J Mar Sci Technol

DOI 10.1007/s00773-010-0105-y

ORIGINAL ARTICLE

Slam events of high-speed catamarans in irregular waves

Giles Thomas • Stefan Winkler • Michael Davis •

Damien Holloway • Shinsuke Matsubara •

Jason Lavroff • Ben French

Received: 15 February 2010 / Accepted: 12 August 2010

 JASNAOE 2010

Abstract Slam events experienced by high-speed Keywords Slamming  Wave loads  Catamaran 
catamarans in irregular waves were characterised through High-speed craft  Model experiments
experiments using a hydroelastic segmented model. The
model was designed to represent the dynamic behaviour
List of symbols
of the full-scale Incat 112 m vessel and to allow the
CBT Centrebow truncation
measurement of the slam load on the centrebow and wet
Fi0 Slam force on transverse beam (N)
deck. It was tested in irregular head seas at two speeds
FT0 Total slam force on centrebow (N)
relating to Froude numbers of 0.32 and 0.60. Nearly 300
F10 Slam force on forward transverse beam (N)
slams were identified in the test data and analysed with
F20 Slam force on aft transverse beam (N)
respect to kinematic parameters. Slams were found to pffiffiffiffiffiffi
have a large range of magnitudes, with the largest
Fr Froude number Fr ¼ v= gL
equivalent to 1785 tonnes full scale (approximately 70% g Acceleration due to gravity
of vessel displacement); however, the majority of events hCBT Immersion at CBT (m)
were of relatively low severity. Differences in slam hw Wave elevation (m)
characteristics were found for the two model speeds tes- l1 Distance between strain gauges mounted on elastic
ted; slams at the slower speed generally occurred further links and pin joint (m)
forward on the hull, prior to the wave crest and with a l2 Distance between strain gauges mounted on elastic
bow down pitch angle. Immersion of the centrebow to the links 1 and 2 (m)
two-dimensional filling height of the cross-section L Length at waterline
between the centrebow and demihulls is shown to be a M10 Bending moment at elastic link 1 on transverse
better indicator of slam occurrence than immersion to the beam (N m)
top of the archway. M20 Bending moment at elastic link 2 on transverse
beam (N m)
t Time (s)
v Velocity (m/s)
vRV Relative vertical bow velocity (m/s)
vv Vessel vertical velocity at CBT (m/s)
G. Thomas (&)  S. Winkler  S. Matsubara  B. French vw Vertical velocity of water surface (m/s)
Australian Maritime College, w2 Distance between forward and aft transverse beams
University of Tasmania, Locked Bag 1395, (m)
Launceston, TAS 7250, Australia
e-mail: giles@amc.edu.au
x1 Longitudinal position of total slam force (m)
Z Vertical displacement (m)
M. Davis  D. Holloway  J. Lavroff hCBA Angle of centrebow archway ()
School of Engineering, hp Pitch angle ()
University of Tasmania,
Hobart, TAS, Australia
hRI Relative impact angle ()

