MULTI-HULL SHIPS

1. Types, examples,
relative dimensions,
general arrangement.
2. Hydrostatic.
Victor A. Dubrovsky
Dr. Scs., Dr. Phil.
Multi-hulls@[Link]
“Specificity and designing of multi-
hull ships & boats”, Nova
Science Publishers,
1
ISBN 9781634846158, USA, 2016.
The widespread development of multi-hull ships (MHS)
began in the second half of the twentieth century.
Since the time, a lot of MHS were built and applied,
for example:
-thousands of small-sized twin-hull boats used for fishing,
rescue, tourism, pleasure and other purposes;
- hundreds of twin-hull ships as fast car-passenger and
passenger ferries;
- hundreds of semi-submersible structures for drilling and
auxiliary services;
- about a hundred of twin-hull ships with small water-plane
areas (SWA ships)
- several ships with one or two outriggers (small side hulls).
MHS types and their main characteristics are described
2
below.
Ship types with traditional shape of
hulls [1]
• 1, 2 –catamarans
(maximal transverse
stability);
• 3, 4-trimarans (maximal
favorable interaction);
• 5-catamaran, shifted hulls
(some mix of a catamaran
and a trimaran);
• 6-proa ;
• 7-outrigger ship
(outrigger ships have
minimal relative mass of
structure).

3
 New hull form:
small water-plane area [1].
• 1 – duplus (maximal
transverse stability for SWA
ships);
• 2 – trisec (minimal water-
plane area);
• 3 – tricore (maximal
favorable interaction);
• 4 - with two outriggers
(minimal hull mass);
• 5 – conventional main hull
and two outriggers of small
water-plane area (Rudenko
option);
• 6 – with foils.

4
 Relative length of a catamaran hull and relative
upper deck area.[2] (by Dr. A. Lyakhovitsky)

Displ. 100 200 600 1000 1400 1800 2200

W,
cub m

Rel. 8.2 9.0 9.55 9.65 9.75 9.85 10.0

length
of a
hull, l
Rel. 0.33 0.32 0.305 0.295 0.28 0.27 0.27
area
of
upper
deck 5
6
 Clearances defines the mutual
placement of hulls and the distance
from water:
• Vertical – the distance between design water-
plane and wet deck (above-water platform
bottom); can be various along the length and
width;
• Horizontal – the distance between CP of a hull
and of the ship as a whole (b); or the distance
between inner boards of hulls ©;
• Longitudinal – the distance between middles of
hulls, or between bow stems of identical hulls.

7
Catamaran ferries are most wide-
spread today.

8
The catamaran with movable
platform between hulls.

9
 “Wave-piercing” catamaran, WPC, has
high enough seaworthiness, high performance,
relative low cost .

10
Chinese battle ship - WPC

11
 A catamaran as crane ship [1]
(big deck area and high stability)

12
One of two built proas for fishery,
USSR, 1975, [1]

13
 25 years before “Triton” [1]
( 10-t prototype, by [Link]).

14
Record outrigger ship,1998

15
 “Triton”,
1,000-t outrigger prototype,
UK, 2000.

16
The proa was built as yacht,
China, 2001.

17
Semi-submersible rigs, from 50-th,
[1].

18
Built mono-hull SWA ship,
Germany, 1943.[1]

19
Drilling SWATH “Duplus”,
The Netherlands, 1968, [1]

20
Built trisec “Kaimalino”, USA, 1979,
[1].

21
Tests at sea: “Kaimalino” with a helicopter.

22
Built “invisible” SWATH,
USA,1989

23
Ocean acoustic patrol SWATH,
USA, 1990.

24
Passenger SWATH,
USA, 1990.

25
Passenger ferry SWATH,
Japan, 1990.

26
Ocean passenger cruise ship,
Finland,1992.

27
Surveillance SWATH, Japan.

28
Surveillance SWATH, USA.

29
Pilot base ship,
Germany,2000.

30
Ocean research SWATH,
USA, 2001.

31
Fast corvette “X-Craft”,
USA, 2005

32
 Littoral Combat Ship,
USA, [Jane`s Combat ships, 2013]

33
 Specificity of multi-hull ships (MHS)
in a comparison with mono-hulls:
- a great number of types and shape options with various
characteristics;
- bigger relative area of deck;
- more or less higher seaworthiness;
- any needed initial stability without any restriction of a
hull aspect ratio;
- big above-water watertight volume;
- a possibility of wet deck slamming;
- a sufficient influence of transverse external loads on
strength;
- a possibility of sufficient changing of draft by small
enough water ballast.
34
 Big deck area is a sufficient advantage for
transporting of “volume cargoes”, as:

- passengers in saloons or/and cabins;

- wheeled vehicles;
- laboratories;
- weapon systems,
especially – with helicopters and/or aircrafts;
- light containers, etc.

