Comput Mech
DOI 10.1007/s00466-017-1505-1
ORIGINAL PAPER
Accurate prediction of complex free surface flow around a high
speed craft using a single-phase level set method
Riccardo Broglia1 · Danilo Durante1
Received: 23 May 2017 / Accepted: 25 October 2017
© Springer-Verlag GmbH Germany, part of Springer Nature 2017
Abstract This paper focuses on the analysis of a challeng-
ing free surface flow problem involving a surface vessel
moving at high speeds, or planing. The investigation is
performed using a general purpose high Reynolds free sur-
face solver developed at CNR-INSEAN. The methodology
is based on a second order finite volume discretization of
the unsteady Reynolds-averaged Navier–Stokes equations
(Di Mascio et al. in A second order Godunov—type scheme
for naval hydrodynamics, Kluwer Academic/Plenum Pub-
lishers, Dordrecht, pp 253–261, 2001; Proceedings of 16th
international offshore and polar engineering conference, San
Francisco, CA, USA, 2006; J Mar Sci Technol 14:19–29,
2009); air/water interface dynamics is accurately modeled by
a non standard level set approach (Di Mascio et al. in Com-
put Fluids 36(5):868–886, 2007a), known as the single-phase
level set method. In this algorithm the governing equations
are solved only in the water phase, whereas the numerical
domain in the air phase is used for a suitable extension of the
fluid dynamic variables. The level set function is used to track
the free surface evolution; dynamic boundary conditions are
enforced directly on the interface. This approach allows to
accurately predict the evolution of the free surface even in the
presence of violent breaking waves phenomena, maintaining
the interface sharp, without any need to smear out the fluid
properties across the two phases. This paper is aimed at the
prediction of the complex free-surface flow field generated
by a deep-V planing boat at medium and high Froude num-
B Riccardo Broglia
riccardo.broglia@cnr.it
Danilo Durante
danilo.durante@cnr.it
1 under analysis in the current work, the ship hull is charac-
CNR-INSEAN, Marine Technology Research Institute,
National Research Council, Via di Vaellerano 139,
00128 Rome, Italy
bers (from 0.6 up to 1.2). In the present work, the planing hull
is treated as a two-degree-of-freedom rigid object. Flow field
is characterized by the presence of thin water sheets, several
energetic breaking waves and plungings. The computational
results include convergence of the trim angle, sinkage and
resistance under grid refinement; high-quality experimental
data are used for the purposes of validation, allowing to com-
pare the hydrodynamic forces and the attitudes assumed at
different velocities. A very good agreement between numer-
ical and experimental results demonstrates the reliability of
the single-phase level set approach for the predictions of high
Froude numbers flows.
Keywords Planing hull · Ship hydrodynamics · Fluid/rigid
body interaction · Free surface · Level set
1 Introduction
The study of semi-displacement and planing vessels is an
actual topic since the wide applications range, spanning from
sport competitions to patrol boats. From a physical point of
view, the high speeds reached by these vessels imply a com-
plex interaction between the structure and the free surface
of the fluid with a complicate wave pattern which develops
around and downstream the ship itself. The impact of the
vessel on the water surface during its motion gives rise to
the formation of water jets with significant air entrapment
and bubbles production. Actually the side jet is substantially
definable in terms of a spray sheet, the dynamics of which
is highly difficult to study both in experimental and numer-
ical approaches. In addition, in luxury yachts like the one
terized by the presence of chines on the side walls, which
makes the dynamics of these water jets even more compli-
123

cated due to both high non linear effects (such as strong
breaking wave phenomena) and topological complications
(e.g. plungings and ricochets). Indeed, these chines, other to
aesthetic aspects, are intended to throw sprays away from
the sides of the hull, preventing the rise of the water up the
hull sides. Their role relies also in creating a smooth ride
in seaway and, for those with a wide flat area (called chine
flats) to significantly contribute in providing an additional lift
allowing the vessel to acquire a planing regime.
Planing vessel have been widely investigated by means of
both experimental and theoretical studies; early experimen-
tal studies date back to 1970s with the study of [27,50] on
prismatic hulls. More recently, Judge and Ikeda [35] tested
a four foot berglass planing hull model in calm water, regu-
lar and irregular waves. For each test run, the model motion
and the water spray were recorded using high-speed video,
the impact pressures were recorded using pressure sensors
arrayed on the model bottom, the model accelerations were
recorded at the bow. The examination of the wave impacts of
the model was carried out as a sequence of individual impact
events. Begovic et al. [5] appraised the effect of deadrise
angle variation along the hull length on seakeeping character-
istics in regular waves for one monohedral and three warped
models. The deadrise angle was considered linearly vary-
ing along the hull length with the aim to get an insight on
motion and acceleration properties connected with warped
hull forms and to provide a benchmark for CFD of plan-
ing hulls. In [28] calm water experiments were performed
on a Deep-V planing craft model, with the main aim to
support development of computational fluid dynamics codes
for high-speed, small-craft applications. The measurements
included resistance, sinkage and trim, hull pressure, longitu-
dinal wave-cuts, and bow-wave and stern-wake topologies.
Tests were conducted over a Froude number range of 0.31–
2.5. Some numerical simulation was also performed utilizing
the numerical flow analysis (NFA) code and compared to the
model test results.
Most of the theoretical/numerical studies were based on
the slender body assumption or on simplified (potential) the-
ory [26,49,60,68], with only few attempts made to face the
full three-dimensional problem [36,37]. By using simplified
2D + t theory, the free surface bow flow around a fast and
fine ship in calm water was also studied by Landrini et al.
[38] with an emphasis on generation and evolution of the
breaking and splashing bow wave.
In this context the use of computational fluid dynamics
(CFD) tools for a deeper investigation of the hydrodynamic of
high speed planing hull could be extremely helpful. Indeed,
even if highly demanding in terms of CPU time requirements,
they have been demonstrated to be mature enough for the
analysis of the performances of displacement ships (see for
example [39,40,48,55,58]). Nevertheless, the application of
CFD based approach to the study of high speed planing craft
123
Comput Mech
is still rather limited. Fu et al. [29] exploited an immersed
boundary approach together with a VOF method [the numer-
ical flow analysis (NFA) code] for the study of the forces
and moments on a deep-V planing craft. The impact of a
wedge on the free surface was numerically simulated and
experimentally validated as test case.
Planing hull validation studies were performed in [42]
using an unsteady Reynolds averaged Navier–Stokes
(uRaNSe) based solver, using the historical benchmark
experiments of Fridsma. Simulation included deep and shal-
low water tests, in both fixed and free sinkage and trim
conditions, as well as regular and irregular head waves in
deep water. Detailed verification and validation were reported
with satisfactory results. Recently, Akkerman et al. [2] made
a numerical investigation at different Froude numbers on
the Fridsma planing hull through a Arbitrary Lagrangian
Eulerian Variational Multiscale (ALE-VMS) approach. A
comparison with the experimental data showed a very good
agreement for low Froude numbers, while larger discrepan-
cies (of the order of 10–12%) are found on high speed cases.
In [30] results from a collaborative research effort involving
the computational fluid dynamics (CFD) codes CFDShip-
Iowa and NFA were presented and discussed to examine
the hydrodynamic forces, moments, hull pressures, accel-
erations, motions, and the multiphase free surface flow field
generated by a planing craft at high-speed (Froude number
Fr = 1.8−2.1) in calm water and waves. The steady forward
speed test were performed for two kind of hulls: a prismatic
and a double-stepped planing hulls. The sinkage and resis-
tance were in good agreement for the two codes for the last
configuration. The irregular wave simulations were carried
out with CFDShip-Iowa and compared with experiments,
showing a well modelled overall behaviour. Moreover, in [7]
an extensive study using an up to date RANSE VOF solver
with free surface tracking capability was performed, testing
the method on a wedge shaped prismatic planing hull, with
a constant deadrise angle of 20◦ , systematically varying the
running trim angle and wetted length. Results obtained, in
terms of drag and lift forces as well as longitudinal trim-
ming moment, were compared with available experimental
and semi-empirical theories. Very recently, some interest-
ing studies concerned the fluid structure interaction (FSI)
problems: full scale validation for one-way FSI of composite-
panel slamming of a fast planing craft was shown in [63]
and extended to two-way FSI in [64]. FSI approach included
tightly coupled (at inner iteration level) partitioned CFD and
computational structural dynamics (CSD) solvers. CFD was
solved by URANS, whereas CSD was solved by finite ele-
ments and modal expansion. Simulations were conducted at
significant deterministic conditions for head and following
waves, and compared to stochastic full-scale trials.
The objectives of the present paper are to investigate the
flow field around a high speed planning hull and to demon-
Comput Mech
strate the capability of the in-house numerical tool (χ navis) in
dealing with challenging problems where energetic unsteady
wave breaking phenomena characterize the wave pattern. The
numerical solver is based on a finite volume discretization of
the uRaNS equations for high Reynolds number free surface
flows around complex geometries. The scheme is globally
second order accurate. Several turbulence models have been
implemented in the code, ranging from the one equation
Spalart and Allmaras model [56], to the two equation k−ε
model [13] as well as DES and DDES hybrid models. Com-
plex geometries and multiple bodies in relative motion are
handled by a dynamical overlapping grid approach [17]. High
performance computing is achieved by an efficient shared and
distributed memory parallelization [11]. Free surface flows
are handled by a single-phase level set approach [18]; in this
methodology the zero level of a level set function is used as a
tracking device to locate the free surface position. The gov-
erning equations are solved in the water phase only, whilst a
suitable extrapolation of the fluid dynamics variables is per-
formed in the air phase. It has to be highlighted that, the air
phase is non-physical, therefore, by definition, this methodol-
ogy can be only applied when any air effect can be neglected.
Free surface dynamical boundary conditions are enforced
directly on the zero level of the function. Consequently, the
interface is maintained intrinsically sharp regardless the com-
plexity of the free surface shape and of its dynamics, with
an accuracy comparable with Lagrangian or ALE formula-
tions (see for example [3,15]), or interface capturing based
mathods accomplished with suitable discretization schemes
for the treatment of the density discontinuity [45,46].
The single phase methodology has been extensively
applied to describe several marine hydrodynamic problems,
such as free surface flows in presence of wave breaking phe-
nomena (see for example [18]), maneuvering [10,12,22] and
sea keeping [20] studies of surface vessels, as well as subma-
rine [23], catamarans [9,67] and offshore structures [43]. In
previous works [8,33], the code has been applied to similar
problems studied here; in particular, in these works the effect
of the impact of a symmetric and an asymmetric wedge on the
free surface with the analysis of the wave pattern generated
and the jet dynamics have been investigated.
In the present paper, the towing simulations of a semi-
displacement vessel are carried out for Fr spanning from 0.6
to 1.2; sinkage and trim, and resistance curves are evaluated
and compared with experimental results kindly provided by
Azimut–Benetti s.p.a. Results show a very good agreement
with experimental values, allowing an accurate analysis of
the problem under consideration and proving the capabilities
of the single-phase level set approach in dealing with these
rather complex problem. The analysis of the surface pressure
shows that the flow field is characterized by localized high
pressure values which give rise to a energetic water sheet and,
consequently, a rather complex wave pattern. Nevertheless,
it is shown that the code is able to correctly reproduce the
very complex phenomenon of the formation of the jet, the
consequent wave breaking dynamics and the multiple splash
ups and ricochets. The solver is also shown to be able to
accurately reproduce the high non-linear flow field around the
chines, where the spray sheet impinges and rapidly deviates
far away the side of the vessel.
In the following section the adopted numerical model is
reported in details. After the presentation of the geometry,
the test cases and the numerical parameters, a section with
the numerical results follows. Firstly, integral quantities such
as total resistance, trim and sinkage are analyzed, including a
rigorous assessment of the verification and validation of the
numerical estimations. Secondly, the flow field is analyzed,
with the emphasis on the surface pressure and the wave pat-
tern. Conclusions and some observation of future research
activities will close the paper.
2 Mathematical model
The high-Reynolds turbulent motion of an incompressible
(constant density) viscous fluid can be described by the well
known unsteady Reynolds averaged Navier–Stokes equa-
tions (uRaNSe). They express the conservation of the mass
and momentum, therefore, considering a fixed control vol-
ume V bounded by the surface S(V), they can be written in
integral vectorial form as
 
