Subject 7 Presentation of Resistance and Propulsion Data CHAIRMAN: DR. H. F, NORDSTROM INTRODUCTORY REMARKS BY SR. M. L. ACEVEDO I INTRODUCTION (1) This subject was previously discussed at the International Conference of Ship Tank Super intendents in The Hague and Paris, where de- cisions on various items were agceed upon, mostly with a view to coordination between Tanks. The Berlin and London Conferences did not con- sider the subject. Since the Paris Conference, the BSRA in England and the ATTC in America, while reviewing the question, gave careful con- sideration to some important points. They reached several agreements which have since been gen- erally observed in both countries. Nevertheless, as the decisions reached by these bodies have no international character, the rules laid down in Paris up to now are the latest international de- cisions agreed upon. These decisions are quite familiar to all members as they have been uti~ lized, in greater or lesser degree, by members since the Paris Conference. The Sixth Inter- national Conference in Washington affords a good opportunity for their international revision. This revision might be based upon experience gained by members while using them, together with the BSRA and ATTC contributions previ- ously mentioned. A paper, touching upon in- teresting points of the subject, was recently tead by Sit Amos Ayre.” (2) As stated in a previous draft sent to mem- bers, a complete development of the subject, when model tests are the source of data, should include: (2a) Description of models and con under which they are tested (2b) Presentation of the measured resistance and propulsion values (2c) Presentations worked out in view of the ultimate aims (24) Nomenclature of list of symbols. To keep the remarks concerning (2e) within limits this report deals only with the usual Tank ims directly related to the ship. Other aims, either less directly connected with ship desiga or of a more general scientific order, call for separate treatment in each patticular case. IL. DESCRIPTION OF HULLS, PROPELLERS, AND APPENDAGES (G)In presenting resistance and propulsion data, a description of the forms ot bodies needed, especially of the particulars which may most influence resistance and propulsion conditions. At the Conferences in The Hague and Paris, special attention was paid to the non-dimensional presentations of ship particulars, Standard sys- tems of this type for the presentation of hull and propeller particulars were agreed upon. The im- portant advantages of the dimensionless presen- tation, especially in defining form, from cesist- ance and propulsion points of view, are well- known, In the standard systems uf presentation which at present are in general use by members, ship particulars are usually tabulated in terms of di mensional and non-dimensional values and illus- trated by conventional drawings. There is no place to describe in detail these presentations, nor is it necessary, since there is no essential iffetence between any of them. What they have in common with the Paris decisions are, in gen- eral, adhered to. (4) Nevertheless, as the presentations now in use are much more developed and detailed than the general rules laid down in Paris and some departures from them are observed, such as the use of body plans true to shape instead of the non-dimensional body plan agreed upon in Pat it may be opportune to revise the Paris rules in- volved. For such a revision, the following points at issue might, among others, be submitted to members: 189190 (4a) Paris decisions to be modified. The ques- tion of the length to be used could be recon- sidered, for the Paris agreement is not always observed, nor is there a uniform practice (4b) Convenience of extending the Paris de- cisions, laying down new rules for the systematic description of the particulars of other parts of ships which greatly influence resistance and propulsion phenomena, such as bossings and skegs (4c) Convenience of adding to the non-dimen- sional presentation a dimensional one, for the ship scale or for a standard size. The ATTC and the BSRA systematically give dimensional values for a 400-ft ship. Convenience of admit- ting among these dimensional data certain main characteristics, not exclusively those of shape, which may give a better idea of the actual ship to which the model is primarily related (4d) Lastly, convenience of introducing some new ship particulars, or of modifying the presen- tation or definition of old ones, as a consequence of progress in physical knowledge, or simply of new approaches to resistance and propulsion questions. Ill. DEscRiPTION OF CONDITIONS UNDER VHICH MODELS WERE TESTED (5) Under this heading should be detailed the test conditions which refer to models, fluid, basin, and apparatus, as well as the method of conducting the tests. All Tanks keep, more or less, the same account of test conditions and they also use about the same sheets to collect the information concerned. As these systems are adequate, this point re- quires no further discussion. (6) However, the tests themselves are not al- ways cartied out under conditions as uniform as would be desirable. For instance, systematic resistance tests sometimes are made with rudder, sometimes without. Consequently, even though test methods, calculations, and presentations be the same, comparisons are awkward. Any step towards uniformizing test conditions would greatly simplify comparisons of model results. The adoption of a uniform device to stimulate turbulence, of at least the fact that turbulence is secured, would be the object of one of the most important agreements. IV. PRESENTATION OF ORIGINAL MODEL RESISTANCE DATA (7) Original model resistance data are given as an instrument for permanent control, as @ basis for any further elaborated data presenta PRESENTATION OF RESISTANCE AND PROPULSION DATA. tion, and/or to be used in preliminary compari- sons. According to these views and information from members, model resistance values are usually presented under one or more of the fol- lowing forms: (7a) As directly measured, i.e., absolute values of total resistance ageinst velocity, expressed in the original units. Only a reading of measured values is needed in this case. The information often is completed by other test data, such as Reynolds number, etc (7b) Transformed into some of the non-dimen- sional systems which are discussed at length in Chapter VI, Cr, © ... against Fay given for the tested model length and water tem perature. Only simple numerical calculations are then implied (7c) The same as above, but the values are given for a standard model length and water tem- perature. Friction calculations are then involved. (8) Examples of (7a) and (7b) are the presenta- tions adopted by the ATTC and the SNAME* which give, on Model Resistance Data Sheets, for the tested length and temperatu Plot: Cr against V/VL and V/VgL. Measured spots are marked on the graph Tabulation: for the measured spots, values of VAT, Rr, Cr, and VL/V. ‘An example of (7c) is the presentation agreed on by the BSRA in which ©) is plotted against for a standard model length of 16 ft and a water temperature of 55°F. The friction correc- tion is according to Froude. (9) At the Paris Conference it was agreed to present model resistance data in a form such as (7), giving for the tested length and water temperature: vz Plot: Cr = Rr/p —-$ against V/Vgl and V/VgV"/* Tabulation: for equidistant values of V/VgL, the corresponding Cy referred to S, and VL/¥. Measured spots were not to be marked on the plot, nor tabulated. (10) Advantages and disadvantages of the above presentations, which could be considered in case of revision, are summarized as follows: Undoubtedly (7a) is the most authentic refer ence for any control or further reinterpretation of model results. Form (7b) still may be considered as an authentic presentation of test data, but not (7c), which involves questionable assump- tions and friction calculations. va and Rr/p = V8 See Figs. 63, 64, and 65 under this subject.PRESENTATION OF RESISTANCE AND PROPULSION DATA When starting from (7b) and (7e), expansions to ship size are easier than when starting from (7a), if, of course, the same non-dimensional system is used for both model and expanded data. To make such expansions easier, friction corrections corresponding to systematically- varying lengths usually are given, either graph- ically oe in tabular form. Both (7b) and (7e) are more appropriate than (7a) for preliminary comparisons. Using (7c), comparisons are made at constant model length and water temperature. In the case of comparisons, the non-dimensional system to be adopted is a matter of importance. As considerations given in Chapter VI in general also apply here, they are given only in that chapter. (11) Points at issue in discussing presentation of model values might be the following: (11a) Which of the presentations (7a), (7b), of (7c) should be adopted; possibly more than one should be approved (11b) In the case of (7) and (7c), which re- sistance-speed system should be adopted? As the presentation agreed upon in Paris is of the (7b) type, its possible revision is implied here. Considerations contained in Chapter VI may help discussion on this issue (1Ic)In the case of (7c), what standard size and water temperature are to be adopted? (11d) Whether tabular or graphical presenta: tions are to be used, of both (le) Complementary test information, such as Reynolds number, which it would be convenient to have available. V. PRESENTATION OF EXPANDED RESISTANCE DATA FOR SHIPOWNERS AND OTHERS (12) As regards the absolute resistance re- sults, there seems to be no matter for discussion. In current practice, the plot of total EHP against knots for the full-size ship is given for sea water at a standard temperature, usually 59°F, 15°C. The component powers, frictional and residual, but more feequently only the former, are usually The corresponding resistances are also frequently included and sometimes also the trim changes. It is not unusual that, as control, the measured model spots and the faired model re~ sistance curve be drawn on the diagram of ship results; a model speed-base is then added. Con- cise descriptions of models and test conditions, as discussed in Chapters II and Il, are usually given on the same diagram, and the method used to calculate friction is mentioned. Allowances, given. 191 if introduced, should be explained clearly, both fas to method and amount. (13) With reference to performance values, it not unusual to give, together with the previous information, one of the resistance parameters discussed in the next chapter. This is quite useful since shipowners may be interested in knowing, besides the absolute values, something about the quality of their hulls. Therefore, if it were agreed that any of these parameters should be systematically included in the diagrams or tabulations forwarded to clients, a discussion could be held to determine which would be the most adequate. It should also be agreed whether the parameter would be given for the ship length or for a standard length, whether it should comprise allowances, and which allow ances, if any. VL PRESENTATION OF EXPANDED RESISTANCE DATA FOR COMPARISON PURPOSES (14) For purposes of comparison, presentation parameters should be introduced. | No decision was made by previous International Conferences about parameters for the presentation of expanded resistance data. Bearing in mind that in this case the actual ship is, more or less immediately, the final aim, the general basic and practical principles which would serve as the agenda for the discussion are summarized in the paragraphs following. (15) Size and geometrical form are the factors which primarily determine the vessel’s resistance when moving at steady speed. A natural method of comparison would consist in keeping the size and form influences separate when interpreting and presenting test results. But to do this in terms of total resistance is rather difficult. Although the general formulas of similarity ve Rr = Crp (surface) Cr =f (form, Fry v Rn) F,=— ‘Vg (lengthy V (length) v Ra where the length and the surface are character- istic for the ship, apparently separate in a very “simple manner the dependance on form from that192 fon size the values of 6, V, and surface, such a separation is far from effective. Dependance on form is implicit in an experimental function which, also containing F,, and Rp, differs according to size for the same form. Despite the difficulty, Telfer’s presentations provide an opening in this direction. (16) W. Froude’s approximate additive assump- tion, together with his law of comparison, are still the usual basis for testing, calculating, and presenting model tests. With Froude’s assump- tion, Cy may be written CreCa+Cr Cp =f, (form, F,) Cr f,(form, Ry) Because of the nature of the partial resist ances, and as experience confirms, while the influence of form is clearly noticeable in Cp and may become especially important at certain F, values, Cp depends very little upon it, if of course’ the flow remains dynamically similar. Therefore, comparisons according to Froude’s law and represented by a plot of Cp on F,, can tightly show the influence of form independently from that of size. But, if it is believed that the superiority of one case relative to others should be judged ulti- mately in terms of total resistance, Cr must be considered, which involves the addition of Cp. Taking into account the regular running of Cr, plotting on