You are on page 1of 56

SNAME Transactions, Vol. 99, 1991, pp.

29-84

Resistance and Powering Prediction for Transom Stern Hull


Forms During Early Stage Ship Design
Siu C. Fung (AM), Department of the Navy, NAVSEA, Washington, DC

PROGRAM: CRTS3D.WK1
SHIP: High-SDeed Displacement Hull

1E-4
30

25

- -

Cr

--

Cf

2O

10

~'~

_ ~
0
0.4

0.6

0.8

///

1.2

1.4

1.6

1.8

2.2

V/L'0.5

Regression analysis has been successfully used to analyze resistance


data for both random hull forms and methodical series. The success of
statistically based resistance prediction programs quite often relies on the
homogeneity of the database. The applicability of such programs,
therefore, is usually limited to certain types of hull forms. However, naval
architects have always experienced the situation where the hull form
parameters of their designs lay outside the data range of the available
resistance prediction programs. This paper attempts to address this
problem by performing regression analyses based on large databases
which are comprised of numerous ship types. Three large groups of data,
ranging in size from 426 to 763 test conditions per group, have been
examined to expand the range of applicability. The findings from this
study are quite promising. The resistance and powering prediction
program in this paper provides readers with a broad range of coverage on
speeds and hull form parameters during the early stages of ship design.

29

2.4

1.0 INTRODUCTION
Ever since human beings invented the first floating vessel,
minimum resistance with desirable stability and cargo capacity
has been a practical problem for ship designers. Due to the
complexity of fluid motion and the free surface interaction with
vessels operating on the air-water interface, a reliable resistance
prediction technique is always desirable to naval architects.
Resistance prediction in an absolute sense has been available only
since the second part of the 19th century. However, resistance
measurement based on model testing for hull form improvements
can be traced back to the 15th century. Qualitative resistance
prediction for full scale ships eventually materialized when
William Froude formulated his model-ship expansion hypothesis.
Since then, numerous model tests were conducted and expanded
to full scale according to Froudc's hypothesis. Early in the
twentieth century, Michcll, Havelock, and Wiglcy, ct. al.,
advanced the theoretical prediction of resistance in wavcs.
Despite the substantial research in theoretical hydrodynamics,
theoretical solutions in resistance prediction and hull form
optimization have eluded naval architects. Particularly in early
stage design, hull form development and powering prediction are
still largely based on inspection or statistical analysis on
historical data. This paper attempts to provide a better solution
on ship powering prediction through an criticalevaluation on past
performance on regression analysis.
NOMENCLATURE

DL

= Displacement-length ratio

DP

= Propeller diameter, ft

EHP(BH)

= Bare hull EHP

EHP(APP)

= EHP o f appendages

EHlrf

= Total EHP

1~

= ~

IB

= Buttock angle, deg

IE

= Half entrance angle, deg

IR

= H a l f run angle, deg

ITrc

= International Towing Tank Conference

= Form factor

@K

= Froude speed constant

Lee

= Longitudinal center of buoyancy from FP, ft

LcF

= Longitudinal center of flotation from FP, ft

LwL

= Length of design waterline, ft

LwtJBx. or L/B = Length-beam ratio


@M

= ~ O L

PI

= 3.1415926

= Bow area ratio (Ao/Ax)

RAW

= Mass density of fluid, Ib*sec2/ff

Bx

= Beam at station of maximum section area, fl

= Thrust, lb

B2o

= Beam at station 20, projected transom width, fl

TA

= Transom area ratio (A=/Ax)

Tx

= Draft, to DWL, at station of maximum sectional area, fl

Ao

= Bow area, sq-ft

A=

Section area at station 20, o r projected transom area, s q - f t

Ax

Section area at station of maximum area,

BA

sq-fi

Bx/'rx, or B / r = Beam-draft ratio

<t~

Number o f p r o p e l l e r s

= Constant

"IT

CA

= Ship-model correlatton factor

TW

= Transom width ratio (Bae/Bx)

T20

CD(APP)

= Appendage drag coefficient

Transom depth ratio ( T = / T x )

Depth at station 20, or projected transom depth, ft

Cp

= Prismatic coefficient

WCF

= W o r m curve factor

CR

= Residuary resistance coefficient

W.S.

= Wetted surface, ft2

CRn

= Residuary resistance coefficient component (n = 1, 2 .... 10)

= Speed, knots

CT

= P r o p e l l e r thrust-loading coefficient

VOL

= Volume, fP

CTL

CT0.o~

= Pseudo propeller loading coefficient

Cwp

= Waterplane area coefficient

CS

CWS

= Wetted surface coefficient (W.SJ(LwL * Disp)A0.5)

Cx

= Maximum section area coefficient

DDS

= Design data sheet

Disp

= DisplacemenL long tons

Telfer resistance coefficient

Towing Tanks

30

DTMB

= David Taylor Model Basin

EMB

= Experimental Model Basin

NNHL

= Newpo~ News Hydraulic Laboratory

SSET

Wetted surface coefficient OV.SYVOL( ~ )

Swedish State Experimental Tank

Resistance and Powering

2.0 HISTORICAL REVIEW OF REGRESSION ANALYSIS


IN RESISTANCE PREDICTION
The credit for introducing the statistical analysis approach to
resistance prediction is generally acknowledged to Doust (1959)
for his research in trawlers. However, this statement is valid only
if the statistical analysis in ship resistance prediction is strictly
based on Gauss's least-squares approach. Even though Gauss
developed the least-squares approach more than two hundred
years ago, his method could not be adopted by naval architects
due to the complexity of the mathematical modeling. Therefore,
data analysis by observation was commonly used which could be
considered as another form of statistical analysis. Six years after
the British Admiralty established the Torquay Tank according to
William Froude's suggestion in 1871, the first systematic model
tests were completed (Froude, 1877). Hereafter, numerous
random and systematic series of model tests were conducted by
various model basins.
The advantage of using systematic series of model test results
for resistance analysis is that during the normal process of
systematic hull form series development, some of the hull form
parameters are either specifically selected to have linear
relationships with the other parameters or to have a constant
values. This practice is normally used to minimize the numbers
of parameters which are varied so that the effects of variations in
parameters values on performance can be simplified in linear
terms or sorted out by observation. Resistance prediction charts
based on systematic model test results can be considered as the
first generation of statistical resistance analysis. The well-known
Taylor Standard Series residuary resistance charts (1911) are
believed to be the first ones that utilized the above-mentioned
technique. Since then, numerous resistance prediction charts
based on systematic hull form series have been generated, but
only a few of them have remained in the worldwide mainstay.
One of the major shortfalls of these hull form series is their fairly
limited range of applicability. Except for several major hull form
series, most of them were actually compiled with a handful of
models (fifteen or less). On the other hand, several major hull
form series e.g., Series 64 (Yeh, 1965), NPL HSRB (Marwood,
1969) deliberately left out the effects of certain secondary hull
form parameters (e.g., prismatic coefficient, transom area ratio...)
which further limited their resistance prediction applications.
One of the author's earliest works (Fung, 1987) highlighted
precautions when applying systematic hull form series for
resistance prediction.
On the other hand, random data are usually used for relative
comparison and assessment.
Quite often, in the past, the
usefulness of random model test data was subject to the
experience of individual naval architect.
This situation
dramatically changed with the advent of high-speed computers.
High-speed computers enhance not only the usefulness of random
model test data but also the use of methodical series. In the past
thirty-five years, many researchers have demonstrated their
abilities in matching experimental data by least-squares fit.
Unfortunately, similar success in using their equations as
resistance predictors are often subject to criticism or proved to be
unreliable. The failure in adopting regression equations as
resistance predictors is mainly due to misapplication of statistical
measures or the users failure to understand the boundary
conditions and full scale expansion techniques of the original
data.
This paper will scrutinize several major statistical
resistance prediction programs and their regression techniques.
These findings will then serve as a stepping stone for
development of regression analysis.

2.1 Morrison's Commercial Ship Research


In 1954, five years before Doust conducted his statistical
analysis in trawler resistance, Morrison, from the Experimental
Towing Tank, Stevens Institute of Technology, compiled
resistance data for forty-two cargo ships from four different
towing tanks (EMB, NNHL, DTMB, and SSET) and became the
first one to apply least-squares fit to model test data. Thirteen
hull form parameters were used as independent variables for
resistance prediction (see Table 1). They were chosen mostly
based on personal judgement rather than statistical correlation
analysis. Unfortunately, resistance data at only one speed (speedlength ratio of 0.7) was observed during this study; and no
further research was pursued. The scope of Morrison's work was
rather limited and was never made known to the public.
Therefore, (Morrison, 1954) was largely ignored by the later
researchers.

2.2 Doust's Trawlers and Cargo Ships Research


In 1959 Doust compiled resistance data for 130 sets of NPL
trawlers resistance data and successfully used multiple regression
for resistance prediction.
Despite Emerson (1959) rather
conservative comments on using Doust's diagrams for hull form
improvements, in 1962 Doust not only proved certain capabilities
in using regression analysis for trawler hull form optimization,
but also extended his research to cargo type ocean-going vessels
based on two hundred models (Doust, 1962, 1963, and 1964).
The basic hull form parameters for Doust's trawler regression
equations were length-beam ratio (Lpp/Bx), beam-draft ratio
(Bx/I'x), midship section coefficient (CM), prismatic coefficient
(C~), longitudinal center of buoyancy (FB), and half entrance
angle (IE). Additionally two more terms (namely half run angle
and buttock angle) were added to the cargo type ocean-going
vessels regression equations. Again, Doust selected his basic hull
form parameters based largely on design practice rather than
thorough statistical correlation analysis. Nevertheless, most of
Doust's postulated hull form parameters were found to be valid
for low speed cruiser stem ships and have had a significant
impact on the researchers that followed in his footsteps. Doust
postulated inter-relationship between prismatic coefficient and the
other hull form parameters on ship resistance in all his works.
Therefore, cross-coupling the prismatic coefficient with the other
independent variables was commonly used and found in all of
Doust's regression models.
Hereafter, cross-coupling was
promulgated in statistical resistance analyses. Unfortunately, only
a few researchers endeavored to verify the significance of cross coupling terms. The total number of independent variables,
including cross-coupling terms, for Doust's trawler and oceangoing vessels were thirty and forty-four, respectively (see Table
1). Regression coefficients for most of Doust's equations were
not available; instead of providing regression coefficients,
resistance components per hull form parameter(s) were given in
graphic forms. Based on those graphically presented resistance
components, Doust made good interpretations on the relationship
between hull form parameters and resistance. Commercial
application of Doust's resistance prediction equations are not
known to the author.
However, Doust's contribution and
influence in statistical resistance analysis is indisputable.

2.3 Todd's Surface Combatant Research


Seven years after Doust's endeavor in statistical analysis of
trawler resistance, Todd (1966) used a similar formulation for
surface combatant resistance prediction. In contrast to Doust's
database, which was composed of all cruiser stem ships, only 31

Resistance and Powering

31

Table 1 Rqp~sion Models


NO,

OCUST(1959)

NORRISON(1954) TO00 (19645)

DDCR (1984)

SABIT (1972)

V&RCIER(1973) JIN (1980)

AUGHEY(1983)

FUNG[PRESENT]

BT

BT

8T

BA

BT

C0"1P1'2

CP

6A

BA

B'~P

CLX

BT*CP

GA^2

BT~H

CO*TA

CV

BT

BT

BT"2

CP

BT*CP"2

BT

9T*C8

(2*IE)*TA

CV"CP

CP

CP

BT"2tCP

CPE

BT"2

8T*CS

9T'2

(2"IE)"O.5

CV*CP"2

CX

Ck'S

CP

CPVE

BT"2*CP

BT^2

(:8

(2*IE)"O.5*CD

CV*IE

DL

CX

CP"2

CPVR

BT^2*CP"2

CP

C8"2

( 2*IE)"O,5*TA

CV*IE'0.5

TA

DL

CX

CX

CP

CP"2

FB

(Z"IE)"O. 5*TA^2 CV*IE^I.5

Tr

[E

FB

FB

CP"2

CS*CP

FB*BT

Oil

CV*IE'3

1~

TA

]0

FB*CP

DL

CS"2

FB"CB

I~,P(Z*IE)"0.5

CV*IE~4

I/BT

TK"2

II

FB*CP"2

IE

OL*CP

CS"2*CP"2

F'B~"2

CV*IE"5

ZlCP

TT

12

FB'2

LB

DL~'CP"2

CX

FB"2

IItI*TA"2

CV*TA

I/CX

TW

13

FB^2*CP

LX/L

DL^2

CX

~4

TA

cV~rA~FB

I/DL

"RP2

IIM*C8

TA"2

14

FB~Z*CP'2

~H

OL~2*CP

CX*IR

CV*TA*F"B*CP

[JBT

15

IE

x15

OL^2"CP"2

CX'~'A

CV*TA"0.5

I/CP

16

IE*CP

x16

FB

CX*TT

CV*TA^2

I/CX

17

]E*CP"2

x17

FB*CP

CX'2

ClarA'4,5

lJOL

18

IE*I.B

X18

FB"CP"2

DL

CV*TA'5

1lIE

19

IE*LB^2

F'B~2

DLtCS

CV'0.25

20

IE^2

FB^2*CP

DL*TA

CV~O.5*CP

21

IE^2*CP

FB^2*CP^2

DL*Tr

CV^0.5~CP"0.5

22

IE'2*CP"2

IE

DL"2

CV"O.5"FB

23

IE'2*LB

IE*CP

0L^2"CS'2

CV"O.5*FB

24

IE*2*LB'2

IE*CP"2

FB

CY~O.5*FB~

25

I.B

IE'q.8

FB'2

CV"0.5"F8^3

26

LB*CP

IE*LB^2

FB*2*TT

CV"O. G*FB^5

27

LS*CP"2

IE^2

IB

CY"O.StF6~6

28

LB"2

IE"2*CP

IB*TA

CV"0,5*IE

29

LB^2*CP

IE"2*CP'2

1B*'11#

CV"O.50

30

LB~2*CP^2

IE"2*LB

IB^2

CV"O.75

31

IE^2*I.B^2

IB"2*TA

CV"2

32

LB

18~2"TA"2

CV"2*CP"2

33

LB*CP

IE

CW2*TA"O.5

34

LB*CP"2

IE*IB

CV^2.25

35

LB^2

IE*TA

CV^3

36

LB~2*CP

IE*IlV

CV^4

37

LB^2*CP"2

IE"2

CV'4.5

38

TA

IR

FB

39

TA"CP

IR*CP

FB*CP*TA

40

TA*CP"2

IR^2

FB^2*CP'-2*TA"2

41

TA^2

LB

FB'3

42

TA^2*CP

LB*BT'2

[E

43

TA^2"CP"2

LB'I)L

IE^0.5

44

nd

1.6.7i"

TAmP

45

"RPCP

LB^2*BT

TA"CF~

46

T~CP^2

LBA2*CP^2

TA-'CP^3

47

T1~'2

TA

TA%'W3

48

TI~2*Cp

TA"CP

TA'FB

49

"rlt'-Z*Cp^2

TA^2

TA*FB^3

5O

TT

TA*IE

51

TT"Z

TA*IE'! .5

52

TA"2

53

TM"2

TAA3

Re=arks: see ortgtnal references for notattons.

32

Resistance and Powering

of the 233 test conditions Todd used were exhibited without


transom immersion. As the transom configuration for Todd's
database was significantly different from Doust's, Todd decided
to introduce the transom area (TA) and width (TW) ratios to
describe the transom geometry. Todd also removed the midship
section coefficient from Doust's equation and replaced it with a
more significant hull form parameter "displacement-length ratio".
It is interesting to note that among the 233 sets of data used, 53
of them contained Taylor-type bulbous bows (some of them were
as large as 6% of the midship section area); but no effect on
resistance from the bulb, was accounted for.
In 1967, Todd proceeded with hull form optimization by using
his regression equations. The optimization process was not done
by mathematical derivation due to the complexity of the
regression model. A parametric study was instead undertaken to
derive the so-called "optimum values", and two models were then
constructed exhibiting the "optimum" hull form parameters.
Unfortunately, Todd was unable to achieve the same degree of
success as Doust (1963). Even though the "optimum" parameters
for the two constructed models were within the range of the
original database, the measured resistance values were found to
be substantially higher than those predicted by (Todd, 1966).
The prediction errors were sometimes as high as 30% at the
selected speed range, which was a great contradiction to the
relatively high playback values (average 90 to 95% at @K values
above 2.6 at the 95% confidence level). Todd's regression
analysis eventually was relinquished by the US Navy.
Nevertheless, his contribution and effort in data acquisition, had
had a significant impact on the later researchers.
The other important finding of Todd's research was the warning
with respect to the inclusion of excessive parameter(s) for
regression analysis. For example, displacement-length ratio (DL)
is directly related to the following parameters length-beam ratio
(Lwt/Bx), beam-draft ratio (Bx/q'x), prismatic coefficient (Cp), and
maximum section area coefficient (Cx) and it can be expressed
as:

DL = Cp * Cx / ((LwtJBx)2 * (Bx/l'x)) * 28570


Therefore, any regression model should include a maximum of
four out of those five parameters, because the value of the fifth
term has to be determined by the above equation. The forcing of
the fifth term into the regression model eventually cannot
contribute to the generality of the analysis. This finding is
proved to be true in the author's latest analysis in this paper.
Unfortunately, this important suggestion was not duly considered
by some of the later researchers Lin (1984), and Camporses
(1986).
2.4 Neal's Surface Combatant Research "

Two years after Todd's research failed to reach its anticipated


results as resistance predictor, Neal continued to pursue the
research on statistical resistance prediction of surface combatant
ships. Neal speculated that the shortfall of Todd (1966) was
mainly due to the rationale of Todd's mathematical formulation.
Neal clearly pointed out hull form parameters that were found to
be significant in a linear regression might not be used to
construct a second order polynomial regression model. The main
reasons were as follows: Firstly, the second order functional
relationship between resistance and the selected form parameters
was never presented by Todd. Secondly, the significance of
some of those high-order terms in Todd's regression might not
exist. Thirdly, such terms, if kept in the regression equation,
could bias the results and could be very pronounced at
interpolated values of hull form parameters. Fourthly, terms

found insignificant in the linear regression model could become


significant in a quadratic model involving squared terms and
cross-coupled terms.
Based on the difficulties learned from the past, Neal disputed
the way that Doust and Todd constructed their regression models.
Therefore, Neal decided to use multiple step-wise regression to
reanalyze Todd's data. The advantage of multiple step-wise
regression is it allows the development of a regression equation
involving only the statistically significant terms. However, the
predicted accuracy and continuity of using a multiple step-wise
regression technique, particularly for resistance predictions for
more than one speed, may be relied on only if an equal number
of data points at the various speeds could be obtained. This
might be one of the major reasons that led Neal to "generate or
expand" Todd's database, because more than 20 percent of
Todd's database was not tested throughout the entire speed range
(V/LwL5 = 0.6 -1.8). Neal's data expansion was obtained by the
adjustment of worm curve factors on the residuary resistance
from an equivalent Taylor Standard Series hull. The worm curve
factor values that were used to adjust the missing data ranged
from 0.98 to 0.95 for speed-length ratios of 1.2 and above, while
a constant value of 1.0 was applied for the lower speeds. These
adjustments were quite optimistic in the low speed range and
pessimistic in the high speed range.
Several regression models were generated by Neal, the
following is a brief discussion of his final findings. Neal's first
regression model was a speed-dependent model; eight hull form
parameters plus a fourth degree polynomial speed-dependent term
were used as independent variables. It is interesting to note that
the speed-dependent term was obtained by fitting a separate curve
to the speed data through an orthogonal polynomial curve-fitting
routine. Meanwhile, the displacement-length ratio was not
included in the regression equation, but was substituted by
length-beam ratio, beam-draft ratio, prismatic coefficient, and
maximum section area coefficient. Neal pointed out that this
speed-dependent model could be used only if 5-10 percent error
was acceptable to the user. The other deficiency of this
regression model was that it failed to duplicate the humps and
hollows of the resistance curve, particularly for speed-length
ratios of 0.9 to 1.2. Neal's other regression models were speedindependent models, in which fourteen hull form parameters were
used. The selection of hull form parameters was strictly
dependent on multiple step-wise regression. Therefore, the
number of terms included in the final equations, in general, was
varied with speed. The predictive equations were available for
speed-length ratios of 1.4 to 1.8 with a 0.1 increment. The
overall correlation coefficient values ranged from 0.86 to 0.90,
and were slightly lower than Todd's (1966). However, the
number of terms used by Neal were significantly reduced and he
was able to achieve a better experimental verification when
compared with Todd's study. Neal's equations were later
superseded by Lin (1984); but his two reports, by far, provided
the best analogy and physical explanation in ship hull resistance
regression analysis.
2.5 Sabit's Methodical Hull Form Series Research

From 1971 to 1976, Sabit successfully completed regression


analyses on resistance and propulsive coefficient predictions for
the B.R.S.A. Series, Series 60, and the SSPA Cargo Liner Series.
Multiple, rather than multiple step-wise regression apparently was
used for these studies. Sabit also inherited Doust's postulation
with respect to the essentiality of cross-coupling terms. He
believed that the cross-coupling terms took into account the
interaction between the different hull form parameters.
Unfortunately, no correlation analyses to support this claim were

T w o reports were generated by Neal, however, they are still


subject to higher classlflcatton and are not avatlable to the pubhc

Resistance and Powering

33

presented in any of Sabit's studies. The author experiences very


good playback values for the above mentioned hull form series
by using Sabit's equations. It is interesting to note that though
some of the hull form series in Sabit's studies were tested to
fairly high speed-length ratios (i.e., 1.2 for Series 60). Sabit's
equations were applicable only to the lower speed-range (from
0.5 to 0.9). The author used Sabit's Series 60 resistance
prediction equations to analyze a set of auxiliary ship resistance
data, which was compiled with a significant amount of data from
the Series 60 and SSPA Series. Unfortunately, the equations
failed to yield reliable playback results in the high speed range,
particularly for cruiser stem ships, and the overall predicted
values were consistently lower than that from the model test data.
When comparing the residuary resistance curves of cruiser stem
ships and transom stem ships, a more distinctive hump was
generally found in the cruiser stem ships particularly in the
speed-length ratios of 0.9 to 1.2. The transom effect on "humps"
is clearly shown in Figure 1, where the "humps" decrease as
transom area ratio increases. The contribution of higher residuary
resistance of cruiser stem ship in this speed regime is apparently
related to its excessive running trim and sinkage, which is mainly
caused by the lack of dynamic lift from its afterhody. Therefore,
the author suspects that additional hull form parameters, such as
half-run angle (IR) and buttock angle 0B), may be needed for
high-speed cruiser stem ship resistance predictions.

2.6 Mercier and Savitsky's Transom Craft Pre-Planing


Research
The main objective of Mercier (1973) was to extend Savitsky's
(1964) resistance prediction for prismatic planing hulls to the
lower speed regimes (semi-planing). The database of this study
was comprised of six high-speed round bilge series plus a hardchine planing hull series (Series 62). Four basic hull form
parameters were selected as independent variables for resistance
prediction (see Table 1). Again, the selection of these four hull
form parameters was based on practical experience rather than
statistical correlation analysis. This type of selection process is
quite often subject to personal judgment and may be biased. For
example, the selection of static beam-loading coefficient (C,) was
rather confusing: Not only because the selection of this parameter
was based on planing performance (particularly rough-ware0 but
also this term and the other selected term, Froude Length
Constant (@M) were both directly related to ship displacement.
The author suspected that these two terms, as noted (C., and
@M), could be highly correlated with each other. The inclusion
of these two terms could predominantly explain the variance of
each other, rather than the variance of the dependent variable,
"resistance". It is interesting to note from the conclusion of
Mercier (1973) that (C,) has little influence on resistance and
may show either an increase or decrease of resistance for increase
of (CO, depending on values of other form parameters. This
minor inadequacy was apparently realized by later researchers
(Jin, 1980). Nevertheless, Mercier's study is still the first and the
most important study in pre-planing resistance prediction.

2.7 Jin's Round Bilge Displacement Hulls Research


Eight yea~s after Mercier's study, Jin further pursued the
statistical analysis for high-speed, round bilge displacement hulls.
The research team led by Jin apparently realized the disadvantage
of using (Ca) as an independent variable. As a result, (CO was
replaced by the prismatic coefficient (Cq,). Besides retaining the
rest of Mercier's hull form parameters, Jin and his team
introduced the longitudinal center of buoyancy (FB) in their
regression equations.
The adaptation of FB was quite

34

contradictory to Mercier's study, which suggested that for a range


of FB between 2% to 7% aft of midships, the resistance is nearly
constant, with the exception of some short, full forms. The other
significant difference between Mercier's and Jin's research was
with respect to their databases. Jin's database was primarily
established based on Mercier's study, but with the substitution of
a large amount of random model test data on Series 62, Series
64, and SSPA HSRB Series. The effect of FB on resistance from
Jin's database, therefore, might be, more pronounced than
Mercier's database.
Jin's regression equations embraced
significant numbers of cross-coupling terms, the maximum
number of cross-coupling terms sometimes were as high as four.
In the same manner as for power index, this kind of practice Was
not seen by the other researchers. The total dependence on
multiple step-wise regression, plus the incorporation of high-order
and cross-coupling terms, might be the key factors in Jin's
equations that led to relatively high playback values, but yielded
inconsistent interpolation values at certain speed ranges in ad hoc
cases. This deficiency was later rectified by Jin's reanalysis of
the data with the inclusion of Froude Number (FN) as an
independent variable in exponential form. Both Mercier's and
Jin's research not only provided useful hull form design
information but also served as workable resistance prediction
tools.

2.8 MARIN Statistical Prediction of Wave-Making Analytical


Approach
From 1971 onward, numerous analytical approaches for ship
resistance and performance predictions were created by
Oorlmerssen (1971), Holtrop and Mennen (1978, 1982, and
1984). Instead of using the traditional least-squares fit for
performance predictions, the researchers from MARIN employed
Havelock's wave-making formula as their theoretical basis. In
order to simplify the required hull form inputs for performance
predictions, Havelock's wave-making formula was further
simplified for regression analysis. Manen and Van Oossanen
(1988) pointed out that the theoretical basis for Havelock's wavemaking theory was rather poor. However, Mannen (1988) also
stated that in 95 percent of the cases, the accuracy of Holtrop's
study was satisfactory for preliminary design work.
Unfortunately, the above statement was quite ambiguous because
the precise correlation values of Holtrop's studies were not given.
There was an extensive evaluation of Holtmp's formulation
conducted by Chatterton (1984). The findings from this study
were rather contradictory to the statement from Manen (1988).
Generally speaking, Chatterton considered Holtrop's regression
analysis to be performed well for cruiser stern ships, particularly
at the high end of their operating profiles, where wave-making
resistance dominates. However, the attempt to extend the
analysis for transom stem vessels was not so successful.
Holtrop's regression, for most tested cases, was likely to underpredict, especially at the lower speeds.
Readers who try to
compare Holtrop's predictions with their model test results should
be cautioned against employing full-scale values that are not
based on the same expansion process, since Holtrop's database
presumably was expanded to full-scale, according to the 1978
ITI'C model-ship correlation line. That means a non-zero form
factor (k) value was incorporated in the expansion process.
Therefore, no attempt should be made to use Holtmp's
predictions to compare with the fullscale values: which were not
based on the same expansion process.

Resistance and Powering

2.9 Tagano's and Lin's Statistical Prediction of Ship Wave


Resistance

In 1974, Tagano successfully expanded the field in statistical


analysis of ship wave resistance. Through his research, Tagano
discovered that wave resistance obtained by the thin-ship wavemaking theory was not only sensitive to the variation of sectional
area curve, but was also four to five times greater than the model
test results. He also realized that several empirical wave-making
resistance charts could give fairly accurate predictions, as long as
the parent sectional area curves were adopted for the target ships.
Based on these investigations, Tagano successfully incorporated
several primary hull form parameters and sectional area curves
into his statistical analysis of ship wave resistance prediction.
Despite the fact that Tagano neglected the influence from the
frame line shape (transverse section shape) on wave making, he
was able to achieve, from the results he published, not only
remarkable accuracy in prediction correlation but also hull form
improvement.
A similar attempt in statistical analysis of ship wave-making
resistance prediction was also made by Lin (1987). Lin's
program (NAUXCR) required 11 hull form paranreters and 23
stations from the sectional area curve as inputs. In addition to
the hull form parameters suggested by Tagano (1974), Lin
introduced several hull parameters which he believed to have
some impact on the wave resistance, e.g., longitudinal center of
buoyancy (FB), water plane area coefficient (Cwp), and
longitudinal center of flotation (FF) etc. Lin (1987) indicated
that the multiple correlation coefficient R 2 by this statistical
prediction of wave-making approach was one to four percent
higher than by the straightforward (least-squares) approach. The
program NAUXCR was designed primarily for resistance
prediction for cruiser stem ships. However, it also provided
reasonably accurate predictions for ships with small to moderate
transoms. Lower prediction accuracy from NAUXCR was
experienced by the author, particularly in the high speed range
for ships with broad transoms. This deficiency might be caused
by the NAUXCR database (largely composed of cruiser stem
ships) and the wave-making theory used.

