Hoyle J W.Bulbous Bow Design M.1986.TRANS PDF

SNAME Transactions, Vol. 94, 1986, pp.
3 1 - 5 6
A Bulbous Bow Design Methodologyfor High-Speed Ships

Jeff W. Hoyle, 1 Associate Member, Bill H. Cheng, 2 Visitor, Bruce Hays, 3 Associate Member,
Bruce Johnson, 4 Member, and Bruce Nehrling, 5 Associate Member
A methodology for designing bulbous bows for high-speed, fine-form ships is proposed. Using the
Kracht bulbous bow design curves developed for low-speed, full-form ships as a starting point, a
series of bulb forms is developed and analyzed using a combined numerical and experimental
approach to ascertain resistance and seakeeping characteristics. This study was performed using
the FFG-7 class of naval frigates as the reference hull form. Nine variations in bulb design (including
one similar to that found on the Italian frigate Maestrale) plus the bulbless hull form were analyzed
using the DTNSRDC's XYZ Free Surface Program. Five of the bulb variations were appended to a
model of the FFG-7 and tested in the 116-m (380 ft) towing tank at the U.S. Naval Academy. The results from the computer predictions and the calm-water towing tank tests show remarkably similar
trends while the relative rankings of the bulb forms derived from these analysis procedures were
identical. Furthermore, the addition of a bulbous bow to the FFG-7 hull form appeared to only
marginally degrade the ship's seakeeping characteristics.
Introduction
THIS is an exciting time to be working in the field of
experimental naval architecture. When numerical hydrodynamic flow code predictions are integrated with experimental
towing tank procedures, the ship design process is enhanced.
The ability to numerically predict flow patterns around a hull
and ship motions in a seaway enables the naval architect to
perform a computer-based order-of-merit ranking of hull
form candidates before starting a model test program. Traditionally, the early stage of hull form design has been based
on variations of existing hull forms whose hydrodynamic
characteristics are stored in a data base accessed by regression
analysis. These regression analysis methods are adequate for
the concept design stage so long as the hull form variates lie
within the limits of the data base.
Today, the possibility of calculating these hydrodynamic
characteristics directly allows us to investigate hull forms not
included in a data base [1].6 Tank testing is still required,
however, since the flow calculations do not accurately predict
the actual flow fields and viscous effects. Nevertheless, the
flow codes are sufficiently accurate in a relative sense to
attempt to optimize the hull form before model testing begins. This approach to hull design was successfully used with
1Ensign, USN; Nuclear Power Program.
2 Physical scientist, David W. Taylor Naval Ship Research and
Development Center, Bethesda, Maryland.
3 Naval architect, Design Systems & Services, Inc., Annapolis,
Maryland.
a Director, Hydromechanics Laboratory, U.S. Naval Academy,
Annapolis, Maryland.
5 Professor and Director of Naval Architecture, U.S. Naval Academy, Annapolis, Maryland.
6 Numbers in brackets designate References at end of paper.
Presented at the Annual Meeffng, New York, N.Y~,Noverfifier19-
dramatic results by those Dutch scientists and naval architects

who assisted in the 1983 Australian challenge for the America's Cup [2].
An area in which relatively small changes in hull form
geometry can lead to significant changes in ship resistance is
in the use of bow bulbs. Since the turn of the century, naval
architects have realized that a reduction in the overall resistance of a ship can be achieved by the addition of a bulbous
bow to the hull form. For instance, Admiral David W.
Taylor recognized these effects when he fitted a bulbous bow
to the battleship, Delaware, to increase her speed at constant
power [3]. Today, nearly 80 years later, the bow bulb is
utilized routinely in the design and construction of surface
ships. However, most research concerning optimal design~
and power prediction for ships with bulbous bows, such as
Kracht's [3], has concentrated primarily on low-speed, fullform ships such as merchant ships, naval auxiliaries, and
amphibious ships. Thus, bulbous bow design criteria for
high-speed, fine-form vessels such as destroyers and frigates
are relatively unknown. To date, the only full-scale application of a large bulbous bow to such a hull form is that found on
the Italian frigate Maestrale. In this paper, the results are
presented of an investigation of bulbous bows for a typical
naval frigate (FFG-7 appended with 15-deg stern wedge).
The study was conducted at the U.S. Naval Academy (USNA)
in connection with the David W. Taylor Naval Ship Research
and Development Center (DTNSRDC) and the Naval Sea
Systems Command (NAVSEA).
Objectives
The objectives of this research project were threefold:
1. Verification of the usefulness of numerical hydrodynamics in bow bulb design by direct comparison of computer
predictions of resistance and seakeeping characteristics of the
FFG-7 appended with various bow bulbs to actual model test
results.
22, 1986, of THE SOCIETY OF NAVAL ARCHITECTS AND MARINE

ENGINEERS.
The views expressed herein are the opinions of the authors and not
necessarily those of the Department of Defense or the Department of
the Navy.
31
/~ -TYPE
(~b)
(I)
O-TYPE
~-TYPE
Fig. 1 Bulbousbow types
2. Determination of the applicability of the NAVSEA interpretation of the Kracht bulb design charts to fine-form,
high-speed vessels such as the FFG-7.
3. Investigation of the effects of changes in bulb length and
breadth on the resistance and seakeeping performance of the
FFG-7 hull form.
Bow bulb theory

The reductions in drag achieved by the addition of a bulbeus bow to a hull form are derived primarily by the lowering
of wavemaking resistance through attenuation of the ship's
bow wave system. Furthermore, there is reason to believe
that a bulb acts to reduce viscous resistance as well, by
smoothing the flow around the forebody [3]. Since the beneficial action of a bulbous bow depends heavily on the waves it
produces and the flow around it, it is quite obvious that the
size, position, and form of the bulb body will have a marked
impact on the resistance characteristics of the ship.
For slender, fast, hull forms such as the FFG-7, the primary
reduction in resistance is due to the reduction of the free wave
system of the ship. This reduction of the free wave system is
accomplished by cancellation; that is, depending upon the
phase and amplitudes of the waves created by the bulb and
the ship, the two may cancel totally. The phase difference of
the two wave systems is determined by the location of the
bulb, and the amplitude of the bulb's wave is determined by
bulb volume [3].
Recognizing the importance of the bulb form in reducing a
ship's resistance, it is necessary to classify bulbs according to
some geometric parameters. Kracht [3] differentiated bulbs
into three main categories according to the shape of the bulb's
cross section at the forward perpendicular. These three classes are presented below and are depicted graphically in Fig. 1.
(a) A-Type: Figure l(a) shows the drop-shaped sectional
area of the delta type with the center of area in the lowerhalf part. This shape indicates a concentration of the bulb
volume near the base. The Taylor bulb and the pearshaped bulbs belong to this type.
(b) 0-Type: This type, shown in Fig. l(b), has an oval
sectional area, a center of area in the middle, and a central
volumetric concentration. All the circular, elliptical, and
lens-shaped bulbs as well as the cylindrical bulbs belong to
this type.
(c) V-Type: The Nabla type, shown in Fig. l(c), also has a
drop-shaped sectional area. However, its center of area is
situated in the upper-half part, indicating a volume concentration near the free surface. Because of its favorable
seakeeping properties, this type is the most common bulb in
use today [3].
32
Kracht also divides bulbs into two types according to their

lateral contours:
(a) Those bulbs which do not change the outline of the
stem of the ship.
(b) Those bulbs which protrude forward, thereby altering
the ship's stem profile.
This classification is unnecessary however, since bulbs such as
the Taylor bulb which do not ciaange the stem outline do not
have favorable properties and are no longer in use. Lastly,
bulbs can be described as "additive" or "implicit." An "additive" bulb is one which is added to an existing hull form,
thus increasing the volumetric displacement of the ship. For
an "implicit" bulb application, a portion of the ship's volumetric displacement is shifted forward to create the bulb [3].
All bulbs designed during the course of this study can be
described as "additive" and are of the Nabla type.
In addition to reducing the resistance of a hull form, bulbous bows also influence other properties of a ship. For
instance, model tests have shown that bulbous bows can influence the quasi-propulsive coefficient, wake fraction and
thrust deduction fraction. However, it is not certain if these
bulb effects are present in the full-scale ship because of the
importance of scale effects on the expansion of these model
test results. Bulbous bows do not seem to significantly influence course stability or maneuverability, and model tests in
regular waves tend to indicate that the "bulbous ship is the
best ship regardless of seakeeping aspects" up to a wavelength
to ship's length ratio of about 0.8. For ice navigation, ships
equipped with bulbous bows have a definite advantage. The
bulbs tend to tip the ice floes so that they slide along the ship's
hull on their wet side, which has a smaller friction coefficient.
Thus, the speed loss of a ship equipped with a bulbous bow in
ice is less than that of the same ship without a bow bulb. As
these factors present no reasons sufficient to prevent the utilization of a bulbous bow, it appears that bulb design may be
based solely on calm-water characteristics [3].
Bow bulb design

Presently, the complexities of the hydrodynamic interactions between a bulb and the main hull prevent a completely
analytical approach to bow bulb design. Therefore, the development of an optimum bulb for a ship is an empirical and
iterative process. Fortunately, the use of numerical tools to
predict the hydrodynamic performance of candidates in a
bulb design study affords the designer an opportunity to
evaluate many different bulb forms before committing to a
series of expensive and time-consuming model tests. In this
manner, an optimal bulb form can be developed efficiently
and expeditiously. However, to begin the iterative process of
optimizing a bulb for a particular hull form, an acceptable
initial design must be develped which can then be modified in
an attempt to enhance overall performance. In order to
provide this starting point, the authors chose to apply the
NAVSEA interpretation [4] of the Kracht design charts [5].
These charts were developed by Alfred M. Kracht from a
large number of model tests of ships with and without bulbs
and having block coefficients ranging from 0.56 to 0.82.
Since the goal of this project was to design bow bulbs for the
fine, fast FFG-7 hull form (block coefficient equal to 0.45),
the necessity of verifying the applicability of Kracht's design
charts became readily apparent. To accomplish this task, a
trend study was initiated which attempted to detect changes
in the optimum value of the major bulb parameters defined
by Kracht as a function of changing block coefficient and
Froude number. This trend study is presented graphically in
Appendix 1. The results of this study were encouraging since
it indicated that most of the optimum parameter values vary
Bulbous Bow Design
only slightly with block coefficient. Thus, it was concluded

that the range of the Kracht bulb design charts could be
extrapolated downward. The design charts corresponding to
the smallest block coefficient (CB = 0.56) were used to develop initial bow bulb parameters for the FFG-7 hull form.
These bulb parameters, described by Kracht [8,5], are defined
as follows:
1. Breadth parameter (CBB)--The maximum breadth (BB)
of bulb area (ABT) at the forward perpendicular divided
by the beam of the ship at amidships (BMs): CBB = BB/
BMS
2. Length parameter (CLPR)--The protruding length
(Lea) divided by the length between perpendiculars
(Lee) of the ship: CLe~ = LpR/Lpp
8. Depth parameter (CzB)--The height (ZB) of the foremost point of the bulb over the baseline divided by the
draft (TFp) at the forward perpendicular: CZB = ZB/
TFp
4. Cross-section parameter (CAax)--The cross-sectional
area (ANT) of the bulbous bow at the forward perpendicular divided by the ship's midship section area (AMs):
CABT = ABT/AM S
5. Lateral parameter (CABL)--The area (ABL) of the pro-
truding bulb in the longitudinal plane divided by the