F,, as before is still sound, except that the depeadance of Cr on R, must be trans- ferred to Fy. As Rj = (Vg/V) F,,(length)3/2, the new plot of Cz on F, is no longer independent of size. The size as well as ¥, of the temperature for a given fluid, must be stated in each case. With a plot of Cz, a frictional calcular’ a is needed at the model size, but none in passing to other sizes. With a plot of Cz, this value for the model is obtained dicectly from the measured resistance, but for any other size a friction cor- rection is needed. as the coefficients of friction formulas are given in terms of plate length, such a correction is essentially a ship-length one. (17) Substituting some ship variables in the above for the general surface and length, different systems of presentation parameters cone resistance and the ship variables may be obtained. Some objective considerations, rather on the practical side, now come into account. Many of them also apply to other parts of these remarks. Listed without order of preference, they are as follows: PRESENTATION OF RESISTANCE AND PROPULSION DATA (17a) The actual ship being the final goal, the simplest possible numerical calculations are de- sirable for converting presentation parameters into absolute ship values (17b) A model test can be related not only t0 the original ship design but, applying different scales, possibly to various others with satis- factory adequateness to their different design conditions. Therefore, presentation parameters should possess sufficient flexibility and the variables introduced should belong to the so- called basic design variables, so that the para~ meters may give, as quickly and reliably as pos sible, an idea as to the superiority of a model as compared with others, when all are expanded tothe same ship design (17c) Regarding superiority, a distinction exists between resistance and propulsion results. While the latter, often being in the form of efficiencies, are in themselves quality definers, the former, as directly obtained, are generally absolute values. Consequently, for comparison purposes, criteria of resistance performance first should be defined. Such a performance characteristic also should be reflected as directly as possible in the parameters presenting resistance data (174) As an expansion from model size to actual ship is involved, the question of presentation parameters is closely connected with the ex: pansion method used. In any case, for a correct comparison of different forms, methods for friction calculations should be the same (17e) In view of graphical presentations, it is convenient that numerical vatiation of parameters should be rather restricted (17 Lastly, the clearest and simplest com- parison, when graphs are used, is that effected at an equal abscissa intercepting ordinates, the respective heights of which directly indicate the most favorable form, in accordance with the resistance-performance criterion adopted. Com- parisons which need be made for each hull at a different abscissa, or with ordinates less directly informative, although undoubtedly possible and sometimes unavoidable, are evidently less stciking. (18) The basic ship-design variables, which, in current practice have been up to now more usually introduced, are: For length: L and V*/*; for surface: L?, V2/3, S, and H (midsection or maximum section area). The non-dimensional systems of parameters which then result are:PRESENTATION OF RESISTANCE AND PROPULSION DATA Speed Base Speed-length base Resistance Parameters,* to be adjusted to length and temperature ce 8 cn a 2 R R qg-— o--4,,:™ v pvives ar R Rel A Av? (19) In discussing the above parameters along the lines of Section 17, the first things to be agteed upon are the conditions of comparison. A rational criterion is to compare at the same V and then take as the best ship that which has the minimum resistance per unit of displacement R/A. This is the old criterion of Froude, used by Taylor and generally accepted. Without taking for granted its international adoption, such a ctiterion, as used by the BSRA, is adopted below as a basis of reasoning. Speed Base: (20) The question to be settled is whether the speed at which comparisons are made should refer to L or to V'/6, For comparisons at a given ab- ‘Foe the sake of brevity, the subscript T of R is ou pressed inthe following. "Although etal under Stood here ‘that refer to. the. total featetance, o ‘oplied to Ree as Said Seckion 16. ss 193 scissa it depends, from a practical point of view, fon whether L or V more probably will remain is variable during the first stages of the design. One or the other evidently could be used inter- changeably if, when both vary, the ratio L/V1/3 remains invariable. ‘The inconvenience with comparisons at the me V is that models require to be friction- corrected to the different lengths, corresponding for each model to the common displacement. In this case, corrections to a standard length, according to the usual practice, would not be valid, Nevertheless, according to Lackenby, it seems that, in most practical cases, comparisons hardly would be affected by making corrections to the same length, instead of to the same dis- placement, as is the correct procedure. From a physical point of view, the use of L allows a better interpretation of the character of the parameter as a regulator of wavemaking. In ‘other words, the humps and hollows in the re- istance curves correspond to numerical values of VAYL more closely than those of V/V1/6. This property has been especially attributed to Baker's (B); however, since ¢ generally varies during the first stages of the design, the use of has the inconvenience of comparisons at different abscissas, unless V/A remains constant. Finally, the speed-base generally is not indif- ferent to the resistance parameter to which it is associated, for between both a relationship may exist, which is determined by the performance criterion involved, as explained in the next paragraph. Resistance Parameters: (21) In these parameters it is not difficult to make explicit the criterion R/A, as well as the speed base, if this were also contained. For instance, if V/Vgl. is the speed base, the re- sistance coefficient. Cx = R/0/2)V2S may be written f a Cpe 2 LS vy vis gars Wet This arrangement makes it evident that, when comparing different ships for_which R/A is the performance criterion and V/VgL the speed base, in order to draw directly from the ordinate Cr truthful information about which is the best form, L/V*?3 and S/7?/3, or their product SL/V, must be invariable for the different forms compared.194 PRESENTATION OF RESISTANCE AND PROPULSION DATA TABLE L. ADAPTABILITY OF RESISTANCE PARAMETERS AND SPEED BASE, WHEN R/A. Is THE RESISTANCE-PERFORNANCE CRITERION. Particular relationships, required to get truthful information from the resistance parameters, in comparing hull forms, when the speed base is of the following types: Resistance parameters L s qa 5378 SL. one k L Py ayars ma R L x on wa a yam 2 ord © L va RL = No condition av? R es No condition A In this way, Table 1 has been prepared. The resistance-parameter-speed base systems of this table, which imply no condition of invariabilicy, would be the only entirely correct ones for general comparisons having R/A as performance criterion. Other performance criteria lead to other conclusions. In Table 1, R/A is the simplest resistance parameter, and moreover it rightly can be asso- ciated unconditionally to any speed base. How ever, R/A does not emphasize humps and hollows in the resistance curves so strikingly as other parameters, which, having a speed squared in the denominator, clearly amplify the effect of sporadic disturbance such as wave interference. (22) Dimensional parameters® are also used for presenting resistance data. Among others, the following aut gush are arc mst be conde alle aoe accent Meter co feaigTons donicced and A'vsed instend of Up's ie Eequenty' doen SESS BAG Bee ® VANEV*?, also ®ve $ $ t and vise W878 yee SL ads oS or and by oF vas No condition % " No condition y273 yas No condition W L if we No condition No condition Arsys A064 y3 P xa EHP EHP A7VeL ‘The first is the Admiralty Constant, the second Ayre’s parameter, and the third Wahl’s parameter, Lastly, resistance performances are frequently established by comparisons against standard forms. The Taylor contours Re/A are very often used and sometimes also the Heck results, EHPp/EHPy. Comparisons are made in terms of residual or total resistances (or powers). In any case, for correct comparisons, methods of friction calculation (inclusive of estimation of wetted surface) should be the same. (23) Regarding standard systems submitted for possible adoption, since those now used are dis- cussed in the paragraphs preceding and since all of them cannot be examined in detail, only two typical examples are given: The ATTC gives curves of R/A, C Cry Cry and EHP/EHP raytor against speed in knots, with supplementary scales of K , V/VL, and V/VgL.PRESENTATION OF RESISTANCE AND PROPULSION DATA The values are given for a 400-ft ship and 59°F water temperature. If the length of the original design differs appreciably from 400 ft, a more appropriate length may be used. The basis of the friction calculation is Schoenherr,* whereupon ‘no temperature correction is needed. Values are also tabulated. The BSRA uses © against V/VL, for a 400-f length and 55°F water temperature. Friction correction is according to Froude, with tempera~ ture correction according to Paris. Tabular and graphical presentations are given; the latter wich curves of frictin correction to other lengths. (24) Points at issue which might be submitted to members: (24a) Performance criterion (or criteria if more than one) to be adopted (24b) Resistance parameter- tems to be adopted (24c) Size(s) and temperature at which resist ance parameters should be presented (24d) Method for friction calculations. As this question forms another special subject of the Conference, a decision should be drawa from its discussion (24e) Whether or not allowances should be i cluded in the resistance parameters, which, if any, and what method should be used (248) Whether tabular or graphical presenta tions, or both (24g) Units to be used. In case of non-dimen- sional parameters, this issue will be eliminated. speed base sys VIL PRESENTATION OF PROPULSION DATA. (25) Propulsion data, as resulting from model tests, may be divided into two groups: (a) Absolute values, such as speed of hull, number of revolutions, thrust and torque of pro- peller, which are obtained in selfpropulsion tests (b) Relative values, such as thrust and wake percentages, efficiencies of hull and propeller, relative rotative efficiency, and quasipropulsive coefficient, which result in connecting the above absolute values with those obtained in the cor responding resistance and open propeller tests. The matter of presentation of data for self propulsion tests was dealt with at the Paris Conference in the memoranda of Professor Troost. (Gee page 85 of the Paris Proceedings.) Part of tating the data to be presented when pub- ich in added to the tesiduary e taken tom the contours of Taylor, 195 lishing results, was incorporated in the decisions of that Conference. (26) It evidently is not necessary, in presenting propulsion results, as it was in presenting re sistance results, to transform the values into parameters containing propulsion-performance criteria. This already is realized by the relative values, such as efficiencies and percentages, which are in themselves quality definers, as s before. Therefore, general needs up to now have been usually covered by using the following systems to present propulsion da (26a) Presentation of the absolute original measured values as a basis for any control or further reinterpretation of model results (26b) Presentation of the absolute values ex: panded to the ship size, principally to predict trial and service results (26c) Presentation of efficiencies and percent ages as definers of the propulsion performance developed by the hull-propeller(s) system. (27) None of these presentations is truly ob- jective because the original measured values of presentation (26a) are affected by the procedures used to conduct the tests. For example, the tests may have been run at the ship- or at the model-self-propulsion point. The method used to calculate the skin-friction correction, if this is applied as a towrope force to the model, is also a factor. Finally in overload tests the observed values depend, apart from the amount of the loads, on the assumptions made in estimating them. They may be considered, for instance, as additional loads due to hull roughness, wind re~ sistance, and so on. Values of presentations (26b) and (26c), ber sides depending on the foregoing, also depend on the corrections and allowances which later are introduced in the calculations, to save possible scale effects and to take into account circum- stances of the actual ship which were not repro- duced in model tests. Noreover, different methods may be used to estimate the wake. The questions involved are well-known and do ‘not come within the scope of this note.” (28) The decisions agreed upon at the Paris Conference stated that presentations such as (26a) were preferred (q.p.c. was implicitly in- cluded), although presentations such as (26b) oetS0ne ccs questions ate part of other suber of ing Wseotiona were discussed ofessot Troost in Pais, lowan: ‘neationed, Sebi ieptege Sigtres peer Sind Witte SRSA EEE tee