You are on page 1of 12





*Adapted from a thesis submitted to the faculty of Webb Institute of

Naval Architecture by LCDR M . Arcelle, U S N ; LCDR D. W . Blount,
U S N ; LCDR J . V . Jolliff,U S N .

graduated from the Naval Academy in 1954. Following graduation he
served aboard USS SAMUEL N. MOORE (DD 747) as Engineer officer
and USS CZMARRON ( A 0 22) as First Lieutentant and Gunnery 06-
cer. After a short tour as Ship Superintendent, Long Beach Navul Ship-
yard, he attended Webb Znstitute of Naval Architecture for three years
while studying Nuval Construction and Engineering in Hull Option.
After receipt of a Master of Science in Naval Architecture degree he was
designated an Engineering Duty Oficer (EDO) and ussigned to duty at
the Long Beach Naval Shipyard. While there he served in billets of
Assistant Repair Superintendent and Assistant Planning and Estimating
Superintendent and as such was primarily concerned with the repair
and conversion of U.S. nuval surface ships. After two years at Long
Beach he was ordered to duty .as Staff Maintenance Oficer, Commander
Mine Force, U.S. Pacific Fleet. He is currently at the U.S. Naval Acad-
emy as an instructor in the Engineering Department. The author has
been n contributor to the Bureau of Ships J o u m l .

INTRODUCTION of objects, other than flat plates, and

(b) Determine if the shape of an object is a factor
N UMEROUS =CENT Geosim tests [I,2, 3, 4, 5, 61
all lead to the conclusion that the existing single
in model test expansion for a particular model series.
The form tested was a 4 foot model of a submerged
line concept for expansion of model test results to body of revolution of the type suitable for use as a
full scale predictions is inadequate. submarine hull, and having a length-to-diameter
This paper presents an analysis of experimentally ratio of approximately 7.3. The experimental results
obtained resistance, hull normal pressure, and wake are correlated with data obtained from a geomet-
data for a submerged body of revolution to: rically similar 15 foot model tested by David Taylor
(a) Examine the present methods of expandmg Model Basin.
:3tal resistance and local wake velocity for a series The present method of expanding the resistance

NdVdl Enqinewrr Journdl. October IPbb $65


of a small towed model to that of a full sized ship is

NOTATIONS based on the time honored contribution of William
Froude. That is, it is assumed that the total resist-
c-strut chord length in inches ance may be dwided into two components, one of
C.-strut chord length in feet which is subject to Froudes Law and the other
C-non dimensional coefficient of resistance
Ct-coefficient of frictional resistance based on varia- subject to variation with Reynolds Number. This
tions with Reynolds Number method is graphically illustrated in Figure 1.
Act-a displacement of the Cf line to account for the
effect of the increased roughness of the ship over
the model
Cpcoefhient of pressure resistance
Ct-coefficient of residual resistance based on
I Froudes Law
C.i-coefficient of strut interference resistance
Ct-coefficient of total resistance
Ct tp-coefficient of strut tip resistance
I C-coefficient of viscous resistance (C.=rCf)
D-maximum diameter of model bow
I-increment of length as measured from model bow
L-model length
PN-normal pressure
PI.-longitudinaI component of normal pressure
Apdifference between static and measured pressure
q-stagnation pressure (%pVm)
r-form factor Figure 1: Illustration of Expansion Technique.
r/R-nondimensional radius vector, where R is pro- Where:
peller radius C is a non dimensional coefficient of resistance
R-maximum radius of model or propeller radius C,is a coefficient of total resistance
C, is a coefficient of frictional resistance (based on variations
when noted in text with Reynolds Number)
R-tank blockage resistance component of total re- C, is a coefficient of residual resistance (Based on Froudes
sistance Law)
R.-Reynolds Number a C, is a displacement of the C, line to account for the
Rt-frictional resistance component of total resistance correlation allowance
Rt-resistance due to interference of boundary layer
of model with that of strut The original concept proposed by Froude was that
Rm-model resistance the expansion of frictional resistance from model to
R-pressure resistance or drag component of total ship could be made along a friction line found ex-
resistance perimentally by testing flat plates of varying length.
R.-residual resistance component of total resistance Applying this theory, Froude developed a family of
R.-spray resistance of strut frictional resistance lines to use with various lengths
R ~ t o t a measured
l resistance of model and ship Since this original work, how-
RI-viscous resistance of strut ever, numerous single expansion lines have been
R--wave making resistance of strut or model proposed. The most significant are: 1) the Schoen-
Rttpresistance due to tip effect on strut in pounds herr Line, w h c h is an average friction line based
S-wetted surface in feet squared on a large amount of flat plate data, and 2) the 1957
t-strut maximum thickness in inches International Towing Tank Conference line which
vt-average local wake velocity does not represent any particular plate friction data,
V-velocity in feet per second but was accepted by that conference as a possible
Vm-model velocity in feet per second expansion line. The use of a single expansion line
w-average local wake fraction ( 1- 1.)

v m
is almost universal for expansion purposes at the
present time.
x-distance along surface of object in the direction Due to the expense of full scale ship resistance
of flow tests, the number of such tests conducted is small,
8-boundary layer thickness. (Defined as the dis- thus the accuracy of the model to ship expansion has
tance from the hull to the point where the ratio always been uncertain. An alternate method of eval-
of local velocity to free stream velocity is very uating expansion technique is to test a series of
close to unity). models of geometrically similar shape, but of differ-
6,-laminar boundary layer thickness ent sizes. By testing smooth surfaced models, the
8,-separated flow boundary layer thickness advantage of eliminating the uncertain roughness
6,-turbulent boundary layer thickness allowance portion of the correlation allowance
p-density of fluid (ACF) can be realized.
v-kinematic viscosity of fluid For such a series to be truly representative it is
not sufficient for the models to be of geometrically