35
 Relative area of upper deck, [3]
Ship type Relative length of a hull Average dimensions Relative area of upper
deck
Monohull lMON=L/V1/3 L/B=8; AUD~0.8 0.1*L2
Catamaran l1 = lMON L=0.8*L; B1=0.8*B; (0.23÷0.46)*L2
AUD~0.9; BOA=(4÷8)B1
Duplus or trisec l1=0.8*lMON L1=0.64*L; (0.19÷0.32)*L2
BOA=(0.3÷0.5)*L1;
AUD~1.0
Outriggered usual hull l1=1.2*lMON L1/B1=10; (0.17÷0.25)*L2
LOA=(0.3÷0.4)*L1;
BOA=(0.2÷0.3)*L1;
Outriggered SWA hull l1=0.8*lMON L1=0.8*L; (0.18÷0.3)*L2
Lo=(0.3÷0.4)*L1;
BOA=(0.3÷0.5)*L1;
Tricore l1=0.5*lMON L1=0.35*L; (0.08÷0.1)*L2
LOA=1.6*L1;
BOA=(0.6÷0.8)*L1;
Trimaran l1= 0.6*lMON L1=0.42*L; (0.09÷0.12)*L36
2

(Russian LOA=1.6*L1;
 Intact stability comparison [4], A/ Overall
beam of the multi-hulls is not defined by stability.

Ship type Monohull Catamaran Trimaran

A hull length / 80/80, 65/65, 80/80 50/80
overall length

Hull beam/ 10/10 6 / 18, 4 / 16 5 / 20

Overall beam
Water-plane area 640 310, 200
of a side hull
250
Design draft / 3/6 3/6 3/6
Hull depth
Height of volume 2/4 2/6 2/6
center / Height of
mass center
Metacentric radii/ 4/2 37/33, 19/15 23/19
Metacentric height 37
 Intact stability comparison [4]
B/Overall beam is defined by stability
(outrigger dimensions are in blankets).
Ship type Duplus Trisec Tricore Outriggers, Outriggers,
usual main SWA main
hull hull
Hull length / Overall 47/47 47/47 40/65 95/95 65/65
length
(30) (35)
Hull beam / Overall 5/19 5/22 3.5/22 7(1)/16 7(1.5)/20
beam
Side hull area of 65 45 50 30 40
water-plane
Design draft / Hull 4/11.5 4/11.5 4/11.5 3(2)/9 4(2)/11.5
depth
Volume center height/ 2.5/7 2.5/7 2.5/7 2/6 2.5/7
Mass center height
Metacentric radii/ 6.5/2 6.5/2 8.5/4 6.5/2.5 7/2.5
Metacentric height
38
High seaworthiness is a sufficient advantage for any
purposes, especially – for severe seas.
Big above-water volume and any needed initial
transverse stability mean
higher safety for any purpose ships.
Not restricted aspect ratio of hulls
means a possibility of high performance ensuring,
especially – at high speeds.
A lot of applications of sea- and river-going ships need
for common development of various characteristics
(for example, big deck area, high seakeeping and
performance – for fast ferries).

39
 A possibility of wet deck slamming
is a disadvantage of MHS, and the vertical clearance value
must be a result of rational designing.
Usually bigger width is a disadvantage of MHS.
Bigger wetted area is a disadvantage of MHS,
because it means bigger viscous resistance and
bigger mass of hull plating.
Bigger structure weight relative to displacement dictates
application of multi-hulls for any “light cargoes”.

The MHS disadvantage influence can be decreased by

rational designing.