123

hw Angle of wave surface ()
f Damping ratio
1 Introduction
Large high-speed catamarans are currently utilised by both
commercial and military operators. Their ability to carry
relatively large payloads at high speed ensures that they are
an effective platform for a range of operational require-
ments, e.g. car, truck and passenger ferries and naval
transport and support ships. To maximise their transport
efficiency (by maximising payload and speed whilst min-
imising power) it is crucial that their design is optimised
to minimise structural weight. For this to be achieved,
knowledge of the sea loads imparted on such vessels, for a
wide range of operating conditions, is critical.
The largest loads experienced by large high-speed
catamarans are generally slamming loads. Slam events
occur when the vessel motion causes an impact between
the cross deck structure and the water surface. As well as
causing high local pressures, slams can impart a large
global load onto the vessel. In severe sea conditions an
extreme slam event may result in damage to the vessel [1].
The dynamic response of the structure, observed as a
shudder on-board the vessel after a slam, is known as
whipping, and can have significant implications with
respect to the fatigue life of the vessel’s structure [2].
As well as providing structural design information,
understanding the slamming behaviour of high-speed
catamarans is vital for setting appropriate operational
guidelines. For example, operators need to recognise the
implications of operating at specific speeds and heading
angles in a particular wave environment.
Conducting measurements on full-scale vessels is an
important method for investigating slamming behaviour.
The installation of a series of strain gauges, a bow-mounted
wave sensor and motion sensors on several vessels during
delivery voyages and commercial operations has allowed
conclusions to be drawn on a range of aspects, including
slam occurrence rates with respect to sea conditions and
vessel speed, slam magnitude through structural responses
and whipping behaviour [3–5].
A key finding has been the identification of the range
of slam events experienced by high-speed catamarans.
Occasionally the vessel will experience an extreme event
which results in severe structural loadings. Understanding
the mechanisms for the occurrence of such extreme slam
events is important, since it may lead to design or opera-
tional changes to promote their avoidance.
123
J Mar Sci Technol
Although full-scale data are extremely valuable, their
acquisition is often difficult. There is no control over the
environmental conditions (wave height, wave period, wave
spreading) and often little or no control over the operating
conditions (vessel speed, trim, displacement, heading, time
travelled in a specific direction). This makes it difficult to
draw wide-ranging conclusions concerning the influences
on slam behaviour. It is also not usually possible to
instrument the full-size vessel as fully as desired; for
example, the fitting of fixtures such as pressure transducers
which penetrate the hull is generally not feasible.
Model testing offers the opportunity to investigate slam
behaviour with greater control over the environmental and
operational conditions than in full-scale trials. In addition,
the model may be more extensively instrumented and
more revealing techniques can be used than for a full-size
vessel. In order to measure wave loads and to correctly
model slam behaviour and the dynamic response to
slamming, a hydroelastic model is required [6]. A hydro-
elastic model may be continuously elastic, with a stiffness
distribution similar to that of the full-scale vessel [7].
However, such a technique does not allow for the model’s
stiffness to be altered once it has been constructed, and
measuring catamaran slamming loads with such a con-
figuration would be challenging. In contrast, a hydroelastic
model may be split into a series of segments that are
joined using a backbone beam which has the required
stiffness. Segmented models may utilise either a continu-
ous backbone beam through the segments and segment
gaps [8–10] or elastic links that join the rigid segments
[11–13]. The structural response and hence wave loads can
be measured using a force balance [14], load cells [12, 15]
or strain gauges [9].
For model tests that investigate slamming specifically,
pressure transducers are usually used to measure the
slamming pressures on the underside of the hull [15, 16].
For catamaran models, as well as slam pressures, the slam
load on the wet deck may be measured using force trans-
ducers [17].
In the present work, a hydroelastic segmented model of
a wave-piercer catamaran has been designed and con-
structed to obtain experimental data on slamming behav-
iour. It was extensively instrumented with strain gauges,
pressure transducers, linear voltage displacement trans-
ducers (LVDTs) and a series of wave probes. The model
was tested in irregular head seas for a variety of significant
wave heights and modal periods.
The data were analysed to identify slam events and to
characterise them according to a range of parameters,
including relative vertical velocity, slam location on the
cross structure archway, vessel pitch angle and wave
location.
J Mar Sci Technol
2 Model experiments
2.1 Hydroelastic catamaran model
A hydroelastic segmented model was designed and con-
structed to allow the measurement of the global wave and
slam impact loads experienced by high-speed catamarans.
A segmented model allows the simulation of the hydro-
elastic behaviour of the full-scale ship; the flexural natural
frequencies were scaled consistently with the full-scale
vessel and were used to accurately model the whipping
response to waves. Model flexibility was achieved by the
introduction of flexible links at the segmentation sections.
The segments themselves were designed and constructed to
be of high stiffness so that flexibility was only introduced
in the model at the elastic links. Such a model is recom-
mended when global wave-induced loads are to be
measured [6].
A 112 m Incat wave-piercer catamaran was used as the
basis for the hydroelastic model. The principal details of
the full-scale vessel are given in Table 1. Each demihull
had two transverse cuts, dividing it into three segments; see
Fig. 1. These segments were connected by elastic links
Table 1 112 m Incat wave-piercer catamaran particulars
Length overall 112.6 m
Length waterline 105.6 m
Beam demihulls 5.80 m
Beam overall 30.5 m
Draft 3.93 m
Speed 38 knots
Deadweight 1380 t maximum
Main engines 49 MAN 28/33D (each 9000 kW)
Propulsion 49 Wartsila LJX 1500 water jets
Fig. 1 3D diagram of the segmented catamaran model consisting of
six separate hull components: 1, centrebow; 2, 3, forward demihulls,
4, 5, aft demihulls; 6, midship demihulls
(14 mm2, machined from solid aluminium) bolted into a
40 mm2 hollow-section aluminium backbone beam. The
elastic links enabled the measurement of the vertical
bending moment at the segment gaps using strain gauges.
The links were also designed have the appropriate stiffness
to give a first longitudinal bending mode for the model of
13.8 Hz; this being scaled to represent the main longitu-
dinal bending mode of the full-scale vessel at 2.1 Hz [20].
Prior to the construction of the first 112 m Incat cata-
maran, the first longitudinal mode of vibration required
of the 2.5 m catamaran model was predicted using the
longitudinal bending mode frequencies measured by con-
ducting exciter tests on 86 and 96 m Incat catamarans [18].
The first longitudinal modal frequency of the 112 m cata-
maran at a loaded ship displacement of 2500 tonnes was
predicted to be 2.1 Hz and was used as a basis for estab-
lishing the first longitudinal modal frequency at model
scale of 13.79 Hz. Note that subsequent to the experiments
described in this paper, the first longitudinal mode of the
112 m catamaran was subsequently confirmed through full-
scale measurements to be 2.4 Hz [19]. It should be noted
that whilst the overall dynamic structural behaviour of the
full-scale vessel was modelled, the local elasticity of the
shell plating was not.
A full description of the three degree of freedom theo-
retical model developed to predict the longitudinal bending
frequency of the catamaran model as a function of the
effective link stiffness and the mass distribution of the
physical model is given in Lavroff et al. [20]. The theory
takes into consideration a single catamaran demihull con-
sisting of three separate rigid hull segments joined together
by forward and aft torsion springs. During a slam event, the
forward and aft segments of the hull vibrate in a rotational
direction opposite to each other and against the rotational
stiffness of the torsion springs in order to replicate the first
longitudinal mode of vibration of a catamaran demihull.
To allow the measurement of slam loads, the centrebow
and forward portion of the wet deck was constructed as a
separate segment from the two demihulls; see Fig. 1. The
cut between the demihulls and centrebow was designed to
enable the global wave loads to be measured on the
demihulls, whilst any slam load on the centrebow and wet
deck would act purely on the central segment, before being
translated through to the demihulls. This is illustrated in
Fig. 2, which shows a section through the demihull and
centrebow segments at the aft end of the centrebow. The
centrebow segment was supported on two transverse
19 mm2 hollow aluminium beams. Each beam was pin-
connected to the demihull backbones and incorporated two
small solid aluminium elastic links (see Fig. 3). The
bending moments in the four elastic links located in the
transverse beams could be used to calculate the location
and magnitude of the vertical force on the centrebow and
123
 J Mar Sci Technol

Table 2 Hydroelastic segmented catamaran model particulars

Length overall 2.5 m
Displacement 27.4 kg
Trim Level
Radius of gyration 0.64 m
LCG 0.954 m from transom
VCG 0.167 m above keel
Trim tabs 7
Forward segment length 0.35L
Fig. 2 Transverse section through demihulls and centrebow, showing
Mid-segment length 0.25L
separate segments and the capacity of the centrebow to accept all the
vertical slam force Aft segment length 0.40L
Gaps between segments Sealed with latex and waterproof tape

