Professional Documents
Culture Documents
Small CraftPowerPredictions
Small CraftPowerPredictions
discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.net/publication/285819636
CITATIONS READS
29 282
2 authors, including:
Donald Blount
Donald L. Blount and Associates, Inc.
13 PUBLICATIONS 147 CITATIONS
SEE PROFILE
Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects:
Influence of planing hull bow shape on response to operating at high speed in irregular head sea
waves View project
All content following this page was uploaded by Donald Blount on 27 July 2016.
A valid performance prediction technique for small craft is an invaluable tool not only for the naval archi-
tect, but also for the operators and builders. This presentation describes the methodology for making
speed-power predictions for hard-chine craft of the types found in the offshore. military. and recreational
applications. The distinct advantage of this method is that existing technical data have been organized into
a logical approach. and areas of limited data have been overcome by the presentation of engineering fac-
tors based on model tests and full-scale trials of specific hull forms. This speed-power prediction method
accounts for hull proportions, loading, appendage configuration. propeller characteristics (including cavita-
tion). and resistance augmentation due to rough water.
MARINE TECHNOLOGY
Fig. 1 Effect of chine beam
on resistance prediction
,I I I I
If
I I I I
JANUARY 1976
portion o f the hull as the location o f the effective deadrise the mixing o f dimensionless coefficientst o minimize the effort
angle. required to develop an improvement in prediction in the
Like the beam, the effective deadrise angle varies as speed hump-speed range.
increases from zero. T h e maximum chine beam, however, was T h e primary goal which led to the development o f equation
identified as the representative value for best prediction at ( 1 )was to improve hump-speed resistance prediction for hard-
high speeds. T h e "effective" deadrise angle was arbitrarily chine craft. Any unfamiliar method is normally received with
taken as that angle at mid-chine length, as this location ap- some skepticism (and rightfully so) until individual confi-
proached the practical aftmost high-speed longitudinal center dence is obtained by trying or testing the method on known
o f pressure. designs. T o initiate interest in the proposed method, Fig. 5 is
Nonconstant afterbody deadrise (warp or twist) has been offered to show a comparison o f model test data [not used for
considered b y some to result in a higher resistance when com- the development o f equation (I)] and the modified prediction
pared with a constant-deadrise hull. This concept may not be method reported herein. T h e speed-resistance prediction is re-
adequately supported by experimental data when compari- spectable and slightly conservative. Note that the selection o f
sons with constant and warped afterbody hulls are made for model data used to develop the M factor favored relatively
the case where both have equal deadrise angles at the center heavy craft ( A ~ / v in ~ /the
~ range o f 6.0 to 6.5) and the com-
o f prsssure. For this case there is little difference in relative parison in Fig. 5 improves as the displacement approaches
hull resistance, but there is some difference in dynamic trim. normal commercial and military loading. T h e simplified Sav-
Thus, warping is considered t o be a designer's tool to control itsky prediction is also shown on that figure (computed using
dynamic trim in the same fashion that bottom plate exten- the effectivebeam and deadrise as defined in this report).
sions are built into craft and bent down to change dynamic This modifying factor is not a panacea, for the unknowns
trim i f desired after builder's trials. can h u n t anyone attempting performance predictions. T h e
T h c establishment o f the "effective" beam as the maximum known limitations for application should be judiciously fol-
chine beam, and the "effective" deadrise as the deadrise lowed. These limitations interact with those previously re-
angle at mid-chine length, allows the development o f an "en- ported by Savitsky and actually extend the usefulness to lower
gineering" factor that can be used to modify the existing Sav- speeds. T h e limitations for application o f this prediction
itsky prediction method. T h e modifying factor reported here method that alter those reported in reference 151 are:
was established in a rather simple manner. Resistance predic-
tions were made for a number o f hull designs for which model
test data existed. For each o f these conditions, the ratio o f
model test data to predicted resistance was computed and an-
alyzed for sensitivity to hull form and loading parameters.
Like many designers who have confidently used the Sav-
itsky prediction method for hull resistance predictions, it was
no surprise to the authors to find that the model and predict- Resistance prediction for appendages
ed results were essentially equivalent at planing speeds. As For hard-chine craft the detail design o f appendages may
mentioned previously, however, the hump-speed resistance well result in significant performance differencesbetween two
was underpredicted, resulting in a correction ratio generally apparently equivalent craft. Thus, this subject needs the at-
greater than one. T h e collective results o f obtaining these data tention that has been reported by Hadler [I], which describes
for various hull forms have been reduced to an analytical form the calculation o f drag for skegs, propeller shaft, strut boss,
through a curve fitting proccss. T h e resulting expression is
rudders, struts, struts palms, and appendage interference
drag..These equations, in part, are repeated in Appendix 2 for
convenience.
