THE SECOND CHESAPEAKE POWER BOAT SYMPOSIUM

ANNAPOLIS, MARYLAND, MARCH 2010

On High Speed Monohulls in Shallow Water

Dejan Radojcic, University of Belgrade, Faculty of Mech. Engineering, Dept. of Nav. Arch., Serbia
Jeffrey Bowles, Donald L. Blount & Associates, Virginia, USA
ABSTRACT
The hydrodynamic performance of marine craft has
long been known to be influenced by water depth. When
operating in shallow water at subcritical speeds (typical for
displacement vessels), they slow down at constant power.
On the contrary, when operating in shallow water at
supercritical speeds (typical for planing vessels), vessel
speeds increase at constant power. Additionally, surface
waves generated by the hull vary radically with vessel
speed and water depth.
In recent years, mega yachts are being designed for
length Froude numbers (FnL) greater than 0.4, with many
operating between 0.5 and 1.0, and some have even higher
non-dimensional speeds. As these modern mega yachts
being delivered have overall lengths up to and often
exceeding 100 meters, shallow water effects are being
observed by their captains in relatively deep water. Thus, it
is the intent of this paper to refresh, for the mega and high
speed yacht community, what defines shallow water, the
impact on performance and a general discussion on the
responsibilities for hull-generated waves and wake
occurring due to shallow water. A power prediction
procedure applicable in everyday engineering practice is
outlined and an underpinned by a numerical example.
NOTATION (SI Unit System)
B
CB
DP
E
Fnh
FnL
Fn
g
h
H
L
LOA
L/1/3
n

Breadth on DWL
Block coefficient
Propeller diameter
Wave energy
Depth Froude number = V/(gh)1/2
Length Froude number = V/(gL)1/2
Volume Froude number = V/(g1/3)1/2
Acceleration due to gravity
Water depth
Wave height
Length on DWL
Length Overall
Slenderness ratio
Propulsor shaft speed

PB
PE
PD
RT
Rw
RF
RR
RT
SWPF
SWRF
T
T
T
t
V
Vw
w
x

D
H
J
O
P
R
w

0.7R

Brake (installed) power

Effective power
Delivered power
Total resistance
Wave making resistance
Frictional resistance
Residuary resistance
Total resistance
Ratio of Dh/D
Ratio of RWh/RW or RRh/RR
Draught
Wave period
Thrust of a propulsor
Thrust deduction fraction
Speed (velocity) of the vessel
Wave speed
Wake fraction
Distance from track
Displacement
Vol. of water displaced at rest
Quasi-propulsive efficiency = PE/PD
Hull efficiency
Jet efficiency
Propeller open-water efficiency
Pump efficiency
Relative rotative efficiency
Wavelength
Mass density of water
Cavitation number at 0.7 propeller radius
Dynamic (running) trim angle
Thrust loading coefficient

Subscripts:
h - finite water depth
d or - infinite water depth (deep water)
INTRODUCTION
Already a decade or so ago some remarkable (although
probably not all commercially successful) high speed
monohulls, which deserved special attention concerning

shallow water behavior, were built. For example these

might include Jupiter MDV 3000 (LOA=146 m, V=40+ kts),
Corsair 11000 (LOA=102 m, V=35+ kts), Suzuran
(LOA =187 m, V=30 kts) etc. Their predecessor Destriero
(LOA=67 m, V=60+ kts) was built 15 or so years ago. In
recent years some outstanding mega yachts have also been
delivered such as A (LOA=118 m, V=23 kts), Ectasea
(LOA= 86 m, V=35 kts), and Silver (LOA=73 m, V=27 kts).

It should be noted that only shallow water phenomena

are treated here, i.e. waterway is restricted by depth only
while the width of waterway is unrestricted. If the width
would be restricted too, that would be restricted water
phenomena where everything mentioned would be more
pronounced.

Both the length and speed of these large monohulls are

growing relative to conventional values; these larger and
faster monohulls have different resistance characteristics as
explained by Blount and McGrath (2009) paper. Further to
these differences, it is likely that operators are noticing that
these vessels behave differently in shallow water when
compared to navigation in deep water. What is being
observed is a hydrodynamic phenomenon referred to as
shallow water effect.

The impact that shallow water operation has on vessels

can be explained by looking at the equation for the velocity
of surface waves:
2h
g w

V w2
* tanh
2
w
For extremely shallow water cases where water depth
(h) is significantly smaller compared to wave length w, the
equation can be simplified, as:

Various references indicate that shallow water effects

begin to show up at depth Froude numbers greater than
0.7, peak at a depth Froude number of about 0.9-1.0 and
subside at a depth Froude number of about 1.2. With this
information three regions of depth Froude numbers can be
identified:
Subcritical region (Fnh<0.6-0.7) where the effects of
water depth are almost negligible
Critical region (0.7<Fnh<1.2) where vessels speed
reduces dramatically (at constant power)
Supercritical region (Fnh>1.2) where speed may be
even greater than in the deep water.
According to the equation for depth Froude number,
for a speed of 30 knots which is currently not unusual,
water depths below 50m (Fnh=0.7) are considered shallow
and will impact vessel performance! So, it can be easily
concluded that todays larger, faster commercial vessels
and mega yachts are likely to experience shallow water
effects more frequently and in some cases are sailing in
what is (hydrodynamically) considered shallow or littoral
waters throughout their lifetime.
When operating in shallow water in the critical region,
wake wash and power demand can increase significantly
having a negative impact on vessel performance, the
environment, and safety. Maneuvering, noise and vibration
characteristics can also be affected. Consequently, the
intention of this paper is to firstly identify the above
mentioned problems and secondly, to propose approximate
guidelines for evaluation of resistance and powering
predictions for fast monohulls operating in shallow water.
Monohulls only are treated herein since both deep and
shallow water data for catamarans are not readily available.
The proposed power prediction procedure should, however,
be applicable to all high speed vessels, if appropriate data
is available.

WAVE PATTERNS

2h 2h

tanh
w w

so

Vw gh

Assuming that Vw=V (i.e. the transverse waves that

follow the ship have the same speed as the ship) and
introducing depth Froude number, Fnh=V/gh, it can easily
be proven that transverse waves (whose length increase as
ship speed increases) can follow the ship only until Fnh=1.
Namely, Fnh=1 represents the maximum speed of waves
when water depth is h; their length then becomes indefinite.
So, when Vgh (or Fnh1) transverse waves cannot follow
the ship any more. It should be noted, however, that in
reality critical speed occurs around Fnh=0.95 vice the
theoretical value of Fnh=1.
For (theoretical) speeds less than Fnh=1.0, the system
consists of a double set of waves, one transverse and one
diverging; just as in deep water. In deep and shallow
water, for values less than Fnh=0.4, the diverging (bow)
wave angle is 19 degrees and 28 minutes relative to the
vessel center line (according to the Kelvin ship-wave
pattern). Above Fnh0.4 the wave angle tends to increase a
bit as shown in Figure 1 for Fnh=0.65.
As Fnh approaches 1, the angle of the waves generated
by the hull approaches 90 degrees relative to the center line
and the waves appear to travel with the hull. At this point
all of the wave energy is contained in a single crest moving
at the same speed of the vessel and only transverse waves
are observed (see Figure 2).
When depth Froude number exceeds 1.0 the diverging
wave angle decreases. Transverse waves subside and the
wave system is made up entirely of diverging waves (see
Figure 3) (Figures 1 through 3 are from Nwogu, 2003).
Figure 4 is a plot showing the change in the diverging wave
angle with depth Froude number. Both the theoretical
results and experimentally obtained values are depicted.

