See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

net/publication/266593645

Dynamics and Stability of Boats With Aerodynamic Support

Article in Journal of Ship Production and Design · February 2013

DOI: 10.5957/JSPD.29.1.120033

CITATIONS READS
9 9,867

2 authors, including:

N.V. Kornev
University of Rostock
154 PUBLICATIONS 1,498 CITATIONS

SEE PROFILE

All content following this page was uploaded by N.V. Kornev on 03 February 2015.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

 11th International Conference on Fast Sea Transportation
FAST 2011, Honolulu, Hawaii, USA, September 2011

Dynamics and Stability of Boats with Aerodynamic Support

Konstantin Matveev1 and Nikolai Kornev2
1
School of Mechanical and Materials Engineering, Washington State University, Pullman, WA, USA
2
Dept. of Mechanical and Marine Engineering, University of Rostock, Rostock, Germany

ABSTRACT lift-drag ratio aero-hydrodynamic configuration with fixed

Aerodynamic support is beneficial for achieving very high attitude and speed in a steady condition, it is much more
speeds of marine transportation. Wing-in-ground vehicles, difficult to ensure its motion stability and good
power-augmented-ram platforms, and ultra-fast planing seaworthiness. Frequent crashes of high-speed air-assisted
multi-hulls are examples of marine craft with air assistance. boats, as well as some WIG craft, show that this problem is
The main technical problems in the development and very important. Some of the reasons for this state of affairs
application of these concepts for marine transportation are are the complexity of unsteady aero-hydrodynamic
to ensure motion stability and to provide adequate phenomena of boats with hybrid support and a lack of
seaworthiness. In this paper, we illustrate applications of relevant mathematical models. Dynamic models have been
several mathematical models for various air-supported developed and applied in the past for more traditional
marine vehicle concepts and discuss their specific stability configurations, such as planing hulls (e.g., Martin 1978) and
issues. The aerodynamic sub-models are based on nonlinear WIG craft (e.g., Kornev & Matveev 2003).
vortex-lattice methods and on the extreme ground effect In this paper, we develop and illustrate simplified
theory, while unsteady hydrodynamics of planing surfaces is mathematical models that can be used for analysis of
treated with added-mass strip theories. The static and AAMV stability and dynamics. The current approach is
dynamic stability in the vicinity of equilibrium states can be based on separate consideration of hydrodynamic and
analyzed by linearized approaches. However, motions in aerodynamic problems for the submerged and above-water
transient regimes and unsteady environments require parts of the vehicle, respectively. The interaction between
implementation of nonlinear and fully unsteady modelling water and air flows is mainly neglected with a few
methods. exceptions. For aerodynamic analysis of lifting surfaces we
KEY WORDS use a vortex-lattice method and the extreme ground effect
theory. For unsteady hydrodynamic forces, the added-mass
Air-assisted boats, marine vehicle dynamics, longitudinal strip theory is applied. While being simplified, this approach
stability, wing-in-ground, power augmented ram, presents an effective numerical tool for preliminary design
hydroplane. of aerodynamically supported marine craft.
1.0 INTRODUCTION 2.0 GENERAL EQUATIONS
The application of aerodynamic lift for supporting fast In this paper we limit our consideration to vertical-plane
marine vehicles can be beneficial at speeds exceeding 60-80 motions of marine vehicles with aerodynamic support. The
knots. In these regimes, hydrodynamic resistance of ship main dynamics equations can be written for horizontal and
hulls becomes very large, and hydrofoils experience vertical motions of the center of gravity and a rotational
cavitation that limits their performance. Aerostatically motion in the vertical plane,
supported craft, such as air-cushion vehicles, are efficient at
high speeds but only in calm water. Examples of ultra-fast du
m T D , (1)
aerodynamically supported concepts include multi-hulls dt
with wing-shaped superstructure (Doctors 1997, Matveev &
d 2h
Dubrovsky 2007), some racing boats (e.g., tunnels hulls and m  L  mg , (2)
hydroplanes), and power-augmented-ram (PAR) vehicles dt 2
(Kirillovykh & Privalov 1996, Matveev 2009). The fastest
d 2
air-assisted craft is the wing-in-ground (WIG) vehicle that I M , (3)
does not keep a contact with water in cruising regimes. dt 2
Aerodynamic unloading at high speeds generally leads to where m is the vehicle mass, u is the horizontal speed, T
reduced overall resistance, and therefore, higher is the projection of thrust forces on the horizontal axis, D is
transportation efficiency. the sum of drag forces, h is the vertical position of the
The main technical problem in the development and center of gravity, L is the sum of lift forces, including
commercialization of efficient aerodynamically assisted aerodynamic, hydrodynamic, and hydrostatic forces, as well
marine vehicles (AAMV) is their stability and as vertical components of thrust forces, g is the gravity, I
seaworthiness. While it is relatively easy to propose a high
© 2011 American Society of Naval Engineers 829
is the moment of inertia,  is the trim angle (assumed to be 3.0 CASE STUDIES
small), and M is the sum of all moments with respect to the Several configurations of AAMV are analyzed below. The
gravity center. The vehicle dynamics can be modelled by dynamic stability of a WIG craft and a tunnel hull are
integrating Eqs. (1-3) in time, if the expressions for all investigated first. Later, equilibrium states and static
forces are known. The equilibrium states can be determined stability margins are calculated for a hydroplane boat and a
by finding u , h , and  at which the right-hand sides of the PAR platform, and a transient response of a hydroplane to a
dynamics equations are zero. If the system is perturbed in wind gust is simulated.
the vicinity of a stable state, the system will return to the
3.1 Wing-In-Ground Craft
equilibrium after some settling time. Transient processes
with time-dependent external conditions can be also The WIG craft developed and first tested fifty years ago are
simulated with help of Eqs. (1-3). still remaining on the prototype level although there were
several attempts to put WIG craft into commercial operation
The alternative approach for establishing whether an
within the last decade. One can distinguish three main
equilibrium state is stable involves linearization of Eqs. (1-
problems hindering successful WIG development: large
3) in the vicinity of this state,
installed power necessary to overcome the water drag hump,
dq '1  T T D D  high loading during landing resulting in structural damages
m   
 q q' i  q q ' i  q q' i  q q ' i  , (4) and, finally, insufficient flight safety caused mostly by the
dt  i i i i  longitudinal instability. Many WIG crashes took place
d 2 q' 2  L L  during the take-off operation. When a craft looses contact
m    q' i  q ' i  , (5) with water, the resistance drops. If the thrust is not properly
 q i q i
2
dt  reduced, the craft accelerates and experiences a sudden
increase of the flight height. Drastic changes of forces and
d 2 q' 3  M M 
I    q' i  q ' i  , (6) moments are followed by a significant increase of the pitch
 q i q i
2
dt  angle, and the WIG motion becomes unstable.

