Z. Angew. Math. Phys.

(2023) 74:169
c 2023 The Author(s) Zeitschrift für angewandte
https://doi.org/10.1007/s00033-023-02043-4 Mathematik und Physik ZAMP

Curiosities of two-dimensional planing

Lawrence J. Doctors

Abstract. The traditional deep-water analysis of two-dimensional planing is studied in detail and applied to efficient splash-
free and optimal profiles, as well as to flat plates. The methodology is used to analyze both free-to-rise and free-to-rise-plus-
trim profiles. In some cases, the predictions exhibit unexpected discontinuous behavior for the lift, wetted length and other
results, with respect to the parameters describing the curvature of the planing surface. These discontinuities are due to
the nonlinearities inherent in the practical planing problem, as opposed to previous simplified analyses in which the wetted
length was specified.

Mathematics Subject Classification. 31A08, 76B04.

Keywords. Free surface, Planing, Optimization.

List of symbols

C Corner function
Cp Pressure coefficient
F Wetted-length Froude number
Ft Transom-pressure force
F∇ Volumetric Froude number
L Lift
M Moment
N Number of panels
RA Correlation resistance
RF Frictional resistance
RP Pressure resistance
RS Spray resistance
RT Total resistance
RW Wave resistance
Tt Transom draft
U Ship velocity
W Displacement weight
a Nominal semilength of panel
d Depth of water
e Error at leading edge
g Acceleration due to gravity
hT Trailing-edge elevation
i Field index
ir Solution index

0123456789().: V,-vol
169 Page 2 of 24 L. J. Doctors ZAMP

j Source index
k Circular wave number
k0 Fundamental circular wave number
l Wetted length of planing surface
n Power of algebraic profile
p Hydrodynamic pressure
r Ratio of two profile coefficients
s Local slope of profile
x Longitudinal coordinate
x Longitudinal center of pressure
z Vertical coordinate
α First profile coefficient
β Second profile coefficient
δ Local pressure head
ζ Free-surface elevation
ζt Transom wave elevation
λ Source-field dimensionless distance
ν Kinematic viscosity of water
ρ Density of water
∇ Displacement volume
0 At-rest condition
 Per unit value of profile coefficient
 Divided by wetted length

1. Introduction

1.1. Previous work

The first researcher to study planing in an analytic manner was Sretensky [27] and Sretensky [28]. He laid
out the foundation for planing of two-dimensional profiles in deep water. In his work, he assumed that
the water is inviscid and that the free-surface kinematic and dynamic conditions are to be linearized.
These are reasonable assumptions considering that most practical applications of efficient planing
require the trim angle to be small, implying that the presence of viscosity does not affect the generation
of the pressure distribution and that the only effect of viscosity is to create the frictional resistance, which
can be accounted for through the selection of a suitable formula.
Further early and similar work was performed by Sedov [24], Sedov [25, Chap. VII], Maruo [19], Maruo
[20], Maruo [21], Maruo [22] and Squire [26].
Nonlinear planing, in which the full two free-surface conditions are employed was considered by Green
[13], Green [14] and Green [15].
In all cases, the planing surface is represented by an unknown pressure distribution, which is to be
found as part of the solution. Doctors [7] developed a simple and effective approach in which the pressure
is composed of overlapping triangular elements, as depicted in Fig. 1a.
The purpose of the current work is to gain insight into the intellectually interesting physics behind
planing phenomena. The engineering application of this research is to naval architecture design practice,
in which the designer wishes to develop efficient planing vessels.
ZAMP Curiosities of two-dimensional planing Page 3 of 24 169

Fig. 1. Definition of the problem

1.2. Current work

We shall here build upon the previous work of Doctors [7] and, in the first instance, extend the collocation
method he used to the Galerkin method, in which the kinematic condition is applied in an average sense
over the longitudinal extent of the field element—rather than just at its center.
We shall also consider the performance of various curved profiles and apply the methodology to
practical planing surfaces in which the wetted length is unknown and is to be found as part of the
numerical solution. Figure 1a presents the nomenclature used in this work. There are N − 1 elements
with a length 2a, as indicated, and the wetted planing length l = 2aN is predefined in a straightforward
application of the theory. The trailing-edge elevation hT is unknown and is part of the solution.
Figure 1b illustrates the elementary profiles of the planing surfaces under consideration. In order of
complexity, these are: flat (linear), parabolic, cubic, sinusoidal and angular. The first three profiles are
defined by the general power formula

z/l = (x/l)n for n = 1, 2 and 3 , (1)

while the sinusoidal profile is defined as

z/l = x/l − sin(πx/l)/π , (2)

and the angular formula is


0 for x/l ≤ 1/2
z/l = . (3)
2x/l − 1 for x/l > 1/2

Later in this study we will combine the elementary profiles with the intention of creating more efficient
practical profiles—those with a higher lift-to-drag ratio.
It has been pointed out in the literature that the pressure distribution contains a square-root sin-
gularity at the leading edge, which implies the creation of a spray jet that is directed forward. This
phenomenon corresponds to the leading-edge suction in thin-airfoil theory. In the case of planing, we
must consequently not normally apply the kinematic condition at the leading edge; this results in an
error e at the leading edge.
169 Page 4 of 24 L. J. Doctors ZAMP