866 Naval Enq;nears Journal. October 1966


similar shape. That is, certain other conditions must countered on larger geometrically similar models.
be fulfilled [l]. It was necessary therefore, to examine all com-
(1) The flow over each of the models must be ponents of the total resistance of a smooth surfaced
fully turbulent throughout the testing range and model and ascertain how they could best be elimi-
must be free of any parasitic drag of the turbulence nated.
stimulator. This requirement must be given careful It was felt that the residual resistance component
consideration in order to obtain the most satisfactory of the Froude breakdown (R total = R friction -k
stimulator [2]. R residual) was not sufficiently specific. The resid-
(2) The flow over each of the models must be ual resistance should normally be separated into a
free of any effect of tank boundary interference, or, wave-making component and a pressure drag com-
as this effect generally can not be eliminated with ponent. However, since the model was to be towed
any degree of certainty, the interference effects in a tank, the interference effect of the tank bound-
should be equal for each model. The latter condition aries had to be included as a component of residual
may best be fulfilled by testing models of such size resistance. Thus, the formula for the residual re-
that the ratio of their maximum section area to the sistance of the model would be:
cross sectional area of the tank is constant, i.e., small R (residuaI) = R (wave) +- R (pressure) +
models should be tested in small tanks and large R (blockage)
models in large tanks. Each of these components was considered individu-
As stated previously, the numerous recent geosim ally as follows:
tests [1, 2, 3, 4, 4, 61 that have been conducted all (1). R (wave)-Using the data presented in
lead to the conclusion that the existing single expan- DTMB Translation 234 [7J it was found that a sub-
sion line concept is not adequate. What is needed is merged body of revolution could be towed with a
a family of such lines that consider the fact that a negligible amount of wave-making resistance if the
s h p is a three-dimensional object rather than a two- depth-to-diameter ratio was at least three. It was
dimensional flat plate. also concluded that in order to minimize the bound-
Two of the more noteworthy three dimensional ary effect of both the surface and bottom of the tank,
proposals are those of Hughes [ 1, 3J and of Lap and the model should be towed at the mean depth of
Troost [4, 51. In each of these proposals a basic line water. As the Webb Tank is five feet deep, it was
is obtained by extrapolating flat plate friction data decided to tow the model at a two and one-half (2.5)
to a plate of infinite aspect ratio. The required ex- foot depth. It was therefore concluded that a sub-
pansion line is then found by applying a form factor merged body of revolution of not more than ten
that effectively shifts the basic line to the required inches diameter could be towed with a negligible
position. amount of wave making resistance. (Depth/diam-
The Hughes viscous resistance line is found from eter = 30"/10" = 3).
the formulation (2) . R (pressure)-The requirement of obtaining
the pressure resistance further indicated the desira-
C,=r x C, (basic). bility of testing a body of revolution as this compo-
where r is the form factor that is to be found in the nent of resistance could be readily calculated by a
low wave-making range and is assumed to be inde- simple integration of the longitudinal components
pendent of Froude's Number. However, recent of the experimentally measured normal pressures.
papers indicate that this assumption is not correct. Further, with a body of revolution the theoretical
r2, 61 normal pressure distribution along the body could
It may be seen from the foregoing discussion that be calculated and used to check the experimentally
the gmsim analysis is an invaluable tool in attempt- determined values of normal pressure.
ing to obtain the proper method of expansion from (3). R (blockage)-Since this component could
small to large model. "he requirement to be capable not be fully eliminated and since there appears to
of expanding between smooth models, before expan- be no accurate method for correcting for its differ-
sion from model to ship may be accompfished with ence, it was felt that the size of the model must be
any degree of accuracy, is a definite necessity. selected such that the blockage would be of the
same order of magnitude as the other models in the
It was also necessary to ensure that the geosim
In order to investigate the resistance and local series selected for the investigation meet the afore-
wake velocities of a series of geometrically similar mentioned requirement, i.e., a submerged body of
three dimensional objects, a model type which had revolution for which reliable large scale model re-
been tested previously had to be selected. Further- sistance and pressure test data was available.
more, it was necessary to select a model whose re- Results were available from tests previously con-
sistance could be readily reduced to only viscous ducted at David Taylor Model Basin on a 1.5-foot
resistance; and whose size would produce tank inter- model of a similar body of revolution.
[erence effects that would be small enough to be The DTMB Tank has a cross section area of 1122
neglected or of the same magnitude as those en- square feet. The maximum cross section of the fif-