Transom Effect on
Residuary Resistance
Cr-E-3

3.5

/
2.5

/.~jJ

1.5
1
0.5

0.65

0.7 0.75 0.8 0.85

I - - TA-O.O00

Ship:

0.9

0.95

and "DDCR"

Two statistical prediction programs for surface combatant


resistance were evolved in 1983, Lin's (DDCR) and Aughey's
Analytical Prediction of Ship Hull Resistance (APSR). The latter
one inherited data primarily from Todd except for ships with zero
transom immersion. The program DDCR (Lin, 1984), developed
by DTRC, also incorporated most of Todd's database plus some
non-destroyer type transom stern ships.
The statistical
approaches for these two programs were primarily based on
multiple step-wise regression. The regression models of these
two programs, however, were significantly different from each
other. Fourteen basic hull fonn parameters plus a constant and
38 cross-coupling terms were used to formulate the regression
equations for DDCR. On the contrary, only seven basic hull
form parameters were considered by Aughey (1983); moreover,
not a single cross-coupling tenn was adopted in this regression
model. Both progranls perfomled detailed correlation analyses
for all the dependent and independent variables. It is interesting
to note that even though correlation analyses for all independent
variables were perfonned by Lin (1984), all independent variables
were included in the regression model, the final selection of the
significant terms for a specific speed-range, apparently relied on
multiple step-wise regression. On the other hand, DDCR did not
concur with Todd's suggestion with respect to the inclusion of
only four out of the following hull fom~ parameters (DL, LwtJB x,

Resistance and

1.05

1.1

1.15

1.2

V/LWL'0.5
TA-0.028 i

- - TA-O.011

Crusier
Stern

2.10 "APSR"

j /
j /

Small
Transom

M~i~
Transom

TA:

0.Oll

0.028

71V:

0.243

0.3!10

DL :

116.0

125.0

124.8

Cp :

0.604

0.626

0.577

Bx/Tx:

2.500

2.793

3.720

Figure 1 Transom Stern Effect on Residuary Resistance

Powering

35

Bx/Tx, Cp, and Cx). Instead, all five of these parameters were
included in the froal regression model of the DDCR. Despite the
significant difference between these two programs, both were
reportedly able to achieve comparable correlation with model test
results.
3.0 GENERAL REVIEW OF REGRESSION ANALYSIS
TECHNIQUE
Numerous statistical resistance and performance prediction
approaches have been investigated over the past 35 years. Only
those predictions with significant impact on this study were
reviewed in the previous section. A general review of their
general statistical approaches is provided as follow:
(1) The selections of primary independent variables were quite
often subject to the judgment of the specific researchers or even
other researchers' suggestions. A selection process based on
thorough correlation analysis was seldom performed.
(2) The prevalence of cross-coupling terms in regression
analysis was basically used to explain the inter-relationship
between variables, or used as additional terms in a regression
model to minimize the residual error. Except for Lin (1984), and
Aughey (1983), most researchers did not perform significant tests
on their cross-coupling terms.
(3) High-order polynomial terms were quite often applied to the
primary (linear) independent variables. Correlation analyses for
these high-order terms with the dependent variable were often
omitted. Most researchers apparently did not realize that
insignificant linear regression terms could become significant in
a quadratic model. Those high-order terms often produce high
playback values. However, instability exists and bias occurs
when they have to serve as predictors.
(4) Large numbers of independent variables were frequently
used to formulate a regression model. Except for Mercier (1973)
and Aughey (1983), residual analysis versus number of terms in
a regression model was not conducted by roost researchers. It is
interesting to note that even though the databases of Mercier
(1973) and Aughey (1983) were significantly different, the
improvement of residual error started to stagnate after l0 to 15
terms.
(5) It has been realized that the existence of humps and hollows
made it difficult to model the speed-power curve using simple
mathematical expression.
Multiple or multiple step-wise
regression analyses of resistance over a discrete speed regimes,
therefore, was preferable.
With the exception of Neal,
Oortmerssen, and Holtrop, their regression models were primarily
speed-dependent. The ability to duplicate the true humps and
hollows from either Neal's high-order polynomial curve-fitting
routine or Holtrop's statistically based wave-roaking analyses is
still rather inconclusive. The only exception was Jin's reanalysis
on his first study (1980). Jin's second study was applicable to
high-speed, round bilge hulls for a speed range of Froude
Number values from 0.3 to 1.0. The success of Jin's second
study could be attributed to the pronounced wave-making and
rather flat resistance curve in the high-speed regime.
(6) The selection of independent and dependent variables in a
ship hull resistance regression analysis model should be
established in a "cause and effect" relationship. If the individual
cause (e.g., hull form parameters) could be identified, then the
next step is to compile a set of independent variables which is
free from error. This statement could be extended to mean
"relatively free from error" as compared to the error in the
dependent data which were the subject of the study (Day, 1955).
However, if both the dependent and independent variables were
measured, or the independent variables were related to some form
of predictions, there would definitely be an error in determining

36

the independent variables. The validity of the regression model


might be unaffected, as long as the errors in the independent
variables wer~ insignificant when compared with the measured
dependent data.
Unfortunately, the error yielded by the
simplified potential theory which was adopted by those
statistically based wave-roaking resistance models was known to
be significantly larger than that from roeasurement.
(7) The advantage of a speed-dependent regression model is the
assurance of the smoothness of the predicted resistance curve.
The disadvantage, on the other hand, is the sacrifice of the
correlation value. Not only does this type of model fall into the
above mentioned category - independent variables relied on
prediction, but the variable "speed" was by far the roost important
parameter when compared with the hull form parameters. Any
small deviation from the original shape of the resistance curve by
the regression model might yield a measurable reduction in
correlation.
(8) Quite a few ship hull resistance regression models were
derived based on statistical rather than physical measure. Only
a few researchers have provided physical explanations in their
correlation analyses. Statistical models that relied purely on
multiple step-wise regression were primarily striving for
minimum estimated residual error. Even though high correlation
coefficients could be achieved, this was simply a measure of how
well the two sets of data (e.g., resistance and hull form parameter
data sets) moved jointly or correlated statistically.
The
independent variables from such kinds of regression model quite
often differ from one speed to another. The variation was mainly
caused by the significance and the variation in number of data at
different speeds. Hull form optiroization froro a program strictly
based on statistical measurement usually was inconsistent and
unreliable.
(9) The necessity of having a ship hull resistance regression
model based on physical measurement was clearly stated in the
previous paragraph. Individual independent.variables within a
given regression model should be able to yield a physical
explanation to the dependent variable. Cross-coupling terms were
postulated to be important by Doust. However, numerous crosscoupling terms can be created by using just a small number of
basic terms.
The more cross-coupling terms involved in a
regression model, the less physical explanation for the dependent
variable could be yield, because hull form parameters are
mutually correlated. Quite often, the true physical interpretation
of the dependent variable from the individual independent
variable is distorted by the cross-coupling terms or by another
insignificant independent terms in the regression model. There
should be little doubt with respect to the contribution from some
significant cross-coupling terms. Therefore, unless such terms
can be proved to have real physical significance, they should not
be considered in the regression model, particularly when the
major parameters and their approximate effects have already been
determined.
(10) Little agreement can be found on what form of dependent
variable should be used for ship hull resistance regression
analysis.
Total resistance coefficient, such as the Teller
Resistance Coefficient (Cq~) was commonly used by the early
researchers. Unfortunately, this term was not really a nondimensional unit and has been largely ignored in the later studies.
Generally speaking, total resistance should be used as the
dependent variable rather than its components. This stateroent is
especially true if the two-dimensional model-ship expansion
technique is still valid. In 1978, three-dimensional roodel-ship
expansion technique was endorsed by the ITI'C. Significant
improvement in model-ship correlation has been achieved,
particularly for full form and closed stem ships; similar
correlations for high-speed transom stem ships are not known to

Resistance and Powering

this author. Other than the fullness of the hull form, ship length
is another factor which has significant impact on the model-ship
correlation coefficient (CA) (Hagen, 1983). The uncertainties on
form factor (k) and CA render a regression model that used total
resistance as dependent variable to rely on a more complex
mathematical model. Recently, non-dimensional residuary or
wave making coefficient (CR, Cw) has been widely accepted in
statistically based resistance analysis. The only disadvantage of
using CR or Cw is its dependence on wetted surface which is a
function of speed. CR without the form factor correction can be
used as the dependent variable if the two-dimensional, model-ship
expansion technique is still acknowledged; this approach should
not be used for high-speed ships (planing or the high end of
semi-planing) or ships with excessive fullness. Improper
selection of dependent variables can affect the prediction
accuracy of a regression model'.
" For example (Fung, 1988) endeavored to find a systematic means for
"worm curve factor" (the ratio of residuary resistance per unit
displacement between a ship and its equivalent Taylor Standard Series
hull) prediction. However, the generation of the Taylor Standard Series
residuary resistance charts heavily relied on human interpretation (e.g.,
extensive cross faring, assumption on tank temperature ... etc).
Therefore, "worm curve factor" cannot be considered as purely derived
from physics; using "worm curve factor" as a dependent variable in this
regard may cause the regression model to fail to develop a "cause and
effect" relationship. Caution in using worm curve factor as a dependent
variables can be found in (Aughey, 1988).

4.0 RESISTANCE AND POWERING PREDICTIONS


DURING EARLY STAGES OF SHIP DESIGN
Regression analysis has been successfully used to analyze
resistance and powering data for both random and methodical
model test data, subject to the cautions and comments of the
previous sections. The success of statistically based powering
prediction programs quite often relies on the homogeneity of the
database. Unfortunately, the term "homogeneity" was sometimes
interpreted by ship type (mission) rather than by hull form
geometry (e.g., destroyers and auxiliaries rather than transom
stem and cruiser stem.., etc). The applicability of the programs
based on ship type is usually rather limited. Naval architects
quite often find that their designed hull form parameters lie
outside the boundary conditions of the available program. The
objectives of this paper, therefore, are as follow:
(1) To generate a resistance and powering prediction program
which will provide a broad range of coverage on both speed and
hull form parameters for application in the early stages of ship
design.
(2) To provide readers with direct access to hull form
parameters optimization for a specific speed ranges.

4.1 Development of the Bare Hull Residuary Resistance


Regression Model
Obviously, the first objective can be achieved only by
performing regression analyses on large sets of data. In the
course of developing this model, three overlapping sets of data
were considered: the initial set considered of 426 test conditions,
this was augmented with an additional 337 conditions in an
attempt to expand the coverage of displacement-length ratio (DL)
and include cruiser stem application. The final set of data
excluded the cruiser stem and reducing the total number of test
conditions to 529.
Most of the previously mentioned, statistically based resistance
prediction programs have little or no direct access to hull form
optimization, particularly for those speed-dependent programs

derived from multiple step-wise regression. Quite often, the


relative importance of hull form parameters from such programs,
as determined from the significance tests, does not conform to the
expected results. For example, in one of Neal's regression
models, Cx and Bx/l'x were indicated to be more important than
the variables such as DL and Cp. Neal clearly pointed out that
the "mixed order" of importance apparently was due to the fact
that the effect of the chosen parameters on resistance was
variable over the range of speeds. This changing relational trend
between hull form parameters and resistance at different speeds
could introduce sufficient scatter in the data to cause a lack of
correlation between the hull form parameter and resistance. If
the second objective of this paper is to be accomplished, a speeddependent regressibn model will not be a desirable approach
unless a reliable, statistical prediction of wave-making resistance
is being used. However, the previous section has already
indicated that a speed-dependent statistical prediction of wavemaking approach may be more suitable for the semi-planing than
for the displacement-speed regime, examination of the semiplaning regime is beyond the scope of this paper. In order to
achieve hull form optimization for a given speed range,
regression analyses of bare hull residuary resistance in this paper
will be performed at discrete speed regimes.
4.1.1 General

Again, it is important to understand that the main objective of


this paper is to support early stages of ship design. In this
regard, the approach taken was to support NAVSEA ship design
synthesis programs; this limited the number and type of hull form
parameter which could be considered. Currently, PREHULL is
the only hull form design subroutine used by NAVSEA ship
design synthesis programs; which is a derivative of the Ship Hull
Form Generator (HULGEN). The required inputs for PREHULL
or HULGEN are the principal dimensions plus some secondary
hull form parameters such as Cp, C x, Cwp, FB, FF, BA, TA, TW,
and TT. From the above inputs, the parameters DL, ~ x ,
Bx/l'x, IE, IB, and IR can be either computed or measured from
the generated body plan. Unfortunately, the limitations of
HULGEN in the bow and stem regions are clearly stated in
(Fung, 1988). The measured half run angles and buttock angles
from HULGEN are not very precise. Furthermore, more than
half of the test cases examined in this paper do not record any
information on Cwp, IB, and IR. These three sets of hull form
parameters, therefore, are not included in any of the regression
models in this paper.
Statistical prediction of wave-making resistance supposedly
could offer the best hull form optimization for naval architects
during early stages of ship design. However, the author has
decided to bypass such a technique because of its complexity in
mathematical modelling, as well as its uncertainties in the "cause
and effect" relationship. The previous section indicated that
several relatively simple multiple step-wise regression resistance
programs have been proven to achieve certain degrees of success
in resistance predictions. Among those statistically based
regression programs noted before, Aughey (1983) was by far the
simplest one which considered only the effect of resistance from
the major hull form parameters. The resistance effect from the
so-called "interaction of hull form parameters" was largely
ignored, therefore, no cross-coupling terms were used in
(Aughey, 1983). The total bare hull residuary resistance from
(Aughey, 1983) was defined as the summation of the resistance
components from each of the hull form parameters being
considered. The resistance component from the major hull form
parameters P (DL,Cv, Cx, and Bx/Tx) was represented in the form
as follow:

Resistance and Powering

37

CTL = al*P + a2/P + aO

(1)

where,
a0, al, and a2: regression coefficient
P: hull form parameter
With respect to the secondary hull form parameters (TA, TW,
and BA), a simple linear form (CTL = al*P + a0) was used.
Good agreement was achieved in (Aughey, 1983) when compared
with a much more complicated regression model (Lin, 1984).
The formulation from (Aughey, 1983) also provides direct
guidance on parameter values for hull form optimization.
Obviously, the validity of the derived optimum hull form
parameter from any regression model relies heavily on the
reliability of the data representation by the postulated equation.
The other advantage of equation (1) is that change of slope of its
ordinate decreases as its abscissa increases. This could be
interpreted as relatively safe for interpolation when compared
with regression models composed mainly of high-order or crosscoupled terms. The only drawback of equation (1) is its invalid
application for any independent variable which possesses a "zero"
value. Nevertheless, the suggested regression model from
(Aughey, 1983) does offer a good starting point for this paper.

4.1.2 Correlation Analysis


The achievement of accurate predictions based on the results of
data regression is highly dependent on careful selection of the
dependent and independent variables. In this investigation
displacement transom huh is the primary interest. In this respect,
full scale resistance data, e.g., CTL or CR, based on twodimensional model-ship expansion techniques, should be
considered as a valid dependent variable. As CTL is not a lady
non-dimensional coefficient, only the non-dimensional CR will
be investigated in this paper. With respect to the independent
variables discussed in this paper, non-dimensional hull form
parameters, hereafter, are the ones of interest.
The usual initial step in assessing the significance of hull form
parameters on resistance is to perform correlation analysis. The
resulting correlation coefficient is merely a statistical means of
revealing the basic trends and the amount of statistical
dependence between two variables. The magnitude of a
correlation coefficient varies from +1.0 to -1.0. Two variables
are directly or inversely proportional when the correlation
coefficient is equal to +1.0 or -1.0, respectively. A near-zero
value of correlation coefficient usually indicates that there is little
interdependence between the two variables.

4.1.3 Significance of Individual Hull Form Parameters on Bare


Hull Residuary Resistance
Most of the hull form parameters are known to be mutually
correlated; thus it is impossible to vary one parameter
considerably without changing some other parameter(s). The
above statement is particularly true for those regression models
that are composed of large amounts of data from the methodical
model test series. A sample correlation coefficient between an
independent and dependent variable has little or no physical
meaning, if that particular independent variable is linear in
relation to some other independent variable, or if its range of
dispersion is very small. Therefore, correlation analysis between
independent variables (hull form parameters) is always the first
step to take during the development of a regression model. The
results of these correlation analyses between independent
variables (hull form parameters), and between independent
variables and dependent variables (CR) are presented in Tables

38

2A, 3A and 3B, respectively.


For the purpose of this investigation, it was assumed that the
absolute value of a sample correlation coefficient of two hull
form parameters should be greater than or equal to 0.5 before it
could be considered as significantly correlated. A better
understanding of correlation coefficients could be achieved by
reviewing the descriptive statistics and the hull form parameter
scatter diagrams (see Table 2B and Figures 2A to 210. Based on
correlation coefficients listed in Table 2A, the most highly
correlated hull form parameters are TA-FB, TA-TT, and DLLwt/Bx, respectively. The only hull form parameters that appear
to have no correlation with other hull form parameters are BA
and Cx. The physical meaning of these correlation coefficients
can be illustrated by the following examples: (1) The high
negative correlation value of DL-t,wt]B x indicates that the lengthbeam ratio increases as the displacement-length ratio decreases.
(2) The high positive values of TA-TT, TA-TW, TA-FB, and
TW-FB indicate the following trend: as the transom area ratio
increases, the transom depth and width ratios also increase, and
the FB will move aft; or the location of FB is largely a function
of the transom geometry. It is very important for users to
understand the general trends and the boundary conditions of the
database on which the regression program is based. If the user's
inputs deviated significantly from either the general trends or lie
outside the range of the standard deviation (S.D.) from the mean
value, then the regression program may not yield any accurate
predictions. For example, the powering prediction program
generaled by this paper may not yield reliable predictions for
ships with small transom areas and large transom depth ratios.
Tables 3A and 3B list all the correlation coefficients between
independent and dependent variables at discrete speed-length
ratios. The correlation analysis was first done for the twelve
basic hull form parameters plus their reciprocal or quadratic
terms. This analysis was then extended to the cross-coupling
terms. Unfortunately, though cross-coupling terms were limited
to the order of second degree, 144 cross-coupling terms could
still be formulated. In order to minimize the dependency of
cross-coupling terms in lifts study, the average significance of
each of the hull form parameters was examined at three different
speed regimes; namely low-speed, medium-speed, and highspeed, with the corresponding speed-length ratios of 0.5 to 1.0,
1.1 to 1.6, and 1.7 to 2.3, respectively. The average (arithmetic
mean) correlation coefficients and their rankings are listed in
Table 4. The significance of the hull form parameters varies
from speed to speed and their overall contributions to bare hull
residuary resistance are ranked accordingly as follow: DL, IE,
Lwt/Bx, TA, FB, BA, TT, TW, Bx/Tx, Cx, C~ and CWS.
However, the statistical correlation analyses overstate the
significance of FB and BA. Firstly, the FB dispersion range in
the high-speed regime is very limited for the data examined.
Secondly, resistance data is virtually unavailable for ships with
bulbous bows at speed-length ratios of 1.8 and above. The
correlation values for BA and FB, therefore, represent little or no
physical meaning at all. A similar situation exists for the overall
rankings of Bx/Tx, Cx, and Cp due to their insignificant "average"
correlation values. The lower ranking of C~ when compared with
Bx/Tx and Cx is primarily due to its loss of significance in the
high-speed regime. The contribution of C~ to resistance in the
low and medium-speed regimes is more distinctive than the other
two parameters, as shown in Tables 3A and 3B. Hereafter, the
construction of cross-coupling terms will be formulated with
those hull form parameters, which are highly correlated with DL,
IE, LwL/Bx, TA ,TI', TW, and Bx/Tx.
The correlation
coefficients for the cross-coupling terms are also listed in Tables
3A and 3B. Other than Doust's postulation, there was little in
the way of guidelines of how to formulate cross-coupling terms

Resistance and Powering

Table 2A Stattsttca] Hull Form Parameters & Correlation Coefficients

DL
LWL/Bx Bx/Tx
Cp
Cx
1E
TA
TW
TT
FB
BA
..............................................................................................................................
DL

CWS

Cwp

1,000

L~/Bx

-0.755

1,000

Bx/Tx

0.158

-0.538

1,000

Cp

-0.120

0.134

0.067

1.000

[ Cx

0.380

-0.331

0.130

-0.103

1.000

18

0.591

-0.599

0.408

0.328

0.124

TA

-0.158

0.361

-0.156

0.390

-0.284

-0.066

1.000

TW

0.049

0.039

-0.031

0.383

-0.158

0.250

0.673

1.000

'IT

-0.085

0.250

-0.143

0.435

-0.017

0.043

0.798

0.607

1.000

FB

-0.133

0.294

-0.081

0.207

-0.242

-0.181

0.817

0,510

0.590

BA

0.035

-0.055

-0.036

-0.215

0.332

-0,248

-0.212

-0.176

-0.153

-0.262

1.000

Ct4S

0.152

-0.314

0.527

0.060

-0.208

0.280

0.217

0.339

-0,018

0.189

-0.015

l.O00

Cwp
0.096 -0.041
0.085
0.650 -0.062
0.417
0.233
0.645
0.194
0.069 -0.174
..............................................................................................................................

0.306

1.000

1.000

1.000

Table 2B Descrtpttve Statistics

TOTAL OBSERVATIONS:
529
.................................................................................

DL
Ll~./Bx
8x/Tx
Cp
.................................................................................
H OF CASES

CX

529

529

529

529

529

HINIHUH

14,997

3.396

2,000

0.531

0.555

HAXIHUH

300.525

10.265

5.232

0.716

0.994

RANGE

285.528

14,869

3.233

0.185

0.438

HEAN

58.143

9.(~52

3.329

0.619

0.801

STANDARD OEV

29.972

1.617

0.490

0.031

0.077

1.303

0.070

0.021

0.001

0.003

STD, ERROR

IE

TA

TT

BA

.................................................................................
529

529

529

524

529

HINIH1JH

N OF CASES

2.000

O.O~X)

0.000

0.000

0.000

HAXIRLg4

31.730

0.405

1.000

0.440

0.149

RANGE

29.730

0.405

1.000

0.440

O. 149

PLEAN

9.140

O,095

O.507

0.188

0.013

STANDARO DEV

3.176

0.093

0.230

0.098

0.027

5TD. ERROR

0.138

0,004

0.010

0.004

0.001

F8

N OF CASES

Cwp

CWS

520

27G

529

HIHIRUH

0.474

0.673

14.324

14AXIHL~I

0.566

0.837

20,350

RANGE

0.091

O. 164

6.027

HEAN

0.516

0.761

15.819

5TARDARD OEV

0.018

0.034

rJ.G47

STO. ERROR

0,001

0,002

0.028

Resistance and Powering

39

Teble 3A Correlation Coefficients between CR & Hull Form Paramters

I AVE I R I CORR I R l CO~ I R I COi~ I R I CORR I R I eORR I R I Ce~ I R I CO~ I R l OOR~ I R I 0~


......................................................................................................................................................................................

In

m.I ~
I 0.5-2.3 I
0.34
I
0.56
I
0.70
I
0.09
I
0.~0
I
1.56
I
1.1o
I
1.2o
I
1.34
......................................................................................................................................................................................
0.777
II~
1 I -0.11~ I 22
0.164 14 I 0.364 11 I o.4~
8
0.594
3
0.093
I 0.777
2 I 0.862
1
0.931
2 I DL*IE
0.740
21 - 0 . m I 24
0.187 12
0.442
8J
o..~
2
0.672
1
0.744
1
0,820
2
0.857
1l
o.m
5 I l/ts
0,756
31 -0.2~115
0.112 17
0.354 12 J 0.470 I1
0.572
4
0.560
5
0,737
3 I 0.787 3
0.326
4 I o~,~.e
0,667
41 -0.097 I 23
O.lb-/ 13
0.621 14 I O.437 13
0.549
5
0.6d~ 4
0,725
5 I o.7ss
4
0.803
511(
0,621
5 I -0.276 14
0.149 15
0.416 1o I 0.522 8
0,034
2
0.709
2
0.737
4 I 0.661
S
0.644
sit8
0.573
6 I 0.447 10
0.039 21
-0.190 21 I -o.3oo 20
.0.414
14
.0.523
8
-0.584
7 I .0.~
7
-0.673
7 I l/r,
0.568
7 I 0.344 12
0.056 25
-0.100 2O I .0.311 19
.0.425
12
-0.5445 6
-0.589
51 .0.533
6
-0.096
81L~V
0,550
8 I 0.162 20
-0.034 22
*0.226 18
-0.347 IS
-0.462
8
.0.542
7
-0.570
8
.0.097
0
-0.670
o I 1/Ie
0,447
9
0.434
9
-0.134 15
-0.271 17
.0,334 14
.0.432 10
*0.501
9
-0,495
9
-0.417
g l -0.369
10 I TA*~
0.3661 10
0.648
4
0.711
1
0.626
1
0.554
4
0.427 11
0.256 17
0.156 I 21
0.09"/ 24 I -0.561
111TA
0,3~.
11
0.650
3 ~ 0.704
2
0,617
2
0.555
31 o.442 9
0.298 16
0.189 1 17
0.114 22l o . o ~
12 I TA'qT
0,362 12
0.681
1
0.694
3
0.~7
4
0.517
7
0.~
15
0.240 18
O. 151 23
0.056 25 I -0.0~
15 I ~"z
0.337 13
0.632
5
0.656
4
0.559
5
0.476 10
0.338 19
0.183 J 22
0.0~
26
0.041 25
-0.105
0.305 14
141.
0.586
6
0.569
7
0.513
7
0.460 12
0.3~/ 18
0.200 19
0.134 24
0.0~
23
-0.563
ISlTT
0.304 15
0.655
2
0.590
6
0..~2
8
0,478
0
0.410 13
0.3~ 15
0.228 15
0.167 19
0.0~
lO I T~Z
0.287 16
0.509
7
0.631
5
0.604
3
0.572
1
0.499
6
0.386 13
0,263 14
0.183 17
0.407
171T~
0.282 17
0.495
8
0.$52
8
0.556
8
0.544
5
0.438
7 J 0.381 12
0.289 13
0.203 15
0.124
18 I LS*IE
0.229 18
-0.136 21
0,009 18 J 0,216 19
0.259 21
0.319 2ol
o.~
14
0.626 12
0.230 12
0.201
19 I I/Cx
0.205 19
0.167 16
-0.004 26 i 0.403 25
-0.025 25
.0.055 25 I -0.127 15
-0.156 22
-0.201 16
.0.247
2Ol8~
0.204 20
-0.070 25
-0.040 20
-0.130 22
.0.157 22
-0.~
22
-0.188 20
-0,173 18
-0.12o I 21 -0.~o I
21 l e t
0.201 21
-0.620 13
0.013 J 24
0.122 23
0.133 23
0.138 23
0.158 23 i 0.189 15
0.213 13
0.134
22jcx
0.198 22
-0.162 18
0,034 I 23
0,017 24
0.039 I 24
0.0~
24
0.129 24 I 0.169 2O
0.211 14
0 240
-I
l~r
0.175 23
0.416 11
0.563 J 10
-0,563 26 I -0.024 I 20
-0.043 36
.0.0~5 26 ~ .0.122 25
-0.143 20
-0.139
z41c~
0,170 24 J 0.152 19
0.275 I 10
0.356 15 I 0.327 I 17
0.384 10
0.418 10 J 0.347 10
0.247 10
0.12O
25 I llCp
0.170 25 I -0,167
17
.0,256 I 0
-0,312 15 I .0.334 I 18
-0.364 17
-0.414 11 I -0,340
11
.0,240 11
-0,115
25 i Ck~
0.137 26 i 0.001 26
0.250 I 11
0.325 13 I 0.321 [ 18
0.26.3 21
0.187 21 J 0.171
19 J 0.179 18
0.118
.......................................................................................................................................................................................

l a~R

..