midship-section area of the ship (A~s): CABL= ABL/
AMS
6. Volumetric parameter (CvPa)--The volume (VpB) of
the protruding part of the bulb divided by the volume of
displacement (VwL) of the ship: Cvra = VpR/VwL [4]
NOTE: Protruding is used here to mean that part of the
bulb which extends forward of the forward perpendicular.
A graphical representation of these bulb parameters can be
found in Fig. 2 [4].
Utilization of the Kracht design charts to derive near-optimum values of the parameters defined above is the goal of the
NAVSEA method. Each design chart shows the residual
power reduction coefficient 7 (ACevR) as a function of Froude
number and one of the bulb shape parameters defined above
for a particular block coefficient. This gives a total of six
charts for each value of block coefficient. A representative
design chart showing the residual power reduction coefficient
(ACpvR) as a function of the length parameter (CLpR) is shown
in Fig. 8 [4]. The wavy shape of this curve is typical of all the
design charts. Thus, a given value of the residual power
reduction coefficient can be achieved at more than one value
7 The residual power reduction coefficient is a measure of the
percent reduction in power necessary to drive a ship equipped with a
bulbous bow as compared to the same ship without a bow bulb. It
considers only that power which is necessary to overcome the residuary resistance of the hull form (total resistance minus frictional
resistance) and is quantitatively defined in [4] as:
ACpvR = [Cpvao(without bulb) - Ceva(with bulb)]/CevRo
where
CpVR ---~ P D/[ (P/ 2) VS( V W2L)O'&2G]- -
CFS /[ 170(v 2L)0 333]
PD = delivered power
p = mass density of water
V = speed
VWL displacement volume
CF = frictional resistance coefficient
ITTC standard: CF = 0.075/(log(RN) -- 2.0)2
S = wetted surface
~/o = quasi-propulsive coefficient
Maximizing the residual power reduction coefficient is desirable
since a large ACevRindicates a large reduction in residuary resistance
as a result of the addition of a bulbous bow.
1.
2.
BREADTH PARAMETER
Cs8 = BB/BMS
LENGTH PARAMETER
G_ = Lm/t-~
Lpp
3.
DEPTH PARAMETER
CzB = za/TFp
i FP
4.
CROSS-SECTION PARAMETER
5.
LATERAL PARAMETER
C^~_ = ABLIAMs
6.
CABT = Asr/AMS
VOLUMETRICPARAMETER
CVpR= Vm/ VwL

i
Fig. 2
Bow bulb parameters
of the bulb parameter. These multimodal functions further

complicate the problem of finding near-optimum values for
each of the six parameters. For the purposes of this design,
the guidelines set forth in [4] were followed to define the
parameters of the first bulb produced in this study. An
outline of the chart utilization procedure (taken from [4])
together with notes peculiar to this project is presented in
Appendix 2. For all subsequent bulb forms, methodical variations to the shape of the Bulb No. 1 were made by assuming
specific values of the length parameter (CLpR) and the
breadth parameter (CBB). These variations were made based
on the bulb design matrix presented in Table 1, where the
numbers inside the table correspond to the number assigned
to the bulb which had that particular length and breadth.
The design methodology put forth in [4] was then utilized to
develop a bulb form with the required parameters. A complete listing of the parameters for each bulb designed, as well
as the values for the existing Maestrale 0-type bulb, is presented in Table 2. Figure 4 shows a computer-generated profile
view of each bulb.
Again, the numbers in that table correspond to bulb number, with Bulb 0 being the existing Maestrale 0-type bulb.
Despite the desirability of a systematic approach to bulbous
bow design, the method outlined in reference [4] does have
significant limitations. Perhaps the most important disadvantage of this method is that it fails to provide a means for
fairing the bulb into the rest of the hull. As is apparent from
B u l b o u s B o w Design
33
I0 ~ C p~7R
f-
Table 1
C8 = 056
obere Orenze
/ .'/
70 " 070
(uPP+:a LIMz~ ~
I '//
/'i "'..+ 53o

," /////
-~'~" I
H~- ~ /
:
I
/oz+
//.
~
_~
'- ,xJ
,&TJi
o.32 o3 ....
0 02
p :~..
o.z6.~
Fig. 3
0 03
CLp R
04,
Representative Kracht design chart
the definitions of the bulb geometry parameters, the design

charts are concerned only with that portion of the bulb forward of the forward perpendicular. The integration of the
bulb into the ship's hull is left entirely to the designer's discretion, although Hagen and Fung do offer some guidelines on
this topic taken from "various experimental investigations."
Their report suggests that "'simply continuing the bulb aft
using longitudinal elements parallel to the ship's axis is probably as good a solution to the problem as any" [4]. In light of
this recommendation and in the interest of keeping other
form factors constant throughout this study, all bulbs designed
for this project maintain a constant cross section aft of the
forward perpendicular until they intersect with the main hull.
Computer
1.22 m
(4 ft)
2.13 m (7 ft)
2.79 m (9 ft)
8
......
Table 2
CI
0 ol
Bulb Length (fwd of FP)

2.44 m
3.66 m
4.27 m
(8 ft)
(12 ft)
(14 ft)
Maximum
Bulb Width
Bulb
No.
CLp a
0
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
0.011
0.034
0.030
0.040
0.034
0.030
0.040
0.020
0.010
CBB
0.194
0.165
0.165
0.165
0.200
0.200
0.200
0.165
0.165
Cz B
CABL
CABT
CVPR
0.293
0.46
0.46
0.46
0.46
0.46
0.46
0.46
0.46
0.064
0.174
0.165
0.219
0.174
0.165
0.219
0.110
0.056
0.125
0.086
0.088
0.088
0.106
0.106
0.106
0.088
0.088
0.0014
0.0028
0.0030
0.0039
0.0035
0.0036
0.0047
0.0020
0.0010
The XYZ Free Surface Program (XYZFS) was used to evaluate resistance performance in order to identify promising
design candidates before model construction was begun.
XYZFS computed the wave resistance, based on the integration of surface pressure on the hull, for the nine F F G - 7 bulb
variations presented in Fig. 4. These computations were
done at sinkage and trim positions determined by experiments on the Maestrale 0-type bulb at ten speeds corresponding to a Froude number range from 0.177 to 0.442. After
wave resistance predictions were made, residuary resistance
coefficients were obtained by adding an estimated form drag
to the wave resistance coefficients for each of the ten speeds.
An estimate of the total resistance coefficient was obtained by
adding the International Towing Tank Conference (ITTC)
1957 frictional resistance to the residuary resistance. Finally,
an estimate of effective horsepower was obtained from the
total resistance coefficient. The powering predictions obtained from the XYZFS Program for those bulbs which were
+|-+++++
1
34
3
6
Resistance
"R
Fig. 4
1
4
Kracht bulb parameters
mmmm
2
5
7].
predictions
4.88 m
(16 ft)
computer programs and their operation, consult references [6,
Two numerical tools were utilized to predict the hydrodynamic performance of the candidate bulbs. First, the XYZ
Free Surface Program was used to assess the calm-water resistance characteristics of the FFG-7 configured with and without bulb forms. Then, the Navy Standard Ship Motions
Program (SMP) was run to predict their seakeeping performance. An overview of the operation of these two programs
is presented here. For a more detailed description of the
Bulb design matrix
7
Scope of bulb designs
Bulbous Bow Design
1.
121
1.18
I . OB
EFFECTIVE HORSEPOHER RFITIO
( EHP HITH BULB RND HEDGE

EHP HITH HEDGE ONLY
Ct=
METHOD:
EHPa =
EHPb
(Ct=)a
(Cts)b
)
Sa
Sb
1. f16
I . 84
I . 82
o
H
V- 1.012
n"
n
0.
I"
h:
.gE
.gE
LEGEND:
.q~
--BULB
O
-----BULB 1
----BULB 4
t BULB 6
~ I--BULB 8
.92
.90
.BB
.81
S H I P SPEED ( K T S )
Fig. 5 EffectivehorsepowerratiosfromXYZFSoutput
eventually chosen for model testing are presented as effective

horsepower ratios in Fig. 5. EHP ratio was defined as the
effective horsepower of the FFG-7 appended with a bulbous
bow divided by that of the bulbless hull form. Thus, whenever the EHP ratio for a particular bulb is below 1.00, the bulb is
lowering the resistance of the FFG-7 hull form.
For each bulb configuration, the following steps were executed sequentially in order to obtain resistance predictions
from the XYZ Free Surface Program:
S t e p / - - T h e bulb form, as specified by a body plan and
centerline profile, was digitized at the U.S. Naval Academy's
Computer Aided Design Interactive Graphics (CADIG) facility and appended to the digitized FFG-7 hull form.
S t e p 2--The digitized data were transferred to the David W. Taylor Naval Ship Research and Development Center.
A Tektronix terminal received and forwarded the digitized
data to a Cyber 176 computer at DTNSRDC.
S t e p 3--The digitized data were used by a B-spline
program [8] running on the Cyber 176 computer to generate a
surface grid of the hull and of each bulb. The hull, when
appended with a bulb, was subdivided into two sections. The
first section consisted of a bulb plus that part of the hull up to
station 2; the rest of the hull, including the 15-deg stern
wedge, formed the second section, which was kept constant
during the course of this study. The surface grid, or panel-
I\\ \ \ \ \\\\~
ized representation, of the FFG-7 hull form appended with a

bulb and stern wedge is shown in Fig. 6. Three views of a
panelized bulb are shown in Fig. 7,.
S t e p 4--The hull and bulb data created in Step 3 were
carefully checked using numerical tests as well as computer
graphics. The numerical model of the FFG-7 hull as repre-
ToP
VIEnl
,=PONT
Y,'/14/
IIII / / / I 1~~HI
, , , , / / I I I I/11
/1111
.vIEW
Fig. 6
Panelized representation of the FFG-7 with stern wedge and

Bulb 1
Bulbous Bow Design
Fig. 7 PanelizedBulb 1
35
sented by this data was then transferred from DTNSRDC to a

