The Effect of Varying Hull Designs on the Acceleration of Ships

Andrew Weidemann and Joseph Weidemann

Macomb Mathematics Science Technology Center

AP Physics

Mr. McMillan/Mrs. Cybulski/Mrs. Dewey

11 December 2018
 The Effect of Varying Hull Designs on the Acceleration of Ships

The purpose of this experiment was to the determine which ship design has the

fastest acceleration (m/s2 ) through water. Every day thousands of ships cross Earth’s

many waterways. These ships carry cargo, tourists, and people just seeking a good

time out at sea. Gasoline is used to power these vessels, and large ships can burn

through thousands of gallons of gas each day. To make travel more fuel efficient,

large vessels have to be designed in a way that decreases drag. A way to find the drag

forces acting on a ship is by taking its overall acceleration over time, the greater the

acceleration the less drag is acting on the ship. In order to test which ship design is the

most efficient, five of the most common ship designs (catamaran, trimaran, planing,

axe, and a researcher designed thin catamaran) were tested and compared to each

other. Each design was pulled through a pool of water using a tow rope and 25g mass.

The acceleration of the first half second of each trial was then taken. An A-NOVA

was used to see if there was a significant difference between all of the boat designs.

After the A-NOVA showed there was a significant difference between all five

designs, two separate 2-Sample ​t-​Tests were conducted. One 2-Sample​ t​-Test

compared the thin catamaran and the speed boat design, and the other 2-Sample ​t​-Test

compared the thin catamaran with the thick catamaran. Both of the tests had very

small p-values which indicates that the improved design was the fastest ship of them

all. The improved design had the fastest acceleration of all of the designs.
 Table of Contents

Introduction……………………………………………………….……….………….......1

Review of Literature…………………………………….…………...………….…..........3

Problem Sta​t​ement​……………………………………….…………………………..…...9

Experimental Design…………………………..………….…...……………...................10

Data and Observations………………………………...………………………………....14

Data Analysis and Interpretation………………………………………………………...19

Conclu​s​ion​…………………………………………………………………………….....30

Acknowledgements…………………………………………………………....………....35

Appendix A: LabQuest Setup………………………………….………………………...36

Appendix B: Boat Design………………………………………………………………..37

Appendix C: Water Tub Design and Build……………………………………………....40

Appendix D: A-NOVA Formulas and Calculations…………..……….….………..........42

Appendix E: Two-Sample ​t​ Test Formula and Sample Calculation…………………......45

Appendix F: Two-Sample ​t​ Interval Formula and Calculation……………...…………..46

Appendix G: Test Variables for Speedboat and Improved Design………....…………....47

Appendix H: Test Variables for Catamaran and Improved Design……………………...49

Appendix I: Professional Contact………………………………………………………..51

Works Cited……………………………………………………………………………...52
 A.Weidemann - J.Weidemann 1

Introduction

At any given moment, there are five to six million shipping containers crossing

the ocean on thousands of massive cargo ships. By contributing to roughly 90% of the

world trade, ships play a much larger role than many think. Ships are also used to cart

around sun seeking vacationers to tropical destinations, and even to protect countries.

Around the world, their importance has put an emphasis on designing the best and fastest

boats. Navies and shipping industries are constantly trying to improve upon each design,

as better boats save money, travel faster, and use less fuel by reducing the amount of

resistance faced. This research is important because many of the things that keep the

world running are transported on the decks of ships, and ultimately faster ships mean

faster shipping. Some common cargo ships are the axe hull and the trimaran due to their

stable nature. Catamarans and speedboat hulls are more often used for transporting

tourists whether it be on a ferry or a giant cruise ship.

Many factors including the hull size, number of hulls, and shape of hulls

drastically change the amount of form drag faced and therefore change the boating

experience. During travel, drag opposes the motion of the ship. Because of this, certain

hulls are used for specific jobs or cruisers. The purpose of this experiment was to

determine whether a boat that significantly reduces drag can be crafted. In this

experiment, four boat designs (axe hull, trimaran, catamaran, and a speedboat) were

towed in a tank to record their acceleration. The qualities of the fastest boat, the

catamaran, were then used and improved upon in order to create a thinner and sleeker

catamaran. Towing the boats proved which one faces the least amount of drag faced as it
 A.Weidemann - J.Weidemann 2

reflects the acceleration of each design. This experiment differs from many others as this

one analyzed acceleration rather than using computer simulation to look at the flow of the

water.

The fields of marine engineering and naval architecture are always battling form

drag when making ships. The findings of this research pertain mostly to medium sized

ships like ferries and small cargo ships. Specifically, faster designs like catamarans would

make excellent ferries as they are fast and use minimal fuel. To test the ships moving

through water, model ships were pulled through a tub of water using a tow rope and

constant 25 gram mass. The findings from this experiment will help boat designers

determine how to build these ferries, recreational vessels, naval vessels, and small cargo

ships.
 A.Weidemann - J.Weidemann 3

Review of Literature

Many variations of boats and ships travel the seas every day. From freighters

shipping goods around the world, to recreational vessels speeding around on lakes, each

has to face the force of the waves and the water. Because the water is making contact

with the ship in movement, it creates form drag (“Reducing Drag”). This type of drag

acts on the body of the boat and reduces its speed. It is crucial that the design of the ship

limits and reduces the forces that oppose its motion, as that would allow it to travel while

burning less fuel. The key parts in limiting the drag from the water are the hull and bow

of the ship. These two parts make up the entire front end of the boat and are the first parts

to come into contact with passing water.

Figure 1. The Two Different Types of Hulls. Photograph from “Making Boats: Hull

Design.” ​Kaleidoscope Learning​, klcnj.blogspot.com/2012/07/making-boats

-hull-design.html. Accessed 2 Oct. 2018.

The bottom of the body of any ship is called the hull, and, as shown in Figure 1

above, there are two main types. The two categories include displacement and planing.

Displacement hulls sit deeper in the water and use their sleek shaping to slip through the

water with decreased drag. In order to do this, the surface area of the front must be
 A.Weidemann - J.Weidemann 4

minimized as more surface area means more drag. Planing hulls are not used in large

ships like a cargo ship or a naval ship because they are far too heavy. Because of this,

displacement hulls dominate the shipping and cruising industry.

Figure 2. How a Displacement Hull Functions. Photograph from “Boat Hull Types and

Styles.” ​BOATsmart! Knowledgebase​, www.boatsmartexam.com/knowledge-

base/article/boat-hull-types/. Accessed 1 Oct. 2018.

Figure 2 shows how a displacement hull is able to force its way through bodies of

water. As the boat moves, the sharp hull of the ship directs water off to the side of the

ship and allows it to pass through. The current boating market has designed a

displacement hull that is fuel efficient and low powered, and it is becoming the more

popular design. (“Hull Shape and Stability”).