Ndval Engineers Journal, October 1966 867


teen foot model was 3.28 square feet. The ratio of

tank cross section area to maximum model cross
section area was 0.00292. As it was beliwed that any
model size less than four feet in length would pre-
sent stimulation difficulties when tested in the Webb
Tank, the minimum model length was lunited to
this value. The maximum cross section area of a
four foot geosim model was .2296 square feet. Since
the Webb Tank has a cross section area of 50 square
feet, the resultant ratio of tank cross section area to
maximum model cross section area was 0.00459.
Although this was not exactly the same ratio as that
found for the fifteen foot model, it was of the same
order of magnitude. Since the width to depth ratio
of the DTMB and Webb Tanks are not the m e , it
was decided to consider the tank depth as the con-
trolling dimension. The depths of the DTMB tank
and the Webb tank are respectively twenty-two feet
and five feet. The size of the model to be tested
based on this consideration would have to be ap- LlQU
proximately Y4 that of the DTMB model. Based on Figure 2. Model and Resistance Testing Equipment.
the above considerations, a four foot model size was
selected. (Hereafter referred to as the "Webb oted support that would parallel the motion of the
Model") . dynamometer was utilized, Figure 2.
Since the model series selected was a body of The towing strut selected was a solid aluminum
revolution, the entire pressure distribution could be 2.9 inch by y4 inch ogive section.
obtained by measurements taken along a single The towing strut truss connected between the dy-
longitudinal line. For this reason a single longi- namometer and pivot support was designed to have
tudinal row of pressure taps was installed in the the shortest length possible and in this way provided
model. Because the maximum deviation from the the strongest possible structure with the minimum
theoretical pressure distribution was expected to amount of weight. To accomplish this, the dyna-
occur near the stern, the pressure taps were closely mometer was placed aft of the towing clamps while
spaced in that region. the pivot support was placed forward.
The pressure taps were located on the under side After the model, towing strut and truss were
of the model for two reasons: (1) to minimize the manufactured, the resistance measuring equipment
effect of the towing strut on the pressure field, and was assembled. The dynamometer pivot support and
(2) to make it possible to arrange the internal pres- towing truss were mounted on the carriage. Level
sure tubing with no inflections that would entrap and cross-level were established on the truss by use
air. of a precision level. The truss was then removed
The towing strut arrangement was similar to that from the carriage and mounted on the fitting-out
used in the 15' model tests. The model was made bench where it was positioned at the same attitude
neutrally buoyant in order to prevent a vertical as determined on the carriage. In this position, the
force on the towing strut. towing strut and model were attached and aligned.
Once the model had been aligned in the towing
truss, the only alteration necessary during the en-
TEST PROCEDURES AND PREPARATION OF tire testing process was during "normal" pressure
TEST EQUIPMENT measurements. For these measurements, tubes from
Since the Webb model was to be tested in the the internal pressure taps on the model were faired
submerged condition, special equipment had to be along the strut and then streamlined within a tear-
developed for use in the Webb Institute Towing drop shaped section of tubing.
Tank to measure resistance, pressure normal to the With regard to the measurement of body normal
hull, and wake velocities. pressures, it had been established from the litera-
The initial consideration was to determine a ture available from the 15-foot model tests [22] that
method of rigging the model for towing. Figure 2 it would be necessary, to have a sensitive pressure
illustrates the towing configuration developed. This measuring device. To ensure accuracy, a pressure
system was used for all tests with the exception measuring system available at the Webb Tank with
that a steadying brace was used instead of the dy- an accuracy of * .01 inch of water was utilized [S].
namometer during pressure and wake survey test The pressure measuring system as developed in-
runs. corporated a Schaevitz LVDT (Linear Variable
With regard to the resistance measuring equip- Differential Transformer) equipped transducer with
ment, a high capacity dynamometer [9] and a piv- associated electronic, switching, and test equipment.

868 Naval Enqineen Journal. October 1966


This equipment included the following:

(1).LVDT equipped micrometer test stand.
( 2 ) . Audio oscilator, EICO, Model 377.
(3). Audio amplifier, HEATHKIT, Model VA-2.
(4). Audio preamplifier, HEATHKIT, Model
(5). System switchng and nulling junction.
(6). Oscilloscope, TEKTRONIX Model 531 A.
(7). Transducer calibration manometer.
The Schaevitz LVDT transducer is an instrument
that produces an output voltage that varies linearly
with input pressure within a certain range. A pres-
sure capsule acts as a diaphragm to detect changes
in pressure and a LVDT converts linear movements
of this capsule into an output signal. The LVDT as-
sembly consists of a moveable nickel-iron core sur-
rounded by three windings aligned axially The mid-
dle winding or primary coil, is straddled by two
identical secondary coils connected in series oppo-
sition. In operation, the series opposing connections
of the secondary windings cause two induced volt- Figure 3. Wake Survey Carriage Mount from Forward.
ages to add algebraically. At the so-called null
point of the core, the voltage of each winding is
equal and across the output of the differentially
connected winding there is zero voltage. Any dis-
placement of the core changes proportionally the
voltages generated in the windings.
The pressure instrumentation system was cali-
brated by inducing various heads of water on a
manometer, both above and below the zero psition
to a range of * . 6 of water, and observing the de-
flection of the signal on the oscilloscope. Calibration
curves drawn during the tests confirmed that the
transducer signal was linear and returned to zero
position after each run.
For conducting the wake survey, the use of a
Prandtl Pitot-tube probe connected differentially
to the transducer proved to be effective. However,
because of the deep location of the model, it was
necessary to encase the probe in a rigid streamline
housing and in turn, connect this tube to a rigid
indexing stand attached to the carriage, Figures 3
and 4.
Calibration of the pitot-tube probe used for wake
survey was conducted by making open water runs Figure 4. Wake SUNW Carriage Mount from Rear.
at speeds from one to five feet per second to obtain
a log-log plot of oscilloscope reading versus velocity
of the probe. Thus, with the probe located behind tained from the total measured resistance. There-
the model, oscilloscope readings could be converted fore, an investigation of towing strut resistance had
directly to local wake velocities using this calibra- to be conducted.
tion plot. It was considered that the total resistance of the
The preceding paragraphs have discussed the model-strut system would be comprised of the fol-
evolution of the test equipment used in obtaining lowing components: [11]
pressure and resistance data. This equipment proved
satisfactory throughout the entire test sequence.
+ + + +
(Rv Rw Rs R , )
R, =total measured resistance.
%=model resistance.
R,=viscous resistance of strut.
The first basic problem encountered was to deter- R,=wavemaking resistance of strut.
mine how the resistance of the model could be ob- R,=spray resistance of strut.

