Course Keeping of High Speed Craft in Stern Quartering Seas

F.H.H.A Quadvlieg (Maritime Research Institute Netherlands)

F. van Walree (Maritime Research Institute Netherlands)
J.A. Keuning (Delft University of Technology)
K. Stambaugh (US CoastGuard)

Figure 1: Patrol vessel in stern quartering seas experiencing a near broach

Abstract
There is considerable interest in the seakeeping performance of high speed craft. Researchers and designers have been working on
advanced hull forms and ride control systems to enhance the operability of high speed passenger and patrol ships. An example of a
recent development is the Enlarged Ship Concept (ESC) and the Axe Bow Concept (ABC), invented by Delft University of Technology.
The ESC features a lengthening of the hull with high deadrise angle bow sections whereas the ABC goes a step further and has deep,
vertical bow sections. These hull forms aim to reduce slamming while operating in head seas at high speed. DAMEN Shipyards, Royal
Netherlands Navy, USCoast Guard and MARIN were involved in the ABC research project. After the resrach project was finished,
DAMEN Shipyard applied it immediately and successfully . Several ships have been built by DAMEN and are successfully operated.
These concepts have been studied extensively for head sea operation, for which the concepts are expected to demonstrate their
capability to reduce the vertical accelerations.
In addition to head sea operation, operation in stern quartering seas is important as well for these types of craft. When the wave
encounter frequency is low and the waves are sufficiently steep, dynamic (in) stability phenomena such as broaching may endanger the
vessel and its crew. A research program has been performed in which the performance of the ECS and ABC concepts in stern
quartering seas has been compared by means of model tests. Also a novel bow rudder concept for improved yaw control has been
investigated on the ABC ship.
Results of a broaching analysis with a blended time domain strip theory and maneuvering method (FREDYN) will be discussed next.
Next the capability of a time domain panel code (PANSHIP) to predict motions in stern quartering seas will be investigated and
presented. The fundamentals of the method will be briefly outlined. Simulation results for ESC and ABC models with waterjet
propulsion and steering, fixed skegs and a bow rudder (for ABC only) will be compared with the experimental results. The comparison
will show to which extend the method is capable to predict effects of hull form and control actions on course keeping ability in waves.

Background
In the past century a couple of investigations were carried out to
investigate the directional stability of high speed craft, see for
instance Cohen and Blount [1], [2] and [3]. Many individuals
are using rules of thumb to assess the course keeping qualities in
calm water or in stern quartering seas. These rules of thumb are
based on investigations over the years and on hull forms which
are largely different from present day hull forms and which
operate in a different speed range.
Moreover, it is well-known that the inclusion of appendages is
extremely important to control and correct the course keeping. It
is shown by Jurgens et al [4] that especially on vessels propelled
by waterjets, the directional stability is so cumbersome, that the
ride control systems are the only systems that keep these ships
controllable in stern quartering seas.

operability at the North Sea all year round, at a maximum of 50

knots forward speed. The main results of this study have been
reported by Keuning and Van Walree in 2006, see [11]. The
principal result was that the AXE Bow Concept came out best of
the three concepts tested. Although the emphasis of this
particular FAST study was on the behavior in head seas, a
considerable number of tests were also performed in oblique
seas. These tests were performed in the Seakeeping and
Manoeuvring Basin (SMB) of MARIN with free sailing, self
propelled models.

The present day patrol boat designs are focusing on vessels with
a length of approximately 50 meter and speeds of 30+ knots.
This class of ships will be the focus of the present paper.