1.~o

1.56

1.70

l.eO

1.eo

2.00

z.I0

I ce~

2.2o

0 9rr~

0.856

0.050 j 3
0.833

0.634

-0.712

-0.728

-0.714

-0.407
-O.139

17

25

-0.110

16

23

-0 147

15

10

-0.194

26

-0.~

12
21

22

-0.0~

26

21

0.O32

28

15 I

o.~

2O

12

0.172

14

11

-0.~6

10 I

20

-0.~

nl

24

0,173

10

0.261

11 I

14

-0.140

16 I

16
18
17

0.041
-0,039
0.034

23 I
24 I
19 I

Ie

2.3o

0.g56

1 I

0.073

0.075

0,970

1 I

0.9'90

0.990

0.94~

0.geO

1 I

0.977

o.561

z I

0.561

0.895

0.9O8

2 I

0.031

0.935

0.010

0.894

Zl
51

o.893
o.846

2
z
5

1/1.8

0.843

3 I

O.844

0.840

3 J

0,875

0.884

0.830

0t.*LB

0.845

0.8O8

4 I

0.709

0.701

3
4

0,848

0.790

4 I

0.800

0.703

0.810

IE

0.762

0.645

8 J

0.563

5 I

0.756

0.672

0.091

5 J

0.770

0.787

0.762

0.715

ts

-0.694
-0.6~

-0.~1

-0.~4

8 I .0.~3

-0.689

.0.711

-0.762

I/0L

6
5

0.727

.0,703
.0.715

7 I

-0.561

-0.673

7 J -0.647

.0.099

.0.701

L8*8T

-0.568 ! 7

-0.575

.0.664

8 I .0.561
9
.0.331

-0.678

-0.~

-0.404

-0.664
-0.405

8
9

S l -o.756
4 I .0.777
0 I .0.090

-0.557

15

.0.218

15

.0.408

13

-0.415

17

.0.200 I 17

.0.410

11

.-0.418

.0.893

.0.567

11

-0.4M

12

10

-0.451

13

1112

-0.456

-0.4~

10

TA*'N

.0.197

14

-O.201

11

TA

.0.109

17

-0.185

15 I .0.2o5
17
-0.189

12

TA*TT

-0.210

-0.224

13

-0.234

12

.0.335

14 i

.0.4~

14

-0.451

-0.262

10

-0.256

10

.0.409

12

-0.415

12

.0.472

.0.210

13

13 ] TA"2

-0.249

12

141Fe
15l

-0.149

101
17 N

8
g

.0.389

0 I -0.670
12
-0.592

12

-0,557

13

13l

14

-0.541

14

-0.561

14 I

11

-0.560

11

-0.601

10 I

-0.580

19

-0.162

10

-0.175

18

.0.345

16

.0.353

10

.0.415

18

-0.501

.0.G03

21

15

-0,628

-0,567

15

21

.0.561

21

-0.087

21

-0.360

15

-0.366

15 i -0.399

16

-0.457

0.563

26

O.(Xm

16

-0.480

16

25

0.012

25

0.011

26

.0.225

2O

-0.228

2O I .0.3O4

17

-0.415

0.054

22

0.561

17

-0.456

17

22

0.064

22 I

0.072 124

-0.183

23

-0.184

23

-0.253

2ol

-0.xo

19

-0.412 I 18

18

LIPZE

0.107

15

0.206

14

0.211

10

I/Cx

.0.283

10

-0.271

10

-0.253

11

2O

8A

.0.622

25

-0.012

25

-0.0~

25 i

21

0.189

16

0.192

15

0.202

15 I

22

0T
CX

0.277

11

0.263

11

0.241

12 i

23

1/81"

18 J .0.165

18

-0.174

24

Cp

23 I

23

0,064

24 i -0.033

24

-0,063

20 I

2O

0.107

.0.181

0.032

25

l/Cp

.0.030

25

CWS

0.0~

0.037
0.0~

14 i

0.218

14

0.215

22

0.220 J 22

0.2~

22 I

-0.240

11

-0.250

10

-0.251 i 10

-0.2O4

15 I

0.038 25
0.201 15
0.223 13

0.410

10

0.414 I 13

0.533

10 I

23 i 0.311 22
10 I 0.338 2O
21 I - 0 . ~
21

0.262

17

0,277 I 17

0,215

0,221

21

O,222 J 21

O,Z~

18 I -0.174

19 I

.0,259

18

-0.271 I 18

-0.247

23 I

22 I -0.027

26

-0.023 J 26

0.042

28
0.080 24

0,033 i 25

0.095 J 24

0.070

24 I -0,078

23 I

20 ]

20 i

A~ :

AverageCo,elation Coefftcleat ls deftaed as the

CORR:

corrmlatlon coefftctent values


Cor~lat ton coefficient

0.123

0.037

Ranting

arithmetic aun o1" the SU~laatlon o1' the ~sotute

13
-0.2 r,~ ; 12
-0.157 19

Retorts:

40

-0.694

Resistance

and

Powering

o.251
-0.~

0.623

24 I

0.158

-0.o;x

28 I

-0.148

-0.036

28 I .0.036

23

0.286

18

-0.398

19

10

0.594

11

24

23

0.312 J 22
0,367 i 2O

-0.337

I 21

0.176 i 24

25 I -0.156 f 25
25 I

13

11 r,

-0.774

2 ] 0L*IE

1.4o

.......................................................................................................................................................

I 8

Table 38 Corrmlatton Coefficients between CR & Hull Form Parameters (cont'd)

I CORR JR I CO~R i s I omm I R I ~


JR I a m
IS I co~ IR I c~t JR I a m
le
........................................................................................................................................................

IR

.0.o4a i 20

13 I

Table 4

Coefficients

Average Correlation
Hull

5.5

b e t w e e n CR and

Form P a r a m e t e r s

5.0
I

AVE
I R I AVE I R I AVE
......................................................................

IVL

0.5-2.3

0.5-i.0

1 1.1-1.5

AVE

1.7-2.3

..................

4.5

~....-....~

.........

~ .............................................

......................................................................
OL

0.777

0.403

O.gll

0.982

IE

0.621

0.451

0.664

0.729

LWL/Bx

0.573

0.320

0.665

0.712

TA

0.362

0.543

0.137

0.401

4.0 .................. . ..... _......~....~ . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .


.

FB

0.305

0.451

0.101

10

0.354

0.304

0.492

0.100

11

0.319

TW

0.282

0.504

0.136

0.218

10

BA

0.204

0.134

11

0.081

12

0.369

6x/Tx

0.201

0.147

10

0.191

0,254

Cx

0,198

10

0.073

12

0.238

0,270

Cp

0.170

11

0.307

0.137

0.082

11

CWS

0,137

12

0.224

0.123

0.075

12

:.

TT

'.

""

3.5
m

:
...............

3.0

i"

.,.~

~.- ;,;:~:.::.~.
:

..~'"

..

i
. .......

: .....

1'I,"

"

=0 t ~ = l ! ~

?..: ' . . ~ : " ~ "

i
-. .............

.::
. ........

":.

.";~; :

2.5
:
........

2.0

. . . . . . . . . ,. . . . . . . . . :- . . . . . . . .

, . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4,,. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . -,Jo . . . . . . .

Remarks:

1.5
AVE:

Average Correlation
arithmetic

is defined

as the

10

14

12

16

18

20

mean o f t h e s u m m a t i o n o f t h e a b s o l u t e

correlation
R

Coefficient

coefficient

values

LWL/BX

Ranktn9

Figure 2B Scatter Plot for Bx/Tx VS. L~/Bx

0.75

...........

: ...........

=. . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

a,. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

0.70

...........................................................

- . . . . . . i. . . . . . . . . . - . . . . .

''

!.

=.

j.

i.

~ ! . . .

...........

i
~'~.
:: .
:.: . . ". .. . . . . . . .,,
. ~ . . . : ... . . . . k.'.
: . . . -. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

"i

p,

................................

.:" "; ;'.;~. ,'." i ..

:";'.-~','.;]~;.: s , :

.f ..,Jr'~. , ~ , i r * . .
. ,",m
"~" &'~"
d'.'. #

0.65

.......

",.

....

"

"/-2 ..............

i:

:
" .'
:

, ."

."

~ : "21.

~ "a "

"

".~

,IZ

"

"l

"

"

%.

0.55

,l

0.60

:3 ~;z3;L" "'.

.......................

,~..'..o.~

"''

",

16

."

"

"

.|

"

.... :.':, , .......

17

18

19

20

21

0.64

0.68

, ......................

=
.................................

0.50

15

"

, ................................................

14

- -'!L ..... - ........

.. .

0.72

0.76

................

0.80

CWP

cws

F i g u r e 2A S c a t t e r Plot for BxJTx VS. C W S

Figure 2C Scatter Plot for Ce VS. Cwe

Resistance

and Powering

41

350

0.58
:

300

250

..........

.'. . . . . . . . . . . .

.......

;.; ......

:"

,.

0.56

................
~................,........:.......i ................i...............

054

,..............

~....-

...... ~ ..... ...... .....' ...................

:=

200

...........

io . . . . . . . . . . .

i--- .........

",

".

0.52

C~

..it.

t=I

|.

.........

..........

? ...........

.";"~":"
...~
:;
. "

: .-,~"

!
0

;"

~?." " * "

,,.'.

. "?"" " r

""

.;'"
:,r.

.'~,

, . t . . : "i

- -

.~iY..'.~

....................................

?~.J

"r

,,

0.50
"~

~ ..........

,~.

;
10

"
..

.;
.

tl~.~.~
o~.

~ ......................

.'l"

"..,'....
,"

m
......

~ .......

......

................

.!"

0.48

i!

2D

15

Scatter

Plot

for

......

............

20

25

30

0.46

35

0.0

......:........................,.............................j
0.1

0.2

0.3

IE (DEG)
Figure

~ ...........

i.

"

.I
m

.-,,i ;..~......... - . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . _ _ -:,~.,',,ii+-~
__,~.=.,

. ,

lO0

-ta."m:'Y'ue'~e=.-,

.......... i ......

: ..............

=o

:. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
m m

,50

D L VS.

0.4

O:

TA
IE

Figure

400

2F

Scatter

Plot

for FB VS. TA

20

350

................................................................................

17
300

........ ,.'......... :..............................................

~ ........ , ........

250

........ -'-. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

200

. . . . . . . ! . . . . . . . . . :. . . . . . . . . :. . . . . . . . . , ........ ~........ .:......... :. ........ ~.......

14

..........

11

..........

I! . . . . . . . . . . .

;.

m
!

150

. . . . . . . . "........................................................................

100

.......

"......

........

= ( o e

... . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

~";..
l
,

.
.. o~'
.
; , ; " . , 4 1 t . j ~ -~', I ,
i,,~.-l=.t.t~.~,s
~
*.

" ~ " I - .~'~;'."


"~, :,.=." =.qtj~"

42

2E

, ........

;
:

. . . . . .

;
:
.

i
.:

'~ "~,.TN~;',"
;...=,'-i;,;t

! ...........
-i,

".,'.,~.
......................

10

12

r--.. ,~
I

14

16

"'; . . . . . . .
:
.

:
!

!............

i ...........

. ........

:
!

~..........

Scatter

Plot

for DL VS. L~/B

i-

!.i

.........

.......

~.

-:- . . . . . . . . . .

.:. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

-4.l
18

" :;...:

20

I0

LWL/BX
Figure

..........

":

~ 1 ~ . . ~ . . . . . ~. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

! ........

,. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

.,:-,:-: ..... :,. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

...........

: I

=,

...........

15
IE

Figure

Resistance and Powering

2G

Scatter

Plot

20

25

(DEG)
for L~/BxVS.

BE

30

0.5

1.0

>
........

0.4

Y .......

.................

." . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

o;..". ........................

0.8

................................................

" ...... - ..........


i

.................................................

.......................................

,i.

::"

__0.0

.....

0.5

=.

o.?'n.

t,

tqr= ~ .
.,.P.;.~,~.,.,,'.'

," . "

".

'
=."

................

"..

ore..

..

-:

:.~

0.7

Pn

" .

"

-.

~"

"

.
.

.
,"

"
l

:
:.

".'. . . . . . . . . . . . .

"." ....... "..........................

:................

-....................................................

:"

'*

0.0

0.8

0.9

L ....

0.64

1.0

L.

0.68

0.72

0.76

0.80

0.8,

CWP

Figure 2J Scatter Plot TW VS. Cvm

1.0

................................................

0.8

:"~. ......... : . . . . . . . . . . ". . . . . . . . .

............

.'-..i....'..."

..........................................................

~,.:
,

...........................................

"."

. . ., t,
o

I'

.3

Figure 2H Scatter Plot for TA VS. Cx

0.4

. ,

-.

CX

0.~

u.:z

: . : .~~."; . " ~ Y . . ' . . 4 "

................................

"

.a, sCl...e;.

" , " ; "

.,

,;.

. . . . . .a. . . . ~ , ' g . o .. . . . . ~

:
:.

=-;

..t-

o.
,

-__it.

0.6

.
:

0.4

L ................................

."

'- .........

"

::

F,
0.2

.-~

: .................................
v.~

..............

.
|

0.3

oo

......................

0.6

~. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

.o*
.
, z = *

-" :'";".."":~:';

".,;

"

: - .

,%

,"":

..

.......

.';~..~'-..

: ................

" ................

:................

';

[-,
i.

0.2

1 . 1

............................
r

0.4

: . . . . . . . . . . . "....................
..

F ' " :I . , "~''':'':


. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ". . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ". . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ~. . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
"
i

-ho

:
0.1

"
o

--

~',.~1

":i .% ..'... : . .

................ r ~:.".,.~
E". ':"-:
. ~ . .
..
-,'...
:

: - ; s..*.%.t.; ."

, :- -~..--.~-.. . .

"o

.-...

0.2

.....................................

-~. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

0.0

~"
0.0

.'.."

0.0

i.

0.1

0.2

0.3

0.4

0.0

0.5

0.1

0.2

0.3

0.4

TA

TT

Figure 2K Scatter Plot TW VS. TA

Figure 21 Scatter Plot for TA VS. TI"

Resistance

and

Powering

43

for regression analysis. The previous method is just another


hypothesis to identify the cross-coupling terms, which may be
deemed to be significant for a given regression model.
The overall purpose in developing the statistical correlation
between the bare hull residuary resistance and the hull form
parameters (including their non-linear terms) is to assess the
relative significance of each of the independent variables with
respect to the bare huh residuary resistance, as a function of
speed-length ratio. It is important to note that the correlation
coefficient shows only the relationship between the two variables,
while ignoring the influence from the other variables. In reality,
the significance of an independent variable is always affected by
other independent variables, particularly when the relationships
between such variables need to be considered. The correlation
coefficients values, therefore, should only be used as rough
guidance during the independent variable selection process.

4.1.4 Formulation of the Bare Hull Resi,#,;o,T Resistance

Based on the previous noted investigation, bare hull residuary


resistance can be defined as a function of the following hull form
parameters:

DL, Lwt/Bx,Bx/Tx,Cp, Cx, IE, TA, T W ,Tr,BA, FB, and C W S


There are, of coume, many combinations of these hull form
parameters which can be used to formulate a prediction equation.
The most prevalent method used by statisticians to quantify a
regression model is by assessing its "multiple correlation
coefficient" (R2) and/or "standard error of estimate" (S.E.) values.
The danger of relying solely on statistical measures is the pitfall
of frying to pursuit perfection in statistical means - "minimum"
playback error. Quite often, regression analysis that is purely

based on statistical measures can lead us far astray. The common


effect from such a regression model is the inclusion of excessive
number of terms, e.g., extensive use of cross-coupling and
polynomial terms. The residual analyses from Mercier (1973)
and Aughey (1983), have already shown that the increasing
number of terms in the formulation of almost any conceivable
variable or combination of variables decreases the residual error.
However, their shortfalls were clearly stated in the earlier section.

The next step of this study is to determine the minimum


number of terms required to formulate a regression model which
still yields a mtom of minimum (or acceptable) estimated residual
error. The development process for this phase of study has
purely relied on multiple step-wise regression, all twenty-six
terms from Tables 3A and 3B have been selected for the initial
start. The mason for using such a technique to define tim
required number of terms during the regression analysis is that
multiple step-wise regression allows the development of a
regression model involving only the significant terms, by
statistically testing terms at each stage of the regression process
and removing variables determined to be insignificant. Multiple
step-wise regression analyses were performed for 18 different
speed-length ratios. It is interesting to note that the diminishing
return of residuary error is pretty much independent of speed, and
it always starts to stagnate after the regression equation has been
established with approximately 11 to 17 terms.
Forcing
additional terms into the regression model produces little or no
improvement on the residual error. This outcome is strikingly
similar to the findings from Mercier (1973) and Aughcy (1983)
even though the database in this study is much larger than that in
the previous studies. The residual error vs. the number of terms
for severalspeed-length ratios is plotted in Fignre 3.

Residual Error vs. N u m b e r

of T e r m s

Residua! Error
0 14
0.12
O.l
0.08

0.06
0.04
0.02
0
0

10

VL=0.O

15
N u m b e r of T e r m s
~

VL=I.2

20

Figure 3 Residual Error vs. Number of Terms

44

Resistance and Powering

25

VL=I.8

30

Obviously, the selection of independent variables by multiple


step-wise regression process differs from speed to speed. Since
the objective of this study is to establish a program which will
provide hull form optimization, an inconsistent number of
independent variables in different speed regimes will stray from
the main purpose here. On the other hand, the inclusion of crosscoupling terms is rather inconclusive because its formulation is
primarily based on the significant linear terms. The author also
speculates that the cross-coupling terms may mask the individual
hull form parameter from yielding a meaningful physical
explanation of resistance. One way to confirm the author's
postulate is to perform multiple step-wise regression again, but
without the inclusion of any cross-coupling terms. The findings
were quite astonishing, as the residual error started to stagnate
after the regression equation was formulated with a similar
number of terms as before, despite the fact that the very high
correlation and "t" values of some of the cross-coupling terms.

4.1_5 Final Bare Hull Residuary Resistance Equation


The residual error analyses from the previous section clearly
indicate that the required number of terms to formulate a
reasonable regression model for the data in this paper is seldom
exceeds eighteen terms. The general rule of thumb in the
relationship between the number of data points and the number
of terms in a multiple regression equation can be found in
(Aughey, 1988).
NP=NC*(NC+3)/2
where,
NP = number of data points required
NC = number of terms of the polynomial
regression equation
At a specific speed-length ratio, a majority of the data in this
study possesses 300 to 500 observations, except for a few which
possess 150 or less. Therefore, the maximum allowable number
of independent variables for the speed-length ratio that possesses
the smallest set of data should not exceed 16 to 17 terms. If the
twelve basic hull form parameters noted earlier, plus their
reciprocal, quadratic, and cross-coupling terms must be
considered in the regression model, then it would exceed the
maximum allowable number of terms (NC).
The initial step in establishing the final hare hull residuary
resistance regression model still relied on multiple step-wise
regression techniques. The analyses from the previous section
did not reveal cross-coupling terms as essential elements for
regression analysis. All the cross-coupling terms, therefore, were
deleted from the final regression model. The selection of
independent variables were subject to their significance in terms
of "t" statistics and correlation values with the resistance. The
rationale for using these two statistical steps to establish the final
regression equation was as follows:
(1) The use of student's "t-test" to assess the statistical
significance of a given independent variable takes into the
account the influence of the other terms in the regression
equation. The true significance of a given parameter revealed by
the "t" value, can be considered valid as long as the independent
variables in the regression equation are not highly correlated.
However, ten out of the thirteen hull form parameters used in this
study were highly correlated with each other. In such an
instance, the failure of a particular parameter to indicate
significance in the "t-test" doesnot necessary imply the absence
of correlation between the parameter and resistance.
(2) The correlation values from Tables 3A and 3B should be

used to assist in identifying those parameters which could be


significant to the dependent variable but "transparent" to the "t"
statistics.
Most of the hull forms in this paper did not include bulbous
bows, a linear equation to representthe relationship between bow
area ratio (BA) and resistance was necessary, due to insufficient
data quantitatively or qualitatively to support a more elaborate
analysis. A similar treatment was applied to TI" because of its
highly correlated relationships with TA and TW.
Longitudinal center of buoyancy (FB) is known to be an
important parameter for cruiser stem ships. Its significance,
however, has not emerged as a term in any of the fixed speed
regression equations for transom stem ships (Aughey, 1983).
The correlation value for FB exhibited lack of significance at all
speeds except in the low and high speed regimes. The high
correlation value for FB exhibited at high speed was an illusion
due to its very limited dispersion range. Table 2A indicates that
the distribution of FB is largely dependent upon the transom
geometry; a removal of FB from this study should have minimal
effect on the accuracy of prediction.
The other hull form parameter that was excluded from the final
regression equation was LwL/Bx, because DL, Bx/Tx, Cp, and Cx
were first incorporated in the regression model, thereby,
specifying the LWL/Bx value. The other reason for removing
Lwt/Bx from the model was its fairly strong linear relationship
with DL, particularly with the Lwt/Bx values ranging from 7 to
11. Both DL and LwL/Bx were highly correlated to resistance;
the inclusion of these two parameters in the regression model was
found to provide no significant improvement on resistance
prediction. The inclusion of LwtJBx in the regression model also
affected the ability of DL to yield a valid physical explanation of
its effect on resistance (see Appendix A). If two parameters
show a strong linear dependent relationship to each other, and
their joint use does not improve the prediction accuracy, one of
them should be removed to permit the use of other parameters.
Several parameters were incorporated into the final regression
model, even though they appeared to be "insignificant" over most
of the speed ranges, e.g., Cx and CWS. However, they were
either significant in a certain speed range or possessed important
physical interpretation for the dependent variable "residuary
resistance coefficient". For practical design purIx~es, they were
forced into the final regression model in light of personal
judgement. In addition, for the sake of hull form optimization,
the same number of independent variables were used for all
regression equations at all speeds. The final selected hull form
parameters for bare hull residuary resistance prediction are as
follow:
CR = f (DL, Bx/Tx, Cp, C x, IE, TA, TW, TT, BA, and CWS)
The formulation of the final regression equation includes the
basic hull form parameters as noted, plus the reciprocal terms for
DL, Bx[I'x, Cp, Cx and IE; quadratic terms for TA and TW; and
linear terms for "IT, BA, and CWS.
CRI =
CR2 =
CR3 =
CR4 =
CR5 =
CR6 =
CR7 =
CR8 =
CR9 =
CRI0 =

Resistance and Powering

CI+aI*DL+a2/DL
C2 + a3*(Bx/Tx) + a4/(Bx/Tx)
C3 + a5*Cp + a6/Cv
C4 + a7*Cx + a8/Cx
C5 + ag*IE + al0/IE
C6+alI*TA+aI2*TA 2
(27 + al3*TW + aI4*TW 2
C8 + aI5*TT
C 9 + aI6*BA
CI0 + aI7*CWS

45

The establishment of a regression model in this way, obviously,


was not aiming to achieve maximum playback values but
physical measurement instead. One way to show the individual
effect of hull form parameters on resistance was by graphic
presentation.
In order to achieve a meaningful graphic
presentation for this regression model, a no-intercept model was
selectexl, such that the sum of all constant coefficients (C) was
adjusted to zero. The final bare hull residuary resistance
coefficient (CR) was expressed in a term as the sum of the
residuary resistance coefficient components (CRn), see equation
(2).
where,
an : regression coefficient
C : sum of all constants
Cn : constant
CR : residuary resistance coefficient
CRn: residuary resistance coefficient component
n : l t o 17
C = SUM (C1....C10) = 0
CR = CR1 + CR2 +CR3 + CR4 +CR5 + CR6
+ CR7 + CR8 + CR9 + CR10

(2)

Since the final regression model was developed by a "no


-intercept case" (zero sum of all constants) the common
multiple correlation coefficient (R 2) was not recommended. The
R 2 adopted by this s/udy was suggested by Kavalseth (1985).

where,
~: fitted value of y
The R 2 values for all speeds are listed in Table 5 and the
"residuary resistance coefficient components" for each hull form
parameters are listed in Tables 6A to 6J and shown in Figures 4A
to 10C, respectively.
This final regression model was applied to the three sets of
data. The first set of data was composed mainly of 426 transom
stem ships with relatively low values of displacement-length
ratios, namely less than 120. The major components of this set
of data were several high-speed displacement hull form series,
e.g., Bailey Series, Series F, Series G, 1913/14 DD Series, Series
64, Series 66, Webb Transom Stem Series, and HSVA "B" and
"C" Series, plus a certain amount of random model test data.
The disadvantages of relying solely on either random or
methodical series model test data were as follow: (1) Random
model test data usually was carried over a long period of time,
neither the environment of the testing facilities nor the data
acquisition technique could remain unchanged. (2) On the other
hand, methodical model series did not usually possess good
random rectangular distributions but trends instead. The reverse,
therefore, was generally true for their advantages. The mixing of
these two different types of data would certainly enhance the data
distribution and the analytic capability of the regression model.
The analytical result of the first set of data was very encouraging
and was documented in a program called "DDHS.WKI". The
shortfall of this program was its confinement in the range of
displacement-length ratio.
A more aggressive program was pursued afterwards. The
second set of data was compiled mainly of data from the
previous set, plus an additional 337 auxiliary type ships. The

46

distinction between the second and first sets of data was that
large amount of cruiser stem ship data was introduced. The
findings from the second set of data were quite disappointing.
Even though cross-coupling terms were added to the previous
regression model, the resulting regression program still failed to
yield valid resistance predictions for cruiser stem ships in the
hump region. This failure was caused mainly by the distinctive
dynamic effects from these two types of stem (see Figure 1).
Unfortunately, the half run angle and buttock angle were not
completely recorded for this set of data. No further attempts in
regression analysis using this hybrid (transom and cruiser sterns)
data set were pursued.
The previous f'mdings clearly revealed that the distinctive flow
characteristics between the transom and cruiser sterns had a
significant influence on ship resistance, particularly when the
values of speed-length ratio approached unity. Obviously, failure
to incorporate appropriate hull form parameters in a regression
analysis might lead the model astray. As noted earlier, half run
angle and buttock angle are not usually available in early stage
design. The only altemative left for continuing this study was to
discard resistance prediction for cruiser stem ships, and
concentrate on maximizing the range of applicability for ships
with transom stems. The achievement of the third set of data
was rather encouraging. This set of data was a subset of the
previous group of data excluding ships with cruiser stems. The
correlation coefficients and residuary resistance coefficient
components presented in this paper are all based on the third set
of data. The resulted program from this set of data was
documented in a program called "CRTS3D.WKI", a sample
output of this program is presented in Appendix B.
The last group of data, seemingly, was composed of a wide
variety of ship types, e.g., high-speed, slender displacement hulls,
low-speed heavy displacement ocean survey ships .... etc.
However, in reality, they all exhibited the same buttock flow
characteristics, which was the essential element and the key to
success for this study. Extensive evaluation of the program
"CRTS3D.WKI" was conducted, and the bare hull resistance
prediction was found to have a wide range of application,
comparable to several renowned regression programs which were
tailored for specific ship types (see Appendix C).
4.2 Bare Hull Residuary Resistance Equation Verification
and Hull Form Design
The program "CRTS3D.WKI" achieved a certain degree of
success as a resistance predictor, thereby meeting the first
objective of this paper. The program CRTS3D.WKI could not
be considered as having fulfilled the second objective if the
predicted result was merely a derived "mean value" from a group
of data. Unfortunately, this is a widely misconception about
statistically based resistance prediction programs within the naval
architecture community.
A balanced measure for any resistance regression model should
also be based on its analytical capability in physics. General
guidelines or weighing factors to assess this capability are not
available.
However, if the independent variables do not
correlated among each another, and the magnitude of the "t"
values from the regression equation possess a similar order as the
correlation coefficients, then a regression equation could be
considered as a balanced model in both statistical and physical
sense. This is not the case for this model because, as shown
previously, the hull foml parameters were highly correlated to
one another. Therefore, similar orders of magnitude for both the
"t" statistic and correlation values, could not be achieved; even
though the regression model might be highly regarded in physical
measure. The alternative to quantify the physical validity of a

Resistance and Powering

Table 5 Statistical CoelMdent for CR Prediction


b

RESIDUAL

S.E./1000

v / I ~ ~'

tmma'~-SQUAR~
0..50

0.874

0.28,5

0.081

126

0.60

0.930

0.179

0.032

370

0.70

0.954

0.178

0.032

471

0.80

0.968

0.172

0.030

487

0.90

0.978

0.168

0.028

496

1.00

0.985

0.171

0.029

502

1.10

0.986

0.181

0.033

512

1.20

0.987

0.197

0.039

491

1.30

0.992

0.193

0.037

474

1.40

0.995

0.193

0.037

460

1..50

0.997

0.183

0.034

432

1.60

0.997

0.188

0.035

411

1.70

0.997

0.189

0.036

388

1.80

0.997

0.181

0.033

343

1.90

0.999

0.143

0.020

143

2.00

0.998

0.167

0.028

142

2.10

0.997

0.174

0.030

140

2.20

0.998

0.130

0.017

130

2..3O

0.998

0.126

0.016

126

Note:
N:
R2:
S.E.:

number of observation
squared multiple correlation coefficient
standard error of estimate

where,
fitted value of y

Resistance and Powering

47

Table 6A ResJ0uary Resistance Coefficient Col=ponent CRI f:(DL)

DL ~ VL
0.60
0.70
0.80
0.90
1.00
1.10
1.20
1.30
1.40
1.50
1.60
1.70
1.80
1.00
2.00
2.10
...........................................................................................................................................................................
20.00

-0.217 . 0 . 6 8 1 .0.950

-1.041 -1.213 -1.080 -0.754 -0,693

25.00

.0.260

-0.476

-0.533

.0,740

-0.796 -0.908

-0.768

-0.437 -0.294

0.001

30.00

-0.119 .0.432

.0.597

-0.527 -0,693

.0.543

.0.195

35.00

-0.008

-0.357 -0.492 .0.500

40.00

.0.003

-0.300

.0.410

45.00

-0.042 .0.254

50.00

.0.0~3

-0.216 .0.289

55.00

-0.0~

-0.183

-0.530 .0.300

.0.401 .0.399

-0.344 .0.3]8

-0.221

.0.289

.0.249

-0.242 -0.188

-0.0~

0.601

1.346

1.815

1.035

1.737

2.263

2.20

2.30

0.020

0.389

1.427

2.120

2.527

0.004

0.286

0.727

1.795

2.498

2.899

3.082

3.499

2.896

2.494

2.988

2.690

0.176

0.521

1.033

2.148

2.874

3,278

3.449

3,821

3.216

2.797

3.256

2.944

0.330

0.736

1.319

2.491

3.247

3.660

3.623

4.161

3,545

3.105

3.541

3.212

.0.195

0.015

0.472

0.937

1.590

2.62.7

3.619

4.044

4.203

4.313

3.883

3.417

3.037

3.489

-0.111

0.115

0.605

1.128

1.850

3.158

3.ggo

4.431

4.586

4.876

4.225

3.731

4.142

3.773

.0.035

0.200

0.731

1.311

2.102

3,485

4.351

4.819

4.973

5.245

4.571

4.048

4.453

4.062.
4.385

60.00

0 . 0 0 0 -0.155 .0.201

-0.134

65.00

0 . 0 2 3 -0.130

-0.005

0.034

0.294

0.852

1.488

2.347

3.809

4.731

5.208

5.361

5.620

4.919

4.367

4.769

70.00

0 . 0 3 6 -0.100 -0.132 .0.001

0.000

0.376

0.969

1.661

2.588

4.130

5.100

5.598

5.752

5.999

5.270

4.587

5.089

4.651

75.00

0 . 0 4 8 -0.087 .0.102

0.001

0.158

0.453

1.003

1.830

2.825

4.450

5.469

5.988

6.143

6.3~

5.622

5.008

5.411

4.950

.0.074

0.039

0.216

0.5,?.8 1 . 1 9 3

1.996

3.059

4.769

5.838

6.379

6.536

6.767

5.976

5.330

5.736

5.251

-0.052 .0.049

0.070

0.270

0.600

1.302

2.159

3.291

5.006

5.200

6.771

6.930

7.155

6.331

5.652

6.004

5.553

0.I10

0.322

0.671

1.409

2.320

3.520

5.402

6.575

7.163

7.325

7.544

6.007

5.975

6.392

5.857

80.00

0 . 0 0 0 .0.069

65.00

0.07]

90.00

0 . 0 0 2 -0.036

95.00

.0.164

.0.025

0 . 0 0 2 -0.020 .0.003

0.143

0.373

0.739

1.514

2.480

3.747

5.717

6.943

7.555

7.720

7.935

7.044

6.298

0.723

6.162

0 . 1 0 2 -0.006

0.019

0.175

0,421

0.806

1.618

2.638

3.973

6.032

7.311

7.948

8.116

6.328

7.402

6.622

2.004

6.468

110.00

0.122

0.020

0.059

0.235

0.515

0.936

1.823

2.950

4.421

6.659

8.046

8.734

120.00

0.141

0.044

0.005

0.292

0.605

1.002

2.024

3.258

4.865

7.285

8.782

9.520

100.00

130.00

0.159

0.007

0.130

0.347

0.691

1.185

2.223

3.554

5.306

7.908

9.517

10.307

140.00

0.177

0.008

0.163

0.399

0.775

1.305

2.419

3.007

5.744

8.531

10.251

11.095

1.50.00
160.00

0.195
0.212

0.109
0.128

0.194
0.224

0.449
0,499

0.857
0.938

1.424
1,541

2.614
2.808

4.168
4.468

6.180

9.153

10.986

11.003

170.00

0.229

0.147

0.253

0.547

1.017

1.657

3.000

4.767

180.00

0.246

0.165

0.281

0.594

1.005

1.772

3.192

5.064
5,361

190.00

0.263

0,183

0.309

0.641

1.172

1.686

3.383

200.00

0.279

0.200

0.336

0.686

1.248

1.999

3.573

5.657

210.00

0.295

0.217

0.362

0.732

1.324

2.112

3.763

5.952

220.00

0.312

0.233

0.388

0.775

1.399

2.224

3.952

6.247

230.00

0.328

0.250

0.414

0.821

1.473

2.336

4.140

6.541

240.00

0.344

0.200

0,439

0.005

1.547

2.447

4.329

6.835

250.00

0.360

0.282

0.464

o.g08

1.521

2.558

4.517

7.128

...........................................................................................................................................................................

