SSNAME Traneactions, Vol 88, 1978, pp. 197-217 Design of Bulbous Bows Alfred M. Kracht,’ Visitor ‘There is no dovbt that bulbous bows improve most ofthe properties of ships, but the correct design ‘and power prediction for ships with bulbous bows are stil dificult de to the lack of design data. In the paper. a quantitative design method is presentes together with the necessary data providing rela- tionships between performance and main parameters of ships and bulbs. The data, in the form of design charts, are derived from a statistical analysis of routine test results of the Hamburg and the Berlin Model Basins, HSVA and VWS, respectively, supplemented by results of addtional tests to fil the gaps. Three main hull parameters are taken into account’ block coefficient, length/beam ratio, and beam/cratt ratio, while six bulb quantities are selected and reduced to bulb paramotes, ‘of which the volume, the section area atthe fore perpencicuar, and the protruding length of tho bulb ‘are the most important. For power evaluation, the foal power is subdivided ino a fitlonal and a residual part. Depending on bulb parameters and Froude number for each block coefficient of the ‘main hull, six graphs of residual power reduction have been prepared, Because ofthe wide range. (of block coefficients, there are so many design chars tat only one example is presented heroin, Introduction NEARLY 90 YEARS AGO, R. E. Froude (1/7 interpreted the lower resistance ofa torpedo boat after fitting ofa torpedo tube, asthe wave reduction effect ofthe thickening of the bow due tothe torpedo tube. D. W. Taylor was the frst who recognized the bulbous bow as an elementary device to reduce the wave- making resistance. In 1007 he fitted the battleship Delaware with a bulbous bow to increase the speed at constant power. In spite of great activities in the experimental field to explore its potential, 70 years had to pass before the bulb finaly asserted itself as an elementary device in practical shipbuilding. A suitably rated and shaped bulb affects nearly all ofthe prop: erties of a ship. Especially for fast ships the use of a bulb allows 1 departure from hitherto accepted design principles for the benefit ofa better underwater form. The higher building costs are the only disedvantage, — b~vsus pt 4 ‘The protruding bulb form affects hydrodynamically variation ofthe velocity field in the vicinity of the bow, that i, in the region of the rising ship waves. Primarily the bulb at- tenuates the bow wave system, which usually is accompanied by a reduction of wave resistance. By smoothing the flow around the forebody, there is good reason to believe that the bulb tends to reduce the viscous resistance too. Therefore, the beneficial action of a protruding bulb depends on the size, the Position, and the form of the bulb body. See Fig. 1 The linearized theory of wave resistance has provided the main contribution to the understanding of the bulb action (Wigley 3}, Weinblum 4, Inui (5,6). Butit sof no great use Fig. 1 Bow wave pattern of a model without (upper picture) and with for the project engineer. Inthe preliminary stage of his project, he needs fundamental information on which to base concrete decisions. Later, in the realization stage, the quantitative as well as qualitative guidelines are important, because the hy- Trp, as with the V-type. In this case the behavior of a ship-bulb combination is similar toa longer main hull increased in length by Len 201od bao eh Zys0 neh 7 semen tory she 003} ecyD) Lo fk 0.02} _ Le EN. 01 Wo 086 @ pesto 020, ‘0125 030 0135, i Fig. 8 Optimal bulb volume Y,, of a ship-bulb combination as a function of Froude number Fy. The prismatic coetticient Gp of the elementary ship form (2.46,Cp.0) is the parameter of the curves isi] ap Wa] elementary snip 7 | eel hug 025 8,072.1 / og] teat) . Ne om 030 085 F, ol 020 Fig. 9 Optimal bulb volume ¥’, ofa ship-bulb compination with Co ='0.72 aga function of Froude number Fy. Depth postion Zp is the ‘parameter ofthe curves [31] Influence of ship main parameters on bulb size and bulb effect Linear theory permits comment on the influence of some ship main parameters on bulb size. The theoretical results relate tothe interference effect only, but have general validity throughout and, in particular, are applicable to the breaking effect. For discussion, the most suitable ease is the optimal bulb, which minimizes the wave resistance of a ship-bulb ‘combination, With elementary ships ofthe form (2,4.6,Cp,1.0) 81], it may be shown that an increased prismatic coefficient Co or block coefficient Cy, respectively, is associated with in- creasing volume of the optimal spherical bulb, Figure 8 gives an impression of this fact, From this t follows, for ships with Jong parallel middlebody. that with increasing Cpe, Lew /Lpe and decreasing. Le/Bus, the optimal bulb velure increases (Vim (22), Fig. 4). The depth of the bulb has similar influ ence. Asshown in Fig. 9, at constant Froude number Fy and 202 Design of Bulbous Bows longitudinal position, the optimal bulb volume increases with ineteaing depth postion Za. Moreover, both figures clearly indicate the enormous influence of ship speed on optimal bulk volume, which increases in an undulating manner with in- creasing speed, These theoretical results are upper limits for the actual effects. While their absolute values are hardly of practical interest, the tendency of the dependence of bulb volume on speed, block coefficient, length of entrance, and bulb position is useful for the actual design Since the wave system is ereated only by the nonpaallel part of the main hull, and in the real fluid the forebody makes the ‘main contribution, the length Loy of the parallel middlebody has hardly any influence on the bulb size and, therefore, the same holds for the length beam ratio Lyp/Byys too. For ships with Lyp/Bys > 5.0, the wavemaking resistance is only a function of Le/ Bus, as shown by the upper limit curves in Fig. 10 see also Baba (23), Fig. 10). ‘The beam draft ratio Bys/ Tus, has a great influence on bulb effect, bulb size, and draft pa- rameter Cza (upper limit curves in Fig. 11). Consequently, for dimensioning of a bulbous bow, the main-hull parameters are Crr, Bus/Tus, and Le/Bys. Unfortunately, in the pre= liminary design phase, Cpr, and often Lz too, is unknown, Therefore, the following design guidelines are mainly based only on block coefficient Cy and beam/draft ratio Bys/ Tus. Design guidelines for bulbous bows Itis well known that the existing design methods, for exam- pl, the classical method by Taylor, are not sufficient for power estimation of a bulb ship and for modern bulb design. To fill gap in the design guidelines, a large number of routine test results of ships without and with bulb, carried out by the two German model basins, have been reanalyzed in a research project. The design guidelines derived, the design charts, and ‘computer program have been successfully applied on various ‘occasions, From the multitude of diagrams developed in paper, only one example is depicted. For complete informa- tion, reference has to be made to FDS Bericht No, 36/1973]8] and VWS Bericht No. 811/78(38) It is emphasized that the information content of the design diagrams cannot be better than that ofthe original data base, especially in the cases with very small data collection, Reanalysis of routine test results Since the bulbous bow affects primarily the wavemaking, resistance, the design guidelines should correctly be related to the wave or residual resistance. During preparation of the research work, it became evident, however, that most of the usable data were propulsion rather than resistance test results Since in principle it makes no difference whether the bulb ef- fect is derived from resistance or propulsion tests, a power specific bulb effect, or power reduction factor, respectively, was defined: AP* = 1.0~Px/Po (as) In this form the bulb effect isthe power difference of the ship without P, and with bulb Py related to the power of the bulbless ship. According to this definition, a positive bulb effect corresponds to a power reduction, and vice versa In order to separate the different friction resistance com- ponents of ships without and with bulb in accordance with Froude’s method, the total delivered power Pp Pp= Pn + Pr (a4) is regarded as composed ofa frictional part (index F) and residual part (index R). If the propulsive efficiency np is know, the residual power ean be