WAVE WASH
Fast vessels produce wave wash that is different than
that of conventional ships and natural waves; they have
long periods and significant energy. The amplitude of the
leading wave produced by high speed craft is not so large
(when compared to storm waves, for instance) but it does
have a relatively long wave period. When these waves
reach (get into) shallow water their height increases
rapidly, often causing large and damaging surges on the
beaches. They also arrive unexpectedly, often long after
the high speed craft has passed out of view. This further
increases the potential danger because the large waves are
not expected by the public when they arrive.

Figure 1 - Surface wave pattern when Fnh = 0.65

Consequently, wash restrictions were implemented on

several sensitive high speed craft routes. During the last
20-years of evolution, wash restrictions were first based on
speed limits, then wave wash heights, and ultimately by the
limitation of energy produced by wash at a certain distance
from the vessels track. According to the latest findings
both wash height and energy are important; see for instance
Cox (2000) and Doyle et al. (2001).
Concerning wash in the sheltered waters, it is only a
vessels divergent waves which are relevant. A visual
indicator of wave wash size is usually its height only;
however the wave period seems to be the critical factor
regarding damage.

Figure 2 - Surface wave pattern when Fnh = 0.90

Deep Water

Figure 3 - Surface wave pattern when Fnh = 1.50

(Figures 1 through 3 are from Nwogu, 2003)

As mentioned above, wave wash restrictions are now

based on the energy in the wave train. By using this
approach the wave height and period are taken into
consideration. For example, the State of Washington
restricts wave wash energy, E, to values of less than 2450
J/m at a distance of 300 m off the vessels track, or 2825
J/m at a distance of 200 m off the vessels track.
The distances from the vessel are included in the
requirements because wave height diminishes as the lateral
distance from the track increase. The decay rate in far-field
(distances beyond two waterline lengths) may be obtained
from the relation 1/x0.33, where x is distance perpendicular
to ship track. It should be noted, however, that the wave
period is nearly constant as distance x changes.
The calculations of wave wake energy per linear
length of wave front is given by the following equation, in
which the period, T, is associated with the maximum wave
height:
E = (g2H2T2)/16 = 1960H2T2 J/m .

Figure 4 - Impact of depth Froude number on diverging

bow wave angle

A numerical calculation example is provided in

Appendix 1 for reference.

Shallow Water
The characterization of shallow water waves is more
complicated because wave period also varies with distance
from the sailing line. Longer and faster waves travel on the
outside of the wash and have a larger Kelvin angle than the
shorter and slower waves. When the waves are in very
shallow water and the supercritical region, the first wave in
the group is usually the highest. However, as depth
increases, the second or third wave typically becomes the
highest.
The appropriate measure of wave wash in shallow
water seems to be both the wave height and wave energy.
As expected, the largest waves occur around Fnh=1 as
shown in Figure 5. Most of the energy is contained in a
single long-period wave with little energy decay at a
distance. The decay rate in shallow water is smaller than in
deep water and is a function of h/L ratio; the hull form
itself has very little impact. Further, the decay ratio at
critical speeds is different than that in supercritical region,
as shown in Figure 6. This is a contributing factor to
unexpectedly large waves in shallow water at a larger
distance from a vessels track. If ratio h/L>0.5, the waves
are more or less the same as in deep water.

height is a function of slenderness ratio L/1.3. By

applying low wash design principles, the wave height
might be reduced but the wave period is not affected (Cox,
2000). Moreover, since hull length directly influences
wave period, increasing length is less effective than
reducing displacement. Therefore, deep water wave height
essentially varies directly with displacement, while the
period remains essentially constant. Characteristics such as
trim, sinkage, and transom immersion are also influential
on wave wash height, but are secondary to length and
displacement. Hull section shape has little effect, as shown
in Figures 7 and 8.

Figure 5 - Variation of wave height and energy with depth

Froude number (measurements recorded at xL),
(Doyle, 2001)
Low Wash Hulls
Naval architects are nowadays trying to identify low
wave wash hull form characteristics, which is not as simple
as it sounds. Generally, low wash ships have an increased
length and decreased displacement, i.e. far-field wave wash

Figure 6 - Decay rate of wave energy and height with

distance from vessel track (Doyle, 2001)

Figure 7 - Wash wave trace for chine and round bilge hull
for the same vessel design (Phillips and Hook, 2006)

dramatically change compared to that in deep water.

Namely, resistance (RTh) shows a pronounced peak
(maximum) at the critical Fnh of about 0.95, due mainly to a
dramatic increase of wave making resistance (RWh) evident
by the growth of transverse waves. Operation in the
supercritical region (Fnh1), which is characterized by the
formation of diverging waves only, results in a reduction of
resistance compared to deep water. As the water becomes
shallower for constant speed, or speed increases for
constant depth, the effects explained above become more
pronounced. The frictional resistance also changes slightly
due to changes of trim and sinkage, and therefore wetted
surface areas, but these effects are secondary to the changes
in wave making resistance.
It is worthy of noting that in shallow water actually
only one resistance component the wave making
resistance (RW) changes dramatically from its deep water
characteristics. Consequently, this phenomenon may be
well expressed through the ratio of shallow water wave
resistance to deep water wave resistance, i.e.
SWRF=RWh/RWd. Following this logic, three speed regions
may be detected as shown in Figure 9:

Figure 8 Wash wave trace from same vessel traveling

forward and in reverse (Phillips and Hook, 2006)
Consequently, for low wash the following is important:
Speeds corresponding to FnL=0.35-0.65 should be
avoided
Displacement should be as low as possible while
length should be as large as possible.
So, if all important parameters are kept the same, so
called low wash hulls produce wave patterns that are not
much different than that of ordinary hull forms.
Furthermore, according to Cox (2000) there is no sufficient
evidence for claims that catamaran, multi-hull vessel, or
any other form is significantly better than monohulls
(provided comparison is made between comparable
designs). According to PIANC 2003, high speed craft
wave wash cannot be reduced just by optimizing the hull
form and various design ratios since wave period generally
increases with speed and doesnt decay quickly, which is
particularly important for navigation in shallow water.
SHALLOW WATER INFLUENCE ON RESISTANCE
In shallow water, vessel resistance is very much
different than in deep water, and often may play a
significant role in vessel design. Namely, due to the
phenomena explained above growth of transverse waves
up to Fnh0.95 (theoretically Fnh=1) which is then followed
by a complete loss of transverse waves (Fnh1) a vessels
resistance, sinkage and trim (which are all interrelated)

Subcritical region (according to the ITTC Fnh<0.7)

where the effects of water depth are almost
negligible (SWRF is around 1)
Critical region (0.7<Fnh<1.2) where RWh increases
dramatically (SWRF is greater than 1)
Supercritical region (Fnh>1.2) where RWh may be
smaller than RW (SWRF is a bit smaller than 1).