where q  u, h,   is the vector of kinematic variables and At present, there are no reliable and properly validated
models for transitional motion during the take-off. The
q' comprises perturbed values of these variables. The classical WIG stability theory proposed by Irodov and
general stability of the system of Eqs. (4-6) can be analyzed Staufenbiel (Zhukov 1993), as well as that described in the
by calculating roots of the corresponding characteristic next subsection, are not completely satisfactory. The
equation of the fifth order. If real parts of all roots are classical theory predicts the vehicle ability to return to the
negative, then the system is stable. Sometimes the perturbed equilibrium upon a disturbance. During the take-off, WIG
motion can be considered as the combination of fast craft states are often far from equilibriums. The take-off
oscillatory and slow aperiodic motion modes. The speed regimes should be modelled using direct simulations with
change occurs within the latter mode, whereas the fast force-trajectory coupling and also accounting for strong
motion describes oscillations of the height and trim at unsteady and nonlinear effects. Some representative
approximately constant speed. calculations were presented by Kornev & Matveev (2003).
More general approach would involve 6-DOF
The system stability is often divided on the static stability
Computational Fluid Dynamics (CFD) methods, which still
and dynamic (or complete) stability. The former
have not been tried for WIG applications.
characterizes aperiodic stability and is a subset of the latter,
which also includes oscillatory stability. The criteria for the The WIG stability in the cruising flying regimes has been
longitudinal static stability in a constant-forward-speed extensively studied. The most comprehensive description of
motion include the following requirements (Irodov 1970), the stability theory including actions of the automatic
control system is given by Zhukov (1993). The practical
L M
 0,  0 , X  X h  X   0 , (7) experience shows that the dynamic stability is usually
h  satisfied for a statically stable configuration when the center
where X is the static stability margin and X h and X  of gravity is located between the centers on height and pitch
and closer to X h .
are the horizontal locations of the centers on height and
pitch, respectively; they are defined as follows (with axis x Possible positions of the center of gravity depending on the
is directed forward), flight height are shown in Fig. 1 for a real WIG craft. The
positions found from the dynamic stability conditions are
M / h M / 
Xh  , X  . (8) marked by the grey (wider) area. The so-called favourable
L / h L /  positions defined as the CG positions between X h and the
Note that requirements described by Eq. (7) require middle of two aerodynamic centers 0.5( X h + X  ) are
expressions for only steady components of the forces. The
shown by dark (narrower) area. The grey area mostly covers
static stability must always be checked in the preliminary
the dark one confirming that a modified static analysis is
stage of AAMV design.
practically acceptable if X is large enough. At heights
above 3.5 m, X can be positive but small, resulting in