calculated asthe differenceos| 2a os|4CreR as| Cove upper limit upper bm upper tit asl bss 03 | | a2 az} | o2n od | ~ S yr 02 ol on oly iy fy 60 65) 70 leaks obo 0676 0b3 0032p CvpR Fig. 10. Dependence of the residual power reduction coefficient onthe length/beam rao, the volumetric parameter, ‘andthe length parameter, respectively. Curve parameter is the Froude number. The parameters Cyoy- Cy (Ozp, and Bys! Ts aF8 Conetant ac: Co. os acega o5| cece a5| acpoe per tirt Lami] upper im a os zt 03 on 0.19 ob ss fy Lo L @ L L 228 250275 30 QO 0020 coz a7 08 a9 air CreR Ca Fig. 11 Dependence of the residual power reduction coeticient on the beara ratio, te volumetric parameter, ‘andthe depth parameter, respectively, Curve parameter isthe Froude number. The parameters Liw/ Bus. Lr! Bus, Casrs Can Com 4 Cag ar constant between total and frictional power, and a residual power re- duction factor AP3 = 1.0~Pao/Pro = 1L0~(Poe ~ Pru)/ (Poo — Pro) (15) can be defined. ‘The relationship between effective Pe and delivered power Po = Pe/tp = (Pen + Pee)/np (16) With the frictional power Prr calculated by the International ‘Towing Tank Conference (ITTC) 1957 line Per = Cr & vi-s) (7) the residual power is Pn ‘ern = Pp ~ Pee/np (18) ‘With equations (16) to (18), the residual power reduction factor becomes Pownpw ~ Pere © Fotos = Fee AP A separation of the various bulb effects isnot posible inthis “The propulsive ellcency p isa funetion of hl form and speed and should be known for the analysis of the model test results. Moreover, for ships without and with bulb, the pro pulsive efficiencies are generally not equal, but i mow > np in the beneficial speed range of the bulb ship. Unfortunately, from most of the propulsion test results, np could not be est mated. ‘Therefore, as a frst step in simplification of the reanalysis, a constant np has to be chosen for ships without and with bulb. The mistake is small if in the calculation of the re- sidusl power reduction factor by equation (15a), the condition ‘tow = noo is assumed. In general, the relations Design of Bulbous Bows 20305. ACoge| Fig. 12 + - 1@ G19 020 021 022 023 G2% O25 O26 Fy Infuence of ferent propulsive coeticlnts onthe resiual power reduction coucient, ‘shown with the ship-bulb combination No. 7 of Table 2 ow on ong 0.20 Fig. 13 Comparison of the resid power reduction costcients from {ull-seale and model-scale measurements (for main particulars, see Table 1) Prrw> Pere (because S,, >So) Pow nd. and Pownow > Powndo hold. Consequently the numerator difference of equation (15a)is Pownbe ~ Pere > Pownds ~ Pere but because of Do! MD» < 1.0 itis (Pownds ~ Pera) ~ (Pou tine ~ Pere) oe 204 Design of Bulbous Bows ‘Therefore, the residual power reduction factor used here is APR = 1.0~ (Pow ~ Perw/np)/(Poo ~ Pero! np) (5b) Because a few propulsive efficiencies are known only in the collected routine test results, in a second step of simplification an np has to be defined that should be constant for all ship-bulb combinations within the whole range of block coefficient Cp. From the scarce experimental results and practical experi ™ appeared to be a very good mean value. For normal ships, o is between 0.6 and 0.8. Therefore, itis important to test the consequences of divergence of no fom the mean value 07 on the residual power reduction coefficient ACpca.._As shown, in Fig, 12, a change in np of £8 percent affects at low Froude numbers, Fx, a change in ACpra of only 2 percent; at higher Fy of only £15 percent, "Further analysis is facilitated by the introduetion of di mensionless coefficients as follows. To eliminate influences of the ship hull form, the power displacment coefficient Cor = P/p/2V89 VE) This leads to a residual power coefficient n= Pol n/2V38W Wr) — CrS/no YW) (20) and with friction law Cr = 0.075 /(logRy ~ 2.0)? (21) to the bulb effect related to the residual power coefficient, that is, to the residual power reduction coefficient (a9) is chosen. ACprn = 1L0— Crcr auth! Cree without (22) Finally, it should be mentioned that in the reanalysis a form factor kis not considered. The residual power reduction coefficient can be scaled di- rectly to full-scale ship. Figure 18 shows the results of mea- surements at ship [35] and model scale. The slight sea-wave influence on full-scale measurements iseliminated. “That the amounts do not coincide totally might depend on the different trims of the forms without and with bulb, Table 1 gives the rain particulars of the ships. In case 3, the delivered power of the bulbless ship is converted to a draft T = 6.57 m (21.55 ft) by aid of the Admiralty formula,Design charts ‘The analysis of the many experimental results is sorted out by Cy-collectives in which many bulb ship forms with nearly the same block coefficients are collected. There are so many design charts that only the case of Cy = 0.7 is presented here ‘The variation of the residual power reduction coefficient by equation (22) of each ship form ACpra = F(Fy, bulb form) (23) has been calculated and presented as a function of Froude number Fy. The curve parameter isthe bulb form (Fig. 14) From these cures it i posible to derive ce curves oral bulb parameters, which are collected in Table 2 together with some other main parameters ofthe ship-bul combinations The derivation and fairing ofthese eross curves (Fig. 15-20) naturally are not totally without problems, because at only one variable bulb parameter the other five parameters ar regarded asconstant. This assumption is correct in only a few cases for some parameters. in most of the cases, all parameters alter s- multaneously. Therefore, each diagram contains an upper limit curve which indicates the maximum possible improve- ment due toa bulb. Figures 21 and 22 show that the way of analysis and construction of design diagrams is justified. In these figures, theoretical and the corresponding experimental Table 1 Main particulars of ships without (Ship 1) and with bulbous bow. (See Fig. 13; ATy/Lpp Is the related trim) i, [snip 1 [exsp 3 Te 2.129% e370 ton ng | 6933 4,550 | Aasane reanes results which are evaluated in the same manner are compared [SI], Even if the optimistic theoretical resultsare not achieved in the experiments, the tendencies are at least represented correctly. ‘The diagrams of Figs. 16-20, which are derived from the oe 020 o22 Fig. 4 Residual power reduction cooticiont oz 026 Fy Of 14 ship-bulb combinations as a function of Froude number. Basic diagram for Figs. 15-20 (or main parameters, see Table 2). Curve parameter isthe bul form Table 2 Main parameters of ship-bulb combinations of the data collected with Cy .7 (se Fig. 18) 7lels | wolanl 2 % a721) Lig 18 75409 6-086 “5.203 B77 15993 0 96954 0748 5008) 5702 6 300022972 73 TEST GEIS [C6867 0 BUET CERTO OOO WORT |OTNS [07277 LTE) fie ezBlea slel| Tess Dees Tear 8309, (7a 0 9660 087@S 0.9605 “OIE goss); lagu 3 97 6.9668 1.9920 09HRO C 99 7234 0723 106707 0645? 066 69 09% “6. 08 "72094 17315 26.171 6M “67770 Hig “37225752491 “268 12.3250 3.0002 Cag 15% ‘96977 wah bulb 90m | Lgl "377 5004-20072" 2680 “24561 2055 “2976 2978 |2 634-2907 “F501 "79050.2456) Cp t0as TESS -O8GTTO z TE 0762 OTT _07OTT 07186 1 gigs 76 134639 26587" 3063-3240 3197 94162 13 Cen 0036 049300329 60330 003637 0 os 002600 028T 21762-0821 0.998 1717 “0.2091 01746 "01598 -0 469 “01351 0.9453, 05938. 05567 05852 "0 5810 "06909 0426? 08890" 1id80 ‘01035 01367 0106) {0.1032 {0.0956~0. 