Fig. 3 Photograph of forward centrebow transverse beam (looking

forward) showing the elastic link and pin joint connection to the port
demihull

wet deck. The centrebow segment was manufactured to

enable the fitting of pressure transducers on the starboard
side of the centrebow and wet deck. Fitting plugs were
embedded into the hull at 84 locations, extending from
frame 55 to frame 82 (full-scale frame spacing was
1200 mm, frame 0 at the transom).
All of the gaps between segments were sealed using a
combination of waterproof tape and latex rubber. Particular
attention was given to the gap between the centrebow and
demihulls, ensuring realistic water flow up the side of the
hull towards the archway.
Two transverse beams were connected to the midship
segments of each demihull, forming a rigid midship seg-
ment which comprised the midship demihull segments and
the central and aft transverse wet decks. A longitudinally
orientated aluminium section was attached to these main
transverse beams at the model centreline and extended aft
from the rear crossbeam. The model was towed from a
hinge fitting attached to this longitudinal section, with a
slider located further aft constraining the model in yaw.
The model was constructed from sandwich carbon fibre
and Divinycell foam core to produce hull segments with
large inherent stiffnesses in order to keep the model weight
to a minimum. The overall model size was restricted to a
length of 2.5 m due to the size of the test facility, giving a
Fig. 4 Hydroelastic segmented model of the Incat 112 m catamaran
target displacement of 27.4 kg. Therefore, minimising
weight in the model’s design and construction was crucial,
especially to provide sufficient ballast mass so as to
achieve the target trim and radius of gyration values. The
particulars of the model are given in Table 2 and the model
is shown in Fig. 4.
2.2 Test facility
The experiments were conducted in the Australian Mari-
time College towing tank, which is 100 m long, 3.55 m
wide and has a water depth of 1.5 m. A powered carriage
was used to tow the model, which has a maximum speed
of 4.6 m/s. The waves were generated by a computer-
controlled single-flap paddle wavemaker that was posi-
tioned at one end of the tank. The computer software
controlling the wavemaker paddle provides the ability to
produce a wide variety of waveforms, including regular
waves and irregular wave spectra.
A two-post system was used to attach the model to the
carriage. The posts moved freely in the vertical direction in

123
J Mar Sci Technol
linear bearings on the carriage frame. The forward post was
connected to the model using a hinge allowing rotation
around the lateral axis only and restricting all relative
translational modes. The aft post was connected via a ball
bearing whose base was allowed to slide longitudinally.
The model was therefore free to heave and pitch whilst
being constrained in roll, yaw, sway and surge.
2.3 Instrumentation
A set of instruments was utilised to measure the global
wave loads, slam loads, slam pressures, model heave and
pitch, and encountered wave elevation. Strain gauges
installed in a half-bridge configuration on the top and
bottom surfaces of each of the demihull elastic links
enabled measurement of the global wave-induced strains
and structural bending moments. Gauges on the four cen-
trebow transverse beam elastic links allowed the slam
forces on the centrebow and forward wet deck to be
evaluated from the bending moments in these links, the pin
fixings to the demihulls being connections of zero moment.
The slamming pressures were measured using piezore-
sistive pressure transducers (Endevco 8510C-50), which
are rugged, miniature, high-sensitivity instruments. The
piezoresistive-type pressure transducers measure the pres-
sure difference on the sides of a silicon diaphragm, and
therefore a vent tube is introduced so that the gauge pres-
sure can be read directly. Seven pressure transducers were
utilised, located in a line along the top of the archway
between the centrebow and the demihull; see Fig. 5. The
vertical motion of the model was measured at each of the
two tow posts using a LVDT. This provided data to cal-
culate model heave and pitch motions.
Both static and moving wave probes were used to
measure the wave elevation. A static resistance wave
probe, located 7 m from the wave maker, recorded the
Fig. 5 Schematic of model instrumentation (dimensions in mm)
wave profile prior to the test run. An acoustic wave probe
(UltraLab ULS-40D) recorded the wave profile during the
run from a position on the carriage offset transversely
(1200 mm from model centreline) but in the same longi-
tudinal position as the bow of the model. In order to
accurately identify the slope of the wave at the bow of the
model, three resistance wave probes were set up side by
side with a small longitudinal offset (20 mm). This com-
bined instrument was attached to the carriage in line with
the forward transverse beam of the centrebow at a distance
1490 mm from the model centreline.
2.4 Slam load calibration
Figure 6a shows a schematic diagram of the slam force
acting on the forward transverse beam. The beam was
pinned at both ends A and B with two elastic links. Strain
gauges were mounted on each of the elastic links, and were
separated by a distance l2. The port and starboard strain
gauge measurement positions were each located at a dis-
tance l1 from the pinned joints A and B, respectively.
Strains were measured at each of the elastic links to eval-
uate the bending moments M10 and M20 . The slam force, Fi0 ,
was evaluated from the magnitude and position of the
measured bending moments:
M10 þ M20
Fi0 ¼ : ð1Þ
l1
Figure 6b shows a schematic diagram of the forward
and aft transverse beams; the beams were separated by a
distance w2. The total slam force acting on the centrebow,
FT0 , was the summation of the forces acting on the forward
transverse beam, F10 , and aft transverse beam, F20 :
FT0 ¼ F10 þ F20 : ð2Þ
The longitudinal position of the total slam force, x1, was
evaluated using:
Fig. 6 a Centrebow forward transverse beam configuration for
evaluating slam loads from measured bending moments. b Centrebow
forward and aft transverse beam configuration for evaluating slam
loads from measured bending moments
123