2. Theory

2.1. Potential flow

We employ the classic inviscid-fluid approach and assume linearized kinematic and dynamic conditions
at the free surface, as well as the kinematic condition on the bottom at z = −∞. The velocity potential
for a two-dimensional pressure patch traveling with a speed U was given by Doctors [8, p 341, Eqs. 9.2
and 9.3]. A detailed explanation of the solution was published by Lamb [17, Articles 243 and 244, pp
400–406].
The desired wave elevation is obtained through the use of the dynamic condition and was published
by Doctors [8, Eq. 9.4]:
⎧∞

1 ⎨ k[P(k) cos(kx) + Q(k) sin(kx)]
ζ(x) = − dk
π⎩ k − k0
0
⎫
⎬
+ πk0 [P(k0 ) sin(k0 x) − Q(k0 ) cos(k0 x)] − δ(x), (4)
⎭

where k is the circular wave number, p(x) = ρgδ(x) is the local surface pressure, ρ is the water density, g
is the acceleration due to gravity, δ is the local pressure “head” and k0 is the fundamental circular wave
number given by the formula
k0 = g/U 2 . (5)
The two-dimensional Kochin functions are

P(k) + iQ(k) = δ(x) exp(ikx) dx . (6)

2.2. Collocation response function

The Kochin functions P and Q for a triangular element possessing fore-and-aft symmetry with nominal
length dx = 2a was given by Doctors [8, Eq. 9.5] as
2δ0
P= · sin2 (ka) , (7)
ak 2
Q = 0,
in which δ0 is the nominal (peak) pressure of the element.
The integration in Eq. 4 can be performed analytically using the two auxiliary functions for the cosine
and the sine integrals, defined by Abramowitz and Stegun [1, Sect. 5.2, pp. 231–233]:
∞
sin(t)
f (z) = dt , (8)
z+t
0
∞
cos(t)
g(z) = dt . (9)
z+t
0
We also require the two integration formulas:
∞
sgn(z)f (|z|) dz = g(|z|) + ln(|z|) , (10)
0
ZAMP Curiosities of two-dimensional planing Page 5 of 24 169

∞
π 
g(|z|) dz = sgn(z) − f (|z|) . (11)
2
0

These two auxiliary functions can be computed to double-precision accuracy using the method of
[23, Pages 148 and 149]. Care should be used when using other sources of information on these special
functions, where slightly different notation and/or definitions are sometimes evident.
After some algebra utilizing these special functions, the k integration in Eq. 4 leads to the required
result:
1

ζi /δj = wi Ci,j+k , (12)
k=−1

with the three weights

[w] = [−1, 2, −1] , (13)
in which the corner function C is given by
1 1 
Cij = [g(|λij |) + ln(|λij |)] + H(−λij )[2 sin(λij ) − λij ] , (14)
2ak0 π
where H is the Heaviside step function and the dimensionless distance from the center of the source
element with index j to the field point with index i is
λij = k0 (xi − xj ) . (15)

2.3. Galerkin response function

In this approach, we average the response at the field point by a weighted integration over the field panel,
with the weighting function given by the triangular function. This process involves two more integrations.
Care must be taken with these integrations, because the special functions involve the absolute values of
their arguments. The final result is
2

ζi /δj = wi Ci,j+k , (16)
k=−2

with the five weights

[w] = [1, −4, 6, −4, 1] , (17)
in which the corner function C is now given by

1 1 1 3 π
Cij = 3
[g(|λij |) + ln(|λij |) − λ2ij ln(|λij |) + λ2ij + |λij |]
(2ak0 ) π 2 4 2

1 3
+H(−λij )[2 sin(λij ) + λij ] . (18)
6
The two parts of Fig. 2 compare the collocation and the Galerkin response functions in the far field
and the near field respectively, for three different values of the parameter ak0 . The second subfigure
particularly demonstrates that there is little difference between the two methods of calculation—except
very close to the source panel. As implied by the methodology, the Galerkin result represents a weighted
average over the field panel.
 169 Page 6 of 24 L. J. Doctors ZAMP

Fig. 2. Response functions

2.4. Assembly of pressure elements

The solution of the planing problem is effected by applying the kinematic condition at each of the points
indicated in Fig. 1a. The condition requires that the sum of the free-surface responses from the pressure
elements equates to the local elevation. That is,
N
−1
δj Kij = hT + zi for i = 0 to N − 1 , (19)
j=1
Kij = ζi /δj . (20)

2.5. Convergence

The four parts of Fig. 3 present some examples of the convergence of the numerical predictions for a flat
plate with respect to the number of pressure panels N .
Figure√ 3a is a plot of the pressure distribution along the plate at a wetted-length Froude number
F = U/ gl of 1, for five values of the number of panels, using the collocation method. The pressure is
rendered dimensionless using the wetted plate length l and the lift L on the plate. This graph shows that
40 or 80 panels suffice to obtain good convergence.
Figure 3b is the corresponding graph using the Galerkin method. It is somewhat disappointing to
observe the poor and oscillatory behavior of the curve of pressure for small values of the number of
panels. However, the process does converge properly as the number of panels increases.
The lift L is made dimensionless with respect to the at-rest lift (buoyancy) L0 in Fig. 3c and is plotted
as a function of the number of panels. Despite the apparent misbehavior of the pressure distribution
exhibited by the Galerkin method in Fig. 3b, the lift convergences faster using the more sophisticated
Galerkin method. A similar statement can be made about the dimensionless center of pressure x/l in
Fig. 3d.
ZAMP Curiosities of two-dimensional planing Page 7 of 24 169

