Marine Fouling and Its Prevention

,
Contribution No. 580 from the Woods Hole Oceanographic Institute
Copyright 1952 by U. S. Naval Institute, Annapolis, Maryland
George Banta Publishing Co., Menasha, WI

CHAPTER 2

Ship Resistance
The theory of ship resistance has been elabo- convincing way. This method is unavoidably ex-
rated by naval architects as a means of predicting pensive, since a full-sized ship must be kept avail-
ship performance from preliminary experiments able over a protracted period. It does not lend itself
with models. A full discussion of this theory or of to .the full analysis of the nature of the resistance
the technique of testing the resistance of models unless supplemented by tests on "planks" which
or of full-scale ships by trial runs is beyond the determine the frictional resistance separately.
scope of the present volume. However, since the Plank tests are conducted by towing long, thin
data bearing on the effects of fouling and of protec- plates in tanks. The resistance offered by such
tive coatings on the effciency of ships during oper- structures may be assumed to be due almost en-
ration are expressed in the terms of this theory and tirely to frictional forces and may be related direct-
were obtained by these techniques, it is necessary ly to the roughness of the surface or to its fouled
to present an elementary account of these matters. condition. This method of study is indirect in that
For a more complete treatment, standard works the results can be applied to actual ships only with
such as those of Taylor (24), Davidson (7), Saun- the aid of theoretical calculations supplemented by
ders and Pitre (18, 20, 21) may be consulted. towing data on ship models or full-scale ships.
The resistance offered by a ship to movement Its relative simplicity and lower cost commends
through water may be resolved into two principal it, however, for detailed studies on the effects of
components: frictional resistance and residual surface roughness which may characterize painted,
resistance. The frictional resistance arises from corroded, or fouled bottoms.
frictional forces set up by the flow of water along For the purposes of the paint technologist,
the surface of the hull, and is consequently in- effective information can be obtained without the
fluenced by fouling and the coatings of paint used complete solution of the resistance problem re-
for its prevention. The residual resistance is due quired by the naval architect. Reliable and simple
to pressures developed in pushing the water aside, procedures for estimating the relative frictional
and arises from the form of the hull. resistance of variously treated surfaces wil be of
Wiliam Froude first recognized that the residual value in guiding his technique, even though they do
resistance of a model could be scaled up to give the not supply data adequate for the needs of the ship
residual resistance of the full-scale ship by use designer.
of the principle of similitude developed by New- The plank tests may be likened to the panel
ton. The frictional resistance, however, follows tests used in evaluating the protective action of
laws of its own and can not be so treated. Froude coatings. Their value to the paint technician lies ,.,
~
.~t-
consequently studied the frictional resistance of in the ease with which comparative evaluations t
towed planks in order to determine empirically can be made, not in the precision with which they
.r~
the relations between frictional resistance; length, foretell the performance of ships in sevice. The
surface area, and speed. Armed with this informa- tests by trial run, on the other hand, like the serv-
tion, it is possible to estimate the frictional resist- ice tests of paint coatings, give a direct measure
ance of a modeL. This value is subtracted from the of the phenomena in question.
total resistance of the model to obtain its residual
resistance. The residual resistance is then scaled
THE TOTAL RESISTANCE OF SHIPS
up to give that of the full-sized ship. The frictional The force required to propel a ship at any
resistance, calculated for the full scale from the given speed may be measured by trial runs over a
plank tests, is added to give the total resistance standard course in which the ship is self-propelled
of the ship. This is the fundamental procedure in or is towed by another vesseL. To obtain reliable
all model testing. results, an exacting technique must be followed in
The total resistance of a ship to motion may be which a series of observations are made at each
measured by trial runs over measured courses fied speed, during which the vessel alternates
made both before and after fouling has occurred. its direction over the course in order to neutralize
The influence òf fouling; on the relation of speed the effects of current. The trials should be run in
to propulsive force can be measured in a direct and quiet waters, since the state of the sea can not ibe

21

The If the ship is towed. This where R is expressed in pounds. towing tests which were repeated at intervals to show the effect of fouling. but give compellng evidence of the actual increase in cost of operating with a fouled bottom. . shaft horsepower is always greater ::100 . Fouling of the propellers may greatly C( 20 '" a: decrease their effciency. and more commonly '" a: is about 67 per cent (15).OUT OF DOCK attributed to failure of the antifouling shipbottom FIGURE 2. of the initial resistance of the freshly painted hulL. the loss in speed with a towing force of EHP=0. EHP. and had the 10 12 14 16 18 20 propeller removed in March. Immediately SPEED . by the expression In 375 days the total resistance is exactly doubled. At a '" o given speed. represented by a loss in speed of 4. They demonstrate permit the results to be reduced to standard con. Hamilton as the result of fouling of the propellers. the very great increase in resistance which de- ditions. Percentage increase in resistance of destroyer Yudachi when towed paint. painted. the total resistance is given resistance developed at a speed of 16 knots after by the force exerted by the towline. From data öf Izubuchi (13). R. 4 A most complete towing test showing the effect of fouling on hull resistance was made on the 2 Japanese ex-destroyer Yudachi (13). The condition of the bottom of the Y udachi The propulsive force is more usually estimated during the period of these tests is not reported. These terms are en en of litte use in the analysis of the physicsof resist- ~ 6 ance. Thus in tests on the D.KNOTS after undocking it was subjected to systematic FIGURE 1. '" 80 o turbed motion of the water at the stern of the ship. and the speed. to in smoothed curves in Figure 1.S.6 force is best obtained from measurements of the knots. 1931. For this reason measurements of thrust at 16 knots after various periods out of dock. and thus may result in o z increases in the shaft horsepower required to main. Resistance of destroyer Yud¡uhi towed at different speeds after various periods at anchor. than effective horsepower because of the ineff. force produced a speed of 20 knots with the freshly in knots. This is the power de. 14 The indicated horsepower of the engine differs en z stil more than the shaft horsepower from the effec- ~12 tive horsepower because of losses inherent in the I effciency of the engine. 22 MARINE FOULING AND ITS PREVENTION are to be preferred to measurements of shaft 18 horsepower. from the shaft horsepower. This 234- o foot vessel was docked. the propulsive to 15. 0- I ciencies inherent in propeller design and in the dis. painted hull. I- Z livered by the shaft to the propeller (20). thrust of the propeller shaft.4 knots. o 100 200 300 400 tain a given speed. After 375 days the speed had fallen If the ship is self-propelled. The propulsive effciency ~ 40 of certain types of naval vessels may be even less '" VI than this.00307 RV 10 tons is plotted against the time at mooring. the resistance may be reflected directly z ¡: 8 by the fuel consumed or its cost. which may be erroneously DAYS . V. From data of Izubuchi (13). zC( Effective horsepower is at best not more than 75 lñ 60 ¡¡ per cent of shaft horsepower. veloped while the ship remained at anchor. In Figure 3. allowed for. the in- 16 crease in shaft horsepower was two or three times the increase in thrust (18). wlO Co Finally. The effective various periods is shown in Figure 2 as a per cent horsepower. is related to the total resistance. The force and direction of the wind The results of the tests on the Y udachi are shown must be measured and its effect calculated.S. -.