830 © 2011 American Society of Naval Engineers

dynamic instability. At aft CG positions ( X cg > 4.75 m) the The stability theory for racing boats with tunnel hulls based
dynamical stability is not secured although X is positive. on the classical Hurwitz formalism has been developed
using a combination of WIG and planing stability theories
Unfortunately, the predictions of the standard stability (Kornev et al. 2010). The aerodynamic forces were
theory are not quite reliable even for the cruising flight. calculated using the lifting surface theory and numerical
Sometimes it happens that a craft, which should be stable nonlinear vortex lattice method, whereas the hydrodynamic
according to this theory, experiences difficulties performing forces on the planing hull were determined using a strip
a steady flight near ground. The reason for this discrepancy theory proposed by Kovrizhnykh (1978).The viscous
might be insufficient consideration of nonlinear and resistance calculated with empirical formulae was added to
unsteady effects. Indeed, the force coefficient the induced drag.
representations in the stability analysis are based on the
truncated Taylor expansion,
 C * C * 
C (t )  C 0    q i sin( p i t )  q i p i cos( p i t )  , (9)
 q i q i 
where q i* is the amplitude and p i is the frequency of a
kinematic variable. The nonlinearity is partly taken into
account if the coefficients in Eq. (9) are determined with
respect to the actual operational point. However, the
representation (9) can be quite inaccurate for such a strongly Fig. 2. Schematic of a tunnel hull boat.
nonlinear object as a WIG craft. At small flight heights the The primary goal of designing the tunnel hull boats is a very
truncation error in the expansion (9) becomes very large. high speed, which is obtained at the lowest drag. Therefore,
The nonlinear terms can not be neglected as it is usually one tries to maximize the aerodynamic lift fraction while
done in the stability analysis. Another problem of Eq. (9) is reducing hydrodynamic forces. A significant part of the
the assumption of harmonic oscillations. Therefore, the tunnel hull boat can be lifted out of water. However, this
unsteady effects are modelled only approximately. That is also results in stability problems, because such aerodynamic
why the stability predicted by the classic linear theory is a arrangements are often unstable both statically and
necessary but not sufficient condition. Future work on the dynamically. Indeed, the wing with a small aspect ratio
WIG stability should be focused on considering both which is typical for boat platforms (0.17 in the example
nonlinear and unsteady effects. considered below) is unstable in the vicinity of the ground
surface. The WIG experience shows that the wing stability
can be improved using either S-shaped profiles or the tail
unit. Both technical measures are still not utilized on racing
boats. Once airborne, such boats cannot perform a stable
flight followed by a smooth return to the planing mode.
Therefore, the aerodynamic forces are needed for achieving
high speeds, but at the same time, they are a source of
instability. The design of such boats is a trade-off between
aero- and hydrodynamic considerations. A fine balance
must be retained between various parameters that influence
motion stability.
The stability analysis presented here was performed for a
generic hull with main parameters listed in Table 1. Only
the waterborne mode with partial aerodynamic support was
Fig. 1. Example of possible positions of the center of considered. The submergence of the hull was determined
gravity on a WIG craft. from the vertical force balance equation whereas the trim
angle was varied.
3.2 Tunnel Hull
Figures 3-6 show the upper border for the stable regime, i.e.,
Fast tunnel hull boats (Fig. 2) with speeds up to 150 knots
the maximum possible trim angle at which the motion
are among the fastest waterborne vehicles. The racing boats
remains stable at a given speed. Beneath each curve, the
of this type consist of two planing hulls with a platform.
motion is stable, whereas it is unstable above the line.
One of the most common scenarios of crashes with these
Although the results were obtained from the complete
boats involves a loss of the longitudinal stability which
dynamic stability analysis, the border of the dynamic
results in the pitch-up motion. The stable motion can be
stability is almost the same as for the static stability
easily upset by waves, wind gusts, and turning. Once
determined by the criterion of Irodov (Eq. 7).
airborne, the vessel quickly flies out of control often with
catastrophic consequences.