Fig. 3. Convergence behavior for flat plate

3. Sample results

3.1. Power profiles

Planing surfaces with a flat, parabolic and cubic profile are considered in Fig. 4. The dimensionless lift for
all three algebraic profiles is presented in Fig. 4a. The use of the traditional lift coefficient CL = L/ 12 ρU 2 l
is eschewed here because it inconveniently approaches infinity as the speed approaches zero. The veracity
of the calculations is demonstrated by comparing the predictions of the collocation and the Galerkin
methods. The dimensionless lift equals unity at zero speed.
Figure 4b shows the dimensionless center of pressure. As a check on the curves, for the flat plate at-rest,
the value is 1/3, while the high-speed limit is 3/4. The former is the correct result for a floating triangular
centerplane profile. The latter is the established result for the center of pressure for a two-dimensional
flat airfoil. The trailing-edge elevation (made dimensionless against the at-rest value) is plotted in Fig. 4c.
 169 Page 8 of 24 L. J. Doctors ZAMP

Fig. 4. Comparison of elementary profiles

The ratio of the wave resistance to the pressure resistance is given in Fig. 4d. To this end, we remind
the reader that the pressure resistance (drag in an inviscid fluid) is given by the formula
N
−1
RP = pi si Δx , (21)
i=1

while the wave resistance was given by Lamb [17, Article 249, Pages 415 and 416]:
1
RW = ρg(A2C + A2S ) , (22)
4
N −1
4 sin2 (k0 a)
AC = − δi sin(k0 xi ) , (23)
k0 a i=1
N −1
4 sin2 (k0 a)
AS = − δi cos(k0 xi ) (24)
k0 a i=1
ZAMP Curiosities of two-dimensional planing Page 9 of 24 169

Table 1. Annotation used in figures

Abbreviation Planing Profile Analysis

F, L Flat Lift∗
F, L&M Flat Lift and moment
F+A, SF Flat-plus-angular Splash-free†
F+P, SF Flat-plus-parabolic Splash-free†
F+S, SF Flat-plus-sinusoidal Splash-free†
F+P, L&M Flat-plus-parabolic Lift and moment
F+P, L&O Flat-plus-parabolic Lift and optimal∗
F+P, L&SF Flat-plus-parabolic Lift and splash-free∗
∗ Equilibrium in moment is ignored
† Equilibrium not considered

and so the spray resistance is simply

RS = RP − RW . (25)
In these equations, si is the slope of the planing surface at the ith field point, while AC and AS are the
inphase and quadrature components of the downstream wave amplitude.

3.2. Splash-free profiles

Figure 4d shows that the spray resistance becomes increasingly dominant, as the speed of the planing
surface increases. The linear theory cannot be used directly to compute the spray resistance, because the
physics relates to the spray jet that is thrown forward at the leading edge, where the elevation of the free
surface is double-valued in the real nonlinear situation. However, the spray resistance can be deduced by
means of the simple subtraction in Eq. 25.
It is for this reason that the kinematic condition is not applied at i = N at the leading edge as shown
in Fig. 1a, where the error e in not matching the water elevation at the plate is indicated. This error can
be obtained from Eq. 19 as
N
−1
e= δ j KN j − h T − z N . (26)
j=1

We can create a splash-free profile by means of a linear combination of two elementary profiles through
the use of the simple formula:
e = αe1 + βe2
= 0. (27)
Hydrodynamic planing surfaces behave similarly to aerodynamic wings, and particularly so at high
Froude numbers. Efficient wings are shock free, meaning that the incoming air flow meets the leading
edge of the wing at the same angle as that of the profile, so that there is no flow separation. For the
planing surface, this is usually referred to as the splash-free condition.
An example of this idea is considered in Fig. 5 for a combination of a flat and a parabolic profile.
Table 1 should be consulted for the abbreviations used in the annotations in this figure and throughout
the remainder of this paper.
The convergence of the pressure distribution with respect to the number of panels, for the collocation
and the Galerkin methods, is presented in the first two parts of Fig. 5. The rate of convergence appears to
be better than that in Fig. 3a, because the difference in the curves for N = 40 and N = 80 is now almost
 169 Page 10 of 24 L. J. Doctors ZAMP

Fig. 5. Convergence behavior for splash-free profiles

indistinguishable for the collocation method in Fig. 5a. However, once again, the pressure obtained from
the Galerkin method in Fig. 5b exhibits minor problems at the ends of the curved plate.
The previously mentioned choice of, say, 80 panels provides a prediction for integrated results such
as lift and center of pressure converged to better than one percent, which is generally sufficient for
engineering design purposes. These results are plotted in Fig. 5c and d.
The splash-free concept is explored further in Fig. 6. The pressure distribution is presented for six
values of the Froude number in Fig. 6a. There is insignificant difference between the cases of F = 3 and
F = ∞. The latter case corresponds to two-dimensional airfoil theory, for which there is a simple analytic
solution. The curve is simply one half of an ellipse.
The pressure possesses increasingly fore-and-aft symmetry as the speed increases. This point is rein-
forced by examining the behavior of the center of pressure in Fig. 6b, which indeed approaches 1/2 for
large values of the Froude number.
ZAMP Curiosities of two-dimensional planing Page 11 of 24 169

Fig. 6. Behavior of splash-free profiles

The corresponding result for the lift is seen in Fig. 6c. At high speeds, the curves for the three el-
ementary secondary profiles in Eq. 27—parabolic, sinusoidal and angular—are separated by a constant
difference in the logarithmic plot. In reality, this corresponds to a fixed ratio.
Finally, the ratio β/α of the two factors in Eq. 27 is plotted against the Froude number in Fig. 6d.
Because of the way the elementary profiles are defined in Eqs. 1–3, this ratio equals −1/2 at zero speed
and it approaches −1 at infinite speed.