In addition t o these appendages, other items such as seawa-
ter strainers and depth spunder tmnsducers-which extend be-
yond the hull should be taken into account when determining
appendage drag. Hoerner [ll] notes that drag coefficients in
This expression was not developed with a theoretical model as
the range o f 0.07 to 1.20 should be used based on frontal area
a guide, and one should not expect to rationalize equation ( 1 )
and degree o f fairing. A value o f Coo = 0.65 is suggested for
with hydrodynamic logic.
appendages o f this type extending more than 20 percent o f the
T h e M factor, from equation ( I ) ,was established so that it
turbulent boundary-layer thickness from hull. This is based
would be a multiplying factor to the resistance predicted by
on full-scale trials conducted on craft with and without pro-
the simplified Savitsky method. (NOTE: T h e Savitsky equa-
tions are givcn in Appendix l for convenience.) Figure 3 repre- truding strainers. Numerically this would account for 90 shp
for each square foot o f frontal area o f strainers on a 20-knot
senting equation ( 1 ) and Fig. 4 for Fc-speed relationship will
craft operating with 0.5 propulsive coefficient.
reduce the effort required t o apply this modifying factor dur-
Data reported recently [12, 131 offer the best experimental
ing manual computations.
information for rudder drag in free stream and in the propel-
Purists may take exception to the mixing o f several dimen-
ler slip stream for a range o f craft speeds approaching 40
sionless coefficientsystems, that is, Fc and C, as speed coef-
knots. These references give results for rudders having airfoil,
ficients:
parabolic, flat plate, and wedge sections. W i t h the availability
o f these data, proper allowance of strainers, and the data re-
ported by Hadler, a very detailed appendage drag allowance
can be made for the final design o f any hard-chine craft.
While these appendage drag calculations are laborious, they
are not difficult and are essential when considering the condi-
This.mixing resulted from practical rather than technical rea- tions for which thc final propeller is selected. These detail ap-
sons. Retaining the existing Savitsky prediction method pendage drag calculations, however, are not completely justi-
(which uses C,) was a guiding philosophy, and the majority o f fied for preliminary design studies where various craft sizes
model test data available to the authors (used Fc) suggested and arrangements are being considered. For such preliminary
MARINE TECHNOLOGY
Ag = expanded area of propeller blades KT = thrust coefficient u = velocity of boat (fps)
(ft2) . --- T n2D'
square of resultant velocity of
~ 0 . 7 ~='
.:Bps
OPC = overall propulsive coefficient = sec)
= 1.2817 X for 59 OF salt water
\ ehp~~/~hp
C A = load coefficient P = propeller pitch (ft) X = mean wetted length-beam ratio
o . ~= appendage drag factor
P / D = pitch ratio
PA = atmospheric pressure (Ib/ft2) =
D = propeller diameter (ft) 2116 (Ib/ft2) for 14.7 psi
Dh = skeg drag (Ib)
qo = propeller open-water efficiency
PH= static water pressure (Ib/ft2) =
Do = drag of seawater strainers (lb) pgh
Dp = drag of strut palm (Ib) PC= vapor pressure of water (Ib/ft2)
D H= drag of nonvented rudder (Ib) 7 0 = propulsive coefficient
D, = drag of nonvented struts (!b) Q =.propeller torque (lb-ft)
DsH = drag of inclined shaft or strut bar- - shp (5252)
rel (15) N
d = diameter of shaft or strut barrel OH = hull efficiency
R.4 = added resistance in waves (0 for OR = relative rotative efficiency
(ft)
calm water) (Ib) P = volume of displacement (ft3)
e = 2.718?8
R ~ p p= appendage resistance (Ib)
EAR = expanded area ratio = AE/Ao RHH= bare hull resistance (Ib)
ehp = total effective horsepower (hp) Re = Reynolds number
- -RT V RT = total resistance (Ib) = + 4 = displacement (long tons) = T/
325.9 RAPP+ RA 35
ehp,,,, = effective horsepower, bare hull rpm = propeller rotational speed = N 6 = boundary-layer thickness (ft)
shp = shaft horsepower (hp) ACA = correlation allowance
-- . 2xQ"J = CP AD = interference drag (Ib)
33,000 00 a = cavitation number based on boat
fr = volume Froude number velocity
S = transverse projected area of rud-
der or strut (ft2)
g = acceleration due to gravity ( f t l So= fiontal projected area of seawater
sec2) inlets (ft2)
~0.711= cavitation number based on re-
= 32.15 ft/sec2 SK= transverse projected area of skeg
sultant water velocitv a t 0.7
(ft2)
H I i 3 = significant wave height (ft) radius of propellers
T = thrust of each propeller (Ib)
h = depth of propeller q below water
surface a t rest (ft) - R -
hp = strut palm thickness ( f t ) -
( 1 I ) lV,W
= total craft thrust (Ib)
TI.(,.I.,~~, T(. = thrust load coefficient
J,l = apparent advance coefficient = - - Rr
b/nD (1 - I )
JT = thrust advance coefficient t = strut rhickncss (ft)
7 = trim angle relative to mean but-
t/c = thickness to chord for rudders or
- c (1 - WT)
- struts tock (deg)
nU
Jy = torque advance coefficient -
V = velocity of boat (knots)
- u (1 \+'(,)
-
-
nU
c , = mean velocity over planing sur-
1 knot = 1.6378 fps
face (fps) \
JANUARY 1976
studies the following approximation for appendage drag factor This expression is slightly more conservative than the append-
has proven to be useful: age factor data reported in reference [2]. Numerical values for
1
L
equation (4) are given in the following table:
'?A = (4)
0.005 Fr' + 1.05 F A / / 1.01 1
1.5 2.0 1
2.5 3.01 /
3.5 4.0 1 1
4.5 / 5.0
This equation is based on a collection of data from twin-screw 'I~11~.948~0.94210.934l0.925i0.91310.90010.885/0.869l0.851/
hard-chine model tests made with and without appendages.
