No. 702

  3. Parkinson J, Bell J (1934) The calculated effect of trailing edge flaps on the take-off of flying boat. NASA Report No. 510

  4. Yun L, Bliault A, Doo J (2010) WIG craft and ekranoplan. Book, Springer, New York

    Book  Google Scholar 

  5. Rozhdestvensky V (2000) Aerodynamics of a lifting system in extreme ground effect. Springer, Berlin

    Book  MATH  Google Scholar 

  6. Kornev N, Matveev K (2003) Complex numerical modeling of dynamics and crashes of wing in ground vehicles. Am Inst Aeronaut Astronaut 1–9

  7. Yong Seng J (2005) Stability, performance and control for a wing in ground vehicle. Thesis of Master of Science National University of Singapore, Singapore

    Google Scholar 

  8. Matveev K (2007) Static thrust recovery of PAR craft on solid surface. J Fluids Struct 24:920–926

    Article  Google Scholar 

  9. Matveev K, Soderlund R (2008) Static performance of power-augmented ram vehicle model on water. Ocean Eng 35:1060–1065

    Article  Google Scholar 

  10. Yinggu Z, Guoliang F, Jianqiang Y (2011) Modeling longitudinal aerodynamic and hydrodynamic effect of a flying boat in calm water. IEEE 2039–2044

  11. Savitsky D, DeLorme MF, Datla R (2007) Inclusion of whisker spray drag in performance prediction method for high-speed planing hulls. Mar Tech 44(1):35–56

    Google Scholar 

  12. Collu M, Minoo H, Trarieux F (2012) The longitudinal static stability of an aerodynamically alleviated marine vehicle, a mathematical model. R Soc 1–21

  13. Priyanto A, Maimun A, Noverdo S, Jamei S, Faizal A, Waqiyuddin M (2012) A study on estimation of propulsive power for wing in ground effect (WIG) craft to take-off. J Tech Sci Eng 59:43–51

    Google Scholar 

  14. Matveev K, Chaney C (2013) Heaving motions of a ram wing translating above water. J Fluids Struct 38:164–173

    Article  Google Scholar 

  15. Grundy IH (1986) Airfoils moving in air close to a dynamic water surface. J Aust Math Soc 27:327–345

    Article  MATH  MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

  16. Barber T (2006) Aerodynamic ground effect: a case study of the integration of CFD and experiments. Int J Veh Des 40(4):299–316

    Article  MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

  17. Anderson JD (1999) Aircraft performance and design. McGraw-Hill, New York

    Google Scholar 

  18. Fink M, Lastinger J (1961) Aerodynamic characteristics of low-aspect-ratio wings close proximity to the ground. NASA Report No. TN D-926

  19. Mercier JA, Savitsky D (1973) Resistance of transom shear crafts in the preplaning range. Davidson Laboratory, Stevens Institute of Technology, Report No. 1667

  20. Faltinsen OM (2005) Hydrodynamics of high-speed vehicles. Cambridge University Press, UK

    Google Scholar 

  21. Holtrop J, Mennen G (1978) A statistical power prediction method. Int Shipbuild Prog 25(290):253–256

    Google Scholar 

  22. Savitsky D, Ward Brown D (1976) Procedure for hydrodynamic evaluation of planing hulls in smooth and rough water. Mar Tech 13(4):381–400

    Google Scholar 

  23. Kapryan WJ (1960) Effects of gross load and various bow modifications on the hydrodynamic characteristics of a high-subsonic mine-laying seaplane. NASA Report No. TM X-71

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Mechanical Engineering Department, Center of Excellence in Hydrodynamics, Sharif University of Technology, P.O. Box 11365-9567, Tehran, Iran

    Mojtaba Maali Amiri, Mohammad Tavakoli Dakhrabadi & Mohammad Saeed Seif

Authors
  1. Mojtaba Maali Amiri
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Mohammad Tavakoli Dakhrabadi
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Mohammad Saeed Seif
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Mohammad Saeed Seif.

Additional information

Technical Editor: Celso Kazuyuki Morooka.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Amiri, M.M., Dakhrabadi, M.T. & Seif, M.S. Development of a semi-empirical method for hydro-aerodynamic performance evaluation of an AAMV, in take-off phase. J Braz. Soc. Mech. Sci. Eng. 37, 987–999 (2015). https://doi.org/10.1007/s40430-014-0217-0

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s40430-014-0217-0

Keywords

Search

Navigation