0.100.110.120.18.104.22.168 2.5 3 3.5FvR/W4
Figure 1 – Drag with and without trim correction
COMMANDMENT 2 - USE CONTEMPORARYTECHNIQUES
Up-to-date techniques represent the currentconsensus from the various international researchinstitutions. For example, three-dimensional analyseshave replaced two-dimensional, with new friction linesand more accurate model-ship scale corrections.
0.00200.00250.00300.00350.00400.14 0.16 0.18 0.2 0.22 0.24 0.26 0.28FnCt
Figure 2 – Effect on C
prediction of wrong C
Improperly using a new friction line or correlationallowance, however, can lead to less reliable results.Too often, incompatible routines are incorrectly mixedwith each other. In an attempt to use contemporarymethods, C
predictions based on the older ATTCfriction line (Schoenherr, 1932) are routinely married tothe newer ITTC friction line (ITTC, 1957). Add to thisthe use of the ATTC-based traditional C
of 0.0004 andsignificantly incorrect predictions can result.The proper approach is to numerically recreate theoriginal model-scale results using the known modellength and friction line. Then full-scale results - freefrom incompatibility - can be built with the designer’s preference to use traditional values or to fully exploitcontemporary practices. Remember to watch out for pre-set routines that mix old data with new.
COMMANDMENT 3 - USE THE RIGHT KINDOF ALGORITHM
All of the methods described here are based onsome statistical manipulation of model test and trialdata. Hull
, L/B) are used as theinput side of the statistical analysis. How the test data isgrouped and the parameters analyzed will determinewhat role the method should and should not play in areliable speed prediction.
Systematic series vs. random data
To keep the accuracy of a parametric analysis ashigh as possible, collections of test data are oftengrouped into a
. In a typical small craft series -such as the YP series (Compton, 1986) - a parent hull iscreated that has certain design features, such assectional area curve, turn of bilge, transom immersionor entrance angle. A matrix of models is then built thatvary the principal shape parameters (e.g., L/B, B/T, C
)in a systematic fashion to determine the effect of each parameter on resistance.The weakness of a systematic series is apparentwhen the design is of a form that is different from theseries. For example, it would be inappropriate to usethe semi-displacement YP series for a heavy tug.
methods, on the other hand, are based on many different hull forms and test results. Thevarious components of resistance (e.g., wave-making,transom immersion, bulb effects, viscous components)are broken down into as many pieces as possible andeach numerically evaluated independent of the others.While not always able to discretely evaluate the effectof a single parameter on resistance like a series can,these methods frequently offer better prediction of the
Design or analysis
The choice of a prediction method often dependson the purpose of the task. In a design or feasibilitystudy, the objective might be to determine suitableoverall parameters. A sea trial forensic analysis mightrequire a more detailed review of the entire system performance.
methods sacrifice precision for the sake of fewer parameters and well-behaved “average” results.Almost all systematic series fall into this category,along with a few random data methods. Choose adesign method for early-stage design studies.