∂
 q dV + [F c (q) − F d (q)] dS = 0 (1)
∂t V S (V )
where q = ( p, u, v, w)T is the state variables vector for
incompressible flows,  = diag (0, 1, 1, 1) and
F c = (u l nl ; u 1 u l nl + pn 1 ; u 2 u l nl + pn 2 ; u 3 u l nl + pn 3 )T
F d = (0; τ1l nl ; τ2l nl ; τ3l nl )T (2)
are the convective (inviscid and pressure) and diffusive nor-
mal fluxes through the surface S(V) with outward unit normal
n. A reference length L and velocity U∞ have been cho-
sen to make the previous equations non-dimensional. u i is
the ith Cartesian component of the velocity vector (in the
following, they will be also denoted as u, v, and w); p is
a new variable related to the pressure P and the acceler-
ation of gravity g (parallel to the vertical axis z, positive
√
upward) by p = P + (z − z FS )/Fr 2 , Fr = U∞ / gL being
the Froude number and z FS is the (undisturbed) free sur-
face quote. Finally, τi j = νt (∂ j u i + ∂i u j ) is the stress tensor,
νt = 1/Re + νT is the global kinematic viscosity, with
Re = U∞ L/ν the Reynolds number, ν the kinematic vis-
cosity and νT the turbulent viscosity. In the present work, the
turbulent viscosity has been calculated by means of the [56]
one-equation model.
123

The problem is closed by enforcing appropriate conditions
at physical and computational boundaries. On solid walls,
the velocity is set equal to zero and zero normal gradient
is enforced on the pressure field; at the (fictitious) inflow
boundary, velocity is set to the undisturbed flow value and
the pressure is extrapolated from the inside; on the contrary,
the dynamic pressure is set to zero at the outflow, whereas
the velocity is extrapolated from inner points. At the free
surface, whose location is one of the unknowns of the prob-
lem, the dynamic boundary condition enforces the continuity
of stresses across the surface; if the effects of the air are
neglected, the dynamic boundary condition reads
κ z − z FS
p = τi j n i n j + + τi j n i t 1j = 0
We Fr 2
τi j n i t 2j = 0 (3)
where We = ρ U∞ 2 l/σ is the Weber number (ρ being the
density of the fluid and σ the surface tension coefficient) and
κ the surface curvature; n, t1 and t2 are the surface normal
and two tangential unit vectors, respectively. The kinematic
boundary condition states that the free surface is a material
surface; therefore, by defining its location as the zero level of
a three-dimensional function F(x, y, z, t) = 0, its unknown
configuration can be determined by the following evolution
equation
D F(x, y, z, t)
=0 (4)
Dt
Initial conditions have to be specified for the velocity field
and for the free surface configuration
u i (x, y, z, 0) = u i0 (x, y, z) F(x, y, z, 0) = F0 (x, y, z) (5)
2.1 Single-phase level set approach
The free surface is handled by means of a single-phase let
set approach; the principal features of this approach are
described here, the interested reader will find a more exhaus-
tive treatise on [18].
In what follows, we will generally refer to air and water
phases in order to distinguish between fluids with different
densities/viscosities; clearly, no assumption on the physical
or chemical properties of such fluids are made a priori. It
is important to remark that the only assumption is that the
non-resolved phase is constituted by a fluid not affecting the
dynamics of underlying flow field. However, the methodol-
ogy is generalizable and applicable to a problem regarding
two different fluids respecting the assumption made.
In the level set approach [44,54,59], a smooth function
φ(x, y, z, t), whose zero level coincides with the free surface,
is defined in the whole physical domain (i.e. in both liquid
123
Comput Mech
and air phase) as a signed distance from the free surface,
conventionally assumed positive in air phase and negative in
the water phase. This function is enforced to be a material
surface for t > 0
∂φ(x, y, z, t)
+ u · ∇φ(x, y, z, t) = 0
∂t (6)
φ(x, y, z, 0) = d(x, y, z)
Here u is the velocity of the underlying flow and d(x, y, z) is
the signed distance from the free surface at t = 0. The zero
level of φ(x, y, z, t), being convected by the flow through
Eq. (4), will always represent the free surface location. How-
ever, the solution of the problem (6) does not guarantee that
the function φ(x, y, z, t) remains a distance function for
t > 0; in order to ensure this property, in the so–called re-
initialization step [54], φ(x, y, z, t) is replaced, at each time
step, by a new function with the same zero level of the for-
mer one and field values that correspond to the actual signed
distance from the interface. With a notation abuse, the same
symbol φ will be used for both functions. This new function
is found as the steady state solution of the so-called Eikonal
equation
∂φ
+ sign(φ)(|∇φ| − 1) = 0 (7)
∂t
It is important to highlight that, due to the hyperbolic nature
of Eq. (7), the solution evolves as a distance close to the zero
of the level set function first, then it propagates outward in
the whole domain [59,62]. Since in the level set approach the
values of φ(x, y, z, t) are required only in a thin region very
close to the interface, it is not mandatory to resolve to high-
light that, due to the hyperbolic nature of Eq. (7) throughout
the whole computational domain: i.e. Eq. (7) is not integrated
up to achieving a steady state solution [18,53].
In the single-phase level set method only the liquid phase
of the fluid is computed, with the zero level of φ(x, y, z, t)
used to locate the actual position of the free surface. It has
to be highlighted that the level set function is intrinsically
treated as a sharp interface; this allows to accurately describe
the free surface with a limited number of grid points, which is
of paramount importance when dealing with high Reynolds
number flows around complex geometries. One the contrary,
due to stability and robustness reasons, in the classical two-
phase approach the size of the transition region between water
and air has to be smeared out in about 10 grid cells [34]; this
transition zone can result excessively thick, given the limited
number of points available.
As it will be shown in the following, in the single level
set approach, the values of the velocity and pressure in the
air phase are not required. Nevertheless, their estimation is
of great importance during the iterative procedure at those
points that change their physical state from air to water, for
Comput Mech