Some ships utilize two or three hulls. These ships, called catamarans and trimarans,

are unique designs that focus on reducing the surface area by using multiple thin hulls

(Armstrong and Clark). Catamarans can act as both displacement crafts and planing

crafts, as the size of the boat mainly determines if it has to displace water. Just like single

hull ships, larger catamarans must use displacement hulls and smaller catamarans are able

to use planing hulls.

 A.Weidemann - J.Weidemann 5

Figure 3. USS Coronado​. ​Photograph from Affairs, From PEO LCS Public. “Coronado

(LCS 4) Begins Sailaway.” ​AffinityGroups​,www.public.navy.mil/surfor/lcs4/Pages/

CoronadoLCS4BeginsSailaway.aspx. Accessed 2 Oct. 2018.

Figure 3 shows the USS Coronado which is the newest ship in the United States

Navy to be a trimaran. Due to its high speed and performance, the Navy has begun

constructing more ships that follow the design of the USS Coronado.

Multiple hulls bring multiple advantages. Catamarans and trimarans have the

potential to be much faster than their single hulled counterparts. Catamarans also offer an

increased level of stability, which deep cutting single hull boats often lack. The wider the

ship is, the more stable it will become. This allows the ship to move much quicker than

monohull ships. Multihull ships usually weigh less. which further increases the speed of

the ship (“Advantages of Catamarans and Catamaran Hull Speeds Calculation”).

 A.Weidemann - J.Weidemann 6

Figure 4. The Bow. Photograph from “Parts of a Boat - Bow, Stern, Starboard, Port,

Draft, Waterline.” ​AceBoater.com​,aceboater.com/en/boating-terminology. Accessed 1

Oct. 2018.

Figure 4 above shows a common design for a bow, which is the front part of the

hull. Its shape is what allows the ship to cut through the water and decrease the amount of

drag the water puts on the boat (Khasnabis). If a bow does not displace water easily, it

will be much more difficult for the ship to cut through the water and waves. Another

important factor of a good bow for a boat is its ability to decrease bouncing bouncing. At

higher speeds, boats create waves by bouncing, which in turn cause more friction from

the boat clashing with waves and bouncing.

Figure 5. Axe Hull. Photograph from Khasnabis, Sudripto. “Types of Bow Designs Used

For Ships.” ​Marine Insight​, MarineInsight, 9 Oct. 2017, www.marineinsight.com/naval

-architecture/types- of-bow- designs-used-for- ships/. Accessed 18 Sept. 2018

Bows come in many shapes. One common type of bow used on displacement type

ships is the axe shaped bow shown in Figure 5. An axe bow is shaped like an axe, where
 A.Weidemann - J.Weidemann 7

the front of the boat is sharp and usually not titled. Since the bow has a V shape, it easily

displaces water off to the sides of the ship, and it allows the ship to move through large

waves with little trouble. The axe shaped bow maximizes water length and reduces the

total wave slamming of the ship. Both maximizing water length and reducing slamming

is an efficient way of decreasing the resistance a ship faces. However, the axe shaped

bow can be prone to stability problems (“Passenger Ship Technology”).

The bulbous bow, which is used in many freighters and large ships, has been the

topic of past research. The bulbous bow is a bulb like projection found at the front of the

ship, and it supposedly decreases the drag that acts on the ship as it travels. It works by

changing the way that water flows around the boat by creating a wave that disrupts the

other waves acting on the ship. A group of researchers in the Department of Naval

Architecture at Dineponegoro University in Indonesia, led by Deddy Chrismianto, found

that bulbous bows do have a large effect. They found that over time, the ship’s fuel

efficiency increases by a significant margin. In fact, some ships with a bulbous bow have

seen such a decrease in drag that their fuel efficiency increased up to fifteen percent

(Chrismianto et al.). A team for COTECMAR, a Columbian shipbuilding company,

found similar effects from bulbous bows. They pulled different ship designs through the

water and used a computer to model its wake (Leal et al.). Instead of using computer

modeling, this experiment included finding the velocity of five different boat designs as

they were pulled through water with a constant amount of force. Ships with lower drag

have a higher constant velocity.

 A.Weidemann - J.Weidemann 8

Drag has a significant effect on ships as they travel. Because drag opposes the ships

motion, boat makers have been creating different designs focused on reducing surface

area and maximizing speed. Each of these designs differ in shape, but they all rely on the

idea that a decreased surface area decreases the amount of resistance on the body. To test

this, the mass of each boat was kept the same. The boats were also water resistant due to

the fact that any water that was taken in increased each boat’s mass during trials.
 A.Weidemann - J.Weidemann 9

Problem Statement

Problem​:

To determine whether the design of a ship hull can be modified to reduce drag

and increase fuel efficiency.

Hypothesis​:

While being pulled through a body of water, a catamaran designed with both long

and thin hulls will have the smallest amount of drag out of all of the other designs being

tested.

Data Measured​:

In this experiment, the acceleration reached by small boats being pulled through

water was recorded. This acceleration was recorded in meters per second squared (m/s2 )

and was the dependent variable. The acceleration depended on which of the five boat

designs was tested. The individual independent variable was hull design and it had five

different designs including an axe hull, a speedboat design, a catamaran, a trimaran, and

an improved design. Each design was tested thirty times and compared in an ANOVA

test to determine if there were any differences within the variations of boat used. Two

Two-Sample ​t ​Tests were then used to conclude if the differences in the accelerations

were significant.
 A.Weidemann - J.Weidemann 10

Experimental Design

Materials​:

(5) Hooks 0.61m x 1.524m Tub

(5) Styrofoam Boats Bucket
25g Weight Computer
Smart Pulley Vernier Labquest Mini
Ruler Scale (0.01 precision)
Fishing String (2m) Clamp
Photogate 60 Liters of Water

Procedure​:

1. Place the large tub on a large, even surface. Fill it with water until it is ¾ full.

2. Set up Smart Pulley by attaching it to the clamp between the photogate. Set up
Vernier LabQuest Mini to record velocity in the LoggerPro Software (Appendix A).

3. Attach the 25 gram weight to the fishing string and attach to the pulley.

4. Assign each boat a number 1-5, and randomly pick a boat for each trial.

5. Use the scale to record the mass of the boat before it is place in the water.

6. Pull the boat to the back of the wooden tub.

7. Start collecting data in the LoggerPro Software and release the boat allowing the
mass attached to the pulley to pull the boat along the water.