Figure 9 - Resistance as function of V and h

The increase of wave-making resistance, or SWRF, in
the critical region is of primary importance for fast vessels
and depends mainly on the ratio of h/L (where L is vessels
waterline length). This dependence is well illustrated by a
3D diagram given in Figure 10 (Hofman and Radojcic,
1997; Hofman and Kozarski, 2000), where FnL is length
Froude number based on ship waterline length. The
information is depicted differently in the so-called shallow
water resistance charts shown in Figures 11 and 12. Figure

12 provides the same information as Figure 11, but has Fnh

instead of FnL on the vertical axis (the relationship between
two Froude numbers is FnL=Fnh*(h/L)). Figure 11 is a
contour plot of the surface illustrated in Figure 10, where
the critical region is indicated by gray scaling. Operation
in the black and dark gray zones should be avoided.
All three diagrams are obtained by relatively
complicated theoretical calculations (see Hofman and
Radojcic, 1997; Hofman and Kozarski, 2000).
Nevertheless, the diagrams shown are universal, simple and
therefore useful since the influential parameters that are
tied together are only L, h and V. Other ship parameters,
such as hull form, section shape, beam etc. are insignificant
and may be neglected.
With the purpose to support the above-mentioned, the
Michlet software (Version 8.07, Leo Lazauskas) was
employed to calculate surface wave patterns for various
length and depth Froude numbers. The resulting wave
patterns are shown in Appendix 2.

Fh
1.40

super-critical region
3.0
1.20

2.0
1.5
1.0

1.00

0.80

critical region
5.0
4.0

0.60

sub-critical region

0.40

0.20

0.00
0.10

0.15

0.20

0.25

0.30

0.35

0.40

0.45

0.50

h/L

Figure 12 - Shallow water resistance chart

Blount and Hankley (1976) in their analysis of the
shallow water testing of a Series 62 model by Toro noted
that resistance is unaffected by water depth when water
depth is greater than 80% of the vessel overall length (see
Figure 13). One additional factor to remember concerning
the operation of planing craft in shallow water is that the
resistance hump (hump speed) typically occurs at a lower
speed in shallow water than it does in deeper water (Toro).
Because the impact that shallow water operation has
on resistance can be so significant, it is imperative that a
yacht master should know when a vessel is operating in
shallow water so the potential impacts are understood.
With regard to whether the vessel is operating in the
subcritical, critical, or supercritical region, only the depth
Froude number needs to be known. It is possible to write
the equation for depth Froude number in two forms,
consolidating constants and conversion factors to provide

Figure 10 - Surface plot of SWRF

(Figures 10 to 12 are from Hofman and Radojcic, 1997)

FL
0.70

super-critical region
1.5

0.60

2.0
3.0

4.0
0.50

critical region
0.40

1.0
0.30

5.0

sub-critical region

0.20

0.10

0.00
0.10

0.15

0.20

0.25

0.30

0.35

0.40

0.45

0.50

h/L

Figure 11 - Shallow water resistance chart

Figure 13 - Influence of water depth on the effective power

for a Series 62 hull form (Blount and Hankley, 1976)

simple equations that can be easily calculated on a pocket

calculator for voyage planning or to check specific
operating conditions.
1
1
Fnh 0.164 *V / h 2 or V 6.1 * Fnh * h 2 V kts, h m
These equations were used to generate the chart shown in
Figure 14 for quick reference.

Similar to the variation of resistance due to shallow

water effects, the variation of quasi propulsive efficiency is
also affected by the ratio of vessel length to water depth as
depicted in Figure 16 (from Filipovska, 2004). As with
resistance, the ratio of L/h is the most influential parameter
for propulsive efficiency in shallow water.

80

70

VESSELSPEED(kts)

60

50
SUPERCRITICALREGION
40
CRITICALREGION
30
SUBCRITICALREGION
20

Fnh =1.20

10

Fnh =0.70

0
0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

110

WATERDEPTH(m)

SHALLOW WATER INFLUENCE ON PROPULSIVE

COEFFICIENTS
Variations in the quasi-propulsive efficiency, D, in
shallow water are exactly opposite to resistance, i.e. around
the critical depth Froude number D decreases compared to
the value in deep water. That is, a plot of D as a function
of Fnh has a pronounced hollow around the critical speed as
shown in Figure 15. The reduction in d is primarily related
to increased propulsor loading due to the increased
resistance (resulting in a decrease in O), but is influenced
by other factors as well (Hofman and Radojcic, 1997;
Radojcic, 1998). Note in the figure that the critical speed
for d occurs slightly sooner than it does for resistance, i.e.
it is around Fnh=0.85 for D.

0.3
0.2
0.1
w

The other and by far the simplest item often used to

consider when determining if shallow water effects are
present is the ratio of the water depth to the vessel overall
length. Shallow water effects may be noticeable when a
vessel is operating in water depths less than h/LOA< 0.80.

To expand on the cause for this phenomenon, we must

look at the definition of quasi-propulsive efficiency as
D=OHR, where H=(1-t)/(1-w). Both thrust deduction
fraction (t) and wake fraction (w) have pronounced peeks
in the critical region which is shown in Figure 17.
Generally, in the critical region, the wake fraction curve
has a hollow while thrust deduction fraction curve has a
peak, resulting in a pronounced hollow in hull efficiency
H. It should be noted, however, that experimental data
regarding the change in propulsive coefficients due to
operation in shallow water are not readily available.

0
-0.1
-0.2
-0.3
0.5

Fnh

0.55

0.6

0.65

0.7

0.75

0.8

0.85

0.9

0.55

0.6

0.65

0.7

0.75

0.8

0.85

0.9

Fnh

0.55

0.6

0.65

0.7

0.75

0.8

0.85

0.9

Fnh

0.6
0.5
0.4
t

Figure 14 - Quick-reference chart indicating region of

operation

Figure 16 Typical surface plot of quasi propulsive

efficiency (Filipovska, 2004)

0.3
0.2
0.1
0.5

0.6

0.5
0.4
0.3
0.2
0.1
0.5

Figure 15 - Quasi propulsive efficiency of a river

fire-fighting boat (shown in Figure 18)

Figure 17 - General trends for w, t, and D in extremely

shallow water

SHALLOW WATER INFLUENCE ON POWERING

PREDICTIONS
Figure 18 provides curves (model test data) for
delivered power, shaft speed, vessel trim, and vessel
sinkage at various water depths for a 27.5 meter river
vessel propelled by three screw propellers.
This
comprehensive figure illustrates the following shallow
water impacts:

The trim () and sinkage of the hull varies with

water depth.
The hump speed (vessel speed at which maximum
trim occurs) is less in shallower water.
The propulsion power significantly increases in
the critical region as water depth decreases.
Propeller shaft speed (n) at a given vessel speed
increases as water depth decreases (indicating a
reduction in efficiency)

The net result is that due to both an increase in

resistance and a reduction in quasi-propulsive efficiency, it
might happen that vessels speed in the critical region is
substantially lower than is expected and/or that power
demand is substantially increased. This is explained
graphically in Figure 19. However, when operating in the
super-critical region the reverse occurs; the required power
to achieve a specific speed may be smaller than in deep
water due to smaller resistance and somewhat larger
propulsive efficiency.
Cavitation considerations, which are important for all
propulsors, are especially important when considering
shallow water operation. In the worst-case scenario, the
thrust loading, on a propulsor sized for deep water
operation, can increase substantially enough due to shallow
water resistance to cause the onset of excessive cavitation
and thrust breakdown. The achievable shallow water
vessel speeds may be significantly less than in deep water
cases because thrust breakdown causes the quasipropulsion efficiency to drop dramatically.