Historyofhullformdesignforfastships
In fast ship design it is of course the intention to assure that the
directional stability of a design is good enough. However, the
hull form will usually be determined by the required powering
and seakeeping behavior. In order to optimize both resistance
and seakeeping behavior, large steps have been made in the past
decades.
In the 1960s, the resistance of vessels was most important,
leading to designs consisting of vessels with a relatively low
deadrise sections. This is illustrated in [5].
On the other hand, the necessity of an adequate seakeeping
behavior was also recognized. This has resulted in ship concepts
as the Enlarged Ship Concept [6] and the Axe Bow Concept [7].
Vertical acceleration peaks are the key factors to judge
acceptable seakeeping behavior, not only from a comfort point
of view, but especially from a safety point of view. This is
extensively described by Keuning [9]. It was demonstrated that
an analysis of the accelerations RMS only can lead to the
erroneous conclusion that the seakeeping behavior improves.
Realizing this, ships were developed with hull lines that reduced
the peak accelerations significantly. Damen Shipyards, which
have supported research from the early days, has started to
produce these vessels with success, see [10]. Examples of these
ships are given in Figure 2 and 3. The very characteristic bow
shape of the Axe Bow Concept is given in Figure 4.
Several steps in the accumulation of knowledge in this field
have been gathered in a joint industry research project called
FAST. This project was sponsored by the Royal Netherlands
Navy, the US Coast Guard, DAMEN Shipyards, Royal Schelde
Shipyards and MARIN, and aimed at developing a fast patrol
boat of around 50 meters length capable of maintaining full

Figure 2: The Damen Stan Patrol 4207, the first ship

incorporating the Enlarged Ship Concept

Figure 3: Fast crew supplied based on the Axe Bow Concept

Figure 4: The hull shape of a patrol vessel of incorporating the

Axe Bow Concept

Towards improved behavior in stern

quarteringseas
The tests in oblique seas were performed because it was already
envisioned that the next steps should focus on assessing and
improving the course keeping of vessels. The aim was to use
and/or develop appendages which improve course keeping.
Keuning and Visch, see [12], have investigated conventional
and unconventional ways to have a better control over the
coupled roll-yaw-pitch motions. They show that the use of a
bow rudder and especially a bow rotor results in significant
reduced roll and yaw angles when operating in stern quartering
seas.
It was necessary to obtain fundamental knowledge on the
broaching behavior in waves. And although various researchers
have already made progress in a theoretical description of the
various aspects, see for example [13], the effects and how to
improve te behavior in actually fully free-sailing conditions
were not demonstrated extensively.

Hydrodynamicsofthebroach
Keuning and Visch are showing in [12] a description of the
forces that are playing a role in the broaching behavior. The
broaching behavior is a combination of:
directional stability,
transverse stability,
pitching behavior,
propulsion and control surfaces forces and actions.
What generally happens can, in physical terms, best be
described as follows and is depicted in Figure 5.