which an initial guess is needed. Values in the air phase is

simply computed as an extension of the velocity and pressure
fields from the water region

∇φ · ∇u i = 0 i = 1, 2, 3
(8)
∇φ · ∇ p = 0

where similar relations hold for any other field variable (such
as the variables related to the turbulence model). As it has
been demonstrated in [1], velocity extrapolation in the air
region with Eq. (8), guarantees that the level set function Fig. 1 Computational domain. Purple: water cells; Yellow: air cells.
evolves as a distance function also at the interface air cells. Full symbols: interface cells (either water or air cells)
It has been found more convenient to split the level set
function as
3 Numerical model
φ(x, y, z, t) = ϕ(x, y, z, t) + (z − z FS ) (9)
The main idea underlying the method is based on the decom-
with z the vertical axis aligned with the acceleration of grav- position of the physical domain in three phases: the water,
ity, positive upward; the function ϕ(x, y, z, t) represents the the free-surface and the air. Once identified the free-surface
disturbance of the free surface from the unperturbed (flat) position as the zero level of the level-set function φ, the
configuration. Therefore, with this position, inflow bound- fluid equations are solved in the water phase only, whilst
ary condition for the function ϕ(x, y, z, t) simply reduces to in the air phase the solution is extrapolated. The kinematic
ϕ(x, y, z, t) = 0. and dynamic boundary conditions are also enforced on the
With the replacement of φ(x, y, z, t) according to the free-surface. In order to keep the level-set function φ as the
relation (9) the equation of the level set function is straight- distance function, a reinitialization step is periodically per-
forward changed as formed by solving the Eikonal equation. The time evolution
of the solution is obtained as the steady condition in the
∂ϕ pseudo-time. The algorithm is deeply described in the fol-
+ u · ∇ϕ + w = 0 lowing sub-sections.
∂t (10)
ϕ(x, y, z, 0) = d(x, y, z) − (z − z FS )
3.1 The general algorithm
whereas, the Eikonal equation becomes
  The system of equations (1) is approximated by a finite vol-
∂ϕ ∇φ ume technique, with pressure and velocity co-located at the
+ sign(φ) · ∇ϕ
∂t |∇φ| cell center. The fluid domain D is partitioned into Nl struc-
 
1 ∂φ tured adjacent or overlapped blocks Dl , each one subdivided
+ sign(φ) −1 =0 (11) into Ni × N j × Nk disjoint hexahedrals Dijk
l . As sketched in
|∇φ| ∂z
Fig. 1, in the computational domain are congruently identi-
By defining uφ = sign(φ)∇φ/|∇φ| and b = sign(φ)(φz / fied three regions:
|∇φ| − 1) the previous relation can be rewritten as
(a) water all those cells in the liquid phase for which none
∂ϕ of the six neighbouring is in the air phase;
+ uφ · ∇ϕ + b = 0 (12)
∂t (b) air cells in the air phase and none of the six neighbouring
is in the liquid phase;
which possesses a structure clearly similar to the Eq. (10) (c) interface those cells (either air or water) for which one
and can be solved by using the same scheme. of the six neighbouring is in the other phase.
Finally, for the velocity and pressure extrapolations out-
side the water region, considering the position (9), the For water cells, the residual on each control volume is
following equations hold computed as an interface flux balance; conservation laws are
applied to the (i jk)th control volume
∂u i
∇ϕ · ∇u i + =0 i = 1, 2, 3
∂z (13)  6   
∂p ∂
∇ϕ · ∇ p + = 0. Λ q dV + F cs (q) − F ds (q) dS = 0 (14)
∂z ∂t Vijk
s=1 Ss

123
 Comput Mech

where Ss is the sth face of the finite volume Dijk , whose mea- the level set function being the distance from the interface
sure is Vijk . Defining
 the volume average of the unknowns (the subscripts A and W denote the volume in the air and
1 water phase, respectively).
q as q = q dV , the semi-discrete system of equa-
Vijk Vijk The tangential velocity is simply extrapolated along the
tions can be rewritten as normal to the free surface, as in the Eq. (8). The remaining
 dynamic boundary conditions for the tangential stresses in (3)
∂q  1 are explicitly enforced when computing the viscous fluxes at
Λ  + Rijk = 0 (15)
∂t ijk Vijk the sth interface.

being Rijk the flux balance on the current control volume Vijk . 3.2 Level set function and extrapolation
The surface integrals are evaluated by means of the (second
order) trapezoidal rule. In the viscous fluxes, the computation The evolution equation for the level set function and the
of the velocity gradients, required for the computation of the velocity/pressure extrapolation are discretized by using an
stress tensor at the cell interface, are computed by means of ENO technique similar to the one used for the bulk flow;
a standard second order centered finite volume approxima- the Eq. (10) is applied to both water and air cells, extrapola-
tion [32]. tion equations are considered only for the air cells, being the
For the inviscid part, the fluxes are computed as the solu- conservation variables in the control volumes of water phase
tion of a Riemann problem F cs = F c (q s ) = F c (q l , q r ); governed by the equations (15). Equation (10) is rewritten in
right and left states can be estimated by several schemes terms of curvilinear coordinates
implemented in the solver, ranging from the first order total
  
variation diminishing (TVD) scheme, the second order essen- ∂ϕ  l ∂ϕ
+ U + wijk = 0 (19)
tially non oscillatory (ENO) scheme [31], the third-order ∂t ijk ∂ξl ijk
upwind-based scheme [61] and the classical fourth-order
centered scheme (see [19]). Moreover, a second order accu-
being U l |ijk = (u i ∂i ξl )ijk the contra-variant components of
rate solution of the Riemann problem [16] is used in place of
the velocity vector at the (i jk)th cell center. The derivatives of
the exact one, which should be computed iteratively, given
the function ϕ(x, y, z, t) at cell center ∂ϕ/∂ξl |ijk is approx-
the non-linearity of the problem.
imated by an upwind based scheme. The Eikonal and the
Special attention must be paid for the water interface
extrapolation equations are discretized in a similar way; in
cells, for which, convective and viscous fluxes at the inter-
particular, the Eikonal equation reads
face between the control volumes in the water phase and in
the air phase (as for example for the interface s in Fig. 1),   
∂ϕ  l ∂ϕ
must be evaluated in accordance with the first equation of + Uφ + bijk = 0 (20)
∂t ijk ∂ξl ijk
the dynamic boundary conditions (3); the normal velocity at
the cell interface is computed by solving a Riemann problem  
with a constant pressure. First, the pressure at the free surface sign(φ) ∂φ ∂ξl
being Uφl |ijk = , whereas the extrapo-
is computes as |∇φ| ∂ xq ∂ xq ijk
lation equations become
κ z − z FS
pFS = τi j n i n j + + (16)    
We Fr 2 ∂ϕ ∂ξl ∂ u
U lext + =0
 ∂ξl ijk  ∂z ∂ξl ijk
(21)
l ∂ϕ ∂ξl ∂ p
with the derivatives on the right hand side computed by cen-
tered approximation. Then, the pressure at the sth interface Pext + =0
∂ξl ijk ∂z ∂ξl ijk
is extrapolated from the inner points (i.e. from values in the
water phase) as
being
1    
ps = p W + ( pFS − pW ) (17) ∂ξl ∂ u ∂ξl
η U lext |ijk = ∇u|s = (22)
∂ xs ijk ∂ xs ∂ xs ijk
with pW the pressure in water interface cell and with η the
segment fraction (see Fig. 1) below the free surface and
   
|φW | ∂ξl ∂ p ∂ξl
η=
l
Pext |ijk = ∇ p|s = . (23)
(18) ∂ xs ijk ∂ xs ∂ xs ijk
2 |φW − φA|
1