oI-Z INITIAL ly during the period following undocking. FIGURE 5. . These figures I 2 cII are based on smoothed curves published by Taylor II 0- (24). a: " ~ 0 2 4 6 MONTHS . 5000 5 VI \. VI VI I 100 0 .2 rJ g¡ 15 000 and 2. spent the winter operating in New England waters. The effect of fouling on the shaft horsepower re. z vi. indicated that the paint system was not very satisfactory. with the ll results shown in Figures 4 through 9. VI These ships were subjected to trial runs periodical. 3 October at Bremerton and operated during the following year between Puget Sound and Panama. .. At higher speeds the percentage increase in shaft horsepower was less. SHIP RESISTANCE 23 The behavior of steel test panels. The weight of adhering matter was 5. a: 20000 barnacles and Bugula covered the entire surface. Loss in speed of destroyer Yudaclii when towed with a force of 10 l- tons after various periods out of dock. Initial speed 20 knots.OUT OF DOCK 8 FIGURE 6. a: '" :¡ 0 100 200 300 400 ~ 80 '" rJ DAYS .OUT OF DOCK 8 . ¡i 40 ~ quired to develop various speeds in tests with the l: 20 '" United States destroyer Putnam and the battleship '" Tennessee has been reported by Davis (8). as shown in Figure 5. 25 000 After 140 days the paint had fallen off in several places.1 In the case of the destroyer. The increase in resistance indicated by these VI tests is very similar to that shown by the Y udachi. . z '" VI 2 " 120 z ~ ' a.. painted like the 30000 ship bottom and hung from the vessel.11 at 3 different speeds after various periods out of dock. The battleship was undocked in . '" :¡ and 30 per cent of the area was rusted and devoid o a. From the data of LL '" Izubucbi (13). '" of paint. Loss of speed of destroyer Putnam at constant shaft horsepower high speed. because of the relatively greater importance of wave-making resistance at o 2 4 6 MONTHS . the shaft horsepower VI o . cII II I- 0.KNOTS FIGURE 4. The destroyer was undocked at Boston in October. 4 12 14 16 18 20 22 24 26 28 30 32 zll SPEED . l- LL The results of the Y udachi tests may be associated '" ¡: 100.28 kilograms per square meter on plates i hung on the starboard and port side respectively.00 with the development of rather severe fouling and corrosion.OUT OF DOCK a: o i 60 FIGUR 3. Percentage increase in shaft horsepower required to propel the j~ £j and at the end of March proceeded to Guantanamo destroyer Putnam at different speeds after various periods out of dock. By the end of the test. Shaft horsepower required to propel the destroyer P'utna.r.~~ where she remained until May before returning to northern waters. The loss in speed amounted to more after various periods out of dock. required for a speed of 14 knots was practically doubled in eight months. with the development of rust spots and fouling with Bugula.

: ~ "' '" ü " '" ¡ "Cl ~ Cl '" '" FIGURE 7. resistance. Increase in shaft horsepower required to propel the destroyer (/ Putnam at various speeds in relation to season and area of operation. '" f. '" '" '" :i "0.!ê '" ~ ¡i W 0 " OJ -i '" !ê "!ê-i l "!ê ~ ~ " ü :i :i " " i.! ~ 40 o :r 1000 t 30... The results with the 25 000 battleship were somewhat less sev.. DAYS . While these quantitative tests supP?rt the many 5000 TRIAL DATES :: 0 f. and (2) the residual resistance. R¡.OUT OF DOCK Ri. .OUT OF DOCK FIGURE 8. In these tests and those on the Y udachi the general rate of increase in resistance was about 73 per cent per 520000 day. Shaft horsepower required to propel the battleship Tennessee at ~ §: '" :i . of a vessel moving at the surface' of water is FIGURE 9. The paints used fifteen years ago were not to be depended on for more than six (/ months. .KNOTS ~ ~ '" '" u" (j oJ " ti 0: '" . 10 Davis (8).000 and area of operation. the total resistance. The initial speed with ciean bottom was 20 knots. ~ "-i :i ~ "u '" '" u i i 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 ~ a: w Z o: w '" 0.. SPEED . u '" u " u " :i 0. Loss in speed of battleship Tennessee at 23. u¡. After .24 MARINE FOULING AND ITS PREVENTION 30000 than 3 knots at a shaft horsepower which initially yielded 20 knots as shown in Figure 6. (/ ii o 15 000 Davis (8) has attempted to relate the develop- :i ment of excess shaft horsepower required to the f- "- development of fouling as controlled by the season -0 ¡: 10.500 shaft horsepower the sum of two components: (1) the frictional after various periods out of dock. C( :i (/ OCT DEC FEB APR Jl AUG OCT TIME UNDOCKED Z 20 uJ FIGURE 10. DAYS . '" 2 During the service in the recent war. With the improved coatings now avail- f- oZ able. It was sli'ghtly less at higher speeds. The condition of the bottom of these ships ~ o 0- W at the end of the period is not recorded. fouling of the o I bottoms of active war vessels did not present a uJ uJ serious problem. a: u 300 uJ . '" i1 different speeds after various periods out of dock. "IIZ ioo 200 300 estimates of the severity of the effects of fouling on ship resistance which appear in the literature. 0- (/ !: i THE FRICTIONAL RESISTANCE (/ OF SHIPS (/ ooJ Theoretical Formulation According to the theory of ship resistance de- 100 200 300 veloped by Wiliam Froude. represent the results of rather severe failure of the 3 paint coatings.! 5000 I W II (j o: ~ 50 w o0. Percentage increase in shaft horsepower required to propel the it should be borne in mind that they probably battleship Tennessee at a speed of 15 knots after various periods out of dock. as suggested in Figure 10. much less severe effects are to be expected. fi 0. z '" '" ~ '" '" ~ e '" '" "'" " ii ir =i f- 0 i i Z 0- :i 7000 " uJ (j II lt 60 .u "t' 0. RT.re.