Table 68 Residuary Resistance Coefficient Component CR2 f:(SxJTx)

Bx/Tx \ ~
0.60
0,70
0.80
0.90
1.00
1.10
1.20
1.30
1,40
1.50
1.60
1.70
1.80
1,00
2.00
2.10
..............................................................................................................................................................................

2.20

2.30

2.200

.0.224

1.297

1.271

1.688

2.037

2.800

2.780

2.605

2.405

1.736

1.214

0.922

0.744

1.632

0.724

0.957

1.366

1.404

2.400

.0.216

1.272

1.244

1.648

1.986

2.733

2.720

2.547

2.354

1.706

1.205

0.924

0.750

1.605

0.728

0.g64

1.343

1.400

2.600

.0.210

1.258

1.227

1.622

1.953

2.689

2.683

2.510

2.324

1.590

1.204

0.931

0.760

1.5=32

0.737

0.976

1.332

1.405

2.800

-0.206

1.252

1.218

1.607

1.934

2.664

2.664

2.491

2.309

1.685

1.zn

0.944

0.774

1.589

0.750

0.994

1.329

1.418

3.000

-0.203

1.252

1.216

1.602

1.925

2.654

2.659

2.485

2.306

1.688

1.223

0.960

0.790

1.593

0.765

1.015

1.333

1.437

3.200

.0.201

1.258

1.219

1.603

1.925

2.656

2.666

2.490

2.314

1.699

1.239

0.979

0.809

1.605

0.783

1.039

1.343

1.461

3.400

.0.200

1.268

1.227

1.611

1.933

2.668

2.683

2.505

2.329

1.715

1.260

1.001

0.830

1,621

0.803

1.065

1.356

1.489

3.600

-0.200

1.282

1.238

1.624

1.946

2.688

2.708

2.527

2.352

1.737

1.283

1.025

0.852

1.643

0.824

1.094

1.374

1.521

3.800

-0.200

1.299

1.253

1.640

1.g~5

2.715

2.740

2.555

2.381

1.762

1.309

1.051

0.878

1.668

0.846

1.124

1.395

1.555

4.000

.0.201

1.319

1.270

1.661

1.988

2.748

2.778

2.589

2.414

1.791

1.337

1.078

0.901

1.600

0.870

1.156

1.419

1.592

4.200

-0.203

1.341

1.289

1.684

2.015

2.786

2.820

2.627

2.452

1,822

1.367

1.107

0.g27

1.727

0.895

1.189

1.444

1.631

4.400

-0.204

1.365

1.311

1.710

2.045

2.829

2.867

2.670

2.494

1.857

1.399

1.136

0.954

1.760

0.920

1.223

1.472

1.672

4.600

-0.206

1.391

1.334

1.739

2.078

2.876

2.917

2.716

2.538

1.893

1.437

1.167

0.981

1.700

0.947

1.258

1.502

1.714

4.800

-0.209

1.418

1.358

1.769

2.113

2.925

2.971

2.765

2.586

1.932

1.466

1.199

1.009

1.833

0.973

1.294

1.533

1,758

5.000

-0.211

1.446

1.384

1.801

2.151

2.978

3.028

2.817

2,636

1.972

1.501

1.231

1.038

1.872

1.001

1.331

1.565

1.803

5.200 -0.214
1.476 1.411 1.835 2.190 3.033 3.087 2.871 2.588 2.013 1.538 1.264 1.007 1.912 1.029 1.368
..............................................................................................................................................................................

1.599

1.849

48

Resistance and Powering

Table 6C Residuary Resistance Coefficient Component CR3 f:(Cp)

Cp \ VI.
0.60
0.70
0.80
0.90
1.00
l.lO
1.20
1.30
1.40
1.50
1.60
1.70
1.80
1.g0
2.00
..........................................................................................................................................................................

2.10

2.20

2.30

0.52

2.926

0.540

-0.194

-0.618

-2.396

-2.998

-3.808

-6.631 -10.642 -12.234 -11.651

0.53

2.918

0.540

.0.187

.0.596

-2.329

-2.924

-3.757

.8.597

0.54

2.912

0.539

.0.179

-0.575

-2.264

-2.853

-3.709

.8.568 -10.616 -12.213 -11.644

-11.464

.6.303

0.55

2.906

0.539

.0.171

.0.555

-2.201

-2.784

-3.662

-8.541

-10.609 -12.209 -11.647 -11.461

.0.302

-4.504

.6.063

-7.007

-0.848

-9.079

0.56

2.902

0.539

-0.164

.0.535

-2.140

-2.717

-3.618

.6.519 -10.605 -12.209 -11.653 -11.463

-0.304

-4.526

-6.072

-7.010

-0.847

.0.885

0.57

2.899

0.539

-0.157

.0.516

-2.081

-2.652

-3.576

.6.499 -10.605 -12.213 -11.663 -11.467

-6.308

-4.548

.0.083

-7.016

-6.849

-9.894

0.56

2.897

0.540

-0.150

.0.497

-2.023

-2.590

-3.535

.8.482

-11.676 -U.476

-0.315

-4.572

-6.096

-7.07.3

-0.853

.0.906

0.$9

2.895

0.540

-0.143

.0.478

-1.967

-2.529

-3.496

-8.468 -10.615 -12.232 -11.692 -n.488

-8.324

-4.596

-6.110

-7.033

-8.860

-9.920

0.60

2.895

0.541

-0.137

.0.460

-1.912

-2.470

-3.459

-8.456 -10.62.4 -12.246 -11.712

-11.502

-8.336

-4.622

.0.126

-7.044

-8.869

-9.938

0.61

2.895

0.542

-0.130

.0.443

-1.859

-2.412

-3.423

.8.447

-10.636 -12.264 o11.734 -11.520

-8.349

-4.648

-6.143

-7.058

-8.880

-9.957

0.62

2.896

0.543

-0.124

.0.425

-1.807

-2.356

-3.389

.8.441

-10.651

-8.365

-4.675

.0.181

-7.072

.8.894

-9.979

0.63

2.898

0.544

-0.118

-0.409

-1.757

-2.302

-3.3b'?

.8.437

-10.668 -12.307

-11.787

-11.563

.8.382.

-4.703

-6.181

-7.069

.8.910 -10.003

0.64

2.900

0.f45

-0.112

-0.392

-1.707

-2.249

-3.325

-6.434 -10.687 -12.333 -11.817

-11.589

.8.401

-4.731

-6.202

-7.107

-8.928 -10.030

0.65

2.903

0.546

.0.106

.0.376

-1.659

-2.197

-3.295

.0.434 -10.709 -12.362

-11.850 -11.617

.0.422

-4.760

.6.224

-7.126

-8.947 -10.058

0.66

2.907

0.548

-0.100

.0.361

-1.812

-2.147

-3.266

.0.436 -10.733 -12.393 - n . 8 8 5

-11.647

.6.445

-4.790

.6.247

-7.147

.8.569 -10.0~8

0.67

2.911

0.549

-0.095

-0.345

-1.566

-2.098

-3.239

.6.440 -10.759 -12.426 -11.922 -11.680

.0.469

-4.821

.0.271

-7.189

.8.992 -10.120

0.68

2.916

0.551

-0.089

.0.330

-1.521

-2.050

-3.212

.8.446 -10.788 -12.462

-11.714

-8.495

-4.852

-8.297

-7.192

.8.017 -lO.IS4

0.69

2.921

0.555

-0.083

.0.310

-1.477

-2.003

-3.187

.8.45,3

-10.818 -12.500 *12.002 *11.751

-8.522

-4.884

-6.323

-7.217

-9.043 .10.190

0.70
2.927
0.554 -0.076 -0.301
-1.435 -1.957 -3.162 .8.462 -10.849 -12.540 -12.045 -11.790 -8.551 -4.915 .8.350
........................................................................................................................................................................

-7.243

-0.071

-10.627

-12.221

-10.609 -12.221

-11.481

-11.646 -11.470

-12.284 -11.759 -11.540

-11.961

-10.227

Table 60 Residuary Reststence Coefficient Component ~ 4 f:(Cx)

CX ~ VL
0.60
0.70
0.80
0,90
1.00
1.10
1.20
1.30
1.40
1.50
1.60
1.70
1.80
1.90
2.00
..........................................................................................................................................................................

2.10

2.20

2.30

0.62

o2.051 -0.710

0.220

0.797

2.754

2.722

4.147

9.755

12.824

14.832

14.618

0.64

-2.031

-0.709

0.208

0.773

2.721

2.687

4.107

9.697

12.752

14.753

14.539

14.490
14.409

0,66

-2.013

-0.710

0.196

0.750

2.691

2.656

4.072

8.649

12.695

14.692 14.476

14.345

0.68

-1.997

-0.711

0.185

0.729

2.665

2.628

4.042

9.612

12.651 14.645

14.428

14.295

0.70

-1.984

.0.712

0.174

0.708

2.642

2.603

4.016

9.584

12.619

14.612

14.394

14.259

10.918

7.072

7.991

9.507

10.110

12.514

0.72

-1.973

-0.714

0.163

0.589

2.621

2.581

3.994

9.565

12.598

14.592

14.372

14.236

10.890

7.054

7.971

9.484

10.099

12.495

0.74

-1.963

-0.717

0.153

0.671

2.604

2.561

3.976

9.553

12.587

14.583

14.382

14.224 10.873

7.643

7.957

9.468

10.097 12.487

0.76

-1.956

-0.720

0.143

0.654

2.588

2.544

3.961

9.548

12.585

14.585

14.362

14.223

10.864

7.036

7.949

9.460

10.101

12.488

0.78

-1.949

-0.723

0.134

0.638

2.575

2.529

3.949

9.551

12.592

14.596

14.372

14.232

10.862

7.035

7.947

9.458

10.113

12.497

0.80

-1.945

-0.727

0.125

0.623

2.563

2.516

3.940

9.559

12.607

14.619

14.392

14.249

10.868

7.038

7.950

9.463

10.131

12.515

0.82

-1.941

-0.731

0.116

0.608

2.554

2.505

3.934

8.575

12.630

14.649

14.420

14.275

10.881

7.045

7.957

9.473

10.154

12.5,.~

0.84

-1.939

-0.735

0.108

0.594

2.546

2.496

3.930

9.592

12.659

14.686

14.455

14.309

10.899

7.057

7.970

9.489

10.183

12.571

0.86

-1.938

-0.740

0.100

0.581

2.540

2.488

3.928

9.617

12.695

14.731

14.498

14.349

10.923

7.072

7.986

9.509

10.218

12.608

0.88

-1.938

-0.745

0.092

0.569

2.535

2.482

3.929

9.645

12.737

14.783

14.548

14.397

10.953

7.090

8.006

9 . 5 . 3 5 10.256

12.652

0.90

-1.939

.0.750

0.084

0.557

2.532

2.477

3.931

9.679

12.784

14.841 14.604

0.92

-1.940

-0.756

0.077

0.545

2.530

2.473

3.936

9.716

0.94

-1.943

-0.762

0.069

0.5,34

2.530

2.471

3.942

9.757

0.96

-1.947

-0.758

0.062

0.524

2.530

2.470

3.949

9.801

0.98

-1.951

-0.774

0.055

0.514

2.532

2.470

3.959

14.451

1.00 -1.956 .0.780


0.048
0.504
2.534
2.471
3.970
.........................................................................................................................................................................

Resistance and Powering

49

Table 6E Residuary Resistance C(~fficlent Component CR5 f:(IE)

IE \ VI.
0,60
0.70
0.80
0.90
1.00
1.10
1.20
1.30
1.40
1.50
1.60
1.70
1,80
1.90
2.00
...........................................................................................................................................................................

2.10

2.20

2.30

2.0

-0.263

0.360

0.550

0.762

0.969

1.223

1.250

1.051

3.0

.0.171

0.297

0.437

0.594

0.741

0.928

0.934

0,774

0.780
0.565

4.0

.0.123

0.283

0.403

0.535

0.056

0.814

0.806

0.657

0.471

0.140

0.022

5.0

.0. 094

0.288

0.399

0.521

0.628

0.773

0.753

0.605

0.426

0.117

0.011

-0.015

8.0

-0.073

0.302

0.410

0.528

0.628

0.768

0.738

0.585

0.404

0.102

0.002

-0.023

7.0

.0.058

0.323

0.431

0.548

0.645

0.784

0.745

0.583

0.397

0.093

-0.005

.0.030

8.0

.0.046

0.346

0.457

0.576

0.672

0.612

0.765

0.593

0.398

0.086

.0.011

-0.037

-0.017

-1,071

-0.235

.0.209

-0.673

.0.495

0.0

-0.036

0.372

0.486

0.609

0.705

0.850

0.794

0.610

0.405

0.081

.0.017

.0.043

-0.025

-I.048

.0.232

.0.208

-0.666

-0.499

-0.0~
O.OGS -1.189
.0.007

-1.114

-0.258

-0.222

-0.729

-0.515

-0.244

-0.213

.0.692

.0.499

10.0

-0.027

0.400

0.519

0.646

0.743

0.693

0.829

0.633

0.416

0.078

.0.022

-0.049

.0.034

*1.041

0.231

.0.210

-0.668

-0.509

11.0

.0.020

0.429

0.553

0.685

0.785

0.941

0.868

0.659

0.420

0.076

-0.028

-0.056

-0.041

-1.044

-0.233

-0.214

-0.675

-0.522

12.0

.0.013

0.459

0.588

0.726

0.830

0.992

0.912

0.688

0.445

0,075

.0.032

-0.062

-0.049

-1.055

.0.236

.0.219

.0.688

-0.538

13.0

.0.007

0.489

0.625

0.769

0.876

1.045

0.957

0.760

0.463

0.074

.0.037

-0.068

.0.056

-1.072

-0.240

.0.225

-0.704

-0.557

14.0

.0.001

0.520

0.662

0.814

0.924

1.101

1.005

0.753

0.482

0.074

-0.042

-0.074

-0.(~3

-1.094

.0.246

-0.232

-0.723

-0.577

15.0

0.004

0.551

0.701

0.859

0.973

1.158

1.055

0.788

0.502

0.074

.0.046

-0.080

-0.070

-1.120

.0.253

.0.240

-0.744

-0.599

16.0
17.0

0.009
0.013

0.583
0.615

0.739
0.779

0.904
0.951

1.023
1.074

1.217
1.276

1.106
1.158

0.824
0.861

0.523
0.545

0.075

-0.051

.0.085

-0.077

-1.149

-0.260

-0.248

-0.767

.0.622

2.10

2.20

2.30

18.0

0.018

0.647

0.818

0.898

1.126

1.337

1.211

0.899

0.567

19.0

0.022

0.680

0.858

1.046

1.178

1.398

1.264

0.937

0.590

20.0

0.026

0.712

0.898

1.094

1.231

1.460

1.319

0.976

0.613

...........................................................................................................................................................................

Table 6F ReslOuary Resistance Coefficient Cou~onent ~ 6 f:(TA)

TA \ VL
0.60
0.70
0.80
0.90
1.00
1.10
1.20
1.30
1.40
1.50
1.60
1.70
1.80
1.90
2.00
...........................................................................................................................................................................

50

0.00

0.000

0.000

0.000

0.000

0.000

0.000

0.000

0.000

0.000

0.000

0,000

0.000

0.000

0.000

0.000

0.000

0.000

0.000

0.02

0.013

0.006

0.007

0.013

0.012

0.011

.0.006

.0.013

0.006

-0.011

-0.003

.0.013

.0.027

.0,007

.0.033

.0.008

.0.015

0.004
0.005

0.04

0.029

0.016

0.017

0.028

0.026

0.025

-O.(X)8 -0.022

0.012

-0.020

-0.006

-0.026

-0.052

.0.014

-0.064

-0.015

-0.030

0.06

0.047

0.029

0.031

0.046

0.043

0.041

.0.006

.0.020

0.019

-0.029

.0.009

.0.039

.0.077

.0.019

-0,093

-0.023

.0.046

0.005

O.GB

0.067

0.046

0.049

0.065

0.061

0.059

.0.002

.0.033

0.027

-0.036

-0.011

.0.051

-0.101

-0.024

.0.119

.0.030

.0.061

0.001

0.10

0.090

0.067

0.069

0.087

0.083

0.079

O.O~S -0.035

0.036

.0.043

o0.014

.0.062

-0.123

-0.028

-0.144

-0.037

-0.076

-0.004

0.12

0.116

0.091

0.093

0.111

0.106

0.101

0.018

0.045

-0.048

-0.017

-0.074

-0.145

-0.030

-0.167

.0.044

-0.092

.0.012

0.14

0.143

0.118

0.121

0.137

0.132

0.126

0.033

.0.628

0.055

.0.053

.0,019

-0.084

.0.166

.0.032

.0.187

.0.050

-0.107

.0.023

0.16

0.173

0,150

0.152

0.166

0.160

0.153

0.051

.0.021

0.066

-0.056

-0.021

-0.095

.0.186

.0.033

.0.206

.0.057

-0.123

.0.036

0.18

0.206

0.185

0.187

0.196

0.191

0.183

0.073

.0.011

0.078

-0.058

-0.024

-0.105

-0.205

.0.033

.0.222

.0.063

-0.139

.0.051

0.20

0.241

0.223

0.225

0.229

0.224

0.215

0.098

0.003

0.091

-0.0EO -0.026

.0.U4

.0.223

-0.032

.0.237

.0.069

-0.155

.0.069

.0.033

0.22

0.278

0.265

0.266

0.264

0.259

0.248

0.126

0.019

0.104

-0.060

.0.028

-0.123

-0.240

.0.030

-0.249

.0.075

.0.170

.0.089

0.24

0.318

0.311

0.311

0.301

0.297

0.285

0.158

0.038

0.119

-0.060

-0.030

.0.132

.0.256

-0.027

.0.260

-0.081

.0.186

.0.111

0.26

0.380

0.360

0.359

0.340

0.336

0.323

0.193

0.059

0.134

-0.058

-0.032

o0.140

.0.271

-0.023

.0.268

-0.087

.0.202

-0.136

0.28

0.405

0.412

0.411

0.382

0.379

0.364

0.232

0.084

0.149

-0.055

.0.034

-0.148

.0.285

.0.019

.0.275

-0.092

.0.218

.0.163

0.30

0.452

0.460

0.466

0.426

0.423

0.407

0.274

0.112

0.166

.0.051

.0.036

.0.155

.0.208

.0.013

.0.279

.0.098

.0.235

.0.193

0.32

0.501

0.528

0.525

0.472

0.470

0.452

0.320

0.142

0.183

.0.047

.0.037

.0.162

.0.310

.0.007

-0.281

-0.103

.0.251

.0.224

0.34

0.553

0.592

0.587

0.520

0.520

0.500

0.368

0.175

0.201

-0.041

.0.039

.0.169

.0.321

0.001

.0.281

-0.108

.0.267

-0.259

0.36

0.607

0.650

0.652

0.570

0.571

0.550

0.421

0.212

0.220

-0.034

-0.040

-0.175

.0.331

0.009

-0.280

-0.113

.0.283

-0.296

0.38

0.664

0.730

0.721

0.622

0.625

0.602

0.478

0.251

0.240

-0.026

.0.042

.0.181

.0.341

0.019

-0.276

.0.117

-0.300

.0.335

0.40
0.723
0.804
0.794
0.677
0.682
0.656
0.536
0.293
0.260 -0.017 -0.043 .0.186 .0.349
0.0~9 .0.270 .0.122
...........................................................................................................................................................................

.0.316

.0.376

Resistance and Powering

Table 66 Restduory Resistance Coefficient Component CR7 f:(TH)

TW\ VL
0.60
0.70
0.80
0.90
1.00
1.10
1.20
1.30
1.40
1.50
1.60
1.70
1.80
1.90
2.00
..........................................................................................................................................................................
0.00

0,000

0.1000 0 . 0 0 0

0.000

0.000

0.000

0.000

0.000

0.000

0.05

-0.020 -0.022 .0.018

-0.016 .0.005

-0.006

-0.014 -0.024 -0.026

0,10

.0.051

.0.039

0.1';

-0.070

-0.053

.0.033

.0.028

-0.009

.0.012

.0.027

.0.048

-0.045

0.038

.0.011

-0.016

.0.039

-0.069

0.20

0.083 -0.063 .0.053

-0.044 .0.012

0.25

-0.092

-0,069

.0.057

-0.048

0.30

.0.0%

-0,071 .0.058

.0.048

0.35

-0.006 .0.069

.0.006

-0.046 -0.0Q6 .0.029

0.40

-0.090

-0.063

.0.050

-0.040

-0.00~

-0.030

0.45

.0.006

.0.053

.0.040

.0.031

0,004

0.06

0.065

-0.039

.0.028

-0.020

0.55

.0.045

-0.G22

.0.011

.0.005

0.60

-0.020

0.000

0.009

0.013

0 . 0 3 1 -0.028

0.65

0.009

0.026

0.032

0.034

0.042

-0.026

-0.087

.0.207

0.70

0.043

0.055

0.059

0.057

0 . 0 5 5 .0.023

.0.085

0.75

0.082

0.089

0.089

0.084

0.069

.0.019

-0.082

.0.218

-0.314

0.80

0.125

0.125

0.123

0.114

0 . 0 8 5 -0.015

.0.077

-0.221 -0.329

0.000

0.000

0.000

2.10

2.20

2.30

0,000

-0.027 .0.031 .0.033

-0.024

-0.051

-0.053

-0.062

.0.065

.0.048

-0.075

.0.078

.0.091

.0.097

.0.071

-0.021 -0.050

-0.089 -0.099

-0.103 .0.120

-0.127 -0.095

.0.012

-0.024

-0.059

.0.108

-0.122

-0.127

.0.149

.0.157

-0.118

.0.010

.0.027

-0.067 .0.126

.0.144

.0.151 .0.176

.0.106

.0.141

-0.074 -0.141 -0.155

.0.174

-0.203

-0,213

.0.164

.0.079

.0.106

-0.106

-0.1~5

.0.228

-0.241

.0.187

-0.280

-0.259

.0.106

-0.221

.0.299

-0.030

-0.083

.0.106

-0.207

.0.218

-0.254

-0.267

.0.209

.0.319

-0.293

-0.199

-0.253

-0.334

0.012

0.030

.0.086

.0.161

-0.226

.0.239

.0.278

.0.292

-0.231

-0.358

.0.326

.0.231

-0.2845 -0.369

0.020

-0.020

.0.006

.0.191

.0.245

.0.206

.0.301

-0.317

.0.253

.0.399

-0.362

.0.265

-0.320

-0.006 .0.200

-0.263

.0.260

.0.324

-0.341 -0.275 -0.440

-0.398

-0.301 -0.356 -0.436

.0.281

.0.299

.0.340

.0.3454 -0.297

.0.482

-0.433

-0.339

-0.213 -0.297 .0.318

.0.367

.0.306

.0.318

-0.524

-0.469 -0.379 -0.429 -0.503

-0.336

.0.306

.0.407

.0.340

.0.068

-0.506

.0.354

.0.408

-0.427 -0.361 -0.612

-0.470

-0.467

-0.635

-0.542 -0.454 -0.5~

-0.567

0.85
0.174
0.167
0.106
0.147
0.102 .0.010 -0.071 -0.223 -0.344 -0.371
-0.426 -0.447 .0.382 .0.067 -0.570
.........................................................................................................................................................................

-0.421

-0.392

-0.403

-0.510

-0.5445 -0.598

Table 61t Reslduery Reslst~mce Coefficient Co=~nent CR8 f:(TT)

TT \ Vl.
0.60
0.70
0.80
0.90
1.00
1.10
1.20
1.30
1.40
1.50
1.60
1.70
1.80
1.90
2.00
2.10
...........................................................................................................................................................................
0.000

2.20

2.30

0.00

0.000

0.000

0.000

0.000

0.000

0.000

0.000

0.000

0.000

0.000

0.000

0.000

0.02

0.005

0.007

0.009

0 . 0 0 8 -0.003 - 0 . 0 0 3

0.002

0.009

0.005

0.009

0.007

0.010

0.015

0.04

0.010

0.014

0.017

0 . 0 1 6 .0.005

.0.006

0.005

0.017

0.010

0.018

0.015

0.020

0.029

0.06

0.015

0.020

0.026

0 . 0 2 4 -0.008

-0.009

0.007

0.026

0.015

0.027

0.022

0.029

0.044

0.08

0.020

0.027

0.035

0 . 0 3 2 .0,010

-0.012

0.009

0.035

0.020

0.037

0.030

0.039

0.058

0.10

0.026

0.034

0.043

0 . 0 4 0 .0.013

.0.016

0.012

0.044

0.026

0.045

0.037

0.049

0.073

0.035

0.066

0.019

0.056

0.045

0.12

0.031

0.041

0.052

0 . 0 4 8 .0.015

-0.019

0.014

0.052

0.031

0.065

0.045

0.059

0.088

0.042

0.079

0.023

0.067

0.054

0.14

0.036

0.048

0.061

0 . 0 0 6 -0.018 - 0 . 0 2 2

0.016

0.061

0.036

0.064

0.052

O.O~J 0 . 1 0 2

0.049

0.092

0.026

0.070

0.062

0.16

0.041

0.055

0.069

0 . 0 6 4 -0.020

0.019

0.070

0.041

0.073

0.060

0.078

0.117

0.066

0.105

0.030

0.090

0.071

0.18

0.046

0.061

0.078

0 . 0 7 2 -0.023 -0.028

0.021

0.079

0.046

0.062

0.067

0.088

0.131

0.063

0.118

0.034

0.101

0.080

0.20

0.051

0.068

0.087

0 . 0 8 1 .0.026

0.623

0.067

0.051

0.091

0.075

0.098

0.146

0.070

0.131

0.038

0.112

O.O~J

0.22

0.006

0.075

O.Og5 0 . 0 8 9 -0.028 .0.034

0,026

0.096

0.006

0.101

0.082

0.108

0.161

0.077

0.144

0.041

0.124

0.098

0.24

0.061

0.062

0.104

0 . 0 9 7 .0.031 - 0 . 0 3 7

0.028

0.105

0.061

0.110

0.090

0.117

0.175

0.084

0.157

0.045

O.13S

0.107

0.26

0.066

0.089

0.113

0 . 1 0 5 -0.033 -0.041

0.030

0.114

0.067

0.110

0.097

0.127

0.190

0.091

0.171

0.049

0.146

0.116

0.28

0.072

0.095

0.121

0 . 1 1 3 .0.035

.0.044

0.033

0.122

0.072

0.128

0.104

0.137

0.204

0.098

0.184

0.053

0.15~

0.125

0.30

0.077

0.102

0.130

0.121

.0.038

-0.047

0.035

0.131

0.077

0.137

0.112

0.147

0.219

0.106

0.197

0.057

0.169

0.134

0.32

0.082

0.109

0.139

0.129

-0.041

-0.050

0.037

0.140

0.062

0.146

0.119

0.157

0.234

0.112

0.210

0.060

0.180

0.143

0.34

0.087

0.116

0.148

0.137

.0.044

-0.053

0.040

0.149

0.087

0.155

0.127

0.106

0.248

0.119

0.223

0.064

0.101

0.152

0.066

0.092

0.123

0.106

0 . 1 4 5 .0.046

-0.056

0.042

0.157

0.092

0.165

0.134

0.170

0.263

0.126

0.236

0.068

0.202

0.101

0.38

0.097

0.130

0.165

0.153

.0.049

.0.059

0.044.

