You are on page 1of 30

RESISTANCE, SINKAGE AND TRIM, WAVE PROFILE, AND NOMINAL WAKE TESTS

AND UNCERTAINTY ASSESSMENT FOR DTMB MODEL 5512

Joe Longo and Fred Stern


Iowa Institute of Hydraulic Research
The University of Iowa
Iowa City, IA 52242

ABSTRACT database for CFD validation, as part of an international


Results from towing-tank experiments for David collaborative project between Iowa Institute of Hydraulic
Taylor Model Basin model 5512 are presented for Research (IIHR), Istituto Nazionale per Studi ed
resistance, sinkage and trim, wave profile, and nominal Esperienze di Architettura Navale (INSEAN), and David
wake tests and uncertainty assessment. The resistance and Taylor Model Basin (DTMB) on EFD/CFD and
sinkage and trim data are for Froude numbers 0.05-0.45 uncertainty assessment for a combatant geometry. The
and free-model condition. The wave profiles and nominal combatant geometry is the 5.72 m, 1/24.8 scale DTMB
wake data are for Froude numbers 0.28 and 0.41 and model 5415 (5415). 5415 has been adopted by the
fixed-model condition (at the dynamic sinkage and trim International Towing Tank Conference (ITTC) as a
for each Fr). The test design, measurement systems, and recommended benchmark for CFD validation for
uncertainty assessment are described. The uncertainty resistance and propulsion (ITTC, 1996) and will be used
assessment methodology rigorously follows the AIAA accordingly at the upcoming Gothenburg 2000 CFD
Standard S-071-1995. The results are discussed with Workshop (Gothenburg, 2000). The Gothenburg 2000
regard to the data trends and uncertainties, including Fr CFD Workshop will compare RANS CFD methods and
effects. Future work is mentioned. The data contributes data for cargo/container, combatant, and tanker hull
to the surface-ship resistance and propulsion model-scale forms, including many conditions and physics: boundary
database for computational fluid dynamics validation, as layer and wake, stern flow, turbulence, Fr effects,
part of an international collaborative project between propeller-hull interaction, and full-scale simulations.
Iowa Institute of Hydraulic Research, Istituto Nazionale 5415 was conceived as a preliminary design for a
per Studi ed Esperienze di Architettura Navale, and David surface combatant ca. 1980 with a sonar dome bow and
Taylor Model Basin on experimental and computational transom stern. The IIHR studies are for DTMB model
fluid dynamics and uncertainty assessment for a 5512 (5512), which is a 3.048 m, 1/46.6 scale geosym of
combatant geometry. 5415 (Figure 1); the INSEAN studies (Avanzini et al,
1998; Olivieri and Penna, 1999) are for INSEAN model
1 Introduction 2340, which is an identical geosym of 5415; and the
There is a continuing need for additional model-scale DTMB studies (Ratcliffe, 1995) are for 5415. Table 1
data for computational fluid dynamics (CFD) code provides geometric parameters for model and full scale.
verification, validation/calibration, and accreditation for Between all three institutions many conditions and
realization of simulation based design, especially for physics are under investigation. The conditions include
modern hull forms. The task is awesome since many hull bare hull without (all) and with appendages and propulsor
forms, conditions, and physics are of interest and the (DTMB), fixed and free model (all), and model size
documentation, quality, and quantity of data must be (IIHR). The physics are comprehensive and include
sufficient, as discussed recently by Stern et al. (1998) in model size (IIHR), facility bias (all), Re effects (all),
their evaluation of the surface-ship resistance and boundary layer and wake (INSEAN), stern flow (all), Fr
propulsion model-scale database for validation of effects (all), bow flow (DTMB), transom flow (DTMB),
Reynolds-averaged Navier-Stokes (RANS) codes. wave breaking (all), and waves (IIHR). Overlapping tests
However, both rapid advancements in the development of for resistance, sinkage and trim, wave profile, and
experimental fluid dynamics (EFD) and collaboration nominal wake are included for cross validation, through
between institutes for test design, data procurement and comparisons of data and uncertainties, and evaluations of
analysis, documentation, shared resources, and Re effects and facility biases. Most of the studies should
determination of facility biases should be helpful. be completed by late 1999, including detailed
The goal of the present study is to contribute to the documentation and availability via the internet. The
surface-ship resistance and propulsion model-scale quality of data is very good (i.e., the data uncertainties are
relatively small in comparison to related studies) as was used for planning the data locations for the detailed
measured through rigorous application of the AIAA measurements. Table 2 summarizes the measurement
Standard (1995) for experimental uncertainty assessment conditions and locations.
methodology. The quantity of data is large mapping and The resistance test design and uncertainty assessment
dense, which is of relatively high density in comparison to also benefited from collaboration with the 22nd ITTC
related studies, and was determined based on previous Resistance Committee of which the second author is
studies and CFD. Stern et al. (1999) will provide a chairman. The Committee’s work includes
project overview and the results from the comparisons of recommendations to the 22nd ITTC for adoption of the
the overlapping tests and evaluations of Re effects and AIAA Standard (1995) for experimental uncertainty
facility biases. assessment methodology, including a guideline for
The present study provides the IIHR overlapping test towing-tank tests and an example application for a
results for the resistance, sinkage and trim, wave profile, towing-tank resistance test. The present resistance test is
and nominal wake tests and uncertainty assessment for included in the example along with contributions from
DTMB model 5512. The resistance and sinkage and trim most of the Committee. Also helpful was previous work
data are for Froude numbers (Fr) 0.05-0.45 and free- at DTMB done in collaboration with Professors Coleman
model condition. The wave profiles and nominal wake and G. Steele (MSU), concerning measurement
data are for Fr=0.28 and 0.41 and fixed-model condition uncertainty assessment of a ship-model resistance test
(at the dynamic sinkage and trim at each Fr). The test (Forgach, 1992).
design and measurement systems are described. The
results are discussed with regard to the data trends and 3 Measurement Systems and Test Procedures
uncertainties, including Fr effects. Future work is The tests were conducted in the IIHR towing tank,
mentioned. The uncertainty assessment procedures and which is 100 m long and 3.048 m wide and deep and
results are provided in Appendix B. equipped with a drive carriage for housing the controls
and personal computer (PC) and three trailers (1 north and
2 Test Design 2 south) for installation of instrumentation and models.
The most typical towing-tank tests were selected for The north trailer is used for the present experiments. The
the overlapping tests, i.e., resistance, sinkage and trim, carriage and trailer are cable driven by a 15-horsepower
wave profile, and nominal wake. Each institute followed motor and move across leveled rails. The carriage/trailer
their usual procedures; however, special consideration is capable of speeds up to 3 m/s. Side-wall beaches
was given to complementary CFD, CFD validation, and enable twelve-minute intervals between carriage runs.
integration of uncertainty assessment into all phases of the A Cartesian coordinate system is used with origin at
experimental process as recommended by the AIAA the intersection of the forward perpendicular (FP) and
Standard (1995). This was achieved through design waterplane. The (x, y, z) axes are directed
collaboration between institutes, including contributions downstream, transverse, and upward, respectively.
from Professors H. Coleman, University of Alabama Figure 2 provides a block diagram of the tests
Huntsville, and D. Whitfield, Mississippi State University indicating the individual measurement systems, data-
(MSU). It was decided to procure data for resistance and reduction equations and results, and propagation of errors.
sinkage and trim for range of Fr=0.05-0.45, whereas for
detailed wave profiles and pattern and flow field Model Geometry. 5512 was manufactured at
measurements for restricted Fr=0.28 (cruise speed) and DTMB using molded fiber-reinforced Plexiglas and
0.41 (flank speed). The corresponding Reynolds numbers equipped with appendages (brass shafts and struts and
(Re) for 5512 are Re=5.2x106 and 7.6x106, respectively. wooden rudders) and stainless-steel twin-screw
For the former tests, the usual model-free condition is propellers, although the present tests are for the bare-hull
used. For the latter tests, the model-fixed condition (at condition. Some modifications were made to 5512 at
the dynamic sinkage and trim at each Fr) is used to reduce IIHR: (1) the appendages were removed and the holes
data uncertainties and facilitate use of the data for CFD filled; (2) adjustments were made to minimize differences
validation. The authors followed similar procedures in from the design offsets, including straightening and
their previous studies for the Series 60 (S60) reforming (for centerplane symmetry) the sonar dome; (3)
cargo/container hull form (Toda et al., 1992; Longo et al., hard points were added for attachment to the trailer and
1993; Longo and Stern, 1996b); however, the model-fixed instrumentation; (4) aluminum deck rigging was added
condition tests were at the static sinkage and trim (i.e., for strengthening; (5) the hull was repainted using three
σ=τ=0.0). Complementary CFD using the MSU UNCLE colors and clear coat for resistance to long-term water-
(Beddhu et al., 1998) and IIHR CFDSHIP-IOWA immersion; (6) a painted grid (calm waterline and 37 x-
(Paterson et al., 1998; Wilson et al., 1998) RANS codes station lines) was added for ballasting and measuring the
wave profile; and (7) studs were attached to initiate The individual measurement system for n consists of
transition to turbulent flow. The studs are cylindrical with the speed circuit and carriage PC with 12 bit, 16 channel
1.6 mm height, 3.2 mm diameter, and 10.0 mm spacing AD card and post-processing software. The speed circuit
and located at x=0.05. The size and spacing of the studs consists of an optical encoder/sensor, a pulse counter, and
follows Toda et al. (1992). a 12 bit DA card enclosed in a small box attached to the
The purpose of the model geometry test is to procure northeast wheel of the drive carriage. The encoder is
data for the (x, y, z) coordinates and surface area S for the attached at the axis of the wheel, which is perforated
as-tested 5512 (normalized by L and L2, respectively, around its circumference with 8000 equally spaced and
where L is the design-offsets length between sized windows. As the wheel rotates, the pulse counter
