HYDRODYNAMIC PERFORMANCE ENHANCEMENT USING STERN WEDGES,

STERN FLAPS AND INTERCEPTORS

Shiju John, MD Kareem Khan, PC Praveen, Manu Korulla and PK Panigrahi
Naval Science & Technological Laboratory, India

SUMMARY

Improving the hydrodynamic performance of ships is a major research area which has introduced various innovative
concepts like stern wedges, stern flaps and interceptors. Latest studies include the relative merits of these devices in
various permutations and combinations to improve the hydrodynamic benefits. The premise of operation of wedges,
flaps and interceptors has been established through model tests and sea trial data. Experimental studies were carried out
in High Speed Towing Tank at Naval Science & Technological Laboratory (NSTL) India, on a variety of hull models
fitted with these devices. Model tests were performed on fast displacement hull forms, planing crafts and foil assisted
catamarans to study the effects of these devices on hydrodynamic performance. The present paper outlines this work and
also attempts to chalk out the importance of selecting the best configuration of performance enhancer devices without
disregarding cost effectiveness.

KEYWORDS: stern wedge-interceptor, stern wedge-flap, trim enhancement, economic feasibility

NOMENCLATURE

∆ Weight of ship (N)

τ Trim angle (degree)
B Buoyancy (N)
Dint Induced drag force (N)
Dk Viscous drag force parallel to keel (N)
N Normal component of planing craft lift
force (N)
Nint Induced lift force (N)
PD Delivered Power (kW)

1. INTRODUCTION

The last few decades have seen a lot of innovation in the

form of energy saving devices to bring down the power
required to propel ships. Among them the emergence of
stern wedges, stern flaps and interceptors as
hydrodynamic performance enhancers has been
remarkable. These devices have proved effective in
reducing the resistance of fast displacement hull forms,
planing crafts and other advanced marine crafts.