T h e magnitude of appendage resistance is then represented
1 I I I
5h do 4 Fig. 3 Variation of modifying factor with volume Froude number
and LCGIBpx
0 30
20 SPEED - K T
18 MARINE TECHNOLOGY
JANUARY 1976
functions that describe this interrelation and, unfortunately, when towed in the shaft line) to total shaft line thrust (when
this area of hard-chine technology has the least published in- propelled a t full-scale self-propulsion point). Thus, this modi-
forma tion. fied definition of (1 - t ) includes the effects of the classical
Hadler and Hubble 121 presented a very complete synthesis definition as well as that for the angle difference between the
of the planing craft propulsion problem for single, twin, and resistance and thrust vectors, the trimming effects, and result-
quadruple-screw configurations. This work reports computed ing hull resistance change, due to the propeller pressure field
values of (1 - W) and (1 - t ) for various shaft angles and acting on the hull, and similar trimming effects for propeller
speeds. Reference [16] reports experimental propulsive data lift resulting from operation in inclined flow.
obtained from full-scale trials of a twin-screw craft. In addi-
tion to these sources, other model and full-scale experimental Propeller characteristics
data for twin-screw craft have been collected and found to
consistently fall within reasonable bounds with some variation Since most working craft operate a t fairly high speed and
with speed. The range of shaft angles for these craft was from propeller loading, their propellers more than likely operate
10 deg to 16 deg measured from the buttocks and may be par- with some degree of cavitation. Cavitation adds a new dimen-
tially responsible for the bandwidth of data. These data col- sion to propeller characteristics. Operationally, this variable is
lected for twin-screw craft are reported in Fig. 6 with the most often reflected in a nonlinear speed-rpm relationship
mean values and observed variations. Limited propulsive data near top speed. I1 is generally detccted as a "gravel-passing-
for a single-screw small craft with a skeg have been reported in through-the-propeller" sound which may be heard in the la-
reference [17j. zarette above the propellers, and as erosion of propeller blade
One significant difference in definition used in this paper material.
must be clearly understood so that the thrust deduction factor Relative to the predictive process, cavitation must be ac-
(1 - t ) reported in Fig. 6 is properly applied. 1Jsing (1 - t ) in counted for as a change of propeller characteristics as reported
the classical sense, to describe a resistance augmentation in reference [18] and seen in Fig. 7. Systematic variations for
where the propeller pressure field changes hull flow patterns several types of propellers have been reported giving the ef-
for hard-chine craft performance prediction, requires iterative fects of cavitation on characteristics. Of these sources, Gawn-
computations to resolve equilibrium conditions of the various Burrill [IS] represents flat-face propeller sections similar to
forces and moments of the hull, appendage, and propulsion most commercial propellers made for small craft. A cornpari-
systems. The thrust deduction factor (1 - t ) reported here son of cavitation data for a four-bladed commercial propeller
was experimentally obtained and computed as the-ratio of ap- with the equivalent blade area for a three-bladcd Gawn-Bur-
pendaged resistance (horizontal component of resistance force rill propeller was made in reference (161. To.,quote this refer-
20 MARINE TECHNOLOGY
Fig. 7 Effect of cavitation on propeller characteristics
ence, "A comparison of these two s e t s of d a t a indicates t h a t for by t h e long-term savings i n preparing performance predic-
t h e Gawn-Burrill d a t a can be used t o make engineering esti- tions a n d optimizing propulsion systems.
mations of this t q p e of commercial propeller performance
when operating in a cavitating condition." T h i s , in fact, h a s Power prediction method
been consistent with other experiences where speed, power,
and r p m were measured on new craft, with the imporlunl ex- T h e niaterial presented u p t o this point have noted d a t a
ception that Cawn-Rurrill data arc v e q n optimistic where sources a n d logic leading to assumptions necessary to estab-
propeller sections were [hick and the leading edge was blunt lish t h e d a t a base for making a power prediction for craft.
with a poor-quality finish. Now is t h e time t o p u t it all together.
T h e Cawn-Burrill propeller characteristics a r e in t h e form I t is important t o keep one thought in mind when working
of KT.Ky,70, versus JT for r~ariouspitch ratios, blade area ra- with propellers. Propellers produce thrust. While engine
tios, a n d cavitation numbers (a). T h i s familiar format. how- power is converted t o t h r u s t horsepower by t h e propeller, se-
ever, can'be replaced with another which reduces t h e effort re- lecting a propeller t o nhsorb power a t a particular r p m a n d
quired t o optimize t h e propeller, select the reduction ratio, speed does not necessarily y ~ e l dthe maximum speed poten-
and make the speed-power-rpm predictions. T h i s format is tial of a'craft. T h e following procedure describes t h e method
t h a t of qo a n d JT versus K7.lCJT2for various P/D, E A R , a n d a. to effect a speed-power prediction, beginning with speed resis-
T h e entire Gawn-Burrill propeller series has been redone in tance and then establishing t h e thrust requirements.