Naval Enainoom Journal. October 1966 869


R,=Resistance due to interference of boundary It was concluded from this calculation that Ri
layer of model with that of strut. could also be considered neghgible when compared
In order to obtain the resistance of the model, the to the measured total strut resistance.
strut resistance had to be evaluated and subtracted It was therefore concluded that since the resist-
from the measured resistance if it was of significant ance due to interference and tip effect was small
value. At this point the towing strut was towed at a enough to be neglected based on the above calcula-
speed of five feet per second and the total resistance tions that the tare resistance of the struts could be
was measured as R, = .185 #. This value converts obtained by measuring the resistance of the struts
to .0074 lb-sec2/ftz when placed in the form Rt/v2. alone.
This provided information for a rough approxima- The next step was to connect the towing strut to
tion of total strut resistance. the model and see if it could perform its required
Two possible methods of obtaining a strut tip re- function of towing the model in a steady reference
sistance were considered: plane. The model was prepared for towing as indi-
(1). Towing the strut with a plane square end. cated in Figure 2.
(2). Towing the strut with a flat end plate at- The towing strut system developed consisted of
tached to approximate the boundary layer interfer- the main towing strut previously mentioned and, an
ence with the model. outrigger which was attached to the after end of the
Since the R, R,, and R, components would be towing truss. Guy wires were attached from this
the same for both cases, only the relative values of outrigger. These wires were then connected to the
the end resistance were considered [12, 131. model and could be adjusted by turnbuckles at-
Considering item (1) above, the resistance caused tached to the outrigger. The models nosetail line
by tip effect was approximated utilizing [lo]. If Rtip could therefore be changed by adjustment of the
is the resistance due to tip effect on the strut, then turnbuckles, Figure 5. "his measure was taken be-
it is found that cause it was believed that a slight error in alignment
between model and free stream could cause a con-
tinually increasing angle of yaw which would result
in a transverse lift force. Since these two factors are
dependent one upon the other, the resultant would
be a continually increasing lift force on the model
c, ~ = .00059 whch in turn would cause a non-stable towing po-
sition. In order to be able to know when the model
Therefore: was beginning to deflect, an SR4 strain gage was
mounted on the strut just below the truss near the
Rt ,p=Ct t p 2-C,V
point of maximum bending moment. Thus any bend-
ing of the strut was indicated immediately on the
Where C,=chord length in feet,
t =chord thickness
V =velocity in ft/sec.
The velocity of 5 ft/sec. was used since it was the
upper test limit and gave the maximum tip resist-
ance expected to be encountered.
R, ,,,=(.OW59 x 1.934
__ x._ 9) 25
2 144
This order of magnitude was considered negligible
when compared to the total measured resistance of
the strut (.185 # at 5 ft sec.) . Investigation of Item
(2) above by use of [lo] indicated an even smaller
order of magnitude of resistance. However, since the
end effect of the strut as constructed gave neghgible
tip effect, it was considered unnecessary to make use
of an end plate.
With regard to R,, the resistance due to inter-
ference between boundary layer of strut and model,
it was found by use of [21] that for the sue strut
being used, C,,= .003/2 = .0015.
Then R, = C,, p/2 C,W2
Again with V = 5 f t sec.
R , = ,00226#. Figure 5. Transverse Deflection with OuMgger.

870 Ndvdl Enqinears Journal. October 1%


S R 4 strain gage recorder. With this arrangement, sulting resistance curves plotted. Many of the tests
the guy wires were adjusted so that no torsional or will show a region where the measured resistance
transverse motions occurred in the speed range of is the same. When this condition is encountered, one
two feet per second to six feet per second. With this looks for the stimulator resistance curve which has
arrangement, stability of the towing strut during the highest resistance value at the lower end of the
test runs could be ascertained without difficulty. region. One can be fairly sure he has a proper stimu-
Once the position of the model was considered lator using this approach [lS].
stable, the alignment was checked by measuring the ( 5 ) . A single test of a single stimulator on a small
depth from the bottom of the carriage to the stem model gives no indication of a satisfactory resistance
and bow, and by measuring the distance of the bow measurement. The same resistance curve should be
and stern from the carriage centerline. The results obtained at least twice using different stimulators, if
indicated that the alignment was within l/16'f in one is to consider that proper resistance is being
yaw with reference to the longitudinal centerline measured [2].
of the carriage and Ys" in trim with reference to the (6). The best location for placement of pin stimu-
surface of the water. lators is approximately four inches aft of the stem
The strut and guy wires were rigged and tested of the model [2].
independent of the model. A final curve of towing The regular Webb Institute Towing Tank pro-
strut and guy wire resistance is shown in Figure 6. cedure was followed for all tests conducted.
This curve was used to determine model resistance A series of tests was conducted using varioussized
by subtracting its values from the total resistance pin stimulators at various spacings to arrive at a
measured for all resistance tests conducted. suitable stimulator for the body of revolution model.
All stimulators were located at a distance four (4)
TURBULENCE STIMULATION TESTS inches aft of the stem of the model. The following
stimulator arrangements were tested:
One of the most important techniques in small
model testing is that of obtaining proper turbulent (a). Bare hull-no stimulation
flow on the model. In order to provide accurate pre- (b). Y8f' &a x 1/16" thick pins @ Y;" spacing
dictions in expansion of model data to full scale, the (c). Y8" dia x 1/16f' thick pins @ ?" spacing
model must operate in a turbulent boundary layer (d) . %" and Y4l' dia x 1/16"thick pins alternating
since the flow over the actual ship will certainly be @ 3/g" spacing
turbulent. (e). yS" dia x %" thck pins @ Y;" spacing
Many investigations have been conducted to de- (f) . Hama triangles (?4" equilateral triangles by
termine a proper stimuhtor for model test work. 1/16: thick) [20]
From these investigations it has been generally The speed range considered was 2.0 feet per sec-
proven that two dimensional stimulators such as ond to 5.7 feet per second model speed.
struts, trip wires, and sandstrips at the bow have Figures 7 and 8 show curves of model resistance
been found to be quite unsatisfactory as methods for for tests conducted for above items (b) through (f) .
inducing transition from laminar to turbulent flow These curves were obtained by subtracting strut
on small models [l, 14, 15, 16, 171. As a result of and wire resistance previously obtained (Figure 6),
these investigations it has been concluded that the from total measured resistance.
best stimulator is the one which produces the high-
est possible model plus stimulator resistance at low
speeds and the lowest possible values at high speeds.
As a result of numerous tests conducted at Webb
Institute, the following conclusions are drawn with
regard to obtaining proper turbulence stimulation *,LO'.,l
1" 60