Figure 5: Description of broaching phenomenon

The ship under consideration is sailing at moderately high speed

in stern quartering seas. Through the forward speed the
encounter frequency of the ship with the waves surrounding the
ship is low. Let us now assume the waves come in from the port
quarter. When a high wave reaches the stern of the ship, the
stern is lifted. Because the sterns of these ships are usually
broad and flat, the ship is simultaneously heeled to starboard.
Through this combined pitch and roll motion the bow is now
more deeply submerged. This deeper submergence of the bow in
combination with the roll angle introduces an asymmetry, both
in longitudinal and athwart direction, and so a considerable
yawing moment is generated on the ship. This yaw moment is
such that it is pushing the bow of the boat to port. Furthermore,
these ships in most cases have two rudders, the port (windward)
rudder will most likely be partly lifted out of the water. In order
to keep the ship as much as possible on the original desired
heading, considerable rudder action is required. The rudders are
pulled over to starboard to correct for the course change due to
the yawing moment. The rudders generate a lift force to port,
and so a counter balancing yawing moment to starboard.
Simultaneously however, they also generate a considerable
rolling moment to starboard which leads to an even further
increase in the undesirable roll motion.
If all goes well control is maintained and the boat is brought
back to its original course with reasonable roll and yaw angles.
In the worst case however the yaw motion gets out of control
and the ship usually ends up in beam seas and possibly at
excessive heel. In extreme cases this may even lead to a capsize.
It is known from model experiment and full scale experience
that broaching is most likely to occur in (steep) waves with a
length in between 1.3 and 1.7 times the ship length. Therefore
for a 40 to 50 meter vessel this implies that the encounter
frequency becomes almost zero in (deep water) waves with a
wavelength of 60-80 meters, which are travelling at 20 to 23
knots. In general evasive action by the crew will be taken by
either a speed reduction or a change of heading, both leading to
a loss of operability of the craft in service.
Model tests will (and remain) the most economical way to
generate the definitive answers to questions that are posed by
designers and operators. The designs of which the performance
needs to be demonstrated must be represented by means of freesailing, self-propelled and self-steered models. Steering is
based on an autopilot or a more advanced ride control system.
Only a fully operational model gives insight in the true behavior
without unnecessary schematizations or assumptions.
Experiments with free running model methodology give for the
designer a quick answer, and at the same time give the
possibility for quick retesting in the case that the result is
unsatisfactory.
The disadvantage of the free running model methodology is that
the tests in stern quartering seas are very time consuming. In
order to generate accurate statistics of the behavior of the vessel,
a certain number of wave encounters (at least 200) needs to be
present in the measurement time signals. For the case of stern
quartering seas, each run down a 170 meter long basin will
result in only 4 to 5 wave encounters since the wave encounter

frequency approaches zero. This means that some 40 to 50 runs

will be necessary to get sufficient information for one sea state,
one wave direction and one ship speed.

into the ESC and ABC concepts, while PANSHIP simulations

are validated on basis of the experimental results of the FAST
project.

Therefore, there is also a clear need for simulation tools which

can be used to obtain (early) predictions of the dynamic
behavior in stern quartering seas.

Broachingsensitivitystudy

Towardsabetterunderstanding
All forces and motions need to be considered in 6 degrees of
freedom: the impact of pitch angle plays a dominant role, the
roll angle leads to a yawing motion which needs to be
counteracted. Keuning and Visch [12] are showing that the
forces which play a role are:
the wave excitation forces,
the forces on the drifting hull, including the stabilizing
and de-stabilizing moments,
the heel-yaw coupling moments,
the forces due to rudders, waterjets and other control
surfaces.
It is possible to describe many of these forces for a single design
by using model tests. However to achieve progress in
developing better hull forms, it is necessary to increase the
fundamental understanding of these four items. It will also be
necessary to perform research in which we can quantify which
design trends yield ships that have better performance in stern
quartering seas.
In order to have a better understanding, a computational method
can be used, provided it has the following capabilities:
The instantaneous position of the ship in the wave field
must be taken into account. For instance the actual heel
and pitch are essential to predict the yawing moment at
the instant that a wave lifts the stern, pushes the bow
into the water and heels the ship. Also the shape of the
transom and the transom area above the still-water
waterline are important factors in the heeling and
trimming moments.
In order to predict transverse forces and moments on a
heeled and trimmed hull, the method must be able to
predict lift forces on asymmetric bodies. A potential
flow method can be used for this purpose, assuming
slender hulls operating at low to moderate drift angles
(no significant flow separation). At the same time
effects of viscosity need to be present in the method,
for instance through a cross-flow drag method.
The method should be able to deal with very different
hull forms. This means that the method should
encompass as little as possible statistical or empirical
data from measurements.
Propulsion, steering and ride control systems should be
included.
Two computational methods are applied in this paper, FREDYN
and PANSHIP. FREDYN is used to perform a sensitivity study