a196 could be added to facilitate use by practitioners, provided the methods of calculations were uniform. ‘Ac the Berlin Conference it was agreed that, in publishing results, allowances in passing from model to ship should be split as much as possible into their different parts. (29) Current practice and information forwarded by membets show that presentations such as (26a), (26b), and (26c) are generally used. Plots are generally given against velocity and some~ times a second scale of Froude number is added. Presentation in terms of the Admiralty formula A2/3V3/P, plotted against the Froude number ot its equivalent, are sometimes used, although they more often are associated with ship trials than with model tests. (30) Other formulas for presenting propulsion data have been proposed from time to time. A typical example is the formula proposed by Sir Amos Ayre [NECIES, Vol. 61). Although, as it was emphasized, the formula is rather of empirical nature and was intended to collect full-scale results, it (and/or other similar ones) might be used also as in additional presentation of pro- pulsion model data, useful in the first stages of ship design. G1) Points at issue which might be submitted to members: Gla) The first should be, whether the deci+ sions agreed upon in Paris about presentation of the original propulsion model results will be kept or not. If not, what modifications and/or new decisions should be introduced? (ib) Taking into account the first paragraph of Section 27, adopting decisions which may avoid having different numerical values of the original measured results attributed to the same hull-propeller combination at the same draft Gle) In the case of presentations for the pre- diction of ship-trial and service results, it is necessary to get as near as possible to the real conditions of the actual ship. The elimination of scale effects and especially the question of allowances are then of prime importance. It might be considered whether it is preferable: (a) To present the results without allowances, leaving the latter to the shipyard’s or owner's ctiterion, of (b) To present the results with allowances. In this case, it is to be decided whether the allow- ances should be introduced when testing, e.g. added to the skin-friction correction in the tow- rope force, of later in the calculation (id) In the case of presentations for com parison purposes, the question of allowances and scale effects may be less important, provided PRESENTATION OF RESISTANCE AND PROPULSION DATA. the procedure is the same for the different ships compared, e.gs, including or suppressing the same allowances, and provided this inclusion ‘or suppression does not alter the relative superi- ority of one ship as compared to another. The adoption of a uniform ctiterion regarding this could be the object of another decision Gle) Besides the usual plots mentioned in Section 26, members might suggest other pos sible presentations. Opinions and suggestions regarding presentations such as the formulas of the type indicated in Section 30 might be interesting. VIL. PRESENTATION OF OPENWATER PROPELLER TEST DATA (32) This question was discussed at the Con- ferences in The Hague and Paris. The non- dimensional system of presentation agteed upon in Paris is in general use by members. Sometimes the advance coefficient V/nD of the base has been replaced by the slips = 1- V/n (pitch), or this is added as a second scale. (3) There are, besides the foregoing presenta tion, very useful for propulsion analysis, many other propeller parameters, a great number of which have been introduced to present results of systematical series, especially for propeller- design purposes. On reconsidering the question, the following points at issue might be discussed: (33a) Whether the presentation agreed upon in Paris should be maintained (33b) Whether other presentations also should be adopted, for practical purposes of propeller design. As these presentations are all well known to members it does not seem necessary to mention them severally in this note. IX, NOMENCLATURE (34) This matter was discussed at the Confer- ence in The Hague, where it was left to a “Com- mittee of Four” for further study. As a result of this, @ list of symbols was agreed upon at the Paris Conference. No further attention was given to the matter until the Fifth Conference in London, where Mr. Gawn, in treating cavita- tion, proposed for that subject a list of symbols and definitions, (page 7 of the London Proceed- ings), which largely reproduced the Paris deci- sions, but contained some new ones, e.g., those relating to the air content of the tunnel water. Nevertheless, very few decisions about nomen- clature were then taken, since it was agreed only to abolish the terms x+, y-, z+, and f-cavitation and to use instead the terms back, face, root andPRESENTATION OF RESISTANCE AND PROPULSION DATA tip, as qualifiers of the bubble and sheet cavitations. In the meantime, in some countries there have been proposals for a symbol standardization. Worth mentioning are Report 6 of the BSRA, 1949, and the revised list tentatively accepted by the ATTC in 1951, both surely well-known to all members. The symbols adopted in these lists include most of the Paris symbols, although a few departures can be observed as those refer ring to the fineness coefficients of hull, a, 8, $, and 6, Of course, these lists are much more developed and detailed than the Paris one, espe- cially that of the ATTC thoroughly prepared by Captain Saunders. (35) The advantages of an international nomen- clature are not under discussion, as they are well known. Any further step taken towards this goal would be greatly to the general benefit. The above-mentioned lists, as well as those received from members, show that there are actually many symbols which are widely, although not generally adopted, and upon which an agree= ment would be rather easy. On the other hand, a good many symbols are scarcely used and these could be stricken off an international list. These 197 two general facts might simplify the task of establishing an international nomenclature. On the contrary, difficulties may arise from the natural trend towards basing symbols on each one’s own language. (36) In discussing the matter it should be rec- ognized first that the nomenclature agreed upon in Paris needs to be modified and/or amplified, after which the following issues might be sub mitted to members: (36a) Symbols or definitions agreed upon at the Patis Conference which should be modified. Subsequent proposals to substitute them (36b) New symbols or definitions which should be added (36c) General lines or trends, if any, to be followed in changing nomenclature or in develop ing a new one. The above task may be beyond the immediate possibilities of the Washington Conference. Per- haps members could find it more convenient, as they did at The Hague, to appoint a Committee which would review the question. The oppor tunity of this appointment might therefore be submitted to the consideration of members, as an additional item. Formal Discussion COMMENTS BY SENOR M, L. ACEVEDO Referring to Chapter II “Description of Hulls, Propellers, and Appendages, Item (4a), Length to be used.” Discussion here is centered on whether to use Lwz or Lpp. As agreed upon in Paris, Lwr, is physically defined at each draft. The Lpp is measured to certain forward and after perpendiculars. The Lpp here referred to is the fixed value which corresponds to the per- pendiculars used at El Pardo, later defined. A relative practical advantage in using L pp really exists when a fixed value is given to it. Whether taking this advantage may be permissible or not is discussed below, where the principal cases are reviewed. (a) Length used as a base for the spacing of the 20 sections of the body plan, For this use, Lpp seems quite logical." (6) As a factor of form in the fullness coeffi- cients and basic ratios. Excepting cases where Lwz evidently must be used because these values are taken on the waterline plane itself, as for fineness and inertia coefficients of the water- line area, we prefer to use Lpp for all the other ‘*Nambers of sections in the Paris Plates I and Il are aot in aprecnent with each other cases where the ship volume is involved, such as block and prismatic coefficients, L/V'/%, and so on. Undoubtedly, an Liwr, different from the Lpp generally reveals an important shape character- istic, mainly located at the after end, which must be recorded. But we consider it inappropriate to have this shape characteristic recorded by the introduction of Lwz, within the above-mentioned coefficients and ratios. In our opinion, this in- volves and confuses the role assigned to these coefficients and ratios, without, on the other hand, affording any precise information about the local shape characteristic. In ocder to esti= mate the latter, apart from giving in each case the value of the ratio Lwr/Lppy it is indispen sable to consult the drawings. This is the only way to appreciate precisely such influential cir- cumstances as the form of the extreme sections and the bow and stern contours—the latter especially—which cannot be interpreted by a mere arithmetical value. For the rest, once the ratio Lwi/L pp is given for each case, the values of the above coefficients and ratios referring to Lwz can be obtained if required. (€) As a characteristic length in the Froude number. The Froude number and the hull shape198 control the wavemaking pateern. Using Lys, in the Froude aumber, the variation of this parameter as a consequence of the variation of draft is taken into account. But in our opinion it is not the arithmetical variation of the Froude number, rather small, but the alteration of the shape, generally important at the after end, which may influence the wave pattern when draft is chang- ing. On the other hand, numerical differences between Lwz and Lpp appear in the Froude number by means of a square root. Therefore, excepting particular cases, we think that L pp might be introduced in the Froude number without important objections. (@) To determine the friction coefficients. If, for example, Lwz/Lpp = 1.03, the differences in per cent between the friction coefficients according to whether Lw, of Lpp is used, will be: With With R.E, Froude Schoenherr coefficients coefficients For a model 6 meters in lengeh For a ship 120 meters. in length 49 3.6 On the assumption that a ship surface behaves frictionally as a plate of the same area and length, it would be more correct to use Ly, than Lpp, particularly if there is a deep cruiser stern and a mdder is included. But, as we probably are rather far from having an exact knowledge of the quantitative difference existing between the frictional behavior of a ship surface and that of a plate, it might be deemed unnecessary to be precise about friction coefficients within such narrow limits as those mentioned, However, such a view would be rational if it were thought that in the future the influence of form on ship friction might be introduced as a percentage added to the plate friction. Pethaps for these reasons, we are more in- clined to continue using Lyz, as an entry to de- termine the friction coefficients, advocating at the same time, the testing of models with rudder. Nevertheless, the differences being so extremely small, we would have no objection to adding our opinion to a majority in favor of Lpp. To resume, and although at El Pardo the Paris rule concerning length has been observed up to now, we should propose: PRESENTATION OF RESISTANCE AND PROPULSION DATA (a) To use L pp in (a), (b) volume coefficients, and (¢). Also for expressing the longitudinal location of the center of buoyancy as a percent age of the length (b) To use Lwz, in (b) area coefficients (©) Either Lpp or Lwz in (4), our opinion be- ing that of the majority. (d)In any case, the ratio Lwr/Lpp should be given. Presentation of Hull Particulars. Referring to Paris Plate I, it might be convenient not to give 2 common height to the maximum ordinates rep- resenting the section of maximum area and B/2. Where curves of various hulls are represented on the same drawing, comparisons will be clearer because area curves will be grouped separately from the waterlines. The adoption of a standard proportion between the length of the maximum ordinate and that of the base would facilitate first-glance compari- Angles and general appearance of the curves then will be determined by hull character- istics and not by drawing scales. If 1.0 is the base, 0.5 and 0.25 may be adequate scales for maximum area and B/2 respectively. Other minor details, such as that of the limits of the parallel middlebody, the abscissa of the center of buoyancy, and those of the inflection points of the curves, graphically matked on the drawings, also may be convenient for the sake of clarity. When the sectional area curve corresponds to a real ship, it would be useful to represent also on the same base a longitudinal section of the ship showing spaces and decks. This would give to users a first impression as to the pos- sibilities of realizing in their design the given distribution of displacement. For instance, in coasters, the displacement distribution of a raised quarter deck generally is not possible in a single deck. The non-dimensional body plan of Paris Plate Il should be discarded and replaced by a normal one. The former alters the shape when B/H ¥ 2, and on the other hand the table of offsets in percentages gives the same, but more precise information. At