on models tested there: Figure 6. Towing Strut and Wire Resistance no Stimulation.
(1). The turbulence level of a small tank has a
marked effect on the resistance of most ship hull Figure 9 presents a summary of the stimulator
forms tested in the bare condition and helps greatly resistance for various stimulators. Considering the
to produce early transition to turbulent flow when aforementioned requirement for selection of a
stimulators are applied [18]. proper stimulator, it can be seen from Figure 9 that
(2). Elevated tank temperatures and rapid test the best possible stimulator of those tested for this
intervals are extremely helpful in achieving proper particular model is that of Test # 10.
stimulation [2], The final conclusion was that the arrangement of
(3). Small pins with proportions developed by the Ysff and Y4" diameter x 1/16'' thick pins alternat-
Franklin and Schwendtner [19] have proven to be ing at 3/g" spacing were the best stimulators available
very satisfactory in achieving turbulence stimula- for this model. These stimulators were used on all
tion on various models [18]. test here after, conducted on the model. It followed
(4). A series of tests should be conducted using from this conclusion that this stimulator would cause
different size pins at different spacings and the re- turbulent flow. This assumption was proven to be a

Naval Enpinaers Journal. October 1966 871



Measurements of pressure normal to the model

hull were conducted at model speeds of 2.7 feet per
second and 5.05 feet per second.
Figure 13 indicates the pressure distribution as
measured and its relation to the theoretical pres-
sure distribution as obtained from [24]. The compu-
tations of theoretical pressures were made on an
IBM 704 computer by Electric Boat Division of
General Dynamics Corporation. The method of com-
putation is an adaptation of that reported by A.M.O.
Smith and Jesse Pierce in a report entitled "Exact
Solution of the Neuman Problem: Calculation of
Non-Circulatory Plane and Axially Symmetric
Flows about or within Arbitrary Boundaries".

The computation is made on the basis of a distri-
bution of sources, with source strengths adjusted so
".$E = .- ., : - ; .1 - - -2- t
that the component of velocity normal to the surface
is zero at each station. Twenty-five (25) stations
were used in t h s computation conducted at Electric
I* ** 4.
The pressure dstribution curves shown in Figure
a m u w

Figure 8. Stimulation Tests Body of Revolution. 11 reveal that the measured pressures conform
closely to the theoretical pressures calculated from
ideal fluid theory along the forward portion of the
body but diverge aft of 1/L equals 0.8. This is to be

c 1
0 I 0 a0 49

WkQIlY iR,r1
' 0

Figure 9. Summary of Model Stimulation Test Stimulators.

fact by boundary layer thickness analysis which is


discussed later.

- -
Figure 11. Pressure Distribution
--__-- 5.05 ft/sec
- 2.70 ft/sec
- -. theoretical

*k Lo *L%IT* WrnJ
expected since the boundary layer thickens toward
the tail of the body, and the actual pressure should
be less than the theoretical value [ZS].
Figure 10. Model Resistance Stimulation: Pins %" Dia. x Figure 11 also indicates that there is an effect on
1/16'' th. -
'%" Ctm.
measured pressure coefficients with variation of
Reynolds Number. This is indicated in the difference
MODEL RESISTANCE in pressure coefficients computed from the measured
The resistance for the model is presented in Fig- pressures at 2.7 feet per second and 5.05 feet per
ure 10. The curve is presented with a scale of re- second. Since the difference is not constant over the
sistance divided by velocity squared (R/V2 versus model, it is believed attributed to scale effect.
velocity (V)). The reader may convert the term The measured pressure data from model testing
R/V' into a total resistance coefficient (C,) if de- was also used in calculating the pressure drag and
sired by dividmg by 4.850 the boundary layer thickness for the model.