123
Comput Mech

3.3 Temporal integration step (m + 1) by equations (25). The correction of the level
set function is then evaluated by means of Eq. (26). The
Given the solution at time instants t n and t n−1 , the solution procedure is carried on in the pseudo time until either a fixed
at the new time step is computed by the time integration convergence or a maximum number of iterations are reached
of Eqs. (14) and (21) for the control volumes in water and (see the flowchart depicted in Fig. 2). Convergence toward
in air phase, respectively. The procedure is depicted with the steady state solution in the pseudo time is accelerated by
the diagram in Fig. 2. The time derivative in the system of a local time step Δτijk technique and a multi-grid method
equations (14) is approximated by a second order accurate [6,25].
three-points backward finite difference formula, yielding to After the solution at time step n + 1 has been found, a
further correction step for the level set function is performed
3q n+1 n n−1
ijk − 4q ijk + q ijk 1 in order to increase the robustness of the algorithm in par-
 + Rn+1 = 0 (24)
ticularly critical conditions (with the free surface evolving
2Δt Vijk ijk
rapidly)
The evolution equations (24) for the cells in the water
phase, together with the extrapolation equations (21) are m+1
ϕijk − ϕijk
m m+1
3ϕijk n + ϕ n−1
− 4ϕijk ijk
solved in a strongly coupled form through a pseudo-time +
approach; time advancement in the pseudo-time is performed Δτ 2Δt
with an Euler implicit integration scheme, i.e. n+1 ∂ϕ m+1
  n+1
+ Ul + wijk =0 (27)
q m+1 3q m+1 n−1 ijk ∂ξl ijk
ijk − q ijk ijk − 4q ijk + q ijk
m n

In water Λ +Λ
Δτ 2Δt
1 Also for this equation, iterations in the pseudo time are pur-
+ Rm+1
ijk =0
Vijk sued until convergence to steady state or a maximum number
⎧ m+1 m ∂ϕ n+1  ∂ξ ∂ u m of iterations are reached.
⎪ uijk − um 
⎪
⎪
ijk
+ U lext   +
l
=0
⎨ Δτ ijk ∂ξm ijk ∂z ∂ξl ijk As already discussed, the evolution equation (7) does not
In air m ∂ϕ     ensure that the level set function remains a distance function.
⎪
⎪
m+1
pijk − pijk
m n+1
∂ξl ∂ p m
⎪
⎩ l  
+ Pext  + =0
ijk ∂ξm ijk
Δτ ∂z ∂ξl ijk Hence, the correction step is followed by the re-initialization
procedure where, starting from the zero level of ϕ(x, y, z, t)
(25)
at time step t = t n+1 , the level set function is replaced by the
where the superscripts n and m denote the physical and signed distance function, which is computed by the integra-
dual time levels, τ being the pseudo time and Λ = tion in a fictitious time τ of the Eikonal equation (20) [52]
diag (1/β, 1, 1, 1), with β the pseudo-compressibility fac-
tor (see [14]). The previous system of equations is solved n+1
ϕijk − ϕijk
n n ∂ϕ n
  + bn = 0
+ Uφl  (28)
using a [4] scheme. Δτ ijk ∂ξl ijk
ijk
The solution of the flow field equations (25) requires the
knowledge of the free surface function (i.e. the knowledge where Δτ is estimated through the CFL condition. The
of ϕ n+1 ) and vice versa. A strongly coupled approach is iterations are pursued until either the steady state solution
used; the adopted algorithm is based on a predictor–corrector in fictitious time or a maximum number of iterations are
procedure, where the prediction of the level set function is reached.
obtained by the integration of Eq. (10). Similarly to the field
equations, the integration in the physical time is carried out
by a three-points backward finite difference approximation, 4 Hull characteristics, numerical set-up and test
whereas, an implicit Euler scheme is adopted for the integra- matrix
tion in the pseudo-time

m+1 m+1 n + ϕ n−1 Simulation results are provided for the planing hull in straight
ϕijk − ϕijk
m 3ϕijk − 4ϕijk ijk
+ ahead advancement. The vessel travels in otherwise calm
Δτ 2Δt water; the speed, after an initial transit state of acceleration
n 
 ∂ϕ m+1 from the rest, is kept constant at the target velocity until a
+ Ul + wijk
n
=0 (26)
ijk ∂ξl ijk steady state condition is achieved. Several speeds are tested;
computations are performed in a frame of references translat-
The solution is iterated until either a fixed convergence in ing with the center of gravity (CG) of the model. Propellers
L 2 norm or a maximum number of iterations are reached. are not considered, however, a towing force reduced to the
Once a prediction of the level set function is obtained, it CG is taken into account to mimic the experimental setup
is exploited to compute field values at the next pseudo time where the model is towed aligned with the propeller axis.

123

Fig. 2 Flowchart of the solution procedure used in χnavis. (Colour figure online)
The vessel considered in this paper is the Grande 95RPH
(Fig. 3), a recently designed luxury yacht of the Azimut–
Benetti group; hydrostatic data of the vessel are outlined in
Table 1.
The hull is considered as a rigid body with two degrees of
freedom; the model is left free to heave and pitch, whereas,
it is kept fixed on surge, yaw, sway and roll motions. The
numerical simulations resemble the classical resistance test
performed in the towing tank; the model is accelerated by
a towing force up to the test speed, the unsteady numeri-
cal simulation is carried out until the vessel reaches a stable
conditions in terms of pitch angle and sinkage. In the experi-
ments [51], the model is towed along the propellers axis line,
123
Comput Mech
i.e. at fixed vertical distance from the centre of gravity ( f
in Fig. 4, where the sketch of the towing set-up is reported).
In the numerical simulations, the model is towed from the
centre of gravity (CG); in order to mimic the experimental
set-up, an additional force (and moment) is applied at the
CG. The vertical and horizontal components of the towing
force are − D tan(ε + τ ) and − D, respectively, where D is
the actual drag force and τ is the trim angle; the torque is
− f D/ cos(ε + τ ).
Simulations are performed for speeds spanning from 18
to 34 knots; the corresponding Froude (Fr = U∞ / gL pp )
and Reynolds (Re = U∞ L pp /ν) numbers vary in the range
[0.621; 1.174] and [1.91 108 ; 3.60 108 ], respectively. It is
Comput Mech

Fig. 3 Azimut–Benetti Grande 95RPH

Table 1 Principal characteristic of the vessel Table 2 Numerical simulations: test matrix
U∞ (kn) U∞ (m/s) Fr Re We
Length between perpendiculars L pp 22.54 m
Displacement Δ 104t 18 9.260 0.621 1.91 × 108 2.737 × 106
Draft T 1.7 m 20 10.289 0.691 2.12 × 108 3.379 × 106
Longitudinal position of CG LCG 9.3 m 22 11.318 0.760 2.33 × 108 4.088 × 106
Vertical position of CG VCG 3.12 m 24 12.347 0.829 2.54 × 108 4.865 × 106
Propeller axis inclination ε 9.08◦ 26 13.375 0.898 2.75 × 108 5.710 × 106
Distance between CG and propeller axis f 1.634 m 28 14.404 0.967 2.97 × 108 6.622 × 106
30 15.433 1.036 3.18 × 108 7.602 × 106
worth to note that all the simulations were performed at 32 16.462 1.105 3.39 × 108 8.649 × 106
full scale without the use of any wall functions, making 34 17.491 1.174 3.60 × 108 9.765 × 106
the computations rather challenging in terms of grid reso-
lutions and, consequentially, in terms of computational cost
requirements, as well as numerical stability. The test matrix Table 3 Physical parameters (water characteristics are taken at
T = 15◦ C)
is reported in Table 2. The vessel is supposed to travel in
fresh water at 15 ◦ C; the physical parameters of the water are Parameter Symbol Value
reported in Table 3.
Density ρ 999.1026 kg/m 3
An overview of the computational mesh is shown in Fig. 5;
Kinematic viscosity ν 1.1386 × 10−6 m2 /s2
in the figure, the chimera cells have been hidden for the sake
Surface tension σ 73.50 × 10−3 N/m
of clearness. The vessel is symmetrical about its longitudinal
Acceleration of gravity g 9.8067 m/s2
vertical plane, therefore, only half of the domain has been
discretized; symmetry boundary conditions are applied on
the longitudinal symmetry plane. In order to obtain a high
and accurate refinement close to the hull and the skeg, the ble in Fig. 3, the hull is characterized by an hard chine along
domain has been discretized by 162 body-fitted patched and the vessel (useful for deflecting the sprays and providing an
overlapped blocks, for a total of about 18.5 M cells. increment of the lift force, as outlined in the Sect. 1) and an
Grid distribution is designed in such a way that the thick- aesthetic chine over it. An important effort has been spent for
ness of the first cell on the wall is always below 1 in terms of the discretization of the chines and of the skeg that looks very
wall units, and at least 30 cells are within the boundary layer thin and narrow. Moreover, the chines tends to join at the bow
thickness (y + = O(1), i.e. Δ/L pp = O(20/Re) with Δ the forming a geometric singularity which has been accurately
thickness of the near-wall cell). Size and position of the 162 modelled. In Fig. 5 a slice of the numerical domain highlight
structured blocks in the domain are listed in Table 4. As visi- the important stretch of the grid volumes near the walls and