F10
x1 ¼ w2 : ð3Þ
F10 þ F20
To calibrate the centrebow configuration the model was
turned upside down and the sheer line of each demihull
segment was mounted flush with a flat horizontal granite
bench top. This restrained the demihull segments but
allowed the centrebow to move freely in the vertical
direction. Varying calibration loads were applied to the
centre line of the hydroelastic model at several positions on
the centrebow wet deck and the centrebow keel to simulate
a slam load.
To determine the influence of the bow inertia on the
predicted slam force from strains measured during slam
impact, accelerations were measured using an Endevco
accelerometer mounted on the centreline of the centrebow
forward transverse beam during towing tank tests per-
formed in regular waves. The peak accelerations mea-
sured on the model were then used to evaluate the inertia
of the centrebow to predict the accuracy of the (quasi-
static) slam load calculation. Based on the accelerometer
measurements, the calculated bow inertia force repre-
sented up to 17% of the total peak sagging quasi-static
slam load if the peak quasi-static force and peak accel-
eration occurred at the same instant. Thus, the slam forces
on the hull could be up to 17% larger than those
measured.
The bow inertia loads were initially considered to be
insignificant, because the bow segment was designed to
have a considerably higher natural frequency (60 Hz) than
the first longitudinal mode whipping frequency (13.79 Hz),
so the moments recorded in the forward transverse beam
elastic hinges would give a direct indication of the slam
forces. However, tests in which bow acceleration was
measured (undertaken subsequent to the main series of
tests described in this paper) did indicate that bow inertia
loads during slamming were not completely negligible.
Since bow acceleration records were not available for most
of the towing tank tests, it was not possible to correct for
bow inertia loads in each case.
2.5 Test conditions
The main aim of the work was to investigate the conditions
for the occurrence of slam events and to characterise the
slams with respect to magnitude and kinematic parameters.
The tests were conducted in a sea state corresponding to a
full-scale significant wave height of 3.75 m and a modal
period of 8 s. The wave conditions were simulated using a
JONSWAP sea spectrum. These conditions and a limited
fetch idealised spectrum were chosen since they are
representative of waters typically experienced by high-
speed catamarans during commercial ferry operations. Two
123
J Mar Sci Technol
4.0
Measured Spectrum
3.5 JONSWAP Spectrum
3.0
S 0 (m2/(rad/s))
2.5
2.0
1.5
1.0
0.5
0.0
0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5 3
Wave Frequency (rad/s)
Fig. 7 Comparison of measured and idealised wave spectra
speeds were tested: 20 knots and 38 knots at full scale (1.53
and 2.89 m/s model scale). A comparison of the measured
wave spectrum in the test region of the towing tank is
compared with the required idealised wave spectrum in
Fig. 7; excellent correlation between the two spectra can be
seen.
2.6 Data acquisition
To acquire the data, two acquisition systems were used.
The first system was the permanent on-board towing tank
carriage system (NI 6036E series, National Instruments,
Austin, TX, USA). This acquired data from the carriage
speed, LVDTs, wave probes and pressure transducers. The
second DAQ system was a National Instruments Compact
RIO (cRIO) data acquisition system, which was used to
record the strain gauge from the elastic links. To aid syn-
chronisation between the two sets of data, a common
signal—an LVDT—was recorded by each system simul-
taneously. For adequate resolution of the pressure trans-
ducer signals, the carriage DAQ was sampled at 5000 Hz,
with the cRIO system recording at 500 Hz.
2.7 Test run method
The full wave spectrum was required to have been
established in the test section of the tank prior to com-
mencing a run. Since the lower-frequency waves in the
spectrum travel at a faster speed than the high-frequency
waves, it was important to wait for the high-frequency
waves to progress a sufficient distance down the tank
before starting each test run. The required waiting time
was calculated based on the group velocity of the highest
frequency waves in the spectrum. For each wave condition
tested, the equivalent of 20 min of full-scale data were
recorded, which was achieved by combining a series of
test runs.
J Mar Sci Technol

400.0

300.0

200.0
micro strain

100.0

0.0
5 7 9 11 13 15
-100.0

-200.0

-300.0

-400.0
Time (s)

Fig. 8 Hydroelastic catamaran model raw strain gauge data, star-

board forward demihull Fig. 10 Vertical load on the centrebow, showing global wave loading
and slam loads
140

120 be excellent, with similar behaviour being exhibited in

100 both. Scaled finite-element modal analysis for the Incat
112 m gave a value of 2.1 Hz for the two-node mode,
Stress (MPa)

80
which was matched by the model. The zero-speed damping
60 ratio of 0.019 was close in value to that obtained for 86 and
40 96 m catamarans (0.035 and 0.018). The damping ratio f is
20
defined as:
0 lnðx1 =xmþ1 Þ
160 165 170 175 180 185 f¼ ð4Þ
2pm
-20
Time (s ec ) for f  1, where x1 and xm?1 represent the amplitudes of
Fig. 9 Incat Hull 050 raw strain gauge data [19] the signal at times t1 and tm?1 separated by a number of
cycles m. This result was somewhat fortuitous, since the
damping cannot be easily controlled, being largely asso-
3 Results and discussion ciated with the structure and outfit.

3.1 Dynamic behaviour 3.2 Slam identification

A key aim of model development was to be able to real-
istically simulate the slamming and whipping behaviour of
high-speed catamarans. It is critical that the model tests can
be regarded as a good simulation of full-scale slamming.
Raw strain gauge data from the starboard forward
demihull elastic link is shown in Fig. 8. The underlying
global wave loads can be clearly seen, as well as a series of
slam events resulting in significantly larger strain values
(e.g. slam events at 7.5, 8.2, 12.3 and 13.6 s). Following
these slam events, the transmission of energy into the
structure to cause whipping of the model is visible, with the
primary two-node longitudinal mode being excited. The
modal frequency, shape and damping were ascertained
using the strain gauge data from the demihull elastic links
[20] during impact tests. These data can be qualitatively
compared with that obtained from full-scale measurements
on high-speed catamarans. An example of such data is
shown in Fig. 9 for Incat Hull 050 [18]. Qualitative
agreement between these two sets of data is considered to
The slam load data, derived from the strain gauge mea-
surements in the centrebow (see Sect. 2.4), was an ideal
signal to use to identify slam events in the time records.
The centrebow only became loaded when it entered the
water and slam events could be clearly discerned from
global loads due to their distinct nature. This is illustrated
in Fig. 10, where the load on the centrebow for a typical
test run is shown. The event at 17.75 s is a slam event, as
exhibited by the rapid increase in the load due to the impact
with the water. In contrast, at 18.5 and 19 s there are two
global wave loadings due to the immersion of the centre-
bow in the water, but no slam event. A slam was defined,
using a similar approach as that taken with full-scale
measurements by Thomas et al. [5], as having occurred if
the maximum load exceeded 10 N and the maximum rate
of change of load prior to the peak was at least 5000 N/s.
This value was chosen since it gave a rate of change that
clearly differentiated the slam events from the global wave
loads. This is illustrated in Fig. 11, where the same data