0.166

0.097

0.174

0.142

0.186

0.277

0.133

0.249

0.072

0.Z13

0.170

0.40

0.102

0.137

0.174

0.101

-0.051

-0.062

0.047

0.175

0.102

0.183

0.149

0.196

0.292

0.140

0.262

0.075

0.225

0.178

0.236

0.187

-0.025
.0,031

0.42
0 . 1 0 7 0 . 1 4 3 0 . 1 8 2 0 . 1 5 9 -0.054 - 0 . 0 6 6 0 . 0 4 9 0 . 1 8 4 0 . 1 0 7 0 . 1 9 2 0 . 1 5 7 0 . 2 0 6 0 . 3 0 7 0 . 1 4 7 0 . 2 7 6 0 . 0 7 9
...........................................................................................................................................................................

Resistance and Powering

51

Table 6I Residuary Resistance Coefficient Component CR9 f:(BA)

BA \ VL
0.60
0.70
0.80
0.90
1.00
1.10
1.20
1.30
1.40
1.50
1.60
1.70
1.80
].90
2.00
...........................................................................................................................................................................
0.00

0.000

0.000

0.000

0.000

0.000

0.000

0.000

0,000

0.000

0.000

0.000

0,000

0.000

0.01

0.015

0.013

0.008

0.002

-0.003

-0.006

-0.008

-0.016

-0.019

-0.022

-0.023

-0.020

-0.027

0.02

0.030

0.026

0.016

0.004

-0.007

-0.011

-0.016

-0.031

-0.039

-0.045

-0.046

-0.039

-0.053

0.03

0.045

0.038

0,024

0.006

-0.010

-0.017

-0.025

-0.047

-0.038

-0.067

-0.069

-0.059

-0.080

0.04

0.060

0.051

0.032

0.008

-0.014

-0.023

-0.033

-0,062

-0.078

-0.090

-0.091

-0.078

-0.107

0.05

0.075

0.064

0.040

0.009

-0.017

-0.028

-0.041

-0.078

-0.097

o0.112

-0.114

-0.098

-0.133

0.06
0.07

0.090
0.105

0.077
0.089

0.048
0.056

0.011
0.013

-0.021
-0.024

-0.038
-0.040

-0.049
-0.057

-0.094
-0.1(;9

-0.117
-0.136

-0.134
-0.157

-0.137
-0.160

-0.117
-0.137

-0.160

0.08

0.120

0.102

0.064

0.015

-0.627

-0.045

-0.065

-0.125

-0.156

-0.179

-0.183

-0.157

0.09

0.135

0.115

0.072

0.017

-0.031

-0.051

-0.074

-0.141

-0.175

-0.20~

-0.206

-0.176

O.lO

0,150

0.128

0.080

0.019

-0.034

-0.056

-0.082

-0.156

-0.105

-0.224

-0.229

-0.196

2.10

2.20

2.30

...........................................................................................................................................................................

Table 6,1 Residuary Resistance Coefficient Component CRIO:(0u5)

C143~ VL
0.60
0.70
0.80
0.90
1.00
1.10
1.20
1.30
1.40
1.50
1.60
1.70
1.80
1.90
2.00
...........................................................................................................................................................................

52

2.10

2.20

2.30

14.90

-0,230

-0.566

-0.744

-1.302

-1.997

-2,310

-2.856

-2.955

-3.438

-3.547

-3.928

4.056

-3.971

-3.854

-2,852

-3.449

-2.707

-3.866

14.95

-0.231

-0.558

-0.747

-1.307

-2.003

-2.327

-2.866

-2.965

-3.448

-3.659

-3.941

-4.070

-3.984

-3.877

-2.872

-3.460

-2.716

-3.899

15.00

-0,232

-0.670

-0,749

-1.311

-2.010

-2.338

-2.875

-2.975

-3.459

-3.671

-3.955

4.083

-3.908

-3.800

-2.881

-3.472

-2.726

-3.012

15.05

-0.232

-0.673

-0.752

-1,315

-2.017

-2.343

-2.085

-2.085

-3.471

-3.683

3.968

4.097

-4.011

-3.003

-2.801

-3.483

-2.738

-3.025

15.10

-0.233

-0.675

-0.754

-1.320

-2.023

-2.351

-2.093

-2.993

-3.482

-3.695

-3.981

..4.111 -4.024

-3.916

-2.001

-3.438

-2.744

-3.938

15.13

-0.234

-0.677

-0.737

-1.324

-2.030

-2.3.58 -2.904

-3.005

-3.494

-3.708

-3.994

-4.]24

-4.038

-3.929

-2.910

-3.506

-2,753

-3.951

15.20

-0.238

-0.679

-0.759

-1.328

-2.037

-2.366

-2.014

-3.014

-3.506

-3.720

-4.007

-4.138

-4.051

-3.942

-2.020

-3.518

-2.762

-3.864

15.25

-0.236

-0.681

-0.762

-1.333

-2.(N4

-2.374

-2.823

-3.024

-3.517

-3.737

-4.021

-4.151

-4.064

-3.955

-2.920

-3.530

-2.771

-3.977

15.30

-0.238

-0.684

-0.764

-1.337

-2.050

-2.382

-2.933

-3.034

-3.529

-3.744

-4.034

-4.183

-4.078

-3.968

-2.939

-3.541

-2.780

-3.000

15.35

-0.23"/

-0.686

-0.767

-1.342

-2.057

-2.390

-2.942

-3.044

-3.540

-3.757

-4.047

-4,170

-4.091

-3.081

-2.940

-3.383

-2.789

-4.003

13.40

-0.238

-0.688

-0.769

-1.346

-2.064

-2.397

-2.952

-3.054

-3.352

-3.769

-4.060

-4.182

-4.104

-3.993

-2.058

-3.564

-2.78Q

-4.018

15.45

-0.239

-0.690

-0.772

-1.380

-2.070

-2.405

-2.962

-3.064

-3.563

-3.701

-4.073

-4.206

-4.118

-4.006

-2.968

-3.576

-2.807

-4.029
-4.042

15.50

-0.239

-0.693

-0.774

-1.355

-2,077

-2.413

-2.071

-3,074

-3.575

-3.793

-4.086

-4.219

-4.131

-4.010

-2.977

-3.587

-2.816

16.55

-0.240

-0.695

-0.777

-1.359

-2.084

-2.421

-2.961

-3.084

-3.586

-3.806

-4.100

-4.233

-4.144

-4.032

-2.987

-3.599

-2.825

-4.056

15.60

-0.241

-0.69"/

-0.770

-1.363

-2.090

-2.428

-2.990

-3.094

-3.590

-3.818

-4.113

-4.247

-4.158

-4.045

-2.997

-3.611

-2.835

-4.069

16.65

-0.242

-0.699

-0.782

-1.388

-2.097

-2.436

-3.000

-3.104

-3.609

-3.830

-4.126

-4.260

-4.171

-4.058

-3.006

-3.622

-2.844

-4.0412

15.70

-0.242

-0.702

-0.784

-1.372

-2.104

-2.444

-3.010

-3.114

-3.621

-3.842

-4.139

-4.274

-4.184

-4.071

-3.016

-3.634

-2.653

-4.095

15.75

-0.243

-0.704

-0.787

-1.377

-2.111

-2.452

-3.010

-3.124

-3.632

-3.855

-4.152

-4.288

-4.198

-4.084

-3.025

-3.645

-2.862

-4.108

15.80

-0.244

-0.706

-0.789

-1.381

-2.117

-2.460

-3.020

-3.133

-3.644

-3.387

-4.166

-4.301

-4.211

-4.097

-3.038

-3.657

-2.871

-4.121

16.05

-0.245

-0.708

-0.792

-1.386

-2.124

-2.467

-3.038

-3.143

-3.655

-3.679

-4.170

-4.315

-4.224

-4.110

-3.045

-3.668

-2.880

-4.134

15.00

-0.246

-0.711

-0.794

-1.380

-2.131

-2.475

-3.048

-3.153

-3.667

-3.891

-4.192

-4.328

-4.238

-4.123

-3.054

-3.680

-2.889

..4.147

16.95

-0.246

-0.713

-0.797

-1.394

-2.137

-2.483

-3.057

-3.163

-3.678

-3.g04

-4.205

-4.342

-4.261

-4.138

-3.064

-3.692

-2.898

-4.160

lfi.00

-0.247

-0.715

-0.799

-1,398

-2.144

-2.491

-3.067

-3.173

-3.690

-3.916

-4.218

-4.356

-4.264

-4.149

-3.073

-3.703

-2.g07

-4.173

16.05

-0.248

-0.717

-0.602

-1.403

-2,151

-2.499

-3.077

-3.183

-3.702

-3.928

-4.232

-4.369

-4.278

-4.152

-3.083

-3.715

-2.916

-4.166

16.10

-0.249

-0.719

-0.804

-1,407

-2.157

-2.506

-3.086

-3.193

-3,713

-3.940

-4.245

-4.383

-4.291

-4.175

-3.093

-3,726

-2.925

-4.199

16.15

-0.248

-0.722

-0.807

-1.412

-2.164

-2.614

-3.096

-3.203

-3.725

-3.952

-4.258

-4.396

-4.304

-4.188

-3.102

-3.738

-2.934

-4.212

16.20 -0.250 -0.724 -0.809 1.416 -2.171


-2.522
-3.105 -3.213 -3.736 -3.966 -4.271 -4.410 -4.318 -4.201 -3.112
-3.749
...........................................................................................................................................................................

-2.944

-4.225

Resistance and Powering

CRI: f(DL)
VL=0.6-1.1
CRI
3

~f

VL:0.8
-+-

VL:0.7

---)K-- VL=0.8
VL:0.9

---X--- VL=I.0
--O-- VLft.L

-I

-2
0

50

100

150

200

250

300

DL

F i g u r e 4A R e s i d u a r y R e s i s t a n c e Coefficient C o m p o n e n t
C R I : f(DL) f o r S p e e d - L e n g t h R a t i o 0.6 - 1.1

CRI: f(DL)
VL= 1 . 2 - 1 . 7
CRI
14

VLffii.2

FI

J
l

--t--

VL:I.3

-'~

Vl,: 1.4

Vi,:I.5
J

VLfi.6
--0-- VL=1.7

-2
0

50

100

150

200

250

300

DL

F i g u r e 4B R e s i d u a r y R e s i s t a n c e C o e i f l d e a t C o m p o n e n t
C R I : f(DL) f o r S p e e d - L e n g t h R a t i o 1.2 - 1.7

Resistance and Powering

53

CRI: f(DL)
VL= 1 . 8 - 2 . 3
CRI

VL= t.8

--+-- VL=t.9
+

VL=2.0
VL=2.t

....-)6- V L = 2 . 2

-0-- VL=2.3

50

I00

150

200

250

300

DL

F i g u r e 4C R e s i d u a r y R e s i s t a n c e Coefficient C o m p o n e n t
C R I : f(DL) f o r S p e e d - L e n g t h R a t i o 1.8 - 2.3

CR2: f(Bx/Tx)
VL=O.6- I.I

3.5

CR2

3
2.5
....

VL=O.8

. ~ . . ~ -~--4e"- - ' K

VL=0.7
"--)i(-- VL=0.8

1.5
~-

:-~-'*~.~:~.=~

VI,=0.9

"-X- VL= t.O


-0--

0.5
0
-0.5
1.5

2.5

3.5

4.5

Bx/Tx

F i g u r e 5A R e s i d u a r y R e s i s t a n c e Coefficient C o m p o n e n t
C R 2 : f(Bx/Tx) f o r S p e e d - L e n g t h Ratio 0.6 - 1.1

54

Resistance and Powering

5.5

VL=I.t

CR2: f ( B x / T x )
VL= 1 . 2 - 1.7
CR2
3.

/
Vl.= t.2

2.

-4-- VL=I.3
c~

-~"

VL=I.4

-~-

VLffit.5

--X-- VL=l.6

VL=t.7
~

1.5

.~_..)e_~ ..._)e...~ -~x'---')e"

2.5

3.5

5.5

4.5

Bx/Tx

Figure SB R e s i d u a r y R e s i s t a n c e Coefficient C o m p o n e n t
CR2: f(Bxfl~) for Speed.Length Ratio 1.2 - 1.7

CR2: f ( B x / T x )
VL=1.8-2.3
CR2
2.1
1.9
1.7

YLffil.8

~x

VL=1.9

1.5

~--

__.x__~-~-~'~

VL=2.0
VL=2.!

1.3

---X-- VLffi2.2
VL=2.3

1.1
0.9
0.7
1.5

2.5

3.5

4.5

5.5

Bx/Tx

Figure $C Residuary Resistance C o d f l d e n t C o m p o n e n t


CR2: f(Bx/'I~) for Speed-Length Ratio 1.8 - 2.3

Resistance and Powering

55

CR3: f(Cp)

L-

CR3: f(Cp)

VL=O.8-1.1

VL= 1.8-2.3

CR3

CR3

+--+.__

--+-+-+-- --+_+_+__._.~+

., , ,., ,.I .

I , I I : , I : 1

II

VL=0.6

VL=I.8

71.=0.7

-at-- VL= t.9

-')E- VL=0.a

--)E- VL=2.0

VL=0.9

VL=2.I

"-~

VL= ! 0

--~-

VL=2.2

VL=t.t

"0-

VL=2.3

X'-')<-~ :--X--9<--K-~ :_..,_=~v

0.52

0.56

0.6

0.64

0.68

0.72

0.56

0.6

0.64

Cp

0.68

0.72

Cp

Figure 6A Residuary Resistance Coefficient Component


CR3: f(Cp) for Speed-Length Ratio 0.6 - 1.1

Figure 6C Residuary Resistance Coefficient Component


Length Ratio 1.8 - 23

CR3: f(Cp)

CR4: f(Cx)

VL=1.2-1.7

VL= 0 . 6 - 1 . 1

CR3

CR4

lrL= 1.2

VL=0.6

-q-- VL=I.3

--~

VL=t.,t
~

III

lit

III

VL=I.5
--X-- 71,=1.6

I+

"0-

0 52

0.56

0.6

0.64

0 68

0 72

I t,,

IrL=1.7

0.6

0.65

Cp

Figure 6B Residuary Resistance Coefficient Component


CR3: f(Cp) for Spoed-length Ratio 12. - 1.7

56

0.7

I I

0.75

0.9

0.95

-~

VL=0.8

-G-

VL=0.9
VL= 1.0

f I+-t--+-h+-+-

0 8 0.85

-@'- VL=I.I

Cx

Figure 7A Residuary Resistance Coefficient Component


CR4: f(Cx) for Speed-length Ratio 0.6 - 1.I

Resistance and Powering

VL=0.7

L_

CR4: f ( C x )

CR4: f ( C x )

VL: 1.8-2.3

VL= 1 . 2 - 1 . 7

CR4

CR4

VL: 1.8

VL= 1.2

V L : 1.9

--{-- VL= 1.3

--)[(-- YL:2.0

VL=I,4

--El- VLffi2.t

VL=i,5

[]

-9(-- YL=2.2

VL=I.6

-~"

VL=I.7
,,,

,,. . . .

I
i

0.75

0.8

0.65

0.7

0.85

0.9

0.95

-I-

0.7
0.6

YL=2.3

0.74

0.78

0.82

0.86

0.9

Cx

Cx

Figure 7C Residuary Resistance Coefficient Component


CR4: f(Cx) for Speed-Length Ratio 1~ - 23

Figure 7B Residuary Resistance Coefficient Component


CR4: f(Cx) for Speed.Length Ratio 1~ - 1.7

f(IE)
VL=O.6-1.l

CR5:

1.5

CR5

J
VL=0.6
-'{'-- VL=0.7

0.5

VL=O.8
VL=0.9
--K-- VL= t.0
VLfI.!

S
-0.5

10
t5
IE(DEG)

20

25

Figure 8A Residuary Resistance Coefficient Component


CR$: f(IE) for Speed.Length Ratio 0.6 - 1.1

Resistance and Powering

57

CR5: f(IE)
VL= 1 . 2 - 1 . 7
CR5
1.4

1.2

J
VL= t.2

0.8

--F-

0.6

VL= t.3
VLft.4

"I-

YLffil.5
0.4

VL= t.6
VL=I.7

0.2

G--.

--s-----e-~

[]

[3

0
-0.2
0

10

15

2O

25

IE(DEG)

Figure 8B Residuary Resistance Coefficient Component


CP,$: f(IE) for Speed.Length Ratio 1.2 - 1.7

CR5:

f(IE)

VL= 1 . 8 - 2 . 3
CR5

0.2
0
-0.2
VLffit.8
-0.4
-+--

VLfI.9

-0.6

VLf2.O

-0.8

---X-- VL=2.2

VLf2. t

YL:2.3

-I

_f

-1.2
- I .4
5

I0

ll

12

13

IE(DEG)

Figure 8C Residuary Resistance Coefficient Component


CP.5: f(IE) for Speed-Length Ratio 1~ - 2_3

58

Resistance and Powering

14

15

CR6:

f(TA)

VL=0.0-1.1

CR6
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.

0.

Vl,=0.6

~"

VL=0.7

~--

VL=0.0
VL-0.9

0.

- -

--K-- VL=L0
VLffiI.I

0,

0.05

0.1

0.15

0.2

0.25

0.3

0.35

0.4

TA

Figure 9A R e s i d u a r y Resistance Coefficient Component


CR6: f(TA) for Speed-Length Ratio 0.6 - 1.1

CR6:

f(TA)

VL=I.2-1.7

CR6
0.0
0.5

0.4
0.3

VL= 1.2
--'t--

0.2

VL= L.3

VL==.4
VL=t.5

.~ .,.

0.1

0'.

,,

--

--X--

VLffi 1 . 6

-~"

VL= t . 7

u=;~.--~--!

-0.1
-0.2
0

0.05

0.l

0.15

0.2

0.25

0.3

0.35

0.4

TA

Figure 9B Residuary Resistance Coefficient Component


CR6: f(TA) for Speed-Length Ratio 1 2 - 1.7

Resistance and Powering

59

CR6: f(TA)
VL= 1 . 8 - 2 . 3

CR6
0.1

~'~

-0.1

VL=t .8
VL=I.9
"-)E'- VL=2.0
VL=2.t

-0.2

--X-- VL=2.2
VL=2.3

-0.3

-0.4
0

0.05

O.t

0.15

0.2

0.25

0.3

0.35

0.4

TA

Figure 9C Residuary Resistance Coeflldent Component


CR6: WrA) f o r S p e e d - L e n g t h R a t i o 1 ~ - 2 3

CRT: f(TW)
VL=0.6-1.1
0.25

CR7

0.2
0.15

V'L=0.6
0.1

-4"- VL=0.7

/-

VL=0.8

VLffiO.9

0.05

S/
--tl.05

--X-- VL=IoO
VL=I.!

..~

--0.1
0

0.2

0.4

0.6

0.8

TW

Figure 10A Residuary Resistance Coefficient Component


CR7: f(TW) f o r S p e e d - L e n g t h Ratio 0.6 - 1.1

60

Resistance and Powering

CR7:

f(TW)

VL=I.2-1.7

CR7
0"
J

VL:I.2
-"4-- VL:I.3

-0.2

VL:I.4
"~

-.41.3

VL= 1.5

--K-- VL: 1.6


VLm 1.7

--0.4

-tl.6
0

0.2

0.6

0.4

0.8

TW

Figure 10B Residuary Resistance Coemdent Component


CRT: f(TW) for S p e e d . [ z a g t h Ratio 1 2 - 1.7

CR7: f(TW)
VL= 1.8 - 2 . 3

CR7

-0.2

Vl~i.8
VI~2.0

-0.4

--B- Vl~2. i
--X-- V1~2.2
-0-- V~2.S

-0.6

-0.8

0.2

0.4

0.6

0.8

TW

Figure 10C Residuary Resistance Coe/~deat Component


CRT: f(TW) for Speed-Lensth Ratio 1.8 - 23

Resistance and Powering

61

regression model could be pursued by comparing the general


trends of the correlation coefficients and the predicted results
from each of the individual variables.
The correlation
coefficients from Tables 3A, 3B, and 4 indicate the significance
of each of the parameters while ignoring the interference from the
others. The prediction trends from each of the hull form
parameters (residuary resistance coefficient component) can be
found in Figures 3A to 10C and Tables 6A to 6J. The
formulation of the bare hull regression model through the stepwise process clearly indicated that the contribution from each of
the individual hull form parameters to resistance had taken the
effects of the others into consideration. If the correlation
coefficients and the residuary resistance coefficient components
have similar trends, then this regression model could be
considered physically valid. The following discussions will focus
on the comparison of the correlation coefficients and residuary
resistance coefficient components for each of the hull form
parameters and their applications in hull form design for transom
stem ships.

4.2.1 Displacement-Length Ratio (DL)


Displacement-length ratio is known to be the most important
hull form parameter for resistance. Its significance is clearly
validated by the correlation coefficients, particularly in the
medium and high-speed regimes (see Tables 3B and 4). The
contribution to resistance from DL was found to be consistent at
all speeds; but diminished as the speed decreased. The residuary
resistance coefficient components (CR1) from Figures 3A to 3C
reflected the same trends as the correlation coefficients. Despite
a significant increase in DL, the increment of CR1 in the low
speed range was rather moderate (see Figure 4A). Rapid increase
of CR1 appears at the beginning of the medium-speed range and
reaches its peak at a speed-length ratio of 1.9; this trend was
echoed by the correlation coefficients. The slope of CR1 at the
end of the high speed regime started to decline, making it
comparable to the phenomenon described in (Fung, 1987). There
were no optimum DL values for the residuary resistance at any
speeds. The general trend was that the lower the DL, the better
the resistance. However, DL is highly correlated with lengthbeam ratio, for a fixed beam value, length-beam ratio increased
as DL decreased. Where length-beam ratio was the second
highest correlated parameters to wetted surface coefficient
(CWS), a significant decrease in DL would result in an increase
in wetted surface. An exceptionally low DL value might not
produce a ship with the lowest total resistance, particularly at the
extreme ends of the speed regime where frictional, rather than
residuary resistance is a dominant factor.

4.2.2 Beam-Draft Ratio (Br/TT.Q


The residuary resistance effect from this hull form parameter
was found to be relatively weak when compared to the other hull
form parameters. Both the correlation coefficients and residuary
resistance coefficient component (CR2) indicated that the
significance of this hull form parameter started to rise as speed
went up. An increase of CR2 at Bxff x value less than 2.5 at
most of the speeds, at first, seemed to be contradictory to known
facts (Taylor, 1911). A scrutiny of the BxlT x distribution
revealed that only a few hull forms in this database possessed a
beam-draft ratio less than 2.5, which were largely represented by
the Series 64 hulls. In order to verify this increasing trend, the
residuary resistance characteristics of Series 64 were reviewed
(Yeh, 1965) where trends similar to CR2 were found. The
representation of CR2 in this regard could be considered valid in
both statistical and physical measures.

62

4.2.3 Prismatic Coel~cient (Ce)


The residuary resistance effect from Cp was weak except at the
first hump region. The near zero correlation coefficient values in
the high speed range shown in Table 3B indicated that the
prismatic coefficient produces a minimum effect on resistance.
The residuary resistance coefficient component (CR3) from
Figures 6A and 6B showed a similar trend as that from the
correlation coefficient in Tables 3A and 3B. Generally, in the
low-speed regime, minimum residuary resistance tended to move
toward the lower end of the prismatic coefficients. A more
pronounced slope of CR3 could be found at speed-length ratios
of 1.0 to 1.2, which was also reflected by their corresponding
correlation coefficient values. The reverse trend for resistance
was found to be true in the high speed range (see Figure 6C).
The demand for a higher Cp (which also means a straight
forebody sectional area curve for a given FB and transom
geometry) to minimize residuary resistance at high speed was due
to the effect of sectional area shape on bow wave resistance. The
bow wave systems tended to move aft as speed increased. The
shoulder wave, therefore, could be avoided if a straight sectional
area curve was provided.

4.2.4 Maximum Section Area Coe~cient (Cy2


The correlation between Cx and CR was very weak at the low
and high-speed regimes. The significance of Cx on residuary
resistance advanced to the fourth place in the medium-speed
regime, which was rather unexpected (see Table 4). A careful
review of Tables 3A to 4 shows that the correlation coefficients
seldom exceed 0.3, which is a rather insignificant value.
Therefore, Cx could not be interpreted as more significant than
the other hull form parameters, e.g., Bx/Tx and Cp. The near
zero correlation values in the low speed range did not reveal any
trends for Cx. The small but positive correlation values in the
higher speed range did have some implications about the
preference for small Cx values. A similar trend could be found
from the residuary resistance coefficient component (CR4) (see
Figure 7C), thereby confirming the physical validity of this term.
It is interesting to note that high Cx transom stem ships
apparently offer lower residuary resistance in the low speed range
than ships with slack midship sections (see Figure 7A). This
phenomenon was proven by several transom stem auxiliary ships
which possessed high Cx values, e.g., AE-36, T-AGS 45, FDL,
and Michigan High-Speed Merchant Ships (Model 1094)
(Michelsen, 1968). These ships all have a small transom
immersion and exhibited similar buttock flow characteristics;
some of them were even tested with bulbous bows. Their
residuary resistance characteristics were very low in the low
speed range when compared to the equivalent transom stem ships
with slack-midship sections. The low residuary resistance
characteristics in the low speed range were sometimes magnified
by their protruded bulbous bow versions. A well proven
explanation for this phenomenon is not known to the author. As
a matter of fact, the low residuary resistance characteristics from
the ships noted earlier, raised some questions on the model test
accuracy. A careful assessment of flow lines studies revealed
that at low speed, the dynamic pressure behind the midships
region, especially near the surface, was insufficient to create a
transverse pressure gradient which would force the water to angle
inward toward the centerline at the stem. Usually, the flow along
the after part of the run was more upward than inward. A tight
midships, transom stem ship would provide a wider and flatter
buttock flow than the one with a smaller Cx, which had a
tendency to generate a larger inward flow in the bilge area. The
magnification of resistance reduction in the low speed range for

Resistance and Powering

this type of ship with a protruding bulbous bow was mainly due
to the reduction of viscous drag by decreasing the curvature of
the flow lines along the hull. The advantages of fight midships
for transom stem ships started to disappear as speed increased,
(see the comparison made for the ships with similar transom
geometry but distinctive Cx characteristics in Figure 11). This is
mainly due to slack midship section reduces the slope in the
afterbody bilge area for a given length of run, therefore, at high
speed the flow through the buttock will be straighter and easier.

WCF
1.6
1.5

1.41

4.2.5 Hal[ Entrance Angle (IE)


Most of the speed range was covered by high positive
correlation coefficients (see Tables 3A and 3B). The overall
significance of IE was second to that of the displacement-length
ratio. The positive correlation values at all speeds reflected the
need for low half-entrance angles for minimum resistance.
Similar trends could be found for the residuary resistance
coefficient component (CR5) at speed-length ratios up to 1.4, but
the reverse was true at higher speeds. The same reverse trends
were shown in Figures 8A to 8C at the lower bound of the halfentrance angle at all speeds. The contradictions between the
correlation coefficient and CR5 in these two areas were due to
the former iguoring the effects from the other hull form
parameters. At the high end of the medium-speed regime,
dynamic effects became dominant, and the crest of the bow wave
system would shift aft. For a given Cp and Cw~ too fine an
entrance angle would affect the smoothness of the forebody,
increasing the shoulder wave, and adversely affecting resistance.
The adverse effect on resistance of using an extremely low IE
value (e.g., 4-degrees and less) is a reflection of the data sample
in this database. Among the 529 ships in this database, other
than the Series 64 hulls, only a few possessed such fine entrance.
The upward trends in the far left of Figures 8A and 8B reflect
mainly the poor resistance characteristics of Series 64. The
program CRTS3D.WKI, thereby, may not yield valid predictions
for ships with extremely fine entrance angles. If the halfentrance angle is not known to ship designers at the early stage,
it can be estimated by the following equation:
IE = 120.0192 + 69.2808 / DL + 0.1131 * Lwt]B x
+ 104.8640 / (LwL/Bx) - 28.5611 * Cp
- 26.5287 / Cp - 24.8166 * Cx " 16.2033 / Cx
+ 2.6398 * TW - 49.6570 * FB

Midships S e c t i o n Effect
on Worm Curve factor

(3)

1.3
1.2

1.1
1
0.9
0.8
0.6

/
0.7

f
0.8

0.9

1.1

1.2

1.3

cx - 0 . 9 7 6

1.4

1.5

V/LWL'0.5
--

SHIP=
CX:

c x 0.766

--

WMEC 901
~768

UM 1094
~976

DL=

97.40

91.09

TA=

0.035

0.024

TW=

0.488

0.450

Cp:

0.587

0.533

Bx/Tx=

2.915

3.530

BA:

0.000

0.000

4.2.6 Transom Configuration (TA, TW, and IT)


Three hull form parameters were used to describe the transom
geometry in this study, namely: transom area ratio (TA), transom
width ratio (TW), and transom depth ratio (IT). Tables 2A to
3B clearly indicate that these three hull form parameters are
highly correlated to each other and also to the resistance over
most of the speed range. Therefore, statistically, they should not
be incorporated in the same regression equation. "IT under
certain circumstances could be eliminated from the regression
model, particularly if most transoms in the database possessed an
arc form (tunnel) or deep local deaddse, since little linkage of
this parameter to transom separation could be observed.
However, most of the transoms in this study possessed a near
trapezoidal form. As a matter of fact, for a given TA and TW,
"IT could be represented by the following equation:
TT = 0.0067 + 0.3502 * TW - 0.4948 * TW 2
+ 1.8239 * TA - 1.9415 * TA 2

Figure 11 Midships Section Effect on Worm Curve Factor

(4)

Resistance and Powering

63

The inclusion of "IT and TW could be used to describe the


approximation of the transom local deadrise, which has been
known to be an important factor for the local dynamic pressure.
The correlation coefficients for these hull form parameters on
resistance all exhibited high values in the low speed range. The
transition points (close to zero or change of sign) for these three
parameters appeared for speed-length ratios of 1.3 and 1.4 (see
Table 3A). Above the transition points, the correlation values
started to increase as speed increased. Similar trends were also
revealed by the residuary resistancecoefficient components (CR6,
CR7, and CR8). The need to have an emerged transom in the
low speed range to avoid high eddy resistance was obvious (see
Figure 9A). It was surprising, at first, to see a need for a nonzero TW to achieve minimum resistance at low speed (see Figure
10A). A careful review of the buttock flow characteristics, which
was described in an earlier section, indicated that small transom
width, even at low speed, was still an essential element to avoid
excessive run angle, where separation or cross flow (inward
tangential flow mixed with the upward buttock flow) could be
induced. CR6 did not always comply with the correlation
coefficient (see Figure 9B). At the speed-length ratio of 1.4,
CR6 increased as TA increased, which is not consistent with the
need for a small TA in the next lower speed-length ratio. In the
same manner, there was a need for high "IT for low CR8 values
in the speed-length ratios of 1.1 and 1.2. Repeated attempts to
rationalize those results were unsuccessful, due to the
interrelationship of these parameters.
Therefore, transom
configuration should be considered as a whole, pursuing the
optimum value for these three hull form parameters separately is
not recommended.
Transom knuckles and buttocks are the other known transom
related geometric features which have impacts on transom
resistance. Both transom knuckles and hooked buttocks manifest
the local pressure in the stem region at high speed, where lower
wave-making and frictional resistance could be achieved due to
the net reduction in trim and sinkage. The reverse is true at low
speeds, where cross flow and eddy currents would be generated,
see Appendix D for more information. Unfortunately, while
these two parameters could be detected by model tests, yet they
still failed to be mathematically described by the current
regression model due to insufficient data.