The frictional resistance in the Fine Sand 0.89 1. and 0.4. bottom is clean.0137 0.02058(VVLr" (4) as shown in Table 1.roude's Plank Friction Experiments Recently Liljegren (15) has proposed a treat- Length. the coeffcient of frictional resistance.19.0166 0.0170 constant velocity. C2. L ment which assumes that the frictional resistance Nature of of a plank may be divided into two components. For sea water multiply by 64/62.83 is expressed by a term.00 R¡=(~+C2)SV2.93 tional resistance is consequently given by Calico 1. follow.00 2.29). because of the waves and eddies occasioned by the has a value determined by the Reynolds number. Varnish 0.0231 0. Davidson (7) may be consulted. Surface 2 feet 8 feet 20 feet 50 feet For some distance behind the leading edge. and actual ships with clean bottoms. energy Values for 1* is expended in accelerating the motion of the water.0104 o .00 Coarse Sand 2. (2) by the character of the paint coating itself and the degree to which this coating permits corrosion in which the character of the surface affects only or fouling.00 2. R¡. the value of frictional resistance A number of attempts have been made to relate relative to the total resistance gives a basis for frictional resistance to the Reynolds number of judging the importance of keeping the frictional the surface (11.85 1. mental importance in fluid mechanics whose value The results of the towing tests on the Japanese depends on the product V L/v in which V is the destroyer Y udachi were broken down into frictional velocity.87 Fine Sand 2. The excess resistance exerted behilld the leading edge Values for n Varnish 2.92 1.0139 Coarse Sand 0. TABLE 1.0100 o . Hiraga con. 22). LV3/4 j~ ~. equations take the form lel to the surface of the vesseL.3 feet W.0119 0.00 2. of towed planks could be the mass density of the medium. This is a constant of funda. ship's motion.F As the result of towing experiments with planks.0257 0. Taylor (24) or l.0184 0. The entire fric- Paraffn 1.00 2. 0088 Calico 0. L the length of the surface.0314 o . The V is the velocity in knots Taylor Model Basin uses Gebers' formula which n is a number nearly equal to 2. resistance to a minimum. When the painted surface in sea water is 0.0121 0.0178 0.0104. expected to.06 Medium Sand 2. have its effect the value of the constant. K2. (5) :: * The! vaiues are for fresh water. 0097 Further back the water flows past the surface at a Paraffn 0.00 2. Cf~O. 10) found experimentally that the to water of any temperature and salinity. detail to permit a presentation of the material to a plank ship of 77.93 1. These relationships are given only in enough . Wiliam F. Cl/ L V3/4.0117 0. provided the Reynolds number is S is the wetted surface in square feet high enough to assure turbulent flow (14.00 2. 0204 0.00 1.00 2. which for a clean primarily upon the frictional resistance. Medium Sand 0.94 1. The term p/2 permits the equation to be applied Froude (9.95 1. The fric- . SHIP RESISTANCE 25 The frictional resistance is caused by tangential kinematic viscosity of the fluid medium. has the form The values of bothf and n depend upon the length of the plank and on the character of the surface.:.0104 latter region may be expressed by a constant.L. A number of expressed by the relation empirical equations have been proposed which express the relation between the coeffcient of R1= fsvn t1) frictional resistance and the Reynolds number in which f is the coeffcient of frictional resistance approximately.0168 which is independent of length or velocity. These stresses due to the drag of the water moving paral.0152 0.0196 0. R¡= C¡(p/2)SP (3) The residual resistance is caused by the distribu- tion of pressure which develops about the hull where C1. cluded that the frictional resistance of planks and ships exceeding 26 feet in length could be expressed Relation of Frictional to Total Resistance by the similar equation The condition of a ship's bottom. p being frictional resistance.00 2.525 foot beam. as determined R¡=KzSV1. may be.0281 0. and v is the and residual resistance by Izubuchi (13).85 1. For a fuller discussion.

in which the percentage of the total Effect of Surface Roughness on resistance attributable to frictional resistance at Frictional Resistance several speeds were as follows. Per- centage of total resistance due to frictional and residual resistance at differen t country. 40 0 ¡: '" '" . 0. method and others which are closely comparable are preferred.082 149. At the comparatively Ratio of Frictional low speed of 14 knots the frictional resistance Frictional Resistance to Resistance Total Resistance amounts to as much as 87 per cent of the total. This amounting to as little as 35 per cent of the total was scaled up to apply to the 232-foot destroyer resistance.S.8 48.840 143. It is presumed to be the reason why the relative In estimating that of the actual ship.iñ Il I- z0 i.58 to 1.5 Gebers-Kempf 33.000 square feet and to develop a total resistance of 43.8 44.000 125.5 mum speed of 27 knots it stil amounts to as much Liljegren 38. the values of value of frictional resistance in the Y udachi tests does not decrease steadily from the lowest to highest speeds. KNOTS I tional resistance of the Y udachi given by his for- ~ 12 mula at speeds from 8 to 28 knots was 1. SPEED . 10 en times that by Gebers' formula. The degree to w 8 Q: which the results depend on the basis of calcula- 6 tion is brought out in Table 2 in which the fric- tional resistance of a 400-foot vessel is estimated in 4 a variety of ways. In estimating the resistance of a full scale ship Speed Frictional Resistance from a towing test on a model.0 67.3 Navy made from trial runs of the United States destroyer Hamilton. the relative importance of Estimation 16 knots 32 knots 16 knots 32 knots pozmds per cent frictional resistance diminishes.146 pounds at 16 ance is expressed as a percentage-of the total resist. In the inset of the figure the frictional resist- assumed to have a wetted surface of 20.-' friction depends on the formula and on the basic 80 20 b data for the resistance of planks used in the com- en 16 .000 76. and on the later determi- 8 10 12 14 16 18 20 22 24 26 nations of plank resistance by Kempf and Hiraga. knots and 212. From data of Izubuchi (13). The result of Since frictional resistance is responsible for a the analysis is shown in Figure 11 from which relatively greater part of the total resistance in ships at low speed...Tideman 29. Estimated Frictional Resistance of a 400-foot vessel total.36 to zC( 1.038 67.269 103. Thus Hiraga (12) found that the fric- SPEED -. these constants are increased to take account .5 These results are concordant with estimates Gebers-U.63 :. The methods of Liljegren FIGUR 11.26 MARINE FOULING AND ITS PREVENTION tional resistance was computed from the results of With fast ships at high speed the frictional resist- towing tests made with a plank 77. cent surface of the model and of the actual ship bot- 30 knots 41 per cent tom. where the Gebers-United States Navy speeds. Hiraga 40. M etliod of As speed increases.100 59. constants are employed appropriate with speed" but increases rapidly at certain speeds and less rapidly at other inter- mediate speeds.KNOTS give the higher values. The fraction of the total resistance attributed to 60 !. it is important to keep this 0 100 factor at a minimum in vessels such as cargo car- .8 as 50 per cent of the totai.3 feet long and ance may account for an even smaller part. This is because of the way in which the bow and stern wvaes to its smooth surface.333 pounds at 32 knots ance at different speeds. with the aid of formula (2) above. ll".800 94. "interfere" as speed increases.9 70.525 feet thick as described by Hiraga (12). Inset.591 92.. Analysis of the total resistance of the destroyer Yudachi into its and Hiraga are not generally accepted in this components of frictional and residual resistance at various speeds. 25. it is necessary to 10 knots 67 per cent make allowance for the different texture of the 20 knots 60 per.5 58.14 100 10 14 18 22 26 0 putation. which is usually varnished. but at the maxi. 22 20 I BO LL ~ riers which normally operate at relatively low -' 0'"I- 20 '" z 60 ~ ~ speed-length ratios.360 90. The estimations of frictional 2 resistance based on the more recent formulations of Liljegren and Hiraga. 400: a: 18 ~ '" "o . Froude. it may be seen that at all speeds the residual resistance forms a relatively small portion of the TABLE 2. In estimating the frictional resistance of It should be noted that residual resistance usually does not increase steadily the model.49 times that by Froude's and 1..