123

Fig. 11 Time trace of the rate of change of vertical load, clearly
showing four slam events at t = 17.75, 19.6, 20.1 and 20.5 s
shown in Fig. 10 have been converted to rate of change of
vertical force on the centrebow; the slam events can be
discerned even more clearly.
3.3 Kinematic analysis
Kinematic analysis was conducted for each of the identified
slam events to allow characterisation of the slamming
process. A set of measurable kinematic parameters was
developed to help identify key relationships; these param-
eters included the relative bow immersion and impact angle,
the relative vertical bow velocity and the peak slam force.
A reference point for many of these parameters is the aft
truncation point of the centrebow, which is the aft end of
the centrebow where it terminates, aft of which the cross
deck structure is solely a flat wet deck. It is abbreviated as
CBT and (as shown in Fig. 5) is 1902 mm forward of the
transom of the model.
The relative impact angle, hRI, was defined as the angle
between the centrebow archway and the water surface at
the CBT. It was calculated as the difference between the
wave angle hw and the sum of the pitch angle hp and
the centrebow archway angle hCBA; see Eq. 5 below. The
centrebow archway angle, which was the angle to the
horizontal of the fore and aft run of the top of the archway
at the CBT, was 7.7.
hRI ¼ hw  hp  hCBA : ð5Þ
The slope of the wave, hw, was found from the
difference in wave elevation as measured by two of the
moving resistance wave probes.
The immersion of the model at the CBT, hCBT, was
calculated by determining the difference between the ver-
tical displacement at the CBT (combining heave and pitch
motion), z, and the wave elevation at this point, hw.
hCBT ¼ hw  z: ð6Þ
123
J Mar Sci Technol
The relative vertical bow velocity, vRV, was found by
calculating the difference between the vertical velocity of
the vessel at the CBT, vv, and the vertical velocity of the
water surface, vw:
vRV ¼ vw  vv ; ð7Þ
where
dhw
vw ¼ ð8Þ
dt
dz
vv ¼ : ð9Þ
dt
Note that in Eqs. 5, 6 and 7, the influence of the steady
and unsteady wave pattern due to the vessel motion is
ignored, as it is assumed to be insignificant in relation to
the incident waves.
A sample of the results of the kinematic analysis is
shown in Fig. 12 for a typical test run with heave at LCG,
pitch angle, wave elevation, relative bow immersion at
CBT, relative vertical velocity at CBT, slam force and
pressure at the top of the archway.
3.4 Slam characterisation
A total of 284 slams were identified in the data records and
analysed. The majority of the slams were relatively low in
magnitude, as illustrated in Fig. 13, which shows the per-
centage of occurrence of slams of varying magnitude for
both the speeds tested. This is a similar distribution to that
found from full-scale vessel measurements, for example on
Incat Hull 042 [5]. It is clear that few extreme slam events
occur in relation to the smaller events, with a total of only 3
slams having a slam load of over 150 N. The most severe
slam recorded was a load of 187 N, which relates (using
Froude scaling) to a full-scale load of 1785 tonnes. Of note
is the difference in behaviour with vessel speed: more
larger slam events appear to occur at the higher speed.
The slam occurrence rates were determined by con-
verting the number of slams found into the number of
slams per hour. The slam events per hour increased from
318, for an operational speed of 20 knots, to 484, for 38
knots. It should be noted that the model was operating
without a ride control system, so full-scale values of
slamming rates would be expected to be significantly
reduced.
A standard approach to explaining slam behaviour is
through the relative vertical velocity between the vessel
and the water surface prior to impact. The relative vertical
bow velocity was determined for each slam event and is
plotted in Fig. 14 in relation to the slam load. The data
show that a relative vertical velocity value of only 0.25 m/s
(1.7 m/s full scale) is required for a slam to occur. There
does not appear to be a significant difference is the
J Mar Sci Technol

Fig. 12 Kinematic analysis

overview of a typical test run,
showing heave at LCG, pitch
angle, wave elevation, relative
bow immersion at CBT, relative
vertical velocity at CBT, slam
force and pressure at the top of
the archway

200
Percentage of occurrence

60 180 Fn = 0.32
50
160 Fn = 0.60
40
30 140
Slam load (N)

20 120
10
100
0 Fn = 0.60
80
Fn = 0.32
60
40
20
Slam load (N)
0
Fig. 13 Distribution of slam loads for various model speeds 0 0.5 1 1.5 2
Maximum relative vertical velocity prior to slam (m/s)

relationship between velocity and slam magnitude for the
two speeds tested.
Generally, it would be expected that there would be a
correlation between the relative vertical velocity and the
magnitude of the slam. Whilst Fig. 14 shows a general
trend that an increase in relative vertical velocity leads to
an increase in slam load, the relationship is weak. In fact,
Fig. 14 Slam load as a function of the maximum relative vertical
velocity prior to a slam occurring
for a particular relative vertical velocity, there is a large
range of possible slam magnitudes; for example, with a
relative vertical velocity of 1.1 m/s, the slam load could
realistically be of any value between 20 and 150 N. This

123
 J Mar Sci Technol

200 200
Fn = 0.32 Fn = 0.32
180 180
F = 0.60
Fn
160 CBT 160 Fn = 0.60

140 140

Slam load (N)

Slam load (N)

120 120
100 100
80 80
60 60
40 40
20 20
0 0
1650 1700 1750 1800 1850 1900 1950 2000 -5 -4 -3 -2 -1 0 1 2
Slam location from transom (mm) Pitch angle (deg)

Fig. 15 Slam load as a function of slam location measured from the Fig. 17 Slam load as a function of pitch angle (positive is bow up)
transom
the majority of the pressure peaks are located in the
3
vicinity of the centrebow truncation and further aft, and
2.5 CBT there is very little slam pressure in the forward region of
the centrebow. In future tests it would be beneficial to
instrument the model with more pressure transducers, thus
Peak Pressure (psi)

