FAST 2001: 4th – 6th September 2001, Southampton, UK

EXPERIMENTAL STUDY ON THE EFFICIENCY OF TRIMARAN

CONFIGURATION FOR HIGH-SPEED VERY LARGE SHIPS.
Amedeo Migali, Università degli Studi di Napoli “FEDERICO II”; Italy
Salvatore Miranda, Università degli Studi di Napoli “FEDERICO II”; Italy
Claudio Pensa, Università degli Studi di Napoli “FEDERICO II”; Italy

SUMMARY

At Dipartimento di Ingegneria Navale (DIN) of the Università degli Studi di Napoli “Federico II” a research program is
in course of development to evaluate if a trimaran hull configuration is economically and technically suitable for a large,
high-speed, commercial ship.
This paper presents the results of the hull design for a ship of 28000 m3, that reaches a service speed of 36 ÷ 40 knots.
The hydrodynamic design of the hulls have been carried out by resistance tests in towing tank for Froude numbers 0.285
÷ 0.397 and for various side hull transverse and longitudinal positions.
The results are reported by graphics and tables; the interference effects are analyzed and discussed defining an
interference factor (IF).
Finally, for a selected hull configuration, a trimaran design application is presented for a container ship with a capacity
of 1500 TEUs, speed 40 knots, range 4000 miles.

AUTHORS BIOGRAPHY Fn Froude number

iE half entrance angle
Amedeo Migali. Graduate in 1997; PhD student in IF Interference Factor
Nηaval Architecture at Università degli Studi di LCB longitudinal center of buoyancy
Napoli “Federico II”. Research fields: Design of LCF longitudinal center of floatation
Experiments in towing tank; Hull form design. LWL length of waterline
Salvatore Miranda. Associate Professor of Naval PD power asorbed by pumps
Architecture at Università degli Studi di Napoli PE effective power
“Federico II” since 1988. Member of Powering RRM model residual resistance
Performance Committee of 20th and 21st ITTC. RT total resistance
Research fields: Experimental model tests and s distance between MH and OUT centerline
extrapolation procedures; Theoretical and numerical S wetted surface
study of resistance components; Theory and design of ST stagger
screw propeller. V speed of model or ship
Claudio Pensa. PhD in Naval Architecture obtained in ∆ displacement
1992. Doctor researcher at Università degli Studi di ηD propulsive efficiency
Napoli “Federico II” and professor on annual contract λ scale ship – model
of Naval Architecture since 1997. Research fields: ∇ volume
Dynamic stability; Screw Propeller; Hydrodynamic Subscripts or Apices:
performance and tests analysis in towing tank; Hull T Trimaran
form design; Sailing vessels. MH Main Hull
OUT Outriggers
NOMENCLATURE
1 INTRODUCTION
AM maximum area section
ATR projected transom area In recent years, the Dipartimento di Ingegneria Navale
BWL max. beam of WL (DIN) of the Università di Napoli “Federico II”
CB block coefficient developed a series of study about high-speed transport at
CF frictional resistance coefficient sea. The present paper describes further development of
CL clearance the studies for a large, high speed, transoceanic container
CP prismatic coefficient ship.
CPR After Body prismatic coefficient The ship was selected analysing the potential markets for
CPE Fore Body prismatic coefficient new cargo faster vessels and the demands of the global
CR residuary resistance coefficient market, where the just-in-time services play an important
CRNI no-interference residuary resistance role, particularly for high value or degradable cargo.
coefficient In particular, minimum and maximum Required Freight
CT total resistance coefficient Rate vs ship dimensions is reported in Figure 1 [12]. The
∆CF model-ship correlation coefficient evaluation is for an Atlantic route at 45 knots.
d distance between MH and OUT sterns