4. Practical applications

4.1. Free flat profiles

In a practical case of planing, the weight and the center of gravity are predefined and the boat consequently
adjusts itself with respect to the wetted length and the trim so that it is in equilibrium. In the results
presented so far, the wetted length l is defined, so that the predictions are not directly in a usable form.
169 Page 12 of 24 L. J. Doctors ZAMP

In the simplest example of an equilibrium calculation, we shall fix the trim angle α equal to the at-rest
value α0 ; thus equilibrium with respect to weight or lift only is considered.
We clarify that, in the case of a flat profile, α represents both the first profile coefficient and the trim
angle.
In principle, it is necessary to iterate the wetted length until the desired equilibrium with regard to
lift is achieved. One can circumvent this difficulty by simply performing a single planing calculation and
then relating the results to the relevant zero-speed condition. Thus the at-rest lift L0 is given in terms of
the at-rest wetted length l0 and the at-rest trim angle α0 by the formulas
α = α0 ,
L = L0 (28)
1
= ρgl02 α0 , (29)
2
so we obtain

l0 = 2L/ρgα0 . (30)
Figure 7a shows the predictions for the wetted length, trailing-edge elevation and wave resistance. The
abscissa is the Froude number F0 based on the at-rest wetted length. The data are made dimensionless
as indicated. The curves are the result of the current theory, while the symbols represent data extracted
from Squire [26, Table 5].
The more practical case of equilibrium requires ensuring that the moments of the weight and the
hydrodynamic force balance each other, in addition to the forces. To this end, we note that the center of
pressure of the flat plate at rest x0 is located at 1/3 the at-rest length. We also utilize Eq. 29 and make
use of the calculation of the dynamic lift L based on an assumed trim angle α0 , which must be scaled
according to the required at-rest lift (the at-rest buoyancy):
l0 = 3x , (31)
α= ρgl02 α02 /2L . (32)
The remaining five parts of Fig. 7 are devoted to the flat plate which is in equilibrium for both lift
and moment (the practical case). Thus Fig. 7b shows the predicted wetted length, trailing-edge elevation
and the trim angle as a function of the at-rest-wetted-length Froude number F0 . Also shown are dotted
lines which are the high-Froude number approximations taken from Squire [26]. The high-Froude number
approximations are quite acceptable for F0 > 0.7.
An example of the resistance components for an at-rest wetted length l0 of 10 m is presented in
Fig. 7c. The
predictions have been plotted as a function of the two-dimensional volumetric Froude number
F∇ = U/ g∇1/2 , where ∇ is the displacement volume per unit width. This is the two-dimensional
equivalent of the traditional volumetric Froude number. This choice of Froude number was made to
enable the proper comparison of planing surfaces of differing length but supporting the same load.
To make this theoretical exercise useful, we have assumed a typical value of the water kinematic
viscosity, as annotated on the plot. The ITTC (1957) formula, as described by Clements [5, Page 374]
and by Lewis [18, Sects. 3.5, pp. 7–15], has been used here to estimate the frictional drag RF . Additionally,
to further make the prediction realistic, a correlation allowance CA = 4×10−4 has been used. This leads
to the correlation resistance RA which accounts for a basic roughness in the hull. Further information on
these matters can be found in Doctors [8, Sect. 3.3]. Figure 7c vividly demonstrates that viscosity is the
source of the lion’s share of the total resistance at the higher speeds.
Different at-rest wetted lengths are the subject of Fig. 7d. As in all matters of engineering optimization,
the best choice depends on the design requirements. The curves show that greater vessel lengths reduce
the total resistance RT at low speeds, while the opposite is true at high speeds.
The wetted length is plotted in Fig. 7e and the trim angle is plotted in Fig. 7f.
ZAMP Curiosities of two-dimensional planing Page 13 of 24 169

Fig. 7. Free flat profiles

169 Page 14 of 24 L. J. Doctors ZAMP

The humps in the curves plotted in Fig. 7d–f shift to higher volumetric Froude numbers as the at-rest
wetted length l0 is increased. This is very evident in the case of Fig. 7e and f, where viscosity does not
play a rôle. Because we are studying simple flat shapes, which are self-similar, it can be shown that any
volumetric Froude number F∇ of interest is precisely proportional to the square root of the at-rest wetted
length l0 .

