Ocean Engineering 34 (2007) 12571264

Performance analysis of 3D hydrofoil under free surface

Nan Xie

, Dracos Vassalos
The Ship Stability Research Centre, Department of Naval Architecture and Marine Engineering, Universities of Glasgow and Strathclyde,
Henry Dyer Building, 100 Montrose Street, Glasgow G4 0LZ, UK
Received 25 January 2006; accepted 30 May 2006
Available online 20 September 2006
Abstract
The purpose of the present paper is to develop a potential-based panel method for determining the steady potential ow about three-
dimensional hydrofoil under free surface. The method uses constant-strength doublets and source density distribution over the foil body
surface and thereby Dirichlet-type boundary condition is used instead of Neumann-type condition. On the undisturbed free surface
source density is used to meet the free surface condition that is linearised in terms of double-body model approach and is discretised by a
one-side, upstream, four-point nite difference operator. After solving the doublets on the foil and sources on the free surface, the
numerical results of pressure, lift and resistance coefcients and also wave proles can then be calculated for different Froude number
and depth of submergence to demonstrate the inuence of free surface and aspect ratio effects on performance of the hydrofoil.
r 2006 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
Keywords: 3D hydrofoil; Double model; Free surface; Potential ow
1. Introduction
Hydrofoils are widely used in ships and marine vehicles.
The analysis of performance of hydrofoil is one of
important subjects. When submergence of hydrofoil
becomes small, effect of free surface should be considered,
including evaluations of free surface prole, pressure
distribution, lift and resistance as well.
Most of early studies for this problem are on 2D
hydrofoil with free surface. Parkin et al. (1956) carried out
model tests on symmetric Joukowski section with 12%
thickness. Giesing and Smith (1967) adopt Kelvin source-
type complex potential to satisfy Neumann-type body
boundary condition and linearised free surface condition to
solve 2D hydrofoil potential ow. Yeung and Bouger
(1977) used hybrid integral equation method, while Bai
(1978) and Bai and Han (1994) adopt localised nite
element method to solve 2D hydrofoil potential ow with
linear and non-linear free surface conditions. Plotkin and
Kennel (1984) applied a second-order theory to 2D at
plane problem, source/vortices are distributed on foil
surface and the free surface condition is kept to second
order. More recently, Kouh et al. (2002) analysed
performance of 2D hydrofoil under free surface. They
distribute source on undisturbed free surface and doublet
on foil and wake surface. Dirichlet-type body boundary
condition is used instead of Neumann-type boundary
condition, the free surface condition is linearised by free
stream potential.
In the analysis of 3D lifting body with free surface, Lee
and Joo (1996) used a mixed source and doublet distribu-
tion on body surface and source distribution on free
surface to calculate wave-making resistance of catamaran.
Dirichlet-type body boundary condition is used on the
body surface. In their formulations, source strength on
body surface is set as the component of incoming ow
velocity on body surface normal direction, the induced
velocity of source distribution on free surface is not
included, the body boundary condition is thus not exactly
satised. They strongly recommended checking normal
velocity component on body surface.
Larsson and Janson (1999) developed a 3D panel
method for yacht potential ow simulation. In their
method, source and doublet are distributed on the lifting
ARTICLE IN PRESS
www.elsevier.com/locate/oceaneng
0029-8018/$ - see front matter r 2006 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
doi:10.1016/j.oceaneng.2006.05.008