The stern wedge is a wedge faired into the stern form as

shown in Figure 1(a) [1]. The stern flap represents an
extension of the hull aft of the transom in the form of a
flat plate. The flap is mounted to the transom at an angle
relative to the centreline buttock of the ship as illustrated
in Figure 1(b) [2]. Interceptor is a flat plate fitted
vertically at the transom of a ship, covering a portion or
full breadth of the transom and protruding a few
centimetres below the transom as shown in
Figure 1(d) [3]. These devices create a vertical lift force
at the transom and cause the flow to slow down under the
hull at a location extending from its position to a point
generally forward of the propellers. This decreased flow
velocity will cause an increase in pressure under the hull,
which in turn, causes reduced resistance due to the Figure 1: (a) Stern wedge; (b) Stern flap; (c) Flow
reduced afterbody suction force (reduced form drag) [2]. modification due to wedge/flap (d) Flow modification by
interceptor
In designing energy saving devices, it is extremely 2. POWERING ENHANCEMENT OF FAST
important to anticipate the performance of the most DISPLACEMENT HULL
optimised device in conjunction with the hull form. Case
in point, as reference [1] explains the primary reasons for The effectiveness of stern wedges, flaps and interceptors
the effectiveness of these devices on small high speed in improving the powering performance of a fast
crafts are significantly different from that on large ships displacement hull form of 138m length was studied at
such as destroyers. On small planing crafts, the vertical NSTL. Extensive model tests were done on a 1:26.135
forces from a wedge, flap or interceptor may change the model, including resistance and propulsion tests, using
trim angle by about 4 to 5 degrees. Fixing an optimal these devices and their combinations. Figure 2 shows the
trim angle for the most effective planing surface is the ship model fitted with these devices. Significant work
key to minimising resistance. Interestingly on a destroyer done in reference [1] shows that stern wedge-flap
size ship, the action of these devices affects the trim by configuration performs better than stern wedges or flaps
about 0.1 to 0.3 degrees. This has little measurable in isolation. “Cross-over” speed i.e. the speed at which
resistance effect. The major powering benefit, in fact, is resistance begins to reduce is an important factor here.
credited to the induced change in the flow field around The approach at NSTL was to first arrive upon an
the hull. These flow field changes reduce the aft body optimum wedge-flap configuration and then research on
drag and modify the wave resistance. Another observable the possibility of interceptors. As a first step, the best
benefit is that a stern flap or wedge cuts down the rooster stern-wedge configuration had to be identified.
tail significantly thereby reducing wake. In particular it is
the pressure field change that improves propulsive
performance of fast displacement ships. It is critical to Wedge chord length Wedge angle (deg)
identify these effects before recommending these devices
on ships. Since computational efforts are not completely 1 % of LBP 8 10 12 14 15.5
able to elucidate the performance of such devices when
1.5 % of LBP 8 10 12 14 15.5
fitted to ship hulls, hydrodynamic model tests and full
scale sea trials are still the most reliable option.
Table 1: Wedge variants tested
Another important consideration is the speed range
selected for optimisation. Reference [1] suggests that
these devices are effective across medium and high Contour Flap angle (deg)
speeds. They have a resistance penalty in the low speed
ranges. For instance, the initial wedge design on DDG 51 Flap1: Radius = 1˚ 10 12 14
decreased delivered power by 7% at high speed. At the
same time, it had a powering penalty up to 4% at lower Flap2: Along WL 10 12 -
speeds [1]. If powering benefits are not achieved around
the operational speed of the ship, the gain in the higher Table 2: Flap variants tested
speeds may be easily offset. It again depends on whether Appended hull resistance tests were done to optimize for
the aim is to increase the top speed or to decrease the best stern-wedge configuration. Stern wedges tested
delivered power in the operational speed range. In the were of sharp V shape cross-section at constant angle
former case, a low speed penalty does not matter much. chord-wise and faired edges along the hull span-wise.
However, the latter scenario is most prevalent. Therefore Variants of wedges tested are given in Table 1. The
it is equally important to reduce low speed penalty when change in resistance may be attributed to the change in
looking at powering benefits in the high speed zone. dynamic trim/sinkage and reduction of the effective wake
width at the transom. The minimum effective wake width
In ship-building industry, cost involved in any activity is happens for the 14˚ wedge of 1% chord length. Decrease
a critical element. Reference [4] gives an idea regarding in effective wake width suggests lesser wastage of
economics of stern flaps and wedges. An attempt is made energy and thus lesser resistance. The rooster tail shifts
to assess the optimisation process based on performance further aft of transom at higher speeds corresponding to
enhancement from economic perspective. This paper 28-30 knots which is an indication of lesser effective
discusses experimental investigation at NSTL into wake length. Lesser wake lengths improve the resistance
optimisation of hydrodynamic performance enhancers on performance of the vessel. The 10˚ wedge of 1% chord
three different hull forms – fast displacement hull form, length gave the best resistance reduction from 22 knots to
planing craft and foil assisted catamaran. The towing 32 knots. A resistance reduction of about 2.2% was
tank at NSTL has a length of 500 m, width 8 m, depth 8 achieved at 30 knots. The reduction in dynamic
m and a maximum carriage speed of 20 m/s. trim/sinkage is highest with this wedge configuration.
Measurement of resistance, heave and trim of the model This is indicative of better resistance performance of the
at various steady state speeds is carried out using a ship. This wedge configuration was selected for further
Kempf and Remers Dynamometer. hydrodynamic studies with stern flaps.
 Figure 2: Stern wedge, flap and interceptor fitted on Fast Displacement Hull

Figure 3: Transom flow pattern for selected configurations showing differences in "breakaway", "neckdown" and
hydrodynamic lengths at full scale speed of 28 knots