4.2. Free flat-plus-parabolic profiles

The equilibrium calculation for a flat-plus-parabolic profile of the form

z/l0 = α0 (x/l0 ) + β0 (x/l0 )2 , (33)
where α0 and β0 are the coefficients of the linear (flat) and parabolic contributions in the at-rest condition,
is more challenging. To gain an understanding of Eq. 33, we first note that the longitudinal and the vertical
coordinates x and z have been divided by l0 . Thus, if β0 = 0 this represents the simple flat shape. If β0
is negative, the plate is curved downward, similar to the traditional aircraft wing. This is known to be
an efficient choice.
The challenge in utilizing Eq. 33 is due to the wetted length l varying with the speed and hence the
proportion of the two at-speed corresponding coefficients α and β is unknown. Nevertheless, the approach
described in the previous section can be generalized as follows. We first equate the at-rest lift L0 and the
at-rest moment M0 to the dynamic values:
L0 = αL1 + β L
2 , (34)
1 + β M
M0 = α M 2 , (35)
in which the  symbol indicates the value of the relevant lift or moment for a unit value of the corresponding
coefficient. In the current problem, these two equations can be expanded as
1 2 2 2 ,
 1 + β0 r2 L
ρgl0 α0 + ρgl02 β0 = αL (36)
2 3
1 3 1 1 + β0 r2 M 2 ,
ρgl0 α0 + ρgl03 β0 = αM (37)
6 4
r = l/l0 , (38)
in which we have introduced r the ratio of the dynamic to the at-rest wetted lengths. This factor is
required to modify the contribution from the parabolic term; it accounts for the fact that, with speed,
the parabolic contributions to the lift and the moment increase with the square of the changing wetted
length. The two equations of equilibrium can be combined, by eliminating α between them. This process
produces a single equation in the one variable r:
   
1 ρg(l2 /r2 ) 1 α0 + 2 β0 − L
M  2 β0 r2
2 3
 1  
−L  1 ρg(l /r ) α0 + 1 β0 − M
3 3 2 β0 r2 = 0 . (39)
6 4
The solution of Eq. 39 is achieved rapidly, firstly through a simple search with respect to the wetted-
length ratio, by stepping the values of r from 0 to 4 in increments of 0.1. Once the required interval is
determined, the efficient Newton–Raphson method may be employed, as described by de Vahl Davis [6,
Sect. 2.8].
Examples of the equilibrium of a flat-plus-parabolic planing surface are provided in Fig. 8. In the first
subfigure, the specific resistance RT /W is plotted as a function of the two-dimensional volumetric Froude
number F∇ . Values of the ratio β0 /α0 range from 0 (flat) to −0.6 (substantial downward curvature). As
indicated in Eq. 33, this is the ratio of the parabolic to the linear term describing the shape of the plate
ZAMP Curiosities of two-dimensional planing Page 15 of 24 169

Fig. 8. Free flat-plus-parabolic profiles

in the at-rest condition. As an example, β0 /α0 = −1 defines a surface with strong downward curvature
in which the elevation of the leading edge equals that of the trailing edge.
For small negative values of the parabolic coefficient (0 to −0.457) in Fig. 8a, increasing the negativity
(downward curvature) reduces the drag at high speed. There is an opposite effect at low speeds. For
larger negative values of the curvature (−0.457 to −0.6), there is a separate group of results. That is,
there is a discontinuity in behavior for β0 /α0 equal to −0.457. Further investigation of this surprising
result revealed that there can be either one or two solutions for r in Eq. 39. The index ir for this solution
is annotated on the plot. Thus it was decided manually to choose the first (lower-value) solution for the
first group of curves. On the other hand, the second (higher-value) solution was chosen for the second
group of curves. This important point will be examined further in Fig. 9.
The corresponding wetted-length ratio is plotted in Fig. 8b, where the division of the results into two
distinct groups is also clear. Similarly, the trailing-edge elevation is plotted in Fig. 8c. Lastly, the change
in trim angle from the at-rest condition is shown in Fig. 8d. An unexpected result is that, for the case of
β0 /α0 = −0.457, the two solutions for the change in trim angle merge perfectly within plotting accuracy
when F∇ > 3.
 169 Page 16 of 24 L. J. Doctors ZAMP

Fig. 9. Incorrect free flat-plus-parabolic profiles

The matter of the possibility of two solutions to the flat-plus-parabolic planing problem is the subject
of Fig. 9. The four parts of this figure correspond to the four parts of Fig. 8. However, in the current
graphs a deliberate choice of the wrong solution for the wetted length (where there were two possibilities)
has been made.
Comparison of Figs. 9a and Fig. 8a confirms the strong differences. The source of the bizarre problem
is clear from the curves of wetted length in Fig. 9b. The curves do not approach unity in a smooth manner
at zero speed. This plot confirms the suspicion that the additional solution of the equilibrium given by
Eq. 39 is a mathematical artifice and should be rejected.
For the sake of completion we also provide results for the trailing-edge elevation in Fig. 9c, while the
increase in trim angle relative to the at-rest condition is shown in Fig. 9d.
ZAMP Curiosities of two-dimensional planing Page 17 of 24 169

