This action might not be possible to undo. Are you sure you want to continue?
"GUIDE TO POWER BOAT DESIGN
by Joseph G. Koelbel, Jr.
V
unlimited Approved for Public Release; distribution
Prepared for:
Naval Ship Systems Comm~anld
t~ i~.,
{
,•
Under Administration by:
Offie Office of NavCLI Research ofNaw•ReserchNaval
G. Koelb~el, Jr Joseph Architect 51 Biltmore Blvd. U5 New York
Number: Contract Cnrc Number:9C
7
~Massapequa,
Moo00046900257
lI :
I
i
Unclassitiod ~~Security Classification
Cl" ... ...
..
.
DOCUMENT CONTROL DATA R&D
sernolefloan mus be ýnfote~dlen the Overall raport Is clasallfed) A TrIo N l Cu RI 'rV C L .A SIS *C 2 41 R CPO. ' 19,n
I *:51
"oSfcunt €lasesification of flUl., body of abstract anrd RvIoen *a u th o, A TIN CG C TiV I "* (C eMnP *04116 'IN S• JOSEPH G. KOELBEL, JR. Biltmore Blvd.
Massapequa, N.Y. 11758
3 RtPOR.' TITLE
Unclassified 26b GROUP
GUIDE TO POWER BOAT DESIGN
4. nrSCRIPTIVE NOTES (Type of report ad Inclusive dat•.)
FINAL REPORT
S. AUTNOR(S) (L.af' name. lint nhmie, initial)
lKOELBEL,
6. REPO AT )ATE
JOSEPH G. JR.
70. TOTAL NO. OF PaGUS 76. No. or rs
FEBRUARY 1971
&a. CO. TAACT 000 GRANT 140. #a.
52
ORIGINATOn'S REPORT NUMaKR(S)
105
N0001469C0257
.PROJ.ICT NO. C. 9b.O oPr.'
1202
NO(S) (Any 0,th. neb., , gh.a maybo ha n. d
10. AV AIL ABILITY/LIITATION NOTICES
Approved for Public Release; distribution unlimited
11. SUPPLEMENTARY NOTES 12. SPONSORING MILITARY ACTIVITY
NAVAL SHIP SYSTEMS COMMAND OFFICE OF NAVAL RESEARCH
13. ABSTRACT
TLs.wofk..is inteuded primarily to outline the present stateoftheart in small craft design. This is done by providing a brief partially annotated bibliography of current references most useful to the practicing designer. If he uses these referen,:es, he can be reasonably sure that he has the best A secondary aim information that was available in late 1970 or early 1971. design infoimation of this work is to emphasize' the areas in which very little
t.s presently available...
Reproduced by
NATIONAL TECHNICAL INFORMATION SERVICE
U S Department of Commerce Springfield VA 22151
DD '°'"64 1473
Unclassified________
Unclassified
ICKEY wolios
"01.9
LINK A
WY
POtA9
LINK a
vi?
ha.
LINK C
vi?
SHALL CRAFT PERFORMANCE CALCULATIONS
INSTRUCTIONS 1. ORIGINATING ACTIVITY: Esiter the name and address of the contractor. ..ubrontiactot. grantee, Department of Defense activity or other organzto c~oa uhr sun the reort. 2&. REPORT SECURITY CLASSIFICATION: Enter the overall security classifictition of the report. Indicate whether(2 "Restricted Data" is included. Marking is to be in accordance with appropriate secur.ty regulations. 2b. GROUP: Alitomatic dlownerading :% specified in DoD Diretive 5200. 10 and Armed Forces Industrial Manual. Enter tegroup number. Also, when applicable. show that optional markings have been used for Group 3 and Grouap 4 as author. ized.report 3.REPORT TITLE: Enter the complete report title in all captal letters. Titles in all cases should be unclassified. I: ho iteclassification in all capitals in parenthesis imposed by security classification. uising standard statements such aes: (1) "Qmalified requesters may obtair. copies of this report from DDC." (2 "Frinaoucmtscdiemntoofts "Frinaoucmtaddseiainofhs report by DDC Is not authorized." (3) "U. S. Government agencies may obtain copies of this report direct~y from DDC. Other qualified DDC users shall request through (4) "U. S. rmilitary agencies may obtain copies of this directly from DDC. Other qualified users shall request through "All distribution of this report is controlled. Qual.
Jimmediately
following the title.ife
4. DESCRIPTIVE NOTES:
(5)
Dusrshlrqettrog
If the report has been furnished to the Office of Techinical Services, Department of Commerce. for sale to the public, indi. cate this fact and enter the price. if known. 11 SUJPPLEM4ENTARY NOTES: Use for additionril explana. oynts oynts 12. SPONýORING MILITARY ACTIVITY: Enter the name of the departmental project office or laboratory sponsoring (per. iris for) the research and development. Include address. 13. ABSTRACT: Entee an abstract giving a brief and factual summary of the document indicative of the report, even though it may also appear elrewhere in the body of the tec:hnical report, If additional space is required, a cont.nuation sheet shall be attached. is highly desirable that the abstract of classilied reports be unclassified. Each paragraph of the abstract shall end with an indication of the military security classification of the. information in the paragraph, represented as (TS). (S). (C). o U There is no limitation on the length of the abstract. How. eyer, the suggested length is from 150 to 225 words. 14. KEY WORDS: Key words are technically mennineful terms or short phrases that characterize a report and may be used 3s index entries for cataloging the report. Key words must be selected a.t that no security classification is required. Ident~i. fiers, such as equipment model d, simtation. trade name, military~ project code name, geographic location may be used as key wordsi but will be followed by an indication of t.clercal context. 'The assignment of links, rules, and wei~hts is optional.
11 appropriate, enter the type of____________________
report. e.g. * interim, progress, summary, annual. or final. Give tIke inclusive dates when a specific reporting period is covered, 5. AUTHOR(S): Enter the name(s) of author(s) as shown on or in the report. Enter lost name, first name, middle initial,. If mrilitury. ishow rank end branch of service. The name of the principal .. %thoris an absolute minimum requirement. 6. REPORT LATZ; Enter the dote of the report as day, date hnoe appearsaton
monthe reprort
mot.yu.Ifsr
7&. TOTAL NUMBlER OF PAGES: The totnl page count should follow normal papignation procedures, Le., erster the numbcr of pages containing information. 7b N'U~qER OF RFRNEEtrtetalnmrofIt referenceL cited in the report. fla. CONTRACT OR GRANT NUMBER: If approptiate, enter the .pp:%cable number of the contract or grant under which the report was written. 8b. 8c. tA 8d. PROJECT NUMBER: Enter the appropriate military dipntmcnt identification, such an project number, subproject number, sysetm numbers, task number, etc. 9a. ORIGINATOR'S REPORT NUMBSR(S): Enter the offl. cial repurt number by which the document will be identified and cuntro'led by the originating activity. This number must be unique to this report. 9b. OTHEKR RLiPORT NUMBltR(S): If the report has been iis%igned any other report numbers (either by the originator or by the s¶ponsor). ailno enter this number(s). 10. .' VAILAI3ILITY/LIMITATION NOTICES: Enter any lirn. itt.ions on fwrth~r dissemination of the report, other than thosel
//
~~Unclassified
,.;
TABLE OF CONTENTS
I.
INTRODUCTIC"1 A.
B.
PURPOSE
SCOPE
C.
4
COMPU.Cý PROGRAMS
III.
PERFORMh
A. B. D. E.
.1,.."
DATA ON VARIOUS TYPES
flC.
GE.iEe:,L AND VBOTTOM R0' N' BOTTOM BOATS
SDrP:PED HULLS
CABE•RED PLANING SURFACES AND TRIM FLAPS I`ATRTED V
F.
I, ,.,IAL TOPICS
a, b. c. Spray Strips Shallow Water Maneuvering and Rudders


IV.
ýiTHODS OF CALCULATION A, E. GENERAL CHARTS AND EQUATIONS FOR PRELfL"TAiR DESIGN
IjC.
D. E.
DIRECT CALCULATION
a.
Ib.