El Pardo, the body plan is standardized, with B equal to 20 cm, so that the translation to the drawing of the percentages of the table is quite easy. The waterlines plan would be clearer if a few watetlines were omitted; for instance, WL6, WLS (after end), WL3 and WL1 could be kept. But it would be useful to add some diagonal, the configuration of which, particularly at the afterPRESENTATION OF RESISTANCE AND PROPULSION DATA end, is very interesting. Whenever the model comesponds to a real ship, drawings of Plate II should be completed up to the deck. In the Paris Plates I and I, the hull is given up to the load WL, which is numbered WL6, The body plan and contours of Plate Il are drawn at zero tim. In Plate IIL, which shows a tesist- ance result, nothing is said about draft and load- condition statements. Consequently, there is some uncertainty: (1) As to whether “Load WL" and “at level keel” should be taken as rules for the repre sentation, or if these conditions were only cas- ually given in Plate (2) As to whether the load condition at which the form is presented and that at which the model was tested should be the same. For normal mercantile ships, the following practice is adopted at El Pardo:—To take as WL6 that which corresponds to the mean draft at the service full-load condition, at zero trim. The FP is situated at the intersection of the bow contour with this WL6; the AP, as usual, is at the after side of the madder post, or at the rudder axis when this is a balanced one. ‘The geometrical representation of the hull is thus linked to a condition of ship service and not to that of a model test. Of course, since the service condition is an important one, a corre- sponding test result generally exists. In cases when this is not so, it will be easy to derive from the given representation, the particulars varying with drafe, which correspond to the model test. This practice has proved most useful in practical cases, particularly in comparing forms belonging to different ship designs. Presentation of Screw Particulars. As location of propellers in relation to hull is of prime im portance, propeller location also should be cluded and defined as a principal factot of pro- peller operation. For. single-screw ships, propeller location could be defined on Patis Plate IV by completing the drawing on the left with the aperture contour and the blade projection, and stating at least the following data: (a) Horizontal clearances between the propeller post and the leading edge of the blade at boss and near tip, and between the rudder post and the tailing edge of the blade near tip (b) Vertical clearances between the propeller tips and the top and bottom of the screw aperture (c) All the above clearances may be given as fractions of the propeller diameter and in their absolute values. . 199 For multiple-screw ships, propeller location could be defined when describing propeller supports, ‘The blade section at 0.7R should be included in Paris Plate IV, so that no interpolation is needed to know this important section. Although generally observed in practice, it might be stated that blade sections should be represented without shape alteration. Although a pitch diagram is the best informa tion when pitch is variable, a rule might be agreed upon to define arithmetically the mean pitch. Some statements as to the method used in de- signing the propeller, such as systematic series, ciculation theory, and the like, might be useful. Finally, if the propeller is intended primarily to fit a given ship, information on some of the ship- design data such as engine power, rpm, ship speed, wake, and propeller material would also be valuable. Item (4b). The extension recommended in this item should be confined to those parts which are usually fitted on ships, which have appre~ ciable influence on resistance and propulsion, and which can be appropriately described by systematic rules. Among others, bossings, skegs, brackets, and rudder may be mentioned, As’ an example, the sheets systematically used at El Pardo to describe bossings are given. In them, data are presented in dimensional and non-dimensional forms. Attention is devoted to describing particulars which may most influence resistance and propulsion. Particulars resulting from the association with the propeller for which the bossings were primarily designed, are Also given. Such a description could be extended easily to skegs and brackets. Item (4c). In publications, @ dimensional pre- sentation of the geometrical particulars, added to the non-dimensional one, may be useful and pethaps desired by people who prefer to work and think in dimensional terms. In the case of models related to a given ship, the dimensional information given for the ship size will be a practical guide, as it bounds a range of ship size and type where data undoubtedly will be adequate. Besides that of form, other main ship characteristics should not be omitted. These are ship type, dead weight, engine power, and rpm, as well as the load condition and draft. Regarding the presentation of dimensional particulars for a standard size, we think that such presentation may be too general, so that its adequacy for many practical cases will be200 doubeful. To avoid this, vatious standard sizes should be used. For these reasons we prefer to present dimensional particulars only for the ship size. If data are applicable to other sizes, a scale conversion is used. Item (4d). Perhaps specialists in ship wave- making have some suggestions, according to present knowledge of the question. Roughness, as being a geometrical feature greatly influencing resistance, should be given in describing actual ships. At the Berlin Con- ference, the late Dr. Weitbreche proposed to de- fine roughness of a ship’s hull like a sand roughness and suggested different roughness degrees in accordance with the ship type. A revision of Weitbrecht's statements, when pos- sible, might be advisable. Roughness should be 30 defined that, as far as possible, it is measur able on the ship. Perhaps this is difficult, but at least some description of the shell construc- tion, mentioning plating buts, butt straps, rivet heads, and the like should be given. Referting to Chapter III “Description of Con ditions under which Models were Tested,” Item 6. As a step towards uniformity of testing, we emphasize that in systematic resistance tests, models should be provided with rudder, but with no other appendage. This would avoid possible local effects owing to an obtuse ending of the watetlines, and also would justify the use of Ly to determine the friction coefficients if thi decision is kept. Alterations of the relative merit of hulls, due to the rudder, are not probable in resistance tests. Moreover, in single-screw ships, an experimental step is generally so gained, for it is a resistance test with rudder which will be connected with the self-propulsion test to obtain the propulsive coefficients. Referring to Chapter IV, “Presentation of Original Model Resistance Data," Items (11a) to (Ie). Ie is proposed to present model resistance data for the tested length and water temperature, in both tabular and graphical forms, as follow: Tabular: for the tested spots, measured values of V and Ry, and calculated values of V/VgL, Cr, ©, and VL/v Plot: © against V/VgL as the principal speed base, and V/VgV"7? or (®) as a secondary one. Measured spots marked on the graph. ‘The reasons supporting this proposal are given later in commenting on Chapter VI. One reason mote is to facilitate the expansion from model to ship size, in using for the former the same presentation adopted for the second. The suggestion in Chapter VI, to adopt Telfer’s re- PRESENTATION OF RESISTANCE AND PROPULSION DATA sistance coefficient instead of ©, is also valid here. 2 The above presentation, which differs from that agreed upon in Paris, practically coincides with that of the ATTC, Only in the graph has the parameter ©) been proposed instead of C. Besides the reasons given for adopting (eventually Telfer’s coefficient), we consider Cr (S in the denominator) as a physical rather than a typical ship coefficient, and in this way the tabular presentation of Cr might be sufficient. Presentations to a standard model length and temperature, sometimes used for comparisons, are omitted here because, in our opinion, model resistance data will be used more as an instru ment for permanent contol and as a base for furcher presentations, than for comparisons, Comparisons will be made more often on expanded data, in order to obtain quantitative information at the ship size, Referring to Chapter V, “Presentation of Ex: panded Resistance Data for Shipowners,” Item (13), Values of © for the ship size, on a base of V/VgL, might be included systematically in the information forwarded to shipowners. As this parameter has been so widely known for a long time, its adoption seems justified, We prefer to exclude all allowances from ©). Besides preserving this parameter from modifica- tions of the allowances, which are possible on account of scanty knowledge of them, the parax meter © is given to define che quality of the immersed form, which is independent of rough- ness and wind resistance, that is, still air re- sistance, Allowances depending on form, such as seaworthiness, should be taken into account in another way. Referring to Chapter VI, “Presentation of Ex- panded Resistance Data for Comparison Pur poses," Item (24a). Resistance per unit of dis- placement at given velocity is a very simple and rational performance criterion, and one which should be adopted. Item (246). In designing ships, length is usu ally determined principally in accordance with V and A, but independent of form; consequently, the ength® is rarely touched upon when the form is being studied in a following stage. Displace- ment also remains practically the same, but the minor variations which unavoidably occur in ad- jusying the lines, can make operating with V The length here referred to is the Lpy which we pro- pose also to introduce in the Froude number. ‘Seal varia: tous of the Lyx, in consequence of frequent alterations to stem ‘contour when improving the form, therefore ste ex cluded here,PRESENTATION OF RESISTANCE AND PROPULSION DATA atithnetically awkward, Therefore, and although in other cases the invariability ‘of the length may be less unquestionable, we prefer to intro~ duce L and not V in the principal speed base. If R/A as the performance criterion and V/VEL_ as the speed base are adopted, taking Telfer's resistance coefficient RgL/AV* as the resist- ance parameter is the natural consequence. For, no other of the listed resistance parameters can then accomplish in such a satisfactory manner, as that of Telfer’s, all the conditions desirable for these parameters, The adoption of Telfer’s parameter could be objected’ to only on the grounds of established practice, from which it would be a departure. Our proposal for the expanded resistance pre- sentation is as follows: ‘Speed base: V/VeL as the principal base, and V/VEV? or © as the secondary one. Resistance parameter: If departure from ship tradition is admitted, and we would agree with this, we propose to adopt Telfer’s resistance co- efficient. For practical convenience, values might be multiplied by 10. Attention should be given_to_ the ratio L/V'/3 when the base V/VEV? or © is used. If tradition is respected, we propose tention should be paid to the ratio L/V' the base V/VgL is used. ‘A tabular presentation of R/A is recommended. Hem (24c): If the resistance test has been primarily related to a given ship, the resistance parameter should be presented both for the ac tual ship length and for a standard one. In the graphs, a speed scale for the actual ship and the spot of the designed speed would be instructive. If the resistance test does not refer to a given ship, but to a general type, such as often is the case in systematical series, the resistance para- meter should be presented for a standard length. The adoption of two or three standard lengths, according to different types of ships, might be advisable. In many cases this would allow data to be directly and adequately applied to the size considered. At El Pardo the lengths 120 m, about 400 fe, for normal cargo ships, and 60 m, about 200 ft, for small cargo ships and coasters, have been used up to now. Nevertheless, taking into account the variety of sizes to which a given result may be applied, systematic comections, graphic or tabular, for Braduated lengths, will be helpful. The current practice of presenting expanded data for sea water at 59°F, 15°C, should be re~ adopted. Ate ‘when 201 Tem (24e). Because of the reasons given under Item (13), we prefer to exclude all allow ances from the expanded resistance parameters. Hem (24{). Graphic presentation is indispensa- ble. Tabular presentation is generally recom mended; it is indispensable in presenting resist- ance parameters. The rapid variation of para- meters such as R/A, when the speed increases, ‘obliges one to use scales in the graphs which are too small. The graph, Fig. 62, shows the standard non- dimensional presentation of resistance data used tip €9 now at El Pardo, Curves of ©) against V/V gh as a principal speed base and ®) as a secondary one, are given for three sizes on the same graph; that is, for model, actual ship, and standard length. Item (24g). We strongly advocate the use of non-dimensional values. Referring to Chapter VII, “Presentation of Propulsion Data.” Item (31a). Referring to Paris