FREDYN [19] was used to perform the broaching analysis of

the 50m ABC type hull form (see next section for particulars).
FREDYN was developed to predict dynamic events in heavy
weather such as loss of transverse stability in waves, broaching
and surf riding as well as ship motions and maneuvering in
general. FREDYN is a time domain dynamic stability program
that uses strip theory up to the instantaneous waterline to predict
ship motions and includes a maneuvering model based on
empirical data for slender ship types. FREDYN is currently
limited to Fn of 0.4; however, this is quite useful for evaluations
of high speed boats operating at lower speed in higher sea states.
A single FREDYN analysis results in a dataset that represents
the motion response and extreme motion behavior for one
loading condition and one wave description over a range of
operating speeds and headings. Multiple runs must be made to
compile a polar diagram of response across a range of speeds
and headings.
No active fin stabilizers are included in the broaching analysis.
The deep fore foot of the Axe Bow hull was modeled in
FREDYN as a skeg type appendage to incorporate appropriate
hydrodynamic and maneuvering characteristics.
Long-crested seas are modeled using the Brettschneider sea
spectral formulation. Sea states used in the broaching analysis
are shown in Table 1.
Sea State

Hs (m)

Hs (ft)

4
5
6
6

2.5
3.25
5
5

8.2
10.7
16.4
16.4

T avg.
(sec)
6.8
7.5
10.3
6.2

T modal
(sec)
8.8
9.7
12.4
8.1

Table 1 Sea States used in the Broaching Analysis

Significant wave heights used are in the midrange for each sea
state. Modal periods are the most probable for the sea state. A
short period SS6 based on storm data analyzed by Buckley [20]
was included to investigate the broaching activity. This data is
consistent with climatology for fast developing storms.
A speed range of zero to 20 knots was used for SS 4, 5 and 6
with most probable wave period and 10, 15 and 20 knot speeds
were used for the storm version of SS6. Generally, cutters of
this size and speed capability do not have good steerage below
10 knots and are capable of achieving over 10 knots with
engines at idle. Lower speeds were included in the analysis for
extrapolation of polar plot results across the speed range.
FREDYN is limited to a Froude number less than 0.5 that

equates to 20 knots for boats of the waterline length used in the

analysis.
Broaching is determined to occur when the yaw angle exceeds
30 deg and the yaw rate exceeds 3 deg/sec. A sensitivity run
indicated this practical limit did not increase the number of
broaches significantly. An autopilot controlled heading during
the simulations.
Polar plots provide an indication of course keeping ability and
broaching tendencies in the Sea States with most probable wave
periods. The predicted broaching data represents the number of
occurrences in a total of 25 simulations of 30 minutes duration
each for the headings and speeds shown. As seen in the polar
plot of broaching response, Figure 6, the Axe Bow hull form did
experience broaching in SS6 with most probable wave period at
20 knots in seas just off the stern quarter. Broaching at this
speed can be a dramatic event as both wave and momentum
induced forces combine to produce a sudden moment beyond
capabilities of control mechanism if insufficiently designed.

Sig. Wave Ht (m): 5.00 Modal Period (sec): 8.2 (BRETSCHNEIDER)

Response: BROACH
DATA RANGE: MIN=0.0 / MAX=10.0
Head

0.75
3.0
10.0
15.0
20.0

345

20

15

330

30

315

45

15

300

60
10

285

75
5

Port

Strb

255

105

240

120

225

135

210

150
195

Figure 7 Broaching response for conventional design in SS6

Sig. Wave Ht (m): 5.00 Modal Period (sec): 8.2 (BRETSCHNEIDER)

Response: BROACH

For comparison, Figure 7 shows the broaching response of a

conventional patrol ship operating in the same environmental
conditions. It is believed that the deep forefoot (anti-slamming
bow) of the Axe Bow increases the incidence of broaching
compared to a more conventional hull form.

DATA RANGE: MIN=0.0 / MAX=10.0

Head

0.75
3.0
10.0
15.0
20.0

345

20

15

330

30

315

45

15

300

60
10

285

75
5

Port

Strb

255

105

240

120

225

135

210

150
195

Follow

165

Figure 6 Broaching response for ABC design in SS6

Follow

165

It is recommended that a broaching analysis should be

performed to evaluate limiting sea conditions for safe operation
of Axe Bow hull forms. Furthermore, improved steering means
should be considered in future investigations to improve course
keeping capabilities of Axe Bow hull forms.