CLEMENT SAVITSKY
MODEL TESTS APPENDAGE RESISTANCE
a. Keels and Skegs b. Rudderb and Struts c. Shafts d. Boundary Layer e. Inlet Openings AIR RESISTANCE ROUGH WATER PERFORMANCE
p
1!
V.
F. G.
PROPULSION
flVI.
CONSTRUCTION
Ti
7
I
INTRODUCTION A. PURPOSE
This work is intended primarily to outline the present state ofthe art in small craft design. This is done by providing a brief partially
annotated bibliography of current references most useful to the practicing
iil
designer.
If he uses these references, he can be reasonably sure that he
has the best information that was available in late 1970 or early 1971. The references considered most useful have been asterisked. Readers inter
ii
L
ested ininvestigating a particular subject further are referred to the companion work to this guide, "Bibliography on Power Boat Design", and to
i
the bibliographies contained in many of the references cited in the present works. Abstracts of many of the works cited here will be found in the
2 1
"Bibliography". A secondary aim of this work is to emphasize the areas in which very
I i
little design informa.tion is presently available.
Some of these areas are:
i . Hydrodynen:ics of unsymmetrical planing: a. b. Transverse stability at planing speeds Prediction of bank angle as a function of speed and turning radius 2. Maneuvering a. b. Prediction of turning radius at any speed Exact prediction of required rudder size for various degrees of maneuverability. 3. Design of high speed rudders and other appendages
I
¶
_A 7. Rigorous structural analysis. etc. It is hoped that this guide and the biblioIt is stressed that sugThese j J graphy will be brought up to date periodically. Actually. 5. additions. estimation of wake fraction and thrust deduction for various . for example. criticisms. research work is being done in all these areas and new reports are being issued frequently. 9. as well ae speed and seastate.i_. particularly at planing speeds. Predictiop of resistance and trim at htmT speeds by direct calculation rather than by specific model tests. 6. Accurate calculation of hull loadings.  . 10. Design of transom flaps More accurate prediction of propulsive characteristics. and corrections are welcomed.i arrangements of appendages (including stern drives and pod drives) on planing boats. Prediction of vibration problems arising from any source. gestions. 4. Li . 8. Prediction of shallow water effects. particularly propellers.1 I These are just some of the areas where more informntton is needed. prediction of cavitation in nonuniform flow. particularly bottom pressures as a function of hull shape and size. estimation of relative rotative efficiency.
Regarding the subject matter covered by this guide.03. Metacentric Radius. .) Hydrodynamics (Nrim. etc. S. the output can be plotted by Sources for th. etc. Moment to Trim. Bonjean's Curves Curves of Form (Displacement.. Norfolk. SJB. but because they are covered merely with a list II most of the commonly used materials. SCOPE U. Naval Station. design is Propulsion is given nearly as much emphasis but structural of important references relating to The publications of the various separately. They perform the following calculations: Resistance. C. machine. and certain firms or individual naval architects ! I who specialize in computer applications.s work include some of the colleges or universities. Virginia 23511. some of Ihe towing tanks. COMPUTER PROGRAMS There are a number of computer programs available for use in power boat design. the greatest emphasis is placed on the hydrodynamics of t)o hull and on performance Si prediction.) S* . Power. associations Pre too numerous to list valuable to the designer the addresses of the associations are listed in L1 1. the structural section. Center of Buoyancy. K Cross Curves of Stability Floodable Length Damaged Stability i Ii Propeller Selection from Standard Series Ship Motions (limited applicability) In addition to making the calcu2ations.comments and copies of additional entries should be submitted to NAVSECNORDIV 6660.
C.C. Fishing News (Books) Ltd.4. 1967. The Philosophical Library. 1955. BASIC •FENCES TMe basic references which will.ure. E... *6.es. its application to small craft.. 1957 *3. provide the designer with a good background in naval architecture. London. John de Graff. lO60. London E. New York. Barnaby. and a general philosophy of small power bo&t design are tUe following: 1*. 1960.C. edited by J.L II. Principles of Navel Architecture. Three Volur. 110 Fleet Street. 1960.Y. 15 East 40th Street.C.. 34 Oak Avenue. High Seed Small Craft by P. Fishing Boats of the World. SNAME *4. 10016 *5.I. 1957. PhillipsBirt. England 7. Inc. Tuckahoe. Fishing News (Books) Ltd.y with planing boat hull performance are: 6 . SNAME *2. London. Saunders. particularly the former. There is a wealth of small craft naval architecture Reference 3 is essential because of its in them. A. N.. Temple Press Ltd. Basic Naval Ar~hte.. Works concerned exclusive'.4. E. by a roup ctf authorities. Three Volumes. by J. Traung. llO Fleet Street. Naval Architecture of Small Craft. Hind. 1967. broad ard thorough treatment of hydrodynamics and because of the many references it cites.Y. N. Stability and Trim of Fishing Vessels. by D. and 1965. DuCane. Reference 5 is considered the definitive work on all aspects of planing boat design.. E. 1967. by H. Bowling Green Lane. 10707 Hydrodynamics in Ship Design. 0. "England References 6 and 7 should not be overlooked by the planing boat designer becanse of their titles. by K.
Beinert. P. SoutaEast Section. 49. Ideal Series. 10019 J. 959 Eighth "hydrodynamic Design of Planing Hulls". by Avenue. Clement. by E. Clement. Clement.Li : ij 1!*8. 1964. P.. and the possibiliI t ties of planing boat design may be found in the following: *12. DTMB Reference 8 is a good one to start with because of its approach to the subject. 1956. DTMB Report K 1314 14. Marine Technology hi J S I( ! Vol. 1959. . SNAME *10. DIMB Report 1093 *13. Four different viewpoints on the understanding and calcula tion of planing phencmena are presented in these works.ing Boat Design". while References 9 and 10 are essential because of their treatment of the subject. "Performance Limits of the Ste1less Planing Boat ar. 1961. 1. G. "Analyzing the Stepless Planing Boat". and J. *9. Jr. J. by E. Stoltz.64 DTMB Report 1902 Further understanding of the limitations. 1963. Pope. P. Clement. New York. "A Lifting Surface Approach to Plan. Koelbel. Clement and J. N. l. Vol.1 the Potentialities of the Stepped Boat". No. by D. P. by E. 1966. 1.Y. Report 1490. D.Savitsky. P. Motor Boating. the history. Symposium on 83all Craft Hydrodynamics. SNAME 1'! I1 7 . "Development and Model Tests of an Efficient Planing HULL Design". Another approach (applicable only to stepped boats) which is worth consideration is given in: U. "Stepless and Stepped Planing Hulls Graphs for Performance Prediction and Design". by E. by E. How to Design Planing Hulls.
"Graphs for Predicting the Ideal HighSpeed Resistance of Planing Catamarans". "Whdrodynamic Cbaravteristc1. oy P. 1940 ETT Tech.. Angeli. 18.. "The Seaworthiness Problew in High Speed Small Craft". SHAME 22. Oct. SNAME 17. 54 For a broad view of the economy of transportation and of the limits of speed for various vehicles (and the place of boats in the overall spectrum) see the following classical pepers: 18. C. New York Metropolitan SECTION. by J. 24. "What Price Speed? Long Range Trends in Overseas Transportation". von !aman. "Comparative Resistance Data for Four Planing Boat Designs". 14. by Jr. ýreat Lakes Section S. by K.C.C. Davidson. "What Price Speed? Specific Power Required for Propulsion of Vehicles". DTMB Report 1113 8 .S. 1954. McGown. by S.15. S.D. Clement. Section. P.. 1961. by E. Chesapeake Section SNAME. III. DTMB Report 1573 "Evaluation of the Quality of Planing Boat Designs". 1961. 1971. "*21. 1935 19. G. C. DxrnrwZ. PERFORMANCE DATA ON VARIOUS BOAT TYPES A. Gabrielli and Th. GENERAL AND V. P.BOTTOM Much additional information on hull characteristics of planing boats of various types may be found in: "*20. South East **16. "Motor Torpedo Boat Comparison". Reprinted in SNAM Bulletin. Msno No. Feb. Vax 1!ater and H. Clement and P. M. Kimon. of Basic Plaring Hull Types". Hugli. Jan. 1950 issue of Mechanical Engineering. 1965. Oct. SW. Feb. M. 1957. by E.