newly painted but with roughening 0. Tidemails Constants for Frictional Resistance.8270 1. 256 544 X X 10-3 10-3 . butts. S is in square feet and V is in feet per ~econd surfaces artificially roughened to various degrees.* For use in the equation R¡ = fSVn where R¡ is in pounds. and are given in Froude's data was prepared by Tideman and Table 5. 8434 1. 8250 1 . Table 3 contains a selection of Tideman's constants Rf= (Cf+Ck) (p/2)SP. With shorter frictional resistance. to make an allowance for roughness by multiplying 6. 8430 1 . Its value is varied as may be 7.8700 1. Plane. Siirface Ck 1. 8270 Rough. i. TABLE 4. the surface roughened with medium Kempf (14) has developed a Roughness Co- sand develops a resistance about 40 per cent greater effcient.01200 0.00991 0.676 X 10-3 which is important chiefly in defining the effect of velocity on the resistance. Normal hull surface like 4. to express the effect of roughness on than the smooth varnish surface. nand f. 9175 1. but with butts 0. spaced every 16. and focusing atten- 51 X X 109 109 1. and straps. increase with the rough. 1 X 107 2. 009900 0.8250 Iron bottom Clean and painted 1. butts.992 X 10-3 tained with these surfaces are given in Table 1. In applying 5. 0. 0.00976 o . The values of the constants of equation (1) ob- Reynolds number C¡ 5 X 10 2.* Froude's original studies on the frictional resist. It is also necessary to use a 400-foot cargo vessel to 1. modern ships.01250 0. but after 22 years of service.744 X 10-3 Both constants.4 feet. 8270 1. 9000 1.79-inch high. As adopted by the International Congress of Model Basin Superintendents. 5 X 107 2.010000 o . or a correction factor is employed or lapped plating. For complete table see Davidson (7). 8300 1 . Kempf's Roughness Coeffcients (Ck) magnitude of the allowances which have been made for the actual roughness of clean ships' bottoms. Same as 1.40 X 10-3 tion (3) and which vary with the Reynolds number. 8290 Copper or Zinc Sheathed Smooth. For complete table see Davidson (7). 1935. The values of this coeffcient planks the difference is even greater.118 to 0.00970 o . S is in square feet and V is in knots. SHIP RESISTANCE 27 TABLE 3.0394-inch in diameter. 3. for fresh water multiply by 62. 8290 1. 8430 1. Old copper-sheathed hulL.011579 0. covering 25 per cent of area.e.75 X 10-3 These values are for a smooth surface. . 8290 1. the ship's calculated frictional resistance by an (about) 1. given in Table 4. Plane surface with barnacles 0.10 X 10-3 2. in good condition 0. 00966 0. and those of Froude which serve to illustrate the TABLE 5.22 for a 900-foot battle constants applicable to the greater lengths of cruiser (20). 5 X 108 1. 00944 o .242 X 10-3 1 X 108 2. of its roughness. 8610 1. Paris. The constants are for sea water. New hull with new paint in normal condition A partial list of these values is given in Table 4. 00926 Rough. considered desirable to suit vessels built with flush (about) 3.14 for to allow for its effect.4/64 Length of Surface Nature of Surface 10 20 50 100 200 500 Values for f Varnish 0.00943 o . posed by Gebers which are employed with equa. p is in pounds per cubic foot divided by 32. were determined by towing tests with 252-foot An extended table of constants deduced from pontoon variously roughened. and straps. 0 X 10-3 appropriate factor. Plane surface with sand particles 0. Neglecting the effect of n.75 X 10-3 4. it may be noted that with 50-foot planks. equation (3). 8430 . tion on the values of f.75 X 10-3 them to full-sized vessels it has been the practice from rust.0 X 10-3 . 8430 1. adopted coeffcients of frictional resistance pro. Average roughness about 0.014000 0.060 X 10-3 ness of the surface. The values for varnished surface are from Froude. 8530 1.013500 0.011240 0. with new The United States Experimental Model Basin paint but without rivets. 00904 Copper or Zinc Sheathed Smooth. C¡ is ance of towed planks included observations on dimensionless.01170 0. 0. in good condition 1.157- inch high. 0.2 feet per second. Geber's Coeffcients of Frictional Resistance. Ck. covering 100 per cent of area. in bad condition 0. in bad condition 1. 1. smooth surface of steel plates. with rivets.010570 0. 8357 1.010524 Iron bottom Clean and painted 0. These values are to be added to smooth served for many years as the basis of estimating surface coeffcients. The factor ranges from 1.01136 Values for n Varnish 1.012-inch. in applying the frictional resistance of ships from equation (1). For use in equation R¡=C¡(p/2)SP where R¡ is in pounds.