Comparisonofmotionsandverification
ofpredictions
The PANSHIP method has been developed by van Walree and
de Jong, see [14] and [15] and is applied to the present class of
fast vessels operating in head seas in de Jong and Van Walree
[16]. PANSHIP is a time-domain panel method which
incorporates a Greens function formulation to account for free
surface effects. The method has the capability for both a fully
non-linear geometry description and a semi-linear geometry
description. The first option requires that the Green functions
are evaluated every time step. This is (still) rather computer time
consuming. The semi-linear geometry description assumes nonlinear wave excitation and restoring forces, but radiation and
diffraction forces are based on the mean wetted surface. This
latter method has been used in the present study.
It has been shown that PANSHIP is applicable in the design
process of high speed and advanced vessels, and can deal with
quite complicated appendages, see Van Walree et al. [17]. This
research was part of an ONR project on composite high speed

vessels. Very good results were obtained for the prediction of

hull forces at speed. The vessel had a Froude number of
approximately 0.8, which is well in line with the ships that are
considered in the present paper (see Figure 2 and Figure 3).
The possibility to include ride control systems into PANSHIP
calculations was demonstrated by Hackett et al. in [18]. It was
also shown that ride control systems can be essential for
improving the seakeeping performance of high speed vessels.
Based on these applications, PANSHIP seems a suitable method
for investigating the sensitivity of hull forms towards
broaching. First however, the method must be validated on its
applicability to the patrol vessels that are subject of the present
investigation.
For a number of experiments, conducted as part of the FAST
project, see Keuning and Van Walree [11], PANSHIP
simulations have been performed.
The following two ships are considered: an ESC hull form (PHF
55) and an ABC hull form (AXE55). The main dimensions of
the two vessels are given in Table 2. The body plans of both
vessels is given in Figure 8 and Figure 9 for the PHF55 and
AXE55 respectively. Both models were equipped with water jet
propulsors with steerable nozzles. The PHF55 had two 3m2
rudder type skegs while the AXE55 had two 6 m2 skegs.
Figure 9: Body plan for AXE55
PHF55
AXE55
Lpp
55.00
55.00
L/B
6.50
6.50
B/T
3.18
3.49
GM
2.50
2.50
Displacement
490
530
Table 2 Main particulars of the two concepts

Dimensions
m
m
ton

Wave spectra used during the experiments corresponded to

typical North Sea conditions. The experimental conditions were
as follows:
Significant wave height 2.5 and 3.5 m,
Peak period 6.75 sec,
Spectral shape: Jonswap,
Wave direction 315 degrees (stern quartering seas),
Ship speed 20 and 50 knots.
The duration of the runs for both experiments and simulations
corresponded to two hours full scale.
Figure 10 shows a snapshot of the AXE55 during a model test
run in MARINs SMB.

Figure 8: Body plan for PHF55

RollresponsePHF55

4.500
4.000
3.500
3.000
2.500
2.000
1.500
1.000
0.500
0.000

Panship
Experiment

20/2.50
20/3.50
50/2.5
Speed(kt)/WaveHeight(m)

Figure 12 Roll response for PHF55 for three conditions

PitchresponsePHF55

Figure 10 AXE55 model in the SMB

2.500

The following results are presented: standard deviations for

sway, roll, pitch and yaw motions divided by the standard
deviation of the wave height, and for some cases the probability
of exceedance for roll and yaw.

2.000
1.500
1.000

Panship

0.500

Experiment

0.000

The results in Figure 11 through 14 show a very reasonable

agreement between the experimental data and PANSHIP
simulations for the PHF55. The effect of forward speed is
clearly visible: at the 20 kts speed the encounter frequency is
low and sway and yaw motions are largest. At high speed (50
kts) the ship overtakes the waves and the encounter frequency is
much higher.
Figures 15 through 18 show the same results for the AXE55
design.