© 2011 American Society of Naval Engineers 831

 Table 1. Main specifications of tunnel hull boat. ht is the position of the center of gravity Y cg have no essential
gap under platform trailing edge.  is the deadrise angle influence on stability (Kornev et al. 2010).
2.4
Dimensional Value Dimensionless Value with aerodynamic support
parameter parameter w/o aerodynamic support

Mass, m 5200 kg  28.9 2

Inertia 80639 i  I / mL 2 0.108
moment, I kg·m2

deg
Length, L 12 m B/L 0.166 1.6

Beam, B 2m
X cg 4.0 m X cg  X cg / L 0.33 1.2

Ycg 0.9 m Y cg  Ycg / L 0.075

ht 0.65 m h t  ht / L 0.0542 0.8

20 40 60 80 100 120
 17 deg Speed, m/s
Fig. 3. Influence of aerodynamic support on stability.
4
As seen in Fig. 3, the aerodynamic forces contribute to 
instability by slightly shifting the stability border 

downward. This negative effect increases with growing 
3
speed because the aerodynamic lift fraction becomes larger. 

However, the influence of aerodynamics on the stability

deg
border is relatively weak. The explanation of this fact can be 2
found in Table 2 (case with B / L = 1/6). The aerodynamic
force contribution to the total lift does not exceed 7% even
at the speed of 100 m/s (~200 knots). However, the boat 1
designers have to keep in mind that the center of
aerodynamic lift is located far ahead of the longitudinal
center of gravity (LCG) of the boat and can cause a 0
20 40 60 80 100 120
significant pitching moment even at small lift. Also, this Speed, m/s
result was obtained for the platform with the small aspect
Fig. 4. Influence of deadrise angle on stability.
ratio of 0.17. For larger aspect ratios aerodynamic effects
can be larger, as shown in Table 2 (case with B / L = 2/3).
Table 2. Trim and fraction of aerodynamic lift L aero at the
stability border. W is the boat weight.
Aspect ratio   B / L = 1/6
Speed, m/s 40 60 80 100
Trim, deg 1.75 1.30 1.05 0.87
Laero / W , % 2.14 3.57 5.12 6.75
Aspect ratio   B / L = 2/3
Trim, deg 1.4 0.9 0.6 0.4
Laero / W , % 29 43 52 55

The increase of the deadrise angle is a very favourable Fig. 5. Influence of LCG on the boat stability. Fn is the
factor from the point of view of planing stability, which is displacement Froude number,  = 26.7,  = 20.
clearly illustrated in Fig. 4. The increase of the relative mass
Figure 5 illustrates the influence of LCG on stability. The
also results in larger stability domain (Kornev et al. 2010),
aft position is proved to be more favourable, in agreement
although the boat resistance increases. For a specified speed,
with results shown below for a hydroplane boat. Grey points
this means that the stability improvement can be attained at
were obtained from the equilibrium conditions by taking
the cost of increased power and reduction of the overall
into account changes of both trim and submergence caused
efficiency. Numerical investigations also show that changes
by shifting the center of gravity. At each speed, a forward
of the dimensionless inertia moment and the vertical
shift of LCG results in the decrease of the pitch angle. At a