© 2001: The Royal Institution of Naval Architects

 FAST 2001: 4th – 6th September 2001, Southampton, UK

1600 characteristics of the trimaran ship have been obtained. In

1400 RFR [$/TEU]
The effect of ∆ on Required Freight Rate that step, the side hull displacement was 5% of the ship
V=45 Kn - Range=4000 NM
displacement, the length of side hulls was 1/3 of the
1200
centre hull length. The B/T value of the main hull was
Min
1000
Max
defined in order to have a small wetted surface; that one
800 of side hulls was defined taking into account both the
600 dimensions of propulsion machinery to install and the
need to reduce the risk of the propeller emersion.
400
Furthermore, the good stability characteristics of the ship
200 ∆ [t] were studied and analysed [13].
0 Taking into account the results of the analysis carried out
10000 15000 20000 25000 30000 35000 and the requirements of experimental tests, it has been
FIG 1: Ship dimensions vs Required Freight Rate necessary to fix the side hulls displacement equal to 7%
of the ship displacement and the length of side hulls
Also considering the concept design for large high about 40% of the centre hull length.
speed ships carried out by other authors (Nigel Gee C. Finally, on the basis of all the considerations carried
Pentamaran, Fastship Atlantic, Bathmax, ecc..), this out, the central and side hulls were designed.
study presents the results for a container ship with the The following table reports their fundamental geometric
volume displacement of 28000 m3, the payload 1500 parameters.
TEUs, the speed 40 knots, the range of about 4000
nautical miles. MH OUT
Higher speeds require a significant reduction of wave LWL 300.80 138.30
resistance that is the most important component of the [m]
ship resistance when the speed increases. Generally, to BWL 19.60 7.30
do this high values of L/∇1/3 or the increase of the [m]
dynamic lift of the hull are required. The last way ∇ [m3] 24160 1960
seems to be unfavourable since, for a given speed, the L/B 15.40 18.90
lift/displacement ratio is reduced as the ship B/T 2.00 1.60
dimensions grow. LCB 142.40 63.50
Therefore, in order to design large ship with speed of LCF 125.70 63.80
40 knots or more at reasonable values of power, a very CP 0.56 0.59
slender hull must be used. The slenderness ratio about L/∇1/3 10.44 11.08
9 seems to be the maximum value over that the hull ATR/AM 0.15 0.38
stability became critical, then the hull configuration iE 5.0 3.6
must be changed and multihulls have to be used. S/∇2/3 7.77 8.47
The trimaran configuration, consisting of a slender
centre hull and two side hulls, seems to be a good Table 1: Main hull and outriggers principle dimensions
solution. The favourable wave interference can and coefficients
compensate the increase of the wetted surface ensuring
the advantages of very slender hulls over a significant Main hull and outrigger forms are round bilge symmetric
range of Froude numbers together with good stability displacement type with transom stern. In Figure 2 are
characteristics. sketched profiles and transversal sections.

2 HULL FORMS AND TRIMARAN

CONFIGURATIONS

In this study, the design of central and side hulls have

been carried out in different steps.
A. In the first step, the geometrical parameters and
the powering performance of high speed hulls tested at FIG : 2 Main hull and outrigger hullforms
DIN towing tank were analysed and compared. A
similar work has been carried out on hulls belonging
to 64 [10] and modified NPL [9] Series. Particularly The values of main hull and outrigger length and volume
the influence of L/∇1/3, CPR, CPE, B/T, L/B, ATR/AM ratios are:
have been considered, together with the longitudinal
position of buoyancy and flotation centres, the run and
LOUT 2∇ OUT
entrance angles of waterline, the buttock heights at WL
MH
= 0.460 = 0.140
afterbody. LWL ∇T
B. Then using geometrical and performance data of
some selected hulls, preliminary values of geometrical