2
1.5
1
0.5
0 occurred with a negative pitch angle, i.e. bow down,
1650 1700 1750 1800 1850 1900 1950 2000 2050 2100 2150
Location from transom (mm)
Fig. 16 Slam pressure distribution along archway
suggests that there are other important factors which are
influencing the magnitude of the slam load; possibilities
include the immersion of the vessel and the relative angle
between the water surface and the hull.
The majority of the slam forces are centred in the
vicinity of the centrebow truncation. This is shown in
Fig. 15, where the slam location for each slam is plotted
against its slam load magnitude; the majority of slams
occur within 100 mm of the CBT. This is a valuable result,
as it provides designers with information on the zone in the
vessel most susceptible to high local impact loadings. Tests
in regular waves by Lavroff [21] showed a similar longi-
tudinal location for the slam events. It is interesting to note
that the slams for the 38 knot condition tend to occur
further aft than those for a full-scale speed of 20 knots.
Mapping of the slam impact was achieved by using
results from the pressure transducers located along the
starboard archway between the centrebow and the demi-
hull. The maximum pressure measured by each transducer
during a series of slam events is shown in Fig. 16. The
vertical line indicates the truncation point of the centrebow
and the start of the flat wet deck. This plot again shows that
allowing a more complete mapping of the pressures in the
archway to be achieved.
Another clear difference in slam behaviour for the
varying model speed is seen in Fig. 17. Here the pitch
angle of the vessel is plotted against slam load. For the
slower ship speed of 20 knots, the majority of the slams
showing that the vessel is pitching down into the water as it
slams. There is a weak correlation between the slam load
and the pitch angle, indicating that the larger slams at this
speed tend to occur with a larger pitch angle. In contrast, at
the higher vessel speed, the pitch angle at impact is gen-
erally close to zero or slightly positive.
These results suggest that the mechanics of the slam-
ming events are somewhat different for the two speeds. The
forward slam location and the bow-down pitch angle sug-
gest that the slow-speed slam is more dependent on the
pitching motion to drive the bow into the water. The
combination of a small pitch angle and slam location fur-
ther aft suggests that a slam event at higher speed is more
akin to the vessel driving straight horizontally into a wave.
It is interesting to note that the resultant vertical velocities
for both types of slams are similar (Fig. 14).
It was proposed that the relative angle between the water
surface and the underside of the archway may have an
influence on the magnitude of the slam event. For example,
when a flat plate is dropped horizontally onto flat water, the
impact is significantly larger than if the plate contacts at an
angle to the water [22]. This was investigated by plotting
the slam magnitude versus the relative impact angle at the
CBT for each slam event; see Fig. 18.
This plot shows that there was in fact no clear rela-
tionship between the relative impact angle and the

123
J Mar Sci Technol

200 100
180 Fn = 0.32 Fn = 0.32
160 Fn = 0.60 80

Immersion at CBT (mm)

140
Fn = 0.60
Slam load (N)

120 60
100
Centrebow
80 40
truncation
60
40 20 2D filling
height
20
0 0
-50 -40 -30 -20 -10 0 10 20 Max arch
height
Relative impact angle (deg)
-20
1780 1830 1880 1930 1980
Fig. 18 Slam load as a function of relative impact angle
Slam location from transom (mm)

200 Fig. 20 Immersion at the CBT for varying slam locations

180 Fn = 0.32

160 Fn = 0.60
140 max arch height
Slam load (N)

120
100
80
60
40
20
0
-20 0 20 40 60 80 100
Immersion at CBT (mm)

Fig. 19 Slam load as a function of immersion at the centrebow Fig. 21 Definition of 2D filling height, hf, based on area A1 equalling
truncation area A2

magnitude of the slam. This suggests that there are other
factors which might have a greater influence on the slam
magnitude, such as venting of air from the archway and the
amount of mixing of air and water at impact.
For a monohull vessel to slam, the vertical relative
velocity needs to be greater than a threshold value and the
keel of the vessel needs to enter the water [23]. In contrast,
a catamaran appears to need a relatively low threshold
value for a slam to occur (as shown in Fig. 14), and the top
of the archway does not need to immerse to the level of the
water surface. This is illustrated in Fig. 19, where the
immersion at the CBT is plotted for the slam events. The
height of the archway at the CBT is marked as the vertical
line, showing that an immersion of 76 mm is required for
the archway to touch the water surface; however, it is clear
that most slams are occurring with the vessel immersing
less than this value.
In Fig. 20, the immersion at the centrebow truncation is
shown for each slam event plotted against its longitudinal
location. There is a clear trend here, with the immersion
increasing as slam location moves forward. Of particular
interest is the immersion required for a slam at the cen-
trebow truncation, 44.4 mm. This relates to the two-
dimensional filling height at the centrebow truncation. This
is defined in Fig. 21; the two-dimensional filling height, hf,
is reached when the bow is immersed so that the area of the
rectangle (A2) with a width of the demihull centreline to the
vessel centreline (b) and a height equal to the distance
immersed is equal to the cross-sectional area of the arch-
way A1. This physically represents the displacement of the
water by the demihull and centrebow into the archway
region as the bow immerses into the water.
It is of interest that the slams at higher vessel speed
appear to require less immersion of the hull into the water.
This is consistent with the high-speed slams occurring
further aft on the vessel with smaller angles of pitch.
The locations of slam events in the trace of wave ele-
vation are shown in Fig. 22; the slams are marked as hol-
low circles. It appears that the majority of the slams
occurred with the model impacting the wave just prior to
encountering the peak of the wave. This is shown more
clearly in Fig. 23, where each slam event is plotted based

123
 J Mar Sci Technol

Fig. 22 Slam locations plotted

on a wave elevation time trace

200 200
Fn = 0.32 Fn = 0.32
180 180
Fn = 0.60
160 160 Fn = 0.60
Wave Peak
140 140
Slam load (N)

Slam load (N)

120 120
100 100
80 80
60 60
40 40
20 20
0 0
-50 -40 -30 -20 -10 0 10 20 30 40 50 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90
Percentage of wave length prior to peak (%) Wave Height (mm)