decision XIII, points 1 and 3 may be readopted. Point 2 de- pends on Decisionson Subjects 1 and 5. Item (316). The adoption of uniform procedures for conducting tests and for calculating the tow- rope force are two steps which are indispensable to obtain original test data which may be cor rectly compared. Agreement on the first step surely is possible at the Conference. Agreement on the second one is less probable. It depends on decisions on Subject 2. ‘At El Pardo, models are tested at the ship self-propulsion point. The skin-friction correc tion is calculated according to Froude for routine work, and sometimes according to Schoenhert or Schlichting. Usually, no allowance is introduced in the towrope force, although sheets are pre- pared to include eventually a roughness allow- ance. This is according to Weitbrecht when Froude is used, and as suggested by the ATTC when Schoenherr is used. Sometimes a few over- load runs complete the test, but this is not our daily practice. Item (31c). If correct allowances were intro- duced when testing, a more realistic load would be placed on the propeller and therefore truer values would be measured. Nevertheless, due to the present imperfect knowledge about allow- ances, we prefer to test and present results with out allowances. If results with allowances are presented, they should be given separately from those without allowances. This is how we gen- erally give to shipowners the prediction curves of shp and rpm, which include approximate allowe202 PRESENTATION OF RESISTANCE AND PROPULSION DATA 13 T a Ship Speed, Knots, ab» 23.5 a 1 2 8 “ » ‘6 Lo % 7 T T T T T T T | | 10) - © Le 4 Z or} — - sl — | 0: ais Fan irae 320 Ses L ® | 1 Ve 14 18 5 25 on l FIG, 62—Form in Use at Madrid Model Bas ances so as to take into account real circum- stances on the actual ship Item (31d). For comparison purposes, we pre~ fer to present results without any allowances. Item (31e). We believe that formulas such as that of Sir Amos Ayre, used to collect full-scale results, may be useful when applied to model re~ sults, since they give the latter in a form which makes them directly comparable to the former thereby and allow a certain readjustment of model results to the truer ship values. However, as we have no experience in the use of such formulas, we refrain from making any suggestions on this, issue, Referring to Chapter VIII, “Presentation of Open-Water Propeller Tests,” Item (33¢). We pro- pose to readopt the presentation agreed upon in Patis. Apparent slip should be given as a secondary scale, If pitch is variable, its value at 0.7R might be introduced, Statements about the method of testing, at constant spm and varying speed of advance, ot the contrary, as well as the recorded local Reyo- olds numbers at sections of 0.3 and 0,7R, should be given. in for Reporting Model Resistance Data Item (336). ‘The Taylor presentations Bp- 5 and By-8 might be adopted, or at least recom- mended for practical purposes of propeller de- sign, Although these presentations are dimen- sional, they are so widely known that any de- parture from them would probably be unwelcome. ‘The non-dimensional presentation j.-c is very useful when a towing problem is to be solved. Therefore, it might also be recommended. COMMENTS BY MR. K. C, BARNABY First, concerning the Froude number. From a mathematical standpoint, of course this is the correct parameter. On the other hand, we are not building ships on the moon, and g is sensibly constant. The introduction of g in most cases Seems an unnecessary complication and most practical designers think in terms of the straight speedslength ratio. All of Admiral Taylor's work was in terms of this ratio. I would like to sug- gest that we term this speed-length ratio the “Taylor number” and denote it by Ty. This would be a very small tribute to the memory of the man to whom naval architects all over the world owe so much,PRESENTATION OF RESISTANCE AND PROPULSION DATA. Second, concerning wake. Mr. Ferguson sug- gests w, and wy for Taylor and Froude wakes, whereas the ATTC prefers no distinction. From the practical user's point of view, Taylor wake is the more convenient and logical because we want to start with the known speed V and then find V,, the speed of advance, and not vice versa. Taylor wake therefore should have prefer~ ence and could be simply w. If anyone wants to use the considerable British data in terms of Froude wake, it should be distinguished as wy. This would seem to meet both sides and simplify aomenclature, CoMMENTS BY DR. S.L. SMITH Acevedo's paper is a very full statement of the subject and the difficulties arising there- from. I was particularly interested in his remarks re~ lating to the standardization of symbols. The BSRA standard nomenclature already has found acceptance in the United Kingdom among the shipbuilders, and has been adopted by the Insti- tution of Naval Architects, the North East Coast Institution of Engineers and Shipbuilders, and the Institution of Engineers and Shipbuilders in Scotland, The comparatively slight and numerically few differences between the BSRA list and the ATTC list have been brought out by Mr. Ferguson, It seems to me that without too much compromise and just a little give and take, we could easily reach agreement on standard symbols. This would be very well worth while, especially at the present moment, because the British Stand- ards Institute recently has set up a committee to deal with this subject, and an international agreement would be most opportune at the pres cent time. ‘As regards the presentation of hull and propel ler model experiment data, each particular estab- lishment, of course, will favor its own methods. In the main there is substantial agreement with the suggestion made and adopted at the Paris Conference, and this method of presentation always has been adopted by the BSRA. Any new method would have to possess exceptional ad- vantages either to the practitioner or to the re search worker before it could be recommended to supplant or replace what has become almost a matter of standard practice in many establish- ments. St, Acevedo refers to a recent paper by Sit Amos Ayre. A re-perusal of that paper has prompted me to make the following remarks, If ” cone looks at the whole question of presenting. 203 data from the user's point of view, there are several facts which should be kept in mind. (a) Some tanks derive ehp from models run ab- solutely naked, Other tanks fit rudders, etc. Is it not time that practice was standardized? (b) The presence or absence of a turbulence stimulacor should be clearly stated. In the pres- ent state of the art, most users would prefer to have resistance results both with and without trip (c) The treatment of appendages is far from uniform. How they have been allowed for should be clearly stated. (@) The definition of length always will be troublesome. If tests are made at several drafts, i is useful to have the appropriate wetted length for each draft. (e) The half-angle of entrance at the load waterline was mentioned several times, I think during our discussions on turbulence ‘stimula tion, Might not this parameter be included in the standard presentation and, if so, should we not give some thought to a precise definition of angle of entrance? CoumeNTs BY DR. F.H, Topp (2) In his Introductory Remarks Sr. Acevedo has set forth very fully and most competently the problems facing this Conference in the matter of the presentation of model data. (2) Description of Hulls, Propellers, and Ap- pendages. It is suggested that the SNAME Proj- ect 2 form be considered as a basis for any pro- posals made by this Conference with the object of obtaining international agreement. A model Resistance Data sheet, an Expanded Resistance Data sheet, and a sheet of curves are reproduced in Figs. 63, 64, and 65. The Society as yet has made no similar prow posal for the presentation of propeller data, However, the Propeller and Propulsion Commit- tee of the ATTC has issued a report on this subject. (3) We now consider the points raised by Sr. Acevedo, and compare the SNAME and ATTC pro- posals with those adopted in Paris in 1935, which are the agreed standards at the present time, (a) Length. The length adopted at the Paris Conference was that on the load waterline. For single-screw ships, many advantages follow from, the use of Lpp. This is defined exactly by the classification societies and is without ambigu- ity. For most such ships the cruiser stern is short, With the large powers and large propellers now being installed in single-sctew vessels,204 PRESENTATION OF RESISTANCE AND PROPULSION DATA SNAaME r SHEET NO 0 MODEL RESISTANGE DATA Dave OF issue ‘sup sous mastewaet LABORATORY. ewrenarune _s7"*# __ AND CARGO, 30550 =19 KNOTS BASIN DEEP WATER, WATER COND, 7, EHH (975 MODEL NO._2235__ BASIN SIZE 963%<5/27) MODEL WATERIAL wooo APPENOAGES tons MODEL LENGTH 20.993 MODEL FINISH ein TEST_|_OATE ESSA TURBULENCE or NOUCED smemanns CSU 7 [ MAX, W804 1009. MAK IMB/8y 1009 HS/8y 01524 OR /y 01524 R/Bx SHO BRW/B NOME va ie 25 Lol aS SI E =< pee oa ater Feces oar || aa Sn | nf = err ‘oer Ie joel eles] v Wee] + “4s [es [ania |saso| so 320, 2 8/218 & 0 | see fe assinw* FTVREE, 206 [aos ve heey, FIG. 63—MRD Sheet of Society's Panel H-2.PRESENTATION OF RESISTANCE AND PROPULSION DATA 205 SNAQMeE, SHEET No. EXPANDED RESISTANCE DATA ATE oF issue ‘SHIP_595'X75.5'x20' PASSENGER __ LABORATORY_TMB___ MODEL RESISTANCE DATA DND GARGO SPEED = I KNOTS Bagin._OEEP WATER SHEET NO. 0 MODEL NO. 3735 BASIN SIZE _963'x 51'x 22" DATED APPENDAGES NONE MODEL LENGTH.20.593 MODEL FRICTION BASIS ‘Test___ pate up, 42 HOENWERR DIMENSIONS , COEFFIGIENTS , FAGTORS , FOR 400 FT. LENGTH L400__er. 655 ve_20_yfT- y=1689V 85.18 Fr. 15.33 Se vic 19.665 Fr ses v/aihs 1335 v TRing_SONE FT. Ree vL/y = S27 10" y 46315 tows sw 2905 Les. sec? /r* ones BASIS V_ 204.6 FT? v_1.28174 10" Ftt/sec. SCHOENHERR 325.612 et? fafavtor+ 22.72 i108 Cy ROUGHNESS ALLOWANCE ene» <8Y REMARKS TAVIOR EHP BASED ON 257 Nosa "SPEED AND POWER" Thesiovany conrovas wus O-*B AN = 251210 oy 'SCHOENHERR FRICTION PLUS. 2.090: 40_| 45 [50 _]_35 [60 mgt [1340] 1489 i7a6_[ [ose 1.202 11.335, 18.00 9.00 [10.00 422 | 4.74 | 5.27 Tout] 168] 1.66 [Toas a455 [046 2571 2.595 | 2.52 1603] 1860] 16.51 Teri | 662 6a 11,960 14.989 | 18,330 1.715 | 2.141 | 2.627 294 | 413 | 563 avLOR EWP! 121 | 190 | 280 | 395 | 544 TAYLOR EWR 1.066 | 1.058 | 1.050 | 1.046 | 1.035 t i as — i | os 30s 8 338a_|2530_| 2675] “2028 | 2977 2.136 _[ 2.270 [2.403 | 2.837 | 2670 16.00 | 17.00 | 18.00 | 19,00_[ 20000 I 8.43 8.96 9.49 | 10.01 [1054 | 156 [uss] 184] isa] 12 tf = 0.755 [o.ao | i416} 71] 2.28} 2715, 2.75 310 3.64 4i7_ 17.78 1801 | 30.31] 23.04 | 27.31 499. [709 “g10 | 951] 1.089 {sase0 5 T33,000 [95.580 121.300 7246 10.470 | 13.700 | 17.390 T2ess | 3.017 | 4.037 | S574 | 7.448 HaYLOREWP| 244s | 3,079 | 3,955 | -s.an | 7.309 7K OW|_.016 | 980} 1.020 [1.050] 1018 } { t i FIG. 64—ERD Sheet of Society's Panel H-2.206 103 cy lo? cy PRESENTATION OF RESISTANCE AND PROPULSION DATA L400" t/e_zar 8_S1.18' e/4_2.60__ rr H_19.66° — afou)X109 eea7s ee zar / co _.608 ENT Fa 4 16.004 Cp__-626 _ CB 5016L.__ Cx — 9694 _ L 15,000, T y | | J 0 13000 — nao08 glo ENE AYLOR EHP 4, 3 00 ha000 x / of 2) 90 : L 000 8 T 8 400 _ . 000 | 1 80 | 2004] oo 4 200 100 4 ce aL val FIG, 65—Curve Sheet Accompanying ERD Sheet.PRESENTATION OF RESISTANCE AND PROPULSION DATA the amount of displacement added by the cruiser stern is small. Thus the advantage of the addi- tional length very often is illusory. In many cases it probably is of little help to the resist- ance, as it adds skin friction without a cor responding reduction in residuary resistance. For any given design the Lpp also is a con- stant, and obviates the confusion which arises from using a varying L for every draft. For twin-screw ships, it would be logical to follow the same reasoning and use a fixed Lpp ‘as defined by the classification societies. This is done in some model basins, However, it often is difficult to define the Lpp with complete cer- tainty in such cases, and there exist a great deal of model data based on Lyz, especially for warships, This has the disadvantage of giving a different length for each draft; a small change in draft can result in appreciable change in length and hence in the form coefficients. It also affects comparison of resistance curves in dif- ferent conditions if these are plotted to a base of any speed coefficient involving length. For the MRD and ERD sheets the SNAME adopted Lp for single-screw ships and Lys, for twin-screw ships. This is somewhat illogical but possible working compromise. The DTMB is prepared to accept the use of either length for twin- or multi-screw ships in all published work, according to the decisions of the Conference. (6) Appendages. These should be described adequately on the drawings. It should also be quite clearly stated which were fitted to the model during each specific test condition. (c) Standard Sbip Size. The use of a standard length of 400 ft has become almost universal practice in presenting model data for use by the profession, The Society’s data sheets give 400-ft dimensions for cach model, together with the 400-ft ship C values, All the BSRA results are given also in this way. The choice of 400 ft as the standard length leads to very extreme dimensions when applied, for example, to coasters and tugs. However, it probably is better to accept these unrealistic values of beam and draft for the sake of uni- formity, and a length of 400 /t is proposed