872 N a v a l Engineers Journal. October 1966



The pressure drag on an object moving through
a fluid is caused by a difference in the pressure
forces ahead and behnd the object. In the case of
an object in an ideal or non-viscous fluid these
pressure forces would be equal, hence there would
be no pressure drag. However, for an object in a
real or viscous fluid there would be a larger pres-
sure force on the forward portion of the object, thus
causing a pressure drag.
In order to obtain the frictional resistance of the
model, this pressure drag must be computed and
subtracted from the total model resistance.
The pressure drag was obtained by an integra-
tion of the longitudinal components of the measured
normal pressure. Although the longitudinal compo-
nent of the measured pressures could be obtained
graphically with sufficient accuracy, it was obtained
mathematically using the IBM 7090 computer avail-
able at the David Taylor Model Basin.
A non dimensional coefficient of pressure resist-
ance (C,) was computed for two speeds for the four
foot model. C , was also computed for a 7.6 foot wind
tunnel model using previously measured pressure
I I I 1
I .
.I , , A ,
a .

Re x 10-t
I , I
Y I,
I 1
x ...
1 ,

data available at DTMB.

The computed coefficients of pressure resistance Figure 12
were plotted versus Reynolds Number, Figure 12,
on Log-Log coordinate paper as there appeared to
be a straight line relationship between the two
points for the four foot model and the mean value
for the 7.6 foot model.


The wake survey on the Webb Model was con-
ducted in a vertical plane 3/4 inches astern of the
model, at speeds of 2.78 and 5.00 feet per second.
Three transits at angles of 900, 180, and 270 from , o0 .2 A .S .$ 1.0 1.2 1.4 1.6 IS 1.0
the vertical were made radially outward from the NONDllENStCNU. MDIUS VF,C.CTOR

model centerline at Y4 inch increments until free Figure 13. Nondimensional Radius Vector
stream velocity was obtained. (The equipment used Wake Fraction vs Bedial Position
was discussed previously). The faired results of Bare Hnll
these transits are presented in Figure 13 in terms of NOTE: Local wake velocity is obtained by averaging
measured values from radial transits at angles of 90 180,
local average wake fraction (w) versus a non-di- and 270 from the model vertical.
mensional radius vector (r/R) , where ris a radial
distance from the longitudinal centerline and R
is the scaled propeller radius (5.5 feet on the ship shows that the value of the wake fraction does not
scaled to 1.32 inches on the model). tend toward a value of 1.0 and it is, therefore, con-
The dashed segment of the 5.0 feet per second cluded that separation does not exist in the tested
curve, Figure 13, represents a more probable wake range of r/R values.
curve. This is due to the possibility of a slight mis-
alignment between the model centerline and the
pitot probe. This can result in significant error in
wake fraction for a non-dimensional radius vector A body or revolution moving through a real or
Q T zero. viscous fluid creates a shear force in the fluid near
It should be noted that within the measured range the surface of the object. That is, the fluid velocity
e l r/R values, there is no indication of separation. relative to the object would be zero at the surface
U%en separation occurs, the local wake velocity be- of the object and would be equal to the speed of the
comes negative due to eddy currents and instability object at some distance away. This fluid layer which
0.flow. This in turn causes the wake fraction (w) has its velocity affected by the boundary shear is
t tend toward a value greater than 1.0. Figure 13
) called the boundary layer. That is, the boundary

Naval Enclineen Journal, October I966 873


layer thickness may be defined as the distance from plotted as offsets from the model surface in Figure
the hull to the point where the ratio of local velocity 15.
to free stream velocity is very close to unity. If the
fluid particles within the boundary layer move in
smooth layers the flow is said to be laminar, if the
fluid particles move in hap-hazard paths the flow is
said to be turbulent. The thickness of this boundary
layer for a particular object moving through a real
fluid at a constant speed depends upon the distance L..,. r,l I,,. VL

along the surface in the direction of flow (x), the Figure 15. Theoretical Boundary Layer Thickness as Com-
type of flow, i.e. laminar or turbulent, and whether puted from Experimental Normal Pressure Data for a Four
separation exists. Streeter in [23] states that the Foot Model.
Represents Boundary Layer Thickness determined from
boundary layer thickness increases by xx for turbu- the Wake Survey.
lent flow and by xx for laminar flow. Although these NOTE: The boundary layer distribution plotted above i s
power relations were obtained using simplifying as- that for a R, ~1.162x 100. Boundary layer thickness was also
sumptions, they do indicate that the thickness in- calculated for R.=2.178 x lo", but is not shown since the
values are nearly the same.
creases more rapidly in the turbulent boundary
The effect of separation and type of flow on The actual boundary layer thickness of the body
boundary layer thickness is graphically illustrated of revolution was obtained at a point directly astern
in Figure 14. of the model by measuring the wake velocities.
It is possible therefore, to determine the type of This thickness (2.57") is plotted as a point on
flow and the presence of separation by examining Figure 15. This is obtained by noting that free
the boundary layer thickness. stream velocity is obtained at r/R = 1.95 from Fig-
ure 13 and that R = 1.32 for the model.
By comparing the theoretical and measured
boundary layer thickness at the point described
above, for speeds at the extremes of the testing
.,r.u:ii? range (2.5 and 5 fps) it was possible to conclude:
. ,, , I.
a. The flow along the model was turbulent
\in1 throughout the test range.
m r b u i a n t ?In"
b. There was no measurable amount of separation
throughout the test range.
This is further evidenced by examination of the
>. .. , ,.. ,.L,, ;'-
wake survey profile, Figure 13, as discussed previ-
Figure 14. Wed of Type Flow and Separation on Boundary
A theoretical boundary layer thickness was ob- It was previously concluded that for the 4 foot
tained for the four (4) foot body of revolution using body of revolution, the flow along the model was
the method described by Granville in [XI. In this fully turbulent, there was no measurable separation
method, the momentum and the moment-of-momen- of flow along the model, and the wavemaking re-
tum equations are solved as a pair of simultaneous sistance could be neglected. It was possible there-
differential equations by numerical stepwise inte- fore to obtain the frictional resistance of the four
gration. The momentum equation is interpreted as foot model by subtracting the computed pressure re-
representing the rate change of the momentum of sistance from the total model resistance. The pres-
the fluid within the boundary layer as a function of sure resistance was not available for the fifteen foot
the frictional resistance and of the pressure gradi- model, therefore it was not possible to obtain the
ent. The frictional resistance dependency is found frictional resistance in this case.
from the "Law of the Wall" and the Schoenherr A plot was made of the coefficient of frictional
friction formulation. The pressure gradient depend- resistance (C,)vs Reynolds Number for the four
ency is found from the measured pressure values. foot body of revolution and this was compared with
The solution of the hfferential equations was ac- the most commonly used expansion lines, Figure 16.
complished using an established program for the Examination of this plot indicates that these two
DTMB U " A C computer. This program uses the dimensional expansion lines are not representative
following assumptions: of the frictional resistance of this three dimensional
a. That transition from laminar to turbulent flow M Y .
occurs at the stimulators, and In order to investigate the problem of expansion
b. Turbulent flow exists aft of the stimulators, and from small to large model, a plot of coefEcient of
c. No separation exists. total resistance (C,)vs Reynolds Number was made
The boundary layer thickness thus obtained is for the small and large model. These were again