of 1mm alone was tested by removing the wedge and at

Two stern flaps were designed for comparative study. this stage seemed to perform better than the wedge-
The different configurations of stern flaps used during interceptor configurations. Wedge-interceptors could
the resistance tests are given in Table 2. These flaps were bring down resistance only after a speed of 24 knots
tested along with the 10˚ wedge of 1% chord length. while interceptor alone was slightly better at reducing
Flap2 of 10˚ was found to perform the best when fitted resistance from 22 knots onwards. The reduction at 30
with the 10˚ wedge. This configuration reduces knots was of the order of 1.5%.
resistance from a speed of 24 knots to 32 knots. The
resistance at 30 knots was reduced by 2%. However what The performances of these devices were also studied
is more significant is the reduction in effective wake from propulsion point of view. Self-propulsion tests were
behind the hull and the height of the rooster tail. Stern conducted to evaluate the effect on delivered power and
flap caused a considerable “neck down” of the transverse propulsive efficiency. Propulsion performance of the
width of the stern wave pattern. “Neck down” is stern wedge/flap/interceptors gave a comprehensive
explained in reference [1]. insight into their effectiveness. The results are
summarised in Table 3. The following are the major
However, it was felt that there is still scope for observations:
improving on the powering performance. Motivated by
the hydrodynamic performance of interceptors, it was an
• Delivered Power (PD) is reduced by all the
intuitive decision to go for a combination of stern wedge-
energy saving devices in a speed range of
interceptor at this stage. Interceptor of protrusion type
22knots to 32knots.
was used with 1mm, 2mm and 4mm protrusion (at model
scale) below the 10˚ wedge. The wedge – interceptor
combination of 10˚ wedge and 1mm interceptor was seen • The wedge – interceptor combination of 10˚
to be the most effective among these variants. Interceptor wedge and 1mm interceptor proved to be the
 optimized configuration in terms of delivered “breakaway” speed to 26 knots from 30 knots.
power reduction. Thrust deduction fraction (t) “Breakaway” is explained in reference [1]. The
and effective wake fraction (w) was interceptor variations indicate a clean
considerably low for wedge-interceptor breakaway at 28 knots. Also, the effective
configuration. Lower thrust deduction fraction increase in hydrodynamic length is slightly
indicates increase in thrust power and lower better for the stern flap-wedge combination as
effective wake fraction indicates accelerated seen in Figure 3. The lengthening effect is
flow onto the propeller which facilitates higher expected to give powering benefits at high
propeller thrust. speeds by reducing wave making resistance.

• The wedge-interceptor combination improves With a defined limited engine power, it was found that
the total propulsive efficiency at 30 knots to these energy saving devices will help to increase the top
0.68 from the actual value of 0.65. The least PD speed of the ship. The increase in top speeds for all the
is for wedge-interceptor. tested configurations is given in Table 4. The vessel with
the wedge-interceptor would attain a speed 32.60 knots;
• Stern wedge-flaps and wedge-interceptors that is an increase in top speed of about 0.60 knots. Thus,
caused the maximum reduction in width of the wedge – interceptor configuration was found to give
stern wave pattern. The total area of turbulence maximum powering benefit for the present hull form in
and whitewater is reduced. The stern wedge-flap the speed range of 22 to 32 knots.
combination reduces the transom flow

Vs Wedge 1%,10˚, Wedge 1%,10˚,

Wedge 1%,10˚ Interceptor 1mm
(knots) Flap2 10˚ Interceptor 1mm

16 17 17 13 23
18 14 17 10 17
20 15 17 11 7
22 0 -1 -2 -2
24 -1 -2 -2 -5
26 -1 -5 -7 -7
28 -2 -4 -9 -6
30 -1 -4 -6 -4
32 -7 -10 -10 -9