5. Improved profiles

5.1. Splash-free profiles

With the desire to optimize the planing profile, we will first consider splash-free forms, as already discussed
earlier. Ideally, a splash-free form could be implemented in practice by installing an adjustable bottom in
the vessel. That is, the concept would require altering the shape according to the speed, as exemplified
by Fig. 10d.
This concept is clearly difficult to implement and so a simplified version would be to shape the bottom
to be optimal for one particular speed. This simplified approach is analogous to the dynaplane, which
is described in some detail in Doctors [9, pp. 485–488, Sect. 11.5.4]. In essence, the hull of the vessel
resembles a typical high-speed planing vessel fitted with a step. The wetted surface just ahead of the
step possesses a downwardly concave profile and so bears a strong resemblance to the current proposed
concept.
The location of the center of gravity is a challenge so that a typical dynaplane vessel is fitted with a
stabilizer at the stern. This stabilizer could be a hydrofoil or a secondary planing surface.
Therefore the results presented in Fig. 10 are based on the abovementioned splash-free analysis. How-
ever, the calculations require adjusting the lift in order to support the weight. This process requires
scaling α and β accordingly. The frictional resistance has been included in order to make the predictions
useful.
Figure 10a shows the specific total resistance for five different wetted lengths. We remind the reader
that in this somewhat hypothetical exercise, the dynamic wetted length equals the at-rest wetted length.
The curves show that the best wetted length depends on the required operating speed, with lesser lengths
being better at the higher speeds.
The first profile coefficient α is plotted in Fig. 10b. This coefficient at first increases but then approaches
zero at high speeds. The second coefficient β in Fig. 10c behaves in a similar manner (but negatively, of
course). Finally, the ratio between the two coefficients is shown in Fig. 10d. This plot is reminiscent of
Fig. 6d.

5.2. Optimal profiles

The optimal flat-plus-parabolic profile can be found by writing the profile, the lift, the moment and the
resistance as
z/l = α(x/l) + β(x/l)2 , (40)

L = (α p1 + β p2 ) dx

= αL 2 ,
1 + β L (41)

M = (α p1 + β p2 )x dx

 + βM
= αM 2 , (42)
 1
R = (α p1 + β p2 )[α + 2β(x/l)] dx

 1 + 2αβ M
= α2 L  + αβ L  .
 2 + 2β 2 M (43)
1 2

The  symbol indicates the value of the relevant pressure for a unit value of the corresponding coefficient.
The prime  is used to indicate that the moment has been divided by l so that it has the same dimensions
as the lift.
 169 Page 18 of 24 L. J. Doctors ZAMP

Fig. 10. Splash-free flat-plus-parabolic profiles

We seek a minimum resistance subject to a specified lift, so we substitute β from Eq. 41 into Eq. 43,
from which the following quadratic equation for the resistance is obtained:

R = a0 + a1 α + a2 α2 , (44)
2 /L
a0 = 2L2 M  22 , (45)
a1 = L(1 + 2M /L 2 − 4L  /L
1 M 2 ) , (46)
1 2 2
 2   2    
a2 = 2(L1 M2 /L2 − L1 M1 /L2 ) . (47)

The minimum of Eq. 44 occurs when

α = −a1 /2a2 . (48)

A partial check on the correctness of this algebra is provided by noting that Eq. 48 indicates that α ∝ L
and, as a consequence, we can also state that β ∝ L.
ZAMP Curiosities of two-dimensional planing Page 19 of 24 169

Fig. 11. Optimal Flat-Plus-Parabolic Profiles

A further point is that the frictional resistance component has been ignored in the optimization
process. This would add a constant to the value of a0 in Eq. 44 and would therefore not affect the final
result for the optimal coefficients in Eq. 48.
We now proceed to Fig. 11 in which the four subfigures correspond to those in Fig. 10. Referring first
to Fig. 11a, the optimal resistance approaches zero at low speed, while the splash-free resistance does
not. In the latter case, the resistance at zero speed is not zero because of the hydrostatic resistance. The
calculation of the hydrostatic resistance has assumed that the transom is fully dry. At high speeds, the
optimal resistance is the same as the splash-free resistance.
Similarly, α in Fig. 11b differs from that in Fig. 10b at low speeds but not at high speeds. The same
statement can be made when comparing β in Fig. 11c with that in Fig. 10c. The ratio of the two coefficients
β/α in (d) of the two figures consequently also differ from each other.
To further clarify these points, the final set of results in Fig. 12 compare the splash-free and the optimal
results on the same plots.
 169 Page 20 of 24 L. J. Doctors ZAMP

Fig. 12. Splash-Free and Optimal Flat-Plus-Parabolic Profiles

Figure 12a shows the specific total resistance for the two plate lengths, namely l = 5 m and l = 20 m.
At low speeds, the optimal resistance is certainly less than the splash-free value. In the high-speed range
there is no difference between the two methods of analysis.
The first profile coefficient α is plotted in Fig. 12b. At zero speed the splash-free condition is substan-
tially different from the optimal condition and so there is a substantial difference there between the two
values of α. At higher speeds this coefficient is the same for the splash-free condition and the optimal
condition, because the two methods of analysis are equivalent then.

5.3. Ventilation of transom

The computational results presented so far are based on the assumption that the transom is fully ven-
tilated. In reality, this is not true at low forward speeds. There is a growing literature on this subject,
which has been summarized by Doctors [8, Chap. 4]. A workable idealization of the water flow past a
partly ventilated stern is depicted in Fig. 13a.
The water immediately behind the transom is assumed to be essentially stagnant. Furthermore the
drawdown of the water is considered to be caused by a simple suction process. So the elevation ζt of the
water (negative in value) is given by the following formula:
1
ρgζt = Cp ρU 2 , (49)
2
where Cp is a suitably chosen (negative) pressure coefficient, as suggested in Doctors [8, Table 4.1]. We
then assume that the water pressure on the face of the transom increases linearly with the local depth
below the water surface. This gives the transom force as
1
ρg(Tt + ζt )2 ,
Ft = (50)
2
in which Tt is the transom draft at rest. Thus an improved theory requires the subtraction of Ft from
the pressure drag acting on the planing surface.
Some sample results for the total resistance are presented in Fig. 13b, for three of the cases already
plotted in Fig. 7d. These new sophisticated calculations demonstrate the more acceptable prediction of
ZAMP Curiosities of two-dimensional planing Page 21 of 24 169