this format and is presented in Appendix 4. T h e effort re- T h e development of K.r/JT' a s t h e common variable be-
quired t o recompute a n d redraw these curves is compensated tween hull t h r u s t requirements a n d t h e propeller characteris-
\
JANUARY 1976
tics has the distinct aduantage of eliminating propeller rpm
from the early prediction calculations. (1 4
For each propeller
is used to compute bare hull or overall propulsive coefficien
T u ( l - WT) as follows:
KT = - and JT=
pn2D4 nD ~ ~ P R H
Therefore OPC = -
shp
T h e difference between equations (10) and (15) for smooth^
water conditions (zero sea state) is mostly a result of the a p
For the hull pendage drag factor ( r l A ) with minor effect, due to the tender.-
cy of propeller efficiency to reduce with increasing thrus-
loading. This latter factor becomes very important as the pro
peller begins to cavitate. Thus, for moderate speeds and thrus:
Assuming that each propeller produces equal thrust for a mul- loading in smooth water
tiscrew craft, the thrust required by each propeller would be OPC
7)D -
t)A
The speed-power calculation procedure, applying the ap-
Equating the thrust requirements that each propeller must proach briefly discussed, is best demonstrated by following
prodrlce to that required to satisfy the hull resistance leads to through a data calculation form. The sample form with col-
umn-by-column calculation procedures as given in Table
will show, in practice, the interrelationships of hull resistance
propulsive data, and propeller characteristics. T h e numerics.
Once the number of propellers has been established for a craft example depicts a 50-ft craft operating in rough water, and I:
design, the only significant variable that can influence KT/JT' provided with the results presented in Fig. 8.
is the propeller diameter D. This relationship [equation (8)] is I t is important to note that engine characteristics play nc
the basis for the format change in propeller characteristics as part in the speed-power requirements (other than impact o
presented in .4ppendix 4. This format can bc used for any type machinery and fuel weight on total displacement) once hul
of propeller such as the Troost series, Newton-Rader scries, or loading, size, appendages, and propeller geometry are fixed
supercavitating CRP series. An engine and reduction ratio must he selected with charac
Once the thrust loading (Kr/JT2) has been established, the teristics compatible with predicted speed-power-propelle:
equilibrium condition between hull requirements and propel- rpm needs for fixed-pitch propellers since the propeller cor;
ler capability leads, in gencral, to a unique value of open-water trols the engine power output a t a given rpm u p to the masi
propeller efficiency (so) and advance coefficient ( J T ) for that mum power capability of the engine.
craft speed (and corresponding cavitation number a):
Applications
Any rational power prediction method has many uses be
yond that of just determining the speed-power-rpm relation
The appendaged propulsive coefficient is computed as ship for specific hull and propeller combinations. Ingenuou:
designers find analysis of full-scale craft performance relative
to predictive techniques often leads to improved performance
where Additional uses of this speed-power synthesis are discussed ir
the following paragraphs, and it is hoped that these will stim
ulate other applications.
T h e total shaft horsepower (shp) is computed from total ehp: Hull proportions for smooth-water minimum ehp
Whenever new requirements arise for craft operations it
may not be unusual for a new-size supply craft, crew boat, 01
by the following equation patrol craft to be developed around existing engines to sntisf?
these requirements. The best economic resolution of craft s i n
relative to requirements (such as payload, speed, range, sea-
shp = ehp
- keeping, maneuverability, and crew size) should lead to a de.
7)D
sign study to establish the technical and financial impact o~
The corresponding value of J r defines the propeller rpm each requirement.
( N )as In the context of design studies. the modified Savitsky pre-
diction method, discussed here under the topic of hull resis-
tance, offers a reasonable means to establish craft proportion:
for minimum bare-hull ehp in smooth water. As stated pre.
Most designers of small craft are familiar with bare-hull viously, displacement, chine beam, deadrise, and longitudina
propulsive coefficient or the term overall propulsive coeffi- center of gravity are the significant factors affecting speed
cient (OPC). The magnitude of 0.5 for OPC has been used for power when all forces are assumed to pass through the centel
years for preliminary power estimates. For current design of gravity. Considering minimum smooth-water ehpRH to bc
practice a value of OPC = 0.55 is readily attainable for twin- the desired goal, an iterative series of calculations was madc
screw craft. This is mentioned to emphasize that the propul- for a wide range of these significant hull factors for speed:
sive coefficient ( r l n ) ,in equation (101, and OPC are not the from 15 to 45 knots and for displacements from 10,000 tc
same. Bare-hull ehp 400,000 lb. Also, these calculations were made for 5g°F seana.
\
MARINE TECHNOLOG'
ter and zero correlation allowance. T h e iteration was effected propeller thrust. Equation (8) defines t h e thrust-speed-pro-
by making incremental increases in chine beam until mini- peller diameter relation a s required for equilibrium condi-
m u m ehplllc was obtaiiled while LCGIBpx, deadrise, displace- tions, a n d t h e speed-power calculation form should be fol-
ment, and speed were held constant. T h u s , both LCG a n d Bp,y lowed. First, assume three or more values for propeller diame-
increased a t a constant rate during t h e search for minimum ter, not exceeding geometric constraints, a n d assume three
ehp~m. values of cavitation numbers corresponding t o speeds above
T h i s optimization process is illustrated graphically in Fig. 9 a n d below t h e design speed. Perform t h e calculations from
for one condition of displacement, deadrise, a n d speed. T h e Column 1 t o Column 11 according t o t h e procedure described
results of these cnlculations a r e presented in Appendix 5 a s in T a b l e 1 for each combination of speed and diameter. Rec-
contours of LCGIRrs a n d displacement ( W ) relating mini- ord in Column 20 t h e propeller diameter used in each line of
m u m e h p r t Ha n d maximum chine beam (BP,y). Each figure of t h e calculations.