20/2.50
20/3.50
50/2.5
Speed(kt)/WaveHeight(m)

Figure 13 Pitch response for PHF55 for three conditions

YawresponsePHF55

7.000
6.000
5.000

SwayresponsePHF55

4.000
3.000

Panship

2.000
30

1.000

25

0.000

20

Experiment

20/2.50
20/3.50

15

50/2.5

Panship

10

Experiment

Speed(kt)/WaveHeight(m)

Figure 14 Yaw response for PHF55 for three conditions

20/2.50
20/3.50
50/2.5

SwayresponseAXE55

Speed(kt)/WaveHeight(m)

Figure 11 Sway response PHF55 for three conditions

30
25
20
15

Panship

10

Experiment

5
0

20/2.50
20/3.50
50/2.5
Speed(kt)/WaveHeight(m)

Figure 15 Sway response for AXE55 for three conditions

RollresponseAXE55

6.000
5.000
4.000
3.000
2.000

Panship

1.000

Experiment

0.000

20/2.50
20/3.50
50/2.5
Speed(kt)/WaveHeight(m)

Figure 16 Roll response for AXE55 for three conditions

PitchresponseAXE55

2.500
2.000
1.500
1.000

Panship

0.500

Experiment

Figure 19 Bow rudder on AXE55 model

0.000

The effect on sway, roll and yaw is shown in the Figures 20

through 22, for the 20 kts speed and 2.5 m wave height case.

20/2.50
20/3.50
50/2.5
Speed(kt)/WaveHeight(m)

SwayresponseAXE55w/obowrudder

Figure 17 Pitch response for AXE55 for three conditions

25

YawresponseAXE55
20
15
7.000
6.000

Panship

10

Experiment

5.000

4.000
3.000

Panship

2.000

Experiment

1.000

Norudder

0.000

Rudder
20/2.50

Speed20(kt)/WaveHeight2.5(m)

20/3.50
50/2.5
Speed(kt)/WaveHeight(m)

Figure 20 Effect of bow rudder on sway response for AXE55

Figure 18 Yaw response for AXE55 for three conditions

It is seen that the predictions for the AXE55 are equally good as
for the PHF55, although the roll response is under predicted for
all cases. Comparing the two concepts, it is seen that the
horizontal plane motions are very similar. The inherent lower
course stability of the AXE55 is effectively counteracted by the
larger skegs. Pitch responses are also very similar, but the
AXE55 tends to roll more than the PHF55.

RollresponseAXE55w/obowrudder

4.500
4.000
3.500
3.000
2.500
2.000

Panship

1.500

Next, experimental and simulation results are shown for the

AXE55 hull form equipped with a bow rudder. Figure 19 shows
the rudder configuration on the AXE55 model. The philosophy
of this configuration was to be able to generate significant side
forces at the bow to control the yaw motions.

Experiment

1.000
0.500
0.000

Norudder
Rudder
Speed20(kt)/WaveHeight2.5(m)

Figure 21 Effect of bow rudder on roll response for AXE55

20

YawresponseAXE55w/obowrudder
18
16

6.000

14

4.000

12

3.000

Panship
2.000

Experiment

Yaw [deg]

5.000

E xpe rim e nt

10
8

1.000

P a nship

0.000

Norudder
Rudder

Speed20(kt)/WaveHeight2.5(m)

0 2
10

10

10

Figure 22 Effect of bow rudder on yaw response for AXE55

These Figures show that the bow rudder is effective indeed in
improving course keeping. It also reduces the roll motion.

10

-1

Figure 24 Probability of exceedance for negative yaw angles,

no bow rudder

The fact that the PANSHIP simulation results show the same
trend with respect to the effect of the bow rudder on roll and
course keeping capability for the two different hull forms is
encouraging.

