Advertisement

Power Prediction

  • Dejan RadojčićEmail author
Chapter
Part of the SpringerBriefs in Applied Sciences and Technology book series (BRIEFSAPPLSCIENCES)

Abstract

The performance prediction models are typically composed of modules (subroutines) for the calculation of bare hull resistance, appendage resistance, propeller characteristics, etc., which are derived individually and may be used independently of each other. For conventional ships the Holtrop and Mennen method (Holtrop and Mennen 1982) applicable to a wide variety of ship types is still in use despite its age, and is typically included in multiple software packages. Adequate MMs for HSC do not really exist, probably due to the unique nature of HSC, operating in displacement, semi-displacement, and often planing regimes, as discussed in Sect.  1.2. Specifically, with increasing speed HSC change both the displacement and trim, which is not the case with conventional (displacement) ships. Therefore, in order to model the HSC’s operating conditions and power requirement, equations of equilibrium must be formed.

References

  1. Begović E, Bertorello C (2012) Resistance assessment of warped hull form. Ocean Eng 56CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Blount DL, Bjarne E (1989) Design and selection of propulsors for high speed craft. In: 7th lips propeller symposium, Nordwijk-on-SeaGoogle Scholar
  3. Blount DL, Fox DL (1976) Small craft power prediction. Mar Technol 13(1)Google Scholar
  4. Blount DL, Fox DL (1978) Design considerations for propellers in cavitating environment. Mar Technol 15(2)Google Scholar
  5. Brown PW (1971) An experimental and theoretical study of planing surfaces with trim flaps. Davidson Laboratory Report 1463, Stevens Institute of TechnologyGoogle Scholar
  6. Calkins DE (1983) An interactive computer aided design Synthesis program for recreational powerboats. SNAME Trans 91Google Scholar
  7. Collete M (2014) Effective optimization. Mar Technol, JulyGoogle Scholar
  8. Conley W (1981) Optimization, a simplified approach. Petrocelli Books Inc., New YorkzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  9. Couser PR, Molland AF, Armstrong NA, Utama IKAP (1997) Calm water powering predictions for high speed catamarans. In: Proceedings of 4th international conference on fast sea transportation (FAST ’97), SydneyGoogle Scholar
  10. Fridsma G (1971) A systematic study of the rough water performance of planing boats (Irregular Waves—Part II). Davidson Laboratory Report 1495Google Scholar
  11. Gutsche F (1964) Untersuchung von Schiffsscrauben in schrager Austromung. Schiffbauforschung 3, 3/4, RostockGoogle Scholar
  12. Hadler JB (1966) The prediction of power performance of planing craft. SNAME Trans 74Google Scholar
  13. Hadler JB, Hubble EN (1971) Prediction of the power performance of the Series 62 planing hull forms. SNAME Trans 79Google Scholar
  14. Hoggard MM (1979) Examining added drag of planing craft operating in the seaway. Hampton Road Section of SNAMEGoogle Scholar
  15. Hoggard MM, Jones MP (1980) Examining pitch, heave and accelerations of planing craft operating in a seaway. In: High speed surface craft Conference, BrightonGoogle Scholar
  16. Holtrop J, Mennen GGJ (1982) An approximate power prediction method. Int Shipbuild Prog 29(335)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Hubble EN (1974) Resistance of hard-chine stepless planing craft with systematic variation of hull form, longitudinal centre of gravity and loading. DTNSRDC R&D Report 4307Google Scholar
  18. Hubble EN (1978) Planing craft feasibility model, user’s manual. Report DTNSRDC/SPD-0840-01Google Scholar
  19. Hubble EN (1980) Performance prediction of planing craft in a seaway. Report DTNSRDC/SPD-0840-02Google Scholar
  20. ITTC (1984) Proceedings of the 17th international towing tank conference, High-speed propulsion, vol 1, GoteborgGoogle Scholar
  21. Knight JT, Zahradka FT, Singer DJ, Collette MD (2014) Multiobjective particle swarm optimization of a planing craft with uncertainty. J Ship Prod Des 30(4)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Mercier JA, Savitsky D (1973) Resistance of transom-stern craft in the pre-planing regime. Davidson Laboratory Report 1667Google Scholar
  23. Mohamad Ayob AF, Ray T, Smith WF (2011) Beyond hydrodynamic design optimization of planing craft. J Ship Prod Des 27(1)Google Scholar
  24. Molland AF, Lee AR (1997) An investigation into the effect of prismatic coefficient on catamaran resistance. RINA Trans 139Google Scholar