© 2001: The Royal Institution of Naval Architects

FAST 2001: 4th – 6th September 2001, Southampton, UK

In this work definitions of clearance and stagger are For the ship power prediction it has been used model-ship
given as: correlation coefficient ∆CF = 2·10-4.
s
CLEARANCE = 100 MH 4 RESULTS
BWL
d In the Figures 3, 4, 5 Interference Factor curves for all
STAGGER = 100 MH fifteen configurations are presented. It can be noticed
LWL
that, according to speed values, different configurations
determine negative Interference Factors (i.e. favourable
3 EXPERIMENTAL METODOLOGY situations).
In Figure 6, for all tested configurations, Effective Power
The resistance tests have been conducted requirements at 32, 36 and 40 knots are shown.
at the DIN towing tank ( L=136 m, B =9 m, T =4 .5
m). Wooden models have been built in the scale =
62. Resistance tests for isolated hulls were conducted 0.5
in the range of Froude numbers from 0.284 to 0.45 CLEARANCE 1
0.4
while for trimaran configurations Fn range was from
0.284 to 0.398. Model dimensions and minimal test 0.3

velocities determine the minimal Reynolds number as 0.2

IF
11⋅106 e 4⋅106, respectively for the main hull and 0.1
outriggers and therefore tests were conducted without
0.0
turbulence stimulators.
Tested outriggers positions relative to the -0.1

main hull are reported in Table 2. -0.2

A1 B1 C1 D1 E1 Fn MH
-0.3
STAGGER 0 7.4 14.7 22.1 29.5 0.28 0.30 0.32 0.34 0.36 0.38 0.40

CLEARANCE
FIG 3: Interference factor curves at clearance = 200
200 A1 B1 C1 D1 E1
150 A2 B2 C2 D2 E2
100 A3 B3 C3 D3 E3 0.5
IF CLEARANCE 2
Table 2 - Tested clearance and stagger values 0.4

0.3
To calculate ship resistance non-dimensional
0.2
coefficients have been used:
0.1
CT = CF + CR
0.0

The frictional resistance is calculated by ITTC’57 -0.1

correlation line.
-0.2
The frictional resistance coefficient of trimaran ship is A2 B2 C2 D2 E2 Fn MH

given by: -0.3

0.28 0.30 0.32 0.34 0.36 0.38 0.40

CFT = CFMH (SMH/ST) + CFOUT (2SOUT/ST)

FIG 4: Interference factor curves at clearance = 150
where the CFMH, CFOUT, SMH, and SOUT are the
frictional resistance coefficient and wetted surfaces of
main and side hull respectively; ST is the trimaran 0.5
wetted surface. The residuary resistance coefficient is IF
CLEARANCE 3
0.4
then calculated by subtracting CFT from CT.
To evaluate the interference effects of each 0.3

configuration, the following Interference Factor has 0.2

been defined: 0.1

IF = (CR - CRNI) / CRNI 0.0

-0.1
where CRNI is “no-interference” component of the
residuary resistance defined as: -0.2
E3 Fn MH
A3 B3 C3 D3
-0.3
0.28 0.30 0.32 0.34 0.36 0.38 0.40
CRNI = CRMH (SMH/ST) + CROUT (2SOUT/ST)
FIG 5: Interference factor curves at clearance = 100

© 2001: The Royal Institution of Naval Architects

 FAST 2001: 4th – 6th September 2001, Southampton, UK

130
PE [MW ]
In Figure 7 and 8 general layout sketches show the
120
40 kn typical flexibility of trimarans concerning the TEUs
110 dispositions.
CL 1
100
CL 2
90 CL 3
36 kn
80

70

60 32 kn
50

40
ST
30
0 0.05 0.1 0.15 0.2 0.25 0.3

FIG 6: Bare Hall - Effective Power for all test cases

130 FIG 7: General lay-out for A2 configuration

∆ OUT/∆TOT influence on no interference P E
120 P E [MW ]

