ITTC Dictionary of Ship Hydrodynamics

[daiquiri]

Because general culture is important, as is speaking the same language when discussing about boats and ships:

http://ittc.sname.org/CD%202011/Dict...ary%202011.pdf



Cheers!

[anhdtht]

thanks very much !

[Ilan Voyager]

Thanks, very useful.

[Doug Lord]

Originally Posted by daiquiri

Because general culture is important, as is speaking the same language when discussing about boats and ships:

http://ittc.sname.org/new%20recomend...Dictionary.pdf



Cheers!

------------------------------
Thanks, Slavi-I saved it.

[hoytedow]

Thanks!

[Landlubber]

....good one, ta. Well worth getting out of bed for.

[Leo Lazauskas]

I see they avoided having a separate entry defining "Planing".
What a cop out

[daiquiri]

Originally Posted by Leo Lazauskas

I see they avoided having a separate entry defining "Planing". What a cop out

"Eagle Eye" Leo strikes again.
I guess if they tried to include a definition of the term "planing" it would cause a havoc in the academic world. Where does semi-planing ends (or starts) and planing starts for a generic hull? Can anyone in the world give an unambiguous definition?

But apart physically uncertain terms like this one, the dictionary has some other entries not well-defined. For example, the term "Volume displacement" appears in several definitions and formula but is not defined anywhere in the document, though defining it would be pretty much straightforward.

Guess the dictionary will be integrated and expanded in the future (?)

Cheers!

[Boat Design Net Moderator]

Adding a link to:

Originally Posted by Leo Lazauskas

The ITTC has started to set up some interesting wiki pages at:
http://www.ittcwiki.org

From the statement on the front page:

"..this Dictionary is intended for a broad readership including practising naval architects who wish to acquire and apply knowledge of hydrodynamics and also physicists and theoretical hydrodynamicists who wish to apply their particular knowledge to the solution of ship problems. Engineering, physical and nautical terms in common use have not been included when they did not require special definition in the context of ship hydrodynamics or when their meanings were self evident. The work is arranged in the following sections prefaced with a brief reference to the nature of their content:

General
Ship Geometry
Resistance
Propeller (including propeller geometry)
Cavitation
Seakeeping
Manoeuvrability
Performance (in the context of speed and power)

[Yos]

thanks

[Leo Lazauskas]

Originally Posted by daiquiri

I guess if they tried to include a definition of the term "planing" it would cause a havoc in the academic world. Where does semi-planing ends (or starts) and planing starts for a generic hull? Can anyone in the world give an unambiguous definition?

I've started work on some planing problems, so I'll start the ball
rolling with something from my erstwhile colleague, Ernie Tuck:

"Planing is a state of steady motion of a boat in which the wetted draft
is small compared to the wetted length and beam, and hydrodynamics, not
hydrostatics provides the support for its weight."

If we can accept this, or even better, refine it, I'll put it into the ITTC wiki.

[Ad Hoc]

Originally Posted by Leo Lazauskas

"Planing is a state of steady motion of a boat in which the wetted draft
is small compared to the wetted length and beam, and hydrodynamics, not
hydrostatics provides the support for its weight."

The first part can be said of any boat, the latter not. So why not focus on the latter

"A boat that is partially (the still water static draft has reduced when running) or wholly support by hydrodynamic forces rather than hydrostatic force".

[Leo Lazauskas]

Originally Posted by Ad Hoc

The first part can be said of any boat, the latter not. So why not focus on the latter

"A boat that is partially (the still water static draft has reduced when running) or wholly support by hydrodynamic forces rather than hydrostatic force".

I need to think about it (and hear from others), but when planing, draft is definitely small compared to beam. That is not generally true of displacement hulls.

[Ad Hoc]

Originally Posted by Leo Lazauskas

I need to think about it.... That is not generally true of displacement hulls.

I beg to differ:
http://barges.apolloduck.co.uk/feature.phtml?id=226960

L = 45'
B = 12'
T = 2'6"

Typical barge.

[Leo Lazauskas]

Originally Posted by Ad Hoc

I beg to differ:
http://barges.apolloduck.co.uk/feature.phtml?id=226960

L = 45'
B = 12'
T = 2'6"

Typical barge.

Typical pedantic NA

Maybe I'd be more correct if we included something along the lines of "at high Froude numbers", if we could just agree on how high high is.