0802 ‘21516 | 01237 {01695 | 0178 | 91832", 0.1096 01268 {01290 {01516 0.3606 0267" 0 $876 03618 [0.3120 | a2a6" 018 30263" 30682174268) i821 ges [20363726957 7571 26658 [2454523753] 2547 06662 | 13169 [06207105177 10, 25052 PSTE Design of Bulbous Bows 20505. AC po | rp oe %, * q+ 07 ' 5 02 os ; ZI aa or sts i 1°07 L / Cpa o + ¢ t me t Cen o 01 02 G3 OF 05 06 PH] j Fig. 15 Maximum residual power reduction coefficient as a function Fig. 16 Residual power reduction coefficient as a function of the | (of the volumetric parameter of total bulb volume (derived from Fig. volumetric parameter (derived rom Fig, (4). Curve parameter is the 14) Froude number i upper tient 05 nal B Lam | 22 T Cast Fig. 17 Residual power reduction coetticient as a function ofthe cross-section parameter (Gerived from Fig. 14). Curve parameter isthe Froude number | a Tt 00% 005 006 007 00a 009 010 on ci2 os ACovR upper temit_ : 04 03 02 i i ee ! m4 p+ 07 : 5 po | ~— T r 010 of O12 019 Om O15 O16 Cry 018 Fig. 18 Resioual power reduction cooticient as 6 function ofthe lateral parameter ! (erived rom Fig. 14). Curve parameter is the Froude number 206 Design of Bulbous Bows iyoper lit oe 025 os 035 coe Capa, Fig. 18 Residual power reduction costicien as a function ofthe length parameter (derived from Fig, 1), Curve parameter isthe Froude number ost Coen upper tint 03 aS a XS 02 ort ft O12 019 Ok o1 016 aI7 O18 O19 020 02 Cog Fig. 20 Residual power reduction coetficient as a function of he breadth parameter (derived ‘tom Fig, 14. diagram of Fig, 14 for Cx = 0.7, represent the correlations Yeteeenbally parameters power gain. Regionsmay cll be recognized in which certain bulb parameters are unfavorable and which are to be avoided The use of the diagrams follows from theie derivation, In- terpolations are permitted inside the parameter ranges shown, while extrapolations should be avoided. Ifthe main dimensions of a ship ae fixed and a bulb is tobe fitted, then the estimation of bulb parameters and the power reduction du to this bull is possible by means of the design charts of the corresponding block coefficient Cp, For this purpose, only the main-hull particulars, Lye, Bus, Tus, and Cy as well as the Froude ‘number Fy, ate required. For a given bulb parameter—which can be any of the six parameters itis posible to read in the respective design chart at the curve of the known Froude number Fy the residual power reduction factor ACen. With this ACpep, the remaining bulb parameters are estimated in the other diagrams atthe corresponding Fy curve. Except for the configuration of the bulbous forebody, the pfoblem is solved, because, for Fx, = constant, allsix bulb parametersare assigned to a constant SCpcp If Cp, Lpp/Bus, and Bys/ Tus of the bulbles ship are inside the ranges ofthe analyzed ship-bulb combinations, for example, Design of Bulbous Bows Curve parameter isthe Froude number of Table 2, then the residual power reduction factor ACpeR yields the wanted residual power gain. If departures from the ‘main-hull parameters appear, the ACpcg isa good approximate value. Except for the beam /draft ratio, the influence of Cp and Lpp/Bys deviations is small, so that a special correction is not necessary for these parameters. A general correction for- mula so far does not exis. If the delivered power for the bulbless ship is known, then the required power of the bulb ship can be calculated by the following formula: Po 1(.0~ ACprn)Cpene + 1CrS/io 2 WRDNS VE YVR, (24) where the residual power coefficient Cpcn. ofthe bulbless ship has to be estimated with np = 0.7 according to equation (20) For unknown delivered power ofthe bulbless ship. inthe project phase, the required power can be caleulated by the following formula Po =((10~ SCpce)Cn + Cr + SCrIE VES (25) 20710, 4 - ae | " Ae 7 \ 258% Cyaige322% oi / S Mitchell Theory | Os: = 0125 O35 Fy AC RW = 10-CR Waninout /ER,W wit buld Fig. 21. Bulb effect on residual or wave resistance cooicient, respectively, asa function of Froude number, Comparison of theoretical and experimental results of elementary ship form (2.46.0.72,1.0), Curve parameter isthe volumetric parameter ofthe total bub volume. The ‘experimental resulis are evaluated witn a form factor k = 0.208 |. upper Lit ~ of Ch ee r T oes 0030 Cy Fig. 22. Bulb effect on residual or wave resistance, respectively, as «function ofthe volumevic parameter of the total bulb volume (derived from Fig. 21). Curve parameter isthe Frouse number where Cr can be estimated by one of the common procedures (for example, Taylor-Gertler[95), or Guldhammer |96)) If several bulb parameters are known (this includes also the judgment of a given bulb), then the estimation of the power gain by means of the diagrams is problematic, because the ‘elation ofthe single values is hardly guaranteed in such a way that all known bulb parameters result in the same ACpca at constant Froude number, By using the volumetric parameter Coren as the main parameter connected with a possible con- sideration of Can and Cr, the diagrams can be used in such cases for bulb design or for a judgment. It appears tempting to use the diagrams to design an optimal bulb by taking the parameters in accordance with their maxi- ‘mum reduction effect only. This procedure cannot be rec ‘ommended, because all six optimal bulb parameters chosen in this way do not generally coincide with those ofa concrete bull of the analyzed test data To judge the effect oa bulb change on the required power of a bulb ship, the diagrams can be used to assist in decision- making. By thei aid the tendency of parameter changing can be detected which an alteration of shape does or does not suggest. cilitate the decision for an application of a bulbous bow. But they do not substitute for the model test, because the actual Bower requirement fra project can be measured by expe ment only 208 Even in their imperfect form, the design charts fa- ~ Design of Bulbous Bows From Figs. 28 to 26, the bulb parameters can be estimated if at first instance the power consumption is of no interest ‘These figures show the relationship of the different bulb pa rameters to each other forthe ship-bulb forms which have been analyzed within the research project. The usual bulb param- eter ranges are marked by upper and lower dotted lines Aspects of bulb design In the preceding sections, it has been shown that well dimensioned bulbous bow improves the performance ofa ship in many ways by smoothing the flow around the forebody and by reducing the wavemaking resistance. Ina particular case, the decision for or against a bulbous bow is the matter of a cost-effectiveness analysis|11], which isnot the subject of this paper. In general it may be stated that a hydrodynamically good main hull with ow wavemaking does not need a bulbous bow in any ease. But ships with pronounced bad wavemaking should always be fitted with a bulb. Practical points of view will decide whether an additive or an implicit bulb is to be provided for. Fo? ships already built, an additive bulb willin general be the best solution, while for a new design an implicit bull might be advantageous. The shaping of a bulbous bow, that is the longitudinal and depth distribution ofthe bulb volume in proportion to the bulb parameters, can be described only in a qualitative way. Al- though for a concrete longitudinal distribution of bulb volume, the knowledge of the wave pattern of the bulbless ship is an important decision-making aid, inthe preliminary project phase this information is usually not available. But even without this information itis possible to indicate general guiding rules for shaping a bulbous bow. Essentially they are related to type of ship (full or slender), service speed (slow or fast), + frequency of draft alteration at FP (large draft variation or defined Cw, and ballast draft), and + main operation area of the ship (for example, with much heavy seaway or drift ice) ‘A specific ship-bulb form shows optimum performance only at design conditions. At off-design conditions its performance may be poor. For the distribution forthe bulb volume, the following three rales are important 1. Deeply emerged volume is of little effect. 2 Longitudinally concentrated volume near to the free surface increases the interference effect. 3. Longitudinally distributed volume near to the free sur- face influences the momentum deflection,Te vor t ae "7 38). oa Zee 2 Fig. 28 Volumetric and depth parameter versus block coatficient 0 volumetric 10 oy s } 20 Coals a0 ole wl 02 o| ae 7 sol | TS im 1 | lel of . « = : set t a : Fig. 26 Total increase ofthe volume (Cy «and the wetted surtace (Co) of the main hull duo 1 a bulbous bow versus volumetric coef Fig. 24 Length and breath parameter versus volumetric parameter cient [Cy = (V wow = ¥ weed! ¥ nto’ Caer = (Sw ~ $6 So] Design of Buibous Bows 209‘The waterlines ofthe bulb nose should be streamlined but not circular, in order to avoid separation [33 For ships with a strong wavernaking tendency, the bulb ‘volume should be concentrated in the longitudinal direction, where the upper part of the bulb body at the FP should not be located above the Cyyx._ The integration of bulb and ship can be straight-ined ((3}, Rule 4). The fairing volume plays a subordinate role ‘The maximum width of the bulb can be situated in front of the forward perpendicular. At such a bulbous bow it may happen, of cours, tha} cavitation occurs This problem is not treated here. ene For ships with much wave-breaking, the bulb volume should be distributed well in the longitudinal