in view of the great amount of data already pub- lished on this basis. (@) Ship Particulars. The particulars shown by the Paris agreement correspond to those given on the Society’s data sheets, except that the lat ter contain considerably more information. As a minimum the following particulars and coeffi- cients should be added to the standard form as agreed upon in 1935 in Paris:— 207 Type of ship 400-ft dimensions Designed speed Ship dimensions Number of screws Points of inflection on Taylor “t”” values _ area curve Ceg Cer. V/(L/100)* Ls s/V78 ¥ angle of entrance of designed WL forward Alternatively, the Conference well might ac- cept the Society’s MRD and ERD sheets com pletely in their present form. They represent considerable thought and discussion by a num- ber of people intimately concerned with the use of model data. Moreover, the use of these data sheets in all future published work would en- able those interested to file the new information in its correct place among their other model results. (4) Conditions under which Model was Tested. These must include the following items: Appendages fitted to model Scale of model Model material and surface Date of test Size of Basin Water temperature Turbulence stimula- _ finish tion method Displacement of model Trim In self-propelled tests, the loading at self- propulsion point to be stated, ive., whether that appropriate to model, ship, or some other condition. (5) Presentation of Original Model Resistance Data. Original data enables anyone to start from the beginning and convert them into any new preferred form. The following data should be given for the actual model tests; any new fric- tion formula then may be applied as and when desired: (a) Tables of V, Rp, Cr, Ry, and V/VL_ (b).Curves of Cy to a base of V/VL and V/VgL, including experiment spots (c) Values of (and V for the water at the tem perature of tests; these are the values used in calculating Cr and Ry Referring to the questions posed by Sr. Ace- vedo in Section (11): Item (11a). Presentations (7a) and (75) should be adopted Item (116). Curves of Cr to base of V/VL and V/VgL. should be given Item (11d). Both tables and graphs should be included. (6) Presentation of Experiment Resistance Data for Shipouners and Others. This presenta tion is presumably intended for describing the208 results of tests as they apply to a particular ship of fixed dimensions. In this case, curves of chp should be presented to a base of ship speed, calculated for sea water at 59°F. The displacement, draft, trim, method of turbue lence stimulation, and appendages fitted to the model should be clearly stated. The method of skinefriction correction used in passing from model to ship should be defined, and any allowances made for hull roughness, paint surface, or weather clearly stated. (7) Presentation of Experiment Resistance Data for Comparative Purposes. This type of presentation is essentially needed to compare the performance of a new design with similar past ones. In deciding on the form in which the data should be set out, therefore, it is necessary to consider what information is generally available for anew design, at such a time. In merchant ship design, the deadweight and speed usually are specified as basic. These can be turned into displacement by reference to earlier, similar ships. The basic plot therefore should preferably include resistance, speed, and displacement. This leads naturally to a speed coefficient of the type of Froude’s v4 [ir ®-mVFZ The criterion of efficient performance can be expressed most simply as the Ib resistance pet ton of displacement carried, expressed as the ratio R/A. If we plot R/A directly, it requires a large vertical scale to ensure any accuracy in the readings at low speeds, and moreover does not show up the humps and hollows clearly, Both these defects are overcome by dividing the ordi- nates by some term involving V?, To maintain the same order of merit between different models as is given by the R/A curves, this term must be the square of the abscissa. For R/A and (®), this leads to an ordinate of the form RAR ae ay which is in effect Froude’s © coefficient R100 ©O- TAR a It is believed that curves of © against © for ‘a 400-ft ship at 59°F give the best merit com parisons. In order to make the most efficient use of such data, the models available at any establishment PRESENTATION OF RESISTANCE AND PROPULSION DATA should be indexed in such a way as to make selection possible of all models closely similar to a new desiga, If the index is classified first under L/B ratio, and then, under each L/B range, into groups of the same block coefficient, for ex- ample, all models having an L/B ratio and block coefficient closely similar to the new design can be rapidly found. If the ©) curves for these models are also plotted on one sheet, the whole of the available field is at once evident. An ordinate erected at the correct (§) value will show the relative merits of ships built to any of the lines included in the plot. Strictly, the resultant vessels of constant displacement will have slightly different lengths, so that there will be small cortections necessary to the 400-ft values plotted. But in any such group of models of such a limited range, these differences will be very small, and it is exceptional for them to alter the relative merits of any models. It should be noted that if a speed base of V/VL is used, the ordinate should be of the che fc Ru and © the form <-[-— oF xs and not ©. Ir is usual in this country, when © is used as a resistance coefficient, to calculate it by using the Schoenherr values with an allowance of +0.4x10-%, In Europe it is based on the Froude values, with no special allowance. While these two methods lead to not-too-different ship © values, when starting from the same model curve, there are differences. This is a fundamental reason for a single, universally- acceptable skin-friction formulation, In the meantime, the ©) values derived from one method can be converted to the other by the method given by Mr. Gertler in TMB Report 657. 8. Presentation of Propulsion Data. Propul- sion data so far have not been included in the Society’s data sheets. However, che ATTC Propeller and Propulsion Committee, in its First Report of 1950, made the following recommenda- tions for conducting self-propulsion tests and re- porting their results. (1) Tests should be conducted at the simu- lated selfpropulsion point for the clean ship, with a smooth hull, using an allowance of ACp = 0.4% 107 (2) When overload tests are made, the smooth- hull conditions as defined in paragraph (1) should also be run (3) At the designed speed, several runs should be made with ACp varied from 0.0 to 1.6 x 10~ (4) Results of propulsion tests should be pre~ sented as curves ofPRESENTATION OF RESISTANCE AND PROPULSION DATA Effective horsepower ebp Propeller horsepower, as absorbed by the propeller php Revolutions per minute rpm Propulsive coefficient ehp/php Propeller thrust to a base of T Speed v (5) Both the corque wake wo and the thrust wake wz should be shown, either by curves or tables (9) Presentation of Open-Water Propeller Test Data, The same ATTC Committee made the fol lowing proposals for presenting the results of openswater propeller tests: (1) Curves of eds T Thrust coeficent Ke = 5 2 Torque coctficient Ko = Sap5 Efficiency, = 2 = ATL 270n ~ Kean Vo to a base of advance catio J = 72 (2) The Reynolds number « Co.272 Wo? + (0.7 7nD)* where Co.7e is the chord of the blade radius, should be shown at two suitable J on all open-water test results. (3) All open-water test results should be ac~ companied by a propeller drawing and sufficient dimensional data to define clearly the geometry, particularly the reference pitch and the type of blade sections. (4) All open-water test results should be labeled with the range of test speed and rpm. In the case of tests under cavitation condi- tions, the following recommendations were made: (1) The results of propeller cavitation tests should be presented as curves of Kr and Ko versus J for various values of the cavitation it dex o. The areas of back cavitation, back and face cavitation, and face cavitation should be indicated on the curves. (2) Cavitation indices b-e iano should be used as convenient, aan apr ad oy, 209 G)Photographic or supplementary blade- outline diagrams, marked to show areas af fected by sheet cavitation or burbling cavitation, are a most useful addition to the data, (10) Nomenclature. The ATTC Propulsion Committee recommended in 1950 that the no- menclature to be used should be that given in Chapter Il, Vol. Il of “Principles of Naval Architecture” until the publication of the ATTC “Nomenclature for Surface Ships.” This latter publication is now in draft form in a final re- vision to February 1951, and it is hoped that some agreement can be reached at the present International Conference as to its universal adoption. COMMENTS BY PROFESSOR A. J. SIMS. Referring to the sections of the introduction by Senor Acevedo, brief comments are offered on those dealing with resistance data, The sec- tions dealing with propulsion data have been covered already by previous discussions so far as British Admiralty practice is concerned. Regarding Chapters I and Il, covering the description of hull, propellers, and appendages, and of test conditions, respectively, British Ad- miralty practice is to give details of the curve of areas, waterplane shape, and largest section, all in non-dimensional form and all related to the designed waterline. Where appropriate, a pro- file is also added to define stem and stern con- tours, trim, and so on, The wetted lengeh ae che designed waterline is used, not only for coeffi- cients related to that waterline but for other dis placements and trims which may be investigated. The effects of bossings, skegs, and other ap- pendages are separately investigated, the data on the noo-dimensional curves applying to the naked hull, This is considered to give more ac- curate estimation of appendage resistance and also enables the parent form data to be used for any subsequent requirement irrespective of the appendages then required. Generally, the non-dimensional resistance: speed results apply to 16-ft models. Skin friction correction curves ate added to make them readily applicable to any other geometrically-similar forms of different lengths. In addition, ehp-speed curves are provided for the specific ship for which the model has been prepared. There would be no advantage for warship pur- poses in giving dimensional values for a 400-ft ship, but of course the considerations relating to commercial ships are very different from those applying to warships.210 With regard to Chapters IV and VI, presenta- tion of original resistance data and of expanded resistance data, British Admiralty practice is to tase method (7c). This method is preferred to (7a) and (7b) so long as international agreements are recognized as regards the corrections which should be applied, There is much to be said in favor of adopt- ing at the experimental tank both the tabulation and the plotting methods for model resistance re- sults, This involves little extra work, and by including the experiment values and the cot rected values of resistance, much of the purpose of (7a) and (7b) is achieved in addition to (7c). The tabulated values can be included in se- lected published work where the extra cost of printing is justified, and they would also be available at other times. No advantage is seen in departing from the speed results, While there is some argument for the use of (D) as the base instead of (®), the designer's concern in the early stages of his work is with displacement. is therefore more convenient, Additionally, however, iso~ curves are generally added to ©-® sD to assist in skin-friction computations, Regarding Chapter IX, so much progress has been made on the symbols to be used in a stand- ardized system of nomenclature that it is hoped we can approach finality at this Conference on this subject, CONMENTS BY PROFESSOR M. YAMAGATA Referting to the description of hulls, propel- lers, and appendages, it seems not necessary to adopt also a dimensional presentation for a standard ship size, because the non-dimensional presentation is no more than the dimensional one for a standard size. Referring to the presentation of original model resistance data, it will be sufficient to adopt only the presentation (7a). It is preferable to Cy of (7b) upwards from the calculated Cy, ~ F curve drawn downwards from the base line of F, from which the value of Cy_ is known in accord- ance with Froude’s method of model tests. Referring to the presentation of propulsion data, self-propulsion tests should be made at the ‘ship-propulsion point, allowing for air re- sistance and the like. Referring to the nomenclature, over twenty years ago the Experimental Tank Committee of the Society of Naval Architects of Japan deter- mined the symbols necessary for resistance and propulsion problems of ships, in accordance with PRESENTATION OF RESISTANCE AND PROPULSION DATA the general principle that dimensional and non- dimensional quantities should be expressed by capital and small letters, respectively. I pro- pose that this principle may be worthy to be con= sidered in amending and adding symbols. COMMENTS BY DR. H. F, NORDSTROM Sr. Acevedo has given us a very valuable re- capitulation of all the problems which appear when presenting test data. Especially do I feel fa great admiration for his very instructive sum