perpendiculars). The measurement system consists of counts the number of windows that pass the sensor in the
templates, level table, right angle, plumb, and rulers and time interval ∆t. The individual measurement system for
feeler gauges. The templates were cut using a D simply consists of a precision vernier caliper. D is
computerized-numerical-cutting (CNC) machine from measured annually (D=0.318 m). ∆t is provided by
0.318 cm thick aluminum sheets according to the design manufacturer specifications (∆t=100 ms).
offsets. Thirty-one templates were made for various (y, z) The speed circuit is calibrated periodically in the
cross planes from the bow to the stern, whereas one IIHR electronics shop to determine its voltage-frequency
template was made for the bow region (x, z) center plane. relationship. A precision frequency generator and
The procedure for procuring (x, y, z) and S is as voltmeter are used. The frequency and voltage (V) ranges
follows. The model was inverted and mounted on the are 0-40960 Hz and 0-10 V. The largest frequency
level table. At each x measured from the FP, the corresponds to the maximum number of pulses that can be
templates were oriented relative to the model using a right counted in ten time bases and the resulting voltage output
angle and plumb. Data was acquired for estimates of (y, is 10 V, which is the upper limit of the AD/DA cards. The
z) by measuring high and low spots for both the port and voltage-frequency relationship is linear. A first-order
starboard sides of the model using rulers and feeler polynomial linear regression (i.e., the polynomial
gauges. The data was reduced by computing crossplane coefficients are not functions of the independent variable)
and global average values for the error in the offsets for curve fit is used to determine the slope/intercept, which
each coordinate and for S. are then used to convert voltage to frequency. The
repeatability of the calibration is monitored.
Carriage speed. The purpose of the carriage speed Data acquisition is done in three steps as shown in
test is to procure data for model speed Uc or in Figure 3: (1) pulse counts for time interval ∆t are
nondimensional form Fr=Uc/(gL)0.5 [where g is the recorded in the speed circuit; (2) DA conversion in the
gravitational constant computed from the local latitude as speed circuit; (3) AD conversion in carriage PC. Data
9.8031 m/s2 (Halliday and Resnick, 1981)]. The rates and number of samples are usually dictated by the
measurement system consists of individual measurement test being performed. Typically, data is sampled at 750-
systems for pulse count n, wheel diameter D, and 12 bit 800 Hz for 10-12 seconds (i.e., about 1500-2000 samples
digital-to-analog (DA) and analog-to-digital (AD) card depending on the number of channels used). Data is
time base ∆t. Figure 3 provides a data-stream diagram. acquired both when initially at-rest and subsequently
The data-reduction equation is while the carriage/model is moving at steady speed/flow.
The at-rest data establishes a zero-reference value that is
nπD
Uc = (1 + U B ) (1) subtracted from the average value for the carriage/model
8000∆t at steady speed/flow. D is measured at several locations
where UB is a calibration for blockage of the tank walls. around the circumference of the northeast carriage wheel.
UB is calculated as recommended by the ITTC (1978) Data reduction and/or calibration are done three
using Tamura’s formula times: (1) AD card output is statistically analyzed (i.e.,
average, standard deviation, minimums, maximums, and
34
A  L m  number of outliers, which are identified and deleted using
U B = 0.67 m   1 − Frh2 (2) Chauvenet’s criterion); (2) the average value is converted
 AT  B T 
to frequency using the frequency-voltage calibration and
In equation (2), Am is the midship sectional area of the multiplication by ∆t; and (3) Uc is calculated using
model, AT is the sectional area of the tank, Lm is the equation (1).
length of the model, BT is the tank width, and Frh is the Fr
based on the tank depth h. Resistance. The purpose of the resistance test is to
procure data for the temperature-corrected (T=15°C)
resistance coefficient CT15C. The measurement system
consists of a four-channel (two force, two moment), 20 weight tray with standard weights is suspended plumb to
kg, strain-gage load cell, signal conditioner, and carriage the load cell and the output recorded. Starting and ending
PC with 12 bit, 16 channel AD card. Figure 4 provides a from zero mass, weights of known increments are placed
data-stream diagram. The data reduction equations are on the tray in ascending then descending order. Data is
C T15C = C R + C F15C (1 + k )
sampled at 500 Hz for 4 seconds for each weight and
(3)
statistically analyzed. The two data average values for
each weight increment are averaged, except for the
C R = C T − C F (1 + k ) (4) maximum weight for which there is only one value. The
voltage-mass relationship is linear. A first-order
Fx g polynomial linear regression curve fit is used to determine
CT = (5) the slope/intercept, which are then used to convert voltage
0.5ρ(T ) U c2S
to mass. The repeatability of the calibration between data
where CR is the residual resistance coefficient, CT15C and procurement cycles is monitored.
CF are frictional resistance coefficients at T=15°C and Data acquisition is done in three steps as shown in
measured tank temperature, respectively, k is the form Figure 4: (1) voltage from the load cell is sampled; (2)
factor, Fx is the force in the axial direction calibrated for the signal is amplified and filtered (3 Hz low-pass filter)
model inclination (resistance), ρ is the towing-tank water in the signal conditioner; and (3) AD conversion in
density, Uc is from equation (1), and S is the design- carriage PC. Data is sampled at 800 Hz using 4 channels
offsets wetted surface area for the static condition. CT15C for 10 seconds (i.e., 2000 samples per channel). At-rest
(or at the average test temperature) is the preferred result data is used for the zero-reference value.
as it calibrates all the data to the same temperature. The Data reduction and/or calibration are done three
temperature 15°C is recommended by the ITTC (1978) as times: (1) AD card output is statistically analyzed; (2) the
a standard to enable comparisons of tests (for similar average value is converted to kg using the voltage-mass
models) at different facilities. CF and k are calculated calibration with linear interpolation; and (3) CT and CR
also as recommended by the ITTC (1978) using, are calculated using equations (3) and (4).
respectively, the flat-plate friction line (ITTC, 1957)
Sinkage and Trim. The purpose of the sinkage and
0.075 trim test is to procure data for sinkage σ and trim
CF = (6)
(log10 Re− 2.0 )2 τ coefficients. The measurement system consists of two
resistive-type, linear motion potentiometers, data-transfer
and Prohaska’s method (ITTC, 1966). The use of and box, 5-volt power supply, and carriage PC with 12 bit, 16
results from Prohaska’s method for 5512 are provided by channel AD card. Figure 5 provides a data-stream
Appendix A. diagram. The data-reduction equations are
The dependency of the density ρ and kinematic
viscosity ν on temperature T was accounted for by 2 ∆FP + ∆AP
σ= (7)
measurement of the towing-tank water temperature T and Fr 2 2L
linearly interpolating fresh-water values for ρ and ν from
the American Society of Mechanical Engineers (ASME) 2 ∆AP − ∆FP
steam tables (Chapman, 1984). The individual τ= (8)
Fr 2 L
measurement system for T was daily thermometer
readings at mid draft of the model. The range of values of where ∆FP and ∆AP are the measured displacements of
(T, ρ, ν) was (21.5-25.6°C, 997.97-996.93 kg/m3, 0.97- the FP and after perpendicular (AP). The potentiometers
0.88x106 m2/s). are rigidly fixed to the trailer and plumb to the model
Data were sampled for both resistance and force in above the FP and AP. The cores extend to their midpoints
the transverse direction (side force) Fy. The latter was not and make contact with the model hard points.
retained, but used for confirmation of model alignment. An end-to-end calibration is used for the sinkage and
The forces are measured in mass (gm) and converted to N trim test before and after data procurement. The
by multiplication by g. The tow point is at the potentiometers, data-transfer box, 5-volt power supply,
intersection of the centerplane (y=0.0), midship plane and carriage PC AD card are statically calibrated to
(x=0.5), and waterplane (z=0.0641). determine its voltage-displacement relationship. The
An end-to-end calibration is used for the resistance potentiometer is placed plumb to a PC-controlled,
test before and after data procurement. The load cell, vertical-axis traversing system, which displaces the cores
signal conditioner, and carriage PC AD card are statically up and down in specified increments and the output
calibrated to determine its voltage-mass relationship. A recorded. Starting and ending from zero elevation, the
traverse is moved up to 90 mm and down in increments of The measurement system consists of a starboard-side,
10 mm. Data is sampled at 500 Hz for 4 seconds for each boundary-layer, five-hole pitot probe, port-side static pitot
displacement and statistically analyzed. The two data probe (center and five side holes), five differential
average values for each displacement increment are pressure transducers and signal conditioners, and carriage
averaged, except for the maximum displacement for PC with 12 bit, 16 channel AD card. Figure 6 provides a
which there is only one value. The voltage-displacement data-stream diagram. The data-reduction equations are
relationship is linear. A first-order polynomial linear
regression curve fit is used to determine the
(
u ( y, z ) = VX cos α p cos φ p + VY sin φ p +
slope/intercept, which are then used to convert voltage to VZ sin α p cos φ p U c ) (10)
displacement. The repeatability of the calibration
between data procurement cycles is monitored. (
v( y, z) = − VX cos α p sin φ p + VY cos φ p −
Data acquisition is done in two steps as shown in
Figure 5: (1) voltage from potentiometers is sampled; and
VZ sin α p sin φ p U c ) (11)
(2) AD conversion in carriage PC. Data is sampled at 800
Hz using 4 channels for 10 seconds (i.e., 2000 samples
(
w ( y, z) = VZ cos α p − VX sin α p U c ) (12)
per channel). At-rest data is used for the zero-reference
2(p − p o ) H′c − (PV′ 2 2g )
value. C p ( y, z ) = = (13)
Data reduction and/or calibration are done three ρU c2 U c2 2g
times: (1) AD card output is statistically analyzed; (2) the where
average value is converted to mm using the voltage-
VX = V ′ cos φ cos α (14)
displacement calibration with linear interpolation; and (3)
σ and τ are calculated using equations (7) and (8).
VY = V ′ sin φ (15)
Wave Profile. The purpose of the wave profile test
VZ = V ′ cos φ sin α (16)
is to procure data for the wave profile ζ on the hull. The
measurement system consists of adhesive markers,
2gM ′
painted grid on the hull, flexible ruler, level table, and V′ = (17)
height gauge. The data-reduction equation is M

