Hull Design
Initial Hull shape design
After many hull-shape designs, I decided on three different configurations I liked best.
Second configuration.
Third configuration.
Fourth configuration.
Note: This work was completed as I was finishing high school, so please don’t judge it too harshly. I’ve learned a lot more about fluid dynamics since. Also, the reason why the drag forces are insanely large is because the far-field velocity was set to 100 m/s (220 mph; I had extremely high goals); second, the entire boat was submerged in an attempt to normalize the volumes of each configuration.
I then compared each configuration and optimized them a bit before making the final decision on which hull to build.
I compared the normal force and other factors with CFD Flow simulation.
I decided on the third configuration due the second configuration’s worse aesthetic, and the fourth hull looked really cool but would be a nightmare to make a mold for. Also, The Fourth had less volume and less useful volume. In the end after optimization, the third configuration is better than the other configurations.
Optimizing the Hull
In the videos above, I optimized all the orange surfaces. Where I’d vary the dimensions of a couple of features a few hundred times and compare the results between each variation. Below, I show the optimization of the blue surfaces.
Surfaces that are optimized in this example are indicated by the color blue.
I ran a parametric CFD with around 200-400 design points where I change a dimension and rerun the CFD. After the runs are complete, I can rank the designs with an excel spreadsheet like the one below.
Results of CFD runs in spreadsheet form. I filtered the data and ranked the designs to find the best, over-all design. I picked the best design based on drag and ease of manufacturing.
Final, optimized hull design, side view,
Final, optimized hull design, bottom view.