Cray supercomputer in Seattle, Washington.
Step 5--The XYZFS Program was run to analyze each of
the bulb variations. The panelized hull and bulb data were
used as input to XYZFS. The output gave predictions of.
wave resistance, residuary resistance, total resistance, and
effective horsepower.
S t e p 6 - - X Y Z F S results were analyzed at both
DTNSRDC and USNA. The surprisingly good performance
of wider bulbs at speeds from 18 to 25 knots was first noticed
at this phase. As a result of superior performance, as predicted by XYZFS, Bulb Nos. 4 and 6 were recommended for
model construction and testing at USNA.
Seakeeping
The Navy Standard Ship Motions Program (SMP) [7] was
used to predict the seakeeping characteristics of the FFG-7
hull form in four different configurations: bulbless and appended with bulbs zero, one, and four. Each configuration
also included the 15-deg stern wedge. SMP calculated significant pitch and heave amplitudes and the probability of slamming for each hull variant as a function of full-scale ship
speed ranging from zero to 30 knots. Data were analyzed for
the long-crested, head seas condition, with a modal period of
nine seconds and significant wave height of 8.7 m (12.14 ft).
These values were determined from operator feedback to be
conditions at which the full-scale ship begins to slam. The
ship motions program was run on a VAX computer at the
Naval Sea Systems Command via a telephone link from the
Naval Academy. Results were printed at NAVSEA and sent
to USNA for analysis. These results, presented graphically in
Figs. 8 through 10, indicate very little difference in the seakeeping performance of the FFG-7 with and without bow
bulbs, and even less difference between two bulb configurations. Figures 8 and 9 do not show the results associated with
Bulb 0 since its predicted significant heave and pitch amplitudes coincided almost exactly with those of Bulb 1. Consequently, for reasons of clarity, they were not plotted. Since
the SMP results for these three bulbs were only slightly different, the program was not executed for the remaining bulb
forms.
the length of Bulb 8 was nearly identical to that of the Maestrale-style bulb it was built in order to directly compare the
effects of an 0-type bulb and V-type bulb of similar length.
Before testing began, all bulbs were appended to a 1//24.75
scale model of the FFG-7 fitted with a removable bow section
and a 15-deg stern wedge. This stern wedge was used because of its favorable effects on the resistance characteristics
of the FFG-7 hull form as reported in [9]. Each model
configuration was ballasted to a full-scale draft of 4.87 m
(14.35 ft) with 0-deg trim. The longitudinal gyradius was set
to 25 percent of the length between perpendiculars. Turbulence was stimulated with studs placed near the bow. For
ease of rigging, all model configurations were towed from the
same point. This towing point was at the longitudinal center
of gravity of the model when it was configured with the
Maestrale-style bulb. While each model had a slightly different LCG, the variations were extremely small. Experience has shown that very small variations between the towing
point and the actual LCG do not produce observable differences in the test data. The particulars of each configuration
are compared in Table 3.
Resistance tests
Calm-water resistance tests were performed on each configuration to determine the effective horsepower necessary to
propel that ship at full-scale speeds ranging from 12 to 80
knots. The variables measured during these tests included
speed, drag, sinkage, and trim. The dynamometer used for
both the effective horsepower and subsequent seakeeping
tests was a Netherlands Ship Model Basin air-bearing rig with
a single heave post. The model was free to pitch and heave,
and the other motions (yaw, roll, sway, and surge) were
locked. Table 4 provides information about the sensitivity of
the transducers utilized during these experiments. Results of
the effective horsepower tests are presented as effective
horsepower ratios in Fig. 11. Again, an EHP ratio of less than
1.00 indicates that the bulb is lowering the ship's resistance.
The EHP ratio of Bulb 0 was derived from data that were
manipulated to subtract the effects of a calibration error,
while all other curves come directly from model test data.
Seakeeping tests
Model test program

In order to experimentally determine the resistance and
seakeeping characteristics of the FFG-7 when appended with
a stern wedge and various bulbous bows and to verify the
results obtained in the computer predictions phase of this
project, an extensive series of model tests was performed in
the USNA Hydromechanics Laboratory's 116-m (380 ft) towing tank. The test program consisted of three tasks: (1) bulb
construction and model preparation, (2) effective horsepower
testing to determine resistance characteristics, and (8) head
seas testing in irregular waves to assess seakeeping performance. Each of these tasks will be discussed separately.
Bulb construction and model preparation
Four of the nine bulb candidate designs developed for this
study were built. These bulbs were constructed from a highdensity foam by the Technical Support Department of the
U.S. Naval Academy. Careful consideration of the program's objectives resolved the issue of which bulbs to produce.
In keeping with the combined numerical/experimental design methodology, Bulbs 4 and 6 were constructed based on
their superior resistance characteristics as predicted by the
XYZ Free Surface Program. In addition, Bulb 1 was chosen
for construction to further validate the extrapolation of the
Kracht design charts' range to lower block coefficients. Since
36
In addition to calm-water resistance testing, head-sea tests

in irregular waves were performed on all model configurations in order to assess seakeeping performance. Waves used
for this study were periodic encountered irregular waves as
described in [11]. Three waves were constructed according
to the methods described in that paper, corresponding to ship
speeds of 15, 20, and 25 knots. In this manner, each model
configuration was tested in three identical irregular wave
trains. For most configurations, the model was towed at each
speed twice to collect data on resistance, pitch, heave, bow
acceleration, and encountered wave height. Unfortunately,
the amount of data collected was not sufficient to provide
statistically significant results. However, videotapes made of
all configurations and speeds tested allowed for a subjective
comparison of seakeeping performance. From these videotapes, it was apparent that the addition of a bulbous bow to the
FFG-7 hull form tended to degrade its seakeeping performance to a small degree. This fact was evidenced by the
more extreme motions and greater amount of water taken
onto the deck when the FFG-7 model was configured with a
bow bulb. On the other hand, the videotapes also indicated
that the bulbless hull form rose higher out of the water in
response to the wave action. While the hull seemed to take
more water over the deck when configured with a bow bulb,
the amount of water taken on appeared to decrease with
increasing bulb length. Overall, the small degradation in
Bulbous Bow Design
SHIP MOTIONS
PROGRRM:
PREDICTION
OF SIGNIFICRNT
HERVE
RMPLITUDE
FOR
FFG-?
HULL
FORM
(NO TRIM)
3 0,
SHIP MOTIONS
PROGRRM:
PREDICTION
OF SIGNIFICRNT
PITCH
RMPLITUDE
FOR
FFG-?
HULL
FORM
(NO TRIM)
- L o n g C r e s t e d Waves
- H e a d Seas C o n d i t i o n
-Modal Period-9
Seconds
- S i g . Nave Helght-12.14 Ft
= 3.7 meters
-Long C r e s t e d
Waves
Seas C o n d i t i o n
-Modal P e r l o d - g Seconds
-S|g. Have H e i g h t - 1 2 . 14 t
= 3.7 meters
-Head
2.~
2L
w
Q
2.0
c__
oo
c
(n
(IZ
(E
Ld
S
CD
(D
,.~-
bJ
oz
4
I
u
I.
n
t--z
ff]
U
Z3
~D
b_
b_
LEGENB:
FFG-7 WITH STERN WEDGE
AND NO BULB
~2
t~
LEGEND:
A FFG-7 WITH STERN WEDGE
RND NO BULB
Q FFG-? WITH STERN WEDGE
i.
Z
k9
H
u1
RND BULB l
RND BULB i
[]
Fig. 8
C
-.jO

~ D BULB 4
0.
10
SHIP
15
SPEED
Significant h e a v e
[]
20
25
0.
....
30
amplitude versus ship
speed
l~ . . . .
SHIP
(KTS)
Fig. 9
Significant
/5 . . . .
SPEED

RND BULB 4
2'~ . . . .
~'5
(KTS)
pitch amplitude versus ship
speed
SHIP MOTIONS PROGRRM:

PROBRBILITY
OF S L R M M I N G
AT S T R T I O N T W O F O R
F F G - ? H U L L F O R M (NO T R I M )
?.
-Long
-Head
6.
E;}
E~
Crested
Haves
S e a s Conditlon
-Modal Period=9 Seconds

- S l g . Have Helght=12.14 Ft
=3.7
5.1
>I-H
4.
I
m
02
m
O
Od
Q_
3.
ID
Z
t-4
>(]:
_J 2 .
U]
[]
FFG-7 W I T H S T E R N
A N D NO B U L B
WEDGE
FFG-7 WITH STERN

AND BULB 1
WEDGE
FFG-? HITH STERN WEDGE

RNB B U L B
1.1
F F G - 7 H I T H STERN HEDGE
RND BULB B
61
1'6
1'5
SHIP
Fig. 10
26
SPEED
2~
'3~
(KTS)
Probabili~ofslammingatstation2versusshipspeed
1.14
1.12
EFFECTIVE
HORSEPOWER R R T I O
1/ EHP H I T H BULB RND HEDGE xI
\
)
EHP H I T H HEDGE O N L Y
1.11~
~.
I .SB
~-
Ct=
1.86
METHOD: EHPm EHPb
(Cts)a
f C t = )b
Sa
Sb
\
1.04
/ I
\
\
1.82 ~
I-
x,
//
I.BO
.91:
EN
.94
92
--BULB
-----BULB
----'BULB
' = 8UL8
---- ~ U L B
0
1
4
6
8
2'.
2'.
.BB
.o~
it,
'
1'.
'
l'.
'
2b
'
2~
2t'
'
SHIP SPEED (KTS)
Flg. 11
38
Effective horsepower ratios from model test results
Bulbous Bow Design
'
'
y~
Table 3
Parameter
Waterline length
Wetted surface
Displacement
LCG (+ fwd midship)
Tank temperature
Model particulars of FFG-7 configurations
Units
No Bulb
Bulb 0
Bulb 1
Bulb 4
Bulb 6
Bulb 8
(m)
(ft)
(m 2)
(ft2)
(N)
(lb)
(cm)
(in.)
(C)
(F)
5.03
16.5
2.693
28.99
2137
490.5
-5.13
-2.02
15.6
60
5.03
16.5
2.774
29.86
2204
495.5
6.42
2.53
15.6
60
5.03
16.5
2.778
29.90
2206
495.9
3.53
1.39
14.4
58
5.03
16.5
2.793
30.06
2214
497.8
3.12
1.23
15.6
60
5.03
16.5
2.808
30.22
2217
498.4
3.12
1.23
15.6
60
5.03
16.5
2.756
29.67
2201
494.7
3.53
1.39
14.4
58
NOTE: A correlation allowance of 0.00045 was used to expand all effective horsepower results to full scale. This correlation allowance
was suggested for the FFG-7 hull form in reference [10].
Table 4
Quantity
Measured
Model test sensors
Transducer
Drag
block gage
Pitch
potentiometer
Acceleration
accelerometer
Encountered
wave height
sonic probe
Description
Hydronautics variablereluctance modular force
gage (50-1b design load)
10-turn, 10 K-ohm
Schaevitz 10 g linear servo
accelerator (+ 10 g full
load)
Wesmar LM4000 ultrasonic
pulsed sonar system (30-in.
measured range) (60-in. full
load)
seakeeping performance resulting from the addition of a bulbous bow to the FFG-7 hull form did not seem sufficient to
override the resistance advantages provided by the bulb.
Comparison of computer predictions with model

test results
As previously stated, one of the primary objectives of this
project was to evaluate the usefulness of numerical hydrodynamics in bow bulb design. Therefore, the computer-predicted resistance and seakeeping characteristics of the FFG-7
configurations were compared directly with the results obtained from actual model testing.
Resistance
The comparison of the resistance predictions of the XYZ
Free Surface Program and the results obtained from calmwater tank testing of the F F G - 7 model can be made on two
separate bases. First, in an absolute sense, the XYZ Free
Surface Program predicted, by approximately 10 to 15 percent, lower resistances than the actual model tests did for all
configurations at all speeds. This is evident on the plots of
total ship resistance coefficient versus ship speed presented in
Figs. 12 through 17. The multiplicity of points in the 18-20
knots speed range on the XYZFS curve results from the execution of two separate algorithms within the program. One
algorithm assumes a wet transom stern while the other assumes that the transom is completely dry. Since the model
tests showed that the transom stern of the FFG-7 was dry at all
speeds above 16 knots, the "wet-algorithm" points above that
speed were ignored for the purpose of fairing those curves.
The dashed line between 14 and 18 knots on the XYZFS
curves represents the uncertainty as to when the transition
from a wet transom to a dry stern occurs. The EHP ratio
Tolerance
linearity (% design
load) +0.25
tolerance +10% fullload; linearity +5%
linearity 0.05% fullload; repeatability
0.01% full load
resolution (0.5%
measured range);
linearity (0.5% full
scale)
curves shown in Fig. 5 were derived from these curves. As