z M ′ = 4H ′c − H ′t − H ′b − H ′p − H ′s (18)
ζ= (9)
L
H ′t − H ′b
where z is the measured wave height. K′ = (19)
(4H ′c − H ′t − H ′b − H ′p − H ′s )
The data acquisition is done in 5 steps: (1) at each x-
station, adhesive markers are fixed to the side of the hull H ′s − H ′p
with the marker tip at the top of the wave profile [in L′ = (20)
(4H ′c − H ′t − H ′b − H ′p − H ′s )
regions where the contact line is turbulent (mid and after
body), the tip is placed such that it is in/out of the water (αp, φp) are the five-hole pitot probe preset pitch and yaw
50% of the run]; (2) after all x-stations are marked, the angles, respectively, (α, φ) are the measured pitch and
model is removed from the tank and a flexible ruler is yaw angles of the velocity vector in five-hole pitot probe
used to measure the wave profile distance along the girth coordinates, respectively, and H´j=c,t,b,p,s are the measured
of the model from the calm waterline; (3) steps (1) and (2) pressures for the center, top, bottom, port, and starboard
are repeated to obtain three sets of data; (4) the model was holes. The side holes of the static pitot probe are used for
inverted and mounted on the level table and the average the reference pressure. The primed variables designate
values from step (3) were remarked along the girth of the the local measured values, whereas, unprimed variables
model from the calm waterline; and (4) the height gauge (K, L, M, P) designate variables from a wind-tunnel
is used to measure the wave height z. calibration of the five-hole pitot probe described below.
Data-reduction is done two times: (1) average values (α, φ) are obtained from ( K ′, L′ ) and their corresponding
are calculated for the 3 sets of data; and (2) wave height z five-hole pitot probe calibration coefficients (K, L).
is normalized by L. (α, φ) are then used to obtain (M, P) from their
corresponding five-hole pitot probe calibration
Nominal Wake. The purpose of the nominal wake coefficients.
test is to procure data for mean velocity u, v, w and Three calibrations are used for the nominal wake
pressure coefficient Cp in the propeller plane (x=0.9346). test. First, prior to the towing-tank tests, the five-hole
pitot probe was calibrated in the 1.07 m test section of an
open-throat wind tunnel. The five-hole pitot probe was 4 Results
mounted on a dual turntable stand with its tip at the center The results are discussed with regard to the data
of the test section and incrementally (∆α=∆φ=5°) rotated trends and uncertainties, including Fr effects. The
in pitch (±25°) and yaw (±25°). A static pitot probe (the discussions are in order of geometry, resistance, sinkage
same as used for the towing-tank tests) was mounted on and trim, wave profile, and nominal wake tests.
the centerplane of the tunnel below the five-hole pitot The (bias) errors in the (y, z) geometry of 5512 are
probe and used for the reference dynamic pressure shown in Figures 7a,b. The largest errors are at the port
H d = U 2t 2g (where Ut is the tunnel speed). Five-hole and starboard bow and dome regions. Localized spots in
pitot probe calibration coefficients (i.e., K, L, M/Hd, these regions can deviate from the design offsets by as
and P = H c H d ) are computed at each location. The much as 0.8-1.6 mm. For x>0.20, errors in (y, z) are very
five-hole pitot probe calibration coefficients were similar small, i.e., <0.8 mm. The global error in the (y, z)
to those obtained previously for this same probe using a represents an average deviation over all (x, y, z)
similar procedure by Longo and Stern (1996b), although coordinates and is estimated to be ±0.8 mm.
some differences were evident by as much as 8%. The total CT and residuary CR resistance coefficients
Second, the differential pressure transducers and signal vs. Fr are shown in Figures 8a,b. CT mildly decreases for
conditioners, and carriage PC AD card are end-to-end 0.05<Fr<0.125, is fairly constant (CT=0.0045) for
statically calibrated to determine its voltage-pressure 0.125<Fr<0.275, mildly increases for 0.275<Fr<0.35, and
relationship before and after data procurement. A water rapidly increases for Fr>0.35. CR is roughly piecewise
tank is moved up (4-8 cm) and down (4-8 cm) in equal linear with increasing slope for 0.05<Fr<0.275,
increments relative to a stationary water tank using a PC- 0.275<Fr<0.35, and Fr>0.35. In both cases, the
controlled, vertical-axis traversing system and the output appearance of humps and hollows is limited. The UCT
recorded. Data is sampled at 500 Hz for 4 seconds for values (1.46, 0.63, 0.60)% decrease for increasing for
each elevation and statistically analyzed. The two data Fr=(0.1, 0.28, 0.41), respectively. For Fr=(0.1, 0.28,
average values for each elevation increment are averaged, 0.41), BCT>PCT.
except for the maximum and minimum elevations for The sinkage σ and trim τ vs. Fr are shown in Figures
which there is only one value. The voltage-pressure 9a,b. σ is roughly linear for 0.1<Fr<0.41. For Fr<0.1, the
relationship is linear. A first-order polynomial linear data is widely scattered, whereas for Fr>0.41, σ mildly
regression curve fit is used to determine the decreases. τ is roughly piecewise linear with mild
slope/intercept, which are then used to convert voltage to negative slope for 0.1<Fr<0.275 and increasing positive
displacement. The repeatability of the calibration slope for 0.275<Fr<0.35 and Fr>0.35. For Fr<0.1, the
between data procurement cycles is monitored. Third, a data is widely scattered. For Fr>0.25, the τ and CR trends
calibration is made for the five-hole pitot probe preset are similar. 5512 sinkage increases for increasing Fr,
angles, by taking initial data at each x-station with the whereas she has mild bow down trim for Fr<.25 vs. strong
probe located at sufficient (y, z) that uniform-flow bow up trim for Fr>0.25. The Uσ values (8.72, 1.40,
conditions prevail. (αp, φp) are used to correct the mean 0.61)% and Uτ values (10.22, 1.83, 1.76)% decrease for
velocity as shown in equations (10-12). increasing Fr=(0.1, 0.28, 0.41), respectively. For Fr=0.1,
Data acquisition is done in three steps as shown in Bσ,τ>Pσ,τ, whereas for Fr=(0.28, 0.41), Pσ,τ>Bσ,τ.
Figure 5: (1) voltage from the differential pressure The wave profiles ζ for Fr=(0.28, 0.41) are shown in
transducers are sampled; (2) the signal is amplified and Figures 10 and 11, respectively, including side and
filtered (1 Hz low-pass filter) in the signal conditioner; transom views and photos of the bow/near-wake flow.
and (3) AD conversion in carriage PC. Data is sampled at For Fr=0.28, ζ exhibits a large bow wave, relatively small
750 Hz using 6 channels for 12 seconds (i.e., 1500 shoulder waves, (i.e., ζ~0.0) for 0.125<x<0.875, and
samples per channel). At-rest data is used for the zero- mildly increases at the stern. The transom profile is
reference value. roughly constant (ζ~0.0). The photo of the bow flow
Data reduction and/or calibration are done five times: shows the nature of the spilling breaker bow wave. For
(1) AD card output is statistically analyzed; (2) the Fr=0.41, ζ exhibits a very large bow wave, somewhat
average value is converted to mm H2O using the voltage- larger shoulder waves for x=(0.3, 0.85), trough near/aft of
pressure calibration with linear interpolation; (3) (α, φ, M, midships, and increases at the stern. The transom profile
P) are obtained from the five-hole pitot probe calibration is roughly constant (ζ=-0.005). The photo of the near-
coefficients with cubic spline interpolation; (4) correction wake flow shows the nature of the transom rooster tail.
for five-hole pitot probe preset angle from calibration for The Uζ values (3.43, 2.00)% decrease for increasing
(αp, φp); and (5) u, v, w, and Cp are calculated using Fr=(0.28, 0.41), respectively. For both Fr, Bζ>Pζ.
equations (10)-(15) and (18)-(20). The nominal wake u, v, w, and Cp for Fr=(0.28, 0.41)
are shown in Figure 12, including crossplane vectors vw,
total head H contours, axial velocity contours u, pressure model-scale database for CFD validation. The purpose of
coefficient Cp contours, and axial vorticity ωx contours. the overlapping tests is cross validation, through