direction. The upper part of the bulb body can reach to the peak of the bow back- ‘wave of the bulbless ship [84], A well-formed laterally and forward-inclined bulb ridge avoids the breaking of the bow back-wave. The fairing volume plays an important role. ‘The "upper part of the bulb should be faired well into main bull in ‘order thatthe tail water of the bulb ridge interferes well with the remaining bow wave. In the lower part of the bulb, the waterlines should have small angles of entrance it the bulb is to emerge high under ballast conditions. Due to the danger ‘of separation in this area, the fairing of the waterlines should not be too hollow. Bulb-type recommendations The O-type is suitable for full as well as for slender ships. It fits well with U- and V-types of foreship sections and offers space for sonar equipment. The lensetype should be chosen for his which often operate in heavy eu, because ess susceptable to slamming The A-type is gond for ships with large draft variations (tramp ships) and Ustype foreship seetions.. The effect of the bulbous bow decreases with increasing draft, and viee versa; but in heavy seas the danger of slamming increases with de- ‘xeasing draft. ‘The ¥-type can be provided for all ships with well-defined Cyr and ballast draft. Iti easly faired into V-shaped fore- bodies and has in general good seakeeping performance. In the fally submerged condition, its damping effect i very eh Tnall cases, the bulb should not emerge in the ballast condi- tion so that its most forward point, B (Fig. 3), lies on the water surface. ‘The individual resistance of the bulb body in this condition would be higher than its net efficiency. Summary" ‘Today the bulbous bow has asserted itself as an elementary device in practical shipbuilding, But the existing design ‘methods are not sufficient for power estimation of a bulb ship and for modern bulb design, A well-dimensioned bulb im- proves mast ofthe properties ofa ship. Therefore, qualitative and quantitative guiding rules are necessary for its beneficial application Compared with the indirect influence of a bulbous bow on thrust deduction and wake fraction, the bulb also influences directly the wake distribution in the propeller plane. Except for the strongly damped pitching motion, the bulb ship has the same seakeeping qualities as a bulbless ship up to Beaulor 6. ‘Therefore, regardless of seakeeping aspects, the bulb design ray be carried out in view of the smooth-water performances only. In navigation in ice, the bulbous bow has proved to be advantageous ‘The most important effect of a bulbous bow is its influence on the different resistance components and, consequently, on the required power consumption. By attenuation of the bow ‘wave system, the bulb reduces the wavemaking as well as the wave-breaking resistance. “Two main bulb effects which are very important for bulb design are defined asthe interference and the breaking effects. ‘The interference effect expresses the resistance change due to the interfering free wave systems of main hull and bulb. For slender, fast ships it gives the main proportion to the total bulb effect.” Its amount depends on bulb volume and the longitu- inal postion ofthe bub center. The wave-breaking tltect includes the energy loss by breaking of to seep bow waves and gives the main contribution tothe total bulb effect of full, slow. ships. Its amount depends on welldistributed bulb volume in the longitudinal direction, Both bulb effects are Froude number dependent. oe For bulb design, sx bulb parameters re introduced, of which the volumetric, the cross-section, and the length parameter are the most important. The influence of bulb parameters on the different bulb effects is discussed in a qualitative manner, supported by the linearized theory of wave resistance and by some experimental results. This knowledge is important for the shaping of the bulb body according to the bulb parame- ters, ‘A quantitative design method is presented together with the necessary design data. The data are derived from an analysis, ‘of routine test results of the two German model basins. Most of the usable data were propulsion rather than resistance test, results. Therefore, according to Froude’s method, a residual power reduction coefficient is defined which can be scaled directly to the full-scale ship. The variation of this coefficient for each ship-bulb combination has been calculated and pre sented as.a function of Froude number. From these curves the design charts are derived—for each bulb parameter, one di- gram. From the multitude of diagrams, only one example isdepicted. The calculation ofthe required power of the bulb ihe isdescribed. General guiding rules for shaping a bulbous Ww are given, 4 The design guidelines have been successfully applied on References 1 Gawn, R. W. L., “Historical Notes and Investigations at the Admiralty Experiment Works." Torquay; Trans. TINA, 1941 2 Eggert. EF, “Form Resistance Experiment,” TRANS SNAME, Vol. 45, 1905; “Further Form Resistance Experiments,” “Trans SNAME, Vol. 47, 1838, 3 Wigley, W. CS. "The Theory of the Bulbous Bow and its Practical Application” Frans” North-East Coast Instittion of Eng neers and Shipbuilders, Vol 82, 1995/36, 4" Weinblum, G. Theor der Wulstshiffe, 198. 5 Invi T, Takaiei, T and Kumano, M., “Wave Profile Mea, surements on the Wavesmaking Charactersties ofthe Bulbous Bow, Zosen Kiokat, Vol. 108, Dee. 1960, also Journal of the British Ship esearch Association, Vol 16, 1961 6. Inui, and Takahei, T., "Wave Cancelling Effects of the ‘Waveless Bull onthe Tigh Speed Passenger Coaster (Kurenat Mara, Part Fill,” Zosen Kiokat, Vol 110, Dee, 1961 “1. Kerlen,H..Entwart von Bagwulsten fur vllige Schiffe aus der Sicht der Prats," HANSA, No. 10,1971 8" Kracht, A. “Theoretische und experimentele Untersuchungen fr die Anwendung von Bugwulsten,” FDS-Bericht, No.6, 1973. 9 Kracht.A. “Der Bugwulst als Enrurfsclement im Scilfba, STG- Jahrbuch, Band 70, 1976. 10° Takao, T."Bulbous Bow Design for Full Hull Forms” Tran, Society of Naval Architects of Japan, Vol 119, May 1966, TI Schneekluth, Il, “Kriteren zur Bagwulsverwendung,” STG-Jahriuch, 1975 12. Taniguchi, K. and Tamura, K,, “Study on the Flow Patterns ‘Around the Stern of Large Fullship,” Mitsubishi Technical Review, Vol 7. No.4. 1971 15 | Tatincaur,J-C., “Effect of Bilge Keels anda Bulbous Bow on Bilge Vortices," HAR Report No. 107, Feb. 1968 TH van Lammeren, WP, A-and Muntiewerf, JJ “Research on 210 Design of Bulbous Bows an ©Bullous Bow Ships. Part I DWT Bulkearsir with a Large Bulbous Bow,” International Ship Inulding Progress, Wo 12, 1965, p. 459 15. van Lammeren, W. P- A: and Pangalila,F. V. A, “Research on Balbous Bow Ships. Part B.” International Shipbutding Progress, Vol 13, Nou 37, Jan, 1966. 16 Wahab, Rt, “Das Verhalten eines schnellen Frachtschifes mit ooventionelem Bag und mit Walstbug im Seegang." STC: Jahuch, ‘Band 60, 1966 , 263. TT Gchi K, Medel Experiments onthe Effect of Bulbous Bow con Ship Slamming" DTMB- Report 1980, Oct. 1960, 1s "Frank, W. “The Heave Damping Coefficients on Bulbous Galinders Partially immersed in Deep Water,” Journal of Ship Be search, Vel 11, No.3, Sept 1967 p. 151 1S "Dillon, ES. Lew, E. Vand Scot, E. "Ships with Bulbous Bows in Smonh Water and in Waves" TRans SNAME, Vol. 63, 1985. “a6, Poo aah seach on Bulls Bow Shion at." ternational shipbuddimg Progress, No 182, 1966, , 2 Beall, W. "Der Bugwal in der Eiabr,” Schiff und Hafen Vel. 28, No, 1971, p. 1 "22 Yim, Band Shs HH. with Parallel Middle Bod Tins 125. Baba, Evichi, “Analysis of Bow Near Field of Flat Ships.” Mitsubishi Feehnial Bulletin No 97 1975. 