Corresponding author.
E-mail addresses: nan.xie@na-me.ac.uk (N. Xie),
d.vassalos@na-me.ac.uk (D. Vassalos).
part of the yacht. The use of Neumann boundary condition
(normal velocity equals to zero) leads number of equations
less than the unknown strengths of source and doublet.
In order to make the problem closure, the lifting body
surface is divided into strips, essentially, parallel with
the undisturbed ow direction. At each strip, the doublet
strength is assumed constant span wise and varies linearly
with the arc length from the trailing edge of the pressure
side around the nose, back to the trailing edge on the
suction side. Behind the trailing edge, several wake
panels are added along which the doublet strength is
constant. Kutta condition is satised by prescribing a
direction of the ow immediately behind the trailing
edge, where the velocity vector is assumed to be in the
bisector plane. Numerically, this is accomplished by
specifying the normal to the surface and setting the velocity
in this direction to be zero. This turns out to be exactly
the same condition as the hull surface condition, so Kutta
equations are of exactly the same form as the hull
condition. In this way, the problem is closure. But
problem arises in calculating the induced velocity of
the doublet on the lifting body surface and Kutta panels.
In order to avoid this problem, some researchers distribute
the doublet on the central plane of the lifting body, see,
for example, Nakatake et al. (1990) and Zou and
Soding (1994); while Chen and Liu (2005) distribute the
doublet on a sub-surface inside the body (de-singularity
method).
In the present paper, a potential ow-based panel
method is developed to analyse 3D hydrofoil under free
surface. The free surface boundary condition is linearised
with double body ow potential. The total velocity
potential is split into double-body ow potential and
disturbance ow potential. On the body surface, Dirichlet-
type boundary condition is applied by the mixed source
and doublet distribution in which body boundary
condition is also satised. A doublet distribution is also
deployed on the wake surface. There is source distribution
on the free surface. The free surface condition is discretised
by the one-side, upstream, four-point nite difference
operator. After solving the doublets on the foil and
source on the free surface, the numerical results of
pressure, lift, wave-making resistance and wave surface
elevations can then be calculated at Froude number, depth
of submergence and aspect ratio to demonstrate the
inuence of free surface effect on performance of the
hydrofoil.
2. Mathematical formulations
Potential ow theory will be used in the present study.
This means that the uid is ideal and incompressible and
the ow is irrotational. A right-hand coordinate system
o xyz is assumed, located on the foil advancing at
forward speed U, oxy plane is on the undisturbed water
surface; oz-axis is positive upward and through the centre
of trailing edge of the foil; see Fig. 1. The velocity potential,
Fx; y; z, satises the following conditions:
r
2
F 0, (1)
g
qF
qz

1
2
rF r rF rF 0 on z B, (2)
qF
qn
0 on S
B
, (3)
rF j jo1 on TE of foil; (4)
Fx; y; z !xU far away upstream; (5)
where (4) is the Kutta condition. The free surface problem
formulated above is nonlinear, due to the free surface
boundary condition and the unknown position of the
corresponding boundary. The fully non-linear problem can
be solved iteratively, or solved with a linearised free surface
condition. Dawson (1977) suggested the double body
ow as the base ow to linearise the free surface condition.
In the present study, Dawsons method is used. It is
assumed that the velocity potential consists of the principal
ow potential, fx; y; z, and disturbance ow potential,
jx; y; z:
Fx; y; z fx; y; z jx; y; z. (6)
The double-body ow potential satises the following
conditions:
r
2
f 0, (7)
qf
qn
0 on S
B
, (8)
rf

o1 TE of foil; (9)
f !xU far away upstream: (10)
It is also assumed that the disturbance potential is much
less than the principal ow potential. With the linearised
free surface condition (Bertram, 1999; Xie and Vassalos,
2005), the disturbance ow potential is the solution of the
ARTICLE IN PRESS
Fig. 1. Coordinate system.
N. Xie, D. Vassalos / Ocean Engineering 34 (2007) 12571264 1258
following boundary value problem:
r
2
j 0, (11)
f
2
l
j
l
_ _
l
gj
z
f
zz
f
l
j
l
f
2
l
f
ll

1
2
f
zz
U
2
f
2
l
_ _
z 0,
(12)
qj
qn
0 on S
B
, (13)
rj

o1 TE of foil; (14)
j 0 far away upstream; (15)
where S
B
is the foil surface, and
l
stands derivative along
streamline of the double-body ow on z 0 plane.
The double-body potential consists of free stream ow
potential and ow due to presence of the foil:
fx; y; z f
1
x; y; z f
B
x; y; z, (16)
where f
1
is free stream velocity potential:
f
1
xU, (17)
and velocity potential of the perturbation ow due to
presence of the foil is obtained by using Greens second
identity (Newman, 1977):
f
B
x; y; z
1
4p
__
S
B
1
r
qf
B
qn
f
B
q
qn
1
r
_ _ _ _
ds