was the case with those EHP ratios, the total ship resistance
coefficient curve from model test data for Bulb 0 represents
refaired data as a result of a calibration error. A comparison
of EHP ratios derived from XYZFS output and model test
results for each bulb can be found in the graphs of Appendix
3. Although similar trends are evident from these curves, the
quantitative results still differ somewhat. Many plausible
explanations can be advanced for the absolute differences
between XYZFS predictions and model test results. First,
when the FFG-7 model was tested, a skeg was present. This
skeg was not added to the hull form when it was panelized for
the XYZFS Program. Thus, the drag of the skeg is not included in the computer predictions but does add to the overall
resistance of the model. Second, there were small differences
between the running draft at the forward and after perpendiculars which were used as input to the XYZ Free Surface
Program and those observed during model testing. Other
possible sources of the offset between XYZFS predictions and
model test results include the questionable ability of numerical hydrodynamic codes to predict form drag and model
wave-breaking resistance. This latter difficulty could become a factor at high speed. Any or all of these explanations,
acting together or independently, could account for the absolute differences occurring between the ship resistance coefficient curves obtained from computer predictions and those
derived by experimental testing.
Irrespective of the absolute quantitative differences between the XYZFS predictions and the model tests, a relative
comparison of results as shown in Table 5 reveals identical
rankings from both sources. These rankings were developed
from the EHP ratio curves presented in Figs. 5 and 11 and are
based on the 18-25 knot speed range. They are arranged
from best to worst, with best being that bulb which had the
Bulbous Bow Design
39
p34-!
<
Wc
h
W
0
U3.E
hi
U
Z
E
F- 3 . 4
W
'v
3.E
.J
f_.
0
I-- ;).ti
n
H
T
e
(/3
i-
,~
,'6
,'8
SHIP
Fig. 12
LEGEND=
e HODEL TESTS
B XYZFS:NET ~ O H
& XYZFS:DRY TRFINSOH
;)'e
SPEED
;)'z
(KTS)
Ship total resistance coefficient versus ship speed:
FFG-7 w i t h w e d g e and n o bulb
5.1t
(T) 4.
(
Cg
Note: Model Test Points

represent refaired.data.
4.;
/
~~
/A
LL
U3.~
W
U
Z
QZ
I-- 3 . 4
U)
H
U3
W
rY
3.e
J
E:
FO
F" 2 ~1
'~ ~
[1.
H
I
O3
/
______.._._._ffi ~
2-~2
E]
In
1'6
,'o
2'.
SHIP
Fig. 13
40
MODEL TESTS
M XYZF'S =NET TRRNSOM
& XYZFS= DRY TRRNSOM
I:1
2'2
SPEED
S h i p total r e s i s t a n c e c o e f f i c i e n t v e r s u s ship s p e e d :
Bulbous
2~
2~
'
2~
(KTS)
Bow Design
FFG-7 w i t h w e d g e a n d B u l b 0
3`"
5.12
<
4.2
b_
W
O
U3.8
W
O
Z
(E
i--3.4
03
i-,4
03
W
n."
3.~
J
(I
I-O
I--- ~..
Q.
i-i
"r"
03
~ _ - - - - - - < F ~
LEGEND:
/
7
MODEL TESTS
[] X Y Z F S : N E T
A XYZFS:DRY
[]
[]
TRRNSOH
TRRNSOM
2.
SHIP
Fig. 14
SPEED
(KTS)
Ship total r e s i s t a n c e c o e f f i c i e n t v e r s u s ship speed:
FFG-7 with w e d g e and Bulb 1
5.0
p34.6
<
//
4.2
LL
W
O
(..) 3.1B
W
fj
Z
I1I.- 3.
U3
I-.4
U3
W
IZ
3.
_J
CE
I-O
I-2.!
O..
i.-.4
103
Q MODEL TESTS
j
~ . /
B XYZFS:NET
A XYZFS:DRY
[]
TRRNSOH
TRRNSOH
2
SHIP
Fig. 15
SPEED
(KTS)
S h i p t o t a l r e s i s t a n c e c o e f f i c i e n t v e r s u s ship speed:
Bulbous Bow Design
FFG-7 with w e d g e and Bulb 4
41
5,~
(-04.6
<
Eg
4.2
t2
t.u
W
O
U 3.
W
U
Z
QS
~ 3.,
U')
ffl
W
n~
3.e
..J
122
I--O
n
M
T
U'}
2.(
MODEL TESTS
I
l j
[]
a XYZFS:DRY TRRNSOM
SHIP
Fig. 16
[]XYZFS:WET TRRNSOM
[]
SPEED
(KTS)
Shiptotalresistance coefficientversus ship speed: FFG-7 with wedge and Bulb 6
5.0
cq4.G
<
x<
4.2
u2
h
W
O
r..) 3 . e
W
U
Z
I--3.4
O3
W
n~
3~
F'-2. 6
T
O3
B I
2.
,'.
Fig. 17
42
/
/13
,'6
/"
LEGEND:
j.
{3
MODEL
TESTS
~'1XYZFS: WET TRRNSOM
& XYZFS: DRY TRRNSOM
,'B
2'~
SHIP
SPEED
2'2
2~
z'~
2~
(KTS)
Ship total resistance coefficient versus ship speed: FFG-7 with wedge and Bulb 8
Bulbous Bow Design
3'B
lowest EHP ratio over the speed range considered. These

identical relative rankings indicate that the XYZFS Program
can be used with confidence to select the best alternative from
among competing bulb forms if minimizing a ship's total
resistance is of primary concern.
From this relative ranking of bulb forms, an important
observation can be made about the effects of bulb geometry
on performance. In general, the resistance advantages derived from adding a bulbous bow to the FFG-7 hull form
seemed to increase with increasing bulb volume. One noteworthy exception to this rule is the superior performance of
the relatively small Maestrale 0-type bulb, which has a lower
effective horsepower ratio than Bulb 1 over the majority of
the relevant speed range, despite having less volume. With
this exception, larger bulb size seemed to enhance a bulb's
resistance reducing effect. Bulb 6 (the longest and broadest
of all bulbs tested) illustrated this point by having the lowest
EHP ratio over the 18-25 knot speed range. This observation
seems to indicate that bow bulbs for fine-form, high-speed
ships should be made as large as possible within the practical
constraints associated with ship handling.
Table 5
Relative bulb rankings
XYZFS
Model Tests
Bulb 6
Bulb 4
Bulb 0
Bulb 1
Bulb 8
Bulb 6
Bulb 4
Bulb 0
Bulb 1
Bulb 8
project, future studies of bulbous bows for high-speed, fineform vessels should consider the following:
1. Further optimization of the bulb form parameters using
the XYZFS Program to rank competing designs.
2. The impact of practical shiphandling factors such as
anchoring and dry docking on the bulb design parameters.
8. An investigation of the effect of variations on the 0-type
bulb form.
4. Alternative methods for fairing the bulb into the hull.
Seakeeping
In an attempt to avoid the many runs required to obtain
statistically significant results from irregular wave tests, a
"single pass" method was used. This periodic irregular encountered wave technique [11] should have produced a relatively smooth transfer function after a single tank run. However, this method inadequately accounts for wave-wave interactions which appear to cause frequency shifts sufficient to
make the encountered wave nonperiodic [12]. Nonperiodic
encountered waves require long records to give statistically
significant results. Even though several runs were made at
each speed, there were not enough data produced to provide
the required degrees of freedom in the analysis. Therefore,
as previously stated, it was not possible to make a direct
comparison between the seakeeping model tests and the results obtained from the Ship Motions Program.
Acknowledgments
The success of this research project can be attributed directly to many individuals associated with several organizations.
In particular, the authors gratefully acknowledge the support
of Dr. David Moran, Dr. John Jayne and Mr. Ron Miller of the
David W. Taylor Naval Ship Research and Development
Center and Mr. Reilly Conrad of the Naval Sea Systems
Command. Mr. Tom Price, a Naval Academy model maker,
did an excellent job of building and installing the bulbs. A
very special thanks is extended to John Hill, John Zseleczky,
Louise Wallendorf, Steve Enzinger, Donald Bunker, Norm
Tyson and Darlene Batten of the Naval Academy Hydromechanics Laboratory. Finally, but certainly not least, the authors thank Mary Palombo for her patience and skill in typing
this manuscript.
References
Conclusions
On tile basis of the work outlined in this paper, several
conclusions become evident concerning the application of
bow bulbs to fine-form, high-speed ships. First, the XYZ
Free Surface Program did provide an accurate relative resistance ranking of the bulbous bow configurations, allowing the
combined numerical/experimental design methodology to
successfully develop bulbous bows which improved the resistance characteristics of a high-speed ship. Second, the
Kracht bulb design charts did yield an acceptable initial design. However, this design was not optimum, since increases
in bulb breadth and volume tended to minimize the resistance
characteristics of the ship. This trend indicates that bow
bulbs should be made as large as the practical constraints
associated with shiphandling will allow. Third, it is important to note that the existing Maestrale 0-type bulb possesses
beneficial resistance characteristics as well as the practical
advantages of short length and ease of manufacture. Finally,
the bulbous bows did tend to qualitatively degrade the seakeeping performance of the hull form, but only to a small
degree. This degradation did not seem sufficient to override
the resistance reductions attained when the hull was configured with a bow bulb. These resistance reductions, while not
substantial enough to warrant retrofitting existing ships of this
type, do indicate that serious consideration should be given to
installing a bow bulb on future ships.
As a follow-on to the research conducted during this
1 Salvesen,N., Von Kerczek, C. H., Scragg, C. A., Cressy, C. P.,

and Meinhold, M. J., "Hydro-Numeric Design of SWATH Ships,"
TRANS. SNAME, Vol. 98, 1985.
2 Van Oossanen, P., "The Development of the 12 Meter Class
Yacht Australia II,'" Proceedings, Seventh Chesapeake Sailing Yacht
Symposium, Annapolis, Md., Jan. 19, 1985.
8 Kracht, A. M., "Design of Bulbous Bows," TRANS. SNAME,
Vol. 86, 1978.
4 Hagen, G. B. and Fung, S., "A Guide for Integrating Bow
Bulb Selection and Design into the U.S. Navy's Surface Ship Hull
Form Development Process," Naval Sea Systems Command Technical Note No. 885-55W-TN0001, April 1983.
5 Kracht, A. M., "Weitre Untersuchungen Uber Die Andwendung Von Bugwulsten," VWS Bericht No. 811/78, 1978.
6 Cheng, B. H., Dean, J. S., and Jayne, J. L., "The XYZ Free
Surface Program and its Application to Transom-Stern Ships with
Bow Domes," David W. Taylor Naval Ship Research and Development Center, Bethesda, Md., 1984.
7 Meyers, W. G., Applebee, T. R., and Baitis, A. E., "User's
Manual for the Standard Ship Motions Program (SMP),"
DTNSRDC/SPD-0986-01, David W. Taylor Naval Ship Research
and Development Center, Bethesda, Md., Sept. 1981.
8 McKee,J. M. and Kazden, R. J., "G-Prime B-Spline Manipulation Package Basic Mathematical Subroutines," DTNSRDC Report
77-0086, David W. Taylor Naval Ship Research and Development
Center, Bethesda, Md., April 1977.
9 Zseleczky, J. and Johnson, B., "The Effects of a Bow Bulb and
Various Stern Wedges on the EHP of FFG-7 Class Frigates," U.S.
Naval Academy Hydromechanics Laboratory Report EW-8-84, Feb.
1984.
10 Woo, E. L., Karafiath, G., and Borda, G., "Ship Model Corre-
Bulbous Bow Design
43
lation of Powering Performance on USS Oliver Hazard Perry, FFG-7