24.” Baba Bich, “Blunt Forms and Wave Breaking.” SNAME. First Ship Technology and Research STAR) Syzmpastum, Washington, D.C Avg, 1975, 125. Wiegharde, K, "Viscous Resistance,” 18th ITT, Vo. 1972, 8. P26) Eckert. E andSharma S.D,,“Bugwilte fr angsame, vlige Schitfe"STC-Jahriuch, 1970, p. 129 27 "Eggers, Ky "Uber de Ernitng des Wellenwidersandes eines ‘Minimum Wave Bullous Ship Hulls Hydrenauties Inc. Technical Report Bohyun Yi , Member [The views expressed herein are the opinions ofthe dscuser and not recesary thot ofthe Department of Defense or the Departmen of the Navy This paper has demonstrated clearly by experimental results from many ships that addition of a bulbous bow can reduce a large portion of the residual resistance ofa ship. ‘The charts with the approximate values of important design parameters for bulbous-bow ships will be very useful for naval architects Although we know the mechanism of the bulb effect in the theory of wave resistance, the optimum size, shape, and location cof the bulb cannot be obtained accurately because of the ‘weakness in the theory of wave resistanee. Weaall know well that the present linear theory cannot accurately prediet the resistance of oceangoing ships. Thisis why experimental results are valuable in ship design. However, it is obvious that we have to make full use of theoretical knowledge in order to have a better design mn bulb design, we recognize that there are two types of bulb: doublet type and source type "The former reduces the sine ‘component of elementary ship waves while the latter reduces the cosine-component of elementary ship waves. Although normal ships with relatively large entrance angles have domi- nating sine waves which require the doublet-type bulb, there hips wth alloy waernes whch require the soureeype That is, the bulb shape depends largely upon the wa: terlineshape near the ship bow. Thwonder whether this effect is reflected in the charts shown in the present paper? Block Coefficient and Froude number are not enough to represent ship parameters related to bulb design. In this respect, Yim's? Tim Boy, “A Spl Design They and Meta for Blo towne Se uml of Shp Resarh, Val 1s Ne 3. Sp 168 me Design of Bulbous Bows Schiffsmodells durch Analyse soines Wellensystems,” Schiffetechnik, Vol. 9.1962, p. 46. 28 "Ward, L. W., “A Method forthe Direct Experimental Deter- ‘mination of Ship Wave Resistance," Doctoral Dissertation submitted tothe Faculty of Stevens Institute of Technology, Hoboken, N.], May 1962 29. Schmidt Sticbit, H.,"Systematiche Erfascung von dtlich am Schiff anzubringende Stau: baw Unterdruck erzeupende Elemente ‘2wecks Verringerung der Wellenhohe und damit des Wellenwiders- tandes,” Schiff und Hafen, Vol. 12, 1960, p. 746 ‘30 " Dagan, G. and Tulin, MP, “Bow Waves Before Blunt hips.” Wiydraautes, Ine, Reseerch in itydrodymamics Technical Report Mr 31. Kracht, A, “Theoretische und experimentelle Untersuchungen liber die Versingerung des Wellensiderstande: gegebener Schifs. formen durch den Bugwubt,” Bericht No. 166 des Institutes fir Schiffbau, Hamburg, 1966 82. ‘Kracht, A. "Linearthooretsche Abhandlung aber die optimale ‘Verringerung des Wellenwiderstandes gegebener Sehffsormen durch cainen Wulst in symuetrischer oder asymmetrscher Anordnung,” Bericht No. 183 des Institutes far Schiffban, Hamburg, 1967 33. Saunders, M.E, Hydrodynamics in Ship Design, Vol. 2 SNAME, 1957. 34 Weicker, D., “Bemerkungen zum Bugwulstentwurf,” Seewirtschaft, Vol 3 No.1, 1971, p. 827, 35. Kerlen, H. and Peteishagen, H., “Uber den Binfluf eines Bugwulstes auf Leistung und Geschwindigkeit eines vlligen Fra chtschifes," HANSA, Vol 105, No. 12, 1968, p. 1063-1067, 36 Gertler, M., "A Reanalyss of the Original Test Data for the Taylor Standard Series,” DTMB Iteport 806, 1954 ‘37. Guldhammer, Il E, and Hatvald, Aa, Ship Resistance, Aka demisk Forlag. Copenhagen, 1974 38. Kracht, 4, “Weitere Untersuchungen aber die Anwendung, von Bugwalsten,” VWS Bericht No. 811/78, Berlin, 1976. cussion imple design method for a bulbous bow fora particular ship and design speed may be useful. At the David W. Taylor Naval Ship R&D Center, several bulbs designed by Yim's method have been tested and satis- factory results obtained. Because the method uses linear theory, the computed bulb size is sometimes slightly larger than optinium, yet it gives very useful guidance Elichi Baba, Member ‘The design charts of bulbous bows provided by the author are suitable especially for ships with relatively small block coefficients, For those ships, the waveaking phenomena are influenced not only by the entranee part but also by the middle part and the run part, and the form effect on viscous resistance isrelatively small, For full forms of Cx > 0.8, however, rather large viscous effects are included in the residual resistance component. Therefore, the scale effect is not taken into ac- count in the author’ charts. Further, as the author pointed out for full forms the wavemaking phenomena are mainly de- pending on the entrance part. Therefore, the characteristic length for the expression of Froude number should be entrance length Lz or ship beam Bys instead of ship total length Le. The author says that atthe preliminary design phase the en: trance parameters Cpy and Ly are unknown, However, if design charts for full forms based on the entrance parameters are provided, they may be effectively used in the preliminary design phase. Actually at Mitsubishi Heavy Industries a design method of full forms based on entrance parameters has been developed and since 1963 has served as a routine method as outlined in reference [24|. Our design method for full forms is based on the following experimental and practical evidence derived rom the analyses of tong est data of more than 200 full forms, L. For full forms (o/V@Lpp < 0.20, Cy > 050) with a an Sewell-designed run part, the wave resistance characteristies depend mainly on the geometry of the entrance part, and the ‘contribution from the parallel part and run partis negligibly small in generating wave resistance 2. The propulsion factors depend mainly on the geometry of the run part 5. Areliable formula to estimate the form factor by use of given geometric parameters has been developed. In this method the erranc part and the rampart are selestd inde- pendently s0 as to achieve a desired propulsive performance, nd the parallel middle part is designed to satisfy the required displacement. ‘The parameters for wave resistance data are the Froude number based on ship beam Byys, that is, &/ V'gByyy_ and the beam draft ratio Bus/Tys, and the fineness factor of entrance CyHle/Bys, where Hy isan effective length repre- senting, Fullness of entrance defined by Hp = (1 = Cor Le Lawrence W. Ward, Member 1 congratulate Dr, Kracht and the VWS Model Basin fr presenting us with a design-oriented paper in the area of shi Rail form hydrodynamic “Thi and ilar studies have the potential of obtaining important fuel cost savings for the op- ‘erator over the lifetime of a ship or class of ships by means of 4 reasonable extra one-time initial investment of some addi- tional plate and frame bending in the construction phase. Such ‘matters have become very important, as evideneed by your and my increasingly difficult task of heating our homes again this ‘winter for a reasonable percentage of our daily breadl—don't wwe ll wish now that our home constructors had worried a lithe more about efficiency of operation at that time! 1 knew Dr. Kracht when I was in Germany in 1965-1966 and hye was immersed in the theoretical study of ship bulbs under the guidance of the late incomparable Professor Georg Wein- ‘blum—as you can see in the References he has continued this study in the intervening years and has become "Mr. Bulb” in ‘many and inthe world. We would all do well to study the results in this paper in detail and to consider Dr. Kracht's rec- ommendations with respect. I plan to, this year especialy, in Connection with a Maritime Administration project at Webb Institute funded under the newly launched University Research Program (for which we in the marine industry should thank them for initiating) Thave a few comments and questions on some details in the per itself note that the factor ACpyp is used for the factor of merit in assessing the benefit ofa bulb change in most of the figures, and this factor turns out tobe the ratio of the change (reduction) of residual power only, not including frictional. Changes in residual power due to changesin the wake fraction (due to wave wake changes) are included (although not included in the data reduction in the present case for reasons stated by the author) inthis factor, and that isa new idea in the business of bulb as- sessment and one I plan to inelude in my research, Why not, may I suggest, define an overall power reduction factor (Ry + ARw] Re + Rw that would only ignore changes in the propeller open-water efficiency, relative-rotative efficiency, and hull thrust dedue- tion with or without the bulb? Thave only one other comment, a question: | What is the ™ actual difference in the “Aspects of hull design’ section, be- tween an “additive bulb” and an “implicit bulb"? (The comments in the “Bulb forms and parameters” section don't seem to help much in this regard.) James H. Robinson, Member |The views expresed