40
 MHS are not convenient for ice.

But any small-sized, high-speed, fast

mono-hull vessels are not applicable too, because:
- usually they have too big aspect ratio of hulls;
- they have the hull shape, which does not
correspond to ice conditions;
- their local and general strength does not
correspond to ice conditions.

41
 Ranges of Principal Dimensions’ Ratios
Analysis of available data makes it possible to define the
most common ranges for multi-hull ships in general:
 overall breadth/length ratio, Bm/L=0.3-1.0 (vs. 0.1-0.3
for monohulls);
 depth/length ratio, D/L=0.10-0.30 (vs. 0.07-0.10 for
monohulls);
 one hull breadth/draft ratio, B1/d=0.5-2.5 (vs. 2-4 for
sea-going monohulls).
 one hull length/breadth ratio, L/B1=2–30 (vs. 3-10 for
sea-going monohulls).

42
SWATH statistics: L vs. D, B vs. L. [2]

43
SWATH statistics: l vs. Fn; d vs. L, [2].

Design draft, m
14
2 3 4
12
L/D=9 L/D=24
L/D=15
10

8
1
6

0
0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140 160 180 200
Length, m
44
 SWATH statistics: Wp vs. D; Hv vs. L, [2].

Water-plane area, sq m.
70 Vertical clearance, m
8

60 7
Design A4
50 6
Averaged data 1
40 5
Design 16210 4
30
Chubasco 2 3
Kaimalino 3
20
Halcyon 2
10
Marine Ace 1
0
0
0 50 100 150 200 250 300 0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140 160
Displacement, t Length, m
45
 Capacity specificity
Evidently, the above-water platform is
preferable place of arrangement of:
- volume cargoes,
- crew,
- more or less parts of engine apartments.
Than, the under-water parts of multi-hulls
are not influenced by inner volume
demands.
46
 SWA ship main engine arrangement – 1, [5].
Option Advantages Disadvantages
In the More safety and Less lengthening of gondolas
gondo- habitable power plant; because of their bigger
las -growth of platform needed beam;
volume capacity; - less convenient of engine
-decreasing of gravity placement;
center height; -more complex repair and
-decreasing of noise in service;
living apartments; -more complex intake of air
-most simple and cheap and exit of gas;
transmission of power -bigger under-water noise.
to propulsors.

47
 SWA ship main engine arrangement-2, [5].
Option Advantages Disadvantages
In the Smaller beam of More complex and expensive
above- gondolas and their transmission of power to
water bigger lengthening; propulsors;
plat- -more simple and cheap - smaller useful area of
form changing and repair of above-water platform;
engines and equipment; - growth of gravity center
- lower under-water height;
noise; - higher noise in living
- more simple apartments.
equipment of gas exit;
- bigger volume capacity
of struts and gondolas.

48
The minimal difference between strut and
gondola width is about 1 m, [5]

49
Deck cargo space can be changed simple enough-
if it is foreseen by the design [1].

50
Small roll and big beam allow any car traffic[1].

51
 Inclined stems of outriggers
ensure bigger platform and growth
of restoring moment with heel,[3] .

52
Deck area of fishery proa is sufficiently bigger,
than a single hull deck area, [1].

53
Examples of SWA hull struts, [5]

• Duplus;
• Shorter strut,
duplus;
• Trisec;
• Long strut with a
hole.

54
An example of flooding possibility through the car door, [5]:
FB- free boards; SG - stern gap.

55
Small-water-plane area shapes
are very variable ones, [5].

56
 Some variants of the frame shapes of self-propelled SWA
ships, [5]: a- with basic circle frame of gondola; b- the same
displacement and draft; c – the same displacement and 2/3
of the initial draft, all options with the same frame area.

