On the scale effects of resistance model tests of high-speed monohulls

  • Mohammadreza Fathi KazerooniEmail author
  • Mohammad Saeed Seif
Technical Paper


Scaled model test in towing tank is a common method to predict the ship resistance in calm water. The scale effects are dominant in these tests because the Reynolds and Froude numbers of the model and full-scale ship cannot be equal. There is a sufficient amount of knowledge about the displacement hulls which have limited speed ranges in most cases. However, scarcity of published data on high-speed crafts is noticed. The influence of the model length on ship resistance varies in different speeds, so it should be studied in more detail. The extrapolation method of model ship resistance to full scale is studied in this paper for high-speed monohulls. Resistance model tests of semi-displacement and planing hull are executed for two different sizes. The frictional resistance coefficient is calculated by ITTC57 correlation line, and the residual resistance coefficient is derived for each case. According to the results, it was concluded that the major part of ship resistance is dedicated to frictional resistance in low speeds for length Froude numbers below 0.3 or above 0.9. In moderate speeds, which are of semi-displacement hulls’ interest, small portion of hull resistance is dedicated to frictional resistance and model size has small influence on the residual resistance coefficient.


Ship Resistance Model test Scale effect 



  1. 1.
    ITTC (2002) ITTC - Recommended procedures and guidelines. Ship models. No. 7.5.01-01-01.
  2. 2.
    Day AH, Clelland D, Doctors LJ (2009) Unsteady finite depth effects during resistance tests on a ship model in a towing tank. J Mar Sci Technol 14:387–397CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Katayama T., Hayoshita S., Suzuki K., Ikeda Y., “Development of resistance tests for high speed planing craft using very small model – Scale effects on drag force”, Proceedings of APhydro 2002,7-14Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Fu TC, Ratcliffe T, O’shea TT, Brucker KA, Graham RS, Wyatt DC, Dommermuth DG (2010) A comparison of experimental measurements and computational predictions of a deep-V planing hull. In: 28th symposium on naval hydrodynamics, Pasadena, California, Sep 2010Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Anantha Subramanian V, Subramanyam PVV (2005) Effect of tunnel on the resistance of high-speed planing craft. J Naval Archit Mar Eng 1:1–14Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Raven HC, Van der Ploeg A, Starke AR (2008) Towards a CFD-based prediction of ship performance: progress in predicting full-scale resistance and scale effects. Trans R Inst Naval Archit Part A Int J Marit Eng 150:A4Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Min KS, Kang SH (2010) Study on the form factor and full-scale ship resistance prediction method. J Mar Sci Technol 15:108–118CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Wang J, Yu H, Zhang Y, Xiong X (2016) CFD-based method of determining from factor k for different ship types of different drafts. J Mar Sci Appl 15:236–241CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Seo J, Choi H, Jeong U, Lee DK, Rhee SH, Jang C, Yoo J (2016) Model tests on resistance and seakeeping performance of wave-piercing high speed vessel with spray rails. Int J Naval Archit Ocean Eng 8:442–455CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Gotman AS (2002) Study of Michell’s integral and influence of viscosity and ship hull form on wave resistance. Ocean Eng Int 6(2):74–115Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Oh KJ, Kang SH (1992) Full scale Reynolds number effects for the viscous flow around the ship stern. Comput Mech 9:85–94CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Raven HC (2010) Validation of an approach to analyze and understand ship wave making. J Mar Sci Technol 15:331–344CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Zha R, Ye H, Shen Z, Wan D (2014) Numerical study of wave-making resistance of ship navigation in still water. J Mar Sci Appl 13:158–166CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    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 64:135–154CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Yuan ZM, Zhang X, Ji CY, Jia L, Wang H, Incecik A (2018) Side wall effects on ship model testing in a towing tank. Ocean Eng 147:447–457. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Matveev KI (2015) Hydrodynamic modeling of semi-planing hulls with air cavities. Int J Naval Archit Ocean Eng 7:500–508CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Bari GS, Matveev KI (2017) Hydrodynamics of single-deadrise hulls and their catamaran configurations. Int J Naval Archit Ocean Eng 9:305–314CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Eca L, Hoekstra M (2005) On the accuracy of the numerical prediction of scale effects on ship viscous resistance. In: International conference on computational methods in marine engineering, Barcelona, 2005Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    Park DW (2015) A study on the effect of flat plate friction resistance on speed performance prediction of fullscale. Int J Naval Archit Ocean Eng 7:195–211CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Farkas A, Degiuli N, Martic I (2017) Numerical simulation of viscous flow around a tanker model. Brodogr Shipbuild 68(2):109–125CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Holtrop J, Mennen GG (1978) A statistical power prediction method. Int Shipbuild Prog 25:290Google Scholar
  22. 22.
    Savitsky D, Brown PW (1976) Procedures for hydrodynamic evaluation of planing hulls in smooth and rough water. Mar Technol 13(4):381–400Google Scholar
  23. 23.
    Savitsky D (1964) Hydrodynamic design of planing hulls. Mar Technol 13(4):381–400Google Scholar
  24. 24.
    Fu TC, O’shea TT, Judge CQ, Dommermuth DG, Brucker K, Wyatt DC (2013) A detailed assessment of numerical flow analysis (NFA) to predict the hydrodynamics of a Deep-V planing hull. Int Ship build Prog 64:143–169Google Scholar

Copyright information

© The Brazilian Society of Mechanical Sciences and Engineering 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Mechanical Engineering DepartmentSharif University of TechnologyTehranIran

Personalised recommendations