Table 3: Percentage change in Pd (kW) w.r.t. base hull

Configuration Increase in top speeds

Wedge 1%,10˚ 0.10

Wedge 1%,10˚, Flap2 10˚ 0.41

Wedge 1%,10˚, Interceptor 1mm 0.60

Interceptor 1mm 0.34

Table 4: Increase in top speed in knots wrt base hull at 32 knots

3. TRIM ENHANCEMENT OF PLANING Two problems which are related to planing craft trim are
CRAFTS discussed here. In the first case discussed in section 3.1
the focus is purely on trim reduction. On the other hand,
The running trim is a critical point in the dynamics of a the second problem stated in section 3.2 is on resistance
planing craft. Planing crafts generally operate at an reduction by trim enhancement. It is interesting to see
equilibrium trim at any speed. Equilibrium trim is that how the solutions evolve depending on the application.
trim at which the weight of the craft, the propeller thrust, The effectiveness of stern flaps, wedges and interceptors
the viscous drag and dynamic lift generated are in are utilized in both the scenarios. One can see that these
equilibrium. The equilibrium condition of the planing devices are highly effective in modifying hydrodynamic
craft is represented by equations 29, 30 and 31 in performance of planing crafts.
reference [5].
3.1 TRIM CONTROL FOR OPERATIONAL
However, there is an optimum trim angle for every speed REQUIREMENTS
at which the resistance of the planing craft is minimal.
More often the equilibrium trim is different from the A survey boat with a planing hull was reportedly facing
optimum trim. Thus, the planing craft generally runs at problems in that its hydrographic equipments which are
the equilibrium trim thereby leaving room for resistance placed on the hull bottom were surfacing in the pre-
reduction. The equation is quite simple. If we can force planing zone. As a result, the survey operations were
the boat to operate at the optimum trim, resistance can be hindered even at low speeds such as 10 knots. Model
reduced by a great deal. This is particularly important in tests were done at NSTL on a 1:4.6 scale model and it
the hump zone and take-off speeds in the fully planing was found that the operational speed of 10 to 11 knots
zone. Optimising trim can be effectively done by the use was close to the hump trim. Waterlines on the boat model
of trim reducing devices such as stern flaps, wedges and at these speeds suggested that even though the hull
interceptors. These devices control the trim of the bottom did not come out of water it was too close to
planing boat by providing an additional lift component at surface. It could be that a combination of excessive trim
the aft which also contributes in reducing the required and heave was hindering its functionality by exceeding
thrust. Refer Figure 4. The increased pressure at the aft is the minimum depth of operation.
also found to improve propulsive efficiency [1]. Also
interceptor increases the exit velocity at transom
resulting in clean separation at transom. The transom
hollow and rooster tail is thus reduced reducing wake [3].

Figure 4: Force decomposition on planing craft

The planing craft has a hump trim which corresponds to

the hump resistance. The optimum trim usually happens
to be less than the hump trim. Hence, in the hump zone
resistance can be reduced by reducing trim. The planing
craft in the fully planing zone operates in the post hump
trim zone. As the speed increases in the fully planing
zone trim decreases. At some point it falls below the
optimum trim. Beyond this point the trim reduction
devices are of no use. Here, mechanisms to enhance the
trim by providing lifting surfaces ahead of the LCG are
effective. Modified spray rails which provide an
additional component of lift are an option.
Figure 5: Trim and heave reduction at model scale
Trim controlling devices were designed and fitted to the wedges and wedge-interceptors to find out a possible
model. Model tests were done and the results are solution. The optimum trim of the boat at these speeds
depicted in Figure 5. It can be seen that wedge- was identified as 4 degrees from model tests. It was
interceptor is the best option in reducing trim and heave found that at the required speeds of 40 and 45 knots the
at the operating speeds. But at fully planing speeds, the running trim was higher than the optimum trim. It was
trim reduction is too high that it causes the resistance to anticipated that the resistance may come down by
shoot up. It is suggested that at high speeds the augmenting the trim and lift of the craft. A combination
interceptor be withdrawn. At 10 knots, the trim was of optimum trim and heave was achieved by the use of
reduced by 1.2 degrees and at 12 knots by 2.2 degrees. interceptors. Further research was done by testing with
Heave was reduced by 4.7 mm at model scale. wedges and a combination of wedge-interceptors. In all
cases it was found that a trim of 4 degrees and a heave up
Retrofits with either interceptor or to be more effective of 45 mm to 50 mm at model scale gave the least
wedge-interceptors are suggested as solutions. Since the resistance. This is clearly visible in Figure 6.
present planing craft has a Z-drive, practically putting a
stern-wedge may be difficult because of space constraints A resistance reduction of 3.3 % was achieved at 40 knots
at the transom. In that case, an interceptor is a much by an interceptor protrusion of 1.5 mm. The boat was
simpler and feasible option. already fitted with conventional spray strips [6]. Further,
additional spray strips were designed so as to cut off the
3.3 TRIM CONTROL FOR RESISTANCE remaining spray downwards and thereby provide an
REDUCTION additional component of lift at the forward. As a result,
the resistance reduced by 4.2% at 40 knots. At 45 knots,
In the following example, the resistance of a planing boat the situation was slightly different. Trim reducing
was required to be reduced in the speed range of 40 to 45 devices would not help at 45 knots. The interceptor was
knots. The manufacturer was not able to meet the not effective in bringing down the resistance at 45 knots
contractual condition of achieving these speeds with the even at a trim of 4 degrees and a heave of 50mm. By
installed engine power due to an increase in hull weight putting the additional spray strips, the resistance could be
during construction. Hydrodynamic model tests were brought down by 1% at 45 knots.
done at NSTL on a 1:13 model using stern interceptors,

