Ocean Engineering 35 (2008) 1183– 1193

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Ocean Engineering
journal homepage:

Uncertainty in the analysis of speed and powering trials
M. Insel Ã
Department of Naval Architecture, Istanbul Technical University, ITU, Gemi Insaati ve Deniz Bil. Fak., 34469 Maslak, Istanbul, Turkey

a r t i c l e in fo
Article history: Received 3 March 2008 Accepted 13 April 2008 Available online 1 May 2008 Keywords: Speed trials Uncertainty Full-scale powering

Full-scale speed trials of a ship have been questioned for the uncertainty of speed and power measurements especially when the sea conditions differ from the ideal calm water conditions. Such uncertainty has been investigated by utilizing ITTC standard speed/powering trial analysis procedure through Monte Carlo simulations. A case study was conducted for a set of sea trials with 12 sister ships for which sea trial data were available for a range of displacement, water depth, water temperature, wind speed and wave height values. Precision errors were observed as the most influential error source for the whole speed range, even though their effects were more substantial at low speeds. Beaufort scale was observed as the most important elementary error source indicating the need for the best weather conditions for the most reliable sea trail predictions. & 2008 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

1. Introduction Prediction of full-scale power requirement of a ship is an essential part of ship design process. Extrapolation of scaled model tests is currently the most reliable method available for the purpose. However, verification/validation studies are required even with model tests to ensure the accuracy of the results. Hence, uncertainty analysis in ship model testing is currently widely utilized to asses the quality of test data by following International Towing Tank Conference (ITTC) recommendations. The prediction of ship power is also effected by a number of uncertainty components due to the extrapolation process. The results of predictions are compared with ship trials, which represent uncertainties due to uncontrollable environmental conditions in addition to the measurement errors. This paper is intended to investigate uncertainty in the full-scale ship speed trials to be used in the validation studies through a case study. Speed trials are conducted at the end of ship construction usually at a limited time scale. It is rarely possible to conduct the trials at contract conditions. Therefore, measured ship speed and shaft power must be corrected for the differences between trial conditions and the contract conditions. Hence, ship trials have uncertainties mainly due to two sources: The uncertainty assessment in shaft torque and speed measurements during sea trial for a single run was outlined by 23rd ITTC, The Specialist Committee on Speed and Powering Trials (ITTC, 2002). Current study extends this work to include uncertainty from other full-scale measurements such as wind, waves, sea water temperature, etc. An attempt to understand the magnitudes of these errors was made through analysis for a set of speed/powering trials with a series of 12 twin-screw sister vessels. Each trial consists of 5 pairs of runs in opposite directions and was conducted in different environmental conditions. Hence, whole set of trial results include errors due to hull form production, sea trial measurements, and corrections for the environmental conditions. Each run in a trial was analysed and corrected according to the procedure outlined in ITTC Standard Procedure (ITTC, 2005). Monte Carlo methods were utilized for uncertainty estimations, as data reduction equations are complicated and highly correlated. Sensitivity to error sources was derived and conclusions on the effect of error sources are presented. 

Trial measurements: torque, shaft rate of revolution, ship
speed measurement uncertainties.

2. Uncertainty in engineering measurements and analysis Error is defined as difference between experimentally determined value and the true value. An estimate of the error is defined as uncertainty, which is made at some confidence level, such as 95%. This means that the true value of the quantity is expected to be within 7U interval about the experimentally determined value 95 times out of 100. 

Trial analysis: uncertainties due to corrections applied to trial
à Tel.: +90 212 2856512; fax: +90 212 2856508.

E-mail address: 0029-8018/$ - see front matter & 2008 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved. doi:10.1016/j.oceaneng.2008.04.009

1184 M. Insel / Ocean Engineering 35 (2008) 1183–1193

Total error can be divided into two parts: precision errors (random), which contribute to the scatter of the data and bias errors (systematic), which shift all readings to a new mean. A precision limit (P) is defined as an estimator of the precision errors (e). A 95% confidence estimate of P is interpreted to mean that the 7P interval about a single reading of Xi, which should cover the population mean 95 times out of 100. The bias limit (B) is defined as an estimator of bias errors (b). A 95% confidence estimate is interpreted as the experimenter being 95% confident that true value of bias error would be within 7B. Total uncertainty in a measurement can be expressed as root mean squares of precision and bias errors as U 2 ¼ P 2 þ B2 (1)