Figure 19 - R and T(1-t) versus V in shallow and deep

water showing that the achievable speed in shallow water
might be much lower than in deep water, i.e. V4h vs. V4
(Hofman and Radojcic, 1997)

Figure 18 - Power-speed diagram (with RPM, trim and

sinkage) of a fire-fighting river boat operating in different
water depths (Heser, 1994)

A simple check procedure for the thrust loading limits

of a propeller is presented by Blount and Fox (1978).
Equations for several different propeller designs are given
that establish a border representing the maximum thrust
loading limit as a function of cavitation number. Once the
propeller operating conditions are calculated they are
plotted on the same axes as the thrust loading limit. If the
propeller operating conditions approach and become
asymptotic to the thrust loading limit, it is indicative that
cavitation is present (See Figure 20).

Zone II for a short period of time at lower speeds, has to be

changed for vessels intended to operate in shallow water.
Larger water jets with higher cavitation margins must be
chosen which means, that an installation tailored for
shallow water is going to be heavier and more expensive.

1
MAXIMUMTHRUSTLOADING
LIMITTAKENFROMBLOUNT&
FOX(1978)

CALCULATEDPROPELLER
OPERATING CHARACTERISTICS

0.1
CURVE INDICATES
INCEPTIONOFCAVITATION

THRUST BREAKDOWN
ISPRESENT

0.01
0.01

0.1
0.7R

Figure 20 - Plot of propeller performance indicating

thrust loading limits
In the case of water jets, a cavitation check is
performed by simply plotting the shallow water resistance
curve on the water jet performance map to determine if the
curve crosses into the cavitation region. Figure 21 shows a
generic performance map with a deep water and shallow
water resistance curve overlaid on it. The contours of
efficiency included in this figure support the claim that the
efficiency decreased in shallow water operation. Three
cavitation zones are also shown in the figure:

Zone I - unrestricted operation

Zone II limited operation allowed
Zone III operation not recommended thrust
breakdown likely.

In situations where significant cavitation (or thrust

breakdown) does not occur when operating in shallow
water (critical region), the vessels speed could still be
significantly limited as the main engines often do not have
enough torque available at low engine speeds to allow them
to reach rated speed and power, i.e. the engines are then
overloaded. Further discussion of engine loading (or
overloading) is beyond the scope of this paper even though
it is very important for all propulsors in general and
especially for propellers. Blount and Bartee (1997) provide
a good explanation of engine loading and overloading.
FULL SCALE TRIALS
The above conclusions, some of them based on theory,
sound good enough provided that the changes explained
actually occur when operating in shallow water. Each of
the two full scale trial cases presented below represent
different vessel sizes, section shapes, and vessel speeds to
show that the impacts are observed by craft of different
types.
The first vessel is a hard chine, flat bottom planing
craft with an overall length of 10.5 meters that utilizes
submerged propellers for propulsion. Figure 22 (from
Blount and Hankley (1976) shows that when water depth is
less than 80% of LOA, the vessel power demand increases
relative to deep water when operating at displacement
speeds and that the vessel power demand decreases relative
to deep water when operating at planing speeds (note
similarity with Figure 13).

Figure 21 - Typical water jet performance map (RRKaMeWa prospectus, Allison 1993)
From Figure 21 it is obvious that for properly sized
water jet for deep water, in shallow water: a) zone III may
be easily reached, and b) operation at poor efficiency
around the hump is unavoidable. Therefore, the usual
practice of choosing the smallest water jet size which meets
the thrust design point at high speed, and which operates in

Figure 22 - Ratio of shaft power in shallow water to deep

water for a fast craft operating in different water depths
(Blount and Hankley, 1976)

Figure 23 illustrates the low speed performance in the

subcritical region of a water jet propelled, round bilge, 46meter motor yacht when operating in shallow water at
maximum power. The data in this case is limited, but
clearly shows increase in resistance associated with
operation in shallow water.

Figure 23 - Plot of the maximum vessel speed versus water

depth for a displacement yacht

POWERING PREDICTIONS IN SHALLOW WATER

It is well known that a strong interaction exists
between resistance and propulsion, particularly for high
speed craft, so that an integrated approach or even
integration of the whole ship design synthesis would be
desirable, as discussed by, for example, Allison and
Goubault (1975) or Radojcic (1991). Nevertheless,
traditional division into resistance and propulsion
evaluation is accepted here as the data available are not
sufficient to support a one-problem approach. So, deep
water and then shallow water resistance (based on
Radojcic, 1998) should be evaluated first and then the
quasi-propulsive efficiency is determined based on the
actual thrust loading of the propulsor in the shallow water
condition. This modular approach, however, allows easier
updating when new information is obtained, which in this
case is surely needed.
A reasonably good estimation of the shallow water
resistance, and in particular of the dominant wave-making
resistance component (in the critical and supercritical
region), may be obtained through the application of theory,
as for instance the Srettenski integral (thin ship
approximation which is similar to well known Michell
integral for deep water) see Hofman and Radojcic (1997)
and Hofman and Kozarski (2000). However, the approach
accepted here is simpler and may be used in everyday
engineering practice as is based on an undemanding
evaluation of SWRF (ratio of residuary resistance in
shallow and deep water). Thus final results primarily rely
on deep water data (which are more reliable) and possible
inaccuracies in (unreliable) SWRF should not influence
shallow water power evaluation to a great extent. Besides
being intuitive, this approach enables: a) employment of

familiar deep water evaluation methods, and b)

replacement of specific computer routines (when
necessary) either in deep or in shallow water.
It seems, however, that a reliable method for the
evaluation of propulsive coefficients (and particularly
quasi-propulsive efficiency) in shallow water does not (yet)
exist. Namely, it is not only that shallow water propulsive
coefficients in critical and supercritical region are rare and
are still missing for fast shallow water hull forms (usually
river vessels with unique form, i.e. extremely low draught
with tunnels and relatively large L/B and B/T ratios), but
they differ considerably from fast sea going vessels. It is
obvious, therefore, that the propulsive coefficients of
dissimilar hull forms also differ either in deep or in shallow
water. The above-mentioned is actually the main reason
that evaluation of SWPF (ratio of quasi-propulsive
coefficients in shallow and deep water) explained in
Radojcic (1988) paper is abandoned here. Instead, the
open water efficiency is calculated for the vessel in the
specific operating condition and the changes on the
propulsive factors are ignored. In this manner the
detrimental impact of increased propulsor loading on
propulsor efficiency (the most significant factor) is
calculated relatively accurately.
Resistance Evaluation of High Speed Vessels in Deep
Water
Deep water hull resistance may be obtained in various
ways, including use of specific model tests, or appropriate
systematic series model data and regression equations.
Although deep water resistance is not the subject of this
study, for the sake of completeness a few prediction
methods are mentioned here.
Resistance in the planing and semi-planing (or semidisplacement) regime for the hard chine hulls may be
calculated according to Savitsky (1964), Hadler (1966),
Hadler and Hubble (1971), modified Savitsky method
presented by Blount and Fox (1976), Hubble (1981) or the
regression equations by Radojcic (1991). Original NPL
series (Bailey, 1976), or regression equation derived by
Radojcic et al. (1997 and 1999) may be used for hulls with
round bilge, while for double-chine hulls the Radojcic et al.
(2001) paper would be appropriate. The Andersen and
Guldhammer (1986) and Holtrop (1984) methods may be
used for fast ships with conventional hull forms. For
slender displacement hull forms, Cassella and Paciolla
(1983) or Fung and Leibman (1995) may be used. The
original data of Series 62, 65, NPL, 64, etc., or the
regression equations derived from the data, may also be
used. In this respect, see also the recent Blount and
McGrath (2009) paper.
The calculation of factors
secondary to the bare hull resistance, such as the appendage
resistance, wind resistance, added resistance due to waves
etc., is also addressed in some of the papers identified
above.