"Model Patrol Water"." . 30. Forn ". P. Clement and *25. South East Section. Report Tests of a Series of Six Boats in Smooth and Rough by Young Chey. Transactions. "Series 63. Report "Model Patrol Water". SNAME 4. Tate. W. ~SNAWd ROUND BOTTOM BOATS Information on the characteristics of round bottom boats may be found in the following: *26. "Resistance and Propulsion Characteristics of a Round Bottom Boat (Parent Form of TMB Serieu 63)". DTMB Repcrt 1378 "The Detail Design of Planing Hull Jr. DL LR1074  U 29.. "Smooth Water Resistance of a number of Planing Boat Designs". Blount. 1963. by P. by Hugh Yeh. P. M. 1963. 1963. SNAME *24. DL Report I• ci 949 *27. Koelbel. DTMB Report 2000 *28. Fridsma. Round Bottom Boats". the development of which is described in Reference 13. Beys. G. I. for a wide variety of proportions and loadings. Blount. DL 985 Tests of a Round Bottom Boat in Smooth and Rough by G. Marine Technology. by J.23. "Resistance Tests of a Systematic Sertes of Planing Hull Forms"l. by D. L. 1966. HydrodySymposium on Small Craft namics. by E.  Li B.. 1965. 1959. by E. July 1965. "Series 64 Resistance Experiments on High Speed Displacement Forms". Clemlent and C. D. The following reference presents test data on the "Clement" hull form.
"Resistance and Propulsion of Motor Boats". P. 6 "Fydrxodynamics of High Speed Ships". 1961. D. 1935. Symposium on Naval Hydrodynamics. 40. C. Silverleaf. P. of Docments. "Merit Comparisons of the Series 64 High Speed Displacement Hull Forms". 10 . * 3 b4.s. Third 33. Government Printing Office. by D. Lippisch and R. Washington 25. STEPPED HULLS Data on stepped hulls may be found in References 14 and 23. L. Some FullScale Test Resulte". 1960. C. Oct. 1967. ACR65. Note No. SNAME "Model Tests of a Stepped ?caning Boat with an Adjustable Stepi Stabilizer". 1965. T and R Report R9. 38. P. "Stepped Planing Poa. "Effect of LengthBeam Ratio on the Performarce of a Stepped Planing Boat with an Adjustable Stera Stabilizer". Supt. Marwood and A. by A. by E. May 1970. J. P. Clement. Tech. U. l'J" . de Groot. Colton. DTMB Report 2550 i. Dodd. Internatic. Clement. DuB Report 2129 32. DTzB 35. Clement. M. (Out of print) "Design Data for High Speed DisplacementType of Hulls and a Comparison with Hydrofoil Craft". DL Report 876 36. by W. by N.Al Shipbuilding Progress. and in: 37. No. R. 1963. Elements of Yacht Design. previously * cited. by E.31. by E. by P.. Vol. Van Mater. 2. "A Critical Review of Several Reports on Round Bottom Boats". Skene. by E. E. Mead and Co. S. DEIMB Report 2414 39. 1955. Clement.
L. Clement.40. above. "The Planing Characteristics of a 15Degree Deadrise Surface with Circular Camber".. faces. Moore. John Plum. 1969. while Reference 37 details the development of a practical steyoa)d. P. and Zero Deadrise". Additional information on deadrise surfaces with circular arc camber for a wide variation of parameters is given in Reference 41. LIMB Report 3011 Referencus 38 and 39 are concerned exclusively wit). 1967. by W. DTMB Report 2298 "Cambered Planing Surfaces for Stepped Hulls .Some Theoretical and Experimental Results". by E. D. P. aspect ratioZ 1o5). DTNB Report 2387 "Graphs for Designing Cambered Planing Surfaces Having the Johnson ThreeTerm Camb'er Section. 43. Rectangular Planform. by E. 1969. veebottom hull of quite conventional form. Clement.g. References 42 and 43 apply only to flat bottom sur None of the above information is applicable to wedges or trim flaps. Refeenc 40 NO. NSRDC Report 42.a special design ! I known as the "Dynaplane". "The Design uf Cambered PlanIng Surfaces for Small Motorboats". by E.5 degrees. and in: 41. 3147 Reference 40 is a good introduction to the subject of cambered planing I~*surfaces and gives design information on a specific set of design parameters (e. CAMBERED PLANING SURFACES AN~D TRIM4 FLAPS Data on cambered planing surfaces may be found in Reference 40. but Iia there are two unpublished reports which give quantitative information: . Clement 1966. equipped with a "Plum stabilizer" named after its originator. P. deadrise7.
It is hoped that both of these references will be made available in the future. 23 and: 46. by J. by R. Kimon. 1970 "Hydrodynamic Characteristics of FlapEquipped Planing Surfaces". DTMB Report 18!8 50. M. by P. Ashton. The former is more readily useable than the latter. NACA TN 4339 47. P. Jr. DTMB Report. Edge. by E. E. C.44. . 1949. 1958. pray Strips Information on the effects of spray strips may be found in Reference 22 and in: *48. 1964. F. "Efftt of Spray Strips on Various Powe' "oat Designs". "The Planing Characteristics of an Inverted V Prismatic Surface with Minus 10 Degrees Deadrise".. DTOB Report 1076 "Hydrodynamic Impact Loads of a Minus 20 Degree Deadrise Inverted V Model and Comparisons with Loads of a FlatBottom Model". Clement. by P. Clement. "Reduction of Planing Boat Resistance by Deflection of the Whisker Spray". 1964. "Evaluation of the Effect of Flaps on the Trim and Drag of Planing Hulls. Anonymous. P.. SPECIAL TUPICS a. 1957. M. 1929 12 . DL 45. 99 "Effects of LTj)citudinal Bottom Spray Strips on Planing Boat Resistance". *49. E7. Tech. Memo No. by E. INlVERTED V Data on inverted vee surfaces may be found in References 21. 1967. Angeli.
by K. b. quantitative information on the shallow water One of the best reports is: 1]i SThe 53.. Jan. SNACTNE34 54. Shallow Water There is very little performance of planing boats.Ll Additional theoretical and experimental information on the formation of spray by a planing surface may be found in: 51. "Effect of Shallow Water on the Hydrodynamic Characteristics of a FlatBottom Planing SuKfaceu . 1964. DL Report 444 52.!%ating turning radius) is: 01*55. W.Y. FF18. by Kazuo Sugai. 1956. N. Institute of +he Aeronautical Sciences. Part I1. 1958.". 1969. 10. "Shallow Water Performance of a Planing Boat". Toro. "On the Maneuverability of the S~High Speed Boat. by A. by D. Preliminary Experimental Investigation". "On the Main Spray Generated by Planing Surfaces". 868. • c. SMF Fund Paper No.. W. NACA TN 3642 Maneuvering and Rudders Th bs report on steering ofplaning bas(g. Savitsky and J. Symposiim on Small Craft Technol following report is of less use to the planing boat designer but it gives some additional background from the seaplane field.est. AD 463 211 Li • •! 13 . Souhriastophert195. "Turbulence Stimulation in the Boundary Layer of Planing Surfaces. Breslin. Christopher. Bureau of Ships Translation No.