Class," Marine Technology, Vol. 20, No. 1, Jan. 1983.
11 Johnson, B., Anderson, C. H., Clark, A. J., and Lund, R.,
"'Single Pass Seakeeping Tests Under the Periodic Irregular Encounterea Wave Technique," Proceedings, 19th General Meeting of the
American Towing Tank Conf., Ann Arbor, Mich., Vol. 1, July 1980.
12 Johnson, B., Wallendorf, L., and Dalzell, J., "On the Generation of Complex Periodic Irregular Wave," Proceedings, 17th International Towing Tank Conference, Goteburg, Sweden, Vol. 2, Sept.
1984.
Appendix 1
Bulb parameter trend study
5.0E
HRGEN BULB D E S I G N
PROCESS
FN=O.28
~" 4 . 0 ~
l..d
I-
~_ 3 . 0 ~
"1~ C Lp R , 1 0 ^ 2
m
J
m
2.00
A
i .00
0.00
CRBL*IO
.'s,
.~
.~8
BLOCK C O E F F I C I E N T
Fig. 18
czB
.'~o
Trends in bulb parameters with block coefficient
5.00
HRGEN
BULB
DESIGN
PROCESS
FN=0.28
cz 4 . 0 0
Ld
W
FIC ~ p R
*10^3
n~
3.00
Ixl
2.0~
--a C B B
I . 0~
0 I 0~
.s4
Fig. 19
44
.56
_ _ .
~I
.~8
BLOCK COEFFICIENT
.~o
Trends in bulb parameters with block coefficient

Bulbous Bow Design
*10
CRB T . 1 0
.162
HRGEN
BULB
DESIGN
5 .E~E
PROCESS
[]
CB=O.56
czB*io
b3
4.0E
Ld
FW
nrr
3.8E
/i
m
.3
~ '-aCLPR.1O^2
2 .OE
~L
.EIE
e.%
- -
0-
.~
'
.'z8
.~e
FROUBE NUMBER
Fig. 20
E) CRBL*1E]
.3z
/34
Trends in bulb parameters with Froude number
HRGEN
BULB
DESIGN
PROCESS
CB=E~.56
5.0~
u3
4.0E
bJ
i-W
~Z
QZ
rY
~
n
[]
CVpR " 1 0 ^ 9
3.0E
m
2.~E
1 . ~E
0. I~.~
. . . .
(~
.J26
. . . .
.~2B
FROUDE
Fig. 21
"~ . . . .
A .
.13E~
.132
-~ECB B . 1 8
0 CRBT
*IE]
.134
NUMBER
Trends in bulb parameters with Froude number
Bulbous Bow Design
45
Appendix 2
Detailed outline and notes on bulb design methodology
Step (a)
Determine the block coefficient and the design Froude

number for the candidate bulbless ship. Select that set of
design charts from [5] which is appropriate for the block
coefficient.
Note (a) Since the block coefficient of the FFG-7 hull form is
considerably smaller than the range of block coefficients
found in [5], the smallest block coefficient was selected. A
Froude number of 0.30 (a ship speed of 20.4 knots) was
chosen as the design Froude number for this project. This
decision was based on the mission profile of the FFG-7
which reveals that 20 knots is the most common ship
speed.
Step (b) In each of the six design charts, locate the points on the
appropriate Froude number curve where the maxima occur. Record the values of ACpva associated with each of
the maxima.
Note (b) It was assumed that the authors of [4] intended that only
the largest maxima from each of the design charts be
recorded. This assumption was necessary in order to understand the intention of Step (c). Without this assumption, one might select a suboptimal design value of ACpva.
Step (c) Select the smallest of the recorded values of ACpva as the
design value for the bulb. From each of the six charts
determine the value of the bulb parameter which corresponds to that value of ACpvR. Several guidelines are
presented at this point to aid in parameter value selection
since several values for a given bulb parameter will probably exist for a single value of ACpvB.
Note (c) The ACpvR chosen as the design value for the FFG-7 was
0.29, and the guidelines for resolving ambiguities arising
from the undulations of the curves were closely followed.
Step (d) Determine the height of the bulb at the forward perpendicular. Both the selected height and the distance trom
the bottom of the bulb to the baseline are matters of
judgment. However, the height of the bulb is constrained
by at least two requirements: (1) It must be large enough
to enable the required cross-sectional area (ABT) to be
developed, and (2) the top of the bulb must be an appropriate distance below the design waterline. A tentative
value for bulb height can be obtained using the following
formula:
Note (e)
Quite obviously the discretion of the designer impacts

heavily on the choice of the "arbitrary curve" mentioned
above. Thus, it is readily apparent that two designers
utilizing exactly the same bulb parameters could develop
completely different bulb forms.
Step (f)
Lay out the lower curve of the longitudinal profile by

computing distances y(x) below the upper curve at longitudinal distances, x, forward of the forward perpendicular
according to the following formula:
y(x) = [H~ - x2(HB/ LpR)2]0'~

Note (f)
This step is relatively straightforward and easy to implement; however, no mention is made in [4] as to how this
formula was derived.
Step (g)
Integrate to determine the area ABL for comparison with

the design chart. Make minor adjustments to the longitudinal profile to obtain approximate agreement with one of
the values selected from the design chart.
Note (g)
The value of CABLdeveloped by this method was approximately twice that selected as the near-optimum value
from the design chart. Presumably, this occurred because
of the appreciable downward extrapolation from the
range of block coefficients in the design curves. It was
necessary to disregard the value of CABLtaken from the
design charts in order to attain the correct value of other
bulb parameters.
Step (h)
Compute the approximate transverse areas of the bulb at

selected longitudinal stations by means of the following
equation:
AT(x) ffi y2(x)A'BT/ n~

where A'BT is the actual designed transverse area of the
bulb at the forward perpendicular. In general, A'BT is
likely to be equal to, or very nearly the same as, the designchart value.
Note (h)
HB ffi (4ABT)/(rBB)
Note (d)
Step (e)
46
By using this formula, the full-scale height of the candidate bulb was determined to be 2.88 m (9.27 ft). An
arbitrary value of 0.17 m (0.56 ft) was assigned as the
distance from the baseline to the bottom of the bulb giving
an effective bulb height of 2.83 m - 0.17 m = 2.65 m (8.71
ft). These values were held constant for all bulbs produced for this study. The effective bulb height was used
in all further calculations required by this design methodology.
La~, out the upper portion of the longitudinal profile of the
bulb by joining the point at the forward perpendicular (at
height Ha above the bottom of the bulb) to the point at the
nose (at height ZB above the baseline) with an arbitrary
concave curve having the ~eneral shape of an ellipse or
parabola with its vertex at the nose.
Step (i)
Note (i)
Again, no mention is made in [4] as to how this formula

was derived.
Integrate to determine the bulb's volume.
A straightforward application of Simpsen's rule to the
transverse areas computed in Step (h) was utilized to complete this step.
Step(j)
Starting with these approximate parameter values, develop a faired bulb form. Compute the values of its geometric parameters and compare them with those selected
from the design charts. Although it is not expected that
exact agreement will be achieved, iterations on the design
can be made in order to bring the actual values into better
agreement with the design chart selections.
Note (j)
The discretion of the individual designer again plays a

major role in the implementation ot this step. After
numerous iterations the final bulb form produced by this
design methodology was designated as Bulb No. 1.
Bulbous Bow Design
Appendix 3
E H P ratio comparison from XYZFS predictions and model test results
1.14
1.12
EHP RRTIO FOR BULB NO.
1.18
[/\EH~-H;~-HHPN~-UGL-E-BRNNOD'-N~-BULB'~x']
I . 88
I . 86
I . 84
I. 8 2
0H
;-~ 1.88
O
--..
~" ~ ~
\ \f~-~
XYZFS
o._ .98
T
Ld
.96
.94
.92
.88
.8
I~
l~
16
2~
2~
2~
SHIP SPEED (KTS)
Fig. 22
2~
26
3~
EHP ratio for Bulb 0
1.14
1.12

EHP
BULB NO. 1
I . IE
~.
_~
1.8E
\EHP HITH HEDGE RND NO BULB/
I . 8E
1.84
YZFS
I. 8~
o
H
I.BE
nf
*..
i.
,.~l"n .92"94"96"98
.j j
~ ---
26
2'~
MODEL TEST
.88
,'4
I'G
,'8
SHIP SPEED (KTS)
Fig. 23
2'4
2~
a~
36
Bulbous Bow Design
47
14
12
EHP
RRTIO
FOR
BULB
NO.
1E
HP HITH HEDGE RND NO BULB//
88
86
84
B2
8E
.I 7 " /
\ \
XYZFS
98
.96
MODEL TEST
.94
.92
,9E
.88
.e~
f4
SHIP SPEED (KTS)
Fig. 24
1.14
.12
.IE
8~

~E
EHP
HP H I T H
BULB NO. 6
HEDGE RND NO BULB
06
04
82
j/
n,,
XYZFS
11?--96
MODEL TEST
94
92
92
8B
SHIP
Fig. 25
48
SPEED
(KTS)
EHP.ratio for Bulb 6
Bulbous Bow Design
1.14
1.12
I . 08
EHP RRTIO FOR BULB NO. 8
HP HITH HEDGE RND NO B U L B / )
MODEL TEST
I .86
1.84
I .82
o
H
I-- 1 . 0 ~
n"
n,
a.
"ILd
.98
XYZFS
.96
.94
.92
.90
.88
.o%
2'.
.b
SHIP SPEED (KTS)
Fig. 26
Discussion
William T. Lindenmuth, Member
[The views expressed herein are the opinions of the discusser and not
the Navy.]
I commend the authors for this clear and well-documented
study. They have shown that the XYZFS program can serve
as a useful design tool regarding the relative effect of various
bulb designs on ship resistance. I found a similar utility for
XYZFS, in a study of streamlines along the forebody of a ship
with and without bulb, to help assess the bulb's effect on the
so-called bubble sweepdown problem. Here too, comparison
with observations from scale-model tests indicate that the
numerical predictions are not particularly accurate on an
absolute scale; but they did provide nominal relative trends
for the cases that were studied.
The authors' may have overstated the range (18-25 knots)
for which the rankings are identical in Table 5. It appears to
me that they are identical only from 22 to 25 knots.
Since the XYZFS code is actually predicting wavemaking
resistance, correlation with model test data derived from
"wave cuts" may prove enlightening, particularly with regard to high-speed wave-breaking resistance phenomena;
wave cuts may "miss" this component of wave drag since it
has been transformed to kinetic energy within the control
area defined by the cut. XYZFS may predict wave spectral
energy sufficiently, but I would not expect phase relationships
to be accurate enough to re-create a longitudinal wave cut.
Recent wave cut experiments at DTNSRDC have shown a
significant increase in the amplitude of the transverse waves
when the model is propelled compared with when it is towed
as a drag body. I suspect that this added wave drag is
ordinarily accounted for in the thrust deduction factor. Can
the authors comment on the feasibility of including propeller
effects in the XYZFS program, say with some sort of simple