Vw is upward and towards the centerplane. The upward comparisons of data and uncertainties, and evaluations of
flow increases for Fr=0.41. H and u have a similar Re effects and facility biases. Stern et al. (1999) will
pattern, i.e., relatively thin boundary layer near the provide a project overview and the results from the
centerplane and waterplane, but with a large thick comparisons of the overlapping tests and evaluations of
boundary layer region (bulge) near midgirth and towards Re effects and facility biases.
the centerplane. The bulge is likely due to the interaction The present results also provide additional credibility
of the sonar dome wake vortices and hull boundary layer. for previous IIHR work for S60 as well as for future work
The boundary layer thickness decreases for Fr=0.41. The for 5512. In previous work for S60, as already
Cp contours are roughly parallel to the hull and free mentioned, similar test procedures were used. However,
surface, except for some distortion in the bulge region. the uncertainty assessment was based on limited bias error
The shape of the contours near the free surface may be analysis and simple repeat tests in lieu of rigorous
influenced by the interaction between the five-hole pitot application of experimental uncertainty assessment
probe tip and free surface. Cp is reduced for Fr=0.41. methodologies. Thus, the present uncertainty estimates
The ωx contours are positive and parallel to the hull supersede those given previously based on nonstandard
surface in the region close to the hull, whereas in the procedures and should be used for CFD validation both
bulge region, negative inner (close to the centerplane) and when using the present data and previous S60 data. The
positive outer (close to the free surface) circular vorticies present resistance test results are included in the 22nd
(i.e., closed contour lines) are evident. The vorticity ITTC Resistance Committee’s example of the application
magnitudes are somewhat larger for Fr=0.41. The of the AIAA Standard (1995) for a towing-tank resistance
uncertainties for u, v, w, Cp fall in the general ranges: (u) test.
1.0-2.3%; (v) 3.3-5.5%; (w) 2.5-5.2%; (Cp) 9.5-29.1% Future work will focus on procurement of CFD
and are Fr independent. For all variables, the bias limits validation data for unsteady RANS simulations and
contribute 91.5-99.95% to the total uncertainty. explication of flow physics for 5512 in regular head
waves. A companion paper at this conference, provides a
5 Concluding Remarks description of the IIHR towing-tank wavemaker (Longo
Results from towing-tank experiments for 5512 were et al., 1999).
presented for resistance, sinkage and trim, wave profile,
and nominal wake tests and uncertainty assessment. The Acknowledgements
resistance and sinkage and trim data are for Fr=0.05-0.45 This research was sponsored by the Office of Naval
and free-model condition. The wave profiles and nominal Research under Grant N00014-96-1-0018 administered by
wake data are for Fr=(0.28, 0.41) and fixed-model Dr. E. P. Rood.
condition (at the dynamic sinkage and trim for each Fr).
The test design, measurement systems, and uncertainty References
assessment were described. The uncertainty assessment AIAA Standard, 1995, “Assessment of Wind Tunnel Data
methodology rigorously follows the AIAA Standard Uncertainty,” AIAA S-071-1995, Washington D.C.
(1995), including integration of uncertainty assessment Avanzini, G., Benedetti, L., and Penna, R., 1998,
into all phases of the experimental process. The results "Experimental Evaluation of Ship Resistance for
were discussed with regard to the data trends and RANS Code Validation", ISOPE ’98, Montreal,
uncertainties, including Fr effects. Canada.
Admittedly the present data itself is not a large Beddhu, M., Jiang, M.Y., Whitfield, D.L., Taylor, L.K.,
contribution, since most of it was already available for and Arabshahi, A., 1998, “CFD Validation of the
5415 from DTMB research and preliminary design Free Surface Flow Around DTMB Model 5415,”
reports (Ratcliffe, 1995). The contribution is in rigorous Proceedings Third Osaka Colloquium on Advanced
application of the AIAA Standard (1995) for experimental CFD Applications to Ship Flow and Hull Form
uncertainty assessment for the most typical towing-tank Design, Osaka, Japan, pp. 373-393.
tests chosen as overlapping tests as part of an Chapman, A., 1984, “Heat Transfer,” Macmillan
international collaboration between IIHR, INSEAN, and Publishing Company, New York.
DTMB on EFD/CFD and uncertainty assessment for Coleman, H. and Steele, G., (1995), “Engineering
combatant geometry 5415 using models 5512, 2340, and Application of Experimental Uncertainty Analysis,”
5415, respectively. Between all three institutions many AIAA Journal, Vol. 33, No. 10, pp. 1888-1896.
conditions and physics are under investigation. The data
contributes to the surface-ship resistance and propulsion
Forgach, K., 1992, “Measurement Uncertainty Analysis Propulsion Model-Scale Database for CFD
of a Ship Model Resistance Test,” unpublished Validation,” 1st Symposium on Marine Applications
DTMB manuscript. of Computational Fluid Dynamics, McLean, VA.
Gothenburg, 2000, “Gothenburg 2000 Workshop on CFD Stern, F., Longo, J., Penna, R., Avanzini, G., Benedetti,
for Ship Hydrodynamics,” www.iihr.uiowa.edu/ L., Olivieri, A., T. Ratcliffe, and H. Coleman, 1999,
gothenburg2000/ “International Collaboration on Steady-Flow Tests
Halliday, D. and Resnick, R., 1981, Fundamentals of and Uncertainty Assessment for Ship Models DTMB
Physics, John Wiley and Sons, New York. 5415 and 5512 and INSEAN 2340,” IIHR Rept. (in
ITTC, 1957, Proceedings of the 8th International Towing preparation).
Tank Conference, Madrid, Spain. Toda, Y., Stern, F., and Longo, J., 1992, “Mean-Flow
ITTC, 1966, “A Simple Method for the Evaluation of the Measurements in the Boundary Layer and Wake and
Form Factor and the Low Speed Wave Resistance,” Wave Field of a Series 60 CB=0.60 Ship Model - Part
Proceedings of the 11th International Towing Tank 1: Froude Numbers 0.16 and 0.316,” Journal of Ship
Conference, Resistance Session, Tokyo, Japan, pp. Research, Vol. 36, No. 4, pp. 360-377.
65-66. Wilson, R., Paterson, E., and Stern, F., 1998, "Unsteady
ITTC, 1978, Proceedings of the 15th International Towing RANS CFD Method for Naval Combatant in Waves,"
Tank Conference, Report of Performance Committee, Proceedings of the 22nd ONR Symposium on Naval
the Hague, the Netherlands, pp. 364-366. Hydrodynamics, Washington, DC.
ITTC, 1996, Proceedings of the 21st International Towing
Tank Conference, Report of the Resistance and Flow
Committee, Trondheim, Norway, pp. 439-514.
ITTC, 1999, Proceedings of the 22nd International Towing
Tank Conference, Report of the Resistance
Committee, (in preparation).
Longo, J. and Stern, F., 1996a, “ Technical Note:
Evaluation of Surface-Ship Resistance and
Propulsion Model-Scale Database for CFD
Validation,” Journal of Ship Research, Vol. 40, No.
2, June 1996, pp. 112-116.
Longo, J. and F. Stern, 1996b, “Yaw effects on model-
scale ship flows,” Proceedings of the 21st ONR
Symposium on Naval Hydrodynamics, Trondheim,
Norway, pp. 312-327.
Longo, J., Stern, F., and Toda, Y., 1993, “Mean-Flow
Measurements in the Boundary Layer and Wake and
Wave Field of a Series 60 CB=0.60 Ship Model - Part
2: Scale Effects on Near-Field Wave Patterns and
Comparisons with Inviscid Theory,” Journal of Ship
Research, Vol. 37, No. 1, pp. 16-24.
Longo, J., Rhee, S.-H., Kuhl, D., Metcalf, B., Rose, R.,
and Stern, F., 1999, “IIHR Towing-Tank
Wavemaker,” Proceedings 25th ATTC, Iowa City,
Iowa.
Olivieri, A., and Penna, R., 1999, "Uncertainty
Assessment in Wave Elevation Measurements",
ISOPE ’99, Brest, France, (to be presented).
Paterson, E.G., Wilson, R.V., and Stern, F., 1998,
“Verification/Validation of a Steady Flow CFD
RANS Code for a Naval Combatant,” 1st Symposium
on Marine Applications of Computational Fluid
Dynamics, McLean, VA.
Ratcliffe, T., 1995, http://www50.dt.navy.mil/5415/.
Stern, F., Longo, J., Maksoud, M., and Suzuki, T., 1998,
“Evaluation of Surface-Ship Resistance and
Table 1. Geometric parameters for DTMB models 5415 and 5512, INSEAN
model 2340, and full scale.