832 © 2011 American Society of Naval Engineers

first glance, one could conclude that stability improves. described by the equation for the perturbation velocity
However, a more detailed consideration shows that the potential  (Rozhdestvensky 2000),
distance between an equilibrium point and the stability
border is nearly the same for all positions of the center of         y y
y  y  U  , (10)
gravity. Therefore, the present analysis indicates that the  x   x   z   z   x t
position of LCG does not influence the stability for the
given boat configuration. where U is the incident airflow velocity and y is the local
2.4 clearance. At high Froude numbers the water surface
deformation can be neglected. The leading and trailing edge

boundary conditions in the extreme ground-effect
2 
approximation were derived by Rozhdestvensky (2000),

1.6   0 , at x  c , (11)
deg

2 2
       
1.2 2U 2      0 , at x  0 . (12)
x  t   x    z 
0.8 The boundary condition at the open platform side behind the
hulls is identical to Eq. (12), and  /  z  0 is imposed
0.4 along the platform-hull boundaries. Once the velocity
potential is determined, the gage pressure under the platform
0 can be calculated as follows,
20 40 60 80 100 120
Speed, m/s    1    2 1    2 
p g   a U        , (13)
Fig. 6. Influence of the platform aspect ratio on stability at   x  x 2   x  2   z  

constant hull length.
If the span of the platform B is getting larger at a constant where  a is the air density. The lift and induced drag forces
boat length L , the aerodynamic force increases both due to are found by integrating this pressure over the platform area.
increase of the lifting surface LB and increase of the aspect For calculating unsteady hydrodynamic lift on hulls, the
ratio   B / L . At high speeds the aerodynamic lift acting added-mass strip theory is utilized with inclusion of
on the platform can become comparable with hydrodynamic buoyancy and cross-flow forces (Martin 1978). The added
one acting on the planing part (Table 2). The boat dynamics masses and wetted areas of single-deadrise hulls, as well
is affected more significantly by aerodynamic properties of dynamic suction forces, are given by Payne (1988). For
the platform, and the negative influence of aerodynamics on calculating propeller forces, a constant direction of the
stability becomes more pronounced. This is illustrated in thrust with respect to the hull is assumed. Additionally,
Fig. 6. The stable trim angle is reduced from 1.05 to 0.60 viscous aerodynamic and hydrodynamic drag forces on the
at the speed 80 m/s when the aspect ratio is changed from platform and hull appendages are modelled by simplified
0.17 to 0.67. empirical correlations (Voitkunsky 1985). The main fixed
3.3 Hydroplane Boat parameters of the considered here hydroplane configuration
are listed in Table 3.
A hydroplane boat is supported by hydrodynamic,
aerodynamic and propulsor lift forces. The configuration Table 3. Main specifications of a hydroplane. Hull and prop
considered here includes a platform with two single- positions are given with respect to the platform plane.
deadrise hulls in the front part of the platform and a Total platform 4m Vertical offset 0.2 m
propeller under the platform stern (Fig. 7). At sufficiently length of propeller
high speeds the platform stern is lifted above the water. Open platform 6m Installed hull 2
y length trim
Platform
Platform beam 2m Propeller angle 10
x
Prop x
Vertical hull offset 0.2 m Hull beam 0.5 m
Hull z
Hull deadrise angle 10 Overall mass 850kg
Fig. 7. Side and top view of a hydroplane.
When the clearance between the platform and the water Calculations were carried out to determine equilibrium
surface is much smaller than the platform length, most of states and stability properties of a hydroplane at various
aerodynamic lift is generated by high pressure under the levels of propeller thrust-to-weight ratio T / W and two
platform. In such cases, the unsteady airflow under the positions of the horizontal center of gravity X cg . Results for
platform becomes nearly two-dimensional and can be
the steady-state speed U , the distance between the platform

© 2011 American Society of Naval Engineers 833

trailing edge and the water surface hTE , platform trim  , 37
and the static stability margin X are shown in Fig. 8. For 36

U [m/s]
most values of thrust, the speed is nearly insensitive to X cg . 35
Only at the highest thrust levels, the rear center of gravity 34
results in higher speeds. The platform clearance at the stern 33
a 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
increases with speed, while the trim decreases. As expected, t [s]
the front location of X cg leads to higher hTE and lower  . 6
The static stability margin is positive in the entire studied 4

hTE [cm]
range of parameters, but it decreases with speed. The system 2
with the rear center of gravity has larger X . By
0
conducting unsteady simulations with initial small
deviations in kinematic parameters, it was verified that the b 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
t [s]
system is also dynamically stable in all equilibrium states
shown in Fig. 8.
1.8