1
4p
__
S
w
f
w
q
qn
1
r
_ _ _ _
ds. 18
The integration on the wake surface, S
w
, is added due to
Kutta condition should be satised. Substituting body
boundary condition (8) into (18):
f
B
x; y; z
1
4p
__
S
B
n
x
r
U f
B
q
qn
1
r
_ _ _ _
ds

1
4p
__
S
w
f
w
q
qn
1
r
_ _ _ _
ds. 19
The disturbance ow potential consists of potentials due to
disturbance from foil and free surface
jx; y; z j
B
x; y; z j
F
x; y; z, (20)
where the mixed doublet and source distribution on foil is
used:
j
B
x; y; z
1
4p
__
S
B
1
r
qj
B
qn
j
B
q
qn
1
r
_ _ _ _
ds

1
4p
__
S
w
j
w
q
qn
1
r
_ _ _ _
ds 21
and source distribution on free surface:
j
F
x; y; z
__
S
F
s
F
r
ds, (22)
where S
F
is the mean free surface ( i.e., z 0). By using the
foil body boundary condition (13), (21) becomes
j
B
x; y; z
1
4p
__
S
B

1
r
qj
F
qn
j
B
q
qn
1
r
_ _ _ _
ds

1
4p
__
S
w
j
w
q
qn
1
r
_ _ _ _
ds. 23
3. Numerical method
When the eld point, p, is on the foil surface, the double
body ow potential (19) becomes
2pf
B
p
__
S
B
S

f
B
q
q
qn
1
r
pq
_ _
ds
q

__
S
w
f
w
q
q
qn
1
r
pq
_ _
ds
q
U
__
S
B
n
x
q
r
pq
ds
q
; p 2 S
B
,
24
where S
e
is a small part of foil surface surrounding eld
point p. Eq. (24) is the integral equation for the unknown
velocity potential (doublet strength) on foil surface, and is
solved by Hess and Smith method (Hess and Smith, 1964;
Hess, 1972). The foil body surface is divided into a number
of panels in chord and spanwise directions, on which the
strengths of source/doublet are constant. At the trailing
edge, Morino type of Kutta condition is applied (Morino
and Kuo, 1974):
f
w
f

on S
w
, (25)
where f
+
is strength of the doublet on suction side of
trailing edge of the foil; while f

is strength of the doublet

on pressure side of trailing edge of the foil. The unknowns
on the wake surface can be represented by those (velocity
potential) of the panels near trailing edge on the same strip
of the foil surface. The geometric symmetry of the foil is
taken into account to reduce the unknowns. One equation
is obtained at the null point of each panel:

NB
j1
A
i;j
f
B;j
E
0;i
; i 1; . . . ; NB, (26)
where the inuence coefcients:
A
i;j

__
DS
B;j
q
qn
j
1
r
ij
_ _
ds d
i;j
__
S
w;j
y
q
qn
j
1
r
ij
_ _
ds, (27)
E
0;i
U

NB
k1
n
k
__
DS
B;k
ds
r
k;i
, (28)
where d
i,j
is the difference coefcients near the trailing edge,
S
w;j
y
stands j
y
th strip on the wake surface. Velocity
potentials on trailing edge potential are determined in
terms of values on the null point of the near panels on the
ARTICLE IN PRESS
N. Xie, D. Vassalos / Ocean Engineering 34 (2007) 12571264 1259
same strip by the one-side three-point nite difference
scheme:
f

C
1
f
B;1
C
2
f
B;2
, (29)
f

C
K
f
B;K
C
K1
f
B;K1
, (30)
where f
B,1
is the velocity potential of the rst panel of the
strip on foil (pressure side), f
B,K
is the velocity potential of
the last panel of the strip on foil (pressure side) and C
i
are
coefcients of the one-side difference scheme depending on
the distances among the three points.
Once the velocity potential (doublet strength, solution of
(26)) on the foil surface is obtained, velocity distribution
of the double-body ow in the uid domain can be
calculated as
~vp rfp rf
1
rf
B
. (31)
The streamline on the undisturbed free surface can be
calculated with (31), and a RungeKutta scheme is used for
this integrating process.
From (23), when the eld points are on foil surface, the
integration equation for the disturbance ow is obtained as
2pj
B
p
__
S
B
S

f
B
q
q
qn
1
r
pq
_ _
ds
q

__
S
w
f
w
q
q
qn
1
r
pq
_ _
ds
q

__
S
B
1
r
pq
qj
F
qn
dS
q
0; p 2 S
B
. 32
The last term in (32) is the effect of free surface source
distribution on foil. By Morinos Kutta condition:
j
w
j

on S
w
. (33)
Discretising (32) and making use of (22), the following
equations are obtained:

NB
j1
A
i;j
j
B;j

NF
j1
Q
i;j
s
F;j
0; i 1; . . . ; NB, (34)
where [A
i,j
] are the same as in (28) except the integrating is
over under water foil surface (without mirror body above
undisturbed water surface) and
Q
i;j

NB
k1
~n
k
r
__
DS
F;j
ds
r
k;j
_
_
_
_
_
_
__
DS
B;k
ds
r
i;k
_
_
_
_
_
_; j 1; . . . ; NF.
(35)
In order to discretise free surface condition (12), the one
side, four-point upstream nite difference scheme is used
along each streamline (Dawson, 1977):
f
l
_ _
i
a
i
f
i
b
i
f
i1
g
i
f
i2
d
i
f
i3
, (36)
where f is a physical quantity of the ow eld, a
i
, b
i
, g
i
, d
i
are nite difference coefcients determined by the
streamline arc length coordinates (from up-stream to
downstream) l
i3
; l
i2
; l
i1
; l
i
. The expressions of a
i
, b
i
, g
i
,
d
i
can be found, for example, in Bertram (1999).
The free surface condition becomes
a
i
f
2
l;i
j
l;i
_ _
b
i
f
2
l;i1
j
l;i1
_ _
g
i
f
2
l;i2
j
l;i2
_ _
d
i
f
2
l;i3
j
l;i3
_ _
gj
z;i
f
zz;i
f
l;i
j
l;i
E
i
,
i 1; . . . ; NF, 37
where
E
i
a
i
f
2
l;i
f
l;i
b
i
f
2
l;i
f
l;i1
g
i
f
2
l;i
f
l;i2
d
i
f
2
l;i
f
l;i3
0:5f
zz;i
U
2
f
2
l;i
_ _
38
and
f
l;i

~
l
i
rf
qf
qx
l
x;i

qf
qy
l
y;i
. (39)
Here
~
l
i
is the direction of streamline of double body ow
on z 0. The velocity of the disturbance ow is expressed
as the strength of doublet on the foil surface and source
strength on free surface, thus equations for the unknowns
are obtained as

NB
j1
P
i;j
j
B;j

NF
j1
R
i;j
s
F;j
E
i
; i 1; . . . ; NF, (40)
where
P
i;j
a
i
f
2
l;i
V
Bl
i;j
b
i
f
2
l;i1
V
Bl
i1;j
g
i
f
2
l;i2
V
Bl
i2;j
d
i
f
2
l;i3
V
Bl
i3;j
gV
Bz
i;j
f
zz;i
f
l;i
V
Bl
i;j
; j 1; . . . ; NB,
41
R
i;j
a
i
f
2
l;i
V
Fl
i;j
b
i
f
2
l;i1
V
Fl
i1;j
g
i
f
2
l;i2
V
Fl
i2;j
d
i
f
2
l;i3
V
Fl
i3;j
gV
Fz
i;j
f
zz;i
f
l;i
V
Fl
i;j
; j 1; . . . ; NF.
42
The second-order derivative of the double-body ow (f
zz
)
is also calculated by the four-point difference scheme. In
the actual calculation, the source strengths of the rst three
panels on each streamline are assumed to be zero.
The inuence coefcients in (41) and (42) are calculated
in the following way:
V
Bl
i;j

1
4p
~
l
i
r
__
DS
B;j
q
qn
j
1
r
i;j
_ _ _ _
ds

d
i;j
4p
~
l
i
r
__
S
w;j
y
q
qn
j
1
r
i;j
_ _ _ _
ds; j 1; . . . ; NB,
43
V
Fl
i;j