  25. Molland AF, Wellicome JF, Couser PR (1996) Resistance experiments on a systematic series of high speed displacement catamaran forms: variation of length-displacement ratio and breadth-draught ratio. RINA Trans 138Google Scholar
  26. Molland AF, Turnock SR, Hudson DA (2011) Ship resistance and propulsion—practical estimation of ship propulsive power. Cambridge University Press, ISBN 978-0-521-76052-2Google Scholar
  27. Müller-Graf B (1997a) Part I: Resistance components of high speed Small craft. In: 25th WEGEMT School, Small Craft Technology, NTUA, Athens. ISBN I 900 453 053Google Scholar
  28. Müller-Graf B (1997b) Part II: Powering performance prediction of high speed small craft. In: 25th WEGEMT School, Small Craft Technology, NTUA, Athens. ISBN I 900 453 053Google Scholar
  29. Müller-Graf B (1997c) Part III: actors affecting the reliability and accuracy of the resistance prediction. In: 25th WEGEMT School, Small Craft Technology, NTUA, Athens. ISBN I 900 453 053Google Scholar
  30. Müller-Graf B (1997d) Dynamic stability of high speed small craft. In: 25th WEGEMT School, Small Craft Technology, NTUA, Athens. ISBN I 900 453 053Google Scholar
  31. Müller-Graf B, Radojčić D, Simic A (2003a) Resistance and propulsion characteristics of the VWS hard chine catamaran hull Series 89’. SNAME Trans 110Google Scholar
  32. Müller-Graf B, Radojčić D, Simic A (2003b) Discussion of paper 1: resistance and propulsion characteristics of the VWS hard chine catamaran hull Series 89’. Mar Technol 40(4)Google Scholar
  33. Oosterveld MWC, van Oossanen P (1975) Further computer-analyzed data of the Wageningen B-screw series. Int Shipbuild Prog 22(251)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Radojčić D (1985a) Optimal preliminary propeller design using nonlinear constrained mathematical programming technique. University of Southampton, Ship Science Report No. 21Google Scholar
  35. Radojčić D (1985b) An approximate method for calculation of resistance and trim of the planing hulls. University of Southampton, Ship Science Report No. 23. Paper presented on SNAME symposium on powerboats, Sept 1985Google Scholar
  36. Radojčić D (1988a) Evaluation of propeller performance in oblique flow. In: 8th symposium on theory and practice of shipbuilding, In Memoriam of Prof. Sorta, Zagreb (in Serbian)Google Scholar
  37. Radojčić D (1988b) Mathematical model of segmental section propeller series for open-water and cavitating conditions applicable in CAD. Propellerss’ 88 symposium, SNAME, Virginia BeachGoogle Scholar
  38. Radojčić D (1991) An engineering approach to predicting the hydrodynamic performance of planing craft using computer techniques. RINA Trans 133Google Scholar
  39. Radojčić D, Kalajdžić M (2018) Resistance and trim modeling of Naples hard chine systematic series. RINA Trans Int J Small Craft Technol.  https://doi.org/10.3940/rina.ijsct.2018.b1.211
  40. Radojčić D, Zgradić A, Kalajdžić M, Simić A (2014a) Resistance prediction for hard chine hulls in the pre-planing regime. Pol Marit Res 21(2(82)), GdanskGoogle Scholar
  41. Radojčić D, Morabito M, Simić A, Zgradić A (2014b) Modeling with regression analysis and artificial neural networks the resistance and trim of Series 50 experiments with V-bottom motor boats. J Ship Prod Des 30(4)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Radojčić DV, Kalajdžić MD, Zgradić AB, Simić AP (2017) Resistance and trim modeling of systematic planing hull Series 62 (With 12.5, 25 and 30 degrees deadrise angles) using artificial neural networks, Part 2: Mathematical models. J Ship Prod Des 33(4)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Savitsky D (1964) Hydrodynamic design of planing hulls. Mar Technol 1(1)Google Scholar
  44. Savitsky D (2012) The effect of bottom warp on the performance of planing hulls. SNAME’s 3rd Chesapeake Power Boat Symposium, AnnapolisGoogle Scholar
  45. Savitsky D, Brown PW (1976) Procedure for hydrodynamic evaluation of planing hulls in smooth and rough water. Mar Techno 13(4)Google Scholar
  46. Taniguchi K, Tanibayashi H, Chiba N (1967) Investigation into the propeller cavitation in oblique flow. Mitsubishi Technical Bulletin No. 143Google Scholar
  47. Zips JM (1995) Numerical resistance prediction based on the results of the VWS hard chine catamaran hull Series 89’. In: Proceedings of 3rd international conference on fast sea transportation (FAST ’95), Lübeck-TravemündeGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© The Author(s), under exclusive licence to Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Faculty of Mechanical Engineering, Department of Naval ArchitectureUniversity of BelgradeBelgradeSerbia

Personalised recommendations