8. In a spreadsheet, record the average acceleration of the boat.

9. Using the scale, find the mass of the boat to check if it remained constant
throughout the trial.

10. Repeat steps 6-11 with the other four designs.

11. After finishing, drain the water out of the tub and clean any additional spills
made. Wipe off the boats until they are completely dry. Clean up the lab space.
 A.Weidemann - J.Weidemann 11

Diagrams​:

Figure 6. Materials Used

Figure 6 shows the materials used to conduct this experiment. The materials not

pictured include the fifth boat that was built based off the best designs, the pump, and the

bucket to get water out of the tub.

Figure 7. Smart Pulley Materials

Figure 7 shows the materials used to operate the smart pulley in the experiment.

The smart pulley wheel was attached to the photogate and clamp, which was then

attached to the LabQuest Mini using the cord.

 A.Weidemann - J.Weidemann 12

Figure 8. Smart Pulley Setup

Figure 8 shows the setup of the smart pulley. The smart pulley had a string

running over it that turned it at a specific rate. This rate was registered by the photogate

on the outside of the pulley, and the information is sent into the LabQuest Mini. A clamp

was used to keep the mechanism clamped to the table.

Figure 9. Complete Setup of Experimental Trials

Figure 9 shows the complete set up for trials. The string was connected to a mass

and one of the model boats. When the mass was dropped, it dragged the boat through the
 A.Weidemann - J.Weidemann 13

water, and spins the wheel of the smart pulley. The velocity of the boat was then sent into

the computer with LoggerPro Software where it was saved and analyzed.
 A.Weidemann - J.Weidemann 14

Data and Observations

Table 1
Acceleration Recorded for Each Boat Design
Acceleration (m/s​2​)
Trial Axe Hull Speedboat Catamaran Trimaran Improved
1 0.7295 0.7787 0.7359 0.7075 0.7671
2 0.7261 0.7696 0.8237 0.7608 0.7375
3 0.7141 0.7481 0.7659 0.7443 0.8126
4 0.7352 0.7326 0.7978 0.7219 0.8152
5 0.7615 0.7491 0.7573 0.7176 0.7556
6 0.7388 0.7638 0.7403 0.7325 0.8011
7 0.7064 0.7352 0.7667 0.7268 0.8217
8 0.7091 0.7354 0.7991 0.7326 0.7441
9 0.7669 0.7383 0.8017 0.7232 0.7944
10 0.7268 0.7878 0.7333 0.7118 0.7842
11 0.7104 0.7344 0.7357 0.7357 0.7465
12 0.7474 0.735 0.7499 0.7499 0.794
13 0.7478 0.7509 0.7705 0.7705 0.7405
14 0.7137 0.7627 0.7205 0.7205 0.7762
15 0.7509 0.765 0.7042 0.7042 0.7981
16 0.7439 0.7547 0.7209 0.7209 0.8011
17 0.7365 0.7493 0.7046 0.7046 0.7509
18 0.7215 0.7896 0.7121 0.7121 0.7951
19 0.6975 0.7629 0.6997 0.6997 0.7952
20 0.7583 0.7541 0.7297 0.7297 0.8325
21 0.7437 0.7709 0.7689 0.7191 0.7692
22 0.7408 0.7318 0.8001 0.7098 0.7814
23 0.7447 0.7697 0.7592 0.7478 0.8025
24 0.716 0.7633 0.7415 0.7189 0.7818
25 0.7364 0.7592 0.7654 0.7319 0.8361
26 0.7115 0.7821 0.7876 0.7041 0.7633
27 0.7602 0.7825 0.7571 0.7448 0.7885
 A.Weidemann - J.Weidemann 15

Trial Axe Hull Speedboat Catamaran Trimaran Improved

28 0.758 0.7141 0.7569 0.7671 0.8231
29 0.7296 0.7167 0.7721 0.7241 0.7454
30 0.7133 0.7432 0.7571 0.7194 0.7679
Average 0.7358 0.7544 0.7606 0.7226 0.7864
S​x 0.0189 0.0200 0.0223 0.0186 0.0282

Table 1 displays the acceleration of each boat tested in the experiment. Five

different types of ships were tested 30 times each. The average and standard deviation are

shown.

Table 2
Observations
Boat Design Observations
The line came off pulley in trial 4, but the data was fine. In trial 18, the boat
Axe Hull became waterlogged and the trial was redone. In trial 22, the boat veered to the
side and may have caused slower results
Strange bump in the graph of trial 10. This could be from a collision as the boat
Speedboat
was released.
In trial 9, the boat became waterlogged, but the data was fine. The boat became
Catamaran waterlogged in trial 10 and had to be dried. This trials were repeated.

In trial 27, the trimaran was towed at an odd angle but they data was fine. This
Trimaran problem was then addressed in trial 28 when it happened again. The hook was
fixed and the trials were kept.
The boat became extremely waterlogged in trials 7-10. These trials had to be
Improved redone. The same problem occurred during trials 18-20. The boat was dried and
the trials were redone.

Table 2 displays the observations taken during the problematic trials of the

experiment. Some of the boats were much more susceptible to being waterlogged and this

could have affected some of the data taken through the entirety of trials. The waterlogged

boats were drained and repaired before being tested again. Every trial that showed a
 A.Weidemann - J.Weidemann 16

significant problem was repeated to ensure that the issues would not impact the overall

experiment. These problems included the waterlogging and the towline falling off of the

pulley.

Figure 10. Boat at starting position

Figure 10 shows how the boat was held in position at the beginning of each trial.

Once data collection started the boat was released and pulled across the pool by the

towline/pulley system attached to a 25 gram mass.

 A.Weidemann - J.Weidemann 17

Figure 11. Smart Pulley Setup

Figure 11 shows how the smart pulley was operated during each trial. The boat

was attached to the towline. When the trial started the weight was released and the boat

was pulled across the pool. The photogate on the smart pulley then recorded the data and

stored it in the LoggerPro software on the computer.

Figure 12. Boat Travel

Figure 12 shows the direction that the boat travels during the experiment. The

smart pulley accelerated the boat straight through the water after being released.
 A.Weidemann - J.Weidemann 18

Figure 13. Graph of Velocity vs. Time and the Tangent Line.

Figure 13 above shows one of the graphs for a catamaran trial. The graphs for

each trial kept the same similar shape throughout with some deviation in slope. The slope

of the tangent line in the first 0.5 second interval was recorded for each trial. The slope of

this graph shows the acceleration of the boat. Using the first half second of each trials

provided a way to gather data in a consistent manner.