actuator disk?
The authors suggest that the degradation in seekeeping
performance is not sufficient to override the desirability of a
bulb for reduced resistance. Would increased ship motions,
when operating in a seaway, create an incremental added
resistance sufficient to negate the modest calm-water benefit?
It is clear that numerical hydrodynamics hasn't obsolesced
the towing tank. Yet work, such as presented by these authors, advances the case for numerical design tools with great
potential for naval architects.
Gabor Karaflath, Member
the Navy.]
The basic design method proposed by the authors is to use
the Kracht parametric bulb design method for an initial design, Bulb 1, and then to refine the design according to guidance from alternative systematic design variations evaluated
by the XYZFS computer program. The accuracy of the
XYZFS computer program to evaluate changes in bulb shape
and size on performance is crucial to the success of the proposed design method.
In Table 5 the authors show that for the 18-25 knot speed
range the relative bulb performance ranking according to
XYZFS predictions is identical to the ranking based on model
test predictions for all five bulbs tested. Although there is a
general similarity in the ranking, the ranking is not identical
since at 20 knots ship speed the ranking of the model test
results as obtained from Fig. 11 differs significantly from the
ranking according to XYZFS predictions. Nevertheless for
the 18-25 knot speed range the XYZFS computer program
Bulbous Bow Design
49
CONTOURS
td
n~
OF
PE(BULB)/PE(STEH)
tD
m/
..J
.<
W
.-I
Z
0
tM
Z
0
H
tU
t.,a
(t)
--
O
e~
~0
0
n~
(_)
~n
In
w
~/2
~
hi
H
k-
H
t"
._1
W
--I
d _ i111
--
.d
-tl.08
,-.e. 00
8.80
RELATZVE BULB LOCATTON O = x / L
/
Ship
with
Moderate
Kracht
Bulb
"A"
in P r e s e n t
Location
Fig. 27
predicted the performance of Bulbs 0, 4 and 6 relative to that

of Bulb 1 with an accuracy that was adaquate for making
design decisions. For other speeds and bulbs, however, the
XYZFS predictions were significantly in error. For example,
Bulb 8 was a much poorer performer throughout the speed
range than the XYZFS predictions indicated and both Bulbs 4
and 6 had much better performance relative to Bulb 1 in the
26-27 knot speed range than predicted by the XYZFS computer program. This high speed is of great interest to FFG-7
powering. Can the authors comment on the reasons for these
erroneous predictions?
The greatest XYZFS prediction error occurs in the prediction of bulbous bow performance relative to the no-bulb
performance. Figure 5 shows the XYZFS predicted powering to be within 4-2 percent of the no-bulb performance
whereas Fig. 11 shows predictions based on model test to be
within 4-8 percent. Decisions to incorporate a bulb are usually based on desired improvements in powering of at least 4 to
6 percent. Hence a potential improvement in powering
could be missed if only the analytical prediction is followed.
Laying aside the question of XYZFS prediction accuracy,
the proposed design method is limited in that, after the initial
bulb is designed according to the Kracht method, there is no
substantive guidance provided to the designer for further
optimization. In contrast, the traditional longitudinal wave
cut bulb analysis method described by Sharma [13] (additional references follow some discussions) predicts the effect of
bulb section area changes and bulb longitudinal changes on
resistance. Figure 27 accompanying this discussion shows a
typical contour graph from a longitudinal wave cut analysis
which can be used to evaluate the design and provides design
guidance for optimizing it. This longitudinal wave cut method has been used at the David W. Taylor Naval Ship Research
and Development Center to successfully evaluate the effect of
longitudinal sonar dome position on resistance and to evaluate
the performance of numerous bulbous bows.
The disadvantage of the longitudinal wave cut method is
that it is an experimental technique for which adaquate time
needs to be scheduled during the ship design. In contrast, the
50
advantages of the analytical method with regard to quick

evaluation of many bulb shapes cannot be ignored even if
good judgment and experience are required to correctly use
and interpret the analytical predictions. The authors are to
be congratulated for correctly using the XYZFS predictions to
design a bulb which at high speeds exceeds the performance
of the initial Kracht bulb by 3 percent. Further research and
development of analytical tools for the evaluation of hull form
Changes on powering performance is highly encouraged.
Additional r e f e r e n c e
18 Sharma F. D., "'An Attempted Application of Wave Analysis
Technique to Bow Wave Reduction," Sixth ONR Symposium on
Naval Hydrodynamics, 1966.
John J. Slager, Member
It was my distinct pleasure to have been able to review,

with Dr. Johnson and Mr. Hoyle, the bow bulb designs and the
initial results of the model tests and the XYZFS computations.
It was also my pleasure to have been involved with Mr. Hagen
and Mr. Fung in the development of the bow bulb design
.guide listed as reference [4] of the paper. Therefore, I am
honored and pleased to be given the opportunity to comment
on this paper.
The Introduction notes that bulbous bow design criteria for
high-speed, fine-form ships such as destroyers and frigates are
relatively unknown. I agree that such criteria are scarce, but
wish to note that at least some bow bulbs for relatively fine,
moderately high-speed hull forms have been designed and
model tested and the results have been documented. For
instance, there is information to be gleaned from "Some Aspects of Hydrodynamic Design of High Speed Merchant
Ships" by Michelsen et al, 1968 SNAME TRANSACTIONS;
also, although the bow bulbs discussed were not of the protruding type, there is, I believe, useful information relative to
bow bulb design presented in "Ships with Bulbous Bows in
Smooth Water and in Waves" by Dillon and Lewis, 1955
SNAME TRANSACTIONS. Further, and as you are well
aware, large sonar domes have been installed on U.S. Navy
Bulbous Bow Design
frigates for some time now. Admittedly, these are a special

type of bow bulb, but they affect hydrodynamic performance
in a manner which is similar to the manner in which large
"normal" bow bulbs affect performance. Although we have
no formal "design criteria" for such bow domes, we at least
have developed reasonable preliminary-design type means
for estimating the residuary resistance of a relatively large
range of sizes of destroyer-type hull forms with relatively
large sonar domes installed. I'm sure the authors are aware of
this information. My main point is that there is at least some
information available which the practical hull/bulb designer
can make use of.
Under "'Bow bulb design," it is noted that the method
outlined in reference [4] "fails to provide a means for fairing
the bulb into the rest of the hull." "Fails" is perhaps a bit
strong, since the paper took note of the rough guidelines given
by reference [4] in this regard and, in fact, adopted these
guidelines for the bulb designs developed by the present
authors! But allow me to be the first to agree with Messrs.
Hoyle et a] that the design guide presented in reference [4] has
limitations.
I would like to suggest that, in addition to the effective
power ratios presented in Fig 5, plots or tables of the absolute
differences in effective power (due to the bow bulb) would
provide worthwhile information for naval architects. Sometimes it is useful to know the magnitudes of the actual power
differences; for instance, these data might be useful in making
a quick assessment of the cost-effectiveness of installing a bow
bulb. In this regard, the numerous economic analyses we
have carried out have indicated that, although naval ships
normally spend only a small proportion of their underway
time at high speeds, the absolute power savings, due to a bow
bulb, at the high speeds are sometimes sufficient to offset the
power losses, due to the bulb, over much of the remaining
speed range; these high-speed power savings may be sufficient to justify the use of a bulb. Thus, tabulations of absolute
values of power savings and losses at the various speeds can be
meaningful for the experienced hull/bulb designer.
I agree with the conclusion that serious consideration
should be given to installing bow bulbs on future high-speed
ships. At least a reasonable amount of consideration is, in
fact, being given in feasibility and preliminary design studies
carried out for new U.S. Navy ships. Appendix B of reference [4] presents procedures for calculating fuel savings (or
losses) for a so-called "single-draft" ship (such as frigates and
destroyers). These procedures take into account the following information:
- - t h e speed/power relationships for the ship in calm water,
both with and without a bulb;
- - t h e total steaming time (usually expressed as hours per
year);
- - t h e speed/time distribution for the ship as it is deployed;
and
- - t h e specific fuel consumption (usually expressed as
pounds per shaft horsepower per hour) over the range
of operating speeds.
In addition, preliminary designs for the bow bulb structure
have been developed in one or more instances, thereby enabling bulb fabrication cost increments to be developed for
use in cost-effectiveness studies.
In the Conclusions it is suggested that future studies of bow
bulbs for high-speed ships should consider "The impact of
practical shiphandling factors such as anchoring and dry
docking on the bulb design parameters.'" I would like to
point out that such impact studies are already a part of our
design approach. Typically, these studies (in addition to
assessing the powering and fuel-consumption impacts noted
above) assess the impact of the bow bulb on the following

elements of design:
--structural, auxiliary systems and outfit weights;
- - t r i m and stability (of major importance for naval ships,
especially when a relatively large bulb is being considered),
--anchor handling, and
--maneuvering performance.
Finally, I would like to emphasize that we still have a great
deal to learn about bow bulb design, especially bow bulbs for
high-speed ships. For instance, it is noted in the paper that
the performance of the Maestrale-type bulb did not seem to
completely fit the emerging trends of the authors' research
results. Similarly (and just as one might expect), in our development of the material for reference [4] and in the design and
model testing of individual bow bulbs, we have found examples of bulb performance which did not seem to fit the basic
trends we thought were emerging. I sincerely hope that
further bow bulb research and model testing can be carried
out in the near future. Clearly, we need a lot of drops of
knowledge to fill the bow bulb design information bucket; to
continue the metaphore, I am convinced that this paper is
certainly a very significant drop in this bucketT
Alfred Kracht, e Visitor
I have respect for Professor Johnson's work, which was

necessary to utilize the design charts mentioned in [5] for the
bulbous bow design methodology presented. In this way the
range of bulb parameters being considered can be restricted
to a minimum in the ship design process, and model tests
which are still required may be performed carefully and,
therefore, economically.
It seems to me that the expression "optimization" in connection with the design charts is not quite correct. In the
waveless theory an optimum bulbous bow reduces the wave
resistance of a ship-bulb configuration at design speed to a
minimum. This question cannot be answered by the method
presented by the present authors because the design charts
used in this method were derived from an analysis of routine
test results of ships which were fitted with moderate, nonoptimum bulbous bows. The reason for fitting moderate
bulbs is due to the hydrodynamical interaction of hull and
bulb and a suitable consideration of smooth-water performance and seakeeping qualities as well. For merchant ships
which operate under different service conditions it is prudent
to adopt the type and size of a bulbous bow to a wider range of
speed and of draft alteration at the forward perpendicular,
which results in a non-optimum smaller bulb at the design
condition that would result from an optimization. Moreover,
the bulb parameters should not be extrapolated as mentioned
in my paper [8].
In comparison with merchant ships, the displacement of
naval craft such as destroyers and frigates does not change
considerably during operation. It is worth investigating the
use of optimum bulbous bows of high-speed, fine-form ships.
Since the design methodology does not provide the optimum
bulb parameters, the wave resistance theory should be used in
the optimization process as demonstrated by Takezawa [14]
and Suzuki et al [15].
For an optimum bulbous bow, the greater the speed the
greater the bulbous bow. Since at a Froude number of 0.85
the total optimum bulb volume amounts to 2 percent to 6
percent of the displacement volume--depending on block
coefficient--the investigation of the seakeeping qualities becomes more important than the resistance reduction due to a
bulb. In the case of an optimization, the cruising speed
8 Berlin Model Basin, Berlin, Germany.
Bulbous Bow Design
51
should be chosen as the design speed and, in spite of the

tempting high reduction of design power due to an optimum
bulbous bow, the recommendations mentioned in Paper No. 3
of the 1985 Annual Meeting of SNAME [16] should be borne
in mind also for naval craft. It is desirable to continue the
seakeeping tests mentioned so that quantitative results are
available and comparisons are possible.
One final question: Is the design methodology presented
applicable to low-speed, full-form ships?
Additional references
14 Takezawa, S., "An Application of the Waveless Theory to the
Design o{ a Destroyer Form," International Seminar on Theoretical
Wave Resistance, The University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, Mich.,
1963.
15 Suzuki, K., Higuchi, M., and Maruo, H., "Hull Form Design
Based on Michell's Theory by Means of Nonlinear Optimization
Technique," Bulletin of the Faculty of Engineering, Yokohama
National University, Japan, Vol. 81, March 1982.
16 Blume, P. and Kracht, A. M., "Prediction of the Behavior and
Propulsive Performance of Ships with Bulbous Bow in Waves,"
TRANS.SNAME, Vol. 98, 1985.
Michael B. Wilson, M e m b e r
the Navy.]
This is an interesting paper, expecially in that it is aimed at
illustrating how analytical results can be used to motivate and
then augment the impact of a well-focused experimental
program.
It is fascinating to see that a bow bulb can successfully
reduce the resistance of a slender, combatant hull form, and
that this can be accomplished at Froude numbers of practical
interest. It is a bit disco-raging to note the large size of bulb
3.O
I
i
'
(big forward protrusion) that it takes to get the desired range.