Parameter Equation Units 5415/2340 5512 Full scale


Linear scale ratio λ - - 24.8316 46.6000 1
Length L - m 5.7200 3.0480 142.0368
Beam B - m 0.7242 0.3859 17.9832
Draft T - m 0.4020 0.2142 9.9822
Wetted surface area S - m2 4.8273 1.3707 2976.6532
Waterplane area AWP - m2 3.2228 0.9151 1987.2269
Displacement S - m3 0.8426 0.1275 12901.632
Block coefficient CB = ∇ (LBT ) - 0.5060 0.5060 0.5060
Waterplane coefficient C WP = A WP (LB ) - 0.7780 0.7780 0.7780
Wetted surface coefficient CS = S ∇L - 2.1989 2.1989 2.1989
Beam/length ratio B/L - 1:7.9 1:7.9 1:7.9
Draft/length ratio T/L - 1:14.2 1:14.2 1:14.2
Draft/beam ratio T/B - 1:1.8 1:1.8 1:1.8

-: not applicable; italic: values for present model

Table 2. Measurement conditions and locations.


Measurement Conditions and locations
Geometry (Port and starboard) x=FP, 0.02, 0.04, 0.06, 0.08, 0.1, 0.12,
0.14, 0.16, 0.18, 0.2, 0.24, 0.28, 0.32, 0.36, 0.4, 0.44, 0.48, 0.52,
0.56, 0.6, 0.64, 0.68, 0.72, 0.76, 0.8, 0.84, 0.88, 0.92, 0.96, AP
y=0 (sonar dome)

Resistance Fr=0.05-0.45, ∆Fr=0.01


Th2oave=25.1 °C
105 carrige runs

Sinkage and trim Fr=0.05-0.45, ∆Fr=0.01


Th2oave =21.5 °C
113 carrige runs

Wave profile Fr=0.28 and 0.41


Th2oave =18.5°C
(Starboard) x=0, 0.02, 0.03, 0.04, 0.06, 0.07, 0.08, 0.1, 0.12,
0.14, 0.16, 0.18, 0.2, 0.24, 0.28, 0.32, 0.36, 0.4, 0.44, 0.48, 0.52,
0.56, 0.6, 0.64, 0.68, 0.72, 0.76, 0.8, 0.82, 0.84, 0.86, 0.88, 0.90,
0.92, 0.94, 0.96, 0.98, 0.9969, 0.9987, 1.0008, 1.0018, 1.0023
Italic: on transom 85 carriage runs

Nominal wake Fr=0.28 and 0.41


Th2oave =12.7 °C
(Starboard) x=0.9346
0>y>0.01, ∆y=0.00025, 0.000625, 0.00125, 0.0025, 0.005,
0.0075, and 0.01
-z=0.01, 0.0125, 0.015, 0.0175, 0.02, 0.0225, 0.025, 0.0275,
0.03, 0.0325, 0.035, 0.0375, 0.04, 0.0425, 0.045, 0.0475, 0.05,
0.0525, 0.055, 0.0575, 0.06, 0.0625, 0.065, 0.0675, 0.07, 0.0725,
0.075, 0.0775, 0.08, 0.0825, 0.085, 0.0875, 0.09, 0.0925, 0.0950,
0.0975, 0.1
897 carriage runs
Figure 1. DTMB model 5512.

Elemental
BIAS (CALIBRATION DATA ACQUISITION DATA REDUCTION) AND PRECISION error sources

CARRIAGE RESIST- SINKAGE WAVE NOMINAL TEMP- Individual


GEOMETRY
SPEED ANCE AND TRIM PROFILE WAKE ERATURE measurement
systems

X1 X2 X3 X4 X5 X6 X7 Measurement of
B1, P1 B2, P2 B3, P3 B4, P4 B5, P5 B6, P6 B7, P7 individual variables

ri=ri(X1, X2, X3, X4, X5, X6, X7) Data-reduction


equations

s,t (u, v, w)/UC, r,n


(x, y, z)/L, S UC, Fr CT15C, CR z Experimental
Br, Pr Br, Pr Br, Pr Cp Br, Pr
Br, Pr Br, Pr results
Br, Pr

Figure 2. Block diagram of the tests showing elemental error sources, individual measurement systems,
measurement of individual variables, data-reduction equations, and experimental results.
SPEED CIRCUIT RESISTANCE INSTRUMENTATION

12-bit
Optical Load mx, my mx, my
'n' sampled DA
encoder conversion cell sampled by amplified
by encoder and filtered
Bn1 (digital) Bn2 BFx1, BFx2 load cell
(sensor) (sensor) (analog) (analog)
(analog)

Interpolation Compute
12-bit from speed resistance
Conversion 12-bit
AD circuit Conversion w/calibration
w/resol Statistics Equations (1, 2) Uc, Fr AD Statistics Equations (3, 4, 5) CT15C, CR
conversion calibration w/resol coefficient
(Volts) conversion
Bn3 Bn4 (Volts) BFx3
(digital)
(digital) (Hz) (kg)
g, r
D, D t Uc, S
Calibrated End-to-end calibrated
BD, BD t
PC BT
PC

Figure 3. Data-stream diagram for the carriage speed test. Figure 4. Data-stream diagram for the resistance test.

SINKAGE AND TRIM INSTRUMENTATION

NOMINAL WAKE INSTRUMENTATION

Five-hole
Linear D FP,D AP Junction pitot
potentiometer sampled by box probe Hc, ,t b, p, s Hc, ,t b, p, s
Differential
BD FP1, BD FP2 potentiometer (analog) sampled by amplified
pressure
(sensor) (analog) transducers transducers and filtered
(sensors) (analog) (analog)
Pitot-
static
probe

Compute Compute
12-bit displacements 12-bit h2o head
Conversion Conversion u, v, w
AD w/calibration AD Statistics w/calibration Equations (10-20)
w/resol Statistics Equations (7, 8) st , w/resol Cp
coefficients conversion coefficients
conversion (Volts)
(Volts) BD FP3, BD AP3 (digital) (m h2o)
(digital)
(m)
End-to-end calibrated g, Uc
End-to-end calibrated Fr, L PC
PC
Figure 5. Data-stream diagram for the sinkage and trim test. Figure 6. Data-stream diagram for the nominal wake test.
(m m )

1 .0
0 .8
0 .6
0 .4
0 .2
0 .0
-0 .2
-0 .4
-0 .6
-0 .8
-1 .0

X
1.1 1 0.9 0.8 0.7 0.6 0.5 0.4 0.3 0.2 0.1 0 -0.1
0.040 0.040

0.030 0.030
DTMB model 5512 (hull)
0.020 DTMB model 5512 (transom) 0.020

0.010 0.010
ζ

0.000 0.000

-0.010 ∆FP=-9.3 mm Uζ -0.010


∆AP=-2.4 mm
-0.020 -0.020
1.1 1 0.9 0.8 0.7 0.6 0.5 0.4 0.3 0.2 0.1 0 -0.1
x

(a) Starboard wave profile

1.002 1.001 1 0.999 0.998


0.040 0.040

Hull centerplane
0.030 0.030
DTMB model 5512 (transom)
0.020 0.020

0.010 0.010
ζ

0.000 0.000

-0.010 -0.010

-0.020 -0.020
1.002 1.001 1 0.999 0.998
x

(b) Transom wave profile

(c) Bow flow photo

Figure 10. Wave profile data for 5512 at Fr=0.28.


1.1 1 0.9 0.8 0.7 0.6 0.5 0.4 0.3 0.2 0.1 0 -0.1
0.040 0.040

0.030 0.030
DTMB model 5512 (hull)
0.020 DTMB model 5512 (transom) 0.020

0.010 0.010
ζ

0.000 0.000

-0.010 ∆FP=-4.5 mm Uζ -0.010


∆AP=-24.2 mm
-0.020 -0.020
1.1 1 0.9 0.8 0.7 0.6 0.5 0.4 0.3 0.2 0.1 0 -0.1
x

(a) Starboard wave profile

1.002 1.001 1 0.999 0.998


0.040 0.040

0.030 0.030
Hull centerplane
DTMB model 5512 (transom)
0.020 0.020

0.010 0.010
ζ

0.000 0.000

-0.010 -0.010

-0.020 -0.020
1.002 1.001 1 0.999 0.998
x

(b) Transom wave profile

(c) Near wake photo

Figure 11. Wave profile data for 5512 at Fr=0.41.


0 0.025 0.05 0.075 0.1 0 0.025 0.05 0.075 0.1

vw vw
0 0 0 0

-0.02 -0.02 -0.02 -0.02


z

z
-0.04 -0.04 -0.04 -0.04

-0.06 -0.06 -0.06 -0.06

-0.08 -0.08 -0.08 -0.08


0 0.025 0.05 0.075 0.1 0 0.025 0.05 0.075 0.1

y y

0 0.025 0.05 0.075 0.1 0 0.025 0.05 0.075 0.1

H H
0 0 0 0

0 0.8 4
0..989 3
5

0.7
0.9

5
6 7 .8
0.5 0.7 0 8 77
0.5 9 0.62 0 .62 0.6 0.
0.65 0.68 0.7 1 1 8
86

0.77 0.8 0.83 0.7 0.9


4
0.7

0.

0.8
98

6 0 0.62
-0.02 0.89 -0.02 -0.02 -0.02
0.