"Rudder Design for Planing Craft". placement of rudders relative to screws. The Planimeter. gives the stability 14 . 4. 1958. Porpoising There are two criteria for porpoisirg limits. C487 "Free Stream Characteristics of a Family of Low Aspect Ratio AllMoveable Control Surfaces for Application to Ship Design". One. 58. also in SNAME Bulletin. Apr. by D. 2.Refersnce 55 includes much useful information on the size and proportions of rudders. 1952 DTMB Report No. 61. et. and Nov. Oct. by J. ISP. Folger. Angeli. by L. 62. 3. 27 Sept. size of skegs. H. Pacific Northwest Section SNAME. based on prismatic The other in Reference 25. by J. models is given in Reference 9. 1950. limits of the Series 62 models. d. Kafali. Jan. July 1959 59. SSCD "Some Notes on the Steering of High Speed Planing Hulls". C. Grenfell. DTNB Report C301 "Rudder Dimensioning". to be published 60. 1952. al. by K. Additional information on the sizing and design of rudders may be found in References 1. 1959 ASNE. by T. Jan. Dec. 1962. 5 and: 56. Hall. Note No. also in 57. 166. DTMB Report 933 "Report on Rudder Torque Obtained from Tests of EXPT 8 Motor Torpedo Boat". Curry. "Effects of Variations in theI Thickness/Chord Ratio of Rudders in a Slip Stream". etc. 1953 "Interaction Between Single Screw Propellers and Twin Rudders Placed Symmetrically in the Screw Race".
the speed. For most portion of the bow is design work these dicadvantages have not proven to be serious as long as care is taken in judging the effects of the variations from a constant section. c) Prediction from tests of boat shaped (rather than prismatic) models. As far as poss tble. from the boat. wTHoDs OF CALCULATION A. b) DIrect calculation from planing equations which were derived cross section) models. planing performance. guidelines will be given to assist the designer in exercising the ii required "care". care must be exercised to assure good results. a) The use of simple charts or equations which relate the weight. be a model of the new design or of a similar design. the predictions are not exact. Lions in It has the disadvantage that for boats with large varia cross section with length and for conditions where much of the curved in the water. In the latter case it It is may either a systemptic series or an individual hull. This method the pcwer. and even then there are some questions When the model is different how to scale some components of resistance. 815 . pAS is quick and easy but has a number of drawbacks which will be explained in Section WV. there are three methods of performance calculation: . and perhaps the length or beam of the boat. ENERAL Basically.Iv. This method has from tests of prismatic (constant the advantage of taking into account all the Important factors which infldince L . of a model that is i diction is about only in the case geometrically similar to the full scale boat that the pre a straight forward matter. B.
With these plots. factors which affect a boat's performance and consequently cannot be used to good advantage except with a family of designs in which the missing factors are similar in all boats.572 and of n from . 16 . Dec.G. there are occasions in preliminary design work and in work on existing boats when only limited information is available. For these cases it is desirable to have an easy method of estimating speed or power. CHUATS AND EQUATIONS FOR PRELDYIY DESIGN There are a number of simplified methods in common use for the They consider only a few of the prediction of power boat performance. Most of them can be found in References 2. Cambridge. the speedpower curve of any given hull varies with loading. from .B. and from boat to boat.00. Naval Architecture of Planing Hulls by L. These equations can be put in the form V = C(pm/An). in: 63. 1954. SSCD. The value of m varies A brief study of the resistance curves presented in the references shows that they all have irregularities in them which would cause the exponents m and n to vary with speed. or can be by J. Planimeter.4 and: 64. Lord. "A Comparison of Powering Methods". in an unpublished report. In fact.338 to . Koelbel. Md. Bob Hobbs. but for best accuracy the information must be handled in a dimensionally correct manner. list. inadequate. For general performance predictions they are This inadequacy has been illustrated for a number of these methods The methods compared in Reference 63 are all given in.222 to 1. This matter will be taken up after a brief discussion of the equations in common use for making speedpower estimates. However. Cornell Maritime Press. reduced to..• 8 of these equations. 1961. not only is the basic comparison inadequate for most work but the method of plotting it is not the best. Jr. the form of a curve of weighthorsepower ratio plotted against either the speed or the speedlength ratio.
given in The date lii  Table I. and the equation When put into the "standard" form it is: shown in the figure. have prompted some recent investigations into this matter. Table I. LI If more data points had been used. Clement. and the coefficients used Ihere S(BHP/AV and V/Al/6) are probably much more suitable for the collection and presentation of this kind of data. using the model data BHP/EHP was assumed equal to 2. the data will lie on a narrow enough band to permit a curve to be faired through it. well and a curve is faired through the points. The figures show the difference in results produced In Figures 1 and 2 the data collapse Because of the simplicity of by the different methods of plotting. a different equation would The fallacies in the assumptions of this approach are illus Iihave resulted. trated by plotting on Figures 1 and 2 the speedpower curves for boat 3.0. Adesirability The of making quick preliminary powering estimates. the functions used. 17 . when ActuaLly. in an unpublished report. writer the equations are of little In In the opinion of the value but graphs such as Figure 2.74BEP00551 Most of the data points lie within 10 percent of the curve. Figure 2 is for its curve is the more useful of the two. These 9 boats are all much the same type. This information has been plotted in shown here as Figure 1 through 5.The only hope for an equation of this kind then. and for the parent form of Series 62 (from References 22 and 13 respectively). particularly at the ends. the curve for a 67foot by 10foot round bottom patrol boat (Reference 29) has also been added. the lack of good design data for many boat types. loaded with accurate data can be useful for preliminary design. and the hope of finding some sort of hull efficiency index for judging the quality of a design. ?or these boats is several ways. To illustrate [Ihow B far off the equation would be for another type. V =. the data collapse just as well in Figure 5. lies in the possibility that for a number of boats considered normal for their type. compares the performance of 7 boats.
4 T L LAOrT N A m ON '0 % 0 r.'. m u%(N. .. Nl N A.o~~r r. 0 Mr r 0 d 0 a T LA o %D TlA ~ILU wo I CIO a toN U. '% C. E NL f'wNC LALA ~C NO 0 NOC)LL C 4 C. r4 U O 4 WN C0 (~J~4£I E L m 0. EU 0..4 U LANO. u cc Q) . 0 . 0 08 M h LA\ Lin c0 f\CO a\ *N 18 .0C. I.
2 3 F 4 5 6 RiW(B~fg'/EHPll)OFv vs. planing hulls F.4 LI 40 1 Fiue1. 11PARENT Li :0 . FORM SERIES b2 FROM DTMI3 R131. 000 LB.36                S32 i28 II~ ~ C~j24 t> 20 SDAVI D SON LRiT4 3rr o Round i LAB 5b 8 1 N L Cj AT 100. for several H 19 .
24 32 4o 8 1'D Figu~re 2. .815 II DAVIDSON LAB NARROW f.z 120.__ 204 ___.p. 20 . BHiP 76 versus v for several planing hulls..7 * 7 1P01 100 BlP = o.R 1074 ROUND BOTTOM / I ! 6o BHIP  40 . PARENT FORM SERIES 62 DTMB R1314 20 w1o6 .16 ' a '.16 B1oo 0.
~18o LI 16o 14o U j9 ~~~120 i   If 100 BHP H• 80 10 o 20 30 4o 50 .o0 10 Speed in knots B Figure 3: BHP/A vs speed in knots for several planing hulls 21 .
16 L 14c T 920 LI 8 9 1001 I Li 68o 4o I~IL 20 0 0 8 16 V 24 32 40 Figure 4: BHP/A vs V/Al/6 for several planing hulls. 22 .
Li . l A.V 01 1 [Li K] 0 0  " 16 V 24 32 4o Figure 5: BHP/A V vs V/ tý16 for several planing hulls. 23 .
and deadrise. In the case of model data it is necessary to keep notes on the assumed propulsive coefficient if BHP is plotted. The charts discussed in section IV. one of the few dimensionally correct methods that have oeen published. both model and full scale. consider oily displacement and sometimes length.g. 24 . and in both cases the size of the boat should be noted. displacement. C. and plot them or a suitable grid. DIRECT CALCULATION Direct calculation means the determination of the performance of a design directly from its dimensions.Some of the best work that has been done in this area iZ . Once again. This work provides not on:j a tool for making preliminary It :' It power estimates but also a "yardstick" for evaLLIting a design.i in Reference 16. it is strongly suggested that the designer collect as much accurate data as he can.B. useful information. taking into account all of the important factors which influence rlaning performance.c. beam. also contains accurate full scale trial data on a large number of boai3 of many types from small runabouts to PT boats. The references will provide much Reference 6 (three volumes) will be especially help ful for low speed results. principally. l.resent*.
b. speeds.. Clement The design charts which Clement has developed from the equations of Shuford are very handy and permit easy visualization of the effect on performeice of the various parameters.a. etc.go of the Plumstabilized Dynaplane. Their use is restricted to the full planing This method is presented in Reference 10. l. and Ref A erence 39 investigates the effects of varying the lengthbeam ratio and the loc. Savitskv For most planing boat designs there is a need to calculate performance at low speeds and In the hump region. which also presents charts The use of these charts is fully explained for the optimization of performance. i 25 . The optimization charts are most useful when a stepped designed and this approach is further developed in several ref Reference 11 presents a lifting 3urface approach to planing boat Reference 14 compares the 16 boats of the SNAME Small Craft Data (References 67 and 68 below) and 4 of the Series 62 models (Reference U• i design.c. step depth. Reference 38 presents the results of extensive testing (variations in A. They utilize the seaplane coefficients which is a very satisfactory way of handling planing phenoiaena. Sheets 25) with the Dyraplane.) of a stepped hull with a (adjustable) Plunstabilizer (named after the inventor John Plum). hull is to be erences. The planing equations developed by Savitsky from the results of many model tests are valid down to speeds in the semiplaning range. in the reference.g.