110

100
40 kn
90 36 kn

80

70

60 ∆OUT/∆TOT
50
0.02 0.03 0.04 0.05 0.06 0.07 0.08 0.09

FIG 9: Iinfluence of side hull displacement on FIG 8: General lay-out for A2 configuration
PE (without interference)
6 CONCLUSIONS
5 GENERAL LAYOUT
From the analysis of the obtained results,
In order to evaluate the acceptability of the hull considerations for the further development of this
dimensions and configurations, general arrangement research can be pointed out as:
plans have been developed estimating the fundamental • it has been confirmed that trimaran performances are
weights and spaces of the ship. By using the data strongly dependent on outrigger positions;
obtained and taking into account the weights of fuel • it is possible to obtain significant total residual
and machinery, the payload has been evaluated for the resistance reduction, realizing favourable interference of
volume displacement before fixed. wave systems: the examined trimaran configurations
The following table reports the main data obtained. allow to achieve reduction of about 20 % of CR with
respect to no-interference condition;
MAIN DATA • figure 6 shows the influence of the stagger on the
LOA [m] 310 resistance for given speeds: at low speed (32 knots)
forward positions of the outrigger seem to give
BMAX [m] 66.5 favourable powering conditions; at higher speeds (40
2
Deck Area [m ] 12216 knots) the side and main hull transoms positioned in the
[t] 28800 same plane give the best performance;
• from the results obtained it could be noticed, at least
VS [kn] 40 from the hydrodynamic point of view, that the considered
Installed Power [kW] 150000 ship needs power plants compatible with the state of the
art and with the available products. To approve this
Payload [t] 9750 conclusion it could be taken into account that the
TEUs 1500 published work [8] allows to assume D values of 0.66 ÷
Range [NM] 4000 0.72 respectively for 36 and 40 knots. In this hypothesis,
including a reasonable value of air resistance (but
Payload / 34% excluding mechanical losses) with the best identified
condition (A1), installed power plants should range from:
Table 3
120 MW (36 knots) and 150 MW (40 knots). For the
configuration proposed for the trimaran ship (A2), and
referring again to data reported in [8], a power of