hercin are the opinions ofthe discuser and not hecesarly thew of the Department of Defense or the Departient af the Navy Despite the wealth of available information on bulbous bows, ship designers are still somewhat ata loss when choosing optic ‘mum bow shapes, and in predicting performance. Dr, Kracht's paper is weleome for its practical approach and useful content, andl I appreciate this opportunity for brief comments, With respect to bulbs in general, I note the author's distinc tion between additive and implicit bulbs, and would suggest that many of the examples we see today must be additive—at least they look added-on. Would the author indicate whether hie believes one or the other enjoys any inherent advantage in performance? The additive type has an advantage of being casily adapted to a model test program in which several dif- ferent bulb inserts (including @ no-bulb bow) can be fitted to the same basic forebody, tested, and compared. After selecting a large protruding bulb as the best of several tested, I sometimes wonder whether a sill better solution exists, ‘And I would suggest that it may well involve use of a nonpro- trading smaller bulb on a model whose waterline length isin- creased by the amount of bulb protrusion previously found desirable. One might ask whether our apparent fixation on teaterline length rather than wetted length is leading uso less than optimum solutions. Let me put it another way: Given a maximum wetted length, does it really make sense to move the traditional forward perpendicular location aft and accept an increase in block coefficient, shortening of entrance, increase of waterline entrance angle, increase of displacement-length ratio, and increase of speed-length ratio? ‘The author discusses briefly the influence of bulbs on wake and thrust deduction, and quotes references. showing trends—which I believe deal mainly withthe high-block ships. In any event, many bulbs have been selected on the basis of resistance tests alone, and I doubt that propulsion test eom- parisons would have changed the selection, Mr. Kracht's dieusion ofthe various components of ball resistances very informative. My impression of his {reatmettof wave bres phenomena eat reas matly to high-block ships in ballast, where bulbs can ameliorate the condition. 1 would be interested in his comment on the wwave-breaking situation with fine-lined ships at light draft, where the bulb selected for optimum results under des conditions is the cause of an increased wave-breaking resis: tance ‘Turning now to the “Design charts” subsection, {have dif- ficulty evaluating the data, and would be wary of jumping to wrong conclusions. For example, Figs. 17 and 20 indicate that ‘one should avoid bulbs having 9 percent transverse arca and 17 percent width ratios. Yet Figs. 24 and 25 indicate no avoidance of those values, I concur in the author's statement to the effect that ships with low wavemaking resistance do not need bulbs as much as da ships with high wavermaking resis- tance, and that may explain why some bulbs appear very R00d-~that is, the no-bulb configuration is poor. [think the value ofthe paper would be enhanced ifthe au- thor would include, with his closure, data for ships of other block coefficients—especially around 06 or less and 0.8 or more, References (6] and [38), which apparently contain this infor- mation, are in German and not readily available. Finally, let me add a strong endorsement of the author's statement regarding use of the design charts, in which he ac- knowledges that actual power requirements can be found only from model tests. Theory isa great help, but we stil get sur- prises when we test. 212 Design of Bulbous Bows.T.Inul Visitor, and T. Takahel, Member ‘The statistical data on the bulbous bow are provided for ships of relatively small block coefficient where the “wavemaking” plays an important role in designing the bulbs. However, high-efficiency bulb cannot be achieved by the statistical ap. proach based pon force measurements such a resistance and propulsion tests, as one ofthe diseussers pointed out in 1963 Itis important to find the relationship between (a) ship geom- etry and (b) ship waves before connecting them to (e) wave resistance, ‘The “half-body concept” especially —that is the treatment of the forebody apart from the afterbody and the extraction and analysis of bow waves—is indispensable. For instance, Figs. 8 and 9, which show the interfezence of bow and stern waves are misleading in the evaluation ofthe optimal bow bulb volume. ‘Wavemaking is sensitive to hull geometry. The differential sectional area and waterline curves are decisive influences on the phase and amplitude of bow and stern waves; the preblem lies, rather, in the configuration of the main hull prior to the design of the bulb. It is regrettable that the author's funda- mental concept on these points is not elearly shown in the paper. In the design charts of Figs. 15-20, the residual power re duction coefficient is given asa function of six bulb parameters that supposedly may be chosen independently, but they are tightly correlated. For this reason, by taking the parameters for their maximum reduction effect only, the designer may not generally obtain a concrete bulb configuration Another defect of the charts is that displacement condition isnot designated. The optimum bulb configuration, particu larly for moderate- and low-speed ships, varies with the dis placement condition. ‘This fact was depicted early in 1966.5 ‘The author admits that there isthe necessity of a special cor rection ofthe chats for the beam /draft ratio and yeta geneval correction formula has not been obtained The geometrical relations between the bulb parameters are alo constrained for getting a concrete bulb configuration. Figures 23-26 are presented supposedly to show their con. strained conditions, but the data exhibit quite a large setter, Rearrangement of these data with respect to a specific Cp and displacement condition would yield plainer and more infor- mative design figures This further work would make th design process more straightforward J. J. Muntjewert, Member, and J, Holtrop,’ Visitor The author has provided a very valuable survey of the many aspects to be considered in the design of bulbous bows and he should be congratulated on his suecess in delineating. purely, graphical method for the design of a bulbous bow and estima tion of its effects on power requirements Although the graphical approach may have the advantage of yielding to the researcher a clearer picture of the physical Phenomena involved, the enormous amount of design chaets tobe handled is cumbersome for the project eniginteer and the present paper can not be used by bim without access to refer- fences |} and (38| Taking into account the fact that the basic data are scarce and Lis umber of variables large, a more appropiate way toes tablish the functional relationships, in our opinion, might therefore have been the careful use of nonlinear multiple te "The Cniversity of Tokyo, Tokyo, Japan, * Inui.“ Wave-Making Resistance of Ships.” TRANS SNAME, Vo 70,1962 " Gouch, RB. and Moss, J 1. “Application of Lange Protruding Daas Ships of High Black Coefficent. Tass SNAME. Val “Netherlands Ship Model Basin, Wageningen. The Netherlands Design of Bulbous Bows gression analysis with a restricted number of variables. ‘The results of such calculations eould have more easily been incor. Porated in a design computer program for practical application in preliminary ship design work This latter approach has been followed by the Netherlands Ship Model Basin* (NSMB), and itis interesting to compare the NSMB data with those of Fig. 1 of Dr. Kracht’s paper From, Fig. 14 it can be deduced that for Models Nos, Sand 13 in the low-speed region negative ACpca-values can be expected This would involve an increase of the residuary resistance component at low Froude numbers by fitting the bulb From spection ofthe bulb parameters it appears that the coefficients zp ate very high, and it can be assumed that the location of the volumetric center of the bulb in the vicinity ofthe surface will yield flow separation or local wave breaking or both Calculations by the statistical method developed at NSMB. in which this additional pressure resistance component of a bul bous bow that protrudes the water surface is incorporated, showed curves of the same character and equal order of mag nitude as those in Fig. 14. From the design graphs presented, Figs, 15-20, however, it snot clear how the vertical distribution of the volume of the bulb influences the power reduction fac- tors, Moreover, the oscillating character of mest of the curves in these figures suggests that a phenomenon as indicated in the foregoing has been associated with the oer general bulb pax rameters as wel Hence, we emphasize that in establishing the functional re- lationship between the power reduction factors and the bulb Parameters, indirect incidental coreclations. should be avoided. On the theoretical foundation of the paper, we wish further tomake the following remarks: 1, De. Kracht’s statement that it i not quite clear whether the bulb affects the viscous residual resistance Rvp is probably not correct, since Steele” clearly demonstrated, irom local skin friction measurements on a liner model with and without bul. bbous bow, that a bull improves the flow around the hull and thereby reduces the frictional component of resistance, oF in Dr. Kracht’s split-up of components, the residuary viseous ‘component. 