of total resistance improvement at the higher Froude numbers of 0.35 and up. Evidently long bulbs with center of
volume well forward of the FP are required to produce meaningful destructive interference between the bulb and the ship
hull wave systems, at least with the Nabla bulb configuration.
As mentioned by the authors, it would be very interesting to
determine the systematic performance of bulbs with O-type
cross sections, compared with the results with the Nabla
shapes. It is noted that the short O-type bulb had its best
performance, and the best EHP reduction overall, at F, =
0.25 (Vs ~ 17 knots). By analogy to the trends for Bulbs 4
and 6, it could be speculated that a longer O-type bulb would
be better at a higher Froude number, possibly noticeably
better than the Nable type. It should also be noted that the
lower Froude number range tradeoff between the various
bulbs is not correctly displayed by the calculated results.
I have cross-plotted the changes in EHP ratio against all the
various bulb parameters. I have noted that the trends for the
EHP ratio versus the protrusion length ratio CLPR and volume
ratio CvpR show improvement at the largest values CLPR =
0.04 and Cven = 0.0047 (both curves slope downward). Do
the authors conclude that an "'optimum" bulb may have an
even larger value of Lpn?
A note of caution: Some care must be exercised if anything
but the relative rankings of alternative hull shapes are to be
chosen from the XYZFS results. This is because the variation
of wave resistance is not uniformly accurate with respect to
Froude number as predicted by the XYZFS analysis. A sample comparison for a combatant hull form similar to FFG-7 is
shown in Fig. 28 herewith for the predicted wave resistance
coefficient Cw from XYZFS and experimental values of the
wave pattern resistance CwIe) obtained from longitudinal
wave cut measurements. This pertains to the realistic case of
FRE jE TO
SINK AND TRIM
I
Hull S1
I
Model
5416
TRIM
FIXED
I
2s
~
2.5
PanelM:d:d H~II~ S1
t.~
~
1.5
2.o
1.o
z
//
2o
~-)
1.s
CAL
i/CcIi~IUR
ED
CALCULATED
Cw
1.0
MEASwfURED
MEASURED
0.5
I -01
1
02
I
03
I
04
I
05
I
05
[
0.1
07
FROUDE NUMBER, Fn
Fig. 28 Comparison between calculated wave resistance Cw and

measured wave pattern resistance C ~ a for a high-speed displacement hull, free to sink and trim
52
I
02
K
0.3
I
04
I
05
0.e
FROUDE NUMBER, F
n
Fig. 29 Comparison between calculated wave resistance and measured w a v e pattern resistance for the high-speed hull form, with fixed
Bulbous B o w Design
trim
the hull free to sink and trim. One point of this comparison is
that the region of good agreement is quite narrow, in the
Froude number range of about Fn = 0.85 to 0.45. At lower
Froude numbers, the discrepancy becomes larger. This variability in accuracy could affect the reliability of even comparative trends in the low Froude number range.
It is noted that the XYZFS calculations for all the bulb
shapes of this study were carried out with the same specified
sinkage and trim which were measured or estimated for the
FFG-7 hull fitted with the O-type bulb (Bulb No. 0). The
sinkage and trim can be important to the accuracy of the
calculations from XYZFS, and therefore to the interpretation
of the results. Here is an example to show the order of
magnitude of the influence. For the same hull form as in Fig.
28, Fig. 29 shows results of a comparison between the calculated wave resistance using XYZFS and the measured wave
pattern resistance, at fixed trim (hull fixed at zero speed
sinkage and trim). The agreement between the two is startlingly good in the range F n = 0.85 to 0.5, but still relatively
poor at lower Froude numbers. In the transition from Fig. 28
to Fig. 29, the trim was estimated from the hydrodynamically
induced moment determined from a first-round XYZFS calculation with the panelling arranged with the waterline initially at the zero speed location. The quantitive difference in
the two comparisons shows how the trimmed hull orientation
affects the accuracy of the final results for wave resistance.
Donald McCallum, Member

the Navy.]
My congratulations to the authors for a fine piece of computational/experimental naval architecture. Some strong
trends may be gleaned from the paper, aiding in the design of
bulbous bows, but the paper also poses some questions, and
highlights the need for further research in this area. NAVSEA has conducted many experiments involving bulbous
bows, particularly during auxiliary ship designs, and with
good successes for the most part. The AO-177, AOE-6, LHD1, and CV-68 (Hull Expansion) are recent examples. We
have been most encouraged by the work of Dr. Kracht of
Germany [8,16[ (see Kracht discussion), and now this fine
paper.
The use of the 15-deg stern wedge for the FFG-7 predictions and model tests is to be commended. This indeed is a
feature which should be retrofitted into the FFG-7 ship design. It costs little to build and install, yet gains benefits in
reduced fuel consumption and slightly increased top speed.
Using the XYZ Free Surface Program is vindicated as a
"feasibility-level" design tool; however the comparison between computer predictions and model tests results is disappointing. Some of this difference can, I believe, be explained
by the fact that the XYZFS program does not adequately
address the viscous effects associated with large bulbs.
Other questions are as follows:
If Bulb 6 gave the best predicted power savings, why was
it not investigated for seakeeping?
How did the model test results compare against the
Kracht (extrapolated) predictions for EHP savings? This
would give a good check of the extrapolation of the Kracht
data for high-speed ships.
Figure 11 shows that Bulbs 0 and 4 are giving very good
results in the 14-18 knot range. What would be required to
"tweak" these designs to be optimized for 20 knots, which is
more of an operational speed for the FFG-7 class?
Was the FFG-7 model equipped with its keel-mounted
sonar dome during the tests? If so, this could have played an
important part in pressure field cancelation. Also, a photograph of the FFG-7 model would have enhanced the paper, in
addition to clarifying some of these points.
The paper helps to highlight some of the problems inherent
in the tools used by ship designers. The Ship Motions Program (SMP) has limited capability to predict the pressure
field created by the forward motion of the bulbous bow. The
seakeeping model test data, as correctly interpreted by the
authors, show that bulbous bows tend to produce more deck
wetness, since a large bulb will tend to "dig-in'" to a wave due
to the above-mentioned pressure field. This phenonenon was
recently highlighted by full-scale experience on ships of the
AO-177 class, which have large elliptical bulbs. Deck wetness problems were encountered, which had not been predicted by the earlier SMP-type runs; these problems necessitated
an increase in scantlings around the fo'c'sle deck area. Dr.
Kracht's recent paper [16] on the seakeeping considerations of
bulbous how design states very clearly that bigger is not
always better! A careful design methodology, utilizing
XYZFS predictions, SMP predictions, resistance a n d seakeeping tests, as this paper emphasizes, is certainly the prudent
course of action.
Jeffrey J. Hough, Member

the Navy.]
As one who is involved in both the development and utilization of computer tools and hull form design and hydrodynamic performance, I am very pleased to see the work and results
of the authors' efforts to utilize an advanced hydronumeric
analysis tool. At NAVSEA we have in the past used the
XYZFS computer tool for some work, including the evaluation of stern wedges for a recent combatant design and selection of the candidate wedges to be tested. In this work we
found, much as the authors describe, that the relative ranking
of the various candidate stern wedges was the same as predicted by XYZFS and model test data.
The method of utilizing XYZFS to rank candidate hull
form modifications or appendage designs is a technique
whose time has come and is sorely needed. With the compressed design schedules and limited time and funds for model testing, the use of advanced hydronumerie computer tools
gives the hull form designer the ability to incorporate innovation into the hull at an early stage of design and not as an addon afterthought. As part of the NAVSEA Hull Form Design
System (HFDS) we plan to incorporate more hydronumeric
analysis tools by building preprocessor programs to these computer codes that will use the surface geometry models which
currently we are utilizing for hull form definition.
Now some specific comments on the paper. Even though
the relative ranking of the various bulbous bows was correct,
Figs. 28 through 26 in Appendix 8 show that the absolute
value changes in EHP were quite different and the shapes of
the curves were not even that close when compared with the
model test data. This shows that the XYZFS program still has
limited value in predicting absolute values for resistance.
Would the authors please comment on what they feel is
causing this limitation on the results and what plans are in the
works to resolve them?
I thank the authors and the Society for giving me the
opportunity to comment on this fine paper.
Authors' Closure
The authors wish to thank the discussers for their interest in
this paper and for their thought-provoking comments.
Bulbous Bow Design
53
SIDE VIEW
TOP VIEW
B O D Y PLAN
Fig. 30
W
Inui S-201 hull form
In response to Mr. Karafiath, the ranking of the bulbs was

based on their overall performance over a majority of the 1825 knot speed range. While the results for Bulb 8 were
significantly different, the authors feel that the Bulb 8 model
test results--not the XYZFS predictions--are at fault. In
fact, the confidence we gained in the XYZFS predictions
allowed us to forego the retesting of Bulb 8 because its inferior
resistance characteristics had already been identified by the
computer program.
Mr. Karafiath expressed concern that a potential improvement in powering might be missed if only the analytical
prediction is used. We concur with him and reiterate our
position that model testing is mandatory for those bulbs which
performed best during the analytical computations. This
tank testing would enable bulb designers to convert qualitative ratings into quantifiable results.
Finally, the authors wish to thank Mr. Karafiath for pointing out the most significant advantage of our bulb design
methodology over the longitudinal wave cut approach--time
savings!
The authors would like to thank Dr. Wilson for his interest
in our paper. As far as we can recall, Mr. Cheng and his
colleague, Mr. Miller, performed the XYZFS computations
for Model 5416 about two years ago. At that time there were
no experimental results for the hull. It is interesting to see the
comparison between the XYZFS results and wave cut experiments which were conducted this year. We find the comparison encouraging. As we mention in our paper, we are more
interested in the relative ranking than the absolute value of
wave resistance. The results presented in Dr. Wilson's Fig.
29 indicate that a quantitative comparison is possible for this
particular hull. Notice that the absolute value of the computed wave resistance is in excellent agreement with wave pattern resistance at higher Froude numbers (from 0.:35 to 0.5).
This Froude number range corresponds to the higher operational speeds of high-speed ships. The fact that the agreement is so good at high operational speeds is very satisfying.
Admittedly, the agreement is not so good at lower speeds.
The most likely explanation is that the program's assumption
of transom flow breakaway has been violated.
The authors are well aware of the importance of sinkageand-trim predictions. Cheng and Dean [17] developed and
implemented a new algorithm to compute the sinkage and
trim. This algorithm improved the results of recent calculations, including those for the Model 5416 study. Furthermore, we have found that using the experimental sinkage and
trim of a similar hull can result in further improvement in
wave resistance predictions. The computations reported in
the present paper were performed using the experimental
sinkage and trim obtained when the Maestrale O-type bulb
was appended to the FFG-7 hull.
54
Mr. Lindenmuth asked two questions about the XYZFS