20
18
16
14

Yaw [deg]

Figures 23 through 26 show the probability of exceedance for

yaw for the AXE55 with and without bow rudder. The
probability of exceedance for negative (to sb) yaw angles are
better predicted by PANSHIP than positive yaw angles, but
overall the agreement is not bad.

P Y [% ]

12
10
8
P a nship

6
E xp e rim e nt

Further, recent results on a Magnus rotor bow steering device

applied to the AXE55 are presented by Keuning and Visch [12].

4
2
0 2
10

10

10

10

-1

P roba bility of e xce e da nce [% ]

20
18

Figure 25 Probability of exceedance for positive yaw angles,

with bow rudder

E xp e rim e nt

16

Yaw [deg]

14

20

12

18

P a nship

10

16

14

Yaw [deg]

6
4
2

12
10
8
P a nship

0 2
10

10

10

10

-1

P Y [% ]

E xp e rim e nt

Figure 23 Probability of exceedance for positive yaw angles, no

bow rudder

2
0 2
10

10

10

10

-1

P Y [% ]

Figure 26 Probability of exceedance for negative yaw angles,

with bow rudder

Thewayahead

References

The desired way ahead for this research is to carry out the
following steps:
Perform further validation of the behavior in stern
quartering seas, especially on the long term
distributions of maxima and minima.
Establish a methodology to judge the relation between
acceptable ship motions and the occurring statistics of a
ship sailing in stern quartering seas. Especially the
relation between extreme events and the root mean
square of motions needs to be clarified. This may result
in a procedure to determine the minimum duration of
time traces (model scale and calculations) before firm
conclusions may be drawn.
Generate a systematic variation in hull form and
control alternatives which may include alterative bow
forms and alternative steering means such as bow
rudders and bow rotors.
Perform simulations on these hull forms in order to
select fruitful design guidance and directions in which
this design should go.

[1]

It is the ambition to continue the fruitful cooperation between

Delft University, Damen Shipyards, the USCG, MARIN and
possibly other partners in a third Joint Industry Project called
FAST III. This project would continue on the successful FAST I
and FAST II projects and will focus on model tests and
simulation methods for prediction of impulsive loads on fast
ships operating in waves and on the coupling between
seakeeping and maneuvering, i.e. course keeping in waves.

[2]

[3]

[4]

[5]

[6]

[7]

[8]

Conclusions
The computer predictions used in this study provide an
unprecedented capability to predict seakeeping ability of hull
forms designed for semi-displacement speed ranges. The
computer tools used permit practical application of a complex
set of parameters that are critical to the type of high-speed
analysis required. The findings from this study provide
significant new insight into hull and control surface features that
provide true benefits in seakeeping ability.
The combination of lessons learned from this and future efforts
will produce a hull form with a seakeeping capability exceeding
that associated with the hull forms evaluated as part of this
study.
This results of the present study form a good base for future
research on fast patrol craft, where not only the hull form is
taken into account, but also the appendages, wave conditions,
ship speed and the control systems.

[9]
[10]

[11]

[12]

[13]

[14]