3. Monte Carlo method for the determination of uncertainty Monte Carlo methods can be applied into uncertainty estimation in complicated and correlated measurement systems. At every speed, the basic measurement error sources are given as a statistical distribution. Usual calculation method is applied by choosing a random sample from the error sources satisfying Gaussian distribution, and large number of times calculation is repeated , such as 50,000. The distribution of result over the simulations indicates the uncertainty in total result. The methodology steps (Fig. 1) are: (a) Determine elemental bias/precision error sources and their bias/precision limits. (b) Create Gaussian (or other) error distributions of bias/precision errors by assuming a standard deviation equal to half of bias/ precision error limit (for 95% confidence). (c) Create a calculation model by using data reduction equations. If an elemental bias/precision error source is shared among two or more variables, the same random value of elemental bias/precision error value is used in those variables. (d) Setup simulations consisting of N number of simulations, in which elemental bias/precision error values are assigned randomly complying with Gaussian error distributions. (e) Calculate the result and its distribution. i.e. calculate mean and standard deviation of result from N simulations.

The precision limit is estimated from the scatter in the measured values by P ¼ KS (2)

where K is the coverage factor and is equal to 2 for 95% confidence interval and large sample size (NX10) and S is the standard deviation of the sample of N readings (ITTC, 1999). The bias limit can only be estimated by careful investigation of basic measurement errors and their propagation into final result.


B2B B 2C B 3A

B3B B 3C


-2s 2s

2s -2s 2s -2s





















r=r{X1 ,X 2….XJ}




r Br=2s

r Pr=2s
-2s 2s


r Ur2=Br2+Pr2
Fig. 1. Uncertainty assessment methodology by Monte Carlo method.

M. Insel / Ocean Engineering 35 (2008) 1183–1193 1185

(f) Determine the bias limit by taking twice the standard deviation. (g) Perform repeat tests (minimum 10) and find standard deviation. (h) Take twice the standard deviation to find the precision limit (for 95% confidence). (i) Root-sum-square bias and precision errors to find the total uncertainty limit.

4. Full-scale speed/power trial analysis method Speed/power analysis recommended by 24th ITTC (ITTC, 2005) was utilized in the current work. This procedure follows a methodology similar to the one recommended by International Standardization Organization (ISO) ISO 15016 (2002). The analysis speed/power trial data are based on thrust identity and the knowledge of the thrust deduction factor, the wake fraction, the relative rotative efficiency and the propeller open water characteristics of the full-scale propeller are required. Fig. 2 describes the analysis method. Ideally, the wind resistance coefficients of the ship should be obtained from model tests. In most cases, model tests are not available and reliable statistical values can be used. Concerning environmental influences on the performance of sea trials, speed runs should only be performed against and with the waves. The correction methods existing so far account for the influences of waves only for these two conditions; in the case when waves do not come from the bow or the stern, the correction methods are not sufficiently reliable and the effects of steering and drift on the ship’s performance might be underestimated. Sheltered areas provide the comfort of protection from waves, but normally in these areas shallow water effects have to be considered. When choosing a trials site, the advantage of an accepted and simple correction for shallow water effects has to be considered against doubtful corrections for the effects of waves, steering and drift. Reliable methods to estimate the influence of currents, steering and drift effects do not yet exist. Hence, no corrections were utilized in the current work. Methods to correct for roughness effects on propellers and for roughness and fouling on a ship’s hull are of doubtful accuracy to date.

5. Uncertainty in basic measurements Bias errors in a single run originate from measurements and corrections for the environmental conditions. A number of basic measurements are conducted during the trials for both analysis and corrections. The bias error limits in each measurement should be determined by using the basic principles. An example case is presented as follows to explain the basic measurement errors. 5.1. Ship conditions 5.1.1. Ship length and breadth Ship dimensions are affected by the production errors. In the current work, 710 cm in the ship length and 72 cm in the ship breadth error were assumed. 5.1.2. Draught In order to define the ship loading, fore and aft draughts should be measured. The draught marks at the perpendiculars are read by eye before departing the trials. Depending

Fig. 2. Speed/power analysis method (ITTC, 2005).

on the sea conditions, a reading error of 72 cm can be assumed. T¼ TA þ TF 2 (3)

5.1.3. Displacement Block coefficient error was accepted as 0.001. Hence, the error in the displacement can be calculated through displacement equation: D ¼ rgC B LBT (4)