have been deduced from tests of the S.924 2. 00635 2 .0851 0.0108 0. as expected from Liljegren (15) has utilized Kempf's data to Froude's experiments with roughened planks. Hamilton ca.029 fouling occurring on the Y udachi were unsatis- 4 2. The value of n in the equation increases U.2 o .8 0. 912 2. 0292 1. 994 300 days of the tests.015 11 3. Effect of Fouling on Frictional Resistance of 375 0.0107 0.000 Hiraga (12) records the effect of fouling on the 9 2.003 factory.1 Towed Steel Plates in McEnlree's Experiments The value of K2 decreases at first.0100 0.035 and resistance In pounds Instead of the metric units employed by the author. lapped. They show that the value number Ck off increases about threefold as a consequence of the S. and doubles during the last 1 . 0239 1. f.9 to about 2.0108 0. 988 ship was substantiaL.S. C2. plate was removed for testing each month and ness factor to be given in a form which takes was subsequently cleaned. frictional resistance of the destroyer Y udachi from ance.8 0.01225 2.0167 1.0 0. salt water 0.5XlOs 0.2 0.967 resistance to towing of a brass plate coated with 10 3. 848 2.55 X 10-3 fouling.0128 1. and tested account of this and other variables (14). Additional knowledge United States Experimental Model Basin.S.00665 Effect of Fouling on Frictional Resistance Steel.S. 0090 0. separates the resistance..42 X 10-3 from about 1.00690 Ibid. f n ponent.6 0.938 1. Clairton The tests showed that the resistance of the plates and of the United States destroye_r Hamilton as increased to four times the value for the clean follows (7): plate in the course of twelve months.0108 o . presumably as the result Table 6 collected from Liljegren's book show of fouling and corrosion. again to obtain a measure of its unfouled resist- Values for Ck which agree well with Kempf's ance. One and experience may ultimately permit the rough.000 8 3.of K2 are .1 TABLE 7.0275 1. Rf= K2SVn. the data 140 0.4 0.1 which are available show that effects are produced 225 0. fresh water 0. Steel plates 10 feet long and 2 feet surfaces given in Table 4 with the roughness wide were painted with anticorrosive paint and coeffcients in Table 5. while Ci is 8 per cent after various periods were the following:2 greater.0267 1. 2X 109 o .6 0.00700 The first comprehensive tests of the effect of fouling on the frictional resistance were made by By comparing Gebers' coeffdents for smooth McEntee (16). parallels roughly for varnished and steel surfaces.00763 2.S. it may be seen that the exposed in Chesapeake Bay.0 0.0095 0:0252 1. Values of c¡ and C2 in the Liljegren formula by the conformation of the surface which are great Surface and conditions c¡ C2 enough to warrant serious study. Attempts to quantitate the 2 0.6 o . The values of K2 and n that C2 is 4 per cent greater for a welded steel in the equation of Hiraga. 869 1. 1. 0096 0.928 3 0.0.00995 1. The evaluate the frictional coeffcients of equation (4) increase in frictional resistance. presumably as Dry Weight a consequence of the increased value of the n ex- Time of of Fouling Immersion ounces ------.2 0.0275 1. 1 factory state at the present time (7).0095 O.5. 7 4. 874 2.28 MARINE FOULING AND ITS PREVENTION TABLE 6.0928 0.00881 2. though they showed that fouling on the 6 3. salt water 0. 855 2.0285 1.0100 0. This formula the determined weight of fouling per unit area.869 1. salt water 0. fouled with "small barnacles. resistance was determined periodically by towing Theoretically the roughness coeffcient varies at velocities ranging from 2 to 9 knots at the with the Reynolds number. due to moving through Izubuchi (13) has estimated the coeffcient of water at constant velocity from the excess resist.9 the effecìof surface roughness is in a far from satis. Reynolds are presented in Table 7. welded.00625 Varnish. Rf= fSVn." Their frictional effcient of frictional resistance.00641 Steel.0830 0.S. Saratoga 0. The values in the resistance increased. Clairton ca. Subsequently K2 increases regularly with months per f oot2 clean foiiled cleait fouled the time of exposure. 937 2.0101 0. 880 2. 75 0 . Ci.002 5 2. Varnish.S.-ecalculated to apply when S is measured in square feet 12 3. 0255 1.055 2 Th~ values. Days undocked K2 n While it is admitted that the. D.0119 o . The values of the constants in Froude's formula. arising from the acceleration of the the trials made during a year-long period in which water dragged by the surface. obtained surface than for varnish. ' . whole matter of 4-5 (clean) 0.0.0114 1.0273 1.914 2. where they became roughness coeffcient adds significantly to the co. 918 1.8 0. repainted.

118 to 0. The curves show the fall in resistance indicate that the increase in resistance of these which occurs as the plate is towed during each day's test.2. as shown in the upper 0120 curve of Figure 12. After 24 days' immersion. u.0 coeffcient. OX 10-3 Tests conducted at Langley Field with the ob- Ck for barnacle fouling after Kempf 3. Thus the fouling with barnacles zo I- increased the resistance about 20 per cent. The value of Ck was 0091 found to be about 3. Fric tional Resistance The order of magnitude of the effect of fouling A number of observations indicate that the predicted by Kempf's roughness coeffcient on the frictional resistance of a submerged surface may frictional resistance of a ship may be obtained increase with time of immersion in the absence of from the following comparison. Battleship-after 10 months Ck= 2. After 48 hours the .0/2.4= 2. 10 feet by 2 feet in size.08 times that of the unfouled vesseL. formed by bacteria and diatoms. After Hiraga (12). TAKATA I . CLEA~--. in discussing the paper of Mc- Reynolds number 1Xl0-8 . 4. 5. to 0.---------- as explained on page 27.---(TAKATA. 5). to be applied in the formula (.0 X 10-3 systems on frictional resistance give some quanti- The frictional resistance of the fouled ship is thus tative information on this subject (1. ships while waterborne may be accounted for by roughness coeffcients having the following values inadequate in regard to the quantitative effects of (7) : various degrees of fouling. V£N£ZIANI JL . I- zW Kempf (14) has measured the effect of fouling on the frictional resistance of a pontoon 252 feet ~ "- "- IOFlg. towed at intervals of a few days at speeds ranging marized agree in indicating that fouling may from 12 to 24 feet per second. Unfouled ship which rapidly develops on surfaces exposed in the Cf for smooth surface-see Table 4 at sea. Each curve represents the results of a test made after the period of immersÏon indicated. Estimates made from the trials of FIGURE 12.01262. barnacles grew on the surface of this plate with 0128 the result that K2 increased from 0. 3.AT 24 DAIS teristic of the clean surface. SHIP RESISTANCE 29 0132 Veneziani composition. From the results he estimated a roughness w .AT /7 DAYS R1= (C1+Ck) (p/2)SV2 0100.157 inch high covering 25 per DISTANCE TOWED.0X10-3 Entee Sir Archibald Denny stated that vessels Ck for butted steel plates after Kempf 0 AX 10-3 lying in the brackish water of the fitting out basin (C1+Ck)-unfouled ship 2 AX 10-3 on the river Leven increased their friction nearly Fouled ship 72 per cent per day for several months even when there was no apparent fouling (16).000 feet. For example. During the (SLIi. The data are quite the end of 24 hours' immersion. . and Takata antifouling paints.iE AND BARNACLES I towing test the resistance decreased until the plate 0124 had been towed 18.01046. This effect is attributed to the slime film. 200 8000 10000 18 000 18000 22 00 2lOO 30 00 nacles 0. Painted plates. were ex- The three investigations of the effect of fouling posed for periods up to one month in sea water and on frictional resistance which have been sum. as discussed in ~ 0112 the following section. Ck. uted to the washing off of slime. The 2 oiie Ir initial fall in resistance during towing was attrib.0X 10-3 ject of determining the effect of various paint (Cf+ Ck)-fouled ship 5 . described on page 23. macroscopic fouling. Cf for smooth surface 2. No evidence of a more than double the frictional resistance of a change in resistance was observed in the plates at moving submerged surface. or of the geometry of the roughened surface produced by various types Destroyer -after 8 months Ck=3. Coeffcient of friction of towed brass plates coated with Veneziani the destroyer and battleship. FEET cent of the area.0130.0X 10-3 for fouling with bar. after which it remained constant with K2= 0. charac.62X1O-3 of sessile organisms.43X 10-3 These values are concordant with the roughness The Effects of the Slime Film on coeffcient obtained by Kempf.

