Hydrodynamic study of a double-stepped planing craft through numerical simulations

  • Parviz GhadimiEmail author
  • Saeid Panahi
  • Sasan Tavakoli
Technical Paper


This paper investigates the performance and hydrodynamic characteristics of a double-stepped planing hull and the effects of adding two steps to the bottom of a mono-hull. To study these effects, a non-stepped model with similar characteristics of a stepped hull is also modeled. The numerical simulations are conducted in different stages. First, a mesh study is performed and an optimum mesh size is adopted. Subsequently, the predicted resistances are compared against experimental data and good agreement is observed. Later, the targeted simulations are performed at five different Froude numbers and various characteristics are determined. The results of these studies indicate that frictional resistance of the double-stepped model is drastically smaller than that of the non-stepped model, while pressure drag of the stepped vessel is slightly larger than the non-stepped model. It is observed that adding steps to the hull does not reduce the wetted surface at lower Froude numbers, but its positive effect appears when Froude number exceeds 2.0. It is also seen that generated transom wave behind the double-stepped hull is larger than that of the non-stepped hull. In addition, the computed pressure distributions over the center line of both models indicate that the first maximum pressure of the double-stepped model is larger than that of the non-stepped hull. Ultimately, it is concluded that hydrostatic pressure has an essential role in producing the lift force of a non-stepped planing hull, but this pressure has very little contribution in generation of the lift force of the double-stepped hull.