1186 M. Insel / Ocean Engineering 35 (2008) 1183–1193

5.2. Environmental conditions 5.2.1. Water temperature, density Water temperature and salt content are also required if they are different from contract conditions. Water temperature is measured with a thermometer and best accuracy in trial conditions can be assumed of 0.5 1C. This error is the combination of measurement and temperature changes in the trial area. Salt content is usually assumed to be constant at trial site; however in case of no measurements, a bias error limit of 0.005 in density due to salt content uncertainty was assumed in the current work. 5.3. Shaft torque measurement Shaft torque measurements are generally conducted with a full-bridge strain gauge rosette excited with a battery box and amplified with a purpose built amplifier-decoder and transmitted to stationary receiver through antenna as shown in Fig. 3. Calibration is performed by placing a shunt resistor (RCAL) into one of the arms of strain gauge bridge, which simulates corresponding strain as CAL ¼ 1 R 4k R þ RCAL (5) 

installation on a ship,  calculation of torque.

5.3.1. Strain gauge bridge Strain gauge rosette consists of four equivalent strain gauges with inaccuracies on strain gauge resistance and gauge factor. Typical examples of such errors are: gauge resistance Rg ¼ 350.070.4% O gauge factor at 24 1C 2.04570.4% hence, bias errors: gauge resistance BRg ¼ 70.4 Â 350/100 ¼ 71.4 O gauge factor at 24 1C BRgf ¼ 70.4 Â 2.045/100 ¼ 0.00818

5.3.2. Measured value transmitter and receiver Transmitter and receiver are utilized to condition rotating strain gauge signal, convert it to frequency modulation and transmit to stationary data acquisition system. Typical errors due to such system are: sensitivity, output frequency Df ¼ 5 kHz725 Hz (70.5%) effect of ambient temperature on sensitivity 70.1% hence, bias errors: sensivity bias BTR1 ¼ 25 Hz sensivity due to ambient temp BTR2 ¼ 0.1 Â 5000/100 ¼ 5 Hz

where k is the strain gauge factor, R is the strain gauge resistance in one arm, RCAL is the shunt calibration resistance and eCAL is the strain corresponding to shunt resistor. During measurements, resistance of Wheatstone bridge changes with shaft strain as such ¼ 1 DR k 4R (6)

where DR is the strain gauge resistance change in all arms. The torque can be calculated from Q¼ 4GI D (7)

5.3.3. Frequency/voltage converter module A frequency to voltage converter is required to transfer frequency modulation signal-to-voltage to acquire with data acquisition system. Typical specifications are: measurement range 75 kHz measured value nominal voltage 710 V linearity deviation 0.02% residual ripple and disturbing peaks 70.3% effect of temperature on sensitivity 70.1% effect of change in supply voltage 0.01%

where I¼ pðD4 À d Þ ; 32

moment of interia


Q is the shaft toque, D is the shaft outside diameter, d is the shaft inside diameter and G is the shaft material shear modulus. The uncertainty of this measurement system consists of elemental error sources based on 

strain gauge,  calibration of measurement system,

5.3.4. Analog digital conversion error Signal from frequency/voltage converter is fed into an analog/ digital converter with 12-bit accuracy and 710 V range. Error in a typical analog digital conversion is 1.5 bits. Hence bias error in


SG Amp




FV Converter

AD Converter
Fig. 3. Shaft torque and rate of revolution measurements.

M. Insel / Ocean Engineering 35 (2008) 1183–1193 1187

analog digital conversion: BADC 1:5 Â 10 ¼ 0:0732 À V ¼ 2048 (9)
Wind Speed (m/s)

40 35 30
y = -0.00532x3 + 0.23797x2 + 0.80594x - 0.01113 R2 = 0.99997

5.3.5. Calibration uncertainty A standard resistor is utilized for the calibration of shaft torque measurement. This resistor, shunt resistor, is connected instead of a strain gauge in the full bridge to create a resistance change effect in the measurement chain. Standard calibration resistor in this example has error not more than 0.01%. The shaft relative strain e is obtained from Eq. (5). 5.3.6. Installation on a ship Installation in the ship has elemental error sources due to alignment of strain gauge with shaft axis. Twenty third ITTC (ITTC, 2002) has given alignment error as a ¼ cos ð2aÞ where angle error is assumed to be about 51. 5.3.7. Calculation of torque Diameter of ship shaft can be determined from certification of shaft, for the current case, a bias limit of 70.5 mm was utilized for both outside and inside diameter. The bias error in shear modulus depends on the material of the shaft. For the current case, 1.15% specified in 23rd ITTC (ITTC, 2002) was utilized. 5.4. Shaft rate of revolution measurements Shaft speed measurements are made with optical or magnetic pulse generator, a sensor and a frequency/voltage converter as shown in Fig. 3. The number of pulses are counted for a predetermined time and divided into number pulses per revolution to find shaft rate of revolution: n¼ count N time (11) (10)