4.2.7 Bow Area Ratio (BA)


Among the 529 test conditions in this database, only 129 of
them consisted of bulbous bows. Quantitatively, the amount of
bulb data was insufficient to support any elaborate analysis.
Resistance effects from bulbs are known to have strong linkage
to bulb size and location. As a matter of fact, up to six bulb
parameters were deemed to be significant by Kracht (1978).
Despite its far more complicated geometry effect on resistance
when compared with the other hull form parameters, the how
area ratio (BA) was the only bulb parameter that could be
considered in this analysis due to database limitations.
Qualitatively, the above approach could be considered as
acceptable, as most of the bulbs in this study were Taylor-type
bulbous bows.
In reviewing the correlation coefficients of BA vs. CR from
Tables 3A and 3B, no conclusive findings could be obtained due
to the near "zero and negative" correlation values which appeared
up to the speed-length ratio of 1.7. As a matter of fact, earlier
study (Fung, 1988) indicated that positive correlation values
rather than negative ones should be expected in the low speed
range. However, the residuary resistance coefficient component
(CR9) provoked little or no contradiction to any known physical

64

facts when compared to its corresponding correlation coefficient.


The need for a large bow bulb as spee d increases is clearly
shown in Table 61. The slight diminishing effect of the bow bulb
can also be seen at the far right from the same table. This effect
is mainly caused by the crest of the bow wave progressing aft as
speed increases, therefore, the optimum phase angle for bow
wave cancellation can no longer be maintained by the bulb. The
positive correlation values for BA at the high-speed range in
Table 3B are purely a statistical illusion as no model test data
with bulbous bows have been acquired in this regime.
A prominent resistance effect from bow sonar domes has been
known to naval ship designers for decades. At first glance, bow
domes could be considered as a subset of bulbous bows in terms
of their similarity in resistance characteristics. However, due to
the deeper submergence in volume and distinction in shape of
domes when compared to the conventional bulbous bows, the
resistance contribution from the bulb dome should be considered
as an appendage rather than an integral part of the hull. This
approach is adopted by the current study and the program
CRTS3D.WK1 incorporates the appended resistance data for
seventeen different types of bow domes. Naval ship how dome
resistance effects are usually subject to classification and cannot
be discussed in detail here. However, a significant amount of
unclassified bow dome research in both smooth and rough water
can be found in (Takezawa, 1961, 1962, and 1963). From this
research, some hydrodynamic design guidelines on how domes
can be established. In summary: (1) It is feasible to design a
hydrodynamically "sound" how dome for fine hull forms in the
"medium-speed range". In rare occasions, no how domes can be
designed to avoid a heavy resistance penalty, particularly in the
low speed range. (2) The optimum location of the center of the
how dome for typical slender displacement hulls was found to be
2% to 3.5% l-,wL forward of the Fla. (3) As far as the shape of
the how dome is concerned, hydrodynamically, spherical (or
volume wise, longitudinally concentrated) is preferable to one
which has displacement uniformly distributed lengthwise, due to
the fact that the former allows its displacement to be concentrated
at its optimum location. Unfortunately, a valid mathematical
description of bow domes for regression analysis has yet to be
developed.

4.2.8 Wetted Surface Coefficient (CWS)


Compared to the other hull form parameters, CWS consistently
exhibits the lowest correlation coefficient with respect to
residuary resistance (see Table 4A and 4B). It is interesting to
note that during the multiple step-wise regression analysis, CWS
often emerges as a significant factor in the regression model
because of its relatively high "t" value in the medium and high
speed ranges. Since the CR is defined as a function of wetted
surface, CWS has been incorporated in the final regression
equation at all speeds. For early stage study, CWS can be
estimated by the following equation:
CWS = - 6.2263 - 0.0094 * DL + 16.0209 / (LwL/Bx)
+ 0.9207 * (B x/Tx) + 5.4630 / (Bx/Tx)
+ 9.8528 * Cx + 7.1592 / Cx + 0.0201
IE + 2.1857/IE + 1.0359 * TW
+ 2.4925 * BA - 3.7181 * FB

(5)

4.2.9 Hull Form Optimization


The magnitude of the correlation coefficients and residuary
resistance coefficient components for the primary hull form
parameters, as noted earlier, apparently possessed similar trends.
Therefore, the program CRTS3D.WK1 can be considered sound

Resistance and Powering

in physical measure and provided a stepping stone for huh form


optimization. Theoretically, for a given speed-length ratio, the
optimum hull form parameters can be derived from Tables 6A to
6J. However, when the optimum hull form parameters were
cross-plotted against speed-length ratio, the optimum values did
not appear to be very consistent. In certain cases, the optimum
values even lied outside the data range, therefore, mathematically
derived optimum values could not be obtained from the current
database. After examining the values of the mean square of the
residual errors from Table 5, the further pursuit of mathematically
derived optimum hull form parameters was found to be
unnecessary because the magnitude of the residual error was on
the order of 2% to 4%. For design purposes, a set of "suggested
hull form parameters", based on extensive cross-fairing of the
previously derived optimum hull form parameters has been
provided. The "suggested hull form parameters" for a given
speed-length ratio are shown in Figures 12 and 13. When
pursuing hull form optimization based on these figures, caution
should be used to account for the fact that hull form parameters
are mutually correlated, therefore, it is impossible to vary one
parameter considerably without changing the others. Hull form
optimization should be considered as a whole, ra~er than
attempting to fine tune an individual parameter for minimum
resistance. On the other hand, if the hull form parameters of a
ship design deviated significantly from the predicted results from
equations (3) to (5), the suggested values of Figures 12 to 13
may no longer be valid. Overall, the "suggested hull form
parameters" from Figures 12 to 13 could serve as rough

Suggested Bx/Tx & IE


3.2

ie

Bx/Tx

(deg)

16

t"

3.1

14

/
/
/
i

12

l0

2.9

2.8
/
/

2.7
2.6

2.5
0.5

0.7

0.9

l.l

1.3

1.5

1.7

1.9

2.1

2
2.3

V/LW~0.5
--Bx/Tx

..... IE

guidelines for huh form design and should not be considered as


absolute values for hull form optimization.
4.3 A p p e n d a g e D r a g Prediction

Figure 12 Suggested Bx/Tx and IE


The necessity of having a reliable analytical appendage drag
prediction method is no less important than that for bare hull
resistance prediction during the early stagesof ship design. The
state of the art in this area has been far less than satisfactory.
The difficulties in appendage drag prediction are mainly caused
by the appendagesof interest, which are located largely within
the boundary layer, where non-uniform flow occurs. Likewise,
scale effect and lack of agreement on the expansion of model
appendage resistance measurement to full scale estimates
aggravate the existing problems. As a result, the available
appendagedrag data in this study is less amenable to statistical
analysis than its bare hull counterpart.
Despite the hydrodynamic unce~lainties noted above, several
empirical appendage drag prediction methods have been
developed, based on the assumption that appendage drag as a
whole could be broken down into elements (Kirionan, 1979) and
(Peck, 1976). The theoretical basis for both Kirkman (1979) and
Peck (1976) were relied heavily on Homer's (1965) empirical
equations. The types of appendages to which the methods
described was applicable to: rudders, bilge keels, shafts, stmts,
bossing.., where individual elements were treated as equivalent
foils, flat plates, and cylinders etc. The inputs required for
(Kirkman, 1979) to describe the appendage geometry were labor
intensive and exceeded the need for early stage design. In
addition, without knowing the precise flow velocities and flow
angles on the local appendages, programs similar to Kirkman
(1979) would not yield an valid prediction. Unfortunately,
without the help of model tests, precision of the local flow would
largely be unknown and the prediction errors from Kirkman
(1979) were sometimes as high as +/-40% when compared to
model test predictions.
The required efforts and rewards from the earlier empirical
analytical methods apparently were not suitable for feasibility

Suggested Cp, Cx & TA, TW


TA. TN

Cp, Cx

\
0

/r

o
/
i#

c
0.5

0.7

--CP

0.9

l.l

1.3 t.5 1.7


V/LWL,-0.5

--CX

TA

1.9

2.1

2.3

..... TW

Figure 13 Suggested Cp, Cx, and TA, TW

Resistance and Powering

65

study in which appendage geometry was largely undefined. A


better alternative for appendage prediction during early stage
design is to rely strictly on experimental data rather than
empirical equations.
Since stripping tests were seldom
performed, appendage drag prediction could only be considered
as a whole in this study. Total appendage drag is strongly
dependent on the geometry and number of its sub-elements. In
order to simplify the appendage drag problem, the following
discussion will focus mainly on the appendages for twin-screw
open-stem ships. Such appendage sets are usually composed of
twin rudders, shafts, bilge keels, and main and intermediate
struts. Other than the rudders, the appendage sizes are largely a
function of the types (FP, CPP) and diameter of the propellers.
This assumption greatly simplifies the problem. The resistance
characteristics for this type of appendage sets could be quantified
by the following coefficient:
CD(APP) = (EI-IP(APP) * 1E5/LwL / V) / DP

estimate the values of the components of the propulsive


coefficient, but to estimate the propulsive coefficient as a whole,
based on historical data. Propulsive coefficient is known to have
strong linkage to propeller thrust-loading coefficient (CT)
CT = T/((.5 * RAW) * Xp * PI * (DI# / 4))

(9)

Since propellers are operated in the wake field of a ship, the


disadvantage of using CT to predict propulsive coefficient,
thereby, is the need to find out the unknown interaction
coefficients first. A more effective way to express the propulsive
coefficient based on CT could be applied to a homogeneous
group of ships (ships that possess similar interaction coefficients).
A "pseudo" propeller loading coefficient [CTc=**3] with the
assumption of zero "t" and "w" values was introduced by Slager,
which significantly enhanced the expression of propulsive
coefficient.

(6)
where,

For a ship with a given set of appendages, the appendage drag


coefficient CD(APP) varies with speed. Usually, CD(APP)
increases as speed increases. However, in some cases, the
reverse of this trend has been detected. A significant amount of
appendage data was gathered by Sanders and Fung led by Slager.
In essence, those data were still inadequate for any elaborated
analysis. A further simplification in this analysis was attempted
by Slager where the values of CD(APP) were determined by
"averaging" through the speed range for each ship.
The
"averaged" CD(APP) values were then plotted against the ship
length (see NAVSEA Design Data Sheet DDS-051). A clear
distinction of CD(APP) for ships with FP and ClaP was found.
The drawback of this plot is that CD(APP) data for ships with
CPP's is largely dominated by the shorter ships and vice versa
for ships with FP propellers. In both cases, the scattering of
CD(APP) was quite extensive, particularly for FP propellers.
More appendage data on small ocean-going vessels were
compiled by Leibman and Slager in 1985; but the data has yet to
be incorporated into the current DDS. Significant research on
appendage resistance still needs to be done. For simplification,
the C'D(APP) for ships with CPP and FP propellers are
represented by the following equations. The playback values
from the following equations are still under investigation at this
stage.
For CPP:
CD(APP) = 5.1341 - 0.0084 * L,wL + 9.0927 E-6
LwL2 - 3.8721E-9 * LWL3

(7)

For FP:
CD(APP) = 3.312 - 2.727 * LWL/1000 + 1.488

(8)

(Lwj1000) 2

4.4 Propulsive Coefficient and P o w e r i n g Prediction

Propulsive coefficient is defined as the ratio between the


power required to tow a ship and the shaft power required to
drive the propulsor at a given speed. It is commonly considered
to be equal to the product of hull efficiency, relative rotative
efficiency, and the propulsor open-water efficiency. In spite of
extensive research on interaction coefficients, prediction of wake
fraction (w), thrust deduction fraction (t), and relative rotative
coefficient are still largely unavailable during early stage design.
The common practice to support early stage design is not to

66

CTcmoa) = [EHPT * 5 5 0 / n] / [.5 * R A W ) * V 3

PI * (Dp2/4)]

(lO)

The above expression is usually applicable to open stem ships


due to their limited variations on "t" and "w". The scatter
diagrams of propulsive coefficient as a function of CTt=.,0 were
plotted for different types of ships, e.g., alrcratt carriers, ocean
survey ships, patrol boats .... etc. Unfortunately, those plots are
still subject to higher classification. A more general expression
on the propulsive coefficient (P.C.) for twin-screw transom stem
ships can be found from the following equation:
P.C. = (0.706738 - 0.86662 * CTcmo~) * (P.C. RED)

(11)

where,
P.C. RED = 0.95 to 1.00
Obviously, even for a single type of ship, the P.C. values can still
vary over a fairly broad range. As a matter of facL it is seldom
that a single representation of P.C. vs. CT=~ can be made to
represent all types of ships. Equation (10) is merely a means for
P.C. prediction during the early stages of ship design. Despite
the fact that P.C. data is heavily influenced by ship type, the
predicted result from equation (11) is found to be within 5%
accuracy when compared to the experimental results. It is the
author's recommendation to use a propulsive reduction coefficient
(P.C. RED) of unity for ships with low displacement-length ratios
and unrestricted propeller diameter (propeller tips below the
baseline) and a lower P.C. RED value (0.95 to < 1.0) for ships
with high-displacement length ratios and restricted propeller
diameter (propeller tips above the baseline).
Unlike hull form and propeller geometry, air drag, hull fouling,
and propeller rotation (inward or outward), all play important
roles in ship propulsive performance. However, they are beyond
the scope of this study.
5.0 CONCLUSIONS
The statistically based resistance and powering prediction
program CRTS3D.WKI represents the final product of this study.
The bare hull resistance prediction for transom stem hulls
developed under this investigation is considered to be satisfactory
in both statistical and physical measures. Extensive research on
appendage drag and propulsive coefficients still needs to be done.
The high playback and correlation values from Table 5 and

Resistance and Powering

Appendix C reveal the achievement and confidence level of the


current investigation. By the same token, the statistical approach
in this study did not reveal the need for cross-coupling terms,
which were widely used in the earlier studies. Obviously there
is still room for future improvements, as the current investigation
is not yet able to yield valid resistance prediction on bulbous
bows, transom knuckles, and hooked buttocks. However, the
problems as noted are largely due to inadequate experimental
data. Finally, it is the author's recommendation to use the
program CRTS3D.WKI (or the residuary resistance coefficient
components) for powering predictions: (1) CRTS3D.WK1 should
not be used to predict ship resistance, if the hull form parameters
deviate significantly from the mean and standard deviation values
(see Table 2B). (2) Extrapolation of the "residuary resistance
coefficient components" from Tables 6A to 6J is not
recommended.

Fung, S., "Auxiliary Ship Hull Form Design and Resistance


Prediction," Naval Engineering Journal, Vol. 100, No. 3, May
1988.

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

Holtrop J., "A Statistical Re-Analysis of Resistance and

Froude, W., "Experiments Upon the Effect Produced on the


Wave-Making Resistance of Ships," Trans. INA 1877.
Hagen, G., E. Comstock, and J. Slager, "Investigation of Design
Power Margin and Correlation Allowance for Surface Ships,"
Chesapeake section of SNAME, December 1983.
Holtrop J., and G.G.J., Mermen, "A Statistical Power Prediction
Method," ISP, Vol. 25, No. 290, 1978.
Holtrop J., and G.G.J., Meunen, "An Approximate Power
Prediction Method," ISP, Vol. 29, No. 335, July 1982.

Propulsion Data," ISP. Vol. 31, No. 363, November 1984.


The author wants to thanks Messrs Mark Bebar and Jay Howell
of NavSea, who kindly reviewed the paper, and whose expert
views have been very important in assessing the value of the
information presented. Last, but not least, Miss Mina Chung and
Mrs. Emily Fung who helped review the draft with great patience
and suggested improvement.
REFERENCES

Aughey, M., "Analytical Prediction of Ship Hull Resistance,"


November 1983.
Aughey, M., "Comments on lung (1988)," pp 172-174, Naval
Engineering Journal, vol 100, No. 4, July 1988.
Camporses, C., B. Della Loggia, and L. Doria, "A Design
Method for Fast Twin-Screw Ships Based on A Statistical
Approach," CETENA, s.p.a. Quaderno N. 66, February 1986.
Chatterton, H., "Evaluation and User's Guide for the HoltropMennen Approximate Power Prediction Method," USNA, Report
EW-27-84, August 1984.
Day, B., F. Del Priore, and E. Sax, "The Technique of Regression
Analysis," Industrial Quality Control, August 1955.
Doust, D.J. and T.P. O'Brien, "Resistance and Powering of
Trawlers," NECIES, Vol. 75, 1959.
Doust' D.J., "Ship Design and Power Estimating Using Statistical
Methods," Norwegian Ship Model Experiment Tank Publication
No. 70, December 1962.
Doust, D.J., "Optimized Trawler Forms," NECIES, Vol. 79, 1963.
Doust, DJ., "An Assessment of NPL Resistance Data for OceanGoing Vessels with Note on the Planning of Methodical Series
Experiments," NPL Ship Division Report, March 1964.
Emerson, A., "Comments on Doust (1959)," pp 106, NECIES,
Vol. 75, 1959.
Fung, S., "The State of The Art of Resistance Predictions and
Parametric Studies for High-Speed Displacement Hulls," Naval
Engineers Journal, Vol. 99, No. 2, March 1987.

Hoemer S., "Fluid-Dynamic Drag," 1965.


Jin, P., B. Su, and Z. Tan, "A Parametric study on High-Speed
Round Bilge Displacement Hulls," High-Speed Surface Craft,
September 1980.
Kirkman, K.L., D.G. Sanders, and Slager, J.J., "Methodology for
Computation of Appendage Resistance," NAVSEA Report 321379-40, October 1979.
Kiss, T., and R. Compton, "The Effects of Transom Geometry on
the Resistance of Large Surface Combatants," SNAME Vol. 97,
1989.
Kracht, A.M., "Design of Bulbous Bow," SNAME Vol 86, 1978.
Kvalseth T., "Cautionary Note About 17,2,'' The American
Statisticans, Vol. 39, No. 4, November 1985.
Lin, W.C., W.G. Day, J. Hough, R.G. Keane, D. Walden, and
I.Y. Koh, "Advanced Methodology for Preliminary Hull form
Development," ASNE, May 1984.
Lin, C., W. Day, and W. Lin, "Statistical Prediction of Ship's
Effective Power Using Theoretical Formulation and Historic
Data," Marine Technology, Vol. 24, No. 3, July 1987.
Manen, J.D. van, and Oossanen, P. van, "Principles of Naval
Architecture, Second Revision, Vol. II, Chapter 5," SNAME,
1988.
Marwood, W.J. and D. Bailey, "Design Data for High-Speed
Displacement Hulls of Round-Bilge Form," NPL Ship Report No.
99, February 1969.
Mercier, J.A., and D. Savitsky, "Resistance of Transom-Stem
Craft in the Pre-Planing Regime," SIT-DL-73-1667, June 1973.
Michelsen, F.C., J.L. Moss, and B.J. Young, "Some Aspects of
Hydrodynamic Design of High-Speed Merchant Ships," SNAME
Vol. 76, 1968.
Morrison, M., "Investigation of Ship Resistance Data By
Statistical Methods," Experimental Towing Tank Report No. 453,
Stevens Institute of Technology, August 1954.

Resistance and Powering

67

Oorlmcrssen, G. van, "A Power Prediction Method and its


Application to Small Ships," ISP, Vol. 18, No. 207, 1971.
Peck R., "The Determination of Appendage Resistance of Surface
Ships [U]," AEW TM 76020, May 1976.
Sabit, A.S., "Regression Analysis of the Resistance Results of the
B.R.S.A. Series," ISP Vol. 18, January 1971.
Sabit, A.S., "An Analysis of the Series 60 Results, Part I,
Analysis of Forms and Resistance Results," ISP Vol. 19, 1972.
Sabit, A.S., "An Analysis of the Series 60, Part II, Regression
Analysis of the Propulsion factors," ISP Vol. 19, September
1972.

Takezawa, S., "An Application of the Waveless Theory to the


Design of a Destroyer Form," Intemational Seminar on
Theoretical Wave-Resistance, Vol. 3, 1963.
Taylor, D.W., "The Speed and Power of Ships," 1911.
Todd, F.H., P.E. Friedenberg, and G.R. Stuntz, "Regression
Analysis of Resistance Data for Destroyer Models (U)," DTMB
C-2233, June 1966. (Declassified)
Yeh, Hugh Y.H., "Series 64 Resistance Experiments on High
speed Displacement Forms," Marine Technology, Vol. 2, No.3,
July 1965.

Sabit, A.S., "The SSPA Cargo Liner Series Regression Analysis


of the Resistance and Propulsive Coefficients," ISP Vol. 23,
1976.
Savitsky, D., "Hydrodynamic Design of Planing Hulls," Marine
Technology, Vol. I, No. 1, Oct 1964.
Tagano, H., "Prediction of the Wave Resistance of Ships by
Statistical Analysis," Mitsubishi Technical Bulletin No. 90, 1974.
Takahei, T., and J. Moss, "Resistance Tests Results on DD Hull
with Large Bulbous Bows," UM, DepL of NAME TR, September
1962.
Takezawa, S., "A Study on the Large Bulbous B o w of A HighSpeed Displacement Ship, Part I,RcsistanccTests in StillWater,"
Society of Naval Architects of Japan, November, 1961.

Appendix A
The Adverse Effect from Excessive Independent Variable
The adverse effect on using excessive independent variable(s)
in a regression model is clearly shown in Figure A-I. Both of
the displacement-length ratio and length-beam ratio were slightly
correlated to the residuary resistance coefficient in the low speed
range, in which they were also highly correlated to each other.
Historical data revealed that the displacement-length ratio should
be proportional to the residuary resistance at all speeds.
However, the inclusion of these two highly correlated parameters
in the regression caused DL to yield a false indication on
residuary resistance, particularly at speed-length ratios of 0.8 and
1.1, where "residuary resistance coefficient components"
decreased as displacement-length ratios increased.

CR1 : f(DL)
VL=O.6-1.t

CRt

i !T

VL=O.8
--~-- VL=O.?
"-)K-- VL=O.8
-El-

VL=0.9

-')<-- VL= t.O


VI,= t . t

-1.5

-2
0

50

100

150

200

250

DL

Figure A-1 Adverse Effect from Excessive Independent Variable

68

Resistance and Powering

300

SHIP' HIGH-SPEED DISPLACEMENT H U L L


MODEL: NA

Appendix B
HP/IO00
200

CRTS3D.WK1 Sample Output

Table B-1 and Figure B-1 are the CRTS3D.WKI resistance and

powering prediction outputs for a high-speed displacement hull.


Figure B-2 is the prediction error from CRTS3D.WK1 when
compared with the experimental results.

150

100

Table B-I

50

CRTS30.M(I Sample 0 ~ t p u t

///
/

R691STANC6 & POWERING PREO[CTIONS

F80 TW[N-SO~E8SHIPS (C3TS3D.WXI)


....................................................................................................

DISTRIBUTION: 8A
9H[P
HI80-SPEEO OISPLACERENT HULL
HEK~RKS: W/80W 80ME

PROGRN~qER SIU 6 FUN6


P~)OEL
NA

10

20

15

2,5

30
35
V(KNOTS)

INPUTS
....................................................................................................

"

LWL (FT) 476 OO0


CA(SUG) 0.80042
6x (FT)
40.000
CA
0.80050
IX (fT)
14,800
SUGGESTEDCD(APP)
OISP (LT) 4475.0
T S, (~qP 2.791
OlSP(480) 2685.5
: 1 S FP
2.351
05 (FT~2)
22710
" CD(APP)
2 351
WS (400)
16037
OP (FT)
13.92
DL
41.483
PROP NO.
2
L/8
9 9167
O.ARG (%)
o
8/T
3.4188
AR (FT^2)
2304
CP
0 6092
~
0 70 RE~KS: O lO FOR O0
0.65 FOR CV
CX
0.8010
[E (060)
8 S
P C. RED
1.80
A20/AX
0.105
e2018x
0.633
- .............................................................
"
" T20/TX
0.225
[SONN~DO4qE
0OME
[
V(KT)
SXP ]
tJ:/~
0.023
I EST DOHE WS (FT~2) 1253 0
[. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
F8
0 517
]EST DOMEAR (FT^2) 270.6
I CRUISE
20 O0
9544 I
CWS
15.560
[ EST C(~E OlSP (LT)
158.4
[ OESIQ(
39 00
87854 [
....................................................................................................
VL
V(KNOTS)
CP
CR'IO00 8P(BH) HP(D(~E) EHP(APP) EHP(AIR) EHPT
...................................................................................................
0,50
0.60
0 70
0 80
0.90
1 80
1.10
1.20

10.9807
13.0905
15,2722
17,6539
19.6357
21 8114
23.0002
26,1809
I 30 28 3627
I 40 30.5444
1.50 32 7261

0 80161
O 80157
0 00154
0.00151

0 00149
0 80142
O 00146
0 00144
0 00143

0,80141
0.00140

1.60 38.8079 0 00139


1 70 37 8080 0 00138

O 5330
0 5489
0 6133
0 7006
0 6250
0 9402
1 0004
1 1462
t 5600
2,0491
2 3560

677
1160
18,67
2852
4214
5977
8014
10946

2 5147

31038

15719
22315

29494

718
595
776
761
654
541
541
-24
-92
-1124
-1244
-1610
-1811

202

22
37
60
89
126
174

1619

555
828
1179
1618
2153
2796
3554
4439
5460

231

476
586

2142
3257
4530
6174
8310
11800
14016
19563
26180
34295

6627

711

42865

349

300
381

PC
0 666
0 675
0 677
0 679
0.800
0681
0,601
O 681

EHP(BH)

2431
3171
4812
6672
9078

PRED

12210

0 674

63621

ERROR

(%)

39.2714

0 00137

2.5422
2 4729

44603
52005

-2150

7948
9435

052
1012

51592
60302

1.90

41 4531

0.00136

2 5092

61553

-2529

11007

1190

71310

O 614
0 614

105806

2 /'-",

2 OO 43 6348 0 00136
2.10 45.8166 0 00136
2 20 47,9983 0.00134

2 3524
2 3040
2 1923

69084
78907
88125

-2960
-3415
-3926

12942
14983
17226

1388
1607
1848

80465
92082
103273

0 675
O 615
0 616

110280
136336
152731

2 30

2 2236

-4406

19684

2111

118615

0 576

I15461

0 80133

101306

SHP

SHP

1.80

50.1601

55

H I G H - S P E E D DISPLACEMENT H U L L
PRED. E R R O R (%)

O 617
0.615
0.674

50

Figure B-I CRTS3D.WK1 Sample Output

16159
20577
28826
38678
50829

0 679

---F-- EHPT

45

40

76586
89448

+---2

\~___

-4

/\

-6
-8
0.6

0 8

1.2

1.4

1,6

1.8

V/LWL^0.5
EHB(BH)
PRED

EHPT

SHP

ERROR = (PRED - TEST)/TF~T l O 0

Figure B-2 Prediction Error from CRTS3D.WK1

Resistance and Powering

69

Appendix C
Bare Hull Resistance Comparisons
Bare hull resistance tests for nine ships not included in the
database in this study were used to compare with the predictions
from the program CRTS3D.WK1 and three other well-known
statistically based powering prediction programs. Of the nine
ships, five were slender-displacement hulls and with hull form
parameters outside the boundary conditions of the pmgrams
NAUXCR and Holtrop. Therefore, the model test results from
these five ships were not used to compare with the above noted
programs. Among the rest of the four ships, two were transom
stem auxiliaries and the other two were cruiser stem ships. The

Average Error = SUM ABS(Prediction Error)/N * lO0

where,
ABS:
EHPp:

absolute value
predicted EHP
EHPT:
experimental EHP
N:
number of observation
Prediction Error:. (EHPp - EHPT)/EHP T
The predicted results from CRTS3D.WKI were comparable to or
even more accurate than the other programs (see Tables C-1 to
C-3). The abilities of CRTS3D.WKI to predict resistance for
cruiser stem ships in the low speed range were also shown by
Ships No. 8 and 9.
In addition to the previous comparisons, a study was conducted
to test the sensitivity of the program CRTS3D.WK1 on small
variations of hull form parameters. The target ships used for this
study were Kiss and Compton's Transom Stem Series (1989).
The prediction errors from CRTS3D.WKI were all within 1% to
2% deviation when compared with the experimental results (see
Figures C-1 and C-2).

database for the programs NAUXCR and Holtrop was believed

to he primarily based on cruiser stem ships but not for the other
two programs.
All model tests were expanded to full scale according to the
1957 ITTC ship-model correlation line plus a 0.0005 CA value.
As Holtrop's database was believed to he expanded to full scale
according to the 1978 ITI'C ship-model correlation line, for
comparison purpose, all model tests that were used to compare
with the Holtrop's predictions were expanded to full scale in the
same manner.
The predicted "Average Error'' from
CRTS3D.WK1 when compared with the model test results were
all within 2% to 5%.