Appendix 5 is for a constant speed (assumed design speed) Based on previous experience a designer will usually have
and gives results for deadrise angles of 10 deg, 16 deg, a n d 22 a n estimate of t h e expanded area ratio of propellers o n similar
de:. craft. If so, t h e closest value of EAR available in t h e Gawn-
T h e s e conditions for minimum ehpnH in smooth water per- Burrill series (Appendix 4) should be used with the propeller
mit i n t e r ~ s t i n gspeculation if one does not introduce extrane- characteristics for the remaining calculations. (Some guides
ous thoughts. ( T h e authors are well aware t h a t o t h e r factors, for approximate values of EAR are a s follows: Three-bladed
such a s constructed weight, seakeeping, payload, cost, longitu- conventional stock propellers, use EAR = 0.51; three-
dinal and traverse stability, affect craft proportions. T h i s a p - bladed wide-blade stock propellers, use EAR = 0.665; four-
plication (Ilppendix 5 ) , however, is limited t o smooth-water bladed conventionaj stock propellers, use EAR = 0.665).
speed-po\ver.) Most designers know, a n d these d a t a show, t h a t For each line, use t h e values of K r l J r 2 ar,d a from Columns
"real" hard-chine craft a r e too heavy relative t o their size. 10 and 1 1 t o enter t h e appropriate propeller characteristics
Since t h e ratio of LCG forward of transom t o length overall curves in Appendix 4, a n d locate t h e maximum value of effi-
(LCGILOA) is usually in t h e range of 0.37 t o 0.40, it might ciency (70) f o r - t h a t t h r u s t loading. Record t h e maximum 70
take a zero payload condition for a craft t o operate a t a hydro- a n d corresponding ( J T ) a n d (PID) in Columns 12, 13, a n d 21
dynamic condition for minimum power. (Example: At 30 respectively. T h e calculation form is then completed through
knots, 3 = 16 deg, a n d a displacement of 100,000 lb, a n overall Column 18. Compute pitch a n d record in Colunln 23.
craft length of 90 t o 95 f t would result in e h p of~ 1000 ~ on a These d a t a are plotted a s shp, r p m , a n d pitch versus speed
craft with 16-ft chine beam.) T h u s , a 90 t o 95 f t craft could a t - for curves of constant propeller diameter. Construct a hori-
tain 30 knots with approximately 1820 s h p ( O P C = 0.55) a t a zontal line a t t h e installed power level t h a t intersects t h e pre-
displacement of 100,000 Ib. But, could a craft of these propor- dicted speed-power curves. c o n s t r u c t vertical lines passing
tions and power be constructed with adequate allowance for through each speed-power intersection point u p t o t h e speed-
fuel and useful payload? r p m and speed-pitch curves for t h e corresponding propeller
I t is interesting t o note t h a t for speeds of 30 knots a n d diameter. T h e s e intersecting points a r e t h e n plotted on a base
above, designers can relegate chine beam (BP,y) t o a position of propeller diameter, t h a t is, (i) speed versus diameter a t de-
of minor consideration relative to powering requirements (see sign power; (ii) rpm versus diameter a t predicted speed for de-
Appendix 5). T h u s Bpx can be selected for other important sign power; a n d (iii) pitch versus diameter a t predicted speed
reasons such a s seakeeping, internal volume, deck area, or for design power. T h i s process is illustrated in Fig. 11 with in-
transverse stability a s discussed in reference [[I]. tersection points identified in both graphs. T h e ratio of pro-
Many tradeoff relationships can be extracted from Appen- peller r p m t o engine r p m yields t h e desired reduction ratio.
dix 5. Figure LO shows the effect of design speed o n the sclcc- Slight adjustments in propeller pitch a r e usually required t o
tion of chine beam for minimurn ehpBHin smooth water. Like- match stock gear ratios. 4 numerical example of this propeller
wise. other tradeoff relationships, such a s deadrise effects o n selection procedure is presented in T a b l e 2 a n d Fig. 11.
ehprtti as shown in Fig. 10, may be extracted a s user needs While this procedure establishes t h e best propeller diame-
arise. ter and pitch for t h e assumed EAR, it does not establish t h a t
t h e blade area is adequate relative t o c;ivitation effects other
t h a n from a performance point of view. I m p o r t a n t factors af-
Selecting best propeller and reduction ratio fecting both t h e hull structural design in t h e vicinity of t h e
propeller a n d t h e blade cavitation damage must be consid-
T h e "best propeller" for a craft is t h a t which satisfies t h e
ered. Blade rate-induced hull pressures on t h e order of 4 to 5
craft thrust requirements within geometric, financial, a n d
psi can be generated by a badly cavitating propeller, a n d can
power limitations. If there were no design constraints, a n "op-
fatigue (crack) hull plating after short periods of operation.
timum propeller" could be designed for maximum efficiency.