~
l
i
r
__
DS
F;j
1
r
i;j
_ _
ds
1
4p

NB
k1
~n
k
r
__
DS
F
;j
1
r
k;j
_ _
ds
_
_
_
_
_
_

~
l
i
r
__
DS
B;k
1
r
i;k
_ _
ds
_

_
_

_
; j 1; . . . ; NF, 44
ARTICLE IN PRESS
N. Xie, D. Vassalos / Ocean Engineering 34 (2007) 12571264 1260
V
Bz
i;j

1
4p
~
k r
__
DS
B;j
q
qn
j
1
r
i;j
_ _ _ _
ds

d
i;j
4p
~
k r
__
S
w;j
y
q
qn
j
1
r
i;j
_ _ _ _
ds; j 1; . . . ; NB,
45
V
Fz
i;j

~
k r
__
DS
F;j
1
r
i;j
_ _
ds
1
4p

NB
k1
~n
k
r
__
DS
F
;j
1
r
k;j
_ _
ds
_
_
_
_
_
_

~
k r
__
DS
B;k
1
r
i;k
_ _
ds
_

_
_

_
; j 1; . . . ; NF. 46
Strengths of doublet and source for disturbance ow will
be the solution of the following equations:
A Q
P R
_ _
j
B
s
F
_ _

0
E
_ _
. (47)
An iterative approach is adopted to solve (47) (Xie and
Vassalos, 2005).
Velocity distribution on foil surface:
~
V V
n
~n V
e1
~e
1
V
e2
~e
2
V
e1
~e
1
V
e2
~e
2
V
B;e1
~e
1
V
B;e2
~e
2
rj
F
rf
1
_ _
~e
1
_ _
~e
1
rj
F
rf
1
_ _
~e
2
_ _
~e
2
, 48
where ~e
1
and ~e
2
are unit vectors on the foil surface, which
form a right-hand system with surface normal, ~n. The rst
two terms on RHS of (48) are calculated numerically by a
difference scheme:
V
B;e1
_ _
i;j

qf
B
j
B

qe
1
_ _
i;j
a f
B
j
B
_ _
i1;j
b f
B
j
B
_ _
i;j
g f
B
j
B
_ _
i1;j
, 49
V
B;e2
_ _
i;j

qf
B
j
B

qe
2
_ _
i;j
af
B
j
B

i;j1
bf
B
j
B

i;j
cf
B
j
B

i;j1
, 50
where a, b, g and a, b, c are difference coefcients. The
remaining terms in (48) are calculated analytically. Pressure
distribution on foil surface is
C
pB
x; y; z 1
V
U
_ _
2
1
V
2
e1
V
2
e2
U
2
x; y; z 2 S
B
.
(51)
Wave-making resistance of the foil:
R
w

1
2
rU
2
__
S
B
c
pB
x; y; zn
x
ds. (52)
Lift of the foil:
L
1
2
rU
2
__
S
B
c
pB
x; y; zn
z
ds. (53)
The non-dimensional wave resistance and lift coefcient
are dened as
C
w