2.” The use of Fy based on Lpr instead of on length of en- trance Le, seems to bea step backwards from the work by Baba 24) and Sharma [26| in the case of fll ships with along parallel tnidbody, So, for the block 0.70 ships with probably a 10 percent parallel midbody or higher as taken for the examples inthe paper, we should lke to know whether the use of entrance Jength was tried out and, ifs, what was the result of the anal. Finally, we should like to mention that we appreciate the author's warning that his diagrams can be used only to assist in preliminary design work and we fully endorse his statement that they (and other calculation methods} do not substitute for the model test, because the actual power requirement for a project can indeed be determined accurately by experiment only David W. Byers, Member [The views expresed herein are the opinions ofthe discuser and nat necessarily those ofthe Department of Defense or the Deportanen st the Nays | Speaking asa naval architect concerned with hull form de- sign of US naval ships. welcome Dr. Kracht's paper as a major *Tolgop, J. and Mennen, GJ Meth 1 Steele, BLN. and Pearce, GB, “Experimental Determination of tHe Distribution of Skin Feition «iia Model of a fligh Speed Liner Trans. RINA, 1965, ‘A Statistical Power prediction International Shiphuiling Progress, Vol, 25, No. 29), Oct 213,(2) ust ©"! No Bulb 010 om 018 Froude Number, Fp, Fig. 27 Hull i 030 om 02 028 030 om 026 030 Froude Number, Fr, Fig. 28 contribution tothe collection of design aids available for use in preliminary design. The paper provides not only a method for designing bulbous bows but also a means for predicting their fect on powering performance, based on actual model test results. Modern protruding bulbous hows have proved so ef- fective in improving the resistance characteristics of naval guna in recent years hat they are atively considered for other classes of naval ships. Dr. Kracht’s paper will help to make ths job easier Two points which the author makes are worth keeping in smind when initially considering a bullous bow, as one recent design at the Naval Ship Engineering Center demonstrated. ‘These are that (i) the predicted powering advantages ofa bulb ‘must still be confirmed by model tests and (ii)—here I quote from Dr. Kracht’s paper-~"in general, a hydrodynamically 0d main hull with low waveraking does not need a bulbous ow in any case.” Toillustrate, the Navy recently completed series of model test at the David W. Taylor Naval Ship Re-~ search and Development Center involving to alternate hulls and seven alternative bulb forms for a new ship design, This ship was of fine form, with « block coefficient of 0.57 and a Froude number of 0.26 at the design sustained speed. Figures a4 Design of Bulbous Bows Hull 27 and 2% depict the results, inthe form of effective horsepower ratios of hull with bulb to hall without bulb On one hull, designated Hull A in Fig. 27, only one bulb, identified as Bulb F_ proved advantageous in the speed range of interest. This bulb was designed for optimum performance at a Froude number of 0.20 using the wave-cut technique a: uded to by Dr. Kracht in his paper as reference |26|._Itis significant that the design Froude number for the bulb is lower than the sustained-speed Froude number. This reflects a tradeoff in favor of fuel economy throughout the speed range rather than a minimum horsepower requirement at sustained speed. ‘On the second hull, however, Hull B in Fig. 28, none of the bulbs, including a diferent wave-cut bulb specifically designed for this hull. identified as Bulb G, were found to be beneficial Further, the Hull B effective horsepower without bulb was superior to that of Hull A with Bulb F. So, in this case at least, the test results confirm the author's concerns for model test validation and recognition of the fact ‘at not all hulls benefit from bulbs. Again, Ithank Dr. Kracht for an interesting and valuable paper, wereHarrison T, Loeser, Member | wish to comment on extending the work on bulbs. Well over 10 yearsago, Inui (see footnote 5 of Inui/Takahei discus- sion) showed that the flow into the bow of a ship and the flow from the stern were analogous and that a stern bulb would also offer reductions in waveraking resistance. When I was a naval architect for the Quincy Shipyard of General Dynamics in 1967, [had some model tests run at the MIT. Towing Tank in which we tested a model which hada bulb at the stern as well as the bow. The results showed that, at certain speeds, the wavemaking resistance became very low, similar to the results in the Inui ape ut mention. This work was rept othe Maritime Administration in 1968._It was not possible to pursue the work further at the time. but I would commend this subject to ine terested researchers asa field which can bear valuable fruit, Author's Closure ‘The author thanks the discussers for their contsibutions, th compliments, and their constructive criticism, Fis T would ke o respond io some general question raised by some discussers “In explaining the difference between an additive and an {implicit bulb, Fig, 29 will be helpful. The design ofan impliit bulb is connected with a change of the sectional area curve of the bulbless form over a wide range whereas the prismatic coefficient Cp is kept constant. In this case the bulb effect consists of two pars, the first due to changing the sectional area ccurve by smoothing the shoulder and the second due to the bulb body itself. The additive bulb isa real added bulb body. The sectional area curve of the bulbless hulls kept constant whereas the prismatic coefficient changes. Its effect isa pure bulb ef feet ‘The design charts mentioned in reference [38] cover a range of block coefficients of 0.56 < Cis < 0.82 in steps of 0.02. They will be available in January 1979, The author is of the opinion that the handling of the charts is no more cum bersome than that of other resistance or power diagrams. The design charts (Figs. 17-20) indicate indeed unfavorable bulb parameter ranges which are Fy dependent and should be avoided, The humps and hollows are caused by the interfer cence effects between hull and bulb. ‘Theoretical ealeulations in which an independent variation of the different bulb pa rameters is possible verify the oscillating tendency of the bulls effects (see Fig. 7) as functions of the position (represented bs the three linear bulb parameters) and the moment of a doublet {ceptesented by the volumetric parameter). Figures 17-20 reflect the dynamic behavior ofa bulb, and are the real design guidelines, whereas Figs. 24-26 show only the geometric de pendence on the different bulh parameters of the ship-bulb forms used in the research work. ‘These figures should be used only for rough estimates of a bulb if the power consumption is of no interest. They are in need of improvement, for example ina manner proposed by Dr. Yim in his own paper. Dr. Yims paper has been studied by the author, but unfor. tunately has not been included in the list of references. The points of view of Dr. Yim's paper and the present author's paper are different. Dr. Yim’ssimple design method is based on the theory of wavemaking. According to this method the designer obtains an optimal bulb radius fr a given sectional area curve but not the power reduction, which must be calculated or es timated from model experiments. From the prestit design charts the