874 Naval Enqinaen Journal. October 1966


examined, using the method proposed by Hughes

[3], as modified by Cedric-Ridgely-Nevitt, Webb In-
stitute, to determine if, in fact, a constant form fac-
tor could be obtained in the non-wavemaking region.
The form factor (r) was evaluated as follows:
(C,4'-Ct 15') V/$=constant
(Cf4'-C, 15') Hughes or ATIC
C, 4', Cr 15' is the total resistance coefficient of the
4- four foot model and fifteen foot model respectively,
measured at the same speed length ratio (V/vz).
Cf 4,Ct 15' is the friction resistance coefficient
from Hughes or ATTC lines obtained at a Reynolds
Figure 16. Comparison of Frictional Resistance of a Four
Foot Body of Revolution With Existing Expansion &a. Number corresponding to the speed-length ratio
NOTE: for model considered above.
C,=C,-G A plot of form factor (r) vs speed-length ratio
where C I = measured model resistance (V/vE) for this body of revolution is presented in
C, = pressure resistance
Figure 18. Examination of this plot indicates that
the form factor is not constant even on a submerged
body well below the surface where there is rela-
tively no wavemaking. Comparison of this curve
with a typical curve for a surface ship (obtained


I0 20 30 40 ,o 60 80 I00 zoo

Figure 17. Cornparkon of Total Resistance of a Four Foot

and Fifteen Foot Body of Revolution.
l a


compared with the most commonly used expansion ,
lines, Figure 17. Examination of the curve for the Figure 18. Form Factor vs Sped Length Ratio.
fifteen foot body of revolution previously tested by
personnel from DTMB indicated the possibility of
under-stimulation in the low speed region and of from [2]) indicates that the form factor is related to
wave-making in the high speed region. Therefore, the speed in the same general manner for a sub-
these two regions were not considered in the com- merged body of revolution as for a surface ship.
parison, that is, only the range V/vz = .8 to 1.6
was considered. Figure 17 graphically illustrates that
in order to use the existing two dimensional expan-
sion lines to expand from the small to the large Based on the results of this model test, the follow-
model, a form factor must be applied. ing conclusions are drawn:
Hughes [3] concludes that a constant form factor 1. Two dimensional expansion lines are not r e p
(r) may be obtained by testing surface models in resentative of the frictional resistance of a small
the non-wavemaking region, then applying this fac- submerged axial symmetric body, Figure 16,clearly
tor (r) to the two dimensional expansion line (C,) indicates that the most commonly used two dimen-
to obtain a viscous expansion line (C,) that has the sional expansion lines are not representative of the
same slope as the model resistance line in this non- frictional resistance of the three dimensional body
wavemaking region (C, = rCf). This method of ex- tested.
pansion is based on the assumption that the form 2. Two dimensional expansion lines are not repre-
iactor (r) does not change with changes of Froude sentative of the frictional resistance of a small s u b
Number. merged body as indicated by pressure data and
The resistance data illustrated in Figure 17 was analysis. Figure 11 indicates that there is an effect