Cohen S.H. and Blount D.L. (1986), 'Research plan for

the investigation of dynamic stability of small high-speed
planing craft', SNAME Transactions, pp 197-216
Codega, L. and Lewis, J., 1987, A Case Study of
Dynamic Instability in a Planing Hull. Marine
Technology, Vol. 24 (2), pp. 143- 163.
Blount D.L. and Codega L.T. (1992), 'Dynamic stability
of planing boats', Marine technology, vol 29, No. 1, pp 412.
Jurgens, A.J. and Walree, F. van, Hydrodynamic aspects
of interest for the development of an integrated ride
control system for high speed mono hulls FAST 2003
The 7th International Conference on Fast Sea
Transportation,
Clement, E. P., and Blount, D. L., "Resistance Tests of a
Systematic Series of Planing Hull Forms", presented at
the Annual Meeting of the Society of Naval Architects
and Marine Engineers (Nov. 14 and 15, 1963), pp. 491579, New York, 1964
Keuning, J.A. & Pinkster, J. (1997). Further Design and
Seakeeping Investigations Into the Enlarged Ship
Concept. Proceedings of the Fourth International
Conference on Fast Sea Transportation (FAST 97).
Sydney, Australia.
Keuning, J.A., Pinkster, J. & Toxopeus S. (2001). The
Effect of Bow shape on the Seakeeping Performance of a
fast Monohull. Proceedings of the Sixth International
Conference on Fast Sea Transportation (FAST 2001).
Southampton, England.
Keuning, J A , Pinkster J and Van Walree, F. (2002):
Further Investigations into the Hydrodynamic
Performance of the AXE Bow Concept. Proc. of the 6th
Symposium on High Speed Marine Vehicles (WEMT
2002), Castello di Baia, Italy 2002 pp II 25-II 38
Keuning, J.A. Behavior of fast ships in waves. PhD
thesis, Delft University, 1993.
Gelling, J.L. The Axe Bow: The Shape of Ships to
Come. 19th International symposium on yacht design and
yacht construction. November 2006, Amsterdam, The
Netherlands
Keuning, J.A. & van Walree F. (2006). The Comparison
of the Hydrodynamic Behaviour of Three Fast Patrol
Boats with Special Hull Geometries. Proceedings of the
Fifth International Conference on High- Performance
Marine Vehicles (HIPER06), Launceston, Australia.
Keuning , J.A. and G. L. Visch. Combined roll and yaw
control on fast ships with an axe bow in stern quartering
and following waves using a vertical magnus rotor. 10th
International Conference on Fast Sea Transportation
FAST 2009, Athens, Greece, October 2009
E. Armaoglu, Z. Ayaz, T. Katayama and D. Vassalos. On
manoeuvrability of semi-displacement craft in astern
seas. STAB 2006, Rio de Janeiro, Brazil
Walree, F. van and Jong, P. de, Time Domain
Simulations for Fast Ships in Oblique Seas, Proceedings

[15]

[16]

[17]

[18]

[19]
[20]

of the 6th Osaka Colloquium on Seakeeping and Stability

of Ships, Osaka, Japan, 26-29 March 2008
Jong, P. de, Walree, F.van, Hydrodynamic Lift in a
Time-Domain Panel Method for the Seakeeping of Fast
Ships, Proceedings of the 6th International Conference
on High Performance Marine Vehicles, Naples, Italy,
September 2008.
Jong, P. de and Walree, F.van, The Development and
Validation of a Time-Domain Panel Method for the
Seakeeping of High Speed Ships, Proceedings of the
10th International Conference on Fast Sea
Transportation, FAST-2009, Athens, Greece, October
2009.
Walree, F. Van., Hackett, J.P., Calix St. Pierre, J. And
Bigler, C., The use of a time domain panel code for
hydrodynamic design support for complex ships RINA
conference on high speed craft, ACV's, WIG's and
hydrofoils. London, 31 October - 1 November 2006.
Hackett, J.P., Jessica Calix St. Pierre, Christopher Bigler,
Todd J. Peltzer, Frans Quadvlieg, Frans van Walree,
Computational Predictions vs. Model Testing for
Composite High Speed Vessel with Lifting Bodies,
SNAME Annual Meeting, November 2007
MARIN, FREDYN Users Manual Version 9.0, June
2002.
Buckley W., Extreme and Climatic Wave Spectra for
use in Structural Design of Ships, Naval Engineers
Journal, September 1988.

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
The authors gratefully acknowledge the permission of the
participants of the FASTI and II projects to use and publish the
results. Participants in the FAST project are the USCG, Damen
Shipyards, the Royal Dutch Navy, Royal Schelde, Delft
University and MARIN.
The opinions expressed herein are those of the authors and do
not represent official policy of the U.S. Coast Guard.p