1 57.01018 Although such effects may be readily avoided II Takata 33 0. 15RC also showed an increased resist.2 towed 5.0 59. Veneziana o (clean) 0. ance which amounted to 11 per cent on the tenth day. t Data from Hiraga's graph.000 feet each day.1 :10. After 25 or 30 days' exposure there were two membranes of slime. indi- cate that the frictional resistance of the paint sur- had mounted to 13 per cent. that with when after three or four days it reached a constant anticorrosive paint 15A showed a greater increase value. The results obtained with these relatively Coated with Pamt m Tests at Langley Field.7 4.000 ~lm has had time to harden adequately.3 increase painted surface and its subsequent partial re- Moravian 0 22. Spray applic~tion may result in a "pebbly" Distance Towed. Effect of Fouling with Slime on the Resistance paint and because of different methods ofapplica- of Plates in Hiraga's Experiments tion... Hir~ga's. when the increase in resistance of Moravian These tests. since no macroscopic fouling slime film.30 MARINE FOULING AND ITS PREVENTION TABLE 8. K. creased progressively with each day's' towing. It was observed that 10 22. The numerical values in exposure. and that the deposit of slime would peel off. but that after towing.9 the resistance was higher on the first day and de- resistance of the plate coated with Moravian anti. On 15A the deposit washed off readily.Towing tests with friction plates described by Resistance Hiraga (12) also gave an increased resistance which Velocity may be attributed to the formation of slime on the Exposure feet/second pounds per cent Paint days :10.2 58. some of ships in.5 their resistance in a towing tank. mg slime before testing. Some minor advantage low towing speeds. like those from Langley Field.5 0. Effect of ?lime !"il~ on Resistance to Towing of Plates runs.01046 tance except for the measurements on artificially IV Veneziana 10 0. of the loose fim as would come off during the bo~h as the result of the inherent properties of the TABLE 9.lates.0 p. This plate was fouled with barnacles. in a surface such as that ilustrated in Figure 13. an outer one might be achieved by the use of formulations which was washed off by towing and a thin inner which discourage slime formation or result in one which persisted and gave a marked increase flocculent films which wil be readily washed away..000 25.8 55. Table 9 are extracted from his text supplemented by the data presented in the figure. Effect of Paint Surface on Frictional In order to overcome the variation in resistance Resistance caused by the washing off of the slime fim during Paint technologists are well aware that .the anti- a test.2 tions in the sea for various periods and then tested 10 22. stil in excess of the resistance of the cleaned plate. flow if the ship is set in motion before the paint Plate Immersion 0-5.jeet surfa~e. the resistance is was present except for a few barnacles which ap- reduced to within a few per cent of the initial value peared on 15A after 25 days' exposure. each plate was given a preliminary scrub- fouling :otnpositions applied to larger ships differ bing run at 20 feet per second to remove as much greatly in the smoothnes~ of the resulting surfaces. Takata o (clean) 0. fouling paint increased 172 per cent.01262t The systematic towing tests with painted planks . service the .eliminary run to remove loosely adher- stable films are given in Table 8. On the Moravian the slime It is of interest to observe that the magnitude formed a thin membrane that exfoliated at very of ~he effects vary with the particular paints on w~ich the fii: forms.000. .6 61.2 4. It may be presumed that with It was found that when towing a plate. coated with Veneziani and Takata composi- 15RC 0 22. in the resistance.01300t 0.slime film wil be reduced by ~he motion of the ship through the water.. for the clean surface.01062t relatively litte data exist to gauge their impor~ III Takata 63 0.01190t . . some coatings tend to sag. made at Langley Field and referred to in the dis- . The plates were 15A 0 23.01048 roughened planks discussed above. and some may Period of 20.01000 I Takata 17 0.01056 0. Hiraga exposed thin brass 10 21. The plates were givei: a pr. resulting N iimber Composition days K. V* Veneziana 24 0. muddy appearance. while that coated with antifouling paint 15RC showed no change.5 64. The results obtained are attributed to the effects of the slime fim which face may increase as the result of the formation of formed on the plates. results were presented graphically in resistance..8 moval during towing. but on 15RC enough its presence wil not greatly affect the total resist- slime remained to leave the paint surface with a ance to motion. After five days' as shown in Figure 12.01119 0.

886 resistance during the undocked period.00866 1 .4 . This effect again was at- Trials on ships with clean bottoms. Increase or macroscopic organisms is prevented.3 5* Ivory Soap over each coated with a different antifouling paint Shellac 34. To check the conclusions Moravian shipbottom paint.1 per cent . Roughened surface of cold plastic antifouling painti resulting from The possible advantage to be gained by polish. The first series of trials * At 6 knots. SHIP RESISTA1YCE 31 cussion of the effect of slime formation. made be. the standard for. Resistance of "Lubricated" Shellac Surfaces the frictional resistance as low as possible for a After McEntree (16) maximum period. cold flow due to operation before the film had hardened properly. as compared to the from these trials. was terminated after about six months because t This low coeffcient of resistance is combined with a high velocity exponent of the unexpected failure of the paint systems. The results given in Table 8 show that the fresh surface of Moravian developed about 6 per cent more resistance at comparable speed than did the surface of the standard formula 15RC. Light Engine The four members of Destroyer Division 27 were Oil over Shellac 28.S. on Destroyer Division 28 (26).01045 1. The vessels were repainted and subjected to a second series of trials which were successfully con- quired to obtain a given speed. No towing tests appear to have been made with the modern hot or cold plastic ship bottom paints in current use by the Navy. with standard coating. when coated with tinued for 70 weeks (25). face is important only as long as fouling with slime S = 82 square feet. which are favored for small boats in which high speed is desired.00878 1.S. The tests plastic paint developed at the Edgewood Arsenal showed no advantage of a coating of black lead. ing 1) the effect of the different coatings on the sistent with the results of the Langley Field tests performance of the ships while they are in a clean . caused a reduction in speed of the U. The purpose of antifouling coatings is to keep TABLE 10. or soap over the original shellac surface. 898 2 Heavy Cylinder system and were subjected to careful speed trials Oil over Shellac 40. a second series of tests was made results expected with 15RC. The equivalent to that due to five months' fouling results obtained are given in Table 10. mulation then in use. The final Net iii Resist. Dent (27) oil. value of the paint system should be judged by the Res£Sta.883 f n period. tributed to roughness. and probably would become greater at speeds lower than those at which experi- ments were made. ing or lubricating the bottom was examined by McEntee (16) in tests conducted at the United with planes. Only two series of trials appear to have been made which compare the virtues of various 2 Shellac 27. have some.00484t 2. not very convincing in view of the large number of times indicated the superiority of one coating over factors which are involved in determining the re- another.5 48 . were de- signed to show the effects of the paint surface on frictional resistance.886 2 Black Lead paint systems by systematic measurements of over Shellac 27. nor of the variety of special compositions.5 23 . The resistance of the clean sur- f and ii are the values in the formula R¡=fSV". The effect was attributed to The results of these tests are of interest in show- the roughness of the Moravian paint and is con.S. Hiraga (12) also reports the results of plank tests.9 2 . An application of an experimental States Experimental Model Basin. trolled. Tests of this character are fore fouling could become significant. shown in Table 9.ice ance at integration of resistance during the waterborne Plane Suiface 7 knots 7 knots 1 Shellac pounds 28. which indicate that the Veneziani surface develops about 4 per cent more resistance when clean than the Takata coating. 00849 1.380t at subsequent intervals. such as the bronze yacht paints. M arbleliead (28) reported sults of trial runs if they are inadequately con- that a 6 per cent increase in horsepower was re.S. Thus the U. FIGURE 13.