0.92 0.65 80
0.68 0.77 0.74 0.
2
0.9

0.
0.8
0.95

92
3
0.8 0.92 6
0.8
0.89 5
z

0.9
0.95
0.

0.98
98

-0.04 -0.04 -0.04 8 -0.04


0.9

-0.06 -0.06 -0.06 -0.06

-0.08 -0.08 -0.08 -0.08


0 0.025 0.05 0.075 0.1 0 0.025 0.05 0.075 0.1

y y

0 0.025 0.05 0.075 0.1 0 0.025 0.05 0.075 0.1

u u
0 0 0 0
2
0.6 78
8

7
1
00..788

0.
0.8

720.6

0.406.55
5

8 84 8
0.

0.9
0.9

1
0.97 0.5 0.
0.52 0.58 0.55 0.8 0.55
0.62 0.68
71

0.65
0.78 0.75 0.64
0.

-0.02 0.84 0.81


1 -0.02 -0.02 0.61 9 -0.02
0.9 0.720.6
7
0.78 0. 0.70 0.8 8
84
0.81 75 2 0.9
0. 0.89 0.84 0.9
0.92 1.01
4
0.9

0.8
8 0.87
0.9 5
z

1 0.9
0.9

0.94
8

-0.04 -0.04 -0.04 -0.04


0.97
1.01

-0.06 -0.06 -0.06 -0.06

-0.08 -0.08 -0.08 -0.08


0 0.025 0.05 0.075 0.1 0 0.025 0.05 0.075 0.1

y y

Fr=0.28 Fr=0.41

Figure 12. Nominal wake data for 5512 at Fr=0.28 and 0.41.
0 0 .0 2 5 0 .0 5 0 .0 7 5

0 0
W X

-0 .0 2 -0 .0 2
z

-0 .0 4 -0 .0 4

-0 .0 6 -0 .0 6

-0 .0 8 -0 .0 8

0 0 .0 2 5 0 .0 5 0 .0 7 5

y
APPENDIX A Prohaska’s Method respectively, which are helpful for identifying elemental
The form factor k is calculated as recommended by bias errors for the individual variables. Section 3
the ITTC (1978) using Prohaska’s method (ITTC, 1966). provides a detailed description of the measurement
The method assumes that at low speed and with no systems and test procedures. The current uncertainty
separation, CR in equation (4) can be approximated by assessment represents the most complete treatment yet of
the errors associated with the present tests, and
C R = yFr 4 (A.1) accordingly, the present uncertainty estimates supercede
those from previous studies at IIHR using the same
Then
equipment and experimental procedures.
yFr 4
= (1 + k ) +
CT
(A.2) B.1 Summary of Uncertainty Assessment
CF CF
Methodology
and values of CT/CF form a line with slope y and intercept The 95% confidence large-sample uncertainty
(1+k). For 5512, CT data is used for 0.05≤Fr≤0.2, and the assessment approach is used as recommended by the
results are provided below in Figure A.1. The estimated AIAA Standard (1995) for the vast majority of
intercept is (1+k)=1.15. engineering tests. The approach is derived and explained
in detail by Coleman and Steele (1995), which the present
0.0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1.0 summary closely follows.
1.6 1.6
A general representation of the data-reduction
1.4 1.4 equation is
1.2 1.2 r = r (X1 , X 2 ,..., X J ) (B.1)
1.0 1.0 where r is the experimental result determined from J
(1+k)=1.15
measured individual variables Xi. Each of the measured
CT/CF

0.8 0.8
variables contains bias and precision errors. The errors in
0.6 0.6 the measured variables propagate through the data-
reduction equation, thereby generating the bias and
0.4 0.4 precision errors in the experimental result.
0.2 0.2
Single tests. For single tests, the result r is
determined once from a single set of measurements (X1,
0.0 0.0 X2, …, XJ) at a given test condition where the Xi’s are
0.0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1.0
4
Fr /CF
considered single measurements. The uncertainty in r is
the root-sum-square (RSS) of the bias and precision limits

Figure A.1 Evaluation of the form factor for model 5512 U 2r = B 2r + Pr2 (B.2)
using Prohaska’s method.
The bias limit of the result is given by
J J −1 J
APPENDIX B Uncertainty Assessment B 2r = ∑ θ i2 B i2 + 2 ∑ ∑ θ i θ k B ik (B.3)
This Appendix provides the details of the uncertainty i =1 i =1k =i +1
assessment procedures and results, which follow the where θi are the sensitivity coefficients
AIAA Standard (1995). The Appendix is organized as
∂r
follows. First in section B.1, a summary of the θi = (B.4)
uncertainty assessment methodology is provided. Then in ∂X i
sections B.2-B.7, the detailed procedures and results are
provided for, respectively, the model geometry, carriage Bi are the bias limits in Xi, and Bik are the correlated bias
speed, resistance, sinkage and trim, wave profile, and limits in Xi and Xk
nominal wake measurement systems. Figure 2 provides a L
block diagram of the tests showing elemental error B ik = ∑ (B i )α (B k )α (B.5)
α =1
sources, individual measurement systems, measurements
of individual variables, data-reduction equations, and (L is the number of correlated bias error sources that are
experimental results. Figures 3, 4, 5, and 6 are data- common for measurement of variables Xi and Xk). The
stream diagrams for carriage speed, resistance, sinkage bias limit Bi for each variable is an estimate of elemental
and trim, and nominal wake measurement systems, bias errors from different categories: calibration errors;
data-acquisition errors; data-reduction errors; and tS r
conceptual bias errors. Within each category, there may Pr = (B.12)
M
be several elemental sources of bias. For instance, if for
the i-th variable Xi there are M elemental bias errors The uncertainty for the average result is given by