 [deg]
50 1.6
10
1.4
hTE [cm]
U [m/s]

40
1.2
5 c 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
30 t [s]

20 0
a 0.2 0.4 0.6 b 0.2 0.4 0.6 Fig. 9. Responses of (a) hydroplane speed, (b) trailing edge
T/W T/W gap, and (c) platform trim to the wind gust in the following
direction (solid lines) and head direction (dashed lines).
1.5 2 3.4 Power Augmented Ram Vehicle
 X [m]

1.5
 [deg]

1 A new concept of fast, high-payload marine transport is

1 based on a combination of power augmentation ram (PAR)
0.5
0.5 system and a planing catamaran. Schematics of PAR
0 0 vehicles are shown in Figs. 10 and 11. The main
c 0.2 0.4 0.6 d 0.2 0.4 0.6 components include a payload-carrying platform with a
T/W T/W
stern flap, two side hulls, front propulsors, and optional
Fig. 8. Variation of (a) speed, (b) trailing edge gap, (c) stern propulsors and a tail wing. High-momentum air jets
platform trim, and (d) static stability margin with propulsor generated by front propulsors are directed under the
thrust. Solid lines, Xcg=4.3 m; dashed lines, 4.6 m. platform. Partial stagnation of this flow results in high
pressure under the platform that supports the vehicle weight.
As an example of unsteady process, we considered a
Stern propellers and an elevated tail wing can be applied for
response of a hydroplane to wind gusts in both following
producing additional forward thrust and enhancing stability,
and head directions. Results of time-domain simulations are
respectively. PAR vehicles can also operate as amphibious
illustrated in Fig. 9. The wind gust is assumed to take place
landing craft and as fast transports on snow/ice fields.
between 1 s and 5 s. The wind speed linearly increases from
zero to the maximum (20 m/s), then it decreases back to
zero. The hydroplane initial conditions correspond to a
stable motion with X cg = 4.3 m and T / W = 0.35. A
response of the forward speed to this disturbance is slow
(Fig. 9a). It reaches an extreme value at 4.5 s, when the gust
is almost over. It takes a long time for the speed to return
back to the equilibrium value. As expected, the vehicle
speed increases in the following wind and decreases in the
head wind.
Significant heave and pitch motions are present during the Fig. 10. Schematic of a power augmented ram vehicle.
gust action (from 1 s to 5 s), as indicated in Fig. 9b,c. The PAR technology was originally developed as the take-
Besides nearly proportional responses, small damped off assistance mechanism for WIG craft (Maskalik et al.
oscillations are noticeable due to excitation of a stable 1998). Several concepts of PAR vehicles that retain contact
dynamical system. In case of the following wind gust, the with the underlying surface were proposed in the past
platform trailing edge touches the water surface twice (at (Krause 1980, Gallington 1987, Kirillovykh & Privalov
time moments around 3 s). Hydrodynamic lift appearing at 1996). Recently, self-propelled models of PAR craft were
the platform stern provides additional restoring vertical tested and mathematical methods for modelling their static
force and moment.

834 © 2011 American Society of Naval Engineers

performance were developed (Matveev 2009). The The hydrodynamic forces on hulls are determined similarly
understanding of motion stability of multi-component PAR to the previous case of a hydroplane using the added-mass
vehicles is needed for developing robust and efficient strip theory (Martin 1978, Payne 1988). Aerodynamic
transports of this type. viscous drag on the vehicle is included into the model using
empirical correlations. The main components of the vehicle
Tail propellers
y configuration analyzed here are listed in Table 4. The center
Tp Front fans
of gravity is selected in the middle of platform, X cg = 11 m;
hf and the trust of front fan propulsors is fixed. The variable
Platform
Hull x parameters include the flap deflection h f and the thrust of