57
 Relative characteristics of frames shown
at Slide 57, [5].
Option a b c
Relative design 1.5*D1 1.5*D1 D1
draft, di

Section area 1.035*D12 1.035*D12 1.035*D12

Section perimeter 3.64*D1 4.18*D1 4.43*D1
Relative perimeter 3.58 4.11 4.35
Relative perimeter 0 14.8 21.6
growth, %

Relative height of 0.45*di 0.37*di 0.53*di

section center

58
Sections of a “semi-planing” hull
model, [5]

59
“Semi-planing” hull, [5]

60
An example of longitudinally profiled
gondola, [1].

61
 Hull fullness coefficient
examples, [5].
Width used Waterplane Gondola Overall Separate
in width width width width of
definition (strut) strut and
gondola
Fullness 1.38 0.69 Very 1 / 0.785
coefficient inconve- (strut
for option nient, /gondola)
“a” of fullness
Slide 57 depends
on the
cross
clearance.
Option “b” 1.38 0.575 “ 1 / 0.813

Option “c” 2.07 0.616 “ 1/0.935

62
 Possible option of inclined struts:
four (two pairs at ends) or six of them on
each gondola, [1].

63
 Clearance influence, [1].
Transverse and longitudinal metacentric radii depend on
transverse and longitudinal clearances:
N N

b S 2
i WLi   ITi
BM  i 1 N
i 1

V
i 1
i

N N

a S 2
i WLi   I Li
BM L  i 1 N
i 1

V
i 1
i

th
N is the number of hulls with subscript i meaning the i hull.
64
 Transverse stability standard.
The standard of intact transverse stability of
US Navy is most convenient for early stages of
designing:
a ship must be heeled no more, then at 10-
degrees, by a side wind with speed 50 knots for
restricted seas, 100 knots – for unrestricted
seas.
Fast ships need for heel at speed taking into
account.
Later stages need for more detail checking of
intact transverse stability.

65
Transverse stability comparison,
[1]
In general, the
metacentric height is
a small difference of
bigger values.
And even slightly bigger
metacentric radii
means sufficiently
bigger metacentric
height.

66
Cross stability comparison, [1].

67
Some early prototypes were designed without
transverse stability prediction…[1]

68
Desired value of vertical clearance,
[5]
hVERT =
(1.5 – 2) *0.17 B OA/2,
here h vert – the distance
between
design water-plane and wet
deck,
B OA – overall beam.

69
 An example: transverse intact stability criteria for high-
speed multi-hull craft, [1]:
HL1 - arm of heeling moment due to steady wind;
HTL - arm of heeling moment due to steady wind and a gust and due to
either passenger crowding or circulation whichever is greater, h - heel
angle due to steady wind,
r - roll amplitude, d - angle of immersion, m - angle of diagram
maximum.

70
An example: transverse damage stability criteria for high-
speed multi-hull crafts, [1].
HL4 - arm of heeling moment due to combined actions of steady wind and
crowding passengers;
e - heel angle due to flooding;
h - heel angle due to wind.d – heel angle of deck immersion;r - rolling

71
 Metacentric radius comparison, [3].
Relative cross metacentric radius
30

25

3
20

15

10
2

5
1

0
0,10 0,15 0,20 0,25 0,30 0,35 0,40
Boa/L
1-outrigger ship, 2 - duplus, 3 - catamaran. 72
 Transverse metacentric radius
(the main hull elongation ratio 10), [3]
BMT/BMM
70
60
50 2 x 10 %
40
2 x 5%
30
20
Outrigger displacement 2 x 1%
10
BOA/ L
0
0.20 0.25 0.30 0.35 0.40 73
 Frigate dimension options, [3] .

Options of By one from two outriggers. By both

stability outriggers
ensuring:
Overall 54 38 38
beam, m
Outrigger 40x1.8x3 60x2.5x3 40x1.8x3
dimensions,
m
Outrigger 2 x 54 2 x 112.5 2 x 54
water-plane
area, sq m
74
 REFERENCES
[Link], V., Lyakhovitsky, A., “Multi-hull ships”, 2001,
ISBN 0-9644311-2-2, Backbone Publishing Co., Fair Lawn,USA,
495 p.
2. Lyakhovitsky, A.,"The basis of high-speed ship designing",
2009, Publishing Center of Saint-Petersburg State Technical
Marine University, SPb, Russia, 150 p. In Russian.
3. Dubrovsky, V., “Ships With Outriggers”, 2004, ISBN 0-
9742019-0-1, Backbone Publishing Co., Fair Lawn,USA, 88 p.
4. Dubrovsky, V., Matveev, K., Sutulo, S., “Small Water-plane
Area Ships”, 2007, Backbone Publishing Co., ISBN-13978-
09742019-3-1, Hoboken, USA,256 p.

75