In Reference 9 Savitsky details the derivation of the equations which give the lift. Savitsk3Short Form. rf. Davidson Laboratory Report 360. he outlines the procedure for using the material and gives sample calculations. F. Savitsky. 2 and 3. "Wetted Area and Center of Pressure of Planing Suzfaces". most of the work has been taken out of them. and presents curves which greatly simplity their use. Even if the designer does not wish to understand the derivation of the equi tions he should study the design procedures well enough to see tha. by B. Lehman. V. and who fall back on the methods discussed in Section IV. B. and W. D. 2 . and center of pressure of flat and Vbottom In addition surfaces. Contact with the small boat communitj reveals that there are a number of designers who feel that this approach is tcc complicated. Sherman M. and use dimensionle s coefficients have been explained by Stoltz in Reference 8 and in References 1. Korvin Kroukovsky. Institute of Aeronautical Sciences. In the case of the The reasons for. Any dimension of the boat can be used for this purpose.4_ _ _ __ _ _ __ It was seen. The forerunners of the equations were published in 1949 in: 65. N. Fairchild PublicaFund Paper 244. above. pla2ing phenomena the beam has proven to be best. in Figure 2.Y. wetted area. particularly for the simple case which assumes all the forces to act through the center of gravity. New York. It is hoped that after explaining the inadequacy of the simple powering equations it can be pointed out that the planing material is not only a powerful design tool but is also easy to apply. that some powering data became more manageable when normalized on displacement in a dimensionally correct manner.
noted above. Davidson Laboratory Report 493. The equations had been plotted in terms of quantities that were to be calculated. hand the method is too laborious. N.Y. r . it accounts for the effects of trimming moments due to the thrust line and the frictional drag. SavitsLk Long Form. and to make rational tradeof'fsa. New York.. Use of this calculation method enables tle designer to compute the change in resistance and trim due to variations in beam. plotted on a single chart. fl Not only were the new equations more accurate but they were s1mpler in form enabling a direct calculation to be made rather than • series of iterations. They have been rewritten and. locgo position. rIt i is not necessary to know anything about computers or programming to make use of this service. This is the basic method of Reference 9. deadrise. There are a number of men who are in a posiThe designer can send in one page The tion to do computer work for the designer. were presented in 1954 in: 66. of input data and get back dozens or hundreds of pages of output data. rather than in terms of quantities that could be measured on the drawings. Sherman M. 27 . "Wetted Area and Center of Pressure of Planing Surfaces at Very Low Speed Coefficients". If the calculations are to be made by But with the use of a computer program it is u cheap and easy calculation to make. in order to get better agreement. shown in References 8 and 9 where its use is fully explained. which were developed.Li U The present equations. i But the report itself was not handy to use in every day design work. etco. As which doee not make the simplifying assumptions of the "Short Form". Fairchild Publication Fund Paper FF11. with the experimental data at low speeds. institute of Aeronautical Sciences.
MODEL TESTS Prediction of performance from model tests is treated in References 1.g. and roughness allowance will almost always be constant for all conditions. It will be noted that the input for each case is shown on the output sheet. 4. 5. this is helpful for the convenient use of the output sheets. depth The of skeg.g. The information can be phoned in. shaft angle.. A sample output sheet is shown ir Figure 7. key punching. EEP. 3 l.c. total drag and all components of drag.c. thrust vector lever arm will vary only with l. as many values of any of the factors as he chooses.ecomes negative the program has been corrected to handle it as a chines dry case. Actually no form is necessary. The designer can specify For example. etc. Referring to Figure 6.cdimputer service can handle all data preparation. 2. D. given in great detail: The output data are the trim angle. Figure 6 is a sample form that might be filled out. Particular attention is drawn to the statements on 28 . water density. and skeg drag lever arm are also constant. wetted chine length. if 3 weights. and 2 deadrise angles are to investigated at 5 speeds. Usually vertical center of gravity. draft at :!enter of transom and the porpoising limit parameteLo For those cases where the wetted chine lerngth :. One naval architect has revised the basic NAVSEC program to make the output easier to use.'s. 3 beams. 25 and 26. kinematic viscosity. rudder clearance. 3. wetted area. wetted keel length. the total number of cases will be 3x3x3x2x5 : 270.
i KINEMATIC VISCOSITY ROUGHNESS ALLOWANCE (ft 2 /sec) HULL WEIGHT (ibs) (ft) LONGITUDINAL CoG. AVERAGE BEAM DEADRISE ANGLE HULL VELOCITY (ft) (ft) (deg) (knots) (ft) THRUST VECTOR LEVEP "M SHAFT ANGLE TRIM ANGLE (deg) (deg) DEPTH OF SKEG (ft. 29 .* i i$ FIGURE 6 COMPIUTER PROGRAM INPUT FORM PRISMATIC PLANING HULL DESIGN CALCULATIONS ji~i DATE TITLE WATER DENSITY (!bsec2/ft4) [3 LI I _.) RUDDER CLEARANCE (ft) (ft) SKEG DRAG LEVER ARM Ii 7 •!.G. IS. VERTICAL C.
1969 124 BY JOSEPH KOELBEL .93640 LB. FEET 0. 499.Al 001II ALFPEO I. RAFF.824 (GREATER 0. FEET 0.414 1.(SEC. 0.695 0.0 POUNDS G.500 25. AVERAW dEAM GEADRISE ANGLF HULL VEL'.' PIýESSORI.G.353 H.'O)YNAMIC DESIGN OF PRISMATIC PLANING HULLS 09000065310 FROM NAVSHIPS ADAPTED COMPUTER PROGRAM ARTHUR'S BOAT WORKS INC.636 POUNDS 1105. TRIM MIOMFNJT TRIM AN4GI. G. wETTL) LENGTH TO JEAv' PATIO.**4 0.553 POUNDS POUNDS 0.**2)/FT.753 FEET DEGREES 0. PORPOISIN"j LIMIT PARAMETER FLFT**2 FEET FEET FEET (LESS THAN 4) PRUGý. NAVAL ARCHITECT Figure 7 Typical prismatic planing hull computer program output.142 P.614 POUNDS 287.TER OF TRANSOM .MFANI.000 2. HULL fRICT. 30 .500) 10.000 FEET FROM TRANSOM FEET FROM KEEL FEET DEGREES KNOTS DENSITY OF WATER KINEMATIC VISUSITY RUUGHNESS ALLOwANCF HULL WFIGHT LONGITUDINAL C. 00040 10000. SOU 2.859 DEGREES 1892.470 POUNDS 174.000 15.D)ATA 1. FRICTI DI:AL DRAG SPRAY DPAG SKE3 DR16.T (DEADRISE SURFACE) )<AGS LEVFR ARM ABT C.122?50E04 FT.272 1. trr AT Cý.**2/SEC. 12.CITY THRUST VECTOR LEVER ARM SHAFT ANGLF SKFG DEPTH RUDDER CLEARANCE SKEG DRAG LEVER ARM T P U T D A T A 2. SCLID sEFILO) KFL LENGTH tETTF) CHINL LFNGTH DRAFT. 175. FELT FROM TRANSOM 0. VERTICAL C.490 8.APRIL 49 HYDR'. CASE NULMqFR INPUT 1R8 DESIGN NO. TOTAL HULL OPA.202801E 03 FOO1 THAN 1) SPEED C9JLFFICIENll LIFT COFFFICIE?.000 30.!HAG EFFECTIVF H'RSEPL)WER WETTED AREA.830 FEET 0.040 1.V AJOUT (TAU1 CENTER OF GRAVITY POUNDS 2.