25 20 15 10 5 0









Fig. 4. Beaufort scale and wind speed relation.

18 16
y = 0.02556x3 - 0.11520x2 + 0.17985x R2 = 0.99982

Mean Wave Height (m)

14 12 10 8 6 4 2 0 0 2


6 BF




Fig. 5. Beaufort scale and wave height relation. Table 1 Main specification of the ship utilized Ship length Ship breadth Ship draught Ship displacement Number of propellers Propeller diameter Ship service speed 135 m 23.4 m 5.85 m 10 Â 353 t 2 4.05 m 22 knots

where N is the number pulses per revolution. Bias error in pulse count is 1 pulse, there is no uncertainty in N. As time window gets larger, the bias error associated with shaft rate of revolution drops. However, then the transient changes in the shaft power are not acquired. For the current work time window is taken as 1 s as power is calculated once every second. 5.5. Ship speed measurements Ship speed is nowadays measured by dGPS systems, and can be calculated with different methods (ITTC, 2002). The most common method for ship speed calculation is to determine the run start position and run end positions, and dividing the distance between the two by time elapsed. The uncertainty in time measurement is negligible, the typical positional bias error limit is about 3–5 m: VS ¼ S Dt (12)

Table 2 Environmental conditions for the trials Trial set Water depth/ ship length Wind (Beaufort) Trial disp/ contract disp Water temperature (1C) 15.1 8.7 15.1 5 18 15.9 13 12.3 5 4.4 11 4.5 Run time (s)

where S is the run length and Dt is the time to measure, qffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffi S ¼ Dx2 þ Dy2 ; Dx ¼ x À x0 ; Dy ¼ y À y0 Dt ¼ t À t 0 (13)

where x, y are end point coordinates; x0, y0 are start point coordinates; t is time at the end point and t0 is time at the start point.

7 21 28 29 31 33 35 37 56 63 87 95

0.145 0.301 0.186 0.346 0.320 0.246 0.190 0.331 0.323 0.346 0.323 0.176

4 3 2.6 3.5 7 6 6.5 5 6 0 4 6

0.935 0.966 0.932 0.882 0.901 0.876 0.962 0.963 0.884 0.885 0.915 0.948

294 477 474 366 557 600 600 601 601 600 432 600

1188 M. Insel / Ocean Engineering 35 (2008) 1183–1193

5.6. Uncertainty due to environmental corrections The corrections are applied into measured ship speed and shaft power. ITTC speed/power trials procedure (ITTC, 2005) has recommended a number of methods for the environmental conditions. Shallow water, displacement, temperature corrections of ITTC was utilized in the current work. Sea state correction was

taken from Havelock and Kreitner. Wind correction due to Blenderman (1990) was utilized. 5.6.1. Uncertainty due to shallow water correction The predictions of power are based on deep water; however, the trials are conducted in restricted sea due to weather conditions or other requirements. In this case, speed loss due to shallow water must be made. The shallow water correction method given by Lackenby is utilized. The speed loss is given as !   DV S AM gH ¼ 0:1242 À 0:05 þ 1:0 À tanh (14) VS V2 H2 S

16000 7 28 29 33 35 37 56 63 87 95 21 31



1.0 0.9 0.8 0.7 0.6 0.5 0.4 0.3 0.2 0.1 0.0 5 10 15 Ship speed (knots) 20 25

Delivered Power (kW)


Power/V3 (kw/(m/s)3)

y = -0.0042x + 0.2196





0 8 10 12 14 16 18 Ship Speed (knots) 20 22 24

Fig. 8. Bias errors in trials.

Fig. 6. Result of 12 sets of speed/powering trials.