Flap Water surface

stern propellers T p (Fig. 11).
h
Table 4. Main specifications of PAR vehicle.
Fig. 11. Side view of a PAR vehicle configuration.
Platform length 22 m Fan thrust 29.4kN
A simplified mathematical model involving sub-models for
different system components is applied here for calculating Platform beam 8m Fan angle 30
steady-state longitudinal motion and static stability of a Platform height 1.2 m Flap length 4m
PAR vehicle. The ideal jet theory is utilized for determining Hull beam 1.2 m Hull length 25 m
forces due to high pressure under the platform. When the Hull deadrise angle 25 Overall mass 30 tons
gap d (x) between the side hulls and the water surface is
small, the under-platform airflow becomes nearly one-
dimensional (Rozhdestvensky 2000). The mass conservation The kinematic parameters and the static stability margin are
equation for this flow involves the variation of airflow rate calculated at the stern propulsor thrust values varying from
along the channel and the side leakage, 0 to 3 ton-force, which corresponds to an economic range of
the overall thrust-to-weight ratio 0.1-0.2. The speed of the
  uy  2dk s
x

b

sign U 02  u 2  U 02  u 2  0 , (14) PAR vehicle increases with thrust (Fig. 12a), and at the
same thrust, it is greater for higher flap deflection. However,
there is an upper speed limit due to the absence of
where u is the section-averaged velocity, y and d are the equilibrium states with positive trim angles at high thrust
local distances between the water surface and the platform values. The maximum speeds are between 35 and 40 m/s for
and side hulls, respectively, k s is the contraction coefficient flap deflections 0 and 40 cm. At the intermediate flap
of jets leaking sideways under the hulls (Gurevich 1979), b setting, equilibrium states are found with much higher
is the platform beam, and U 0 is a magnitude of the effective speeds, exceeding 60 m/s. In these states only a small
fraction of the hull stern keeps contact with water.
velocity in the incident airflow that combines a speed of
forward motion U and an effective velocity of air/exhaust 80 100
jets produced by front propulsors (Matveev 2010), 60 80
hTE [cm]
U [m/s]

k jT f 40 60
U0  U 2  , (15)
a A 20 40

0 20
where T f is the thrust of front propulsors, k f is the jet- a 0 10 20 30 b 0 10 20 30
Tp [kN] Tp [kN]
velocity reduction coefficient (taken here as 0.7), and A is
the entrance frontal area of the under-platform channel. 2 10

Due to high pressure formed under the PAR platform, the 1.5
 X [m]
 [deg]

water surface deformation should be also accounted for. 1 5

Here, we utilize the “hydrostatic” approximation suggested
0.5
by Tuck (1984) for the water surface ordinate y w ,
0 0
1 1 c 0 10 20 30 d 0 10 20 30
  w g y w   aU 02   a u 2 , (16) Tp [kN] Tp [kN]
2 2
where  w is the water density and g is the gravitational Fig. 12. Variation of (a) forward speed, (b) trailing edge
gap, (c) trim, and (d) static stability margin with tail
acceleration. This water surface deformation affects the propeller thrust. Solid lines, hf = 0 cm; dashed lines, 20 cm;
platform channel height and side gaps in Eq. (14). Upon dotted lines, 40 cm.
solving the system of Eqs. (14-16), one can determine the
airflow velocity and pressure distribution under the The distance between the flap trailing edge and the
platform, and consequently, find the PAR platform lift and undisturbed water surface hTE increases with speed since
drag forces, as well as the center of pressure. the vehicles rises from water (Fig. 12b). The trim generally
decreases with speed (Fig. 12c), except for the largest flap