© 2001: The Royal Institution of Naval Architects

FAST 2001: 4th – 6th September 2001, Southampton, UK

140 ÷ 160 MW is required at a speed of 40 knots, 12. MIGALI A., ‘Analisi tecnico economica del
assuming η D = 0.68 ÷ 0.70 . trasporto merci ad alta velocità’ DIN Internal report,
Napoli, 2001
Further work should regard:
13. MIGALI A., ‘Stabilità del trimarano allo stato
• an extension of tested cases (clearance, stagger); integro’ DIN Internal report, Napoli, 2001
• new devices to test lighter models characterised 14. HELGESEN P., ‘High Speed Cargo Transport at
by ∇OUT/∇T ≤ 0.05. Figure 9 shows the influence of See’ HSMV Capri, 1999
∇OUT/∇T on no-interference values of PE, obtained by
the experimental data and different values of the 8 APPENDIX
model scale ratios. The curves show that the use of
lower values of ∇OUT/∇T is advisable; In the following table CR values of the fifteen
• to use CFD codes to optimise preliminary new configurations tested are shown.
hull forms; particularly to examine deeply the
influence of ATR/AM and CPE. CLEARANCE 1
FnMH A1 B1 C1 D1 E1
7 REFERENCES CR*1000
0.28 1.26 1.20 1.01 0.80 0.76
1. PATTISON D.R., ZHANG J.W., ‘Trimaran 0.29 1.26 1.20 1.00 0.76 0.77
Ships’, RINA Spring Meetings Paper, April 1994 0.30 1.24 1.20 1.00 0.73 0.77
2. BEGOVIC E., MIGALI A., PENSA C., 0.31 1.20 1.19 1.00 0.75 0.82
‘Experimental Study on the Resistance of Trimaran 0.32 1.13 1.15 1.01 0.81 0.89
Hull Configuration’, NAV 2000, Venezia, September 0.33 1.05 1.11 1.03 0.88 0.98
2000 0.34 0.98 1.07 1.07 0.96 1.08
3. HELASHARJU H., SUNDELL T., RINTALA S., 0.35 0.91 1.03 1.12 1.03 1.18
KARPPINEN T., ‘Resistance and Seakeeping 0.36 0.88 1.02 1.18 1.14 1.28
Characteristics of Fast and Large Multihull Vessels’ 0.37 0.90 1.04 1.27 1.28 1.39
0.38 0.93 1.09 1.36 1.42 1.49
FAST ’95, Lübeck – Travemünde, September 1995
0.39 0.99 1.18 1.47 1.58 1.62
4. LINDSTROM J., SIRVIÖ J., RANTALA A.Y.,
0.40 1.04 1.26 1.59 1.75 1.73
"Superslender Monohull with Outriggers", FAST ’95,
CLEARANCE 2
Lübeck – Travemünde, September 1995
FnMH A2 B2 C2 D2 E2
5. MIZINE I., AMROMIN E., ‘Large High Speed
CR*1000
Trimaran - Concept Optimization’, FAST 99, Seattle, 0.28 1.13 1.14 1.07 0.93 0.70
September 1999 0.29 1.16 1.18 1.03 0.88 0.71
6. ROGER L., SCHAFFER P.E., ‘The Economic 0.30 1.20 1.20 1.00 0.84 0.71
Challanger of High-Speed, Long-Range Sea 0.31 1.18 1.17 0.98 0.81 0.74
Transportation’ FAST 99, Seattle, September 1999 0.32 1.16 1.14 0.96 0.83 0.78
7. ACKERS B.B., MICHEAL T.J., TREDENNICK 0.33 1.11 1.12 0.98 0.88 0.84
O.W., LANDEN H.C., MILLER E.R., SODOWSKY, 0.34 1.07 1.10 1.00 0.94 0.91
HADLER J.B., ‘An Investigation of the Resistance 0.35 1.04 1.12 1.07 1.01 1.01
Characteristics of Powered Trimaran Side-Hull 0.36 1.03 1.16 1.17 1.14 1.16
Configuration’, SNAME Transactions, Vol. 105, 1997 0.37 1.05 1.22 1.27 1.28 1.35
8. SVENSSON R., BRIZZOLARA S., GROSSI L., 0.38 1.08 1.32 1.38 1.42 1.51
‘Trial result including wake measurement from the 0.39 1.13 1.45 1.49 1.57 1.64
world’s largest waterjet installations’, RINA, 0.40 1.18 1.59 1.58 1.71 1.74
International Conference on Waterjet Propulsion, CLEARANCE 3
Amsterdam, October 1998 FnMH A3 B3 C3 D3 E3
9. MOLLAND A.F., WELLICOME J.F., COUSER CR*1000
P.R., ‘Resistence Experiments on a Systematic Series 0.28 1.02 1.15 1.12 0.92 0.79
of High Speed Displacement Catamaran Forms: 0.29 1.06 1.12 1.11 0.91 0.79
Variation of Length-Displacement Ratio and Breadth- 0.30 1.09 1.10 1.12 0.90 0.79
Draught Ratio’ RINA Transactions, 1995 0.31 1.10 1.08 1.12 0.91 0.80
10. YEH H.Y.H., ‘Series 64 Resistance Experiments 0.32 1.09 1.06 1.12 0.93 0.82
on High-Speed Displacement Forms’ SNAME, Maine 0.33 1.09 1.07 1.13 0.96 0.89
Technology, July 1965 0.34 1.08 1.08 1.14 1.04 0.99
0.35 1.10 1.13 1.18 1.14 1.10
11. AVIS J., HOFFMAN R., MCGREER D. E.,
0.36 1.12 1.19 1.24 1.23 1.22
SIRVIO J., ‘Bathmax 1500: High Speed Containership
0.37 1.15 1.27 1.32 1.33 1.35
– Design Optimization And Model Test Results -‘
0.38 1.19 1.36 1.40 1.41 1.47
FAST Seattle, September 1999
0.39 1.24 1.45 1.50 1.51 1.59
0.40 1.29 1.55 1.60 1.62 1.70

© 2001: The Royal Institution of Naval Architects