Fig. 23 Slam load as a function of the percentage of wavelength Fig. 24 Slam load as a function of the height of the wave back
prior to wave peak

will allow the incorporation of slam prediction, using an

on its slam load and the position of the impact in the wave.
empirical basis, into time–domain seakeeping codes such
The majority of the slams occurred within 30% of the
as the 2d?t code BEAMSEA developed by Holloway
wavelength (for the wave enveloping each slam event)
and Davis [24]. For example, such codes may incorporate
either side of the wave peak. For the higher model speed,
the data on immersion versus slam location to determine
the majority of the slams occur just after the wave crest.
if a slam event has occurred. Then the slam load versus
In order to analyse the effect of the wave characteristics
the relative vertical velocity may be used to estimate the
on slam magnitude, the wave causing each slam event was
magnitude of the slam load. This will result in such
examined in detail, with the height of the face of the wave
codes having additional outputs of slamming rates and
that the model slammed into and the height of the back of the
slam loadings as well as vessel motions and global wave
preceding wave being determined. The relationship between
loads.
slam magnitude and preceding wave back height was found
In addition, the mechanism for the occurrence of slam
to be stronger than that with the slam wave face height. The
events with extreme levels of loading is clearer. For
relationship between face height of the wave and slam load
example, in the test data, the three largest slam events with
is shown in Fig. 24; generally, an increase in face height has
loadings between 180 and 190 N (approximately 1700
a corresponding increase in slam magnitude.
tonnes full scale) all exhibited the following characteristics:
The results of this investigation have provided detailed
information on the kinematic parameters relating the • Relative vertical velocity above 1.3 m/s
slamming process of large high-speed catamarans. This • Slam location just aft of the CBT

123
J Mar Sci Technol
• Immersion to, or just below, the 2D filling height
• Slam at the crest of the wave.
However, it is apparent that other factors must be
influencing the slam behaviour that have not yet been
identified, since some slams can have all of the above
characteristics but do not result in a large slam loading.
Further work is therefore required to investigate such fac-
tors as the venting of, and the aeration within, the archway
during a slam, in order to determine their influence on slam
magnitude.
3.5 Scaling effects
The use of Froude’s law is appropriate for model tests
involving water waves, since it ensures that, for the model
and full-scale vessel, the correct relationship is maintained
between inertial and gravitational forces [25]. Since
slamming loads on ships are dominated by gravitational
and inertial forces, Froude scaling is therefore suitable.
The Reynolds number governs the inertial and viscous
forces, but it is not possible to achieve both Froude and
Reynolds scaling simultaneously in model tests. It is pro-
posed that the differences between model and full-scale
Reynolds numbers are not significant for slamming tests,
since the flow in the archway during slamming is naturally
turbulent (note that turbulence stimulators were fitted to the
bows of the model).
The oscillatory flow of the slamming behaviour is
governed by the Strouhal number. If the frequency of
oscillation is taken as the motion frequency of the ship and
water waves, then this number was satisfied in the model
experiments. Surface tension forces, as governed by the
Weber number, are normally ignored in ship model
experiments. For slam events, the surface tension may have
a visible effect on the appearance of the spray generated by
the model when compared with full scale, with the size of
the model-scale droplets of spray being too large compared
with full scale. However, since the slam loads are domi-
nated by inertial forces, it is proposed that similarity of
Weber numbers for model and full scale is not required, as
the spray is not expected to be in direct contact with the
hull.
Faltinsen [26] proposes that if slamming is associated
with the formation of gas pockets, which may be the sit-
uation with slamming in the archway of a catamaran, the
Euler number must be the same in model and full scale.
However, this is hard to achieve experimentally, and Fro-
ude scaling results in a model-scale Euler number that is
larger than the corresponding full-scale value. This will
lead to conservative predictions of slam loads.
Whilst it is not possible to investigate scaling effects by
replicating the model tests in full-scale measurements, or
vice versa, a comparison with full-scale slamming data is
illuminating. The use of strain gauge measurements of a
96 m high-speed catamaran and finite element analysis [1]
resulted in the estimation of an extreme slam event of 93%
of the vessel’s displacement; this corresponds with the
largest slam measured during the model experiments of
71% of the vessel’s displacement. The distribution of the
occurrence of slams of varying magnitude was found to be
similar to the distribution found from full-scale vessel
measurements [5].
4 Conclusions
Model tests were conducted using a hydroelastic seg-
mented model of a wave-piercer catamaran to obtain data
on slamming behaviour. The whipping behaviour of the
full-scale Incat 112 m vessel was replicated in the model,
with the correct longitudinal modal frequency being
achieved as well as an appropriate level of damping.
A total of 284 slam events were identified in the data
records and analysed against a set of kinematic parameters.
The largest slam event recorded was equivalent to a full-
scale load of 1785 tonnes.
A general trend that an increase in relative vertical
velocity leads to an increase in slam load was identified.
However, there is a large range of possible slam magni-
tudes for a particular relative vertical velocity. The
majority of the slam forces are centred in the vicinity of the
centrebow truncation.
There were some clear differences in the slamming
behaviour for the two speeds tested. The slower-speed
slams occurred further forward on the hull, prior to the
wave crest, with a bow-down pitch angle and deeper
immersion. In contrast, the slams at 38 knots were more
akin to driving into a wave with the slams occurring further
aft, at close to level trim, with shallower immersion at the
centrebow truncation and just forward of the wave crest.
Immersion of the centrebow to the two-dimensional
sectional filling height was found to be a better indicator of
slam occurrence than immersion to the top of the archway.
This demonstrates that the immersion of the demihulls and
centrebow contribute to the filling of the archways and the
occurrence of a slam.
The occurrence of slam events with extreme levels of
loading appears to be dependent on having a relative ver-
tical velocity above 1.3 m/s; a slam location just aft of the
CBT; immersion to, or just below, the 2D filling height;
and the slam being at the crest of the wave. However,
additional factors must be influencing the slam behaviour
that have not been identified in this current work, since
some slams may have all of the above characteristics but do
not result in a large slam loading. Further investigation is
123