Likewise, these blade cavities can be destructive t o t h e propel-
With this slight distinction of t.erminology, optimum propeller
ler, eroding blade material t o t h e point of requiring frequent
a n d hest propeller a r e not considered t o be equivalent a n d t h e
propeller replacement.
term "best propeller" will be used here.
T h e s e effects can be minimized by carefully selecting E.41:
T h e geometric constraints to be considered may well pre-
such t h a t TC ( a thrust loading coefficicncy related t o pressure)
clude the selection of a n operationally suitable propeller.
does not exceed the LO percent back cavitation relationship
T h u s , it is important t o establish t h e maximum propeller d i -
defined by Gawn-Burrill [18]. T h u s , if
mensions allowable for the shaft angle, tip clearance, a n d
draft limitations. Most craft have shaft angles in t h e range of
LO t o 16 deg measured relative t o buttocks, a n d propeller tip
clearance of 15 to '35 percent of diameter. Smallest shaft a n - (an approximation of t h e Gswn-Burrill 10 percent hack cavi-
gles a r e generally employed on craft with highest design tation criterion), one can be confident t h a t t h e propeller has
speeds, and tip clearances are controlled to a large extent by adequate blade area. r c a n d ao ;R t a k e i n t o account t h e resul-
propeller-induced vibration, which is often traced t o extensive t a n t of both rotational a n d axial velocities a n d ;ire computed
cavitation. a s follows:
T h c key to selecting a hest propeller t o satisfy t h e craft pro-
pulsion needs rests with equating required craft ihrusr with ( t e x t continued o n page 26)
\
JANUARY 1976
Table 1 Propeller selection and speed-power calculation procedure
MARINE TECHNOLOGY
Flg. 8 Predicted shp. rprn. and trim
versus speed for calculated
N / 5 /G I7 I0 I9 20 Z/ If
5r.i
JANUARY 1976
Fig. 10 Effect of design speed on Bpx and
minimum ehpaHvariation with deadrise
MARINE TECHNOLOGY
Fig. 11 Plot of calculation example for propeller selection
JANUARY 1976
(and maybe fuel rate) measured in deep water. Obtaining Acknowledgments
power measurements during trials, however, is invaluable for
propulsion system analysis, with thrust measurements being This work has been carried out as part of the Combatant
the most sought after but least often obtained data. Craft Improvement Program sponsored by the Naval Sea Sys-
A common problem experienced during trials is failure of tems Command. T h e authors would like to express their
the engine to reach rated rpm. The obvious solution is to re- the various members the for
duce the propeller pitch until the proper engine speed is a t - supporting this project.
tained and then accept the resultant speed. This is an example &7ithout the contributions of other authors, this material
of selecting a ~ r o p e l l e rto absorb power rather than attempt- could not have been Ure are indebted to each of the
ing to obtain best craft performance. authors whose material was referenced and who influenced
I t is very ~ o s s i b l efor the propeller to be too big in terms of this approach. Miss- E. N. Hubble and Mr. G. 0. Takahashi
t itch or diameter or both. Trying to isolate the cause, how- deserve special attention for their respective efforts of compu-
ever, could lead to a best resolution as to excessive hull resis- htion and drafting to produce the propeller curves in A ~
tance or reduced propulsion efficiency. Using the resistance dix 4. ~ l we wish
~ ~to thank
, M ~ ~ ~ .l waller
i for~ preparing
~
prediction methods or experimental data sources available, the manuscript.
the hull contribution can be established reasonably well. Trial
speed, rpm, and propeller e o m e t r y can lead to a representa- The preparation of this paper took a considerable amount
tive full-scale shp estimate as shown in the following table: of time from the normal family routine. We found the pa-
tience, understanding, and support of our families to be an es-
TRIAL
DATA sential element to bring this effort to fruition.
D - P/D- EAR- W- LCG -
References
1 Hadler, J. B., "The Prediction of Power Performance on Plan-
ing Craft," Trans. S N A M E , Vol. 74, 1966.
2 Hadler, J. B. and Hubbie, E. N., "Prediction of Power Perfor-
As-
sumed,
/ Compute
from
Prop.
charact-
Corn-
puted
mance of the Series 62 Planing Hull Forms," Trans. S N A I I ~ EVol.
1971.
3 Du Cane, P., High-speed Small Craft, John d e Graff, Inc.,
Tuckahoe, New York.
, 59,
data Fig. 6 J, eristics 4 Savitsky, D., Roper, J.. and Benen, L.. "Hydrodynamic Devel-
and opment of a High-speed Planing Hull for Rough K7ater," 9th Sympo-
.(~-WQ) 1 sium on Naval Hydrodynamics, Aug. 1972.
5 Savitsky, D., "Hydrodynamic Design of Planing Hulls," MA-
RINE TECIINOLOGY, Vo1. 1. No. 1. Oct. 1964.
An alternative method to determine shp for diesel engines is 6 Clement. E. P. and 13louni, D. L., "Resistance Tests of a Sys-
to measure fuel rate and obtain shp from engine characteris- tematic Series of Planing Hull Forms," Trans. S N A M E , Vol. 71,1963.