R
w
0:5rU
2
cl
, (54)
C
L

L
0:5rU
2
cl
, (55)
where c is chord length and l is span of the foil. Free
surface elevation is calculated as
Bx; y
1
2g
U
2
rF rF
_ _
x; y 2 S
F
, (56)
where the total velocity potential is
Fx; y; z f
1
f
B
j
B
j
F
. (57)
4. Numerical results and discussions
NACA 4412 foil section is selected for the calculation.
The present results are compared with those of 2D of other
researchers due to the availability of the data. Fig. 2 is the
comparison of wave prole at the central plane of the foil
with aspect ratio (AR) 6, immersion h/c 1, chord
length Froude number F
c
1.0 and angle of attack a 5
1
,
the agreement is satisfactory. Comparisons of lift and
wave-making resistance coefcients are shown in Figs. 3
and 4. Fig. 5 shows pressure distribution on the central
section of the foil with AR 10. Good agreement is
achieved with the 2D results. These comparisons show the
applicability of the present approach.
Fig. 6 shows an example of the doublet (velocity
potential) distribution on the foil surface. In this case of
numerical calculations, the foil surface is divided into 12
strips in span wise, the rst strip is near the central plane,
while the 12th strip is located at the end of foil. The doublet
is plotted against non-dimensional arc length along strips.
It can be seen that, the curves basically consists of two
ARTICLE IN PRESS
NACA4412, 5deg
h/c=1, Fc=1.0
-1.0
-0.5
0.0
0.5
1.0
-4 -3 -2 -1 0 1 2 3
x/c
2
g
z
/
U
2
present
2D, Kouh et al
Fig. 2. Comparison of wave prole at the central plane of NACA4412 foil
with 2D calculation at Fc 1.0, a 5
1
, h/c 1 and AR 6.
N. Xie, D. Vassalos / Ocean Engineering 34 (2007) 12571264 1261
parts (on each of pressure and suction side), each of which
is approximately linear, however, the entire distribution on
each strip is not linear, i.e., not in proportion to the arc
length. Figs. 79 show samples of doublet strength,
pressure distribution on the foil and wave pattern,
respectively. Figs. 10 and 11 show lift and wave-making
resistance varies with foil immersion depth for chord
Froude numbers 0.7, 1.0 and 1.5, respectively, it can be
seen that the effect of immersion on the hydrodynamic
performance is signicant when the foil is located near free
surface. Fig. 12 shows lift for foils with three aspect ratios
of AR 4, 5, 6, respectively, the immersion depth is
h/c 1. The lift forces decrease as the aspect ratio
deceases.
5. Concluding remarks
In the present paper, a potential-based panel method is
developed to predict performance of three-dimensional
(3D) hydrofoil under free surface. Comparisons with other
ARTICLE IN PRESS
NACA4412, h/c=1.0
0.0
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
1.0
1.2
1.4
1.6
0.4 0.8 1.2 1.6 2.0
Fc
C
L
present
2D - Yeung
Fig. 3. Comparison of lift force at the central plane of NACA4412 foil
with 2D calculation at Fc 1.0, a 5
1
, h/c 1 and AR 6.
NACA4412, h/c=1.0
0.00
0.01
0.02
0.03
0.04
0.05
0.06
0.07
0.08
0.4 0.8 1.2 1.6 2.0
Fc
C
w
present
2D - Yeung
Fig. 4. Comparison of wave-making resistance at the central plane of
NACA4412 foil with 2D calculation at Fc 1.0, a 5
1
, h/c 1 and
AR 6.
NACA4412, h/c=1, Fc=1
-1.5
-1.2
-0.9
-0.6
-0.3
0.0
0.3
0.6
0.9
0.0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8 0.9 1.0
x/c
C
p
present
2D - Yeung et al
Fig. 5. Comparison of pressure distribution at central section with 2D
results for NACA4412 foil at a 5
1
and AR 10.
NACA4412, h/c=1, Fc=1, 5deg.
-0.2
-0.1
0.0
0.1
0.2
0.3
0.4
0.5
0.0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1.0
arc length
d
o
u
b
l
e
t