mary of parameters for the presentation of ex- panded resistance data for comparison purposes. When presenting test data one has to distin- guish between: (a) Data for publications and (b) Data for reports to clients. In the former case a standardization is both very desirable and, I am sure, quite possible. In the latter case the way of presentation is very often dependent upon the clients’ requirements, Therefore, it is hardly possible to adopt a given system. General recommendations are, however, very valuable in this case also. The decisions arrived at in Paris referred more to publications than to clients’ reports. I submit my comments under the heading num- bers and titles used by Senor Acevedo. II. Description of Hulls, Propellers and Ap- pendages. It is hardly advisable to make the rules for these descriptions too detailed. Very often they have to be adapted to the circum stances. I want to recommend a readoption of the de~ cisions in Paris with the following additions: (a) Both length on waterline and length be- tween perpendiculars ought to be given (b) The presence of appendages, such as rud- der, bossings, shaft brackets, bilge keels, and the like, ought to be stated. UL. Description of Conditions under which models were Tested, At commercial works the conditions regarding appendages, in the form of rudder, bilge keels, and so on, very often are fixed by the client. Nevertheless these append ages ought to be mentioned in the report or in any publication. Further, the turbulence stimu- lator, if any, has to be described, as does also the kind of ‘stimulator and its arrangement. In this connection it may be pointed out that the model material or the condition of the model surfaces also should be mentioned; this is a de- tail which is overlooked very often. IV. Presentation of Original Model Resistance Data, Usually the clients show a very small in- terest in primary model results. On the otherPRESENTATION OF RESISTANCE AND PROPULSION DATA hand the form in which they ate presented in publications is of great importance from many points of view. The simplest way to do that cer tainly is to give the values in tables, with the model resistance against the model velocity and with a notation regarding the temperature of the tank water; see for instance SSPA Publication 18, Appendix 2, This ought to be done also when using the form of presentation called (7b) and (7c) by Senor Acevedo. ‘As a rule the Géteborg tank does not give the real primary model results in the reports to its clients. Our reports are based upon the use of Froude’s coefficients for the calculation of the frictional resistance, As is well known, it is then appropriate to read the values of the model resistance at even values of the corresponding ship speed from a faired curve drawn through the measuring points, These values are given, to- gether with the corresponding values for the ship, calculated according to Froude. On the other hand when using Schoenherr’s line the re- corded resistance values themselves can be used at the calculation, To Sr. Acevedo’s points at issue I want to say: (1a) I am in favor of adopting the presentation (7a) combined with (7b) * (1b) I prefer readoption of the Paris decision (11d) Tabular or graphical presentations should be used according to the circumstances (lle) The Paris decision includes Reynolds number. V. Presentation of Expanded Resistance Data for Sbipowners and Others. In the reports from our tank we generally use as a‘‘quality number,” the quasi-dimensionless Admiralty coefficient vusys Power according to the client's requirement, we use ©) against V/VL. At present it seems inconvenient for us to change this custom. The Admiralty co- efficient and ©) are given for the actual lengeh because some of our clients use their own length correction. VI, Presentation of Expanded Resistance Data for Comparison Purposes. As mentioned above, Senor Acevedo has given a very interesting sum- mary of different practicable parameters. In reply to his points at issue I want to say: (24a) R/A is the most suitable performance criterion (245) For comparison purposes I prefer 2/203997, o w/v, 2 5 Cae against V/VgL. but sometimes, a where P = power, against Froude displacement number V/VgV73 (24c) For temperature I prefer 15°C, 59°F, and as length 120 meters or 400 ft. In this connection attention might be paid to a suitable method for length correction (24e) As the Géteborg tank uses the Froude method the question has not yet arisen for us (24f) Whether tabular or graphical presentation cor both ought to be used depends upon the cir- cumstances in every case (24g) As I recommend non-dimensional para- meters I have no comments. VI. Presentation of Propulsion Data, Regard- ing Senor Acevedo’s point (26a) I assume that by “absolute original measured values” he means original measured values corrected for itrele- vant instrument corrections. ‘As to the question of allowaaces and the prediction of ship trial and service results we at the Géteborg tank generally give the results to our clients without any allowances, In addi- tion, however, we sometimes give a separate graph showing shp against rpm in ship scale with an appropriate allowance included as a suggestion for trial conditions. In reply to Sr. Acevedos points at to say: Gla) I prefer readoption of the Paris decisions (Gib) Probably the only decision which can be adopted at present is a recommendation for a careful explanation of the methods employed. At the G2teborg tank we use the ‘Continental method’? (Gebers’), which we always state in our reports and publications. Gle) I want to recommend that all results are presented without any allowances. Results with allowances ought to be given in addition to those without allowances. I can hardly see that thi Conference is able to agree upon a definite method for introducing allowances. (Bld) I am in favor of presenting all results for compatison purposes without any allowances Gle) No comments. VII. Presentation of Open-Water Propeller Test Data, Regarding Senor Acevedo’s points at issue I want to say: (33a) T propose the readoption of the’ Paris decision (33) No comments. jue T want IX. Nomenclature. It is obvious that a list of the ‘most common symbols used by all tanks would be of the greatest importance. In publica- tions one need then refer only to this list, which should also be distributed to universities and212 colleges with a recommendation for its use dur ing lectures to students of naval architecture. Perhaps such a list might be produced in col- oration with people from other scientific fields such as, for instance, physics, aero- nautics, and so on, The range of the list could be held within about the same limits as Report 6, R.B. 219, from the BSRA, “Standard Nomencla- ture and Symbols. To me it seems impossible for this Conference to reach any agreement in this case. Therefore, I propose that Senor Acevedo be asked to draw up a list of symbols, based upon the Paris deci: ns, to be put before the next Conference. Perhaps an agreement can be reached sooner by correspondence. In this connection I have another proposal. Sr. ‘Acevedo has had the opportunity to acquaint himself with a lot of forms of tables and graphs from many tanks. It would be of great interest if he would produce from this material some ‘ideal forms” including all the good ideas from the different establishments. COMMENTS BY DR. W.P. A. VAN LAMMEREN, To facilitate the adoption of a standard no- menclature and method of presentation for model data, I should like to state that although we in Holland have set up our own system, the Wage- ningen Model Basin is prepared to accept the nomenclature which the Conference eventually is going to adopt, provided that the system can be used also with metric units. Further, I must add that it is applied only to publications; for the convenience of our clients we much prefer to stick to our own methods for presenting these data, COMMENTS BY MR. J. M. FERGUSON This is a short report on the work of the ‘small committee nominated to consider the ques tion of symbols. ‘A few general principles were accepted to guide us in our discussions: PRESENTATION OF RESISTANCE AND PROPULSION DATA (1) Where possible, symbols should be dis- sociated from units (2) New symbols should not be devised un- less the existing list failed to provide a sym bol which could adequately express the inten- tion of the writer or, where the writing of an ex- pression in full would be too cumbersome. (3) Due to the difficulties of idiom or of lan- guage, abbreviations should be separated from symbols and presented in another column. In some cases it might be more convenient to write an actual ratio than to use an abbreviation or de- vise a new symbol. For example, for pitch ratio, for which a oumber of symbols and terms have been used already, simply use P/D; and for hub or boss diameter ratio, which is an awkward point between ourselves and the Americans, simply use d/D. The most important change we have made is to include the use of Greek letters for the form coefficients as an alternative to the more recent Ca» Cp» Cyn etc. This is in line with the pro- posals of the Paris Conference and also follows tradition. ‘The choice is left to the user. In some cases, two symbols have been given, Again, accepted use over many years made it dif- ficult to select one symbol in preference to the other. In one case, there are three symbols for one term. Language and usage suggested that it would be better to provide the alternatives of d, H and T for draft and so end a discussion which could be endless. Members may consider that we have rushed this subject in a somewhat callous manner. I can assure them that the very small measure of argument involved in our decisions is a proof of our sincere efforts to produce something which would meet the needs of our profession. The draft which Captain Saunders has pre~ pared is, of necessity, a preliminary one and can not be guaranteed to be free from mistakes, This draft will be carefully checked and a corrected version will be circulated as soon as possible. This first version should be considered as a foundation to which additions can be made as trial and experience suggest. Informal Comments COMMENTS BY PROFESSOR C. W. PROHASKA It has been discussed whether one presenta: tion or another should be used for model data. It would be wrong to use one single presentation, If you compare ships of the same displacement and of different lengths, the © value plotted on ® is correct, but this is nor the case if you compare ships of different displacements. IME. Barnaby made a plea for the Taylor aum- ber, saying that it was simpler for the practe tioner to use than the Froude mumber, The ©)PRESENTATION OF RESISTANCE AND PROPULSION DATA coefficient also could be simplified, changing the constant from 427 to 1,000. I suggest that all new model data, free from laminar flow, be plotted by means of such a revised ©) -coeft cient, termed E, s0 as not to confuse them with the old d In many circumstances it is of advantage to plot the propeller characteristic curves on a logarithmic scale. T could add that it would be possible also to TD put in & scale here for the proportion --—, which is often encountered in estimating problems. COMMENTS BY MR. W. P. WALKER We at Dumbarton will certainly undertake to comply with any decision taken by this Confer ence regarding nomenclature and method of pre~ senting data for publication, While I was not in the room, I understand Dr, Todd made a plea for the adoption of the SNAME standard data sheet included with his comments. While retaining my admiration for the very at- tractive and compact layout of this sheet, and its undoubted value to practising naval archi- tects, it may be misleading to users outside the United States. Many of us in the past have com pared results with Taylor's Standard Series and always have done so as defined by Taylor in his classic "The Speed and Power of Ship: automatically involves the use of friction values, so that comparisons established in the past may differ from those now made with the new sheets. These give an chp which is not a Taylor ehp as we know it abroad, by virtue of the introduction of friction values other than those proposed by Tideman. ComMENTS BY MR. R. W.L. GAWN Most speakers have distinguished between the internal system that they use in their ship tank work for presenting results and the system that that they are prepared to adopt for publication. Professor Sims already has described briefly the system at Haslar. As regards publication, the Admiralty have agreed to the BSRA system of nomenclature and symbols, and the ATTC system is fairly similar. Mr, Ferguson has been engaged on his Committee in trying to bring the two closer, so that from our part, we are quite prepared to follow any agree~ tham that may emerge from this Conference in that respect. : Professor Nordstrim mentioned postponing at agreement to the next Conference. May I impress 213 fon you that you should agree as closely as you I suggest that you adopt this Committee’s recommendation for the time being, and make a note of any item to which you object. When in- formation is published, make that clear, and bring the detailed points forward for considera~ tion at the next Conference. The data sheet which Dr. Todd recommends seems to me very satisfactory. Mr. Walker has called atteation to one or two things that stir his blood, but there again such points can be brought forward later. Let us get down to something on