 A.Weidemann - J.Weidemann 19

Data Analysis and Interpretation

This experiment was conducted to determine the effect that different ship designs

have on the resistance acting on the hull. In order to properly analyze this experiment,

quantitative data representing the acceleration of each ship was recorded. The data that

was collected was the acceleration of the towed boat through the first 0.5 second interval,

and was found using a smart pulley and a labquest mini. In order to ensure that the data

collected was valid and unbiased, each of the five ship designs were subject to the same

conditions and pulled by the same 25 gram weight. A simple random sample was

conducted by randomly picking a number and using the boat that corresponded with that

number for a block of trials. Ten trials of that specific boat design were completed before

moving on to the next randomly selected design. This experiment was comparative, as

each ship design was weighed against the others. A control group was not used in this

experiment due to there not being a relative even ground between boat design, but each

ship was tested thirty times in order to add repetition to the experiment. Repetition

decreases variability in the experiment. This is because of the Law of Large Numbers that

just says that many samples will reduce variability.

 A.Weidemann - J.Weidemann 20

Figure 14. Box Plot of Data for Each Boat Design

Figure 14 above shows the box plot of all of the trials collected. Each boat seems

to have a distinctly different distribution of acceleration values. Each distribution has a

different median with the improved sign having the largest acceleration (0.7684 m/s​2​).

The improved design’s median is followed by the catamaran (0.7606m/s​2​), the speedboat

(0.7544 m/s​2​), the axe hull (0.7358 m/s​2​), and then the trimaran (0.7226 m/s​2​). The

distributions appear relatively normal except for some right skewness in the catamaran

and trimaran boxes. Right skewed graphs have means that are on the right side of the

median. Other than the slightly skewed graphs, the mean is close to the median. The

catamaran’s distribution includes an outlier of 0.8237 m/s​2​, but it does not significantly

affect the mean. All of the graphs have roughly the same, smaller amount variation. The

improved catamaran had the largest variation (0.0986m/s​2​) followed by the catamaran
 A.Weidemann - J.Weidemann 21

(0.0904m/s​2​), the speedboat (0.0755m/s​2​), the trimaran (0.0708m/s​2​), and the axe hull

(0.0694m/s​2​).

The boxplots shown in Figure 14 contain some overlap. The trimaran and axe hull

have significant overlap with each other, but because they do not overlap with the

improved design, the significance of their overlaps were not tested. There is also overlap

between the three fastest boats. This overlap of roughly fifty percent between the

speedboat and improved, and also the catamaran and improved design, may be significant

and was tested further.

To test the significance between the populations of the boat and the significance

of the overlap between the improved design, catamaran, and speedboat, an A-NOVA test

of significance followed by two Two-Sample ​t​ Tests were conducted. The A-NOVA test

of significance shows whether or not there are significant differences between the five

different boat populations. The Two-Sample ​t​ Tests shows if the improved design is

significantly faster than the original catamaran and the speedboat.

Assumptions for an A-NOVA:

In order to run an A-NOVA, three different assumptions must be met. The first of

the assumptions is that there are five individual simple random samples, one for each of

the five populations. This assumption was met because each design was assigned a

random number and then chosen in order to complete a simple random sample. Each boat

was independent from the others, and they were tested in random order.

The second assumption is that each sample comes from a population that has a

normal distribution. This assumption was met because each sample consisted of thirty
 A.Weidemann - J.Weidemann 22

trials. Because thirty trials were recorded, the sampling distribution of the sample mean,

x̅, is normally distributed. This applies to all of the boat distributions recorded because

each consisted of thirty trials, which satisfies the assumption because of the Central Limit

Theorem stating that the sample comes from a normally distributed sample distribution

when the sample size is larger than thirty.

The last assumption is that all of the populations have the same standard

deviation. In order of the axe hull, speedboat, catamaran, trimaran, and improved, the

standard deviations were found to be 0.0189, 0.0200, 0.0223, 0.0186, 0.0282. These

values are all around the value 0.0200 and are roughly the same. Because the populations

were found to have similar standard deviations, this assumption is met.

Figure 15. Null and Alternative Hypothesis for an A-NOVA Test.

Figure 15 above shows the null and alternative hypothesis for the A-NOVA test.

The symbol μ represents the populations for the different boat designs. The Null

hypothesis was used to test if there were any differences in the distribution and states that

if the null hypothesis is correct, there is no difference between the mean accelerations of

each population . The Alternative hypothesis states that not all of the distributions of

mean acceleration between the boats are the same.

 A.Weidemann - J.Weidemann 23

Table 3.
A-NOVA Test Results
A-NOVA Results
F-Statistic 34.9436
p-Value 2.0473×10​-20

Table 3 above shows the results of the A-NOVA statistical test. The A-NOVA

resulted in an F-statistic of 34.9436 which corresponds to a p-value of close to zero. The

F-statistic was found by dividing the MSG by the MSE. An F-statistic means that the

mean square group is 34.9436 times larger than the MSE.

With a p-value near zero, the null hypothesis is rejected. There is significant

evidence that not all of the mean acceleration for the five boat designs were the same. If

the null hypothesis were true, there would be a near zero percent chance of the difference

in population mean accelerations being this different or extreme.

Assumptions for a Two-Sample ​t​ Test:

To run a Two-Sample ​t​ Test, multiple assumptions must be met. The first

assumption for the test is that data is from two random samples and both populations

were independent from each other. Each boat design was assigned a number and

randomly drawn and then ten trials were completed for the random design. The

populations of both boat designs were independent and randomized accordingly.

The second assumption for a Two-Sample ​t​ Test is that both samples come from a

normally distributed sampling distribution. Thirty trials were completed for the designs

used in the test. The central limit theorem states that when thirty trials are completed the

sampling distribution can be considered normal. This satisfies the assumption for all of

the tests completed.

 A.Weidemann - J.Weidemann 24

The last assumption for a Two-Sample ​t​ Test is that both sample sizes were no

more than one tenth of the size of their real populations. Since a maximum of thirty trials

were completed, and thirty is less than one tenth the population of all trials that could be

conducted with this design this assumption was fulfilled,

H o : μS = μI
H a : μS < μI
Figure 16. Null and Alternative Hypothesis for Improved and Speedboat Design

Figure 16 shows the null and alternative hypothesis in the Two-Sample ​t​ Test

comparing the improved and speedboat design. The null hypothesis was used to test if the

accelerations of the improved and speedboat designs were equal. The alternative

hypothesis states that the acceleration of the improved design was significantly higher

than the acceleration of the speedboat design. The symbol μ represents the population

mean. Therefore, μ​s​ represents the population mean for the speedboat acceleration, and μ​I

represents the population mean for the improved design acceleration.