The models had no Since turbl ence w. is based on the A couple of examples 1!• wetted area and the wetted area is that of the bare hull. it must be noted that the total resistance coefficient. for fully turbulent flow ccrresponding to the 31 . Tests of sixteen of the models reported in 1] ii these references have been grouped together and presented in a uniform manner in the: *67. lengthbeam ratio.pages 128 and 129 of Reference 4 regarding prediction of planing boat performance from tests of small models. Many of the references cited in thp present IAi work are model test reports from which the designer can select those of comparable characterisGics (the appropriate sizeweight parameter. "SNAME Small Craft Data Sheets". If the resistance of a boat is to be predicted from Series 63. Cp . 123.). But if the resistance of a new design is to be predicted from test results of a model of different design.ss stimulated on the models. appendages. which are available singly or in a set. some precautions must be observed. T and R Bulletin No.r problem. etc. SNAME i Reference 68 also gives the reasons for choosing the system of coefficients used. CT . ij1 In general. When making a performance prediction from tests of a model geometrically similar to the full size boat there ij no particula. section shape. will help illustrate the point. the Schoenherr friction coefficient. they stem from the need to have the features which affect the performance prediction the same for both the full size boat and the model. t Their use is explained in: fl*t58 "tflw to Use the SHAME Small Craft Data Sheets for Design and for Performance Prediction".
strips. the basic assumption of this type of prediction is that the full size boat will have the same wavemaking characteristics as the model. CR. fact. ft. Bp . Here / is the The full ratio of ship size to model size.longitudinal center of gravity location xl 32 . The DTMB notation. such as correcting the CRship for the difference in wetted area. size frictional resistance can be calculated from actual wetted area of the new design. as well as in all other planing model data published by that laboratory.length of planing bottom. the method outlined here is a satisfactory way to carry out the work and it provides a physical explanation which should illustrate the principle. ft.beam over chines.model. Therefore. excluding external spray Lp . but only if it is based on a comparable wetted area. ft. excluding area of 2 external spray strips. for example (LWLship/LWL model). V . used in the Series 62 re port. Although there are other ways of handling the arithmetic. ft. Reynolds number can be subtracted from the total resistance coefficient to obtain the residual resistance coefficient. 3 LCG . CR is the same for the full size boat. If a resistance prediction is to be made from Series 62 additional precautions have to be taken.volume of displacement. is as follows: S projected planing bottom area. in computing the residual resistance of the full size boat a fictitious wetted area equal to X 2 times the model wetted area must be used. for the model. The 'iw design may have a skeg or Sframes or other features which In influence the wetted area but which would not influence the wavemaking.
to make an accurate prediction certain charmust be the same for model and ship.c.parts of the hull which are out of the water. cueffic Consequently. i iacteristics Therefore.r3 . in a given design the bow overhang I• and flare. there is no problem and the coefficients are satisfactory.g.The loading of the model is expressed as . ients would be changed in the DTMB notation. The actual smooth water planing performance of the boat would not be affected but. If the new design is geometrically similar to the Series 62 model. chine. that is. could arbitrarily be filled out from the narrow slabsided shape of the early plywood runabouts to I• the f1ll flaring form of some recent fiberglass models without changing the chine beam aft. Perhaps the easiest way to accomplish this is to construct a fictitious Series 62 planform which has approximately the same length as the chine length of the .=4wb3 . For example. But the hull form characteristics are based on the planform of the Li . and Cv : V/(gb)½. C. forward of amidships.g. IiThe LCG is given as the distance aft of the centroid of Ap expressed as a percentage of L. the ratio "LCG/b. and have no influence on the smooth water planing behavior. two different predictions would be made for what is essentially the same boat.the area coefficient AP/VF2/3. because the chine area would be increased and the centroid of the chine area moved forward. the weight or the loc. particularly at high sneed. both the loading and !.
and l. The interpolations. It may be noted when making the interpolations for Series 62. 7 or 8). (The drawing does not actually have to be made because of the known relationships between L9.c. C. will show the trends with variation in these parameters.c. area (or loading) coefficient. however.g. and thc centroid..) Now the actual position of the new design's l. BV. This is illustrated in Table II. as the new design. can be located relative to the centroid of the fictitious area A and the area coefficient can be calculated based on the new design's displacement and the fictitious area A. and the same average beam in the efterbody (at about sta. but still requires a three way interpolation for lengthbeam ratio. For the higher speeds Reference 25 gives a simple prediction chart using the seaplane coefficients which makes the calculation easy. and then calculate its area and spot in the position of its centroid. position. df cross plotted. and Cv. will give a resistance curve for a model with the correct coefficients. But for the lower speeds the model data must be used. 3i34 . Resistance values for the new design can now be determtLned as if it were geometrically similar to the series design. Ap. The values of resistance of the other models.new design. that the models whose lengthbeam ratios and area coefficients bracket the new design will not have the same LCG/b..g. but its easier to visualize this way. with some adjustments as shown in Figure 8.
A Illustration of how the bow of a design might vary with•_ h on the smooth water planing characteristics. new design.Lp x BPA. to be consistent with the models. use Lp/B Figure 8: [] Various modifications of Series 62 bow. ratios. aiswthciehihtadbwovragout effect owadedo significant p any fictitious L must be chosen to define a Series 62 hull which will have an underwater form as much like the new design as possible. should be taken equal to the average chine beam in the afterbody of the For interpolation between lengthbeam Ap . without regard to the dissimilarity The average beam BPA of the Series 62 hull in the chine planform.r LI •.jrticularly in the afterbody. L/fs z Th owr n fL aiswt chn height and bow ovehan . p. 01 F 1 3 35 .
11.14 11. 3.96 7.395 . 25 CONSTANTS: A.050 3. 052 .0 .43 .645 7.0 266 ft 2 A.06 Lp .450 8.4230.86 1.15 ft FV uV 4. CLb 28._'V2/3 = 7. Vw 234 ft V LCG 65 fps.02 209 29.5 299 8. CLb V C 266 32.4 .4 25.0 3.5 I/v2/3 a 5.75 12.BPa .2 1.o9 q Ap . ft.67 .TABLE II DESIGN EXAMPLE FROM SERIES 62.070 4. LCG P/b .9 .05 13.11 L/Bpx 4.43 .25 Lp/Bpx ) B .25 .25 10.046 3.71 8% aft of centroid of Ap _ _ _./V2/3 = 6.417 209 27.74 8.6 ft 1.26 OTE: =A/1/2Pv2b2 2 LCG w p . V2 .67 . CA CLb Cv 1.5 247 29.9 1.4 ft .4 8. Lp/Bpx3. q1/3 .2 1..43 .3 ft 3.7 3.7 11. 6.3 .15. LCG P/b.000 lb. V2/3 = 38 ft 2 .350 .94 1.512 .292 266 30. of transom Bpa v b ft.055 4.0 Lp . fwd.4 12. LCG P/b . REF. 36 .060 4. 9.5 AP Bpa .
below. and which lie substantially in the flow lines of the boat in steady motion are considered to have only frictional resistance and their area is b. in either of these cases the initial trim (at zero speed) of the mean buttock relative to the still water surface should be known zo help relate the model to the full scale boat. Some specific models may have one or more appendages. Rudders and Struts Appendages such as rudders and struts have both frictional resistance and form resistance. j] HI Reference 69. adapted from simply added to the bull wetted area. Reference 67 all the above recommenda All the differences between the new design and the model must ba considered and the necessary corrections and adjustments made. and occaIt is necessary to calculate sionally tests are for a fully appended moO0al. is necessary to be certain about bow For example.' 7 When making a performance prediction from tests of a single model. APPENDAGE RESISTANCE The calculations referred to above pertain to the resistance of the hull only. For any predictions from model tests it trim is defined and measured.5c) can be used for struts and rudders: CJ 37 . trim at any speed may be either the change from sta:ýtic trim or the angle of incidence of the mean buttock. Fl i~i E. The following equation. Data Sheets. for the usual range of t/c and type of section (not too blunt a leading edge and maximum t at 0. El [I a. such as one of the SNAM tions must be observed. Keels and Skegs Appendages of low aspect ratio.4 to 0. all the other components of resistance as well as that of the bare hull.