© 2011 American Society of Naval Engineers 835

 deflection and a small range at the intermediate flap setting. Wings.” International Journal of Aerodynamics 1(1), pp.
The static stability margin is positive for selected 28-51.
configurations and thrust levels (Fig. 12d). This margin Kornev, N.V. & Matveev, K.I. (2003). “Complex Numerical
monotonically decreases with speed, suggesting eventual Modeling of Dynamics and Crashes of Wing-in-Ground
transition to instability if thrust values higher than studied Vehicles.” Proceedings of the 41st Aerospace Sciences
here are to be applied. In the case of highest speeds above Meeting & Exhibit, Reno, NV, AIAA paper No. 2003-
60 m/s, X drops significantly. In these states the vehicle 0600.
may become dynamically unstable.
Kovrizhnykh, L.D. (1978). “Stability of planing of a plate
The PAR vehicle configuration with associated unsteady with deadrise angle on the incomplete width.”
aero-hydrodynamic phenomena is the most complex among Proceedings of the Central Aero-Hydrodynamic Institute
configurations discussed this paper, since this system has (TSAGI), No. 1972, pp. 15–24.
more distinct elements with significant mutual influence.
The dynamic modelling of PAR vehicles requires further Krause, F.H. (1980). “The Power-Augmented-Ram Landing
development. In particularly, future research (including Craft Concept.” DTNSRDC/ASED Report 80/03,
experimental validation) should address dynamics of the Bethesda, MD.
water surface deformations under the platform and unsteady Martin, M. (1978). “Theoretical Determination of
air leakage under the side hulls. Propoising Instability of High-Speed Planing Boats.”
4.0 Conclusions Journal of Ship Research 22(1), pp. 32-53.
Dynamics of air-supported marine vehicles is very complex Maskalik, A.I., Rozhdestvensky, K.V. & Sinitsyn, D.N.
and insufficiently studied. Different approaches of analyzing (1998). “A View of the Present State of Research in
dynamics and stability of these craft are discussed in this Aero- and Hydrodynamics of Ekranoplans.” Proceedings
paper. The static stability analysis is relatively simple and of RTO AVT Symposium on Fluid Dynamics Problems
should be always preformed at early design stages. The of Vehicles Operating near or in the Air-Sea Interface,
linearized dynamic models are more complete, but even Amsterdam, The Netherlands.
they do not guarantee achievement of high performance of Matveev, K.I. & Dubrovsky, V. (2007). “Aerodynamic
strongly nonlinear AAMV, especially in transient modes Characteristics of a Hybrid Trimaran Model,” Ocean
and unsteady environments. The development and Engineering 34(3-4), pp. 616-620.
validation of fully unsteady and nonlinear methods is Matveev, K.I. (2009). “Study of Power Augmented Ram
needed for accelerating commercialization of novel marine Vehicles.” Proceedings of SNAME Annual Meeting,
transports with air assistance. Providence, RI.
REFERENCES Matveev, K.I. (2010). “Modeling of Steady Motion of PAR
Doctors, L. J. (1997). “Analysis of the Efficiency of an Vehicle on Solid Surfaces.” International Journal of
Ekranocat: a Very High-Speed Catamaran with Aerodynamics 1(1), 52-63.
Aerodynamic Alleviation.” Proceedings of the Payne, P.R. (1988). Design of High-Speed Boats: Planing.
International Conference on Wing In Ground Effect Fishergate, Annapolis, MD.
Craft, RINA, London, UK.
Rozhdestvensky, K.V. (2000). Aerodynamics of a Lifting
Gallington, R.W. (1987). “Power Augmentation of Ram System in Extreme Ground Effect. Springer-Verlag,
Wings.” Proceedings of the Conference on RAM Wings Heidelberg, Germany.
and Ground Effect Craft, RINA, London, UK.
Tuck, E.O. (1984). “A Simple One-Dimensional Theory for
Gurevich, M.I. (1979). Jet Theory of Ideal Fluid. Nauka, Air-Supported Vehicles over Water.” Journal of Ship
Moscow. Research 28(4), pp. 290-292.
Irodov, R.D. (1970). “Criteria of Longitudinal Stability of Voitkunsky, Y.I. (ed.) (1985). Handbook on Ship Theory.
Ekranoplan.” Technical Notes of TSAGI 1(4), pp. 63-74. Sudostroenie, Leningrad, Russia.
Kirillovykh, V.N. & Privalov, E.I. (1996). “Transport Zhukov, V.I. (1993). “Specific Features of Dynamics of
Amphibious Platforms: a New Type of High-Speed Ekranoplan.” Proceedings of the 1st International
Craft.” Proceedings of the Workshop Ekranoplans and Conference on Ekranoplans, St. Petersburg, Russia.
Very Fast Craft, University of New South Wales,
Sydney, Australia. ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
Kornev, N.V., Kleinsorge, L. & Migeotte, G. (2010). This material is based upon work partly supported by the
“Dynamics and Stability of Racing Boats with Air National Science Foundation under Grant No. 1026264.

836 © 2011 American Society of Naval Engineers

View publication stats