Table 4
Results of Two-Sample ​t​ Test Between Speedboat and Improved Design
Two-Sample ​t ​Test Results

t-Statistic -4.69576

p-Value 0.00001

Table 4 shows the values involved in the Two-Sample ​t ​Test. These values

include the p-value and t-statistic. The test values were plugged into the formula for a

Two-Sample ​t​ Test as shown in Appendix E. The rest of the variables used in this test

can be found in Appendix G. This calculation showed the p-value of 0.00001. Since the
 A.Weidemann - J.Weidemann 25

p-value is significantly lower than the alpha level of .05, there is strong evidence against

the null hypothesis.

The null hypothesis was rejected. There is significant evidence that the mean

acceleration of the improved design is higher than the mean acceleration of the speedboat

design. If the null hypothesis was true, there would be less than a 0.001% chance of the

difference in accelerations being this high by chance alone.

Figure 17. P-Chart for Speedboat Design and Improved Design

Figure 17 shows the p-chart of the Speedboat and Improved Design. As seen, the

chart does not indicate where the p-value would fall. The p-value is too small to be seen

on the chart. The minimum p-value that the chart can display is 0.0001, and the real

p-value is 0.00001. This suggests that the chance of this data happening by chance alone

is extremely small.
 A.Weidemann - J.Weidemann 26

Table 5
2 Sample ​t​ Interval for Speedboat and Improved Designs
Two-Sample ​t​ Interval Results

Lower -0.0423

Upper -0.0170
Table 5 shows the results of the completed Two-Sample ​t​ Interval for the

speedboat and improved designs. The lower bound of the confidence interval was

represented by Lower and the value was found to be -0.042389. The upper bound of the

confidence interval was represented by Upper and it was calculated to be -0.017011. In

order to find these values the formula in Appendix F, and variables in Appendix G were

used. The interval was negative due to the improved design having a higher acceleration

than the speedboat design. This supports that the improved design does have a higher

population mean acceleration.

We are ninety-five percent confident that the true difference in population mean

acceleration between the speedboat design and the improved design is between -0.042389

m/s2 and -0.017011 m/s2 . The ​t​ Interval provides evidence that the population mean

acceleration of the improved design is higher than the population mean acceleration of

the speedboat design. This supports the hypothesis that the improved design has a higher

acceleration than the speedboat design.

The assumptions for the Two-Sample ​t​ Test that compares the Catamaran and

Improved design are the same. Since these trials were given the exact same treatment as

the trials in the aforementioned test, the assumptions are all met and it is okay to

complete a Two-Sample ​t​ Test.

 A.Weidemann - J.Weidemann 27

H o : μc = μI
H a : μc < μI
Figure 18. Null and Alternative Hypothesis for Catamaran and Improved Design

Figure 18 above shows the null and alternative hypothesis for the Two-Sample ​t

Test comparing the catamaran and improved design. The null hypothesis tested if the

mean accelerations of the catamaran and improved design were equal. The alternative

hypothesis states that the improved design had a significantly higher acceleration than the

catamaran design. The symbol μ​S​ represents the population mean acceleration of the

catamaran, and the symbol μ​I represents

​ the population mean acceleration of the

improved design.

Table 6
Two-Sample​ t ​Test Results for Catamaran and Improved Designs
Two-Sample ​t​ Test Results

t Statistic -2.5610

p-Value 0.0066

Table 6 shows the results that were calculated in the Two-Sample ​t​ Test

comparing the catamaran and improved design. Using the values from Appendix H and

the formula found in Appendix E, the “t” value was calculated to be -2.5610. Using the

“t” value the p-value of this test was found to be 0.0066

The null hypothesis was rejected. There is significant evidence that the improved

design’s acceleration was significantly higher than the acceleration of the catamaran. If

the null hypothesis was indeed true, there would be less than a one percent chance of the

difference in accelerations being this high by chance alone.

 A.Weidemann - J.Weidemann 28

Figure 19. The P-Chart for the Catamaran and Improved Design

Figure 19 shows the chart that shows the p-value of the Two-Sample​ t​ Test

comparing the catamaran and improved design. As shown the p-value of the test was very

small, and it further supports the hypothesis that the improved design had a faster

acceleration than the catamaran design.

Table 7
Two-Sample ​t ​Interval for the Catamaran and Improved Designs
Two-Sample ​t​ Interval Results

Lower -0.0299

Upper -0.0036

Table 7 shows the variables used to calculate the Two-Sample ​t​ Interval. Using

the formula in Appendix F and values in Appendix H, the lower bound of the confidence

interval (Lower) was found to be approximately -0.0299. The upper bound of the interval

(Upper) was calculated using the same formula to be -0.0036. The interval was negative

due to the improved design having a higher acceleration than the catamaran design. This

means the catamaran had a slower acceleration the improved design.

 A.Weidemann - J.Weidemann 29

We are ninety-five percent confident that the difference in the true population

mean acceleration of the catamaran and improved design is between -0.0299 m/s​2​ and

-0.0036 m/s​2​. The Two-Sample ​t​ Interval provides some evidence that the population

mean acceleration of the improved design is higher than the population mean acceleration

of the catamaran design. This supports the hypothesis that the improved design

acceleration was higher than the catamarans acceleration.

Interpretation​:

The A-NOVA statistical test resulted in a p-value of near zero. This means that

there was significant differences between the five different boat populations. This

difference was then examined further by using two Two-Sample ​t​ Tests to check if the

improved design was significantly faster. These two Two-Sample ​t​ Tests, which

compared the speedboat and the catamaran to the improved catamaran, resulted in

p-values that show significant differences. This means that it can be concluded that not

all of the boat designs had the same acceleration distribution, and that the improved

catamaran was the fastest to accelerate.

 A.Weidemann - J.Weidemann 30

Conclusion

The purpose of this experiment was to see if a boat design that limited drag and

traveled faster could be designed. Throughout the experiment, trials were conducted by

pulling various boat designs through water using a tow rope and recording their

acceleration. In the beginning, four common boat designs including an axe hull,

catamaran, trimaran, and a speedboat were tested briefly. The results of this preliminary

testing were used to help design an improved boat. This improved boat was a longer and

thinner variation of the catamaran. The five boats were then tested in the same tank using

a tow string attached to a 25 gram weight. The accelerations for each boat were then

compared using an A-NOVA significance test. Two Two-Sample ​t ​tests were then used

to determine if the improved design was faster than the other two fastest designs, the

catamaran and the speedboat.