by S. fps 2 Additional appendage drag information will be fotmd in References 3.roughness allowance for short bodies .thickness to chord ratio of appendage [(1. .0008 t/c . sec2/ft . 38 38 .J.mass density of water. lb.planform area.separation drag factor e Ap v 4 .2 t/c) + 1].speed. "Fluid Dynamic Drag". c.2 t/c) + 1)  appendage drag coefficient based on planform area Schoenherr friction coefficient based on total wetted area of appendages. and R n based on chord of appendage . 4 and: *69. The formulas are: The effect of rotation is ignored. F. Hoerner.appendage drag " 2 (Cf t. ft.000)[(1. Shafts For exposed circular shafts inclined to the flow the drag is cal culated on the basis of the drag coefficient for a cylindar and the component of v~locity normal to the shaft. 148 Busteed Drive.D ~ CID. ~ApF V2 Where: DAp CCF . Midland Park. N.
1.22 Rel/6 39 .I ~ UDs Where: Ds = CD IdV2 Bin 3 e e coB Ls = CD fdv2Bin2 drag of shaft in direction of flow of shaft normal to flow a Ls= lift CD drag coefficient of circular cylinder "exposed length of shaft. d v e diameter of shaft. Boundary Layer For those appendages close to the hull. angle of shaft inclination to flow d. such as scoops and strut palms.37 Re 1/5 = j I F'or 106< Re 45 x 108 1~ 0./sec. ft.2 . ft. ft. the effect of the boundary layer may be considered. The thickness of i i I the boundary layer is given by the following formula (among others): For 4 5 x104 Re<10 6  x :0. " free stream velocity.
However. face is the magnitude of this reduction is not well established. air intakes wherever they are a definite projection on an otherwise streamlined structure.75 times the free stream velocity. Reference 2 suggests that the average velocity can be taken as 0. Inlet Openings The whole subject of inlet and outlet openings is in Reference 69. extent from the sur due to the increased pressure under the hull. The phenomenon is the same as the change in local velocity This tyve of flow is around a displacement ship due to the pressure changes.Where: I thickness of turbulent boundary layer x = distance from leading edge Re = Reynolds Number vx/1) References 2 and 3 give information on the thickness and velocity profiles of turbulent boundary layers. 40 . e. It small and its ir3 conservative to ignore this effect in planing boats. treated at length This will apply to cooling water inl'ets for the engines. outlets for underwater exhausts. There is an additional reduction in velocity under a planing boat This is treated in Reference 9. known as potentJ'al flow and is treated in References 1 and 3.
Angeli.50: flBHP : 2 RT v1/550 For the typical inlet scoop with strainer the cooling water resistaace. the intake pipe is normal to the skin. able.6 x lO Assuming a propulsive coefficient of 0. RCW . ft 3 /sec xBHP is: (1) S"4.It should be noted that an inlet can be flush with the skin and still have drag because of the energy required to accelerate the air or water up. Manufacturers' sec/BHP. The cooling water requirements and drag coefficient are based on data collected by Mr. The derivation.sis: (2) i4 . i.e. to the speed of the boat. recommendations vary from about 3 x 104 to about 8 x 104 ft3/ The actual rate for the specific engine should be used when avail Substituting the values 3 and 8 into the derivation yields speeds at which the inlet drag equals one percent of the total drag of 33 knots for high flow rates and 54 knots for low flow rates. To provide a guide to the importance of calculating cooling water inlet resistance an approximate analysis was made which reveals that this resistance amounts to one percent of the total resistance at about 40 knots. lb. This is a valid assump tion for all internal systems except a water jet propulsion pump. using the Ii low average flow rate is as follows: The cooling water flow rate. Q. The flow rate used is a low average for diesel engines. where the flow is seldom turned 900. John C. assuming the fluid makes a 900 turn as it enters the 11 boat.
RCW 0. it will be more than To solve for the speed at let HOS 0.: 2 x lo2 V 6 RT v2 5 x l03 70 fps :40 knots v Therefore at boat speeds below 35 knots the cooling water scoops do not constitute a large increment of drag.01 RT and which RCW becomes 1 percent of Rp substitute into (4) 0. The designer should use his own discretion depending on the accuracy of his data and of the remainder of his calculations. aay known item of resistance should be calculated if about one percent of the total. 42 .6 P v (3) substituting (1) and (2) into (3) and with RMw:2 x p (w/g) 2: (4) 6 RT v 2 It is considered that although most resistance calculations are not accurate to anything like one percent.0l k.
. •I i The calculation of air resistance is well covered in References 2. but no credit should be taken for blanketing of the super• • structure by the bow.ii F. a good formula to use is that of G. the hull in its running attitude at the speed in question. AIR RESISTAUCE . S.0012 Ah Vk 43 . presently possible in the choice of drag coefficients for various parts of the boat and various degrees of streamlining. The latter is the sum of the speed through the The frontal area should consider water and the wind speed. and these should be consulted for detailed information. The air resistance is based on the above water frontal area and the speed of the boat through LB the air. and 69. 3. Baker quoted in Reference 3: *i For superstructure: 2 Rair : .004 A. Vk L H For the hull there is a reduction in drag coefficient because of the sharp bow: 2 Rair: . Although greater sophistication is lj LI I.
"On the Seakeeping of Planing Hulls". SNA=0 44 . 1957. Lewis. 6. 20.3 Numerical data on some specific mocels will be found in References 28. 64. 5. Southeast Section. Symposium on Small Craft Hydrodynamics. "An Experimental Study of the Effect of Extreme Variations in Proportions and Form on Ship Model Behavior in Waves". air scoops should simply be considered in the frontal area and not calculated separately. listed under the subject headings "Seakeeping and Motions" and "Resistance". BOUG~H WATER PERFORMANG'E Af general liscussion of rcugh water performance of power boats will be found in References 4. Some interesting results pertaining to a yacht hull and a trawler hill are given in: 70. accelerations and added resistance of planing boats was reported in: 71.These car be combined and written: Rair " . The first efforts at systematizing the available information on the calculation of motions. by E. G. 29 and other references in the complete Bibliography. An analysis similar to that for cooling water indicates that the resistance due to taking in the scavenging and combusion air of a typical.0012 (3A 5 + Ah) V Vkin knots Except in extreme cases. V. Numata and E. 1966. 21 and 24. No. Davidson Laboratory Report. diesel amounts to one percent of the total resistance at a speed of about 150 knots. by Daniel Savitsky.
by J. for regular waves are reported in: 73. and permits a close approximation of the rough water performance of planing boats. represent only the first For further background on seakeeping. see Chapter IX of Reference 1 and some of the references cited in 1 Reference 71 above. they still s'eps in what is hoped to be a continuing progrez. by G. 1275 This report has been superceded by: II 4Y*74. Fridsman. 1495 ( ! This reference covers irregalar sea tests of models having a more realistic bow shape. speed. 45 . 1969. Li 11  "Engineering Approximation of Maximua Ancelerations Experienced by Planing Craft in Rough Water". Roper. 1971. Irregular Seas". As good as the above works are. fl "A Systematic Study of the Rough Water Performance of Planing Boats". Nov.A first approximatior of the vertical accelerations may be made by the methods given in: 72. K. lengthbeam ratio. Davidson Laboratory Report No. on impact accelerations ak the bow and. A Systematic Study of the Rough Water Performance of Planing Boats. loading. Feb. 1437 Systematic experiments with models having prismatic afterbodies and constant deadrise bows are being carried out at the Davidson Laboratory to investigate the effects of deadrise. Phase II. and The results and wave proportions on the added resistance. on heave and pitch motions. Davidson Laboratory Report No. Davidson Laboratory Report No. the center of gravity. by G. trim. Wridsma.