Figure 6: Plots of model resistance against heave and trim corresponding to full scale speed of 40 knots and 45 knots
(Dark blue indicates the least resistance and dark red indicates highest resistance)
3. PERFORMANCE ENHANCEMENT OF Lwl) at the after end of the cross-deck and triangular
FOIL ASSISTED CATAMARAN (FOILCAT) spray rails whose length and location were chosen so as
to reduce the resistance mainly near the hump speed.
Hydrodynamic performance evaluation of a twin hull Finally, the cross-deck was modified by adding a wave-
asymmetric catamaran, supported by foils, was piercing form at the bow for better sea-keeping
performed at the High Speed Towing Tank at the Naval performance [7].
Science and Technological Laboratory (NSTL),
Visakhapatnam. An asymmetric catamaran supported by A triangular stern wedge of length 100 mm, was
two NACA 66 airfoil sections fitted at the bottom of the introduced as an integral part of the cross-deck at the aft
hull was chosen as the basic form. See Figure 7. The is shown in Figure 7. Three configurations of the wedges,
cross deck of the catamaran was designed to give a viz. θ = 3°, 6° and 8° were tested at displacements
planing lift to aid take-off at lower speeds. corresponding to 90% and 100% of the all-up weight. A
Approximately 80 sets of calm water resistance tests comparison of the behaviour of the stern wedges is given
were conducted for two hull forms to optimise the hull – in Figure 8. The 6˚ stern wedge gave the most
foil configuration and to study the effectiveness of spray encouraging result. The hump drag of the optimised hull
rails and stern wedges in reducing the hump drag. Details – foil configuration was reduced by 12%. The spray rails
of the development of the foil assisted catamaran hull reduced the hump drag by about 3% [8]. The resistance
form may be obtained from reference [7]. reduction and trim reduction in the hump zone is clearly
seen in Figure 8.
A number of features were introduced in the hull form so
at to reduce the resistance hump. These included a 6
degree deep ‘V’ shape stern wedge (about 6 percent of

Figure 7: Linesplan of foilcat with wave piercing hull (left); 1:6.5 model at NSTL (centre) and details of wedge (right)