s
t
r
e
n
g
t
h
strip No.1
strip No.6
strip No.12
Fig. 6. Sample of doublet strength on the foil surface for NACA4412 at
AR 6.
Fig. 7. Sample of doublet strength distribution on foil surface for
NACA4412 at AR 4.
Fig. 8. Pressure distribution for NACA4412 foil at Fc 1, a 5
1
, h/c 1
and AR 6.
N. Xie, D. Vassalos / Ocean Engineering 34 (2007) 12571264 1262
published results show the applicability of the present
approach on the analysis of hydrodynamic performance of
3D lifting body under free surface. The Rankine source
distribution method and Dawsons double-body ow
approach enable the present method having the exibility
to be extended to handle 3D lifting body penetrating free
surface (i.e., catamaran and trimaran) and combined hull
foil case (i.e., high-speed craft with ride control hydrofoil).
These will be subjected to further publications.
References
Bai, K.J., 1978. A localized nite-element method for two-dimensional
steady potential ows with a free surface. Journal of Ship Research 22,
216230.
Bai, K.J., Han, J.H., 1994. A localized nite element method for the non-
linear steady waves due to a two-dimensional hydrofoil. Journal of
Ship Research 38, 4251.
Bertram, V., 1999. Practical applications of panel methods. In: CFD for
Ship and Offshore Design, 31st WEGMENT School, Hamburg.
Chen, C.K., Liu, H., 2005. A submerged vortex lattice method for
calculation of the ow around three-dimensional hydrofoil. Journal of
Ship Mechanics 9 (2).
Dawson, C.W., 1977. A practical computer method for solving ship wave
problems. In: Proceedings of Second International Conference on
Numerical Ship Hydrodynamics.
Giesing, J.P., Smith, A.M.O., 1967. Potential ow about two-dimensional
hydrofoils. Journal of Fluid Mechanics 28, 113129.
Hess, J.L., 1972. Calculation of potential ow about arbitrary three-
dimensional lifting bodies. Douglas Report No. MDC J5679-01.
Hess, J.L., Smith, A.M.O., 1964. Calculation of non-lifting potential ow
about arbitrary three-dimensional bodies. Journal of Ship Research 8
(2), 2244.
Kouh, J.S., Lin, T.J., Chau, S.W., 2002. Performance analysis of two-
dimensional hydrofoil under free surface. Journal of National Taiwan
University 86.
Larsson, L., Janson, C.E., 1999. Potential ow calculations for sailing
Yachts. In: CFD for Ship and Offshore Design, 31st WEGMENT
School, Hamburg.
Lee, S.J., Joo, Y.R., 1996. Calculation of wave making resistance of high
speed catamaran using a panel method. In: Proceedings of Third
Korea-Japan Joint Workshop on Ship and Marine Hydrodynamics.
ARTICLE IN PRESS
Fig. 9. Sample of wave pattern (NACA4412, Fc 1.0, a 5
1
, h/c 1).
NACA4412, AR=6, attack=5deg
0.60
0.65
0.70
0.75
0.80
0.85
0.90
0.95
1.00
1.05
1 3 5 4 2
h/c
C
L
Fc=0.7
Fc=1.0
Fc=1.5
Fig. 10. Lift force varies with immersion depth.
NACA4412, AR=6, attack=5deg
0.07
0.06
0.05
0.04
0.03
0.02
0.01
0.00
1 3
h/c
C
w
Fc=0.7
Fc=1.0
Fc=1.5
2 4 5
Fig. 11. Wave-making resistance varies with immersion depth.
NACA4412, h/c=1, attack=5deg
0.8
0.6
0.4
0.2
0.0
1.0
1.2
0.3 0.6 0.9 1.2 1.5
Fc
C
L
AR=4
AR=5
AR=6
Fig. 12. Lift coefcient for foils with three aspect ratios.
N. Xie, D. Vassalos / Ocean Engineering 34 (2007) 12571264 1263
Morino, L., Kuo, C.C., 1974. Subsonic potential aerodynamics for
complex congurations: a general theory. AIAA J 12 (2).
Nakatake, K., Ando, J., Kormura, A., Kataoka, K., 1990. On the ow
eld and the hydrodynamic forces of an obliquing ship (in Japanese).
Transactions of West-Japan Society of Naval Architects, No. 80.
Newman, J.N., 1977. Marine Hydrodynamics. The MIT Press.
Parkin, B.R., Perry, B., Wu, T.Y., 1956. Pressure distribution on a
hydrofoil running near the water surface. Journal of Applied Physics
27, 232240.
Plotkin, A., Kennel, C., 1984. A second order theory for the potential ow
about thin hydrofoils. Journal of Ship Research 28, 5564.
Xie, N., Vassalos, D., 2005. A study of the effect of steady ow on the
unsteady motion of high speed craft. In: Proceedings of 12th
International Congress of the International Maritime Association of
the Mediterranean (IMAM 2005).
Yeung, R.W., Bouger, Y.C., 1977. Hybrid integral-equation method for
the steady ship problem. In: Proceedings of Second International
Conference on Numerical Ship Hydrodynamics.
Zou, Z., Soding, H., 1994. A panel method for lifting potential
ows around three-dimensional surface-piercing bodies. In: Proceed-
ings of 20th Symposium on Naval Hydrodynamics, Santa Barbara,
CA.
ARTICLE IN PRESS
N. Xie, D. Vassalos / Ocean Engineering 34 (2007) 12571264 1264