Propulsive Efficiency Evaluation of High Speed Vessels

in Deep Water
Vessels Driven by Propellers
For quasi-propulsive efficiency evaluation (D=ORH)
it is important to know the open water efficiency of the
propeller O, relative rotative efficiency R and hull
efficiency H (consisting of thrust deduction fraction and
wake fraction). R and H can be evaluated as per Blount
and Fox (1976) paper for hard chine craft, per Bailey (1976
or 1982) for round bilge craft, and per Holtrop (1984) for
fast displacement ships. Of course there are other sources
which may be consulted, as well as accurate (but
expensive) model tests. Open water efficiency can be
approximated from characteristics of the propellers with
the segmental type sections (KCA, AEW, MA, etc.) even if
custom fixed pitch or controllable pitch propellers are used.
The Wageningen B-Series propeller data can be used for
slower vessels. Regression equations for AEW and KCA
series are respectively given in Blount and Hubble (1981)
and Radojcic (1988), for example.
Vessels Driven by Water Jets
For fast vessels with speeds above 30 knots water jets
may be the preferred choice for propulsor. Quasipropulsive efficiency for water jets is slightly different than
propellers and is D=PRHJ, where P is pump
efficiency and J is jet efficiency. R and H have the same
name and meaning as for propellers, but not the same
values. H and J depend on the specific loading of the
water jet. Reduced efficiency is directly related to
increased loading a phenomenon which will occur during
shallow water operation (See Figure 24). Note the
reduction in efficiency at the same vessel speed when only
two of the three water jets are used.

The powering performance (prediction of speed) of a

water jet propelled vessel can be determined by finding the
speed at which the resistance curve and the power contour
of interest intersect.
Resistance Evaluation of High Speed Vessels in Shallow
Water
The approach presented here is not new and is based
on the fact that L/h is the dominant factor and that other
parameters (L/T, CB, hull cross-section, etc.) are of
secondary importance. It is also assumed that shallow
water influences only residuary resistance, while frictional
component is essentially unchanged. Shallow water
residuary resistance may be calculated from SWRF given
by RRh/RRd = f(Fnh, L/h), which is obtained either from
model tests, or calculated from linearized wave theory for
the resistance of a ship in deep and shallow water. In both
cases results are expressed in terms of a ratio of shallow to
deep water residuary resistance (i.e. SWRF), rather than the
absolute resistance.
Published model tests for shallow water are rare.
Sturtzel and Graff (1963) describe shallow water model
tests conducted for 15 different round bilge hulls
encompassing a wide range of L/B, B/T, CB, and L/1/3.
However, a single diagram for SWRF is given, shown in
the right side of Figure 25. This diagram is a starting point
for development of the simple resistance prediction method
used here (from Radojcic, 1998), Equations 1 to 3 were
used to develop the graph on the left side of Figure 25.

Water jet performance data are usually not readily

available, so estimation of the quasi-propulsive efficiency
without consulting the water jet manufacturer is not
recommended. However, efficiency increases with ship
speed and is typically 0.60 and 0.70 for vessel speeds of 30
and 40 knots respectively, as given for example by
Svensson (1998) for high speed ferries (see Figure 24).

Figure 24 - KaMeWa (now Rolls-Royce) water jet sea trial

results (Svensson, 1998)

Figure 25 Approximated (by EQ 1-3) (left) and original

(right) SWRF of Sturtzel and Graff series
(Radojcic, 1998)

RRh/RRd = a+b*Fnhc
EQ 1
a = EXP [(-0.00370+0.00265*(L/h))/
(1-0.33444*(L/h)+0.03037*(L/h)2)]
b = 1/[-3.5057+0.0312*(L/h)2+14.7440/(L/h)]
c = 2.0306+10.1218*(atan[((L/h)-4.6903)/
0.7741]+/2)/
(RRh/RRd)max = 0.97476+0.01495*(L/h)3
(RRh/RRd)critical = (RRh/RRD)max-(L/h)/20

EQ 2
EQ 2a

(Fnh)max = 0.92226-0.30827/(L/h)1.5
(Fnh)critical = 0.95

EQ 3
EQ 3a

A SWRF could also be obtained from linearized wave

theory with a simplified hull, taken from, for example,
Millward and Sproston (1988), Millward and Bevan
(1985), or it may be calculated separately. SWRF as a
result of these calculations for a T/L=0.03 is illustrated in
Figure 26. SWRF for other hull forms would be similar
(Hofman and Radojcic, 1997).

value. The part of the resistance curve for the subcritical

regime for shallowest possible water depth h1 may be
calculated according to Equation 1.

Figure 27 Resistance in various water depths (with

maximal and critical peaks)
The equations are relatively simple and are suitable for
programming enabling approximate evaluation of shallow
water resistance; hence complicated theoretical approaches
(too complex for daily practice) are avoided. It should be
noted, however, that the above equations evaluate
resistance increments in the subcritical region only since
the primary problem for a vessel is to overcome the large
resistance hump around the critical speed; resistance
decrements in the supercritical regime are neglected since
they are less important.

Figure 26 - SWRF obtained from linearized wave theory

with a simplified hull (source: M. Hofman)
The depth of sea route may vary, between say, depth
h1 and hn, or maybe between h1 and deep water (h=), in
which case resistance curves for several water depths are
required. Using SWRF for ratios L/h1 to L/hn enables
calculation of Rh1 to Rhn. It is sufficient, however, to
connect the peaks of resistance humps, i.e. to take the
envelope of Rh1 to Rhn, as shown in Figure 27. This
envelope may be calculated from (RRh/RRd)critical and
(Fnh)critical, given by equations 2a and 3a. It should be noted
that resistance peaks called critical peaks (denoted "o") do
not coincide with SWRF peaks called maximal peaks
(denoted ""). Both are shown in Figure 27. In the SWRF
graph (Figure 25), the values corresponding to critical
peaks are a bit lower than the maximal peaks. Differences
between critical and maximal peaks (although practically
negligible) are explained in Hofman (1998) paper.
Obviously, (L/h)/20 in Equation 2a is some form of a
correction factor while (Fnh)critical=0.95 is an approximate