Fig. 13. Ventilation of Transom

the resistance, which now increases smoothly from a value of zero when the vessel is at rest. A value of
Cp = −0.25 has been employed here.
The critical Froude number at which the transom is fully ventilated can be deduced, for the simple
case of a flat planing surface, by first expressing the displacement volume as follows:
1 2
∇= ζ /α0 ,
2 t
1 2
= Cp · U 2 /2g /α0 , (51)
2
in which we have equated the water-level drop −ζt with the transom draft Tt at rest. These equations
can be manipulated to give the critical volumetric Froude number and the critical static-length Froude
number:

F∇ = 4 16∇/Cp2 l02 , (52)

F0 = −4∇/Cp l02 . (53)
The three critical two-dimensional-volumetric Froude numbers in Fig. 13b are predicted to be 1.504,
1.271 and 1.064; these numbers correlate with the relevant curves. For additional clarification, we have
also shown the predictions of total resistance, in which the transom ventilation has been ignored.

6. Concluding comments

6.1. Current work

• The Galerkin method has been shown to be not much more effective than the simpler collocation
method. This is particularly true of the predicted pressure distribution, which suffers from undesired
oscillations unless a large number of panels is used. It is thought that the oscillations result from
the singular behavior of planing at the ends of the surface.
• We have shown that the theory can be applied to practical problems of planing without iteration
where, in principle, there would be a need to do so. This is because the linear theory has the
 169 Page 22 of 24 L. J. Doctors ZAMP

desirable property of being scalable. This allows us to obtain a single planing solution and then to
reverse-engineer the results to the original at-rest vessel.
• Optimal planing profiles show promise of modifying flat surfaces in terms of reducing the drag. These
possess the characteristic of a downward curvature as in the dynaplane concept. This geometric
feature is directly related to the corresponding aerodynamic problem.
• At high speeds the optimal planing profile coincides with the splash-free form. At low speeds, the
optimal profile is much better than the splash-free form.
• The optimization form depends on the contribution of the frictional resistance. Were the friction to
be ignored, the optimal planing form would be an infinity long plate set at a vanishingly small trim
angle.
• The first person to study optimal forms was Froude [12, Page 44] who considered the frictional
and pressure components of resistance of a flat surface, using experiments in order to obtain the
relevant lift and drag forces. His conclusion was that the optimal angle was 3.312◦ giving a total
resistance-to-weight ratio of 0.1156. A study of Fig. 8a shows an optimal value of 0.09556 in the
high-speed range. This is only marginally better and is applicable at one speed only. The somewhat
unrealistic example of Fig. 11a indicates a best result of 0.08569 in the high-speed range. This
example requires an adjustable planing surface. So even with a carefully constructed parabolic
surface, the improvement over a simple flat surface is still not remarkable.
• Inclusion of the back pressure of the stagnant water on the surface of the transom stern, when it is
partly ventilated, is shown to reduce the resistance at low speeds. However, at high speeds—those of
relevance to this work—the transom is fully ventilated. So this refinement to the theory is generally
irrelevant.

6.2. Future work

It would be instructive to investigate further the matter of double solutions for the free flat-plus-parabolic
surfaces in Fig. 8. This could be achieved either through towing-tank experiments or through the use of
computational fluid dynamics.
It is planned to extend this work to three-dimensional planing surfaces. Some recent papers on this
subject were written by Kohansal and Ghassemi [16], Ayob et al. [2], Blount [3], Brizzolara et al. [4],
Doctors [10], Doctors [11] and Wang, Zhu et al. [29].

Author contributions Not applicable as there is only one author.

Funding Open Access funding enabled and organized by CAUL and its Member Institutions No funding
was received.

Data availability and materials Not applicable as there are no experimental data shown in the paper.

Declarations
Conflict of interest There were no conflicts or competing interests.

Ethical approval Not applicable as the research did not relate to human and/or animal studies.

Open Access. This article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License, which permits use,
sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the
original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons licence, and indicate if changes were made. The
images or other third party material in this article are included in the article’s Creative Commons licence, unless indicated
otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the article’s Creative Commons licence and your
ZAMP Curiosities of two-dimensional planing Page 23 of 24 169

intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission
directly from the copyright holder. To view a copy of this licence, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/.

Publisher’s Note Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps
and institutional affiliations.