It was hypothesised that a catamaran with longer and thinner hulls would

accelerate faster than the other boats while being towed through water. This hypothesis

was found to be true as the acceleration of the improved catamaran was faster than the

rest. The slowest boat was the trimaran. An A-NOVA test of significance resulted in a

p-value of nearly zero meaning that there was significant differences between the boat

designs. This significant difference was investigated further to determine if the improved

catamaran was indeed faster than the other boats. With the regular catamaran and the

speedboat being the second and third quickest boats, they were both compared to the

improved design using Two-Sample ​t ​tests. The Two-Sample ​t ​test between the regular

catamaran and improved catamaran yielded a p-value of 0.0066, meaning that the
 A.Weidemann - J.Weidemann 31

improved design was significantly faster than the regular design. The Two-Sample ​t ​test

comparing the speedboat and the improved design yielded a p-value of 0.00001 meaning

that the improved design was also significantly faster than the speedboat.

The improved catamaran design was the fastest because of many unique points in

the design. Having multiple hulls decreases the surface area that comes in contact with

the water and therefore decreases the resistance faced. The thinner hulls on the improved

design also decreased the surface area further. The overall thickness of the hulls is why

the improved catamaran was faster than the original, thicker catamaran. The improved

design was also much more elongated than the regular catamaran. Hulls that are longer

and thinner have lower amounts of form drag (Caswell). The overall amount of surface

area in the water is directly related to the amount of drag faced. Ships with more

underwater surface area face more drag. Because the hulls were smaller, the improved

catamaran accelerated the fastest.

The monohull boats did not perform as well as the ships with multiple hulls. With

only one large hull, the ships had more surface area touching the water and therefore

more area for the water to come into contact. The speedboat was the fastest of the two

because of its smooth, flat hull. This allowed it to plane over the water and achieve

accelerations faster than the axe hull. The near planing speedboat was faster than the axe

hull and allowed it to be almost as fast as the catamarans. Because it planed on top of the

water, it faced a smaller amount of drag and accelerated faster. The axe hull was much

slower because it is specifically designed to cut through waves and decrease violent ship

movements (​“​Features and Benefits of X Bow Ship​.”​). Because the boats were pulled in a
 A.Weidemann - J.Weidemann 32

controlled environment, the effect of waves were minimal and the axe shape increased

drag instead of decreasing it.

Out of all the boats, the trimaran had the lowest overall acceleration. This was due

to the crafting process when the boats were made. One goal of a trimaran design is to

decrease the size of the main hull even more and use two small extra hulls for stability

(Beck). The trimaran in this experiment was crafted in a way that did not decrease the

size of the hulls. It was three inches wider than the other boats and the hulls were much

thicker than the two catamarans. Because of this, the trimaran faced a large amount of

resistance while being towed and therefore accelerated slowly.

All of the results agreed with the current work in hydrodynamics besides the slow

acceleration numbers for the trimaran. Dr. Robert Beck, a naval architecture and marine

engineering professor at the University of Michigan said that the length and decreased

surface area of the catamarans are perfect for high speed vessels. This explains why the

improved catamaran was faster than all of the others including the basic catamaran. Dr.

Beck went on to explain that the axe hull is more effective for cutting through waves

rather than high speed travel. The results from this experiment reinforce the current

knowledge in the scientific world by showing that a well built catamaran faces less

resistance and therefore travel at a higher rate of speed. They also show that different hull

designs are made for different aspects of the shipping and boating world. These results

allow the scientific community to concentrate on finding a way to improve ships to make

them thinner to decrease the form drag acting on the ship. This experiment differed from

others because acceleration was recorded while the boat was being towed. Most of the
 A.Weidemann - J.Weidemann 33

current work in the field of marine engineering uses computer models to examine the

flow and resistance of the water as it moves across the boat. Despite this difference, the

results match current knowledge.

There were multiple errors in this experiment. As mentioned, the design of the

trimaran was not accurate and did not allow for the boat to travel through the water with

minimal resistance. This caused slower acceleration numbers than expected. Throughout

trials, all of the boats were susceptible to getting waterlogged and taking in water. The

aluminum casing used to create a smooth surface on the hulls was not sealed properly

which caused each of the boats, especially the improved catamaran, to take in water. This

water affected the mass of each ship and put them over the 230 gram mass that should

have been constant. The increase in mass caused a slower acceleration in some of the

boats and may have had an impact on the distributions of accelerations. The improved

catamaran design took in the largest amount of water and had to be dried out after a few

trials. If anything could be done differently, the width of the trimaran would be

significantly decreased in an effort to minimize the size of the three pontoons. A sealer

would have helped in keeping water out of the boats and keeping the accelerations

constant. Increasing the length of the tow tank would be a change that would help this

experiment if it was to be redone. If the boats were pulled for a longer distance, the

velocity could be recorded. Measuring the velocity would be a much more accurate way

of applying the idea of drag in real life as ships often face resistance while traveling at a

constant speed.
 A.Weidemann - J.Weidemann 34

Further research into this field might include researching if bulbous bows are a

more efficient way of decreases drag in certain water conditions. On larger cargo ships,

catamarans may not be as effective due to the heavy cargo. Testing bulbous bows against

the same hulls used in this experiment would provide helpful answers for shipping and

large vessels. Additional research can be done on different shapes and designs of a

catamaran. This could include researching catamarans with more room between their

pontoons, or different shaped pontoons. Researchers can also attempt to figure out the

percent difference of each designs fuel efficiencies. This research has real life

applications in fields such as boat making and hydrodynamic research. Hull design can

greatly affect fuel efficiency, and ships that face less resistance are able to travel farther

and cheaper. This experiment shows that catamarans are the best for fuel efficiency, and

may indicate that ferries and other small passenger or cargo ships may want to utilize a

two hull design.

The purpose of this experiment was to determine if the amount of resistance faced

by a ship can be reduced by modifying its design. It was concluded that a catamaran with

thin and long hulls decrease the amount of resistance and allow the ship to travel at

higher rates of speed.

 A.Weidemann - J.Weidemann 35

Acknowledgements

This experiment was aided by many people along way. We would like to thank

Professor Robert Beck for taking the time to have an informational conversation with us

and helping us understand the scientific concepts behind our topic. We would also like to

thank Mr. McMillan, Mrs. Cybulski, and Mrs. Dewey for helping us and checking our

paper. Lastly, we would like to thank Colleen and James Paterson, along with our Mom

and Dad for purchasing materials and providing a place to design and craft our ships.
 A.Weidemann - J.Weidemann 36

Appendix A: Labquest Setup

1. Attach the LabQuest Mini to the photogate.

2. Connect the LabQuest Mini to the computer.

3. In the LoggerPro Software, click on experiment.

4. Select Set Up Sensors.

5. Click on the image of the photogate and verify it is set to Smart Pulley.

6. Make sure velocity is being recorded.

 A.Weidemann - J.Weidemann 37

Appendix B: Boat Design

1. From the large block of foam, cut out five blocks with the dimensions for each boat.

2. Using tools such as a dremel and a file, sculpt the boats out of the foam. The shapes
in this experiment included an ace shape hull, a speedboat, a catamaran, a trimaran,
and an improved catamaran.