Shallow water resistance increments (+) and

decrements (), valid for a particular sea route, are
schematically shown in Figure 27. Resistance decrements
in supercritical speed regime will allow a bit higher speed
than in deep water, or the same speed will be maintained
with lower rpm and power consumption. On the other
hand, if propulsors are selected according to deep water
resistance, then resistance increments in the critical region
will pose serious problems, such as reduced service speed,
cavitation, engine overloading, vibrations, etc.
Propulsive Efficiency Evaluation for High Speed
Vessels in Shallow Water
Propulsive coefficients will change in shallow water as
discussed previously. Obviously, shallow water corrections
to propulsive coefficients are necessary but are not readily
available. There have been some attempts to determine a
general approach for evaluation of SWPF as for instance in
Radojcic (1998) and Filipovska (2004). These approaches
were based on Lyakhovitskys idea (see Lakhovitsky
2007), but without success due to insufficient data, so
further research in this area is recommended.
Consequently, due to insufficient data supporting values for
SWPF, the recommended approach for predicting powering

performance is to recalculate the open water efficiency for

the propulsor based on the resistance curve once it has been
adjusted for shallow water. This approach accounts for the
change in open water efficiency due to increased thrust
loading on the propulsor, but does not attempt to address
changes in H or R. For propeller driven vessels, this is
done using the procedure defined in Blount and Fox
(1976), using the shallow water resistance without altering
H and R. For water jet propelled vessels, this is done by
overlaying the shallow water resistance curve on the same
performance map provided by the manufacturer for deep
water operation (which includes an assumed H and R)
see Appendix 3.
CONSIDERATIONS FOR VESSEL DESIGN FOR
SHALLOW WATER OPERATION
As mentioned above, shallow water resistance may be
much larger around critical speed than is in deep water,
however for supercritical speeds it is only a bit lower.
Therefore, a real problem for vessels intended to sail at
supercritical speeds is to overcome large resistance hump
around the critical speed. An interesting paper on this
subject was presented by Heuser (1994).
According to Hofman and Radojcic (1997), the only
way to avoid the negative influence of water depth on
resistance is to avoid the critical region itself (See Figures
10 to 12). Obviously, the largest power increments and
vessel generated waves occur when water is very shallow
(low h/L ratio) and when Fnh0.95 or FnL0.4 and thus
having a design point in (or around) these conditions
should be avoided. As the water becomes deeper and h/L
increases, a somewhat higher FnL becomes critical. So
when h/L0.5 (practically deep water) speeds
corresponding to FnL0.5 form the wave lengths that are
equal to ship length; this is a well known deep water
phenomenon that should be avoided. In other words, when
h/L increases from 0.1 to 0.5, the corresponding highresistance Froude numbers1 are FnL=0.3-0.5 and FnL=0.30.7 (with peaks at FnL0.4 and FnL0.5), respectively. So, a
high-speed vessel which will successfully sail in all water
depths shallow and deep must be able to operate in the
supercritical regime, i.e. above FnL0.7. This vessel also
must be able to accelerate through the critical regime
rapidly. Typical wave pattern of a supercritical vessel (i.e.
intended to operate in the supercritical regime) is depicted
in Figure A3.
To reduce wave wash, the depthcritical speed range
to be avoided (Cox, 2000) should be more than 75% and
less than 125% of the speed corresponding to a depth
Froude number of 1.0. High-wash speeds generally
correspond to FnL=0.35-0.65.
1

In the context of this paper speed that matches the high-resistance

Froude number might be called sustained speed.

This means that fast littoral and inland vessels should

be designed (matched, adapted) according to the water
depth. Consequently, the right choice of vessel speed and
waterline length should be decided in the very early design
phases, as there isnt any possibility to improve poor
performance later on.
For littoral and inland vessels that operate in shallow
waters, propulsor size selection must be tailored to
operation in these conditions. For a properly sized
propulsor for deep water, when operating in shallow water,
poor efficiency around the hump is unavoidable. In any
case, propulsors that are adaptable to (or are less affected
by) changes in resistance should be considered, as for
instance controllable pitch propellers, water jets, or
probably even special shrouded propellers.
If vessels are to operate in shallow water, complex
propulsion plants (engines, gearbox ratios, propellers,
water jets) may be required according to the constraints
dictated by the expected water depth. Flush type water jets
have an advantage of being in the hull and not bellow the
hull as are, for instance, various kinds of propellers. This
inherently reduces the vessels draught. Low-draught
propellers are typically surface piercing propellers but they
are not elastic to cope with large resistance and speed
variations (except if equipped gearboxes with multiple gear
ratios). Particular attention should be paid to intermediate
speeds, i.e. the critical region, and in this respect the
margins suggested by Blount and Bartee (1997) should be
consulted.
Actually, all known deep water approaches for
improving performance, and in the first place the longer,
the better theory, are less effective in shallow water and
are even detrimental in extremely shallow water (as ratio of
h/L becomes the most influential parameter). The only
measure that really works in all regimes is to reduce
displacement (weight) as much as possible, but usually that
is easier to say than to achieve.
CONCLUSIONS
The following conclusions can be drawn from the
work contained herein:
Shallow water effects can be noticed whenever
h/LOA<0.80 or Fnh>0.6-0.7
Three speed regions may be detected:
- subcritical region (Fnh<0.7) where the effects of water
depth are negligible (SWRF=1)
- critical region (0.7<Fnh<1.2) where wave-making
resistance, hence resistance increases dramatically
(SWRF>1)
- supercritical region (Fnh>1.2) where resistance may
be smaller than in deep water (SWRF<1)
SWRF can be predicted with engineering accuracy,
while SWPF requires further research, i.e water depth

effects on propulsive factors are not investigated nor

defined accurately enough
By far the largest power increment and vessel
generated waves occur when h/L ratio is low and
Fnh0.95 or FnL0.4
A high-speed vessel which will successfully operate in
all water depths must be able to operate in the
supercritical regime, i.e. at speeds above FnL0.7.
High speed craft wave wash cannot be reduced just by
optimizing the hull form since wave period generally
increases with speed and doesnt decay quickly. The
wave wash decay is smaller in shallow than in deep
water and is a function of h/L. The appropriate
measure of wave wash in shallow water is wave height
and wave energy.
Design speed and waterline length, must be carefully
selected for vessels designed for littoral and shallow
water operations. Traditional deep water thinking
that longer is better might be counter to improving
performance in shallow water.
Reduction of displacement (weight) is the only
measure that can effectively lower both, resistance and
wave wash.
Propulsor type and size should also be tailored to the
shallow water requirements/operation.

Blount, D., Hankley. D., Full Scale Trials and Analysis of

High Performance Planing Craft Data, Trans. SNAME
1976.
Blount, D., Fox, D., "Design Considerations for Propellers
in a Cavitating Environment", Marine Technology, Vol. 15,
No. 2, 1978.
Blount, D., Hubble, N., Sizing Segmental Section
Commercially Available Propellers for Small Craft,
SNAME Propellers 81 Symposium, Virginia Beach, 1981.
Blount, D., Bartee, R., "Design of Propulsion Systems for
High-Speed Craft", Marine Technology, Vol. 34, No. 4,
1997.
Blount, D. L., McGrath, J. A., Resistance Characteristics
of Semi-Displacement Mega Yacht Hull Forms, RINA Int.
Conf. On Design, Construction & Operation of Super and
Mega Yachts, Genova, 2009.
Cassella, P., Paciolla, A., "Evaluation of DTMB's Series 64
Hull Power by Means of Regression Analysis", Tecnica
Italiana, No. 3/4, 1983 (in Italian).

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

Cox, G., Sex, Lies, and Wave Wake, RINA Symp.