Figure 8: Resistance & Trim plots of foilcat with wedge variants

4 ECONOMIC FEASIBILITY 5 SUMMARY

Going by the powering performance improvement The following points are outlined for future works:
exercise done on the fast displacement craft, it may be
seen that the low speed penalties are making the whole • In fast displacement ships, the performance of
scheme uneconomical. Reference [9] discusses scale wedge-flap combination is much better than flap
effects on the performance of stern flaps and wedges. It or wedge in isolation.
compares among fast displacement ships the model test
results and the sea trial data of USS RAMAGE (DDG • The novel concept of wedge-interceptors on fast
61). The 1:20 model-scale stern flap experiments displacement ships may become an even better
indicated maximum reduction of 6.4% and an increase in option for powering reduction subject to full
top speed of 0.4 knots. Also, a low speed penalty below scale results.
12 knots was predicted. However at full scale, stern-flap
reduced ship power by 5.6% to 15.4% and increased top • The reduction in effective wake width and wake
speed by 0.9 knots. There was no penalty at any speed. wash is more in wedge-interceptor and wedge-
The model scale tests under-predicted the stern flap flap combinations.
performance in the range of 12% at speeds of 14 to 18
knots, but only about 2% when approaching top speed. • Breakaway speed is reduced by 4 knots at model
Further, geosim studies indicated that “cross-over” speed scale by stern wedge-flap combination. The
decreased with increasing model size. Also, the interceptor combinations gave a reduction of 2
resistance reduction improved with increasing model knots.
size. The stern flap scaling multiplier technique proposed
in reference [9] is applied to the present model at NSTL. • Effective increase in hydrodynamic length is
The corrected estimation is that the full scale best for stern wedge-flap.
performance with the best configuration gives a
resistance reduction of 12.6% at high speeds. The low • Planing craft trim is highly reduced by wedge-
speed penalties are also nullified by applying this interceptor combination. Reduction in trim by
correction. The annual savings in fuel consumption is interceptors is better than stern wedges.
regarded as 4% as suggested by similar studies in
reference [4]. The fitment of a stern flap or wedge or • The powering performance of a planing craft is
even an interceptor can cause very little effect on the
better optimised by interceptors than a wedge.
building cost of the ship roughly estimated to be of the
order of 1%. This is expected to be easily offset by the
• On high speed planing crafts, the importance of
annual fuel savings itself considering the powering
spray rails is elucidated. Spray rails may be
benefits. Besides, huge savings are expected to follow.
designed in such a way to cut off spray and
provide an additional lift.
The planing craft in section 3.1 is currently operational.
Hence, the energy saving devices have to be retrofitted.
• Energy saving devices are equally effective on
The cost of retrofit, if assumed to be of the order of 50
hybrid crafts like foil assisted catamarans.
lakh Indian rupees, can be evened out by fuel savings in
1 year. Besides, the operational requirements can be
effectively met. For the planing craft mentioned in • The use of energy saving devices listed here
section 3.2, the requirement of the owner is to achieve seems to be economically feasible.
the contractual condition failing which will invite huge
penalties. Therefore, the use of energy saving devices is
unavoidable. The installation cost of interceptors is 7. ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
expected to be less than 5% of the total cost. It is
understood that differential interceptors are also We would like to thank Prof. O.P. Shah, IIT Kharaghpur
improving the turning ability of the vessel by enhancing and Shri VBS Ayyengar, Scientist, NSTL for their
the heel. guidance in pursuing this work. We also thank Sunny
Verma, Scientist, NSTL and the entire testing team of
The stern wedge designed on the foil assisted catamaran HSTT, NSTL for helping with the study.
has already been fitted by bending the aluminium plating
on the 10m technology demonstrator vessel. The drag 8. REFERENCES
reduction at hump speed gave remarkable improvement
in performance. The cost of wedge fitment was 1. KARAFIATH, G. et al, ‘Stern Wedges and Stern
absolutely minimal. To complement this, the fuel savings Flaps for Improved Powering – US Navy Experience’,
in the hump zone was remarkable. SNAME Transactions, Vol. 107, 1999
2. YAAKOB, O., et al, 'Stern flap for resistance
reduction of planing hull craft: A case study with a fast
crew boat', Jurnal Teknologi, 41(A) Dis. 2004: 43–52

3. PRAVEEN, PC and MD. KAREEM KHAN,

‘Interceptor for better Hydrodynamic Performance of a
Planing Hull’, International Workshop Conference &
Expo in Engineering and Marine Applications, 2010

4. CUSANELLI, D.S. et al, ‘Effect of Stern Flaps on

Powering Performance of the FFG-7 Flaps’, NSWC
Carderock Division, Technical Report

5. SAVISTKY, D., ‘Hydrodynamic Design of Planing

Hulls’, Marine Technology, Vol.8, No.4, Oct. 1964

6. SAVISTKY, D., DeLORME, M.F. and DATLA, R.,

‘Inclusion of Whisker Spray Drag in Performance
Prediction Method for High-Speed Planing Hulls’,
Marine Technology, Vol.44, No.1, Jan. 2007

7. SRINIVASAN, VB et al, ‘Experimental Investigation

on the performance of a High Speed Foil Assisted
Catamaran’, International Conference in Marine
Hydrodynamics, 2006

8. SRINIVASAN, VB et al, ‘An Investigation into the

performance of Hybrid High Performance Vehicles’, 5th
International Conference on High Performance Marine
Vehicles, Australia, 2006

9. CUSANELLI, D.S., ‘Scaling Effects on Stern flap

Powering Progress Report’, NSWC Carderock Division,
Technical Report, September 2009

9. AUTHORS BIOGRAPHY

The authors are scientists at the Hydrodynamic Research

Wing of the Naval Science & Technological Laboratory,
India. Their areas of work include improving
hydrodynamic performance of marine vehicles through
ship model experiments and computational fluid
dynamics, development of hybrid hulls and propulsors
and full-scale sea trials.