( )2
identified as significant and whose bias limits are
estimated as (Bi)1, …, (Bi)M, then the bias limit for the U 2 = B 2r + 2S r M (B.13)
r
measurement of Xi is calculated as the RSS combination
of the elemental limits where Br is given by equation (B.3) and t=2.
M Implementation. The uncertainty assessment
B i2 = ∑ (B i )2k (B.6) methodology is implemented by first identifying the data-
k =1 reduction equation. Then a block diagram of the test is
The precision limit of the result is given by constructed to help organize the individual measurement
systems and the propagation of elemental error sources
J into the result. Data-stream diagrams are constructed next
Pi2 = ∑ θ i2 Pi2 (B.7)
i =1 showing data flow from sensor-to-result and are helpful
for identification and organization of the elemental bias
where Pi are the precision limits in Xi and precision errors at the individual-variable level. Bias
Pi = t i S i (B.8) limits contributing either to a single variable or the overall
result are identified (calibration, data acquisition, data
with standard deviation Si and coverage factor ti reduction, or conceptual bias) and combined. For the vast
determined with νi degrees of freedom and assuming no majority of experiments, precision limits are estimated as
correlated precision limits. Si is determined from Ni described above with repeated end-to-end data-acquisition
readings (νi=Ni-1) of Xi taken over an appropriate time and reduction cycles. The replicated tests are done over a
interval, i.e., includes all factors causing variability in the period of time that is comparable with the period of the
result. Often it is the case that the time interval is factors that cause variability in r. Ideally M≥10, however,
insufficient and the Pi’s or Pr must be estimated based on often this not the case and for M<10, a coverage factor of
previous readings taken over an appropriate time interval t=2 is permissible if the bias and precision limits have
or best available information. similar magnitude.
Multiple tests. For multiple tests, the result r is
determined from several sets of measurements (X1, X2, B.2 Model Geometry
…, XJ) at the same test condition. An average result r is The model-geometry measurement system consists of
determined from CNC milled templates, rulers, and feeler gages for
determining the uncertainty in the x, y, z-offsets. Bias
1 M
r= ∑ rk (B.9) limits in the wetted surface area S are then estimated
M k =1 using a simplified procedure. Precision limits are not
considered. The bias limits and total uncertainty in S are
If the M sets of measurements are taken over an
evaluated and summarized in Table A.1.
appropriate time interval the precision limit that should be
Measurements of the error in x and (y, z) are made at
associated with a single result would be
one (centerplane) and thirty-one (axial) stations,
Pr = t r S r (B.10) respectively. The errors are determined at several points
along the girth of each template, averaged, and a global
where t is determined with M-1 degrees of freedom (taken uncertainty is computed for the average errors from all
as 2 for M≥10) and Sr is the standard deviation of the templates. The global uncertainty in (x, y, z) is 0.7938
sample of M results mm (i.e., 1/32”).
Bias Limits. The bias limit in S is computed in two
( )
12
 1 M 
Sr =  ∑ rk − r  (B.11) steps. First, biases in S from errors in the geometrical
 M − 1 k =1  offsets are considered by assuming the model geometry
error to be 0.7938 mm in all coordinates, i.e., the length
The uncertainty of a single result of the sample of M
(x) and beam (y) increase by 1.5875 mm and the draft (z)
results is obtained from equation (B.2) with equations
increases by 0.7938 mm. By holding the block
(B.3) and (B.10). The precision limit that should be
coefficient CB constant while expanding the coordinates
associated with the average result is given by
as above, the new displacement is
∇ ′ = (C B L ′B′T ′ ) ∗ 1000 = 128.55 kg (B.14)
where the primed variables are the increased dimensions indicate US’s ranging from 0.11-0.50% of which IIHR
of the model. The new displacement in equation (B.14) is represents the highest value. For IIHR, although the error
an increase of 1.06 kg from the nominal displacement. in the geometry offsets is small, US is relatively high
Assuming the wetted surface coefficient (CS=2.1989) is because the model is relatively small, having three-four
constant, the wetted surface area for the larger model is times less wetted surface area than models at other
facilities, i.e., DTMB 5415 and INSEAN 2340 have
S′ = 2.1989 ∇ ′L ′ = 1.3768 m 2 (B.15) L=5.72m, S=4.89 m2.
which corresponds to an increase of 0.0061 m2 of the
B.3 Carriage Speed
nominal wetted surface area (S=1.3707 m2). If the model
Equations (1) and (2) give the carriage speed data-
is loaded on displacement, then the larger model has a
reduction equation. The carriage speed and resistance
smaller draft (floats higher) which somewhat offsets the
tests are done concurrently which is the reason equation
increase in S from the expanded offsets. However, for the
(2) is included in the evaluation of uncertainty in Uc,
present case, the model is loaded to the full-load draft and
however, uncertainty associated with equation (2) is
this benefit is not realized. Therefore, the bias in the
unknown. The carriage speed measurement system
wetted surface area due to errors in the x, y, z offsets is
consists of individual measurement systems for n, D, and
B S1 = 0.0061 m 2 (B.16) ∆t. The bias and precision limits and total uncertainty in
Uc are evaluated at three Fr=0.10, 0.28, and 0.41 and
Secondly, biases in S from installation errors are summarized in Table A.1.
considered. For the resistance test, the model is loaded to Bias Limits. The bias limit, equation (B.3), is given
the full-load draft and errors in the draft-line placement by
and ballasting of the model to the draft line are estimated
at 1 mm. By perturbing the draft with the aforementioned B 2Uc = (θ n B n )2 + (θ D B D )2 + (θ ∆t B ∆t )2 (B.20)
uncertainty and holding the model length and beam and
where
block coefficient constant, the new displacement is
∇ ′′ = (C B LBT ′′ ) ∗ 1000 = 128.08 kg ∂U c ∂U c ∂U c
(B.17) θn = θD = θ ∆t = (B.21)
∂n ∂D ∂∆t
where the double-primed variables are the increased
There are four elemental bias errors for n
dimensions of the model. Similarly as above, the new
displacement in equation (B.17) produces a change in the (θ n B n )2 = θ 2n [B 2n1 + B 2n 2 + B 2n 3 + B 2n 4 ] (B.22)
wetted surface area given by
as indicated in Figure 3. The optical encoder is factory-
S′′ = 2.1989 ∇ ′′L = 1.3739 m 2 (B.18) calibrated and rated for accuracy Bn1=1 pulse (or bit) on
which corresponds to an increase of 0.0032 m2 of the every update. Data for n is sampled first by a DA card
nominal wetted surface area. The bias in the wetted and then by an AD card in order to transfer the data from
surface area due to draft-line placement and installation the speed circuit to the PC. The accuracy of the DA/AD
errors is cards is Bn2=Bn3=1.5 bits. This is determined by
calibrating the boards to a precision voltage source.
B S2 = 0.0032 m 2 (B.19) Scaling of the voltage representation of n to frequency
(Hz) and subsequently to pulses is done with a bench-top
If the model were loaded on displacement, BS2 would be calibration of the speed circuit. The scatter in the
computed from the individual uncertainties of the ballast calibration data is quantified with the standard error of
weights. estimate (SEE) and the bias error is Bn4=0.25 bit.
Total uncertainty. The total uncertainty in S is The value of D is periodically measured for the
US=0.006867 m2 or 0.50% of the nominal wetted surface northeast carriage wheel at three locations with a
area. Improvement of US should focus on loading the precision vernier caliper. The three values are averaged
model on displacement instead of draft, which would to determine a final value used in equation (1). D is
reduce BS1. Reductions in US could be achieved with accurate to within 0.1145e-03 m.
improved methods of hull-form construction such as CNC From manufacturers specifications, the oscillator
milling and would yield improvements in uncertainties for modules on the DA/AD cards are accurate to within
total resistance as shown later. 0.1025e-04 s on every update of n.
Previous uncertainty assessment has not considered Most of the uncertainty in n is from the DA/AD
US. Results from many laboratories (ITTC, 1999) conversions (80%). The accuracy of the pulse counter
and scaling of voltage to pulse count account for 18% and where
1.2%, respectively, of Bn. The bias limits of the
∂C T ∂C T ∂C T ∂C T
individual variables Bn, BD, and B∆t are relatively small in θ Fx = θρ = θ Uc = θS = (B.24)
comparison to their respective ranges. The bias in n is ∂Fx ∂ρ ∂U c ∂S
larger than in D and ∆t for all Fr and decreases with
There are three elemental bias errors for Fx
increasing Fr. The bias in D and ∆t are Fr independent.

(θ Fx B Fx )2 = θ 2Fx [B 2Fx1 + B 2Fx 2 + B 2Fx3 ]


Evaluation of the effects of the sensitivity coefficients
demonstrates that most of BUc is composed of Bnθn, Bnθn (B.25)
decreases with increasing Fr, and (BDθD and B∆tθ∆t)
increase with increasing Fr. For Fr=0.10, 0.28, and 0.41, as indicated in Figure 4. Standard weights are used for
the contribution of BUc to the total uncertainty is 94.2, the load cell calibration. The uncertainty in the weight
85.9, and 82.3%, respectively. values is 0.00025% NIST-rated class S. Four weights
Precision limits. The precision limits are estimated (500, 1000, 1500, 2000 gm) are used in the calibration,
from equation (B.12) in an end-to-end procedure of M=10 and the bias error is the product of the uncertainty and the
repeated measurements of Uc for three Fr=0.10, 0.28, and RSS of the weights
0.41.

( )
PUc contributes 5.8, 14.1, and 17.7% to UUc for 4
Fr=0.10, 0.28, and 0.41 respectively. In contrast to BUc, B Fx1 = 0.0000025 ∑ Wi2 (B.26)
PUc increases with increasing Fr. i =1
Total uncertainty. Total uncertainties are expressed
as percentages of the mean measured Uc at Fr=0.10, 0.28, Misalignment of the load cell in the model is a data-
and 0.41. Uncertainties for Uc are 0.66, 0.25, and 0.18% acquisition bias. The angle is small (<0.25°) and the bias
for Fr=0.10, 0.28, and 0.41, respectively. Contributions is
from BUc’s to UUc is 4-16 times higher than that of PUc,
B Fx 2 = Fx − cos(0.25 o ) ∗ Fx (B.27)
and BUc is mostly due to the DA/AD conversions for
transferal of speed data to the PC. Attempts to improve The scatter in the load cell calibration data is quantified
UUc would likely focus on reducing the uncertainty in the with the SEE. Three calibrations are completed (two
DA/AD conversions or restructuring the data stream for before the resistance tests begin and one after the test
Uc to eliminate one or both conversions. Reductions in program is completed), and three values of the SEE are
UUc would yield improvements in uncertainties for total computed. An average of the three values is used as the
resistance, sinkage and trim, and nominal wake data as data-reduction bias error BFx3.
shown in later sections. The temperature gage is a resistive-type probe with a
Previous uncertainty assessment treatment of UUc signal conditioner and digital readout that is factory
focussed on one carriage speed and resulted in a single calibrated. Manufacturer’s specifications state the
estimate, UUc=0.33%, which is near the average value for calibrated temperature-gage accuracy at 0.2°C. Bias error
the present speed range. Results from other laboratories associated with linear interpolation of ρ from T are
(Longo and Stern, 1996a and ITTC, 1999) indicate UUc’s assumed negligible; therefore, there are no data-reduction
ranging from 0.03-0.40%. bias errors for T.
The load-cell calibration contributes 100% to the bias
B.4 Resistance uncertainty in Fx and the weight standard and load-cell
Equations (3), (4), and (5) give the resistance data- alignment are negligible. The bias limits in the individual
reduction equations. The measurement system consists of variables BFx, BUc, BT, and BS are relatively small in
individual measurement systems for Fx, ρ(T), and S. In comparison to their respective ranges. The terms for BFx
the present analysis, Bρ is assumed negligible, however, and BUc are Fr dependent, i.e., they decrease with
BT is retained. The bias and precision limits and total increasing Fr, whereas, BT and BS are Fr independent.
uncertainty in CT are evaluated at three Fr=0.10, 0.28, and Evaluation of the effects of the sensitivity coefficients
0.41 and summarized in Table A.1. demonstrates that most of BCT is composed of BFxθFx and
Bias Limits. The bias limit, equation (B.3), is given BUcθUc for Fr=0.10 and BUcθUc and BSθS for Fr=0.28 and
by 0.41. In addition, BFxθFx and BSθS decrease and increase
2
B CT (
= (θ Fx B Fx )2 + θ ρ B ρ + B T θ T ρ T )2 + significantly, respectively, with increasing Fr.
remaining term, BTθρρT, contributes very little to the
The