7 Hubble, E. N., "Resistance of Hard-Chine, Stepless Planing
tics. By computing the estimated OPC the designer can make Craft with Systematic Variation of Hull Form, Longitudinal Center of
comparisons with that value used for preliminary speed-power Gravity, and Loading." NSRDC Report 4307, .4pril 1974.
estimates. A low value of OPC implies low propeller efficiency 8 Holling, H. D. and Hubble, E. N., "Model Resistance Data of
or high appendage resistance. Detailed Ealcilations of a;- Series 6.5 Hull Forms Applicable t o Hydrofoils and Planing Craft,"
NSRDC Report 4121, May 1974.
Dendaze resistance can be made from the information summa- 9 Iiadler, J. B., Hubble. E. N., and Holling, H. D., "Resistance
rized in Appendix 2 to verify or eliminate the appendages Characteristics of a Systematic Series of Planing Hull Forms-Series
from consideration as the source of the propeller overloading. 65," SNAME, Chesapeake Section, May 1974.
Assuming Jq = JT, the foregoing calculations can be carried 10 Kapryan, W. J. and Boyd, G. M., .Jr., "Hydrodynamic I'ressure
Distributions Obtained During a Planing Investigation of Five Relat-
on to T C and U0.7R. If these con~putedvalues,esceed the KT ed l'rismatic Surfaces," NACA Technical Note 3477, Sept. 1956.
breakdown curve in Pig. 12, the full-scale propeller is operat- 11 I-Ioerner, S. F.,Fluid Dynamic Dray, published by the author.
ing at lower efficiency than technically attainable. Should low Midland Park, N. J., 1965.
propeller efficiency be the cause of engine overloading, the 12 Gregory, D. L. and Dobay, G. F., "The Performance of High-
Speed Rudders in a Cavitating Environment," SNAh,IE Spring . h,leet-
best solution is changing to a refined propeiler design rather ing, April 1973.
-
than just reducing pitch to absorb rated engine power a t prop- 13 Mathis, P. B. and Gregory, D. L., "Propeller Slipstream Perfor-
er rpm. mance of Four High-speed Rudders Under Cavitating Conditions,"
Power measurements during trials of newly designed craft NSRDC Report 4361, May 1974.
14 Fridsma. G.. "A Svstematic Studv Of T h e Rowh-fVater Per-
would be of great interest to builders and operators. This formance of Planing Boats," ~ a v i d s o n ~ ~ a h o r aR'kport
t o r ~ R-1275.
would ~ r o v i d ea rational basis for establishing technical Nov. 1969.
achievement and refinement of stock designs. w i t h these 15 Fridsnra, G., ".4 Systematic Study of the Rough-Water Perfor-
data, performance analysis (propulsion problcm solving) is re- mance of Planing Boats (Irregular Waves-Part II)," Dnvidson Labo-
ratory Report K-1495. M:mh 1971.
duced to a technical exercise rather than a speculative art. 16 Blount, D. L., Stuntz, G. R., Gregory, D. L.. and Frome. M. .I.,
"Correlation of Full-Scale Trials and Model Tests for a Small Planing
Boat," Trans. R I N A . 1968.
Concluding remarks 17 Blount, D. L.. "Resistance and Propulsion Characteristics of a
Round-Bottom Boat (Parent Form of T M B Series 63)," D T Y B Re.
We are in n period where data obtained in the past or data port 3000, March 1965.
spun off from other technology programs are being applied to 18 Gawn, R. W. L. and Burrill, I.. C., "Effect of Cavitation On the
craft design processes. Performance of a Series of 16-Inch Model Propellers." Trans. I N A .
This effort was directed toward organizing and applying Vol. 99. 1957.
reference material that exists for the smail-craft designer in
the area of performance prediction. Others, however, have and
will perceive different uses of these data. Ry exposing this ef- Discusser
fort for inspection, the true value will be established by tile di-
alogue t h a t follows. Eugene R. Miller
MARINE TECHNOLOGY
Fig. 12 General trend of Gawn-Burrill propeller series cavitalion phenomena
X COST
TI.')".
I 11.2
(25)
Computed from given data: Compute for Re:
C" = L
- GG Re =-urn ~RP.Y (26)
U
[
1
cp = - = 0.75 - (22)
Br>xA 5.21(C,)Z
+ 2.391
Compute for e h p e ~ :
Solve for CLo:
CL, = CL, - 0.0065 j3 CL,,"
JANUARY 1976
Appendix 2 Appendix 3
Appendage resistance A d d e d r e s i s t a n c e in w a v e s
Inclined cylinder, that is, shaft and strut barrel: This work was extracted in part directly from reference 1151
:
DSH = ldu2(1.1 sin3r + rCF)
with permission of the Davidson Laboratory. The following is
reproduced here so that the user of this prediction method
might have one complete reference source containing material
Skeg: to account for all items to be considered. It is essential that
reference [15] be consulted for comp!ete understanding and
P
DK = 5 (2sh-)um2c~ application of this method of accounting for added resistance
in waves.
Strut palms: Different notation was used for equivalent data descriptions
between this report and reference 1151. These differences are:
D p= 0.75 C D ~
~ h ():
p
SMALLCRAFT
where Reference [ 1 4 ] power prediction
(Fridsma) (Blount-Fox)
Cnp -- 0.65
and
;0.016Xp
d.