Table C-I Bare Hull EHP P~edtctton Errors - Statistical


Prediction ~

Ship NO. 1:

Emrged-Trensom01splaceaent HUll

I
l~eOictlon Error (~)
.................................................................
Paremters

l VL

l CRTS30

O[X:R

Shtp NO. 2:

USNALa~oeBulb Frigate

Prediction Error (4)

Ship NO. 3:

Parmeters
I VL I CRTS30 OIX~ It~XCI~ IO..'I~OP
.............................................................

I
IDL:

IO.66

3.31

54.150 10.60

0.34

17.49

Parmeters

3.677

0.90

-3.30

-8.66

Iex/Tx:

2.987 10.70

1.89

12.26

P=

0.~3

1.66

0.011 10.80

-0.66

8.26

0.777

1.10

-1.42
3.77

ICP:

Cx=

1.42
3.24

ICx:

0.750 10.66

-4.77

9.42

12.0

1.20

1.64

-5.26

liE(de0):

I].OO

-$.47

0.45

O.OOO 1.30
O.OOO 1.40

4.64

IZE(deo):

-0.66

7.95

IT^=

TA:
TIh
I "IT:

BA:
CkG:

0.660

O.OO

er~lctton Error (~)

ITA:

8.o

0.050 11.10

I VL I CRTS3D

OOCR NAUXC9 HOLIlmP

I..........................................................
I
10.70
-14.57
-1.20
lot:
66.823 Io.oo
-9.28
3.29
lex/Tx:
5.232 lO.oo .-2.96 -Z2.22
ICp:
0.on II.66
0.48
27.60
ICz=
0.783 11.10
0.40
21.42

8x/Tx:

lE(deg)=

Short-Fat 01spleesmnt Hull

.......................................................

NAUXCR HOLI~OPI

...............................................................
0.70
2,02
-6.74
DL:
51.880 0.80
-3.39
-8.01

vs. Hodel Test Results

14.1 11.66
O.OM I1.~0

4.12
0.50

14.93
23.50

3.74

8.40

I~:

0.505 11.20 I

-8.37

6.13

-O.OO
-3.32

3.18
-0.87

l~;

o.43e 11.4o

"0.91

42.25

FIT:

0.110 l l . 3 0

-3.4e

1.84

o.166 11.50

2.88

24.03

~9A:

0.125 11.40

-1.70

7.71

-4.77

-5.13

3.87

16.722 ~1.50

0.23

15.18

-5.83
-1.60

-6.70

-5.31

13.97

1.90

0.66o 11.66
17.223 11.70 1
11.66 I

-4.64

ll3e; =

In=
laA=
c~s..

-5.07

23.88

2.00

0.09

II.OO

2.10

0.92

I1.OO

1.50

O.OOO 1.50
15.833 1.70
1.80

11.50
11.7o

2.20

12.00

2.301

12.10
............................................................

Averooe Error (~)


I
2.70
4.57
................................................................

Average Error (~)


[
2.50
9.61
...............................................................

70

Resistance and Powering

11.66
12.oo
IZ.lO
12.zo
Iz.30

-3.26
-3.74
4.63
-3.21
-2.94

Avere0e Error (~)


J
4.05
18.69
.............................................................

Table C-2 Bare Hull EHP Prediction Errors - 5tatisttcel


Prediction Program vs. Hodel Test Results

Shtp No. 4:

Shtp No. 5:

Frigate with Sl=all Stern Wedge

i
Predlctlon Error (k)
.................................................................

Parameters
I ~
I CRTS3D DOER NAUXCR HOLTROP
...............................................................

Shtp No. 6:

Tunnel-Stern Twtn Screw Hull

I
Prodlctlon Error (~)
...............................................................
I

Pnramters

I VL I CRTS3D

00CR

NAUXCR HOLTROP

Fleet Tug

[
Prediction E~Or (k)
...............................................................
I

Pereltere

~ VL I CRTS3D

DOCR

NAUXCR HQLTROP

Bx/Tx:

3,392

0,80

-2.51

-2.08

~Cp:

0,635 10.80

-7.42

-16.52

Cp:

0.812

0.90

-2.38

-3.53

ICx:

0.849 ]0.50

-4.15

-11,17

Cx:

0,795

1.50

-0.17

4.39

10.800 ]1.50

-3.28

-5.14

10.3

1.10

4.58

13.39

ITA:

o.2ol 11.1o

-0,22

-0.85

TAx

0.150

1.20

5.23

9.80

11~:

0.653 11,20

1.58

2.55

I .............................................................
I
IO.58 I -3.91
]OL:
158305 10.58 I -2.89
IBx/Tx:
3.333 I0.60 I
0.50
0.50
ICp:
o . ~ 10.85 I
1.47
0.49
ICx:
0.897 10.70 I
2.0~
2.46
]ZE(deo):
12.3 10.75 I
1.10
4.86
ITA:
0.035 1o.50 1 o.3s
-1.52
I~:
0.355 10.85 I
2.05
-2.89

T~:

0.528

1.30

6.17

9.18

[TT:

o.346 11.30

2,24

4.50

[TT:

0.095 i0.50 I

3.33

-4.77

TT,"

0.178

1,40

7.67

15.29

BA:

0.050 11.40

2.54

0.79

IBA:

0.050 10.95

2.12

-3.53

BA:

0.000

1.58

0.50

14.73

CWS:

15,658 il.58

2.30

8.92

15.559 11.50 I

-0.23

-9.58

U,'S:

10.152

1.60

5.77

11.50

11.6o

1.71

5.46

11.o5

-o.78

6.~

1.70

5.19

14.74

11.70

0.71

8.55

11.10

-1.13

-13.68

1.80

4.10

8.82

-0.25

10.21

11.15

-0.27

11.20
11.25

-0.15
-o.50

2.10

11.8o
11.9o
12.50
12.1o

2.20

12.20

4.24

12.30

4.33

I.............................................................
I
IO.SO I -3.75

0.50 I
OL:

IE(de9):

69.721

0.60 I

-10.39

-0.29

0.70 I

-6.58

0.18

IDL:

55.897 10.60 J -10.45

-25,75

mBx/Tx=

2.725 10.70

-9.88

-18.59

IZE(deg):

1.90
2.00

CliS:

1.21
1.13

11.30
.............................................................

2.27

Average Error (~)

2.30
...............................................................

I. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Average Error (~)


~
5.16
8.31
.................................................................

Average Error (~)


I
3.35
9.58
...............................................................

4.05

4.01

Table C-3 Bare Hull EHP Prediction Errors - Statistical


Prediction Program vs. Hods1 Test Results

Ship No. 7:

Ship NO. 8:

Large Bulbous Bow Auxiliary

I
Prediction Error (~)
.................................................................
Parameters
[ VL I CRTS3D 50CR NAUXCR HOLTROP
...............................................................
0.50
65.401

0.55

-13,21

Bx/Tx:

4.004

0.60

-7.85

Cp:

0.606

0.65

-8.74

CX:

0.928

0.70

-8.42

8.0

0.75

-8.98

TA:

0.078

0.80

-8.15

[ W:

0.801

0.85

-5.52

I TT:

0.125

0.90

-4.31

BA:

O. 149

0.95

-0.95

Ck3:

17,247

1.00

0.86

1.05

0.04

1.10

-1.23

1.15

-3.05

1.20

-5.46

DL:

IE(deg):

3.50
-1.09
`4.57
-6.51

I
I

Parameters

Prediction Error (~)

I VI. I CRTS3O

OOCR

Ship NO. 9:

Auxiliary (Crulser Stern)

I
Prediction Error (~)
...............................................................
Parameters

NAUXCR HOLTROP

I VL I CRTS30

-14.19

lot:

~DL:

-14.58

54.229 10.55

146.219 [0.55 ]

-3.84

-29.50

IBx/Tx:
lop:

3.162 10.50

IBx/Tx:

2,846 10.60 i

-0.52

-29.74

0.560 Io.85

ICp:

0.618 10.65 I

0.51

-19.00

-20.Z5

[Cx:

0,958 [0.7o

[Cx:

0.973 10.70 [

-2.99

-17,01

-27.65

IIE(deg):

-15.43

-23.02

ITA:

0.500 10.80

3.26

[IE(deo):
ITA:

7.5 [0.75 I
0.500 10.80 ]

-1.28
-0.34

-4.14

-21.42

ITW:

0.50o 10.85

2.40

3.25

-18.13

0.500 10.90

2.25

-14.91

0.50o IO.5O
0.50o 10.95

0.58

-15.70

1~:
leA:

0.22

ITS#:
in:
[BA:

0.050 10.05

-7.44

0.037 10.95

-1,31

7.47

-12.36

15.749 11.00

1.18

13.11

~CkS:

15.450 11.50

-6.50

8,01

-11.53

1.26

-10.52

-0.52

-12.16

11.o5
I1.1o
11.15

-5.2o

10.56

11.o5
11.1o
11.15

-17.43

11.20

5.14

1.30
... ............................................................
Average Error (~)
I
5.34
4.57
13.94
.................................................................

5.0 ]0.75
2.47

8.91

2.84
2.58

6.84

1.13
3.63

7.51
2.02

7.01

-2.72
-1.71

Average Error (~)


I
2.04
3.77
6.86
...............................................................

Resistance

-2.54

-13.41

-1.67

-12.64

13.84

-3.12

-14.25

9.42

-2.97
-5.23

-11.85
-9.50

-2.40

-5.25

-22.04
-0.04

1.63

-4.95

0.68

-12.21

-0.01

-17.83

4.o9

-1~.58

2.43

14,70

11.25
11.3o

.............................................................
20.64

41.85

ll.20

11.25
11.3o

1.25

NAOXOR HOLT50P

I.............................................................
I
I0.~0 I -7.11

-21.21

0.29

DDCR

I .............................................................
t
IO.SO

-21.20

6.20
3.42

Trens-Atlantle Ltner (Cruiser Stern)

and

Powering

.............................................................
Average Error (~)

2.89

17.44

Appendix D
Resistance Effects from Transom Knuckles and Hooked
Buttocks
3

....
~ l
n

~
o ~

~
~'mt't I t m m g t J
o v
~-at~ I m m c l t ~
xlqilql Deep D c l t t i ~ 1 d ~
IYIHm Imallw ~ t ~ c , f , on
/

.2\/

~ . *

~.

-2 ~

0'.

O CRTS~.i~I

~
~ ~

A series of resistance tests on a WW II vintage destroyer


(DD445) and a contemporary USCG Cutter were conducted to
investigate the resistance effects due to transom knuckles and
hooked buttocks. The body plans of the transom knuckle DD
445 and its rounded transom variant are shown in Figure D-1.
The stem profiles of the USCG Cutter and its hooked buttock
variant is illustrated in Figure D-2. The prevailing impacts on
resistance reduction at high speed from the transom knuckles and
hooked buttock are clearlyshown in Figure D-3.

Oeep O r a f t

0
-]

I
14

i
18

;'
22

CRI33~.M(ISM11ow
i

,'
2i

,i
30

Draft
, ,

,,
34

,
38

42

v, (*Cm~TS)
Percent

horsepower

differences

for draft

iI o/t

venation

series

12
i~

SHIP'S DECK
%
LINE

I0

Pcldlcci~

o W

\o

m~

I
o

lido h a

CZTS30.kK1

k r r ~

i.~dit-t~on

Be~

C:RTSm.I~IMtde B~B

-2

-3

-4

I
t4

Percent

i'
IB

horsepower

- i~-'--r'~

22

differences

i-

20
30
v, (FNms)
for beam

&4

38

42

~
variation

AA_~_ LINE
GHOST STI~0

llrmmQ~

series

Figure C-1 CRTS3D.WK1 Sensitivity Studies

FOREBODY

SAME

AS PARENT,

13' WL.

BASE LING .

RmnWd 7Mmom

Figure D-1 DD-445 Body Plans

72

Resistance and Powering

SIm~M B ~

%
. _-..--,.___

& "t. L _ j ' - - ~

,T3rL
I
~1~ z o

M~ t ~

~,tttlt

~*tt t?

H o o t e d ButfOC/r

Figure D-2 USCG CUTTER Stern Profiles

Resistance Effects from Transom


Knuckles and Hooked Buttocks
CTL Ratio
1.1
1.08

1.06
1.04
1.02
1

0.98
0.96
0.94
0.92
0.9
0.5

0.7

0.9

--

1.1

1.3
1.5
V/LWLA0.5

W / W O Knuckle

1.7

1.9

2.1

2.3

. . . . . W / W O Hooked

Figure !)-3 Resistance Effects from Transom Knuckles and Hooked Buttocks

Resistance and Powering

73

Discussion
Donald McCallum, Member
[The views expressed herein are the opinions of the discusser
and not necessarily those of the Department of Defense or the
Department of the Navy.]
Mr. Fung is to be commended on this very interesting
and useful paper. Having had the privilege of working with
Dr. David Doust at the time of his trawler regression work,
at Teddington in 1960, I have an interest in improved
regression equations. Mr. Fung has some conclusions which
bear repeating:
a. the selection of parameters which have a good physical logic,
b. the number of parameters which make up the regres.
sion equation does not have to be large, and
c. the number of cross-coupled terms must be minimized.
Mr. Fung is also to be commended for Appendix C,
which gives nine worked examples of ships which are not
already in the database. I would like to remark that, although a goodly number of the nine predict well, about
half of them are off by between 5% and 13%.
I do have a few nitpicks with the paper, however. One
is that some graphics, at least in my copy, left something
to be desired. In Fig. 1, I find it hard to distinguish between
the different T values. Figure B-2 is hard to read in SHP.
Also in Section 4.4, he states that the "P.C. data . . . is
found to be within 5% accuracy when compared to the
experimental results." I would take exception with this
statement. My experience would indicate a larger margin
of accuracy, particularly in early stage design, where wake
is still unknown. Also, with the tip-unloading techniques
employed today for Navy ships, where noise is an issue,
propeller efficiency is sacrificed. Also does the author really mean 5%, or 5 points? The latter would equate to about
8%. In Appendix C I could not find Fig. C-2, although I
suspect it is above Fig. C-1. In Table 1, I would suggest
that Lin's 1987 NAVAUX equation should be included for
completen6ss.
-All in all, Mr. Fung has provided a clear exposition of the
principles, and pitfalls, associated with regression analysis.
Not only that, but he has given the working naval architect
a most useful tool for the prediction of resistance and propulsion during the early design stages. We are fortunate
indeed to have his years of-accumulated expertise within
NAVSEA. We look forward to incorporating his regression
equations into the NAVSEA Hull Design Database System
currently being completed.
Thank you for a landmark paper.

Donald M. MacPheraon, Member


Computer-based parametric tools have undoubtedly
achieved the predominant role for quantitative performante prediction in the contemporary marine design office.
The author's various contributions in this area have always
been well researched and presented, and grounded in solid
statistical analysis. To no great surprise, I found this paper
to be of the same high quality.
My comments will generally fall into two categories.
First, I would like to extend some general comments and
questions about the paper and second, offer a few thoughts
on the full-scale implications of the author's prediction
method.
74

In general, I was quite impressed with the overall scope


and detail presented in the paper. Aside from the technical
contributions within the paper, this is an excellent historical review of the application of regression analysis to resistance prediction. I fully support the author's position on the
benefits of multiple stepwise regression, when combined
with a logical, pragmatic development of the regression
model. Also, the author has developed a very useful review
of the physical implications of the various parameters.
There is a wealth of information in this section for anyone
planning to optimize a hull form.
While I was reading the paper, a number of questions
about the data sets popped up that could be clarified. With
such a wide diversity of model-test results from a number
of different facilities and decades, I noticed that no mention was made of any attempt to correlate the data to a
suitable water density and temperature, as well as to the
ITTC-57 friction line. Was such a data correlation performed? Has any full-scale data been included in the data
sets? Would the author have any recommendations for suitable values of the model-ship correlation allowance (Ca) to
be used with the regression?
From a programmer's viewpoint, using the regression
coefficients and constants (that is, al, C1, C2) would make
for faster and smaller code. Can you offer these values in
a table? The component tables are useful as they are, but
the ability to build these from the regression coefficients
would be quite helpful.
Can the author provide the reference source for Jin's
reanalysis? I must admit that I was somewhat confused by
the author's contention that Jin's reanalysis was improved
by inclusion of Froude number (F,) as an independent
variable. The general impression I received from the author throughout the paper was that a speed-dependent
regression model could not adequately handle the nonregular humps and hollows of the residuary resistance
curve.
Even Holtrop---one of the major advocates of a speeddependent regression--also now seems to recognize that
a speed-independent analysis (which allows the differing
contributions of the various hull-form parameters to come
into play) provides a superior analysis. In a recent reevaluation of his landmark methodology [ 1] (additional references
follow some discussions), he reevaluates the wave-making
resistance component with a multiple stepwise regression
rather than the Havelock wave shape.
This appropriately brings me to the second part of my
discussion regarding full-scale reliability of the regression
results. I have always been passionate about the fact that
no one really cares how well a formula predicts modelscale results. What an owner or designer really cares about
is full-scale results.
Given this requirement, I was surprised to find the regression based on a two-dimensional analysis. Even with
the shortcomings of form-factor accuracy, the significant
improvements in full-scale correlation with the I'Iq'C-78
three-dimensional analysis should be seriously considered.
Approximations for suitable form-factors could be adequately applied to convert any two-dimensional model test
results to a reasonable three-dimensional form.
I understand the author's hesitance to employ a such
three-dimensional analysis for high-speed transom stern
ships. The problems due to the contribution of hydrodynamic lift and changing wetted surface are well founded.

Resistance and Powering

Holtrop presents a strong a r g u m e n t for the application of


a " s p e e d - d e p e n d e n t " form-factor to account for these (and
other) h y d r o d y n a m i c effects across a b r o a d s p e e d r a n g e
[1]. Given the results that I have seen with both methods,
I have to believe that the regression m o d e l would likely
offer b e t t e r correlation to full-scale if based on the ITTC78 t h r e e - d i m e n s i o n a l analysis.
This, I suppose, is really a philosophical difference and
should not be v i e w e d as a weakness of the paper. P e r h a p s
the author might give a look to d e v e l o p i n g a second regression using the t h r e e - d i m e n s i o n a l analysis? To fully close
the loop, does the author have any plans to evaluate the
propulsive coefficients of these transom stern hull forms in
a similar fashion?
A great deal of thanks are in o r d e r from all of us who
rely on work such as this.
Additional reference
1 Holtrop, J., "A Statistical Resistance Prediction Method With
a Speed Dependent Form Factor," Proceedings, 17th Scientific
and Methodological Seminar on Ship Hydrodynamics, Varna, Oct.
1988.

John J. Slayer, Member


First, I w a n t to thank Siu F u n g for his interesting and
useful p a p e r , which is the result of an enormous a m o u n t of
effort in research and preparation. I feel that, as a Society,
w e are truly i n d e b t e d to him for p r o v i d i n g us with this
w e a l t h of information.
I have no major p r o b l e m s with anything the author has
p r e s e n t e d . I would like to have him c o m m e n t further on
a few aspects of the paper; also, I would like to p r o v i d e
some c o m m e n t s d r a w n from m y own e x p e r i e n c e in hull
form design and p o w e r i n g p e r f o r m a n c e prediction.
I would like to c o m m e n t on w h e t h e r or not you could
have d e v e l o p e d a reasonable regression equation for predicting residuary resistance (or residuary resistance p e r
trait of displacement) directly, r a t h e r than one for predicting the residuary resistance coefficient, Cn. I ask this
because I a m a bit uncomfortable with the use of w e t t e d
surface, or w e t t e d surface coefficient, as one of the p a r a m e ters in an equation for p r e d i c t i n g residuary resistance
(which is, b y our c u r r e n t definition, totally distinct from
w e t t e d - s u r f a c e - d e p e n d e n t frictional resistance). It seems
to m e that you have to use the w e t t e d surface coefficient
in your equation only because you are using CA as the
d e p e n d e n t variable. I realize that, in dealing with the
expansion of m o d e l test data to full scale, it is e x p e d i e n t to
utilize Cn; however, as you know, A d m i r a l D. W. Taylor
r e c o g n i z e d already in 1910 that, w h e n analyzing residuary
resistance, it was desirable to consider residuary resistance
p e r ton of d i s p l a c e m e n t (at specific values of speed-tol e n g t h ratio) as the variable. My guess is that w h e n A d m i r a l
Taylor spoke of "'analyzing," he was thinking in t e r m s of
optimizing hull form designs and, specifically, designing
hull forms to have m i n i m u m resistance (after taking into
account o t h e r applicable r e q u i r e m e n t s and constraints). I
b e l i e v e that this is also one ultimate aim of your p r e d i c t i o n
equation d e v e l o p m e n t efforts.
Your residuary resistance c o m p o n e n t plots (Figs. 4A to
10C) are certainly of g r e a t interest. A n u m b e r of trends
k n o w n to hull form designers a p p e a r to b e c o n f i r m e d b y
your plots. F o r the e n l i g h t e n m e n t of anyone (including
myself) who is still struggling to u n d e r s t a n d the statistical
approach, please c o m m e n t on w h e t h e r or not t h e r e is any
physical significance to the fact that, in some cases, the Cn
c o m p o n e n t values (at some or all of the p a r a m e t e r values)

are not o r d e r e d in a c c o r d a n c e with the o r d e r of the speedto-length ratio values. Note, for instance, that in Fig. 5A,
the Cn c o m p o n e n t plots are o r d e r e d in a c c o r d a n c e with
the speed-to-length ratio values with t h e exception that
the Cn c o m p o n e n t values for V/(L) s of 0.8 are slightly
smaller than those for V/(L)5 of 0.7. F u r t h e r , note Fig.
7C, w h e r e the CR c o m p o n e n t values for V/(L) ~ of 1.9 are
considerably smaller than those for V/(L)5 of 1.8. Also,
again referring to Fig. 5A as an example, is t h e r e any significance to the considerable difference in Cn c o m p o n e n t inc r e m e n t b e t w e e n V/(L) 5 values of 0.6 and 0.7 as comp a r e d with the i n c r e m e n t s b e t w e e n V/(L) ~ values of say,
0.7 and 0.8, or 0.8 a n d 0.9? (Similarly, r e f e r r i n g again to
Fig. 7C, the Cn c o m p o n e n t value i n c r e m e n t s vary considerably.) Why, in some cases (for example, Fig. 8B), would
the CA c o m p o n e n t values b e o r d e r e d in a c c o r d a n c e with
the values of V/(L) ~(albeit with varying i n c r e m e n t s ) w h e n
in o t h e r cases (for example, Fig. 8C) such o r d e r i n g is not
indicated? Or is the m e t h o d o l o g y such that t h e CA compon e n t values for any given p a r a m e t e r at one value of V~
(L)5 n e e d not have any relationship to the CR c o m p o n e n t
values at any o t h e r value of V/(L)'5?
O n e of your initial observations is that the value of prismatic coefficient Ce had only a w e a k effect on residuary
resistance e x c e p t at the first " h u m p " region. A glance at
the Taylor's S t a n d a r d Series (TSS) d a t a [2] indicates significant effects of Ce on residuary resistance at V/(L) 5 values
less than, say, 1.1. Does your transom-stern hull d a t a yield
t r e n d s which differ from those i n d i c a t e d by the TSS data,
or do you feel that you are in a g r e e m e n t with the TSS data?
Your results on the significance of t h e value of m i d s h i p
section coefficient Cx, with r e s p e c t to residuary resistance
are, a p p a r e n t l y , in contrast with the results r e p o r t e d by
M u n t j e w e r f in 1971 [3]. Although the hull forms in question w e r e for high-speed cargo liners and h a d little or no
i m m e r s e d t r a n s o m area, this m o d e l test d a t a should provide a good evaluation of the effect of Cx on resistance
because the principal dimensions, block coefficient, b o w
bulb g e o m e t r y , and LCB location w e r e h e l d constant; thus,
the decrease in the Cx value was offset b y an increase
in the Ce value for those models. D e s p i t e the a n t i c i p a t e d
increase in resistance due to a larger Ce value, the hull
forms with smaller Cx values usually showed substantial
decreases in resistance, especially at the higher speeds; the
results can b e s u m m a r i z e d as in Table 7. Do you think that
the hull forms in your database differ e n o u g h from t h e
models tested at NSMB (by Muntjewerf), such that the
above-listed trends would not necessarily b e duplicated?
T h e trends for the value of w a t e r l i n e half-entrance angle
(i,) i n d i c a t e d by Figs. 8A, 8B, and 8C are of interest. T h e

Table 7

Relative resistance of cargo liner hull forms with


varying Cx value a

(length = 536.5 ft; displacement = 20 000 tons


Resistance Ratio, b for Hull Forms with

V/(L)5

Cx = 0.97
Cp = 0.547

Cx = 0.93
Cp = 0.569

0.95
1.028
1.0
1.04
1.039
1.0
1.12
1.081
1.0
1.21
1.089
1.0
1.30
1.112
1.0
As reported by Muntjewerf [3].
b Resistance/(resistance of hull w~Cx = 0.93).

Resistance and Powering

Cx = 0.89
Cp = 0.594

1.002
1.014
0.972
0.920
0.920

75

--~-,

~
FIg. 14

,~,,~

ut~v

uuu

uu

mZllS

l.dlO

i150

I'illl

I110 "

/.00

Design lanes of prismatic coefficient, displacement-length quotient, and fatness ratio (from Saunders [5])

plots indicate rather dramatically that quite small values


of i, are optimal for values of V/(L).~ less than about 1.5. I
believe this trend is in agreement with the information
presented by Vincent in 1933 [4]. (As an aside to any young
hull designers in the audience, I hereby urge you to study
this magnificent treatise by Mr. Vincent.) I am somewhat
concerned, however, by the abrupt change in the trend
between V/(L).~ of 1.4 and V/(L)5 of 1.5, as indicated by
Fig. 8B and by the indication in Fig. 8C that very large
values of i, would be optimal at high values of V/(L) .~. Can
you comment on this matter?
You indicate that it was difficult to establish clear relationships between transom characteristics and residuary
resistance. Is it possible that some other afterbody-defining
parameters have to be considered before we can achieve
such relationships? Your regression equation should provide adequate results for initial estimates of the effects of
transom shape on resistance. For a general rule in defining
the transom shape, I think it can be stated that moderate
transom width (your plot in Fig. 13 seems reasonable) does
76

I~e

not greatly affect residuary resistance, as long as the transom area is kept to a minimum.
I have two more short comments on selection of hull
form characteristics. I think that it may be difficult to
achieve practical ship designs, for the relatively high speed
regime [ V/(L) n > 1.3] with the low values of B~ Tindicated
as being optimal in Fig. 12. And finally, I have spotted
points from your "suggested Ce" curve (Fig. 13) on the well
known "design lanes" plot presented by Captain Sannders
[5] this plot is reproduced in Fig. 14. Perhaps you could
comment on the differences. I believe that the differenees
at V/(L)z > 1.2 are due to the fact that the Saunders data
applies to high-speed ships (such as destroyers) whose hull
forms may be a compromise between optimization for top
speed and optimization for cruising speed.
In your discussion of appendage drag prediction, you
refer to the study carried out by Karl Kirkman, Dave Sanders, and myself. It is true our prediction errors were large.
In defense of that work, however, I'd like to point out
that our goal at that time was to improve the method of

Resistance and Powering

Table 8 Sample hull parameters


YP

DDG

154.0
DL
81.15
3.57
Bx/Tx
2.89
0.67
Ce
O.63
0.66
Cx
0.83
15.2
1E
12.00
0.18
TA
0.06
0.84
TW
0.27
0.38
TT
0.14
0
BA
0a
18.52
CWS
16.25
1.5
VZmax
1.5
"The subject hull has a large sonar dome (as tested). However,
it is so located that the sectional area at Station 0 is 0.0.

extrapolating model appendage drag to full scale where


the appendage geometry was reasonably well defined; the
work was not specifically aimed at improving early-designstage predictions of resistance.
Finally, I applaud your courage in providing an equation
for early-design-stage prediction of propulsive coefficient,
especially when you consider that noise and vibration considerations, arrangement constraints, direction of propeller rotation, torque and rpm limits, etc., all enter into the
determination of propulsive efficiency. I assume your
equation is aimed at reproducing model test results. Did
you ever consider basing your equation only on the results
of model tests in which the final-design propeller was used?
This would, at least, avoid "tainting" the results with stock
propeller test data.
Additional referenees
2 Taylor, D. W., The Speed and Power of Ships, U.S. Government Printing Office, Washington, DC, 1943.
3 Muntjewerf, J. J., "Resistance and Propulsion of a HighSpeed Single-Screw Cargo Liner Design," International Shipbuilding Progress, No. 204, Aug. 1971.
4 Vincent, S. A., "Merchant Vessel Lines," Marine Engineering and Shipping Age, March 1933.
5 Saunders, H. E., Hydrodynamics In Ship Design, SNAME,
New York, 1957.