Table 3 Number of trial pairs and standard deviation of trial pairs Ship speed (knots) No of trial pairs 5 4 2 5 3 6 14 10 4 St. dev. 0.30887 0.13574 0.44679 0.13802 0.53653 0.31009 0.41375 0.18008 0.29896

16000 7 14000 28 29 33 35 37 10000 56 63 8000 87 95 21 6000 31


15–16 16–17 17–18 18–19 19–20 20–21 21–22 22–23 23–24

Delivered Power (kW)

Power/V3-Precision Stdev (kW/(m/s)3)

0.6 0.5 0.4 0.3 0.2 0.1 0.0 15



0 8 10 12 14 16 18 20 22 24 Ship Speed (knots)
Fig. 7. Result of 12 sets of speed/powering trials with bias error limits.


19 21 Ship Speed (knots)



Fig. 9. Standard deviation distribution (precision error) for 1 knot segments.

M. Insel / Ocean Engineering 35 (2008) 1183–1193 1189

where H is the water depth in m, AM is the midship section area under water in m2, DVS is the speed loss due to shallow water in m/s and VS ship speed in m/s. Water depth bias error was accepted as 72 m. Bias error in midship section area originates from bias errors in breadth, draught and midship section area coefficient, which is assumed to be within 0.001. Bias error on ship speed follows the procedure given above.

5.6.2. Wind and wave corrections Wind corrections and wave corrections are based on the wind speed, wind direction, wave height, and wave direction.

where a is the heading angle; dR0 is the wave resistance increase in head seas and HV2 is the wave height. The current set of data includes Beaufort scale and wind direction values only. Hence, a relation between Beaufort scale and wind speed and wave height were established by fitting curves for both variables. It is proposed by Coleman and Steele (1999) that a 72(SEE) band about the regression curve will contain approximately 95% of the data points and this band is a confidence interval on the curve fit: ffi vffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffi u N uX ðY i À ðaX i þ bÞÞ2 t SEE ¼ (18) NÀ2 i¼1 Wind correction. RAA r ¼ A V 2 AXV C AA ðcAA Þ 2 WR (15)
% Power

12 10 8 6 4 2
Precision Bias Total

where RAA is the resistance increase due to wind, rA is the air density, VWR is the wind speed, AXV is the cross-sectional windage area; CAA(cAA) is the directional wind resistance coefficient from model tests and cAA is the wind angle. Wave correction. B2 dR0 ¼ 0:64HV2 C B grTRIAL L dR ¼ dR0 ½0:667 þ 0:333 cosðaފ (16) (17)

0 15



18 19 20 21 Ship Speed (knots)




Fig. 11. Percentage error in sea trials.

16000 7 14000 28 29 33 12000 35 37 56 10000

Delivered Power (kW)

63 87 95


21 31




0 8 10 12 14 16 18 20 22 24 Ship Speed (knots)
Fig. 10. Total error in sea trials.

1190 M. Insel / Ocean Engineering 35 (2008) 1183–1193

SEE values of 0.075 m/s for wind speed and 0.0845 m for wave height was derived from the curve fit. Beaufort scale is normally estimated by expert opinion; hence, a bias error limit of 1 Beaufort scale was accepted in the current study. The relation between Beaufort scale and wind speed, wave height are given in Figs. 4 and 5, respectively. Wind and wave directions are assumed coinciding in the current work. Wind direction and wave direction bias error limits were estimated as 101, course estimation bias error limit is taken as 41.

5.6.3. Displacement correction ISO 15016 (2002) recommendation for displacement correction was utilized RADIS ¼ 0:65RT  DTRIAL À1 D  (19)

where DTRIAL is the displacement at trial conditions and D is the displacement for trial prediction.

-80% Run 1 - Beaufort Scale Estimation Error Run 1- Port Shaft Rate of Revolutions Count Error Run 2- Port Shaft Rate of Revolutions Count Error Run 2 - Beaufort Scale Estimation Error







12.5% 17.1%

Fig. 12. Sensitivity of corrected shaft power on basic measurement bias errors for 8.2 knots.

-55% Transmission Efficiency Error Relative Rotative Efficency Error Trial Density Error Run 2- Port Shaft Rate of Revolutions Count Error Run 1- Port Shaft Rate of Revolutions Count Error Run 2-Beaufort Scale Estimation Error






1.0% 1.7%




-3.1% 18.8% 26.5% -44.1%

Fig. 13. Sensitivity of corrected shaft power on basic measurement bias errors for 14.1 knots.