program. It is interesting that both questions are related to
current projects at DTNSRDC. For one of these projects, Mr.
Cheng and his colleagues are calculating longitudinal wave
cuts for comparison with the corresponding experimental
measurements. The hull form that has been used as a test
case is an Inui S-201. This is an idealized mathematical hull
form modeled by a centerplane distribution of linear sources.
Figure 30 herewith shows the side view, top view, and body
plan of this hull form. Figure :31 presents a comparison of the
longitudinal wave cut obtained from the XYZFS computations with experimental results published by Sharma for a
Froude number of 0.319 [13]. In this experiment the wave
probes were located away from the ship's centerplane at a yvalue corresponding to 2y/Lop = 0.826. In Fig. 31 the dimensionless wave elevation (100 g/Lee) is plotted against the
longitudinal distance (2x/Lpp). The solid line represents the
experimental wave cut, while the dashed line represents the
XYZFS computations of the longitudinal wave cut. The
wave length or the distance between consecutive peaks is
correctly predicted. The phase relation seems in good agreement between computational and experimental results.
However, because a linearized free-surface boundary condition was used in the XYZFS program, the wave amplitudes
tend to be underpredicted. Figure 32 presents a similar
comparison of longitudinal wave cuts for the same hull at a
Froude number of 0.255. Again, the wave length is correctly
predicted while the wave amplitude seems to be underpredicted. However, there is an unexplained phase shift between the XYZFS results and the experimental measurements
for this Froude number. The cause of this discrepancy is
being investigated.
A second project at DTNSRDC is tasked with addressing
the question of adding propeller effects to ship wave problems. Mr. Cheng has just begun to work on this new task,
which involves the addition of an actuator disk capability to
XYZFS. The effectiveness of such a simplified propeller
model should be better understood by next year.
The authors wish to thank Mr. Slager for bringing to the
attention of the naval architecture community several important publications dealing with the design of bow bulbs.
In retrospect, the author's agree with Mr. Slager that "fails"
is a bit strong. Nevertheless, we definitely feel that more
research is needed in the area of bulb-to-hull fairing in order
to provide guidance to the naval architect.
In response to Mr. Slager's request for information on the
absolute differences in effective power due to bow bulb variations, the authors have developed Table 6.
The authors apologize to Dr. Kracht for their "non-optimum" use of the word "optimum." Perhaps a better way to
describe our methodology is to simply define it as an attempt
to enhance the ship's resistance performance by systematically varying the bulb's parameters.
Based on our results, bow bulbs should be made as voluminous as possible. However, more research is needed in order
to define the limits associated with this "bigger is better"
philosophy. For example, recent research has shown that
very large bulbous bows can have a detrimental effect on
seakeeping [16]. Consequently, we encourage the design
community to develop methods which will help to evaluate
the seakeeping characteristics of various bulb forms.
The authors feel that the methodology presented in this
paper should, in theory at least, be valid for low-speed, fullform ships. However, care must be taken that the flow code
utilized for the resistance predictions is suitable for the hull
form in question. To date, XYZFS has been used primarily
for high-speed, fine-form ships of the destroyer/frigate vari-
Bulbous Bow Design
1 75
-
I ~
lit
~
~
:ls
~o
~>
t
;I
\1
1.75
1
I
l,',,i
7!
/\
I ':
I,
Ii , Ill'
i
.i l'
\ ! "
~'
Ii<,,'
'1
SHARMA'S
EXPERIMEN1
XYZFS
..f
r :d
-~.5
STERN
x= -1.0
MIDSHIP
x=0
BOW
x=l 0
,.5
2x
L O N G I T U D I N A L DISTANCE - Lpp
Comparisonof longitudinal w a v e
Fig. 31
cuts from XYZFS program and from experiments

Froude number 0.319
ety. Its applicability to other types of vessels is still being

investigated.
We strongly agree with Mr. Hough and others that the time
is ripe for naval architects to use a combined numerical and
experimental approach for making resistance predictions.
The stern wedge evaluation mentioned by Mr. Hough and
for
described by Cheng et al [18] at CADMO-86 is another example of this bilateral approach.

The absolute differences in the ship's total resistance coefficients between the XYZFS predictions and model tests were
discussed in the present paper. Several explanations for these
differences were advanced, including variations in hull geom-
1.75
-
SHARMA'S
EXPERIMENG
XYZFS
"x
:1~
F--.
-/
I L
I.~,
\" I' i l l
""
/7"
X\
~'. I
tl""
J
-17
-,.5
STERN
x= -1.0
MIDSHIP
x=0
BOW
x=l.0
,.5
2x
L O N G I T U D I N A L DISTANCE - Lpp
Fig. 32
Comparison of longitudinal wave cuts from XYZFS program and from experiments for
Froude number 0.255
Bulbous Bow Design
55
Table 6
FFG-7 EHP powering differences a
EHP stern
EHP sternq
wedge - wedge
|
and bulb
only
J
Bulb
No.
14
16
18
0
1
4
6
-69
-51
-9
-3
-156
-154
-105
-99
-134
-181
-176
-176
Speed, knots
20
22
-197
-206
-260
-231
-174
-174
-240
-300
24
26
28
-145
-73
-232
-312
-198
-83
-312
-406
-221
-59
-384
-443
a EHP values derived by expanding modeltestresults.
etry (skeg) and discrepancies in the running sinkage and trim.

Another factor is the questionable ability of numerical hydrodynamic codes to predict form drag and wave-breaking.
The previously mentioned numerical wave cuts underpredict
the observed wave amplitudes. Consequently, because of the
linearized free-surface boundary condition incorporated in
this method, the wave resistance will also be underpredicted.
These difficulties represent a limitation that researchers in
ship hydrodynamics must address in the future.
With regard to Mr. McCallum's comments, all of the bulbs
that were built were tank-tested in irregular head seas. However, only a few bulbs were investigated with the ship motions
program since SMP was unable to clearly identify any difference in seakeeping performance between the various bow
bulb configurations.
The experimentally derived EHP reduction at 20 knots for
Bulb 1 (Kracht design) is about 5 percent. By comparison,
the Kracht residual power reduction coefficient used in the
design of Bulb 1 was approximately 3 percent. This would
56
seem to indicate that the actual performance of Bulb i exceeded the Kracht design chart predictions. However, because the block coefficient was extrapolated beyond the range
of these design charts, the authors feel that it is inappropriate
to compare these two results.
"Tweaking" of a design is precisely what this methodology
is designed to do. A designer could make small changes in
bulb parameters, utilize XYZFS to determine the best of these
design alternatives, and then model test the top performers in
order to quantify their characteristics.
Neither the FFG-7 which was digitized for the XYZFS
program nor the hull which was tank tested was appended
with a keel-mounted sonar.
Based on the results presented in both this paper and by
Blume and Kracht [16], it would appear that the bulbous bow
design procedure for high-speed ships is evolving into a tradeoff between large-size bulbs with their favorable resistance
characteristics and small bulbs, which tend to have better
seakeeping qualities. In either case, there are several other
important areas, such as those listed by Mr. Slager, which
must be considered during the design of a bulbous bow. The
authors certainly recognize that minimum resistance may not
always be the most important objective for a particular application. Thus, as in nearly all other areas of hull design, the
naval architect has to make some tough decisions in order to
provide the best overall product to the customer.
Additional references
17 Cheng, B. H. and Dean, J. S., "The User's Manual for the XYZ
Free Surface Program," DTNSRDC Report 86/029, David W. Ta lor Naval Ship Research and Development Center, Bethesda, M~.,
June 1986.
18 Cheng, B. H. Borda, G. G., Dean, J. S., and Fisher, S. C., "A
Numerical/Experimental Technique for Wave Resistance Prediction" in Proceedings, International Conference on Computer Aided
Design, Manufacture and Operation in the Marine and Offshore
Industries, Washington, D.C., Sept. 1986.
Bulbous Bow Design

Hoyle J W.Bulbous Bow Design M.1986.TRANS PDF

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Hoyle J W.Bulbous Bow Design M.1986.TRANS PDF

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

SNAME Transactions, Vol. 94, 1986, pp.

A Bulbous Bow Design Methodologyfor High-Speed Ships

dramatic results by those Dutch scientists and naval architects

22, 1986, of THE SOCIETY OF NAVAL ARCHITECTS AND MARINE

Fig. 1 Bulbousbow types

Bow bulb theory

Kracht also divides bulbs into two types according to their

Bow bulb design

Bulbous Bow Design

only slightly with block coefficient. Thus, it was concluded

truding bulb in the longitudinal plane divided by the

CFS /[ 170(v 2L)0 333]

CVpR= Vm/ VwL

Bow bulb parameters

of the bulb parameter. These multimodal functions further

/'i "'..+ 53o

Representative Kracht design chart

the definitions of the bulb geometry parameters, the design

Bulb Length (fwd of FP)

Kracht bulb parameters

computer programs and their operation, consult references [6,

Bulb design matrix

Bulbous Bow Design

EFFECTIVE HORSEPOHER RFITIO

( EHP HITH BULB RND HEDGE

eventually chosen for model testing are presented as effective

ized representation, of the FFG-7 hull form appended with a

Panelized representation of the FFG-7 with stern wedge and

Bulbous Bow Design

sented by this data was then transferred from DTNSRDC to a

Model test program

In addition to calm-water resistance testing, head-sea tests

Bulbous Bow Design

FFG-7 WITH STERN WEDGE

amplitude versus ship

FFG-7 WITH STERN WEDGE

pitch amplitude versus ship

SHIP MOTIONS PROGRRM:

-Modal Period=9 Seconds

FFG-7 WITH STERN

FFG-? HITH STERN WEDGE

METHOD: EHPm EHPb

SHIP SPEED (KTS)

Effective horsepower ratios from model test results

Bulbous Bow Design

Model particulars of FFG-7 configurations

Model test sensors

Comparison of computer predictions with model

curves shown in Fig. 5 were derived from these curves. As

Bulbous Bow Design

Ship total resistance coefficient versus ship speed:

FFG-7 w i t h w e d g e and n o bulb

Note: Model Test Points

Ship total r e s i s t a n c e c o e f f i c i e n t v e r s u s ship speed:

FFG-7 with w e d g e and Bulb 1

Bulbous Bow Design

FFG-7 with w e d g e and Bulb 4

Shiptotalresistance coefficientversus ship speed: FFG-7 with wedge and Bulb 6

~'1XYZFS: WET TRRNSOM

& XYZFS: DRY TRRNSOM

Bulbous Bow Design

lowest EHP ratio over the speed range considered. These