Nonvented rudders and struts:
D e s i g n Charts
The ultimate goal for this study is to enable designers and
Interference drag: those interested in planing craft to use the information gath-
ered herein in a practical and meaningful way. Working
charts, with appropriate correction factors, were constructed
so that the results could be immediately applicable to the pre-
diction of full-scale performance of planing hulls. Some details
Nonflush seawater strainers; of the effects of individual parameters can be gleaned from
the charts and equations; but this is discussed in the next sec-
Do = C Sou,,,'Coo tion in a mcre generalized way. In this section the reader will
2
be shown how to use these charts, and what corrections are
where applicable, as well as a number of worked examples.
T o enter the charts and determine a prediction for a given
CD, = 0:65
boat, seven quantities must be known; namely, displacement,
overall length, average beam, average deadrise, speed, smooth-
water running trim, and the significant wavc hcight of the ir-
Experimental rudder drag coefficients in a propeller slipstream regular sca. Since realistic boats do not normally have a con-
Geometric aspect ratio = 1.5 stant beam or deadrise, it is suggested that these quantities be
averaged over the aft 80 percent of the boat. I t is understood
K T / J T 2= 0.20 that the designer has recourse to smooth-watcr prediction
Propeller 0.55 D ahead of rudder stock methods [S] which will enable an estimate to be made for the
resistance, trim, and rise of the center of gravity as a function
of forward speed.
IRud er 1
section t/c 0-4.0 ! 0 = 2 . 0 10-1.5 [0=1.0
The nondimensional parameters are calculated next, such
as CA, Llb, V I d L , and H l , ~ l b .
In using the charts, the designer should be careful not to
make gross extrapolations. The charts are accurate within the
NACA
001 5
0.15 0.0015 1 0.0015 1 0.0015 0.0008 ranges of test data. A reasonable amount of extrapolation has
been built into thc charts beyond the limits of the test data,
and the results continue to be reliable. It is when parameters
go far beyond the test ranges that one must be careful. The
Parabolic 0.11 0.0417 0.0427 0.0433 0.0425 following guide should be helpful in establishing the limits of
(blunt the use of the charts.
base)
~ l a plate
f 0.04 0.0278 /
I
0.0325 0.0371 0.0433
I
'6-deg
wedge
/ /
0.11
I
0.0495 1
I
0.0495 1 0.0495 10.0487
I
Added resistance in waves (Figs.13 and 14). The chart in
.
Fig. 13 is entered with a given trim and deadrise. (RAW/
MARINE TECHNOLOGY
.. ..
,
_. .. .' ! . . .
., . ,
.
,.
, ,.. '
JANUARY 1976
:tj,
wb3),,, and ( V I d L ) * , , , are read off for the three sea states. Added resistance corrections
An interpolation for the correct sea state can be made imme-
diately, or the added resistance can be obtained as a function qua./
of wave height. For a given V / d L or a series of speeds the
ratio VIV*,,, is calculated, and R A W I R A ~ , ,is, obtained from IV/,/L
- E tion I
Fig. 14. The added resistance is found by multiplying the re-
sistance ratio of Fig. 14 by the RAW/wb3),,, obtained from
Fig. 13. The result, however, is true for a CA = 0.6 and
Llb = 5, and must be corrected by means of the following
formulas: ,
. .
..
i i (nRaA~Iwb~)charts
( R ~ ~ / w b ~ )= ~
X E ( C , Llb, V I d L , H,/3/b)
. .
. . . . .
. ... .
.
... , - - ._-_:-. _-ri
.,., . .. .
. - - i.
i:. .
--- ..;....,.-. -. * .- . .-2: 2.. - . -. Appendix 4 .. i
. .. .. . - .:.- .- .
. . .. .
I.
"
. . . .-- - ~.
'
.
. . 2 '
. *.'
. .
. , . . .,_
. _ , -
, , _ - ..
. .I
.. . . .I . .
-.
.! .....
.
- . _.?..L. "L
I :
+
..
. ...;.. . _ :
. . . . : . . Gawn-Burrill propeller characteristics, - . . '
Fig. 15
(Appendix 4 charts, Figs. 15-31, continue through page 40. Appendix 5 charts, Figs. 3 2 4 0 , begin on page 41.)
32 MARINE TECHNOLOGY
. . Fig. 16 :,-
... .., ,
<.
. . . . _.. .
- .
Kr/GZ .
Fig. 18
0d
07
0 b
7.
0.
I
04
03 2 0
-
<
.7
10
.6
0 0I 0 2 OI 0 4 05 0 6 0 0.1 02 03 0s
.-
O* 0 4 0 7
Xr/ 4'
Fig. 19 , .
\
JANUARY 1976 ' *.:
,-
Flg- 23 \
MARINE TECHNOLOGY
JANUARY 1976
\
MARINE TECHNOLOGY
Kr/.TZ
Fig. 28
JANUARY 1976 ,- t
MARINE TECHNOLOGY
Appendix 5 . . . .. .
JANUARY 1976 . .
MARINE TECHNOLOG
Fig. 35
MARINE TECHNOLOGY
JANUARY 1976 &'"