S. Rules for Engineering Competition allowed for a 3 fluence of variations in smoothness of the ship's per cent increase in fuel consumption per month plating and the influence of propeller character- waterborne.9 5. Whether this was due to the improvement longed period of service is demonstrated clearly in underwater coatings. These results demonstrate how closely the months' service. 1936.75 +1. The shaft horsepower re- Norfolk 15 FA +1.2 +0. The Chandler.2 13. 6-7 September 4.0 6. coated with Moravian prediction in RPM required in trial for a and an experimental imitation of this plastic. su~h as roughening of the surface by fouling. both range in speed of 12-22 knots.32 MARINE FOULING AND ITS PREVENTION TABLE 11: Comparison of Results of Full-Scale Tests with Freshly ~onth~ of the.3 quired by these ships to maintain a given speed ~ondition. tests. It is reported that during the war in istics are not excluded from the comparison.1 12. with Mare Island Plastic Paint.9 10.S. . Southard in during trials immediately after undocking with the results predicted from model studies. the blade of a pro- TABLE 12.M. showed an average forman~e of the ships can be brought out only by in~rease in shaft horsepower of 42 per cent re- quired to maintain a given speed after 450 days of comparIng the actual performance of the ships service (6).0 14.4 11. that the very large. . about the blade. and suggest that the characteristics of the various the then standard 15RC antifouling paint. Fowey which failed to de- 5-6 June 4. based on the suranc. m~ck undocked on October 6. It is evident. First Second The tests on Destroyer Division 28. The Hovey and Long. painted with duced through advances in paint technology.30 +1. Prior to the war the differences as do appear can not be attributed to the paint itself with any assurance.ntain Given Speed "lift" (thrust) as a result of the pattern of flow dunng Undocking with Vanous Paint Applications Ships undocked 6 May 1938 .4 193~.8 the case of the H. (J5RC) Imported Plastic tio~.R. Such a com.2 13. which was coated with performance may be predicted from model studies . It is evident that in the long run the Southard losses in ease of propulsion which may result from coated with Mare Island Hot Plastic.4 coatings over those in use in 1922-1923 when the Moravian Imported +0. Tests of the destroyer M cCor- wou~d result from fouling or corrosion during service. trials of Division 28.2 14.4 3.4 effect on the development of propulsive force.4 13.1 3.9 10. Actually the decrease in pressure Southard Chandler Hovey Long at the back of the blade can be demonstrated to be Mare gre. The tests of the D.8 12. presumably as the paint The numbers indicate the average percentage difference from the failed. made in Coating Series Series Division 28 Navy Standard (15RC) -0.4 velop the anticipated speed on its initial trials.8 28-29 November 3. ~nd 2) the relative value of the coatings was increased practically 100 per cent as the result in preventing the increase in resistance which of increased frictional resistance during less than one year of service. the Pacific it was found unnecessary to make any The relative value of the different coatings in allowance for increased fuel consumption due to maintaining the initial low resistance during a pro. did much fouling of the bottom have been substantially re- better than the others. fouling.4 trials of the destroyer Putnam and the battleship Edgewood Plastic +2.10 Tennessee were run.L I~ is consequently to be expected that any condi- Paint Plastic . however. but subsequently developed Painted Bottoms and Results Predicted from Model Studies for Clean Bottom Conditions in~reasing resistance.e. as compared with 70 per cent re- quired by the Chandler. Results of . after painting The effect of the fresh paint coatings on the per.2 5-6 September 7. paint systems produce very litte difference.ater than the increase in pressure at its face (23). since the in.5 7. show a great improvement in the paint Mare Island Hot Plastic +2.1 NRL Plastic +3.75 +3. Island Navy Ship Hot Standard Moravian N.2 12.Trials of Dest~oyer Division 28 Designed to peller may be likened to an airfoil which develops Compare t~e Change ii: RPl\ Requ:red to M:i. 1938 indicated an increased power requirement of parison ís made in Table 11 for the three series of 38 per cent with Mare Island Plastic after 16 tests. Division 27 developed greatly increased resistance between the second and fourth month of service.9 +0. or to the greater activity by the data presented in Table 12 of the ships in wartime. Trials Per cent increase in RP M which disturbs the flow pattern wil have a marked 6-7 June 1.3 Bengough and Shepheard (2) have described 3-7 March 3. can not be stated with as- . Such How much improvement has subsequently been achieved is undetermined.4 1.S.4 +2.5 14. equalled the The Effect of Fouling on Propellers Southard in performançe during the first four According to modern theory. the standard Navy formulation.

Ü I ¡¡ 20 i ments on model propellers.--"-:"'CAS T ~. accurately finished bronze propellers. FO'i)cy... Comparison of the efficiency of a rnodel propeller in the smooth condition and after roughening by stippling a \yet paint coating. u.. one of which was smooth. . consumption with clean bottom.10 o 10 20 30 40 50 60 casting. It may be supposed FIGURE 14. . alone were responsible for a 10 per cent increase in Ü . completely ruled out.S. The results. While it is probable that the improvement was due to cleaning the propellers. After McEntee (17).S. SHIP RESISTANCE 33 \i\hen subsequently docked. Z 30 Li I More satisfactory evidence comes from experi.) After cleaning. After ìVlcEntee the cast surface. /L~__ 'CAST BRONZE .~ . -i-. Finally.5 per cent. the fuel consumption dropped to Z /' // 10S. 40 . Speed trials of the destroyer McCormick indi- cate that about two-thirds of the increased fuel consumption due to fouling is due to its effect on 70 the propellers. (See Figure 14. the propellers were found to be almost completely covered with cal- eo cai'eous tube worms. McEntee (17) determined the effciency of 10 iI four similar propellers... In another test a model propeller (17). The condition of the bottom was good ex. ~.-~CAST STEEL cept for patches of worms about 2 inches thick where holidays had been left in the antifouling paint.0- trials.. After 226 days out of dock the average fuel consumption required to maintain a 60 given speed had increased to 115. was painted and roughened by stippling while the coating was wet.--:--: 0. and will readily explain such results as the patches of fouling on the bottom can not be those recorded for the H. On the bosses the hard tubes SMOOTH BRONZE were about 1t inches long. Taylor (24) concludes that most ships operating with propellers in moderately good condition suffer an avoidable waste of power in the order of 10 per cent above that obtainable with new. After Bengough that roughness of a grosser sort occasioned by and Shepheard (2)... the others in the rough condition of the original . artificially roughened. the trials were repeated and the anticipated speed was real- ized.. Fowey..M. Effect of surface roughness on the efficiency of four sÎmilar mode propellers. Thus in seven months the propellers ). tests were made on a propeller covered with ground cork which caused the effciency to drop from over 70 to about 35 per cent. I In experiments at the United States Navy Model Li Basin.-/'. . "' . fouling wil produce much greater losses in eff- ciency..8 per cent of the ~ 50 o . shown in Figure 16. indicate a loss in effciency of about 20 per cent as a result of the stippling. and indicate that a loss of effciency amounting to SLIP IN % about 10 per cent results from the roughness of FIGVRE 16. After cleaning STIPPLED the propellers. Fouling of propeller of HJvI. the effects of FIGURE 15. Toward the tips of the blades the fouling had been washed off during the . fuel consumption (6). The results are shown in Figure 15. .