Stb Shaft Strain gauge Resistance Error Stb Shaft Strain Gauge Factor Error Run 2-Beaufort Scale Estimation Error Draught Error Trial Draught Error Transmission Efficiency Error Relative Rotative Efficieny Error Trial Density Error Run 1- Port Shaft Rate of Revolutions Count Error Run 2- Port Shaft Rate of Revolutions Count Error Run 1-Beaufort Scale Estimation Error
-26.1% -8.9% -2.4% -1.2% -1.5%



2.6% 4.0%

22.0% 24.7%

Fig. 14. Sensitivity of corrected shaft power on basic measurement bias errors for 21.8 knots.

M. Insel / Ocean Engineering 35 (2008) 1183–1193 1191

Contract displacement did not include any uncertainty. Meanwhile trial displacement bias error is explained above. 5.6.4. Water temperature and salt content Water temperature correction was the same as ISO 15016 (2002)     r CF RAS ¼ RT0 1 À TRIAL À RF 1 À (20) r C FÀTRIAL Density has elemental errors due to temperature measurement, temperature–density fit error, and salt content error.

Frictional resistance errors originate from viscosity, length and speed.

6. Example full-scale speed/power trial uncertainty In order to demonstrate the errors associated with sea trials, a case study was conducted for a twin-screw ferry by using crystal ball Monte Carlo simulations. The details of the ship are given in Table 1. Model resistance, self-propulsion and open water test results were available for the form. A set of sea trials with 12 sister

Speed: 8.2 knots Beaufort Scale Bias Limit: 0.5 Beaufort Scale Bias Limit: 1.5 Beaufort Scale Bias Limit: 1.0 Beaufort Scale Bias Limit: 2.0








0 351


431 471 Delivered Power (kW)



Fig. 15. Uncertainty of corrected shaft power for Beaufort scale variations bias errors for 8.2 knots.

Speed: 14.1 knots
Beaufort Scale Bias Limit: 0.5 Beaufort Scale Bias Limit: 1.5 Beaufort Scale Bias Limit: 1.0 Beaufort Scale Bias Limit: 2.0

4500 4000 3500 3000


2500 2000 1500 1000 500 0 2,516






Delivered Power (kW)
Fig. 16. Uncertainty of corrected shaft power for Beaufort scale variations bias errors for 14.1 knots.

1192 M. Insel / Ocean Engineering 35 (2008) 1183–1193

ships were also available. Environmental conditions of the current set were various as given in Table 2. All trial results were corrected according to the standard ITTC method (ITTC, 2005). The results of corrected trials are given in Fig. 6. 6.1. Total bias error Uncertainty in each run was analysed separately, Gaussian distributions were set up for each elemental bias error sources. If correlated bias errors were applicable, then the same distribution was used for the whole runs of the trial. For example, same temperature measurement bias error was applied into all runs in a trial.

The results of trials are plotted in Fig. 7 with error bars defined by bias error limits. Both bias errors on speed and power are observed as substantial amount of tests were performed in shallow water. Bias error limits in all trials are plotted by dividing third power of speed in Fig. 8 to reduce the effects of speed. In order to define an average bias error with speed, a linear curve fit was applied to these bias error limits to represent the whole set of trials. 6.2. Precision errors of trials Precision errors were defined as the difference between trial result and curve fit value at that speed. Then these errors were

Speed: 21.8 knots Beaufort Scale Bias Limit: 0.5 Beaufort Scale Bias Limit: 1.5 Beaufort Scale Bias Limit: 1.0 Beaufort Scale Bias Limit: 2.0

3500 3000 2500


2000 1500 1000 500 0 9,164 9,349 9,535 9,721 9,906 10,07 Delivered Power (kW)
Fig. 17. Uncertainty of corrected shaft power for Beaufort scale variations bias errors for 21.8 knots.

Speed: 21.8 knots



Power (kW)

90.00% 50.00%


25.00% 10.00% Median



Beaufort Scale Bias Limit: 0.5 (M163) Beaufort Scale Bias Limit: 1.0 (M163) Beaufort Scale Bias Limit: 1.5 (M163) Beaufort Scale Bias Limit: 2.0 (M163)

Fig. 18. Uncertainty of corrected shaft power for Beaufort scale variations bias errors for 21.8 knots.