Jin Pingzhong, Visitor, SORSA Consultants


Mr. Fung reviewed almost all the papers on regression
analysis published in the past 30 years and commented on
their respective merits and demerits in regard to their
statistical grounds and regression techniques and developed his own research. The following points are noteworthy:
1. Mr. Fung did correlation analysis on the ship hull
parameters and compared the relative importance for
proper selection of regression parameters.
2. The "t-test" was applied to independent variables so
as to assess their statistical significance on bare hull residual
resistance.
3. Residual resistance coefficients were expressed as
the sum of components [Equation (2)], the terms of which
were limited to no more than 18, and all the cross-coupling
terms were deleted for simplicity--equations by other researchers sometimes consisted of 40 to 50 terms. The result
of the research--CRTS3D.WKl--is satisfactory, because
the predicted "average error" is at the acceptable level
(see Appendix C).

I would like to congratulate the author on his persistent


effort and contributions to marine application of regression
analysis.
My suggestions are:
1. Could the author carry out regression analysis in an
alternative way and compare the result of the latter with
that of this paper? That is, not limiting the number of terms
by deleting the cross-coupling terms but letting the terms
be automatically deleted by significance test; not specifying the terms with parameters and their reciprocals only,
but leaving that to the judgment of the processing procedure of regression.
2. Exclude those independent variables from the regression equation which are generally not known during
early stage of design, such as, iE, 17, TW, BA, and CWS
and replace them with other form parameters.
I am sure Mr. Fung is in a position to further develop
the technique of regression analysis on a more strictly statistical basis now that he has advanced this field so much.

Roger H. Compton, Member

[The views expressed herein are the opinions of the discusser


and not necessarily those of the Department of Defense or the
Department of the Navy.]
Mr. Fung has provided the Society with a very useful and
convenient tool to make calm water powering estimates
during the conceptual design of displacement and semidisplacement transom sterned hulls. He has also documented for all of us the geneology of regression methods
for predicting ship resistance. Throughout the development of his regression equation for residuary resistance
coefficient Cn, he makes some very important philosophical statements which deserve emphasis in this age of
readily available, canned software:
1. Understanding the physical significance of and
physical rationale employed in an algorithm is vital to the
intelligent use of such an algorithm.
2. The total resistance is the finally critical number,
vice conveniently defined or computed components of resistance. Taken a step further it is the installed propulsion
power that really matters, not the EHP or other intermediate quantity.
3. The applicability of a given regression algorithm (or
a standard series) must depend on both the character of
the hull form and whether the independent variables
(speed and hull form coefficients) fall within their respective ranges of the sample population on which the regression (or standard series) was based.
After reading Mr. Fung's paper, I had the following
thoughts on design tools such as regression analyses and
standard series:
1. The best design guidance is provided by systematic
series or regressions which discriminate with respect to
their sample population makeup. Are the ships used for
this algorithm successful as built ships; less-than-successful
as built ships; paper study designs; or models for which no
prototypes exist?
2. Perhaps because of their availability, quickness, and
ease of use, once-programmed algorithms can easily be
misused.
3. For the same reasons, the development of technical
intuition and engineering judgment appears to be atrophying. Mr. Fung almost apologizes for earlier regressions
based on subjective judgment and physical intuition. For

Resistance and Powering

77

designers, these traits should be encouraged, not discouraged.


As an i n d e p e n d e n t check of the validity of Mr. Fung's
regression, I a t t e m p t e d to exercise it on two very dissimilar, transom-sterned hulls. One is a 108-ft. Yard Patrol (YP)
craft and the other is a m o d e r n destroyer hull. Hull form
parameters for both are shown in Table 8. All parameters
fall within the ranges shown in Table 2B The YP correlation
had to be aborted because (1) for the high displacementlen~gth ratio, Cttl values do not appear in Table 6A for V/
x/L' greater than 1.3, and more importantly, (2) Table 6J
provides no CR10 values for CWS greater than 16.2, even
though Table 2B indicates CWS as high as 20.3 is within the
range of the regressed population. Is Table 6,.[incomplete?
A similar comparison of Cn versus V/x/L for the destroyer was successful and is shown in Fig. 15. In this case,
the regression is c o m p a r e d with the raw data from midshipman testing of a 12.94-ft-long model. The correlation
with experimentally_ determined Cns is excellent, especially above a V/x/L of 1.0. The underprediction of the
regression m e t h o d at V/ff--L less than one is probably due
to the sonar d o m e which is integral to the tested model.
Unrelated small scale tests at the Naval Academy Hydromechanics Laboratory of a frigate with and without a sonar
dome have indicated similar differences in Cn at low
speeds, as shown in Fig. 16.
For his enlightening background of past regression
methods, his emphasis on the physical rationale of numerical methods, and his development of a new tool for early
stage design, Mr. Fung deserves our thanks.

John

C. Daidola,

e I

4.e
4.0

s.e

ZaqNz~
o C~lO~/2,94'/~oDe%/990

ao

/~7-E~P{~TA77orl OF"/vlOm~_L L~T4

e.~

---

ITTC

Ca / o

C F x / o ~ 51/P 5c4z~

s, ~E~/e~'ss/o~t

~.o
/'~
/.o o.~ oo

0.2-

O<1-

a6

0/3

/,O

42-

AG

/.4

VL
Fig. 15 DDG correlation example (see Table 8 for hull
parameters)

Member

Since the author has emphasized the resistance and powering prediction of transom stern hull forms, I would like
to offer an example of a transom stern vessel showing (i)
significant influence of the transom on resistance and (ii)
where the effects of the transom could largely be accounted for by one of the author's hull form parameters
utilized to describe the transom geometry in his study.
Figure 17 shows the lines plan of this vessel [6]. The calm
water bare hull resistance was first calculated using the
results shown in Fig. 18 [7] providing data for various
smaller vessels. The data used for the subject vessel was
the curve representing the 180-ft supply boat, since the
subject vessel had a length between perpendiculars of 185
ft and other hull form characteristics of the two were in
close enough proximity to consider the supply vessel as a
predictor. The results of this prognosis are shown in Fig.
19 as well as the results of a model test performed at the
Davidson Laboratory of the Stevens Institute of Technology. As can be seen, the results are not reasonably close.
This led to an investigation of the difference exhibited,
resulting in Fig. F20. It was found that the difference in
resistance could be attributed to the author's hull form
parameter TA, the transom area ratio. Although specific
information was not available on the supply vessel, the data
from Fig. 18 were representative of a transom to midship
area ratio approximately 0.3, whereas the subject vessel
had a value in the order of 0.575. Further, utilizing additional data on small vessels with transoms [8] allowed Fig.
20 to be generated. As can be seen therein, the residuary
resistance coefflcent variation with transom immersion is
significant. With these data available, the differences between the tested resistance and predicted resistance could
virtually be fully explained, which would seem to indicate
78

~.o

~F=

- I

~ -

._~'0

4.5

4.0

ZEqe/z~

5.g--

No D a M

_5.0--

o c~/o ~,~ . o W o ~ _ ~ w

D4r~,

W/rH Z2:~

25--

2,@-

0
0

AS-

~o. . . .

~ ......

ZO -,5

0.~0

dZ

I///4z/9/

VL

Fig. 16

Resistance and Powering

Sonar dome effect on FF residuary resistance

,11~1"u
=m.~'

1
lo,mm)., iV ~ . . . . = = . . . ~

iii=||i
Ilt )z|
Fig. 17 Lines plan [6]

&4 _

Ct' ".1~

".

,so rr. =u,~.v IOAT-.~ /


~(==~ Lw~S.aee
/ "y"

1.,1--

o,-...

//

,Z

wtss~ st~its N
s/lP~ ~.wtJ -ass.

&o_

/
'

Bill Day, Member

,.o,,,...o,,..,_.,/./ Z /
"'
/f /7 /
-

-ooct.s

,.,

,,a,.~(,

I/,7

~,(t. ~

L4 _

" -

k400(I. ~l
CP m'?4

~ootL

i~

I!

/ /

/ly

CP*"

,~j

2as Irr
TIIIAI I.J~

~- I']1~ Ir'r $1rlS&4OGRAPtII


/

LO ~

I/

"

,,7

SHIP

~/(o.ol -wO]- ~l,

Cp* SSI

.8

.e

7 Mok, Y. and Hill, R. C., "On the Design of Offshore Supply


Vessels," Marine Technology, July 1970.
8 Nordstrom, H. F., "Some Tests with Models of Small Vessels," Swedish State Shipbuilding Experimental Tank, 1951.

I,

,8

I.O

Li

=3

Fig. 18 of supply ship [7]

that the transom area effect was the o v e r p o w e r i n g p a r a m e ter in this case.
Additional referenees
6 Daidola, J. C., Graham, D. A., Bister, J., and Hultberg, S. D.,
"Space Shuttle Booster Retrieval Platform for the United States
Air Force," SNAME STAR Symposium, 1982.

Mr. Siu F u n g is to b e t h a n k e d for p r o v i d i n g us with an


excellent s u m m a r y of the history of regression equations,
some of which I have b e e n associated with in t h e past. A n d
I feel it's i m p o r t a n t hopefully to m a k e t h r e e points and ask
his c o m m e n t .
It is valid to talk about the limitations of particular regression equation models. I think all of us who have b e e n
involved in d e v e l o p i n g these models have a fear that, once
published, they will b e a p p l i e d too generally and too far,
and so w e m a k e a special effort to p r o v i d e the limitations
of those. R e m e m b e r that a regression is essentially a curve
fit on available data and that once you leave that, the curve
can do w h a t e v e r you like. I ' m sure Mr. F u n g will echo that
statement.
T h e second point I'd like to m a k e is about the n u m b e r of
terms in an e q u a t i o n - - t h i s has b e e n a r g u e d a n d discussed
many, m a n y times. T h e r e are several reasonings b e h i n d
n u m b e r s of terms used in an equation, not the least of
which is the a m o u n t of data available. T h e r e are v e r y real
statistical measures to say what is and w h a t is not a valid
set of terms for an equation, and in the final forms quite
frequently one is limited b y that a m o u n t of data. T h e r e is
a n o t h e r point to n o t e about accuracy of these equations as
well. I would point out that Mr. F u n g ' s d a t a and m a n y of
the o t h e r equations are based on m o d e l data, as has b e e n
p o i n t e d out in an earlier discussion. W h e n one looks at
residual errors a p p r o a c h i n g the 3 p e r c e n t i l e range, I have
to be honest and tell you as a m o d e l tester that d o w n
around 1~ to 2 p e r c e n t , w e ' r e v e r y happy. So y o u ' r e app r o a c h i n g the limits in some cases.
A final point about the n u m b e r of terms is that resistance
p r e d i c t o r equations are f r e q u e n t l y b e i n g a p p l i e d to o t h e r
m o r e g e n e r a l i z e d systems. Mr. McCallum has alluded to a
hull design system in which you m a y wish to take and vary
the hull forms for different reasons, such as seakeeping. I

Resistance and Powering

79

10

SHIP SPEED

Fig. 19

80

11

(KTS)

EHP versus ship speed-~calculated and modeltests

Resistance and Powering

12

13

14

15

Vessel

m;::: !

-,

m:

eigc

0.882

.... L ~
o

.I

.~

.*
~n~rso~

Fig. 2 0

,5
Area/MidshfF

,7
Area

Residuary resistance comparisons based on transom


area/midship area

use as an e x a m p l e our incorporation of the bale s e a k e e p i n g


p a r a m e t e r with a resistance p r e d i c t o r in terms of hull optimization. Many times this leads you to want to choose
t e r m s that m a y not necessarily be the best resistance predictor b u t in fact m a y help you in optimizing from a n o t h e r
a t t r i b u t e of the hull form performance.
Finally, I'd like to look to the future. These regression
equations are v e r y effective in the early stages of design
and using c o m p u t e r tools that are available generally to
e v e r y o n e in terms of PCs. But we see that, in particular
w h e n one goes to the area of propulsor hull interaction and
p r o p e l l e r p e r f o r m a n c e , t h e r e are computational tools now
b e i n g d e v e l o p e d and c o m p u t e r s coming on line with exp a n d e d capability. W e h o p e these will allow us to use m o r e
sophisticated free-surface codes for wave resistance, Reynolds average and Navier-Stokes codes perhaps for viscous
resistance and wake into the propeller, and codes for lifting-line lifting-surface for p r o p e l l e r p e r f o r m a n c e that will
allow us, e v e n in early stage design, to do very a d e q u a t e
and detailed analysis of c o m p l i c a t e d geometries. W e think
this is the way of the future, and w e ' d like Mr. Fung's
comment.

Author's Closure
The author wishes to thank the discussers for their interest and the points that they have raised. The c o m m e n t s
r e c e i v e d would certainly e n h a n c e the value of the m a t e r i a l
in this paper.
Despite proofreading, several mistakes, for example, inc o m p l e t e data on tables and figures, are still found in this
paper. The r e m a i n i n g part of Table 6J is now shown here;
Fig. G-2 is found above Fig. C-1 (exactly m a t c h i n g with Mr.
MeCallum's conjecture). I apologize for these oversights.
I would like to r e s p o n d to Mr. McCallum's c o m m e n t s
on the p r e d i c t i o n accuracy of the c u r r e n t study shown in
A p p e n d i x C, which stated that "about half of t h e m are off

by b e t w e e n 5% and 13%." This s t a t e m e n t can b e clarified


by the statistics shown on Table C-1. A m o n g the nine ships
that w e r e p r e d i c t e d by CRTS3D.WK1, only two ships have
the average p r e d i c t i o n errors slightly larger than 5%. In
terms of the 5% p r e d i c t i o n error for the propulsive coefficient by the c u r r e n t study, I have to a c k n o w l e d g e that this
value was based on very limited p a y b a e k values, five points
could be a b e t t e r figure to describe the overall PC predietion error.
Questions raised by Mr. Slager are w o r t h y of discussion,
particularly for those who w a n t to m a k e their regression
equations physically sound. I certainly a g r e e with Mr.
Slager that residuary resistance p e r ton of d i s p l a c e m e n t
could be a desirable d e p e n d e n t variable for resistance prediction and should be investigated further in the n e a r
future.
The author cannot p r o v i d e any definite answer at this
point as to w h e t h e r t h e r e is any relationship b e t w e e n
speed-length ratio and residuary resistance coefficient
components. H o w e v e r , the g e n e r a l trends for most of the
residuary resistance coefficient c o m p o n e n t s strongly indicate that some forms of relationship exist (most likely nonlinear). T h e inconsistency of residuary resistance coefficient c o m p o n e n t s in m a g n i t u d e versus speeds for certain
hull form p a r a m e t e r s could b e eaused by the following two
reasons:
1. T h e n u m b e r of eases o b s e r v e d w e r e different from
s p e e d to speed, particularly at the low and high s p e e d
range (see Table 5). The significance of certain hull form
p a r a m e t e r s , therefore, could not be r e v e a l e d equally at all
speeds.
2. The physical m e a n i n g 0f residuary resistanee coefficient c o m p o n e n t s (CRN) in this p a p e r cannot be t r e a t e d
the same as Cr. Changing a particular CRN does not reflect
the change of residuary resistance as a result of the variation of its c o r r e s p o n d i n g hull form p a r a m e t e r s , while the
other hull form p a r a m e t e r s r e m a i n unchanged. Since CRNS

Resistance and Powering

81

Table 6J cont,d

Residuary Resistance Coefficient Component CRIO f:(L'WS)

...........................................................................................................................................................................
L'~ \ Vt

0.60

0.70

0.80

0.90

1.00

1.10

1.20

1.30

2.20

2.30

2.184
-2.198
-2.211
-2.224
"2.238
"2.251
-2.265
-2.278
"2.291
-2.305
"2.318
-2.332
-2.345
"2.358
-2.372
-2.385
-2.399

-2.537
-2.553
"2.569
-2.584
-2.600
-2.615
-2,631
-2.6&6
-2.662
-2.678
-2.695
-2.700
"2. 724
-2.740
-2.755
-2.771
-2.787

-3.125
-3.144
-3.163
-3.102
"3.201
-3.220
-3.240
"3.259
"3.278
-3.297
-3.316
"3.335
-3.355
-3.374
-3.393
"3.412
-3.431

-3.233
-3.252
-3.272
-3.292
-3.312
-3.332
-3.352
-3.371
-3.391
-3.411
-3.431
-3.451
-3.471
-3.490
"3.510
"3.530
-3.550

-3.759
-3.782
-3.805
-3.828
-3.851
-3.875
"3.898
-3.921
-3.944
"3.967
-3.990
-4.013
-4.036
-4.059
-4.082
-4,105
-4.128

-3.989
-4.014
-4.038
"4.063
-4.087
-4.112
"4.136
-4.160
-4.185
-4.209
-4.234
-4.258
-4.283
-4.307
-4.332
-4.356
"4.381

-4.297
-4.324
-4.350
-4.377
-4.403
-4.429
-4.456
-4.482
-4.508
-4.535
-4.561
-4.587
-4.614
-4.640
-4.~H57
-4.693
-4.719

-3.773
-3.796
-3.819
-3.842
-3.865
-3.888
-5.912
-3.935
"3.958
-3.901
-4.004
-4.027
-4.050
-4.074
"4.097
-4.120
-4.143

-2.962
-2.980
-2,998
-3.016
-3.034
-3,053
"3.071
-3.089
-3.107
-5.125
-3.143
-3.162
-3.180
-3.198
-3.216
-5.234
-3.252

-4.251
-4,277
-4.303
-4.329
-4.355
-4.382
-4.408
-4.434
-4.460
-4,486
-4.512
-4.538
-4,504
-4.590
-4,616
-4.642
"4.668

-2.412
-2.425

-2.802
-2.818

-3.450
-3.470

-3.570
-3.590

-4.151
-4.174

-4.405
-4.430

-4.746
-4.772

-4.166
-4.1~

-3.271
-3,289

-4 694
-4 721

18.20
-0.281
-0,813
-0.909
-1.591
-2.439
-2.833
-3.489
-3.609
-4.19T
-4.454
-4.798
-4.954
-4 851
-4.720
-3.496
-4 212
-3 307
......................................................................................................................................................................

-4 747

16 30
16.40
16.50
16.60
16.70
16.80
16.90
17.00
17.10
17.20
17.30
17.40
17.50
17.60
17.70
17.80
17.90
18.00

0 252
-0.253
-0.255
-0.256
-0.258
-0.259
-0.261
-0.263
"0.264
-0.266
-0.267
"0.269
-0.270
"0.272
-0.273
-0.275
-0.276
-0.278

0.728
-0.733
-0.737
-0.742
-0.746
"0.751
-0.755
-0.760
-0.764
-0.769
-0.773
"0.778
-0.782
"0.7~
-0.791
-0.795
-0.800
-0.804

0.814
-0.819
-0.824
"0.829
"0.834
-0.839
-0.844
-0.849
-0.854
-0.859
-0.864
-0.869
-0.874
-0.879
-0.884
-0.889
"0.894
-0.899

1.425
-1.433
-1.442
-1.451
-1.460
-1.468
"1.477
- 1.486
-1.495
"I,503
-1.512
-1.521
-1.530
"1.538
-1.547
-1.556
-1.564
-1.573

10.I0

-0.280

-0.809

-O. 904

- 1.582

were derived from stepwise regression, their magnitudes


were affected by the other hull form parameters. Keep in
mind that hull form parameters are mutually eorrelated,
one eannot change a particular hull form parameter while
keeping the rest of the hull form parameters unchanged
(for example, if the principal dimensions and CB are kept
constant, one cannot change Cx without affecting Ce). I did
try to cross fairing the residuary resistanee components
versus speeds. However, no satisfactory results were
achieved.
I would like to use the above argument to explain why
my analysis on Ce has a much lesser effect on residuary
resistance than Taylor did, particularly at the low speed
range. It is because in this study the significance of Ce is
shared by the other hull form parameters, for example,
Cwe and IE (Cwe is not included in the regression equation
but 1E is highly correlated with Cwe). The other reason that
CR shown by Taylor has a much higher dependency on Ce
than the one in this study is th~tt the significance of IE is
not ineluded in Taylor's study, which means that the effect
of IE on residuary resistance is included in Cefor the Taylor
Standard Series.
Mr. Slager also raised the question on why sudden
ehange in CRy5) and large 1E values are needed at high
speeds. The author believes that it is mainly eaused by the
population of the database, most ships tested at speedlength ratios above 1.5 have 1E > 10 deg. The other reason
for the association of large 1E with high speeds is eaused
by the bow wave system; bow wave crest is known to move
aft as speed increases. Large IE usually results when a
straighter waterline and section area curve exist. Shoulder
wave, therefore, ean be eliminated in this sense.
Another question is raised on the author's Cx analysis
with respeet to residuary resistance, which is in contrast
to MuntjewerFs study in 1971. The author would like to
respond to Mr. Slager's question by bringing up one of
Admiral Taylor's masterpieces. In 1908, Admiral Taylor
performed a study on the influence of midship-seetion
shape upon the resistance in whieh 40 models with five
different Cx values were tested. The findings from Admiral
Taylor was not only interesting but also eontradietory to
Muntjewerf's investigation, "for Ce = 0.56, at speeds below
the speed-length ratio from 1.1 to 1.2 (similar to the eonditions investigated by Muntjewerf) the large midship-section eoeffieients have the advantage. Above this p o i n t . . .
the finer the Cx, the less the resistance" [9]. Despite the

82

1.40

1.50

1.60

1.70

1.80

1.90

2.00

-4.437
-4.464
-4.492
-4.519
-4.546
-4.573
-4.601
-4.628
-4.655
-4.~2
-4.700
-4.72;7
"4.76&
-4.791
-4.810
-4.846
-4.873

-4.344
-4.371
-4.397
-4.424
-4.451
"4.477
-4.504
-4.531
-4.557
-4.584
-4.611
-4.637
4.664
"4.691
"4.717
4.744
-4.T71

-4.227
-4.253
"4.279
-4.305
-4.331
-4.357
-4.~2
"4.408
-4.434
-4.460
-4.486
-4.512
4.538
-4.564
-4.590
-4.616
-4.642

-3.131
-3.150
-3,170
-3.189
-3.208
-3.227
-3.246
-3.266
-3.285
"3.304
"3.323
-3.342
3.362
-3.381
-3.400
-3.419
-3.438

-4.900
-4.927

-4.797
-4.824

-4 668
-4.694

-3.458
-3.477

2.10

stern types investigated by Taylor, which were closer to


Muntjewerf's than the current study, Taylor did draw similar conclusions as the author. Apparently, from these findings (Muntjewerf and Taylor), no conclusive findings could
be drawn on the influence of Cx on resistance. As the
author mentioned in the paper, the component of the bottom flow after the midships usually is more upward than
inward. For cruiser stern ships, aft the midships, flow at
the bottom of the ship needs to follow the contour of the
ship surface. Tangential velocity of the stern flow in this
sense has to be sharply increased. Therefore, in some cases
the author believes that slack midship sections may provide
more transverse pressure gradient at the side and help
pushing flow more inward when compared to ships with
tight Cx. Therefore, under the condition similar to Muntjewerf's study, ships with slack Cx may achieve lower resistance.
The last two questions from Mr. Slager are related to my
suggested B~ Tand Ce values. The two suggested values are
mainly based on minimum resistance values rather than
on the issue of total ship design as Captain Saunders did.
Figure 21 herewith depicts the similarity of Taylor's and
the author's suggested Ce values, both of them are based
on minimum residuary resistance. The suggested Taylor Ce
values were derived from Taylor's 1943 Speed and Power.
Professor Compton's comments are well received by the
author. The author is well aware of how the readily available canned software corrupts young engineers' intuition
and judgment. The author urges that all potential users
think earefully before aceepting any statistically based prediction results. There are at least two ways to judge the
prediction accuracy of the current study:
1. Compare the CRTS3D.WK1 predicted residuary resistance to any comparable systematic series (for example,
worm curve factors from Taylor Standard Series) or
2. Use the database to aeeess the predietion results by
comparing the predietion and model test results from
equivalent hull forms. Finally, ff one has strong teehnieal
judgment, he should never hesitate to correet the program
prediction results. Any statistical predietion program has
no means to dictate the final powering predietion, it is
merely a design tool which serves as a convenient vehiele.
It is very interesting to see the correlation between the
current study and the USNA D D G model test results. After
knowing the type of sonar dome used by the DDG, the

Resistance and Powering

CP
08

075

[]
07

J
065

;-F-~

B / T = 2 2 5 @ LDL

_L_

B / T = 2 2 5 @ HDL

~(

B/T=3 75 @ LDL

[]

B/T=375 @ HDL

FUNG

o 55
05

0 45
05

FJ3~
* T,

07

09

1 I

1:3

15

17

19

23

21

V/I,WL^05
LHL LOW DL, HDL HIGtt DL

Fig. 21

Suggested Cp values, Taylor versus Fung

author reran the powering predictions for the YP and DDG


w/dome. Figures 22 and 23 depict the correlation for the
DDG is far better than the one for the YP. The less desirable correlation for the YP is mainly caused by its high DL
and low Cx values, which are located at the upper and
lower bound of the database, respectively (Figs. 2D and
2H). It is very important for users to check the scattered
plots and the descriptive statistics before using any statistically based powering prediction program (Figs. 2A to 2K
and Table 2B). If the hull form parameters of the target
ships are significantly deviated from the standard values,
unreliable prediction results can be produced by the regression program.
Mr. Jin's suggestion has a significant impact on the author's future investigation, particularly the first point.
NAVSEA are currently investigating several speed-dependent regression models; one of them is the model similar
to Mr. Jin's second study which is by controlling the normal
lengths of the independent variables. The preliminary resuits of the latest NAVSEA investigation based on Mr. Jin's
second study can be found on the author's comment on
Lahtiharju [10]. In response to the second point of Mr. Jin's
comment, the author does hold some disagreement. Hull
form parameter such as IE, T T . . . etc., is now known to
NAVSEA engineers at the very early stage of ship design.
Thanks to the NAVSEA hull form generation programs.
Mr. MacPherson commented that statistical predictions
should be based on three-dimensional model-ship expansion technique and attention should be focused on fullscale results rather than model-scale are well received by
the author. Unfortunately, form factor values are virtually
unavailable to the database that were used to support this
study. On the other hand, since the majority of the tank
test data were not conducted at low speed which handicap
the author to perform any Prohaska plot to determine their
form factors. Therefore, all data could only be re-expanded
to full scale according to the 1957 ITTC model-ship correlation line.
There is little doubt that powering prediction formulas
should be addressed in full-scale rather than in model scale
(or confine in two-dimensional model ship expansion tech-

nique). Since the establishment of DTRC in the 1940s,


however, less than 50 sets of model-ship correlation analyses could be used to link the relationship between full-scale
trials and model predictions (see Hagen 1983). The above
investigation was also suspected to be conservative for fullform ships in the recent NAVSEA study. Currently, the
author is tasked to conduct more investigation in modelship correlation analyses. Positive results, hopefully, could
be revealed in the near future. Meanwhile, the prediction
CR*IO00
6

1 ~

0
05

06

07

08

09

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

VflLWL^O 5
-"

CR'I'S3D(W/O DOME)

--F-

CRTS3D (W/DOME)

--~-'--- TEST (W/DOME)

Fig. 22

Powering predictions for DDG CRTS3D.WK1 versus


model test (ship: DDG; model: USNA)

Resistance and Powering

83

EHP
2000

1500----

_/
/

I000

,oo
0
04

f
+-'~ -'-4"-'~
06

08

12

14

16

18

V/LWL^O
--'-- (CRTS3D)-INTMED
(CRTS3D)-HEAVY

--"}- (TEST)-INTMED
4~- (TEST)-HEAVY

Fig. 23 Poweringpredictions for USNA YP replacement


CRTS3D.WK1 versus model tests (w/blunt skeg)
results in the current study could be easily converted to
model scale and re-expand to whatever desirable modelship expansion technique by the users, as the predicted full
scale Cr from CRTS3D, is the same as the Cr in model
scale. If FFFC 78 is more desirable to the users, several

84

empirical equations could help users to determine their


form factors (see Holtrop 1982). The author is planning to
evaluate more on propulsive coefficients. Hopefully positive results could be reported in the near future.
Finally, I have to acknowledge Mr. Day's comments. I
certainly echo his first two points: (1) a regression is essentially a cure fit on available data, and (2) there is no sense
for a regression model to pursue residual errors less than
that from model tests. Therefore, I would like to reiterate
that the development of a regression model needs to consider whether the model can truly represent the physical
phenomena of the data. Adopting terms which may not be
necessary for resistance prediction but which might be
useful for hull form optimization is a very interesting idea.
The parameter that comes to the author's mind which may
be suitable for future resistance and seakeeping investigation is the forebody vertical prismatic coefficient (CveF).
CveE can be used to describe the vertical section shape
(U or V shape) of the forebody which is known to have
significant effect on resistance and ship motion. There is
little doubt that flow codes will play a major role in the
future. That they are relatively expensive and labor intensive to run when compared with statistical prediction programs are the only shortfalls of the current flow codes. I
am sure these shortcomings will be overcome in the future.
The author must now reiterate thanks to the discussers
for their valuable insights. It is the author's hope that a
useful tool has been provided. The author has no reservation to let this program incorporate in the NAVSEA HDDS.

Additional references
9 Taylor, D. W., "The Influence of Midship-Section Shapes
Upon the Resistance of Ships," SNAME, Vol. 16, 1908.
10 Lahtiharju, E., Karppinen, T., Hellevaara, M., and Aitta, T.,
"Resistance and Seakeeping Characteristics of Fast Transom Stem
Hulls with Systematically Varied Form," SNAME 1991 Annual
Meeting, Nov. 1991.

Resistance and Powering