3. Cut out a small compartment in the cent of the bottom of the boat and add weights so
that each boat weighs 210g.

4. Wrap each boat in aluminum foil and sheet metal tape. Push the end of the hook into
the front of the boat creating a place to attach the fishing string.

Figure 20. Front and Side View of the Axe Hull Design

Figure 20 above shows the front and side view of the axe hull design. The

monohull ship has a sharp vertical hull and a sloped bottom.

 A.Weidemann - J.Weidemann 38

Figure 21. Front and Side View of the Speedboat Design

Figure 21 above shows the front and side view of the speedboat. The ship has one

rounded hull and a flatter bottom.

Figure 22. Front and Side View of the Original Catamaran.

Figure 22 above shows the front and side view of the original catamaran. It has

two hulls, which are thicker and closer together than the hulls on the improved

catamaran.
 A.Weidemann - J.Weidemann 39

Figure 23. Front and Side View of the Trimaran Design

Figure 23 above shows the front and side view of the trimaran. The trimaran

utilized three hulls which were all thicker and closer together than the other designs. The

front of the three hulls were slanted to mimic real life hull.

Figure 24. Front and Side View of the Improved Catamaran

Figure 24 above shows the front and side view of the improved catamaran design.

Similarly to the original catamaran, the improved catamaran has two hull. In contrast, the

hulls of the improved catamaran are much thinner and farther apart.
 A.Weidemann - J.Weidemann 40

Appendix C: Water Tub Design and Build

1. Screw the two 0.61m long pieces of lumber to the two 1.524m long pieces of lumber
to create the rectangular edge of the tub.

2. Screw the rectangular edge of the tub created in Step 1 to the bottom wooden board.
This will create a wooden tub.

3. Using heavy duty staples, staple a tarp to the edge of the tub. This created a tub that is
waterproof.

Figure 25. Sides of the Tub.

Figure 25 above shows the sides of the tubs created in Step 1 of Appendix C. The

pieces were joined together using screw.

Figure 26. The Wooden Tub.

Figure 26 above shows the tub after Step 2 in Appendix C. The edges were

attached to the bottom board. At this point, the tub is not waterproof.
 A.Weidemann - J.Weidemann 41

Figure 27. The Complete Tub.

Figure 27 above shows the tub after the tarp was inserted using heavy duty

staples. The tub is now waterproof and usable.

 A.Weidemann - J.Weidemann 42

Appendix D: A-NOVA Formulas and Calculations

Table 8
ANOVA Variables
Boat Design n x̄ s​x
Axe Hull 30 0.7332 0.0189
Speedboat 30 0.7544 0.0201
Catamaran 30 0.7672 0.0223
Trimaran 30 0.7270 0.0186
Improved 30 0.7841 0.0282

Table 8 shows the values used in an ANOVA. The variable n represents the

amount of trials completed for each boat design. The mean value of each sample is shown

as x​ ̄, a​ nd the standard deviation each sample is represented by the variable s​x​.

Figure 28. Results From the A-NOVA

Figure 28 above shows the other calculations from the A-NOVA. MSError

represents the mean square error (MSE), and MS represents the mean square group
 A.Weidemann - J.Weidemann 43

(MSG). The F statistic was found by dividing the MSG by the MSE. The F statistic of

34.9436 means that the MSG is 34.946 times larger than the MSE.

Figure 29. Calculation of the ​x̄ Statistic

FIgure 29 above shows the formula and calculation of the x̄ statistic. The x̄

statistic acts like a weighted mean. It was found by multiplying each individual sample

mean by the number of trials completed and then dividing that number by the number of

trials in total. This is a way to weigh the means and give distributions with a more trials a

higher influence on the mean. The value 0.7532 that was calculated is similar to a

weighted mean of all of the trials.

Figure 30. Calculation of the MSG

Figure 30 above shows the formula and calculation for the mean square group, or

MSG. The MSG was found by squaring the difference between the individual sample

means and the ​x̄ statistic and multiplying that by the number of trials in each

distribution. The MSG is a measure of variability among sample means between the

populations.
 A.Weidemann - J.Weidemann 44

Figure 31. Calculation of the Mean Square Error (MSE)

Figure 31 above shows the formula and the calculation for the mean square error.

The MSE was found by subtracting one from the sample sizes and multiplying it by the

standard deviation of the sample squared. This summation was then divided by the total

number of trials minus the total number of populations. The mean square error is similar

to a weighted mean of the sample variances. It is a measure of variance of the

observations within the individual samples.

Figure 32. The Formula and Calculation of the F Statistic

Figure 32 shows the formula and the calculation of the F statistic. The F statistic

is found by dividing the MSG by the MSE and was found to be 34.9838. A large F

statistic corresponds to a small p-value. A large F statistic of 34.9838 will yield a small

p-value and most likely significance.

 A.Weidemann - J.Weidemann 45

Appendix E: Two-Sample ​t​ Test Formula and Sample Calculation

Figure 33. Two-Sample ​t​ Test Formula numbers should be subscripts, please fix.

Figure 33 shows the equation of a Two-Sample ​t ​Test. The equation uses the

mean acceleration of each sample population., x̄, standard deviation, s, and sample size,

n, of two independent populations to solve for ‘t’ and test for significance.

Figure 34. Sample Two-Sample ​t​ Test Calculation (Catamaran vs. Improved)

Figure 34 used the equation from Figure 32. This sample problem came from the

Catamaran and Improved Designs. When the variables are plugged in the t-value is found

to be -4.69576. When this “t” value is plugged in to the proper table the p-value is found

to be 0.00001.
 A.Weidemann - J.Weidemann 46

Appendix F: Two-Sample ​t​ Interval Formula and Calculation

Figure 35. Formula for Two-Sample ​t​ Interval

Figure 35 shows the equation for a Two-Sample ​t​ Interval. The above equation

uses the means (x̅), standard deviation (s), and sample size (n) of the two independent

populations along with a t-star value to estimate the true mean difference between two

populations.