Stepped planing hull Hydrodynamic Numerical modeling Steady performance 


  1. 1.
    Kapryan WJ, Boyd GM (1955) Hydrodynamic pressure distribution obtained during a planing investigation of five related prismatic surfaces. NACA Technical Note 3477Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Smiley RF (1950) A study of water pressure during landing with special reference to a prismatic model having a heavy loading and a 30-degree angle of deadrise. NACA Technical Note 2111Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Green AE (1935) The gliding of a flat plate on a stream of finite depth part I. In: Proceedings of the Cambridge philosophical societyGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Green AE (1936) The gliding of a flat plate on a stream of finite depth part II. In: Proceedings of the Cambridge philosophical societyGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Savitsky D (1964) Hydrodynamic analysis of planing hulls. Mar Technol 1:71–95Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Katayama T, Hayashita SH, Suzuki K, Ikead Y (2002) Development of resistance test for high-speed planing craft using very small model scale effects on drag force. J Kansai Soc Nav Archit 238:39–47Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Blount DL, Fox DL (1976) Small-craft power prediction. Mar Technol 13:14–45Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Svahn D (2009) Performance prediction of hulls with transverse steps. Dissertation, University of KTHGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Grigoropoulos GJ, Loukakis TA (1995) Effect of spray rails on the resistance of planing hulls. In: 3rd international conference on fast sea transportation, Germany 1995Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Pemberton R, et al (2001) A comparison of computational methods for planing crafts hydrodynamics. In: Proceedings of second international euro conference on high performance marine vehicles, HIPER 01’Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Caponetto M (2001) Practical CFD simulations for planing hulls. In: Proceedings of second international euro conference on high performance marine vehicles, HIPER 01’Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Brizzolara S, Serra F (2011) Accuracy of CFD codes in the prediction of planing surface hydrodynamic characteristics. In: INSEANGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    DeLuca F, Mancini S, Miranda S, Pensa C (2016) An extended verification and validation study of CFD simulations for planing hulls. J Sh Res 60:101–118CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Azcueta R (2004) Steady and unsteady RANSE simulations for littoral combat ships. In: Proceedings of 25th symposium on naval hydrodynamicsGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Jiang Y, Sun H, Zou J, Hu A, Yang J (2016) Analysis of tunnel hydrodynamic characteristics for planing trimaran by model tests and numerical simulations. Ocean Eng 113:101–110CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Ghadimi P, Loni A, Nowruzi H, Dashtimanesh A, Tavakoli S (2014) Parametric study of the effects of trim tabs on running trim and resistance of planing hulls. Adv Sh Ocean Eng 3:1–12Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    Ghadimi P, Dashtimanesh A, Feizi Chekab M (2016) Introducing a new flap form to reduce the transom waves using a 3-D numerical analysis. Int J Comput Sci Eng 12:265–275. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Ghadimi P, Dashtimanesh A, Faghfoor Maghrebi Y (2013) Initiating a mathematical model for prediction of 6-DOF motion of planing crafts in regular waves. Int J Eng Math 2013:853793. CrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Seif MS, Mousavirad SM, Sadat Hosseini SH (2004) The effect of asymmetric water entry on the hydrodynamic impact. Int J Eng 17:205–212Google Scholar
  20. 20.
    Yousefi R, Shafaghat R, Shakeri M (2013) Hydrodynamic analysis techniques for high speed planing hulls. J Appl Ocean Res 42:105–113CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Taunton DJ, Hudson DA, Shenoi RA (2011) Characteristics of a series of high-speed hard chine planing hulls-part I: performance in calm water. Int J Small Cr Technol 152:55–75Google Scholar
  22. 22.
    Lee E, Pavkov M, McCue-Weil L (2014) The systematic variation of step configuration and displacement for a double-step planing craft. J Sh Prod Des 30:89–97CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Timmins CR (2014) Yaw stability of a recreational stepped planing hull. Trans Soc Nav Archit Mar, EngGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Morabito MG, Pavkov ME (2014) Experiments with stepped planing hulls for special operations craft. Trans Roy Inst Naval Archit Part B Int J Small Cr Technol 156:87–97. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Matveev K, Bari G (2015) Effect of deadrise angles on hydrodynamic performance of a stepped hulls. In: Proceedings of the Institution of Mechanical Engineers Part M Journal of Engineering for the Maritime EnvironmentGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Matveev K (2012) Transom effect on the properties of an air cavity under a flat-bottom hull. J Sh Offshore Struct 7:143–149CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Matveev K (2015) Hydrodynamic modeling of semi-planing hulls with air cavities. Int J Nav Archit Ocean Eng 7:500–508CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    Garland W, Maki KJ (2012) A numerical study of a two-dimensional stepped planing surface. J Sh Prod Des 28:60–72. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. 29.
    Makasyeye M (2009) Numerical modeling of cavity flow on bottom of a stepped planing hull. In: Proceeding of the 7th international symposium on cavitation, Ann Arbor, USA 2009Google Scholar
  30. 30.
    Lotfi P, Ashrafizaadeh M, Kowsari Esfahan R (2015) Numerical investigation of a stepped planing hull in calm water. J Ocean Eng 94:103–110CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. 31.
    Ghadimi P, Tavakoli S, Dashtimanesh A, Zamanian R (2016) Steady performance prediction of a heeled planing boat in calm water using asymmetric 2D+t model. In: Proceedings of the Institution of Mechanical Engineers, Part M: Journal of Engineering for the Maritime EnvironmentGoogle Scholar
  32. 32.
    Akers RH (1999) Dynamic analysis of planing hulls in vertical plane. In: Proceedings of Naval Architects and Marine EngieeringGoogle Scholar
  33. 33.
    Van Deyzen A (2008) A nonlinear mathematical model for motions of a planing monohull in head seas. In: Proceedings of the 6th international conference on high performance marine vehicles, Italy 2008Google Scholar
  34. 34.
    Morabito MG (2014) Empirical equations for planing hull bottom pressure. J Sh Res 58:185–200CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. 35.
    Versteeg HK, Malalasekera W (2007) An introduction to computational fluid dynamics: the finite volume method. Pearson Education, GlasgowGoogle Scholar
  36. 36.
    Veysi SJ, Bakhtiari M, Ghassemi H, Ghiasi M (2015) Toward numerical modeling of the stepped and non-stepped planing hull. J Braz Soc Mech Sci Eng 37:1635–1645CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. 37.
    DeMarco A, Mancini S, Miranda S, Scognamiglio R, Vitiello L (2017) Experimental and numerical hydrodynamic analysis of a stepped planing hull. J App Ocean Res 64:135–154CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© The Brazilian Society of Mechanical Sciences and Engineering 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of Marine TechnologyAmirkabir University of TechnologyTehranIran

Personalised recommendations