thus required to assess the influence of such factors as the
venting of, and the aeration within, the archway during a
slam.
It is expected that although the model was not fitted with
an operating ride control system, the slamming behaviour
of the full-scale vessel will be similar to that of the model,
except that the full-scale values of slamming rates would
be significantly reduced. Another possible influence on the
results is that the model is towed as opposed to being self-
propelled. Full-scale data have shown that vessels can be
slowed after experiencing a series of large slam events.
The results will allow the incorporation of an empirically
based slam prediction model into the 2D?t seakeeping code
BEAMSEA originally developed by Holloway and Davis
[24].
Acknowledgments This work has been supported by Incat Tas-
mania, Revolution Design Pty Ltd and an Australian Research
Council Linkage Grant. The authors would like to acknowledge the
contribution of Mr Kim Chamberlin at the model testing stage of the
work.
References
1. Thomas GA, Davis MR, Holloway DS, Roberts TJ (2003)
Transient dynamic slam response of large high speed catamarans.
In: Proc 7th Int Conf on Fast Sea Transportation (FAST 03),
Naples, Italy, 7–10 Oct 2003, 2(B1):1–8
2. Thomas GA, Davis MR, Holloway DS, Roberts TJ (2005) The
influence of slamming and whipping on the fatigue life of a high-
speed catamaran. In: Proc 8th Int Conf on Fast Sea Transportation
(FAST 05), St Petersburg, Russia, 27–30 June 2005, Sect 4,
pp 33–40
3. Roberts TJ, Watson NL, Davis MR (1997) Evaluation of sea
loads in high speed catamarans. In: Proc 4th Int Conf on Fast Sea
Transportation (FAST 97), Sydney, Australia, 21–23 July 1997,
pp 311–316
4. Watson NL, Davis MR, Roberts TJ (1997) Shipborne measure-
ment of sea conditions and seakeeping response of high-speed
ferries. In: Proc 4th Int Conf on Fast Sea Transportation (FAST
97), Sydney, Australia, 21–23 July 1997, pp 713–718
5. Thomas GA, Davis MR, Holloway DS, Watson NL, Roberts TJ
(2003) Slamming response of a large high speed wave piercer
catamaran. Marine Technol 40(2):126–140
6. International Towing Tank Conference (2008) Testing and
extrapolation methods high speed marine vehicles: structural
loads (ITTC Recomm Proced Guidelines 7.5-02-05-06). ITTC
Secretary, Rio de Janeiro
7. Watanabe I, Takemoto H, Miyamoto T (1988) Use of an elastic
model in studying wave loads on a ship in waves and its verifi-
cation by a full-scale measurement. In: Proceedings of the
International Symposium on Scale Modeling. Japan Society of
Mechanical Engineers, Tokyo, pp 47–55
123
J Mar Sci Technol
8. Riska K, Kukkanen T (1994) Speed dependence of the natural
modes of an elastically scaled ship model. In: Proceedings of
Hydroelasticity in Marine Technology. Balkema, Rotterdam,
pp 157–168
9. McTaggart K, Datta I, Stirling A, Gibson S, Glen I (1997)
Motions and loads of a hydroelastic frigate model in severe seas.
Trans SNAME 105:427–453
10. Dessi D, Mariani R, Coppotelli G (2007) Experimental investi-
gation of the bending vibrations of a fast vessel. Aust J Mech Eng
4(2):125–144
11. Troesch AW (1984) Wave-induced hull vibrations: an experi-
mental and theoretical study. J Ship Res 28(2):141–150
12. Hermundstad OA, Aarsnes JV, Moan T (1999) Linear hydro-
elastic analysis of high-speed catamarans and monohulls. J Ship
Res 43(1):48–63
13. Ge C, Faltinsen OM, Moan T (2005) Global hydroelastic
response of catamarans due to wetdeck slamming. J Ship Res
49(1):24–42
14. Wahab R (1967) Amidships forces and moments on a CB = 0.80
‘‘Series 60’’ model in waves from various directions (NSMB
Report No. 100 S). Netherlands Ship Research Centre, Delft
15. Colwell JL, Datta I, Rogers R (1995) Head seas slamming tests
on a fast surface ship hull form series. In: Proceedings of the
RINA Conference on Seakeeping and Weather. Royal Institution
of Naval Architects, London, pp 1–18
16. Kapsenberg GK, Brizzolara S (1999) Hydroelastic effects of bow
flare slamming on a fast monohull. In: Proc 5th Int Conf on Fast
Sea Transportation (FAST 99), Seattle, WA, USA, 31 Aug–2
Sept 1999, pp 699–708
17. Okland OD, Moan T, Aarsnes JV (1998) Structural response in
large twin hull vessels exposed to severe wet deck slamming. In:
Proc 7th Int Symp on Practical Design of Ships and Mobile Units
(PRADS 98), The Hague, The Netherlands, 20–25 Sept 1998,
pp 69–78
18. Thomas GA, Davis MR, Holloway DS, Roberts TJ (2008) The
vibratory damping of large high speed catamarans. Marine Struct
21:1–22
19. Lavroff J, Davis MR, Holloway DS, Thomas G (2010) The
vibratory response of high-speed catamarans to slamming
investigated by hydroelastic segmented model experiments. Int J
Marit Eng (RINA Trans Part A) (in press)
20. Lavroff J, Davis MR, Holloway DS, Thomas G (2007) The
whipping vibratory response of a hydroelastic segmented cata-
maran model. In: Proc 9th Int Conf on Fast Sea Transportation
(FAST 07), Shanghai, China, 23–27 Sept 2007, pp 600–607
21. Lavroff J (2009) The slamming and whipping response of a
hydroelastically segmented catamaran model (Ph.D. thesis).
University of Tasmania, August
22. Smith NJ, Stansby PK, Wright JR (1998) The slam force on a flat
plate in free flight due to impact on a wave crest. J Fluids Struct
12:183–196
23. Lloyd ARJM (1989) Seakeeping: ship behaviour in rough
weather. Ellis Horwood, Chichester
24. Holloway DS, Davis MR (2006) Ship motion using a high Froude
number time domain strip theory. J Ship Res 50(1):15–30
25. Faltinsen OM (2006) Hydrodynamics of high-speed marine
vehicles. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge
26. Faltinsen OM (2007) Challenges in hydrodynamics of ships and
ocean structures. Brodogradnja 58(3):268–277