Fig. 4 Hull longitudinal

profile. CG denotes the centre
of gravity

123
 Comput Mech

Fig. 5 Overview of the computational mesh: on the top, mesh on the hull surface. On the bottom: particular of the stern region

Table 4 Mesh cells distribution 5 Results

Zone No. of cells
In the following, the numerical results are investigated.
Background 1,331,200 The estimation of total resistance, sinkage and trim will be
Hull 9,294,336 reported as first; comprehensive assessment of verification
Skeg 487,424 (i.e. the analysis of the convergence and estimation of the
Free surface 7,266,304 numerical uncertainty) and validation (i.e. the comparison
Total 18,379,264 against benchmark data including the estimation of the error)
will provide reliability of the computations. An analysis (for
one representative speed) of the flow field and wave pattern
(characterized by strong non linear effects, including break-
the overlapping of sets with different topologies: also in this
ing waves, plunging jets and ricochets) will close the section.
figure, the chimera cells have been hidden for the sake of
clearness.
A multigrid technique has been exploited in order to 5.1 Resistance, sinkage and trim curves versus speed of
achieve a faster convergence to the solution in the pseudo- advancement
time; four levels of computational mesh are used. Every level
is obtained from the finer one, by removing every other point In Fig. 6 the total resistance RT (non-dimensionalized by the
along each spatial direction. The three finest grids (for which gravitational force mg, m being the displacement), and the
the refinement ratio is 2) have been used for Verification and total resistance coefficient (C T = RT /0.5ρU∞ L 2PP ) versus
Validation purposes. Computations are carried out in time Froude number are shown. Experimental results are reported
up to a clear convergence is attained; in particular, computa- with symbols. Resistance continuously increases with the
tions are stopped when the variations on the sinkage and on speed (or, similarly, the resistance coefficient decreases with
the trim are at most on the fourth significant digit. Fr). Values for the whole speed range are in agreement with

123
Comput Mech
Fig. 6 Resistance and resistance coefficient versus Froude number. Symbols: experimental data; solid line: numerical estimation
Fig. 7 Sinkage and trim versus Froude number. Symbols: experimental data; solid line: numerical estimation
experimental data (grid convergence and a comprehensive
verification and validation will be presented in the follow-
ing).
Figure 7 displays sinkage (i.e. the distance of the CG
from the undisturbed free surface level) and trim estimations,
along with the measurements: sinkage is positive when the
CG moves upward, whereas trim is positive when the ship
rotates bow up. As the speed increases, the lift provided by
the main hull surface increases and the hull rises (i.e. sinkage
increases); it is worth to note that, an additional contribution
to the vertical force is provided by the hard chines which
interact with the free surface. The change of the distribution
of the vertical force is such that to lead to a decrease of the
trim angle with the speed (as shown in Fig. 7. The vessel
at higher velocities acquires a more pronounced neutral atti-
tude, i.e. low trim angles. The decreasing of the trim angle,
clearly indicates a larger increase of the pressure on the stern
region with respect to the fore part of the ship; as a conse-
quence, increasing the speed, the stern rises more then the
bow, finally leading to a low trim angle attitude. The com-
parison with experiments are rather satisfactory for the sink
at all Froude numbers, as well as for the trim at the lower-
medium speed. At higher speeds, computational estimations
provide a continuously decreasing of the trim, whereas EFD
measurements show a kind of plateau. However, the differ-
ence, as it will be deeper analysed in the following section,
is rather low, being less then half of a degree.
5.1.1 Verification and validation
The reliability of the computed results is assessed by a
rigorous estimation of the convergence properties and the
accuracy of the results (i.e. numerical uncertainty estima-
tion and comparisons with respect to experimental data).
Verification (the evaluation of the order of convergence and
the assessment of numerical uncertainty) and validation (the
estimation of the modelling error by comparison with exper-
imental data) have been carried out for the total resistance
coefficient, the trim and the sinkage. Experiments are made
available by [51]. In order to provide a complete analysis,
verification and validation have been assessed for the whole
speed range.
Results are summarized in Table 5. In the table, S3 , S2 and
S1 refer to the values computed on the coarse, the medium
and the fine grid, respectively; pRE is the measured order of
accuracy
ln (ε32 /ε21 )
pRE = (29)
ln (r )
where ε21 = S2 − S1 , ε32 = S3 − S2 and r is the grid refine-
ment ratio (r = 2 has been used in the current analysis). From
the solution on the medium and the finest grid,the Richard-
son’s Extrapolated error δRE can be computed
ε21
δRE = (30)
r RE − 1
p
123
 Comput Mech

Table 5 Verification and validation

Fr S3 S2 S1 ε21 /ε32 pRE δRE SRE D USN (%SRE ) E(%D)

(a) Sinkage σ (values are expressed in meter [m])

0.623 1.352 1.375 1.413 1.73 Div. – – 1.352 – 4.50
0.692 1.391 1.474 1.483 0.11 3.21 − 1.09 × 10−3 1.484 1.431 0.85% 3.70
0.761 1.447 1.539 1.567 0.30 1.74 − 1.17 × 10−2 1.578 1.497 1.27% 5.45
0.830 1.470 1.581 1.600 0.17 2.56 − 3.86 × 10−3 1.604 1.546 1.49% 3.75
0.900 1.479 1.599 1.627 0.23 2.10 − 8.59 × 10−3 1.636 1.587 1.26% 3.10
0.969 1.515 1.618 1.663 0.44 1.19 − 3.53 × 10−2 1.699 1.623 4.04% 4.67
1.038 1.539 1.640 1.668 0.27 1.88 − 1.03 × 10−2 1.678 1.627 1.01% 3.13
1.107 1.605 1.671 1.700 0.43 1.21 − 2.19 × 10−2 1.721 1.668 2.46% 3.20
1.176 1.632 1.716 1.781 0.76 0.40 − 2.03 × 10−1 1.984 1.722 23.39% 15.22
Overall 4.47% 5.19%
(b) Trim τ (values are expressed in degrees)
0.623 3.295 3.204 3.079 1.36 Div. – – 2.953 – 4.28
0.692 3.451 3.317 3.054 1.96 Div. – – 2.964 – 3.05
0.761 3.409 3.204 2.951 1.24 Div. – – 2.865 – 3.02
0.830 3.332 3.054 2.751 1.08 Div. – – 2.744 – 0.27
0.900 3.324 2.869 2.630 0.53 0.93 2.65 × 10−1 2.365 2.668 23.01% 11.34
0.969 3.279 2.767 2.601 0.32 1.62 7.99 × 10−2 2.521 2.671 5.58% 5.63
1.038 3.212 2.622 2.446 0.30 1.75 7.48 × 10−2 2.371 2.684 5.39% 11.65
1.107 3.102 2.518 2.416 0.18 2.50 2.20 × 10−2 2.394 2.705 5.27% 11.51
1.176 2.946 2.348 2.345 0.01 7.78 1.24 × 10−5 2.345 2.719 0.03% 13.74
Overall 7.85% 7.16%

Fr S3 (×105 ) S2 (×105 ) S1 (×105 ) ε21 /ε32 pRE δRE (×105 ) SRE (×105 ) D (×105 ) USN (%SRE ) E(%D)

(c) Total resistance RT (values are expressed in Newton [N])