References

[1] Abramowitz, M., Stegun, I. A.: Handbook of Mathematical Functions, National Bureau of Standards, Applied Mathe-
matics Series 55, Tenth Printing, 1046+xiv pp (1972)
[2] Ayob, A.F.M., Ray, T., Smith, W.: A hydrodynamic preliminary design optimization framework for high speed planing
craft. J. Ship Res. 56(1), 35–47 (2012)
[3] Blount, D. L.: Performance by Design: Hydrodynamics for High-Speed Vessels, Donald L. Blount, PO Box 55171,
Virginia Beach, Virginia, 340 pp (2014)
[4] Brizzolara, S., Bay, R., Beaver, B., Morabito, M., Wang, Z., Stern, F.: Hydrodynamics of High Deadrise, Swept Back,
Cambered Planing Surfaces, In: Proc. Thirty-Third Symposium on Naval Hydrodynamics, Osaka, Japan, 11 pp, Dis-
cussion: 3 pp (2020)
[5] Clements, R.E.: An analysis of ship-model correlation data using the 1957 I.T.T.C. line, Trans. R. Inst. Naval Archit.,
101, pp 373–385, Discussion: pp 386–402 (1959)
[6] de Vahl Davis, G.: Numerical Methods in Engineering and Science, Allen and Unwin Publishers Ltd, London, 286+xvi
pp (1986)
[7] Doctors, L.J.: Representation of planing surfaces by finite pressure elements, Proc. Fifth Australasian Conf. Hydraul.
and Fluid Mech., Christchurch, New Zealand, 2, pp 480–488 (1974)
[8] Doctors, L. J.: Hydrodynamics of High-Performance Marine Vessels, Printed by CreateSpace, an Amazon.com Company,
Charleston, South Carolina, Second Edition, 1, pp 1–421+li (2018)
[9] Doctors, L. J.:. Hydrodynamics of High-Performance Marine Vessels, Printed by CreateSpace, an Amazon.com Com-
pany, Charleston, South Carolina, Second Edition, 2, pp 423–885+ii (2018)
[10] Doctors, L.J.: Hydrodynamics of transom-stern flaps for planing boats, Ocean Eng. 216, Article 107858, 11 pp (2020)
[11] Doctors, L.J.: A reanalysis of the towing-tank data for the performance of prismatic planing boats, Appl. Ocean Res.,
110, Article 102547, 15 pp (2021)
[12] Froude, W.: Admiralty experiments upon forms of ships and upon rocket floats., Naval Sci., 4, pp 37–51, Discussion:
262–264 (1875)
[13] Green, A.E.: The gliding of a plate on a stream of finite depth, Proc. Cambr. Philos. Soc., 31(4), pp 589–603, Correction:
32(1), p 183 (1935)
[14] Green, A.E.: The gliding of a plate on a stream of finite depth, Part II. Proc. Cambr. Philos. Soc., 32(1), pp 67–85
(1936)
[15] Green, A.E.: Note on the gliding of a plate on the surface of a stream, Proc. Cambr. Philos. Soc., 32(2), pp 248–252
(1936)
[16] Kohansal, A.R., Ghassemi, H.: A numerical modeling of hydrodynamic characteristics of various planing hull forms,
Ocean Eng., 37(5–6), pp 498–510 (2010)
[17] Lamb, H.: Hydrodynamics, Dover Publications, New York, 6th edn, 738+xv pp (1945)
[18] Lewis, E.V.: Principles of Naval Architecture: Resistance, Propulsion and Vibration, II, Society of Naval Architects and
Marine Engineers, Jersey City, New Jersey, 327+vi pp (1988)
[19] Maruo, H.: Two Dimensional Theory of the Hydroplane, Proc. First Japan National Congress for Applied Mechanics,
pp 409–415 (1951)
[20] Maruo, H.: Hydrodynamic researches of the hydroplane (Part 1), J. Zosen Kiokai, 91, pp 9–16 (1956)
[21] Maruo, H.: Hydrodynamic researches of the hydroplane (Part 2), J. Zosen Kiokai, 92, pp 57–63 (1957)
[22] Maruo, H.: Hydrodynamic researches of the hydroplane (Part 3), J. Zosen Kiokai, 105, pp 23–26 (1959)
[23] Rowe, B.T.P., Jarvis, M., Mandelbaum, R., Bernstein, G.M., Bosch, J., Simet, M., Meyers, J.E., Kacprzak, T., Nakajima,
R., Zuntz, J., Miyatake, H., Dietrich, J.P., Armstrong, R., Melchior, P., Gill, M.S.S.: GalSim: the modular galaxy image
simulation toolkit, Astronomy and Computing, 10(4), pp 121–150 (2015)
[24] Sedov, L.I.: Two Dimensional Problem of Planing on the Surface of a Heavy Fluid, Trudy Konferentsii po Teorii
Volnovogo Sprotivleniya, Moscow, pp 7–30 (1936)
[25] Sedov, L.I.: In: Chu, C.K., Cohen, H., Seckler, B.: Two-Dimensional Problems in Hydrodynamics and Aerodynamics,
Interscience Publishers, New York, 427+xv pp (1965)
[26] Squire, H.B.: The motion of a simple wedge along the water surface, Proc. R. Soc. Lond., Series A, 243 (1232), pp 48–64
(1957)
 169 Page 24 of 24 L. J. Doctors ZAMP

[27] Sretensky, L.N.: On the Motion of a Glider on Deep Water, USSR Academy of Sciences, Bulletin of Department of
Mathematical and Natural Sciences, pp 817–835 (1933)
[28] Sretensky, L.N.: On the theory of the glider, USSR Academy of Sciences, Bulletin of Department of Technical Sciiences,
7, pp 3–26 (1940)
[29] Wang, H., Zhu, R., Zha, L., Gu, M.: Experimental and numerical investigation on the resistance characteristics of a
high-speed planing catamaran in calm water, Ocean Eng., 258, Article 111837, 18 pp (2022)

Lawrence J. Doctors
School of Mechanical and Manufacturing Engineering
The University of New South Wales
Sydney
Australia
e-mail: L.Doctors@UNSW.edu.au

(Received: March 31, 2023; revised: May 22, 2023; accepted: June 9, 2023)