F. D. tank of the effect of immersion in and Procedure. Evaluation of the Rate and Effect of 279-313. 1932. Dent. SAUNDERS. WILLIAM.S. C&R S19-1-(3). 14. Graham). vancement of Science. . Bureau of Construction and Repair. Investigation of 21. (Unpublished. The Corrosion and Arch. 1933. W. PITRE. Eng. 21.N...S. September salt water on the resistance of plates coated with different 1935. 5. 12. Model Basin Washington.A. Washington. YUZURU. W. Final report of Experienced by a Plane Moving Through Water. . Smith). 2. C&R C-S19-1(3). VoL. September 24. PRANDTL. DD 28. FROUDE. fie Research Branch. and Mar. December 1934. Naval Architecture as Art and Science. U. Principles of Naval Architecture. coated with different shipbottom paints. Committee for Aeronautics. Third edition. Am. Full-Scale Test for Determining Underwater 3.. Snyder). D. New York. 195- effect of immersion in salt water on the resistance of plates 227. M. Fouling. November 3. 16. SHEPHEARD. 44. Eng. FLEET. V. G. T. . Soc. Nav. Chap. COMDR. the Iron and Steel Institute and the British Iron and Steel Nav. Trans. 7. 1938. Jour. T. 15 June 1941. T. The Increase in SHP and RPM due to 24. DESTROYERS BATTLE FORCE. 55. D. and T. (CC). 20. II. E. 15. KENNETH S. BUREAU OF CONSTRUCTION AND REPAIR. 9 June 1938.A. Federation. K. Underwater Fouling on Ship Propulsion. KARMAN. C&R S19-1(3). 27. 1927.S.. 42. 1938. Trans. TAYLOR. E. Investi. Arch. 41. Eng.7. SCHOENHERR. C. Volume 1. VoL. Fouling tests of by Methods in Use at the United States Experimental friction plates. SCHOENHERR. BUREAU OF CONSTRUCTION AND REPAIR. Arch. P. McENTEE. Eng. Washington. HIRAGA. Washington. C&R S19-1-(3). H. D. IZUBUCHI. December 19. 3. Arch.. 1919. Memorandum for file (D. 10-41 Through a Fluid. J. SAUNDERS. G. bottom systems.. and Mar. M. JR. Eng. 1942. 85. Variation of Frictional Resistance of 1939. Report of the British Association for the Ad. A Study of Ship Performance in Smooth and Rough 1. 119-196. p. BUREAU OF SHIPS RESEARCH MEMORANDUM No. Reduction in speed after application of Edge- 11. 52-118. Letter to fortbewegter Platten. DAVIS. BEERY. Nav. and Mar. Eng. 1942. U. Japanese (Translation by Lt. Trans. Full-Scale Trials on a Destroyer. 1943. Nav. 28. 1943. 3. Arch. 1933. 1874. C. October 16. COMMANDER (CC). The Marine Corrosion Sub-committee of 17. Fouling of Ships. National Advisory Cornell Maritime Press. 23. Ergebnisse del' Aerodynamischen Versuchsan- visory Committee for Aeronautics. May 24. Nav.. shipbottom paints. D. Paint Resistance to Fouling. Soc. Trans. C&R C-S19-1 (3). BENSON. and Mar. E. Ueber Laminare und Turbulente Reibung. Report to the Lords Commissioners of the 26. McENTEE. Final report of Admiralty on Experiments for the Determination of the Underwater Paint Tests. F. W. M. VoL. 9. on Abhandlungen aus dem Aerodynamischen Institut Aachen.R. Soc. KEMPF. 1915. Bur. Soc. 55. Zosen Kiokai. Arch. Arch. Schiffbau.. August 10. tank of the Water. Nav. 8. J. National Ad. January 26. and Marine Eng.. FROUDE. and V. 1938. GEBERS.. 1934. 37-42. 19. 159. Commander Destroyers. Principles of Naval Architecture. U. II. sistance of Long Planks and Ships. Suggestions Regarding Method gation in the N. Spinks. No. In 29. and Repair. 12. K. S. Soc. Memorandum for file (by P. Letter to Naval Operations. 18. Zosen Kiokai. 22.S. BEERY. WILLIAM.A. E. 23. 5. DD 27 of the British Association for the Advancement of Science. Supplementary Memorandum Report.. WILLIAM. 24. January 2.S. Soc. WILLIAM. and Mar. H. 1934. 1916.S. Experiments on the Surface-Friction 25.A. Chap. (ex-12). and Mar. Constr. Underwater Paint Tests. F. Memorandum Report.C. Report second series of tests. BENGOUGH. U. The Prediction of Speed and Power of Ships 4. Investigation in the N. PITRE. Frictional Resistance of Water on a Surface Under Various Battle Force to Chief of Naval Operations.) 10.S. S. 1943. stalt zu Goettingen. 22. III. Nav. LT. 1940. 243-295. C&R Bull. 1938. Tests of the effect of Moravian paint on 199.C.. EBERT. Resistance of Flat Surfaces Moving 6. (by H. Commander Destroyers. DAVIDSON. O. 1930.34 MARINE FOULING AND ITS PREVENTION REFERENCES 14. Navy Dept. Nav.. Ships with Condition of Wetted Surface. The Soc. and A. Experimental Investigations on the Re.. 155-166. frictional rèsistance of plates painted with three ship. 13. Naval Operations. 23 February Conditions. Eng. 1936. steaming performances. II. April 15. FLEET. Resistance and Powering. H. Notes from Model Basin. Summer of 1939. G. The Speed and Power of Ships. DESTROYERS BATTLE FORCE. Battle Force to Chief of 1872. December 1934. U. Des Aehnlichkeitsgesetz bei im Wasser geradlinig wood Arsenal plastic paints (B-3 and C-323). LILJEGREN. A. L. Trans. bottom Fouling. 1940. Propulsion and Propellers. Soc. Increase in Hull Resistance Through Ship. (Unpublished). Marblehead. Bureau of Ships).