0.623 1.36 1.24 1.09 1.17 Div. – – 1.05 – 4.02
0.692 1.37 1.22 1.14 0.54 0.90 9.05 1.05 1.11 17.78% 5.36
0.761 1.44 1.27 1.19 0.44 1.17 6.25 1.13 1.17 10.81% 3.14
0.830 1.50 1.32 1.23 0.46 1.13 7.21 1.16 1.23 12.26% 5.67
0.900 1.60 1.36 1.29 0.31 1.70 3.23 1.26 1.30 4.44% 3.50
0.969 1.68 1.42 1.38 0.18 2.44 1.07 1.36 1.38 4.10% 1.16
1.038 1.77 1.51 1.42 0.38 1.39 5.96 1.36 1.45 8.16% 6.72
1.107 1.84 1.58 1.50 0.28 1.83 2.97 1.47 1.53 3.39% 3.54
1.176 1.96 1.78 1.55 1.28 Div. – – 1.59 – 2.67
Overall 8.71% 3.98%

The generalized Richardson extrapolated solution SRE can
be then estimated as
SRE = S1 − δRE
When monotonic convergence is attained (i.e. when 0 <
ε21 /ε32 < 1) both the order of convergence and the error can
be computed. Several methods [24,47,57,65] can be used for
the estimation of the numerical uncertainty; in the present
work the factor of safety method proposed by [66] has been
adopted. In this method, a measure for the distance from the
asymptotic range is given by the ratio between the computed
order of accuracy and the theoretical one, i.e. P = pRE / pth ;
when the solutions are in the asymptotic range P  1, the
(31) actual order of convergence is equal to the theoretical value.
This method has been proved to be superior to the correction
factor method [57,65] since it overcomes the unreasonable
small uncertainty estimation when the measured order of
convergence is less than the theoretical value; moreover, it
provides an overall confidence level of 95% for the estimated
uncertainty to bound the true error. According to the factor
of safety method, the grid uncertainty can be computed as

123
Comput Mech


(2.45 − 0.85P) |δRE | if 0 < P ≤ 1
UG = (32)
(16.4P − 14.8) |δRE | if P > 1

In Table 5, the estimated numerical uncertainties for the

computation of the sinkage (σ ), trim (τ ) and the total resis-
tance (RT ) are reported; since negligible iterative uncertainty
has been observed (well below 1%), grid uncertainty can be
considered as the only contribution to the numerical uncer-
tainty (i.e. USN ≈ UG ). The absolute error E with respect
to the experiment data D (for all the computed quantities) is
reported in the last column of the Table 5
 
 SRE − D 

E = % (33)
D 

When the extrapolated values cannot be estimated (i.e.

when monotonic convergence is not attained), the value com-
puted on the finest grid (S1 ) has been used for the error
estimation.
The measured convergence properties are rather good for
the whole speed range; an order of convergence very close
to the theoretical value (2) for the computation of drag, trim
and sinkage is observed for the medium speeds. Good con-
vergence properties are also observed at lower and higher
speeds for the estimation of the resistance and the sinkage,
whereas poor convergence (or divergence) is observed for
the computation of the trim at medium and lower speeds. In
general, the worst convergence properties are seen at highest
and lowest speeds for the computations of all the quantities
of interests.
In general, low uncertainties are estimated for all mono-
tonic convergent cases; as shown in Table 5, higher uncer-
tainty level is associated to the estimation of the total
resistance, whereas lower uncertainty values are observed
for the computation of the sinkage. Average values of the
numerical uncertainties are bounded 5%SRE for the sinkage
and around 8%SRE for both the trim and the total resistance.
Larger numerical uncertainty levels (up to 20%SRE ) are seen
for the total resistance at lower speeds, for the computation
of the sinkage at highest speed and for the trim estimation at
the medium speed, i.e. in general for those cases for which
the worst convergence properties (order of convergence less
than 1) are observed.
By comparison with the experimental data, a very good
agreement between numerical results and experimental mea-
surements can be inferred. The comparison is summarized in
the last column of Table 5, as well as graphically in Fig. 8:
the error is rarely higher than 10%D. An encouraging consis-
tency with experiments is found for the sinkage and the total
resistance, without any clear dependence on the advancement
speed. Higher discrepancies are observed for the estimation
of the trim, with larger values at higher speeds; however, it
has to be highlighted that errors of the order of 10%D, cor-
Fig. 8 Error respect to experimental data for the total resistance, the
sinkage and the trim against Froude number
respond to a difference between the computed value and the
benchmark reference less than 0.5 ◦ . Moreover, it is worth
to note that, the difficulties of the numerical simulations in
the correct prevision of the trim angle is a well-known topic
and for fast ships may be tricky to overcome (see also [2])
The quality of the computed results can be summarized with
the average errors (within the speed range); values of about
5%D, 7%D and 4%D are reported for the sinkage, trim and
the total resistance, respectively. Clearly, the agreement can
be considered largely satisfactory. Finally, by the compari-
son of the relative errors and the numerical uncertainty, even
without the inclusion of the experimental uncertainty, the
numerical results can be considered, in general, validated
when a monotonic convergence is achieved. To summarize,
on the average, the total resistance is validate at the level of
9%D, the trim at the level of 8%D and the sinkage around
5%D.
5.2 Flow field
An overview of the flow field is reported here; the analysis
is carried out for the simulation at the advancement speed of
28 Kn i.e. at Fr = 0.967. Results at the other speeds present
the similar characteristics to those highlighted in the follow-
ing. A three dimensional view of the free surface shapes
around the hull advancing at the selected speed is displayed
in Fig. 9.
For the sake of clearness, the solution is mirrored around
the longitudinal plane of symmetry. Differently from what
happens for displacement vessels, where a Kelvin wave sys-
tem is generated, for high speed planing crafts the fluid is
pushed aside by the hull in the form of thin sprays. A clear

123

Fig. 9 Top and perspective views of the wave pattern around the vessel,
advancement speed U∞ = 28 Kn
rise up of the water in the fore part of the hull is shown; due
to the high pressure which occurs at the bow of the ship,
the water rises along the surface hull in form of a thin water
sheet. This water sheet would rise up to a level at which its
kinetic energy equals the potential one, where it would detach
from the hull surface, forming a jet. In the present case, the
jet is formed when the thin sheet impacts the hard chine of
the ship, which forces the water sheet to leave the surface
hull in the form of a breaking wave. The energy of the water
sheet allows the jet to spread far away from the hull, where it
impinges the surface originating several ricochets. This jet is
related to an important property of the hard chine: the intense
jet root provides an added lift to the ship, rising the sinkage.
Downstream, along the stern part of the side of the hull, a
water sheet attached to the hull is seen; this water sheet leave
the surface at the transom, which, being completely dry, gives
rise to an hydraulic jump [41].
The complex wave system on the side of the hull, is char-
acterized by several water jets, breaking waves and ricochets,
123
Comput Mech
interacting with each other and forming a very complex free-
surface pattern; it is to note that the wave pattern is well
captured by the present numerical solver, regardless its topo-
logical complexities.
More in details, in Fig. 10 a purely qualitative compari-
son between the simulated surface flow pattern and a typical
sailing boat one is shown. Obviously the problems are very
different in terms of geometries and the Froude numbers.
However some typical features are clearly visible: the plunge
point of the jet emerging from the bow splash and starting of
the first breaking cycle indicated with A; the splash-up of this
jet B; and the plateau between the breaking front and the hull
denoted with C. Finally a similar secondary vortical structure
shed by the breaking bow wave can be seen in the two wave
patterns (marked with D). Differently from the sailing boat,
for the planing hull the presence of an hard chines anticipates
the bow jet plunging, transferring an higher amount of energy
near the jet root. This interaction moves the plunging point
farther away and makes the jet very thin and narrow. More-
over, in the planing hull case, the jet impinges with higher
intensity causing the formation of a ricochet downstream,
which is totally absent in the sailing boat case. This rico-
chet produces a second plunging with an intense production
of surface vorticity, responsible of important air entrapment
and foam generation (not modelled in the present approach).
It is of interest, in terms of surface vorticity, the presence of a
laminar plateau close to the vessel and bounded by two highly
vortical areas; here a strong vortex stretching occurs, which
causes the stretch of the vortical structures along the ship
axis, in a way that the flow resembles a laminar behaviour.
Similar investigation has been performed in [41].
At the transom, which is completely dry, a deep wave
trough is seen. As expected, this is followed by a rather high
wave crest, forming the well-know roaster tail, which results
elongated far away the transom as typical for high-speed ves-
sels. It is interesting to note the formation of wave systems
from the edges of the stern (one on each side) and one in the
centre-line of the ship. This wave systems are caused by the
vortical structures generated at the sharp edges (transom/side
hull and the skeg) of the ship. It is worth to note that all these
characteristics of the wave pattern, regardless their complex
shapes and dynamics, are accurately captured by the numer-
ical solution.
In Fig. 11, the non dimensional pressure on the hull sur-
face is shown. Again, for the sake of clearness, the solution is
mirrored about the longitudinal vertical plane of symmetry;
both bottom and lateral views are presented. In the pictures,
the wave profile is reported with a black thick line. The pres-
sure field on the fore part of the hull is similar to the one
that can be observed in case of simply planned wedge shape
at high Froude numbers [29,33] and for similar hull shape
[30,35,42]; the pressure peak at the stagnation point causes a
rise up of the water, the height of the rise depends on the flare
Comput Mech
Fig. 10 Comparisons of free surface structures between present test (U∞ = 28 Kn) and a sailing boat
Fig. 11 Pressure distribution on the hull surface, advancement speed U∞ = 28 Kn
angle of the ship. A quasi V-shaped jet root is clearly visible,
with a decreasing pressure peak moving downstream. Dif-
ferently from the flat wedge [33], where the jet root is rather
narrow, the non-flat shape of the vessel causes a spread of
the pressure peak, i.e. the region of the hull interested to high
pressure values is wider. This can be of some importance for
loads and structural related problems, as well as, to slamming
occurrence once the ship is travelling in waves. When the jet
root arrives at the hard chine, a step pressure rise occurs. The
rise up of the water grows, with high pressure level extending
well upstream.
Moreover, from this pictures, it can be also clearly seen
how the free surface detaches all along the chine, up to
the region where the lower chine is large enough. When
it becomes too tiny, the water is able to overcame the first
geometrical edge, rising up to the aesthetic chine, where it
suddenly detaches with a less intense jet (as it can be also
seen from the figures of the free surface).
6 Conclusions
In the present paper an unsteady single phase level-set tech-
nique has been adopted (within a general purpose uRaNS
solver) for the study of the free surface wave pattern gen-
erated by a high speed vessel. The single phase level set
approach allows to track the dynamics of the air/water inter-
face maintaining its thickness within one cell, without any
need to smooth out the variation of the fluid variables across
the two phases. In this regard this methodology is able to
represent the interface with an accuracy comparable to clas-
sical Lagrangian methodologies. The governing equations
123