Hydrodynamics of High Speed Craft: Wake Wash &
Motions Control, London, 2000.

The authors would like to thank Donald L. Blount for

his kind assistance with identifying reference and providing
a keen eye and mind in the editing process.

Doyle, R., Whittaker, T., Elsasser, B., A Study of Fast

Ferry Wash in Shallow Water, FAST 2001, Southampton,
2001.

REFERENCES
Allison, J., "Marine Waterjet Propulsion", SNAME
Transactions, Vol. 101, 1993.

Filipovska, M., Analysis of Shallow Water Influence on

Propulsive Coefficients, Diploma thesis, University of
Belgrade, Faculty of Mech. Engng, Dept of Naval
Architecture, Belgrade, 2004 (in Serbian).

Allison, J., Goubault, P., "Waterjet Propulsion for Fast

Craft - Optimized Integration of Hull and Propulsor", FAST
1995, Lubeck Travemunde, 1995.

Fung, S., Leibman, L., "Revised Speed-Dependent

Powering Predictions for High-Speed Transom Stern Hull
Forms", FAST 1995, Lubeck-Travemunde, 1995.

Andersen, P., Guldhammer, H., "A Computer-Oriented

Power Prediction Procedure", CADMO Conference,
Trieste, 1986.

Hadler, J., Hubble, N., "Prediction of the Power

Performance of the Series 62 Planing Hull Forms", Trans.
SNAME, 1971.

Bailey, D., "The NPL High Speed Round Bilge

Displacement Hull Series", RINA Maritime Technology
Monograph No 4, 1976.

Hadler, J., The Prediction of Power Performance on

Planing Crafts, Trans. SNAME, 1966.

Bailey, D.,"A Statistical Analysis of Propulsion Data

Obtained from Models of High Speed Round Bilge Hulls",
RINA Symp. on Small Fast Warships and Security Vessels,
London, 1982.
Blount, D., Fox, D., "Small Craft Power Prediction",
Marine Technology, Vol. 13, No. 1, 1976.

Heuser, H., "Inland and Coastal Vessels for Higher

Speeds", 21st WEGEMT, Duisburg, 1994.
Hofman, M., Radoji, D., Resistance and Propulsion of
Fast Ships in Shallow Water, Monograph, University of
Belgrade, Faculty of Mechanical Engineering Dept of
Naval Architecture, Belgrade, 1997 (in Serbian).

Hofman, M., "On Optimal Dimensions of Fast Vessels for

Shallow Water", PRADS '98, The Hague, 1998.
Hofman, M., Kozarski, V., Shallow Water Resistance
Charts for Preliminary Vessel Design, I.S.P. Vol. 47, No.
449, 2000.
Holtrop, J., "A Statistical Re-Analysis of Resistance and
Propulsion Data", I.S.P. Vol. 31, No. 363, 1984.
Hubble, N., "Planing Hull Feasibility Model", Report of
DTNSRDC/SPD-0840-01, 1981.
Lyakhovitsky, A., Shallow Water and Supercritical
Ships, Backbone Publishing Company, Hoboken, NJ,
2007.
Lewthwaite, J., Wash Measurements on Inland
Waterways using the WAVETECTOR Buoy, RINA
Conference on Coastal Ships & Inland Waterways 2,
London, 2006.
Millward, A., Bevan, G., "The Behavior of High Speed
Ship Forms when Operating in Water Restricted by a Solid
Boundary", RINA W2 paper issued for written discussion,
1985.
Millward, A., Sproston, J., "The Prediction of Resistance of
Fast Displacement Hulls in Shallow Water", RINA
Maritime Technology Monograph No. 9, 1988.
Nwogu, O., Boussinesq Modeling of Ship-Generated
Waves in Shallow Water, PIANC USA Annual Meeting,
Portland, 2003.
PIANC 2003 Guidelines for Managing Wake Wash
from High Speed Vessels, Report of WG 41 of
International Navigation Association, Brussels, Belgium.
Phillips, S., Hook, D., Wash from Ships as they approach
the Coast, RINA Conference on Coastal Ships & Inland
Waterway II, London 2006.
Radojcic, D., "Mathematical Model of Segmental Section
Propeller Series for Open-Water and Cavitating Conditions
Applicable in CAD", SNAME Propellers '87 Symposium,
Virginia Beach, 1988.
Radojcic, D., "An Engineering Approach to Predicting the
Hydrodynamic Performance of Planing Craft Using
Computer Techniques", Trans. RINA, Vol. 133, 1991.
Radojcic, D., Rodic, T., Kostic, N., "Resistance and Trim
Predictions for the NPL High Speed Round Bilge
Displacement Hull Series", RINA Conference on Power,
Performance and Operability of Small Craft, Southampton,
1997.

Radojcic, D., Power Prediction Procedure for Fast SeaGoing Monohulls Operating in Shallow Water, The Ship
for Supercritical Speed, 19th Duisburg Colloquium, 1998.
Radojcic, D., Princevac, M. Rodic, T., Resistance and
Trim Predictions for the SKLAD Semidisplacement Hull
Series, Oceanic Engineering Int., Vol. 3, No. 1, 1999.
Radojcic, D., Grigoropoulos, G. J., Rodic, T., Kuvelic, T.,
Damala, D.P. The Resistance and Trim of SemiDisplacement, Double-Chine, Transom-Stern Hull Series,
FAST 2001, Southampton, 2001.
Savitsky, D. Hydrodynamic Design of Planing Hulls,
Marine Technology, Vol. 1, 1964.
Sturtzel, W., Graff, W.,"Investigation of Optimal Form
Design for Round-Bottom Boats", Forschungsbericht des
Landes Nordrhein-Westfalen, Nr. 1137, 1963. (in German).
Svensson, R., "Waterjets Versus Propeller Propulsion in
Passenger Ferries", Vocational Training Centre,
Hongkong, 1998.
Toro, A., Shallow-Water Performance of a Planing Boat,
Trans. SNAME, 1969.

APPENDIX 1 - Wave wake energy evaluation (numerical example)

A generic wave trace measured at 50 m from the vessels track is depicted in Figure A1. It shows a maximum wave
height of 0.26 m and an associated period of 6.7 sec.

Figure A1 - Wave wash trace at 50 m off vessel track

At this distance, the wave energy can be calculated as follows:
E = 1960H2T2 = 1960 x 0.262 x 6.72 = 5947 J/m 5950 J/m .
For comparison we can look at the wave energy present at a distance of 200 m off of the vessels track. Using the deep
water relationship for decay rate developed by the University of Southampton (Lewthwaite 2006), the wave height at a
distance of 200 m can be calculated as follows:
H200 = HX / (200/x)0.35 = 0.26 / (200/50) 0.35 = 0.16 m .
Consequently, the wave energy at 200 m may be evaluated as
E = 1960H2T2 = 1960 x 0.162 x 6.72 = 2254 J/m 2250 J/m .
Therefore it can be concluded that the energy is below the 2825 J/m restriction of the State of Washington. However,
if the same wave would be traveling in the shallow water the decay rate would be different, and definitely smaller than in
deep water (see Figure 6), so wave energy at a distance of 200 m would most probably be higher than the allowable limit.