which we can agree. Cut only what are to me minor details and straighten them out later. Use of the Taylor number appealed to me as a splendid suggestion, I must say I rebel a bit at the word “number”? because “number” implies a non-dimensional quantity. Unfortunately I can- not suggest another word, but perhaps an alterna- tive to “number” may emerge from this distin- guished audience. Professor NordstrSm mentioned that clients were not concerned with the presentation of re- sults of the model experiment and their inter- ests were in the presentation for the ship. I feel that is a bit too general. Fortunately I have only fone client, which is the Admiralty, but the Ad- miralty includes a number of officers who are my colleagues, with whom I have daily to deal. 1 I am happy to say they insist on the model pre- sentation. As a result we all speak the same re- sistance and propulsion language, and we all are concerned to get the best out of the model, which in turn gets the best out of the ship. COMMENTS BY MR. J.M. FERGUSON In St, Acevedo’s notes, which are a most ex: cellent piece of work, he says, ‘finally the speed base is generally not indifferent to the resist- ance parameter to which it is associated, for be- tween both a relationship may exist which is de- termined by the performance criterion involved, as explained in the next paragraph.” In 1926 the Shipbuilding and Shipping Record published an abstract of some of Schaffran’s work, where Schaffran showed that a presentation of data in the form of Admiralty constant on a base of V/V was not a true indication of rela- tive values of models from the point of view of power per ton of displacement, and he proposed to replace the Admiralty constant by a new one. A few weeks later a correspondent (there is no name given but I suspect it was Dr. Telfer) dis- cussed the preceding article on Schaffran’s work, and drew attention to the danger of using the Froude © constant without = consideration of214 the appropriate base to which €) should be plot- ted, He boiled a very long argument down into one sentence, the ctux of the matter, by saying, “For a proper comparison of data of this kind, the form of the constant used as ordinate should depend on that used as abscissa.” When it is desired to modify the fundamental resistance per ton ordinate by some dimensionless form of the velocity squared, this particular form must be used also as the speed-constant abscissa. This rule can be applied to any condition at all. When we tried it ourselves, naturally we got © with © as the proper base, but in our work years ago we found that procedwe rather incon- venient when we had a number of drafts all shown on the one sheet. We adopted ({) as the convenient base, so that one grid of parallel lines for knots could be put on the sheet without having curved lines for knots. So the altemative was a new constant, which we called @) © (1 think Dr, Telfer calls it TD which gave a good comparison, For a short period, curves of @) © were added to ou Data sheets, but they did not prove to be very useful. We studied the data sheets of the SNAME with great interest, For the last year or two we have been considering various means of condensing all our data from four or five separate books into fone set of convenient sheets which would be suitable for ourselves at the tank, and useful to those people in our shipyard design office. We devised of adopted within recent months a vari tion of these data sheets with very much less in- formation on them, but with the information which suited our purpose. If the Conference is inter- ested I will be very pleased to send a set of blanks to Captain Saunders or Dr, Davidson as a point of record. Three sheets contain all the form data, including the slopes of the sectional area curve, which we find very useful. One sheet carties the ©) curves and (O), with the cabu- lation as well as the curves. One sheet is for ship ehp tabulations as well as curves. COMMENTS BY MR, MORTON GERTLER As I see it, most published resistance data fall into four general classes: first, the presenta~ tion of the original test data, which appeals to the energetic scientist who likes to analyze data in his own way so he prefers to start from scratch; second, the methods of presenting data in such a mannet as to show merit relationships, to determine which of a number of different de- signs shows the best performance. In this cate- gory we find coefficients such as ©) and (K). There are many other methods by which you could PRESENTATION OF RESISTANCE AND PROPULSION DATA accomplish the same purpose, but I don’t see any objection to the C) method so long as the com parisons are conducted with due regard to the other geometrical parameters involved. One regrettable thing is that the standard upon which ©) vs. © is based is given in English units, namely @ 400-ft ship and temperature of water at 59°F. Thus the metric countriés must think in terms of dimensional coefficients which ate satisfactory to them, such as ©) and &), but must use English units for calculating these values. One possible method of reducing this very ‘minor objection would be to give an equivalent of the standards of a 400-ft ship and 59°F as a ratio of Reynolds number to Froude number, which would result in a single non-dimensional con stant as a standard. If instead of basing the proposed constant on the 400-f and 59°F standard which would re- sult in a numerical value of 3.54 x 10°, @ com stant of 10! were used, a common numerical scale for Froude and Reynolds number, differ: ing oaly by decimal point, could be used in a plot of ©) of Cy against these parameters. The third method of presentation deals with data obtained from related series of models, such as the Taylor series or any of the other series, Here one of the aims of the individual user is to be able to predict the hp of any size vessel from known basic geometrical parameters. For this purpose I would employ a coefficient given on the SNAME Model Data Sheet, designated as the residual-resistance coefficient, of Cx. The advantage of this coefficient is nothing physical but simply that ie is an excellent tool for making such predictions without going through all of the ground-work calculations, In order to apply a co- efficient of the type of ©) for that purpose, you must either resort to @) corrections or work the data back to the model and back up to the ship again. I therefore recommend the Cx for that purpose. The fourth presentation is the one used to satisfy the ship client, and that is the out-and- out dimensional presentation of ehp-speed, of resistance-speed, I think on this presentation everybody will be in complete accord, so I will ‘ot discuss the point further, Due to the multiplicity of these various pre- sentations, if we impose a requirement that each person should present his data in each of these different forms for every paper that he writes, it would make too much work for the individual pub- lisher. Therefore, I believe that on certain spe- cialized types of papers the presentation shouldPRESENTATION OF RESISTANCE AND PROPULSION DATA be confined to the particular purpose the paper is to serve. COMMENTS BY MR. H. DE LUCE One of the objects of Project 2 of the Techni- cal and Research Committee of the SNAME was to make generally available resistance data that were more or less buried in the files of the de- signers* offices, the shipyards, and at the model basins. The preparation of a standard form for pre~ sentation of those data was obviously the first step in Project H-2. My personal feeling is that more resistance data would be released by com- mercial firms if those data, when received from the model basins, were in the accepted form for publication. I know that would be our feeling, in the firm with which I am connected, We gen- erally are willing to release hull form character- istics, lines, model basin performance, and usu- ally ttial data, shortly after delivery of a ship. We would find it much more convenient to re~ lease those data if we already had received them from the model basin in, say, the form of Project H-2 data sheets. ComMENTS BY DR. F.H. ToD 1 think we may say that everyone has been in agreement on one proposition—that we are all willing to follow any system that the Conference may finally adopt for presenting data, We have had no vetoes or other signs that anyone will refuse to follow such proposals. Going a little into the details, as far as the description of the hull is concerned, one of the most controversial dimensions always has been length. In my notes I have it that Sr, Acevedo prefers length between perpendiculars. My pro- posal to use our Project H-2 sheets would mean using length between perpendiculars for single~ screw and length on the waterline for twin-screw ships. Prof. Sims recommended the length at maxi- mum wetted length for all conditions, and Dr. Smith proposed the adoption of the effective length. So fon that particular score we cannot say that the Conference has expressed any unanimous opinion. So far as the 400-ft dimensions are concerned, they are used in the Project H-2 sheets. Mr. Shi- gekawa and Prof. Sims both objected to this proposal, but we have had no other expression of opinion. "I venture to say that if we had got opin- ions from everybody here, however, there would have been quite a definite preponderance in favor of some standard length of that kind, 25 In regard to model tests it was agreed, I think, by all the people who have spoken on that par ticular subjett, that in all cases where results are given for ships and which have been derived from model tests, we should be very careful to give the method’ of turbulence stimulation em- ployed, Resistance results for the naked bull are preferable, together with information on the effect of appendages on resistance. It should be clearly stated just how the appendage addition is made; whether we take the resistance exactly as measured on the model, whether we halve it, or just what has been done to obtain the ship Figures. Tn presenting the model resistance data I think everyone is in favor of givingthe actual recorded model figures of speed and resistance, together with temperature and other relevant data concern- ing the particular water and the basin in which it When we come to how this information should be given in the form of curves, there is a litele disagreement, and various suggestions have been made. In some cases it is proposed that they should be presented as model curves, what- ever may be the length of the actual model—16 of 20 or 25 ft long. On the other hand, there is some suggestion that we should standardize on the model length and give all the model curves for a 16-f model. ‘As for the presentation of resistance data for comparison purposes, St. Acevedo has set out the relations that should exist between any resistance parameter and any speed parameter in order to give a correct merit relationship. I think 1 am reading his remarks correctly when I say that he favored a plot of © against ©). We have had expressions of opinion from a number of other speakers, and I think beoadly that there has, been quite an expression in favor of this method. There are others who have either not spoken of have avoided this point, but I do feel that that has been the definite tendency. When we come to the propulsion data, most of the delegates seem to have been in favor of adopting the Paris recommendations, perhaps with some additions, One of the points that Se. Acevedo stressed was his question (31b). We have had only three expressions of opinion on it this morning, but reading through the rémarks that have been submitted in writing, I found the three people who mentioned it were all in favor of the ship self-propulsion point. When we come to nomenclature one speaker (I think it was Mr. Gawn) saidhe thought we should not delay the adoption of some agreed list until216 the next Conference, Judging by the general ‘Heat! Heat's!” that came from the audience, I think chat was a pretty definite expression of opinion, namely, that at this Conference we should ‘adopt some definite nomenclature, per- haps with Mr, Gawn’s qualification that in the next three years we make note of such things as we find aot too satisfactory, and bring them up at the next Conference for modification, It would be in a way a tentative list, but not one merely to be lefe on the table for the next three years and then discussed. It should be adopted and used as ic stands but with the above qualification. Mr. de Luce made a plea for model basins to put out their reports in the form of Project H-2 sheets. I think that is a point the Conference might well consider. At the DTMB we have a PRESENTATION OF RESISTANCE AND PROPULSION DATA different actual presentation in our reports, but they do include practically everything that the Project H-2 sheets include. As a member of the Panel on Project H-2 I promised some time ago that we would see what we could do at the DTMB to recast our reports into that form, so that when anyone gets a copy of a DMB report he can ab- stract the tables and file them with his Project H-2 sheets if he so wishes. The Conference might wish to consider whether, if it agrees that this Project H-2 does form a teasonable procedure, Tanks should be asked to present their published work in that form, so that those of us who have these Project H-2 files can simply add the information directly, without having to go into a great deal of work to convert them to the different forms and replot.