700094. 3. 19501951. NECI "The Wageningen BScrew Series". A. Van Lazmeren.. 5. by R. It also gives design charts for stock propeller types avail. by W. et. and in: 76. %  able offtheshelf. Lorenz. Detroit. "Open Water Test Series with Modern Propeller Forms". 2. Paper No. 1969. Transactions SNAME 77. Jan. al. The Gawn propeller data are presented principally in the following reports: S46 . \ The most generally useful series of propeller charts are those of Troost and Gawn. P. L. Troost. 4. Reference 77 incliudes cavitation data on the Troost propellers. also known as the Wageningen BScrew series has been published over the years principally in Chapter VII of Reference 1. including cavitation problems and supercavitating propellers.V. *"Marine Propeller Selection". by L. 1970. Kress and E. SAE Reference 75 provides a brief introduction to the whole subject of propeller selection. The Troost series.. Michigan. PROPULSION A good background in propulsion theory and practice will be found in References 1. 6 and: ' 75. Automotive Engineering Congress.
35. SNAME of the above reports consider only the openwater characteristics of the propeller. March 27. "Effect of Pitch and Blade Width on Propeller Performance". Frome. L Sand I •Most "Supercavitating Propeller Performance". G. INA "Effect of Cavitation on the Performance of a Series of 16Inch Model Propellers". J.J. by R. C.. Gawn and L. Blount. 1957. by D. "Correlation of FullScale Trials and Model Tests for a Small Planing Boat". SNAME. 1968. 83. Burrill. Rader. Hadler. by R. and M. Gawn. L. "Performance Data of Propellers for High Speed Craft".L. For information on hullpropeller interactions (propulsion coefficients) see References 27. D. L. Nov. Jr..78. Stuntz.3 79. Jr. 1966. Nby "B 471 Li Ii . N. RINA. 1962 Transactions. 10.R. W. INA propellers the best paper to start with is: For supercavitating 81. "The Prediction of Power Performance on Planing Craft".B.L. by R. and i• 82. 1961. P. W. W. Haberman. Newton and H. 1953. L. For "transcavitating" propellers see: 80. INA Ii . by E. Gregory. Venning.
M. White. W. I. CONSTRUCTION A basic library on the structural design and copstruction of powe boats (covering both traditional and modern methods in most materials) should include the f oll oing: References 4. Conn. 32 (New Edition. 1962. (Several Chapters) 48 . by R. and: 884. T. W. up to date by Francis S. Boat Design. Kinney. Poseidon PublishCo. Dodd. brought New York). Mead and Co. Sheridan House. N. New York. Norton and Co. Lakeville. 6. edited by G. by H. Boatbuilding. N.VI.. 63. 5.Y. Steward. 1959. New York.Y. 06039 *85. 1969. Chapelle. Boatbuilding Manual. Problems in Smia. 86...
Oakland. Rukin.*87. Reynolds Matals Co. Marine Technology. "Wood. 345 East 47th Street. D'Arcangelo. Aluminum Compan' of America. "Aluminum Afloat". Inc.. 23218 49 . J. Formulas for Stress and Strain. H. Iric.. Jan. 95. American Welding Society.Y. Va. July 1967. U*89. "Adequate Strength for Small High Speed Craft". Vol. NAVSHIPS 250336 Government Printing Office. by J.. Danahy. XI. Fry. "Recommended Guide for Aluminum Crewboats and Yachts". 10017 "Recommended Aluminum Applications for Boats and Yachts". Jasper.. "On the Structural Design of Planing Craft". *88. 1968. Box 2346. by A. 0.Y. New York. I. N. Quarterly Transactions of RINA *92. T. 345 East 47th Street. New York.C. by F. and IV. Cambridge. Proceedings of Spring Meeting. *90. SNAME SIi II_ *93. Roark. Pittsburgh. "Alumiuum Boats". Calif. N. M. "Design and Construction of Metal Planing Boats". D.. 97" 10017 98. by P. N. 12. 420 Laxington Avenue. "Welding Aluminum". *94. a Manual for its Use as a Shipbuilding Material". B. Supt.. 1969. 1956. 10017 1 96. and N. SNANE 91. R. July 1960. Americun Boat and Yacht Council.. Pa. by S. Washington. Cornell Maritime Press. Graul and E. New York. McGrawHill Book Co'. Richmond. Inc.. J. Md. D. Kaiser 11uminum and Chemical Sales. P. Jr. of Documrnts. Heller. American Welding Society. (195762).Y. A Guide to Sound Ship Structures. "Hull Welding Manual". III.
717 5th Avenue. March 1969.Y. 10017  5i 50 " . "Marine Design Manual for Fiberglass Reinforced Plastics". 250 Park Avenue. 212.. 10022 "Symposilm on the Structural Design and Production of Small Boats and Yachts".. Jr. Spaulding. Metropolitan Section. Herman J. Claman. 1965. March 1969. N. by K. 103. Inc. 1967. and P.Y. Pacific Northwest Section. Feb. INDUSTRY ASSuCIATIONS FROM WHICH VALUABLE DESIGN INFORMATION MAY BE OBTAINED The Aluminum Association Marine Aluminum Committee 420 Lexington Avenue New York. Society of Plastics Industry. F.Y. Collins and J. Annual Meeting of Reinforced Plastics Division. SNAME "FerroCement with Particular Reference to Marine Applications". Construction and Maintenance".Y. Siltria. N. An Engineering Evaluation. 10017 "Guide for the Selection of Fiberglass Reinforced Plastics for Marine Structures". N. S. by J. 100. Owens Corning Fiberglass Corp.. 105. "Fiberglass Boats. "Design and Construction of Fiberglass Boats from 60 to 120 Feet in Length. SNAME 7 L *101. SNAME "FerroCement for Marine Applications. N. Y. N. Secretary 420 Lexington Avenue New York. 1960. New Englaud Section. B. SNAME 102. 104. New York. by Gibbs and Cox.11 *99. 1966. Jr. by Boughton Cobb.. N. New York.Y. McGraw Hill Book Co. 10017 The American Boat and Yacht Council. Molzahn. T and R Bulletin No. New York. An International Survey".
W. N. D. Road Springfield. 20360 H NECI NorthEast Coast Institution of Engineers and Shipbuilders Bolbec Hall NewcastleuponTyne. NSRDC ETT. National Aeronautics and Space Administration 400 Maryland Avenue S. 10001 SAE [ J 51 . N. England Society of Automotive Engineers 2 Pennsylvania Plaza New York. California 94040 SOURCE ABBREVIATIONS AND ADDRESSES ASNE 'i American Society of Naval Engineers Suite 507.Y. Washington 98401 Inc.C.C. D.W. 20034 Davidson Laboratory Stevens Institute of Technology 711 Hudson Avenue Hoboken. 1959 Old Middlefield Road Mountain View.Y. Virginia 22171 Naval Ship Research and Development Center (Including the David Taylor Model Basin) *11 Reports suffixed AD 000 000 U DTMB. New Jersey IAS 07030 "L American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics (Includes the former Institute of the Aeronautical Sciences) 1290 Avenue of the Americas New York. Continental Building 1012 14 Street N.H American Plywood Association 1119 A Street Tacoma. The Netherlands [ISP i L]NASA NACA.C. D. 20005 Clearinghouse for Federal Scientific and Technical Information Sills Buildirn 5285 Port RoyaJ. North American FerroCement Association. Washington. Washington. 10019 International Shipbuildiag Progress International Periodical Press 194 Heenraadssingle Rotterdam. DL Washington.
England RINA. New York 1ooo6 SSCD Society of Small Craft Designers c/o Victor Harasty. INA 52 . Secretary 22 2 nd Avenue Port Jefferson. New York 11777 Royal Institution of Naval Architects 10 Upper Belgrave Street London. 1.SNAME The Society of Naval Architects ead Marine Engineers 74 Trinity Place New York.W. S.
This action might not be possible to undo. Are you sure you want to continue?
We've moved you to where you read on your other device.
Get the full title to continue reading from where you left off, or restart the preview.