are integrated in the water phase only, whereas in the air
phase the field variables are extrapolated. The Eikonal equa-
tion allows to re-compute the level set function as a distance
function; its integration, starting from the zero level of the
level set function, is integrated in time for few steps, exploit-
ing the transport equation of the distance function only in a
narrow band across the interface.
The common features of a typical wave pattern are com-
pletely recovered: the bow plunging splash, the laminar
plateau, as well as the secondary vortical structures and the
roster tail. It has to highlighted that, regardless the topo-
logical complexities, the adopted methodology revealed an
high reliability in the accurate prediction of the wave pattern
generated by an high speed vessel. Velocity and pressure
fields are also accurately estimated; surface pressure cor-
rectly shown sharp high pressure regions corresponding to
the jet roots. The reliability of the filed variables has been
proven by a complete convergence study and a comparison
with experimental data in terms of both total resistance and
attitudes for a wide speed range. Satisfactory results have
been obtained for both convergence properties and numer-
ical uncertainty. To summarize, errors with respect to EFD
data less than 5% have been generally observed, with higher
comparison errors at higher speeds and for the estimation
of the trim angle. Anyhow, it has to be observed that, for
the latter, the error is, at most, half of degree, which can be
considered within the numerical/experimental uncertainty.
Future activities will concern fluid structure interactions
at various speeds, as well as static and dynamic roll stability
for high speed planing hull.
Acknowledgements The research has been partially supported by the
Project RESMARE “Ricerca E Servizi per il MARE” funded by the
Lazio Region and conducted in collaboration with Azimut-Benetti
which are acknowledged for providing vessel geometry and experi-
mental results.
References
1. Adalsteinsson D, Sethian JA (1999) The fast construction of exten-
sion velocities in level set methods. J Comput Phys 148:2–22
2. Akkerman I, Dunaway J, Kvandal J, Spinks J, Bazilevs Y (2012)
Toward free-surface modeling of planing vessels: simulation of the
Fridsma hull using ALE-VMS. Comput Mech 50:719–727
3. Baiges J, Codina R, Pont A, Castillo E (2017) An adaptive fixed-
mesh ALE method for free surface flows. Comput Methods Appl
Mech Eng 313:159–188
4. Beam RM, Warming RF (1978) An implicit factored scheme for
the compressible Navier–Stokes equations. AIAA J 16:393–402
5. Begovic E, Bertorello C, Pennino S (2014) Experimental seakeep-
ing assessment of a warped planing hull model series. Ocean Eng
83:1–15
6. Brandt A (1984) Multi-grid techniques: 1984 guide with applica-
tion to fluid dynamics. The Weizmann Institute of Science, Rehovot
(Israel)
123
Comput Mech
7. Brizzolara S, Serra F (2007) Accuracy of CFD codes in the pre-
diction of planing surfaces hydrodynamic characteristics. In: 2nd
international conference on marine research and transportation,
Ischia, Naples
8. Broglia R, Iafrati A (2010) Hydrodynamics of planing hulls in
asymmetric conditions. In: Proceedings of 28th symposium on
naval hydrodynamics, Pasadena, CA
9. Broglia R, Zaghi S, Di Mascio A (2011) Numerical simulation of
interference effects for a high-speed catamaran. J Mar Sci Technol
16(3):254–269
10. Broglia R, Dubbioso G, Durante D, Mascio AD (2013) Simulation
of turning circle by CFD: analysis of different propeller models and
their effect on manoeuvring prediction. Appl Ocean Res 39:1–10
11. Broglia R, Zaghi S, Muscari R, Salvadore F (2014) Enabling hydro-
dynamics solver for efficient parallel simulations. In: Proceedings
international conference on high performance computing and sim-
ulation (HPCS). Italy, Bologna, pp 803–810
12. Broglia R, Dubbioso G, Durante D, Di Mascio A (2015) Turning
ability analysis of a fully appended twin screw vessel by cfd. Part
i: single rudder configuration. Ocean Eng 105:275–286
13. Chang KC, Hsieh WD, Chen CS (1995) A modified low-Reynolds-
number turbulence model applicable to recirculating flow in pipe
expansion. J Fluid Eng 117:417–423
14. Chorin A (1967) A numerical method for solving incompressible
viscous flow problems. J Comput Phys 2:12–26
15. Colagrossi A, Marrone S, Bouscasse B, Broglia R (2015) Numer-
ical simulations of the flow past surface-piercing objects. Int J
Offshore Polar Eng 25(1):13–18
16. Di Mascio A, Broglia R, Favini B (2001) A second order Godunov-
type scheme for naval hydrodynamics. Kluwer Academic/Plenum
Publishers, Dordrecht, pp 253–261
17. Di Mascio A, Muscari R, Broglia R (2006) An overlapping grids
approach for moving bodies problems. In: Proceedings of 16th
international offshore and polar engineering conference, San Fran-
cisco, CA, USA
18. Di Mascio A, Broglia R, Muscari R (2007) On the application of the
one-phase level set method for naval hydrodynamic flows. Comput
Fluids 36(5):868–886
19. Di Mascio A, Broglia R, Roberto M (2007) Prediction of Hydro-
dynamic coefficients of ship hulls by Godunov-type methods. In:
MARINE 2007, Barcelona, Spain
20. Di Mascio A, Broglia R, Muscari R (2008) Numerical simulations
of viscous flow around a naval combatant in regular head waves.
In: Proceedings 6th Osaka colloquium on seakeping and stability
of ships, Osaka, Japan
21. Di Mascio A, Broglia R, Muscari R (2009) Prediction of hydro-
dynamic coefficients of ship hulls by high-order Godunov-type
methods. J Mar Sci Technol 14:19–29
22. Dubbioso G, Durante D, Mascio AD, Broglia R (2016) Turning
ability analysis of a fully appended twin screw vessel by CFD. Part
ii: single vs. twin rudder configuration. Ocean Eng 117:259–271
23. Dubbioso G, Broglia R, Zaghi S (2017) CFD analysis of turning
abilities of a submarine model. Ocean Eng 129:459–479
24. Eça L, Hoekstra M (2007) Discretization uncertainty estimation
based on a least squares version of the grid convergence index. In:
2nd workshop on CFD uncertainty analysis, Lisbon, Portugal
25. Favini B, Broglia R, Di Mascio A (1996) Multi-grid acceleration of
second order ENO schemes from low subsonic to high supersonic
flows. Int J Numer Methods Fluids 23:589–606
26. Fontaine E, Cointe R (1997) A slender body approach to nonlinear
bow waves. Technical report, Philosophical Transactions of Royal
Society, London
27. Fridsma G (1969) A systematic study of the rough-water perfor-
mance of planing boats. Technical report, DTIC Document
28. Fu T, Ratcliffe T, O’Shea T, Brucker K, Graham R, Wyatt D (2010)
A comparison of experimental measurements and computational
Comput Mech
predictions of a deep-V planing hull. In: Proceedings of 28th ONR
symposium on naval hydrodynamics, Pasadena, CA, USA