designer obtains the power reduction fora selected bulb, which isnot necessarily an optimal bulb, In the author s opinion, one point of Dr. Yim's contribution is very important—the distinction between doublet and source Design of B implicit bulb 2 Ales, Cow? Cag - ACp +ACp sectional crea curve is changed adsitive bulb * 2 eA AS G pu 6 +ACp > Coy sectional area curve remains unchanged Fig. 29 types of bulbs. tis well known that fora ul farm as well as for all profiles, the configuration of the entrance part—say the first 15 percent ofthe body length—is decisive i cetermining itshydrodynamic eect. ‘Therefore it snot recommended that «a bulb body be produced from prefabricated parts such as tubes and spherical sections. Regarding wave resistance. the author agrees with Dr. Yim that the waterlines of a bulb body should be ovoidal for ships with low waterline entrance angles and nearly spherical with large angles. The inteeduction of an additional parameter related to the waterlin a ‘quantitative influence on power reduction was tv complicated in this research work, Such finer points were not recognizable in the resultsof the unsystematic model experiments used here they remain to be clarified by theoretical ealeltions The author thanks Dr. ¥im for the detection of the error in Fig. 21. The correct formula reads AChw = 10~ Caw with! CR ssn Dr. Baba’s contribution is very instructive and his paper men. tioned in reference {24} i practical aid in fullform design agree fully with his three points related to these forms. But it was not the subject of ae present paper to find out rules for main hull design, especially for afterboxly forms The resistance problem i very difficult, expecta the in- fluence of the different ship hull parton the different resistance components, and in this case the correet choice of a charac- teristic length. But the designer in practice wants design guidelines which are easy to use. Therefore only one unique characteristic length has been introduced and aver the whole Cr range. In the author's opinion, neither a form factor nor the scale effect is important in the given definition of the specific bull effect. julbous Bows, 215resteicted length Fig. 90 ‘The overall power reduction factor proposed by Prof. Ward was used in the paper quoted as reference [6], For reasons rmentioned in the present paper this factor vields unfavorable boul effects fr ships with long parallel middle body due tothe high viscous resistance component. Therefore the influence of a bulb may be underrated. The new design charts are re lated tothe residual power only and are more realistic. Mr. Robinson mentions the old question of whether a pro- truding bulbous bow or a longer ship lengthened by the pro- truding length of the bulb has lower resistance. Here the statement of the theory of wave resistance is very clear. The 95 a6joe 04 ” Wake fraction of model 8 of Fig S without ond with on additive Bulb 80° Fig. 91 216 ‘optimization procedure for a ship with minimum wave resis: tance and a restricted length yields waterlines as shown in Fig. 30..‘The length of the Cw is the shortest one; that is the ship with lowest wave resistance isa bulbous ship. Mr. Robinson is right in that there is no difference whether the bulb selection is based on propulsion or resistance tests. But in practice itis better to base the selection on resistance tests because the pro- pel istobe adapted tthe wake ikl which sinflenced by ‘The influence of a bulb on wake or thrust deduction is onk mentioned inthe present paper andthe author hopes that Prof. Ward's rescarch program will bring more insight to this problem ‘The bulb effect depends on speed, size, form, and location of the bulb body. As shown in Figs. 8 and 9, an optimal bulb ‘with an optimal effect exists for each speed, or each ship-bulb form has optimal properties at only one speed. In other words, depending on Fx, the resistance of a ship-bulb form isat frst higher than that of the bulbles ship, and then ata critical speed this relation changes and the bulb effect becomes positive, in- creases to an optimal value and then deereases monotonously to zet0 as Fy increases to infinity Indeed the resistance of a bulb body itself is caused by both ‘wavemaking and wave-breaking, the percentages depending con the wetted part ofthe bulb body. Therefore, inthe case of fine ships as well, wave-breaking occurs atthe bulb at low speed, if iLemerges so that its most forward point lie in the waterline In this case the blunt bulb body behaves like a fullship. St high speed this unfavorable behavior vanishes if the bulb is fully wetted “There is no doubt that wavemaking and wave-breaking are very sensitive to hull geometry and the author agrees with the statements of Prof, Inui and Dr. Takahe' thatthe configuration of the main hull is much more important than the bulb design But what is one to do witha bad hull forin matching the ship- ‘owner's requirements? Due to different and often contra- dictory requirements, the shipbuilder might not design the tnderwater bul form withlowes wavemaking Inall model basins itis well known that to find out the best hull one needs three additional model variations, and forthe optimal hull form, 30, while time and money allow one or two. Therefore bul bous bow is often the best alternative means to reducing the power consumption of a ship which looks like a box. As mentioned in the paper, the author is aware of the danger ‘of independent variation of the different bulb parameters in order to derive the charts He does not recommend use of the charts in the design of optimal bulbs by taking the parameters in accordance with their maximum reduction effect only The author thanks Messrs, Muntjewerf and Holtrop for their critical remarks. The use of a regression analysis is certainly possible and the results could be incorporated in a computer programm. But for a regeession analysis the number ofthe dif- ferent cases must be large enough. Ifthe number is too small, the danger exists that no parameter is of importance. “The influence of a bulb on viscous resistance, on the boundary layer, and on the wake field isa separate research program and way not the subject of the paper. "Relating to the wake fie, it has been observed that the bulb widens the nominal wake distribution in the propeller plane as shown in Fig. 31. But the author isnot abe to explain this effect because, due tothe lower pressure loss of bulbous ships, the experimental result must be ‘opposite. It may be that an extension of Hoekstra's™ calcula- tion procedure up to the propeller plane would bring light to this problem. ‘The author is aware of the step backwards due to using Ler 7 Flooksra, M,“Boundaty-Layer Flow Pasta Bulbous Ship-Baw a Vanishing Froude Number.” Proceedings, International S}mpestum ‘on Ship Viscous Resistance, SSFA, Geteborg, Sweden, 1975, Design of Bulbous Bowsinstead of Le for full ships. For reasons mentioned by Dr. Baba, Lpp is better for slender ships and Lx for full ships But ‘sso different lengths in power estimation appeared to the au- thor to be too much of a complication in the procedure ‘The author gives special thanks to Mr. Byers for his comment and for the two figures, which express more than is possible ta explain by words. For better explanation of the test results shown it would be informative to know something more about the bulb sizes. It may be possible that Bulbs A to E of Hull A are oo voluminous forthe deste desig speed. "The benficel effects of these large bulbs are remarkable at the higher Fy required or, vice versa forthe required Fy the bulbs must be smaller. Concerning Prof. Couch's question on the reduction of vi Design of Bulbous Bows cous resistance, the author refers to similar questions of other discussers which have been answered eatlier. Relating to Mr. Guarino's question, it may be stated that the application of a bulb to tugs and fishing boats is a special problem because these ships operate at high Froude numbers In these cases the wavemaking resistance is dominant and a suitable or optimal bulb would be too large (see Fig. 8 or Yim's paper) for practical se, But for reducing pitching motion and as space for acoustic sounding gear, a sinall bulbous bow may be recommended. Such a small bulb would not influence the resistance of the ship in an unfavorable manner Finally, the author would like to thank the Society for its interest in his work and for the opportunity of presenting his paper. 27