M. Insel / Ocean Engineering 35 (2008) 1183–1193 1193

separated into groups for each 1 knot speed intervals within the speed range. The precision errors were divided by third power of speed, and their standard deviation values were calculated for each speed group and given in Table 3 and Fig. 9. Average standard deviation was found to be approximately 0.3. Hence precision error at each speed range was accepted equal to twice of mean standard deviation (i.e. 2 Â 0.3 Â V3). A 95% confidence level was plotted in Fig. 10 by taking rootsum-square of bias and precision error limits. Precision and bias error uncertainties are plotted as percentage of power in Fig. 11. Precision errors are larger than the bias errors for the data set. As speed increases, both bias errors and precision errors drop. Bias errors are less than 5% for all the speed range and about 3% for the design speed. Meanwhile, precision errors are about 9% at lower speeds and about 7% at the design speed. The precision errors determined here include the precision errors due to production, environmental conditions and measurements. The choice of correction methods could affect bias and precision error limits, but it should not change the total uncertainty of the trials. Hence, very careful consideration should be given to minimize the environmental effects for smaller uncertainty.

The uncertainty of shaft power for 21.8 knots is given by varying weather condition bias error in Fig. 18. The spread of shaft power is considerably higher when Beaufort scale error is above 1. This result implies that use of weather station data for sea trials is not possible without high uncertainty of shaft power.

8. Conclusions There are uncertainties associated with full-scale powering trials, the case study approach indicated that a bias limit of 3–5% is observed. The precision limit however will be governed mainly by the sea trial conditions such as wind, wave and current. The wide variety of sea trial conditions and utilization of sister ships has indicated a precision limit of about 7–9% can be achieved. This precision limit includes also seasonal chances as these sea trials were conducted over years. Sensitivity analysis on sea trial uncertainty has revealed that the most influential error source is the utilization of Beaufort scale for the wave and wind effects. In order to reduce the bias error below 3%, encountered waves should be measured. The methods such as wave radars, wave buoys are highly recommended. Lastly, Monte Carlo method has proved to be very effective for uncertainty analysis as only a model of usual calculation method is required for uncertainty analysis.

7. Sensivity of full-scale speed/power trial uncertainty The sensitivity analysis of uncertainty on basic inputs was carried out. Figs. 12–14 indicate the result of this sensitivity analysis for speeds of 8.2 knots, 14.1 and 21.8 knots for one trial. In all speed trials, Beaufort scale uncertainty is the most critical even though the weather was Beaufort scale of 4. The effect of Beaufort scale error was calculated in Figs. 15–17 for speeds of 8.2, 14.1 and 21.8 knots, respectively. Increase in uncertainty of weather conditions increases the spread, hence uncertainty of corrected shaft power for all three speeds. However, this effect is more pronounced in lower speeds. The second important error source was shaft rate of revolutions. This error is highly affected by time window utilized to count the pulses. Increasing the time window shall decrease the shaft rate of revolution error, but this shall also increase time difference between the readings. The other important error sources are shaft modulus, trial density, and relative rotative efficiency errors. However, these are very low compared to the Beaufort scale error. Conducting the trials in very calm seas can reduce the uncertainty considerably, although this is usually not possible. Hence, the measurement of actual encountered waves is highly recommended using wave buoys or wave radars for lower uncertainty bands.

Acknowledgment The author would like to express his special thanks to Richard Anzboeck of Vienna Model Basin for providing the sea trial data, and his comments for the study. References
Blenderman, W., 1990. External forces, wind forces, Schiff & Hafen Heft 2. Coleman, H.W., Steele, W.G., 1999. Experimentation and Uncertainty Analysis for Engineers, second ed. Wiley, New York. ISO 15016, 2002. Guidelines for the Assessment of Speed and Power Performance by Analysis of Speed Trial Data. ITTC, 1999. Testing and extrapolation methods, uncertainty analysis in EFD, uncertainty assessment methodology. In: 22nd International Towing Tank Conference, Seul-Shanghai, Quality Manual, Procedure 4.9–03-01–01 Rev 0. ITTC, 2002. The specialist committee on speed and powering trials. Final Report and Recommendation to the 23rd ITTC, 23rd ITTC Proceedings, vol. II, pp. 341–367. ITTC, 2005. The specialist committee on powering performance prediction. Final Report and Recommendation to the 24th ITTC, 24th ITTC Proceedings, vol. II, pp. 601–636.

Sign up to vote on this title
UsefulNot useful