29. Fu T, O’Shea T, Judge C, Dommermuth D, Brucker K, Wyatt D
(2012) A detailed assessment of numerical flow analysis (NFA) to
predict the hydrodynamics of a deep-V planing hull. In Proceed-
ings of the 29th symposium on naval hydrodynamics, Gothenburg,
Sweden
30. Fu T, Brucker K, Mousaviraad S, Ikeda C, Lee E, O’Shea T, Wang
Z, Stern F, Judge C (2014) An assessment of computational fluid
dynamics predictions of the hydrodynamics of high-speed planing
craft in calm water and waves. In: Proceedings of the 30th sympo-
sium on naval hydrodynamics, Hobart, Tasmania
31. Harten A, Engquist B, Osher S, Chakravarthy SR (1987) Uniformly
high order accurate essentially non-oscillatory schemes. J Comput
Phys 71:231–303
32. Hirsch C (2007) Numerical computation of internal and exter-
nal flows: the fundamentals of computational fluid dynamics.
Butterworth-Heinemann, London
33. Iafrati A, Broglia R (2008) Hydrodynamics of planing hulls: a
comparison between RANS and 2D + t potential flow models. In:
Proceedings of 27th symposium on naval hydrodynamics, Seoul,
Korea
34. Iafrati A, Di Mascio A, Campana EF (2001) A level set technique
applied to unsteady free surface flows. Int J Numer Methods Fluids
35(3):281–297
35. Judge C, Ikeda C (2014) An experimental study of planing hull
wave slam events. In: Proceedings of the 30th symposium on naval
hydrodynamics, Hobart, Tasmania
36. Lai C, Troesch A (1995) Modeling issues related to the hydrody-
namics of three-dimensional steady planing. J Ship Res 39:1–24
37. Lai C, Troesch A (1996) A vortex lattice method for high speed
planing. Int J Numer Methods Fluids 22:495–513
38. Landrini M, Colagrossi A, Greco M, Tulin M (2012) The fluid
mechanics of splashing bow waves on ships: a hybrid BEM-SPH
analysis. Ocean Eng 53:111–127
39. Larsson L, Stern F, Visonneau M (2013) Numerical ship hydrody-
namics: an assessment of the Gothenburg 2010 workshop. Springer,
Berlin
40. Larsson L, Stern F, Visonneau M, Hirata N, Hino T, Kim J (2015)
Proceedings of: TOKYO 2015 a workshop on CFD in ship hydro-
dynamics. Tokyo, Japan
41. Marrone S, Colagrossi A, Antuono M, Lugni C, Tulin M (2011) A
2D + t SPH model to study the breaking wave pattern generated
by fast ships. J Fluids Struct 27(8):1199–1215
42. Mousaviraad S, Zhaoyuan Wang Z, Stern F (2015) Urans studies
of hydrodynamic performance and slamming loads on high-speed
planing hulls in calm water and waves for deep and shallow con-
ditions. Appl Ocean Res 51:222–240
43. Muscari R, Broglia R, Di Mascio A (2007) Numerical simulation
of the flow around an array of free-surface piercing cylinders in
waves. Ship Technol Res 54:43–52
44. Osher S, Sethian JA (1988) Fronts propagating with curvature-
dependant speed: algorithms based on Hamilton–Jacobi formula-
tions. J Comput Phys 79:12–40
45. Qin Z, Delaney K, Riaz A, Balaras E (2015) Topology preserving
advection of implicit interfaces on cartesian grids. J Comput Phys
290:219–238
46. Queutey P, Visonneau M (2007) An interface capturing method
for free-surface hydrodynamic flows. Comput Fluids 36(9):1481–
1510
47. Roache PJ (1997) Quantification of uncertainty in computational
fluid dynamics. Ann Rev Fluid Mech 29(1):123–160
48. Salvatore F, Broglia R, Muscari R (2015) In: Proceedings of VI
international conference on computational methods in marine engi-
neering, Rome, Italy
49. Savender B (1997) Planing hull hydrodynamics. Ph.D. thesis,
Department NAME, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor (MI)
50. Savitsky D (1964) Hydrodynamic design of planing hulls. Mar
Technol 1:71–95
51. Semijalac G, Nikolić M (2012) Resistance test results. Ship Model:
M-1357 MY Azimut 90F. Technical report, Brodarski Institut
Zagreb
52. Sethian JA (1999) Level set methods and fast marching methods:
evolving interfaces in computational geometry, fluid mechanics,
computer vision, and materials science, vol 3. Cambridge Univer-
sity Press, Cambridge
53. Sethian JA (2001) Evolution, implementation, and application of
level set and fast marching methods for advancing fronts. J Comput
Phys 169:503–555
54. Sethian JA, Smereka P (2003) Level set methods for fluid interfaces.
Annu Rev Fluid Mech 35:341–372
55. Simonsen C, Quadvlieg F, Stern F (2014) In: Proceedings of
SIMMAN 2014: workshop on verification and validation of ship
manoeuvering simulation methods, Copenhagen, Denmark
56. Spalart PR, Allmaras SR (1994) A one-equation turbulence model
for aerodynamic flows. La Recherche Aérosp 1:5–21
57. Stern F, Wilson RV, Coleman HW, Paterson E (2001) Comprehen-
sive approach to verification and validation of CFD simulations—
part 1: methodology and procedures. J Fluid Eng 123(4):793–802
58. Stern F, Agdrup K, Kim S, Cura-Hochbaum A, Rhee K, Quadvlieg
F, Perdon P, Hino T, Broglia R, Gorski J (2011) Experience from
simman 2008—the first workshop on verification and validation of
ship maneuvering simulation methods. J Ship Res 55(2):135–147
59. Sussman M, Smekerda P, Osher SJ (1994) A level set approach for
computing solutions to incompressible two-phase flow. J Comput
Phys 114:146–159
60. Tulin M (1956) The theory of slender surfaces planing at high
speed. Schiffstechnik 4:125
61. Van Leer B (1979) Towards the ultimate conservative difference
scheme. V. A second-order sequel to Godunov’s method. J Comput
Phys 32:101–136
62. Vogt M, Larsson L, (1999) Level set methods for predicting vis-
cous free surface flows. In: Proceedings of the 7th international
conference on numerical ship hydrodynamics, Nantes, France, pp
2.1.4–19
63. Volpi S, Sadat-Hosseini H, Kim DH, Diez M, Stern F, Thodal
RS, Grenestedt JL (2015) Validation high-fidelity CFD/FE FSI for
full-scale high speed planing hull with composite bottom panels
slamming. In: Proceedings of international conference on coupled
problems in science and engineering, San Servolo Island, Venice,
Italy
64. Volpi S, Diez M, Sadat-Hosseini H, Kim DH, Stern F, Thodal
RS, Grenestedt JL (2016) Full-scale fluid–structure interaction
simulation and experimental validation of high-speed planing-hull
slamming with composite panels. In: Proceedings of the 31st sym-
posium on naval hydrodynamics, Monterey, CA, USA
65. Wilson RV, Stern F, Coleman HW, Paterson E (2001) Comprehen-
sive approach to verification and validation of CFD simulations—
part 2: application for RANS simulation of a cargo/container ship.
J Fluid Eng 123(4):803–810
66. Xing T, Stern F (2010) Factors of safety for Richardson extrapola-
tion. J Fluids Eng 132(6):061403-1–061403-13
67. Zaghi S, Broglia R, Mascio AD (2011) Analysis of the interference
effects for high-speed catamarans by model tests and numerical
simulations. Ocean Eng 38(17–18):2110–2122
68. Zhao R, Faltinsen O, Haslum H (1997) A simplified nonlinear anal-
ysis of a high speed planing craft in calm water. In: Proceedings of
FAST97 conference, Sydney
123