Figure 36. Two-Sample ​t​ Interval Substitution From Catamaran and Improved Design

The figure above used the equation from Figure 35. The t-star value was found

using Table C and is the ninety-five percent confidence value. When the values for the

means, standard deviations, and sample sizes are plugged in, the interval is from

-0.029999 to -0.003661.
 A.Weidemann - J.Weidemann 47

Appendix G: Tests Variables for the Speedboat and Improved Design

Figure 37. Data from Two-Sample ​t​ Test Between the Speedboat and Improved Design

In this context, “x̄1​“ represents the mean acceleration of the speedboat design,

and “x̄2​“ represents the mean acceleration of the improved design. Another one of the

variables in the Two-Sample ​t​ Test is “s​x​” or sample standard deviation. The sample

standard deviation of the speedboat was represented by “s​x1​” and the sample standard

deviation of the improved design was represented by “s​x2​”. Both of the values for the

sample standard deviation were calculated using a calculator function. The population

sizes are represented by the symbol “n” with n​1​ being the speedboat design population

and n​2​ being the improved design population. Both of the populations were thirty due to

there being thirty trials completed for both groups. The “t” value was found, using the

formula in Appendix B, to be -4.69576. The value had a degree of freedom of 52.3978.

 A.Weidemann - J.Weidemann 48

Figure 38. Two Sample ​t​ Interval for Speedboat and Improved Designs

In order to do this the sample means, “x̄1​“ and “x̄2​“, must be used. The sample

mean “x̄1​“ represents the sample mean acceleration of the speedboat design, and “x̄2​“

represents the sample mean acceleration of the improved group. The “s​x​” values

represent the sample standard deviation of each design and n represents their population

sizes. The lower bound of the confidence interval was represented by CLower and the

upper bound of the confidence interval was represented by CUpper.

 A.Weidemann - J.Weidemann 49

Appendix H: Tests Variables for Catamaran and Improved Design

Figure 39. Variables of Two-Sample ​t​ Test Comparing Catamaran and Improved Design

The variables and values used in the calculation are shown in the table above. The

variable s​x​ represents the sample standard deviations for each of the groups. The value

calculated for the sample standard deviation of the catamaran (s​x1​) was found to be

approximately 0.0223, and the sample standard deviation for the improved design (s​x2​)

was found to be approximately 0.0282. The sample population for each group was

represented by the variable “n” and both sample populations were 30 due to trials

completed for each design. The sample mean acceleration of the catamara (x̄1​) was

calculated to be approximately 0.7672 m/s​2​. The sample mean acceleration for the

improved design (x̄2​) was found to be approximately 0.7841 m/s​2​.

 A.Weidemann - J.Weidemann 50

Figure 40. Variables and Values for the Catamaran and Improved Designs Interval

In order to calculate the interval the sample means, “x̄1​“ and “x̄2​“, must be

used. The sample mean “x̄1​“ represents the sample mean acceleration of the catamaran

design, and “x̄2​“ represents the sample mean acceleration of the improved group. The

sample standard deviations (s​x​) of the data were also needed to perform the calculation.

The sample populations (n) of each data sets were both 30 due to 30 total trials being

completed. The lower bound of the confidence interval was represented by CLower and

the Upper bound of the confidence interval was represented by CUpper.

 A.Weidemann - J.Weidemann 51

Appendix I: Professional Contact

Name: Robert Beck

Title: Professor Emeritus of Naval Architecture and Marine Engineering

Organization: The University of Michigan

Phone (area code and extension): (734) 764-0282

Email: rbeck@umich.edu

Mailing: 2600 Draper Drive, Ann Arbor, MI 48092-2145

 A.Weidemann - J.Weidemann 52

Works Cited

Advantages of Catamarans and Catamaran Hull Speeds Calculation.” ​Brighthub

Engineering​, 19 Aug. 2010, www.brighthubengineering.com/

marine-history/83095-advantages-of-catamarans/. Accessed 2 Oct. 2018.

Affairs, From PEO LCS Public. “Coronado (LCS 4) Begins Sailaway.” ​Affinity

Groups​,www.public.navy.mil/surfor/lcs4/Pages/Coronado

LCS4BeginsSailaway.aspx. Accessed 2 Oct. 2018.

Armstrong, Tony, and Tobias Clark. On The Effect Of Hull Shape On The Performance

Of Some Existing High-Speed Ferries. Austal Ships,tcwork.com/ wp-content/

uploads/2013/04/Armstrong_Clarke_paper1.pdf. Accessed 17 Sept. 2018.

Beck, Robert. Personal Interview. 11 October 2018.

“Boat Hull Types and Styles.” ​BOATsmart! Knowledgebase​, www.boatsmartexam.com/

knowledge- base/article/boat-hull-types/. Accessed 1 Oct. 2018.

Caswell, Chris. “What Hull Shape Would Be Best?” ​Bad Barnacles​, 7 Aug. 2000,

www.boats.com/boat-buyers-guide/what-hull-shape-is-best/.

Accessed 26 Nov. 2018.

Chrismianto, Deddy, et al. ​Analysis of Effect of Bulbous Bow Shape to Ship Resistance in

Catamaran Boat​. www.matec-conferences.org Accessed 18 Sept. 2018.

Hull Shape and Stability." ​Ocean Navigator​. N.p., n.d. Web. 10 Sept. 2018.

http://www.oceannavigator.com/January-February-2003/Hull-shape-and-stability/

Accessed 19 Sept. 2018.

 A.Weidemann - J.Weidemann 53

Khasnabis, Sudripto. “Types of Bow Designs Used For Ships.” ​Marine Insight​, Marine

Insight, 9 Oct. 2017, www.marineinsight.com/naval-architecture/types- of-bow-

designs-used-for- ships/. Accessed 18 Sept. 2018.

Leal, Luis et al “Hydrodynamic Study of the Influence of Bulbous Bow Design for an

Offshore Patrol Vessel Using Computational Fluid Dynamics.” ​Ciencia y

Tecnología De Buques​, www.shipjournal.co/index.php/sst/article/view/161/456.

Accessed 2 Oct. 2018.

“Making Boats: Hull Design.” ​Kaleidoscope Learning​, klcnj.blogspot.com/2012/07/

making-boats-hull-design.html. Accessed 2 Oct. 2018.

MI News Network. “Features and Benefits of X Bow Ship.” ​Marine Insight​, Marine

Insight, 26 Dec. 2016, www.marineinsight.com/future-shipping/

features-and-benefits-of-x-bow-ship/. Accessed 12 Nov. 2018.

“Parts of a Boat - Bow, Stern, Starboard, Port, Draft, Waterline.” ​AceBoater.com,​

aceboater.com/en/boating-terminology. Accessed 1 Oct. 2018.

“Passenger Ship Technology:Axe Bow Cuts into Fast Ferry Market.” ​Fairplay​,

5 Apr. 2007, fairplay.ihs.com/ship-construction/article/4156441/passenger-ship-

technologyaxe-bow-cuts-into-fast-ferry-market. Accessed 17 Sept. 2018.

“Reducing Drag to Make Ships Go Further with Less Fuel.” ​American Physical Society​,

www.aps.org/units/dfd/pressroom/papers/ships.cfm. Accessed 2 Oct. 2018.