APPENDIX 2 - Influence of length Froude number and depth Froude number on wave pattern and height
To investigate the combined influence of length Froude number and depth Froude number on wave height, the Michlet
Software - Version 8.07 ( Leo Lazauskas) was employed to calculate surface wave patterns for various length Froude
numbers and depth Froude numbers.
An 86 x 11.5 m NPL hull form, generated with Delft Ship, was used in the calculations. The full scale dimensions
were selected to correspond to the Yacht Ectasea. The results are presented in Figure A2. The images in the center vertical
column are for a constant length Froude number (FnL 0.43), while depth Froude number increases from 0.65 to 1.5
(corresponding to Figures 1 through 3 of main text). On the other hand, the images in the horizontal row have a constant
depth Froude number (Fnh=0.90), while length Froude number increase from 0.26 to 0.61.
The progression from the top to bottom of the vertical figures illustrates the wave pattern changes associated with
transitioning from the subcritical regime to the supercritical regime. Relative to this, the horizontal figures, all evaluated
for the same depth Froude number, depict somewhat different wave patterns and heights with the different length Froude
numbers. Diverging bow wave angle (Kelvin angle) however, is the same for all horizontal figures. The middle figure has
the maximum wave height as Fnh=0.9 and FnL0.4.
Wave pattern of the same hull form as discussed above but for much higher Fnh and FnL (hence the supercritical
regime regardless of water depth) is depicted in Figure A3.

Fnh=0.65 FnL=0.44 h/L=0.465

(V=12.88 m/s h=40 m)

Fnh=0.90 FnL=0.26 h/L=0.081

(V=7.46 m/s h=7 m)

Fnh=0.90 FnL=0.43 h/L=0.233

(V=12.61 m/s h=20 m)

Fnh=0.90 FnL=0.61 h/L=0.465

(V=17.83 m/s h=40 m)

Fnh=1.5 FnL=0.43 h/L=0.081

(V=12.43 m/s h=7 m)
Figure A2 - Wave patterns and heights at different length and depth Froude numbers

Fnh=2.5 FnL=0.71 h/L=0.081 (V=20.72 m/s h=7 m)

Figure A3 - Typical wave pattern of a ship at supercritical speeds

APPENDIX 3 - Numerical Example

The purpose of this appendix is to provide a numerical example demonstrating the application of the resistance and
powering prediction process recommended in this paper. A powering prediction is provided for water jets. The calculations
are performed for a vessel similar to the yacht Ectasea, but with less installed power. Input parameters for predicting the
resistance of the round bilge hull form is as follows:
= 1880 t
LWL = 77 m
LCB = 36.3 m

h = 15 m (shallowest expected on route)

PB = 2 x 14 MW

Deep water resistance RTd is calculated from the original NPL systematic series model data using the Froude
extrapolation method. The ITTC 1957 model-ship friction line was used with CA = 0.0000 (see Table Figure A1). The
appendage resistance was calculated according to RAPP = (RF + RRd) * 0.10.
RRh/RRd (SWRF) is determined from the Equation 1 in the main text. The equation is used to calculate the shallow
water resistance in subcritical range only for speeds up to Fnh = 0.90 for the assumed shallowest expected water depth on
route.
FnL
0.30
0.35
0.40
0.45
0.50
0.55
0.60
0.65

V
kts
16.0
18.7
21.4
24.0
26.7
29.4
32.1
34.7

Fnh
0.67
0.78
0.89
1.01
1.12
1.23
1.34
1.45

RRd
kN
131
202
342
583
817
938
990
1039

RF
kN
59
80
102
127
154
185
217
252

RAPP
kN
19
28
44
71
97
112
121
129

RTd
kN
210
310
488
780
1069
1235
1328
1421

RRh/RRd
1.28
1.70
2.89

RRh
kN
168
344
987

RTh
kN
246
452
1133

Table A1 - Deep water and subcritical shallow water resistance (shallowest water depth h=15 m, L/h=5.1)
To develop a conservative resistance envelope, the resistance curve based on shallowest water depth and critical
peaks for other, deeper water depths (h>15 m, corresponding to L/h<5) should be determined. Critical peaks are calculated
from Equation 3 in the main text (see Table A2). The data from Tables A1 and A2 are then combined to yield the
resistance envelope curve as shown in Figure A4.
Maximal Peak s
L/h

(Fnh)max

(RRh/RRd)max

RRd

RF

RAPP

RTh

5
4
3
2

0.8950
0.8841
0.8633
0.8136

m
15.4
19.3
25.7
38.5

kts
21.4
23.6
26.6
30.7

2.844
1.932
1.378
1.094

kN
346
545
815
969

kN
102
123
154
201

kN
44
66
96
117

kN
1129
1242
1373
1379

RRd
kN
457
714
937
1062

RF
kN
114
141
184
269

RAPP
kN
57
85
112
133

RTh
kN
1357
1462
1448
1459

Critical Peak s
L/h
5
4
3
2

(Fnh)critical
0.9500
0.9500
0.9500
0.9500

h
m
15.4
19.3
25.7
38.5

V
kts
22.70
25.38
29.31
35.89

(RRh/RRd)critical
2.594
1.732
1.228
0.994

Table A2 - Shallow water resistance maximal and critical peaks for incremental L/h values

1600

CRITICAL PEAKS

1400
MAXIMAL PEAKS

HULL RESISTANCE (kN)

1200

1000
SHALLOW WATER
RESISTANCE

800
RESISTANCE @ L/h = 4

600
SUB CRITICAL DATA

RESISTANCE @ L/h = 3

400

V(kts)
16.0
18.7
21.4
22.7
25.4
29.3
35.9

DEEP WATER RESISTANCE

200

RT (kN)
246
452
1133
1357
1462
1448
1459

0
5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

45

SPEED (kts)

Figure A4 Resistance envelope curve

Deep water and shallow water resistance curves are plotted on the water jet performance map as shown in Figure A5.
A twin water jet application was selected, the maximum predicted speed in each case is identified by the intersection of the
maximum power contour (14 MW) and the relevant resistance curve. The results indicate the speed loss when operating in
shallow water with a depth of 15 m is predicted to be about 7 knots relative to deep water performance! The OPCs
associated with deep and shallow water operation are 0.54 and 0.42 respectively; representing a 22% reduction in
efficiency! Also note the cavitation margin the resistance curve lies in the Zone 2 cavitation region and its proximity to
the Zone 3 curve suggests the water jets are on the verge of thrust breakdown at about 23 knots.
1600
Zone 3

Zone 2

NET THRUST & HULL RESISTANCE (kN)

3% mechanical losses included

Zone 1
2 * 22000 BKW

P = 2 X 14mw
V = 21 KTS
RTh = 1100 KN
d = 0.42

1400

2 * 20000 BKW

1200

2 * 18000 BKW
2 * 16000 BKW

1000

P = 2 X 14mw
V = 27 KTS
RTd = 1100 KN
d = 0.54

800

2 * 14000 BKW

2 * 12000 BKW

2 * 10000 BKW

SHADED AREA REPRESENTS

INCREASE IN RESISTANCE

600
SHALLOW WATER RESISTANCE

2 * 8000 BKW
2 * 6000 BKW

400
2 * 4000 BKW

DEEP WATER RESISTANCE

200
2 * 2000 BKW

0
5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

45

SPEED (kts)

Figure A5 Plot of deep and shallow water resistance on a typical Rolls-Royce water jet performance map