Naval Engineers Jwrnal. October I966 875


on measured pressure coefficients with variation of 1121 Hydrodynamic Characteristics of Serveral Surface
Reynolds Number. Since the difference is not con- Piercing Struts, Parts I & 11; J. P. Breslin and J. W.
Delleur. ETT Stevens Institute. Report Numbers 596 and
stant over the model, the variation is attributed to 597. Jan. 1956.
scale effect. 1131 End Plate Effects; Benson, Land and Havens. NACA
3. In order to expand resistance from small to Memo. Report 1942.
large models, a form factor can be applied to the 1141 Scale Effects on Victory Ships Models. Part I; W.P.A.
Van Lammerman, J. D. Van Manen, & A.J.W. Lap.
two dimensional expansion line to obtain a viscous Transactions, I.N.A. 1955.
expansion line that has the same slope as the model [lS] Turbulence Stimulation in Model Tests; K. S. M.
resistance line in the non-wavemaking region. How- Davidson. 6th Internation Towing Tank Conference of
ever, this form factor is not constant even in a re- Ship Tank Superindendents.
gion supposedly free from waves. It is related to 1161 Turbulence Stimulation of a Single Screw Tanker
Model; Cedrid Ridgely-Nevitt. International Ship-
some functions of speed in the same general manner building Progress 1954.
for a submerged body of revolution as for a surface 1171 Turbulence Stimulation on Ship Models; G. Hughes
ship. and J . F. Allen. Transactions, S.N.A.M.E. 1951.
4. Wake fraction varies with Reynolds Number 181 Resistance of Trawler Hull Forms of 0.65 Prismatic
Coefficient Cedric Ridgely-Nevitt. Transactions,
with the greatest variance occurring in the non- S.N.A.M.E. 1956.
hmensional Radius Vector (r/R) range of 0.0 to 1.0. 191 An Investigation of Turbulent Flow Stimulating De-
In this range, the local wake fraction increases with vices for High Hull Displacement Length Ratio Hulls;
Reynolds Number with the greatest increase occur- J. J. Franklin and A. H. Schwendtner. Senior Thesis,
ring at r/R equal 0.0. Above r/R = 1.0 this is little Webb Institute of Naval Architecture 1954.
203 On Transition from Laminar to Turbulent Flow; F. R.
or no variance with Reynolds Number. Test data in- Hama, J. D. Long, and J. C. Hagarty. University of
dicates that the total wake fraction decreases Maryland 1956. Institute for Fluid Dynamics and Ap-
slightly in value with increase in Reynolds Number plied Mathematics. Technical Note BN-81.
above r/R = 1.0. [21] Aerodynamic Drag; S. F. Hoerner. 1951. Self Pub-
5. It is considered quite significant that the CT-C, lished.
data plotted for two dfferent speeds of the four foot [22] The Measurement of the Boundary Layer and Local
Turbulent Skin Friction on a Particular Body of Revo-
model on Figures 16 and 17 obviously do not fall on lution; W. Y. Hsu. DTMB Report C-892.
the same friction line. It can be assumed then that 1231 Fluid Mechanics; Streeter. McGraw-Hill.
the shearing forces on the body of revolution do not 1241 Exact Solution of the Neuman Problem: Calculation
compare to flat plate test data results. of Non-Circulatory Plane and Axially symmetric Flows
about or Within Arbitrary Boundaries; A. M. 0. Smith
and Jesse Pierce. Douglas Aircraft Company Report
REFERENCES Number E. S. 26988, El Segundo, California, April 25,
11 1 The Prediction of Smooth Ship Resistance from Model 1251 Modern Developments in Fluid Dynamics. Vol 11; S.
Data; G. Hughes. Transactions, I.N.A. 1958. Goldstein (Editor). Oxford University Press 1938.
[ 2 1 Geometrically Similar Models--An Investigation of 1261 The Calculation of the Viscous Drag of Bodies of Revo-
Some Problems Resulting from their Resistance Values; lution; P. S. Granville. DTMB Repott 849.
Cedric Ridgely-Nevitt. International Shipbuilding Prog-
ress 1959.
[ S ] Friction and Form Resistance in Turbulent Flow; and ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
a Proposed Formulation for use in Model and Ship
Correlation; G. Hughes Transactions, I. N. A. 1954. Captain Robert A. Hinners, USN (Ret.) , Head of
141 Frictional Drag of Smooth and Rough Ship Forms; the Luckenbach Graduate School, Webb Institute of
A.J.W. Lap. Transactions, I.N.A. 1956. Naval Architecture, whose advice and encourage-
151 Some Applications of the Three-Dimensional Extrapo-
lation of Ship Frictional Resistance; A.J.W. Lap. Trans- ment contributed to the fulfillment of this paper.
actions I.E.S.S. 1968. Professor Cednc Ridgely-Nevitt, Webb Institute
/ 61 Scale Effect Experiments on Some Ship Forms; Koichi of Naval Archtecture, whose advice and technical
Yokoo. Society of Naval Architects of Japan 1959. assistance contributed greatly to the fulfiIlment of
171 Tests on Wave Resistance of Immersed Bodies of Revo-
lution; G. Weinblum, H. Amtsberg, & W. Bock. DTMB this paper.
Translation 234. The David Taylor Model Basin, Carderock, Mary-
181 Selection, Instrumentation, and Calibration of a Low land, which manufactured the model and provided
Range Pressure Transducer; Masters Thesis by R. M. technical assistance without which the paper could
Sesler and W. B. Christmas. Webb Intitute of Naval not have been undertaken.
Atchitecture 1961.
191 Design and Construction of High-Capacity Dynamo- Mr. D. M. McManus, Electric Boat Division of
meter for the Robinson Model Basin; Undergraduate General Dynamics Corporation, who provided the
Thesis by R. L. Ediin. Webb Institute of Naval Archi- theoretical normal pressure distribution for the
tecture 1954. model.
1101 Fluid Dynamic Drag; S. F. Hoerner. Self Published
LCDR M. Arcelle, USN and LCDR D. W. Blount,
1111 Wave Drag of Surface Piercing Struts; Tank Tests by USN, who assisted in co-authoring the original the-
Shiells. Transactions, I.N.A. 1953. sis from which this paper is excerpted.

876 Naval Enginaan Journal. October I966