magnitude of BCT. For Fr=0.10, 0.28, and 0.41, the


(θ Uc B Uc )2 + (θS BS )2 (B.23)
contribution of BCT to the total uncertainty is 87.6, 89.2, individual measurement systems for ∆FP, ∆AP, and Uc
and 80.5%, respectively. where the first two variables are the vertical
Precision limits. The precision limits are estimated displacements at the FP and AP, respectively, and the
from equation (B.12) in an end-to-end procedure of M=10 later is expressed in its nondimensional form, Fr, for the
repeated measurements of Fx for three Fr=0.10, 0.28, and evaluation of equations (7) and (8). The bias and
0.41. The data for Fx at the measured and calibrated precision limits and total uncertainty in σ and τ are
[equation (2)] carriage speed is scaled to the desired speed evaluated at three Fr=0.10, 0.28, and 0.41 and
corresponding to either Fr=0.10, 0.28, or 0.41 with the summarized in Table A.2.
following equation Bias Limits. The bias limits, equation (B.3), are
given by
2
U cs
Fxs = Fx (B.28)
U c2 B σ2 = B 2τ =

where Ucs and Fxs are the desired carriage speed and (θ Uc B Uc )2 + (θ ∆FP B ∆FP )2 + (θ ∆AP B ∆AP )2 (B.29)
scaled force, respectively. Force values from equation
(B.28) are used to compute CT at the measurement where
temperature. The next step is to scale CT to a specified
∂σ ∂σ ∂σ
water temperature (15°C) so that comparison of the θ Uc = θ ∆FP = θ ∆AP =
resistance data with data from other laboratories is ∂Uc ∂∆FP ∂∆AP
possible. This is completed in two parts: (1) the residual
∂τ ∂τ ∂τ
resistance CR is calculated with equation (4); and (2) θ Uc = θ ∆FP = θ ∆AP = (B.30)
CT15C is computed with equation (3). Standard deviations ∂Uc ∂∆FP ∂∆AP
for the three data sets of CT15C are then computed and the for sinkage and trim, respectively.
precision limits are listed in Table A.1. PCT15C contributes There are three elemental bias errors for ∆FP and
12.4, 10.8, and 19.5% to UCT15C for Fr=0.10, 0.28, and ∆AP
0.41 respectively. In contrast to BCT, PCT15C decreases

(θ ∆FP B ∆FP )2 = θ ∆2 FP [B ∆2 FP1 + B 2∆FP2 + B 2∆FP3 ]


from Fr=0.10-0.28 and then increases from Fr=0.28-0.41.
Total uncertainty. Total uncertainties are expressed
as percentages of the mean measured CT15C at Fr=0.10,

(θ ∆AP B ∆AP )2 = θ ∆2 AP [B 2∆AP1 + B 2∆AP2 + B 2∆AP3 ](B.31)


0.28, and 0.41. Uncertainties for CT15C are 1.46, 0.63, and
0.60% for Fr=0.10, 0.28, and 0.41, respectively.
Contributions from BCT’s to UCT is 4-8 times higher than
that of PCT15C, and BCT is mostly due to the uncertainty in as indicated in Figure 5. A computer-controlled traverse
Fx and Uc for Fr=0.10 and mostly due to the uncertainty in with a positional uncertainty of 0.0071% is the calibration
Uc and S for Fr=0.28 and 0.41. As mentioned above, the standard for the potentiometers. Calibrations are done
effects of the uncertainty in Uc and US have propagated over 90 mm in 10 mm increments. The bias error is the
into UCT15C, which plays a significant role in the product of the traverse uncertainty and the RSS of the
magnitude of UCT15C. The uncertainty assessment results traverse increments
demonstrate that improvements in the quality of the
resistance data should focus on improving the accuracy of
the speed circuit as per section B.3 and lowering the
uncertainty in the value of wetted surface area S as per
9
B ∆FP1,∆AP1 = 0.000071 ∑ z i2 ( )
i =1
(B.32)

section B.2.
Previous uncertainty assessment treatment of UCT Misalignment of the potentiometers with respect to the
resulted in a range of estimates, UCT=5.0-0.5 % (low-high vertical plane is a data-acquisition bias error. The angle is
Fr), which brackets the present values. Improvements in small (<0.25°) and the bias is
the treatment of the precision limits have reduced UCT at
the low Fr. Results from other laboratories (Longo and B ∆FP 2 = ∆FP − cos(0.25 o ) ∗ ∆FP
Stern, 1996a and ITTC, 1999) indicate UCT’s ranging
from 0.5-5.0%.
B ∆AP 2 = ∆AP − cos(0.25 o ) ∗ ∆AP (B.33)
B.5 Sinkage and Trim The scatter in the potentiometer calibration data is
Equations (7) and (8) give the sinkage and trim data- quantified with the SEE. Four calibrations are completed
reduction equations. The measurement system consists of
(two before the sinkage and trim tests begin and two after Previous uncertainty assessment treatment of Uσ and
the test program is completed), and four values of the Uτ resulted in considerably lower uncertainties, i.e.,
SEE are computed. An average of the four values is used Uσ=Uτ=0.3% for Fr=0.316 and Uσ=Uτ=1.8% for Fr=0.16
as the data-reduction bias limit B∆FP3, ∆AP3. for the Series 60 CB=0.6. Comprehensive treatment of the
The potentiometer calibration standard contributes bias error terms in the present analysis accounts for the
3.8 and 10.7% to the bias uncertainty in ∆FP and ∆AP, increases in the uncertainties at all Fr. Results from other
respectively. The scatter in the potentiometer calibration laboratories (Longo and Stern, 1996a) indicate Uσ,Uτ’s
data contributes 96.2 and 89.3% to the bias uncertainty in ranging from 0.3-6.0%.
∆FP and ∆AP, respectively. Contribution of the
installation error to the bias uncertainty is negligible. B.6 Wave Profile
The bias limits in the individual variables B∆FP, B∆AP, and Equation (9) gives the wave profile data-reduction
BUc are relatively small in comparison to their respective equation. The bias error in the model length L is assumed
ranges for Fr=0.28 and 0.41, but significant for Fr=0.10 negligible. The bias and precision limits and total
due to the small measurement range for the lowest Fr. uncertainty in ζ are evaluated at two Fr=0.28 and 0.41 and
The terms for B∆AP and BUc are Fr dependent, i.e., they summarized in Table A.2.
decrease with increasing Fr, whereas, B∆FP is Fr Bias Limits. There are four elemental bias errors for
independent. Evaluation of the effects of the sensitivity ζ. The first is associated with the error in the placement
coefficients demonstrates that most of Bσ is composed of of the draft and vertical scale at each x-station line on the
B∆FPθ∆FP and B∆APθ∆AP for Fr=0.10 and B∆FPθ∆FP and model and is estimated as Bζ1=1.0 mm. The second is
BUcθUc for Fr=0.28 and 0.41. In addition, (B∆FPθ∆FP, associated with the error in the placement of the marker
B∆APθ∆AP) and BUcθUc decrease and increase significantly, on the hull and is estimated as Bζ2=1.5 mm. The third is
respectively, with increasing Fr. Most of Bτ is composed associated with reapplying the marks on the hull when the
of B∆FPθ∆FP and B∆APθ∆AP, both of which are Fr model is on the level table and is estimated as Bζ3=1.0
independent. The remaining component of Bτ, BUcθUc, is mm. The fourth and final bias error is associated with
small except for Fr=0.28 and Fr independent. For reading the wave elevation in the Cartesian coordinate
Fr=0.10, 0.28, and 0.41, the contribution of Bσ to the total system from the height gauge and is estimated as Bζ4=0.5
uncertainty is 82.2, 30.3, and 42.8%, respectively. For mm. The total bias limit is a RSS of Bζ1, Bζ2, Bζ3, and
Fr=0.10, 0.28, and 0.41, the contribution of Bτ to the total Bζ4. Bζ1, Bζ2, Bζ3, and Bζ4 contribute 22.9, 50.0, 22.9, and
uncertainty is 50.8, 36.1, and 4.1%, respectively. 4.2%, respectively, to Bζ and are Fr independent. Bζ
Precision limits. The precision limits are estimated from contributes 83.7 and 81.6% to Uζ for Fr=0.28 and 0.41,
equation (B.12) in an end-to-end procedure of M=10 respectively.
repeated measurements of σ and τ for three Fr=0.10, 0.28, Precision limits. The precision limits are estimated
and 0.41. Pσ contributes 17.8, 69.7, and 57.2% to Uσ for from equation (B.12) in an end-to-end procedure of M=3
Fr=0.10, 0.28, and 0.41 respectively. In contrast to Bσ, Pσ repeated measurements of ζ for two Fr=0.28 and 0.41.
increases from Fr=0.10-0.28 and then decreases from Standard deviations for the two data sets of ζ are then
Fr=0.28-0.41. Pτ contributes 49.2, 63.9, and 95.9% to Uτ computed and precision limits are listed in Table A.1. Pζ
for Fr=0.10, 0.28, and 0.41 respectively. In contrast to Bτ, contributes 16.3 and 18.4% to Uζ for Fr=0.28 and 0.41,
Pτ increases with increasing Fr. respectively.
Total uncertainty. Total uncertainties are expressed Total uncertainty. Total uncertainties are expressed
as percentages of the mean measured σ and τ at Fr=0.10, as percentages of the respective measurement ranges at
0.28, and 0.41. Uncertainties for σ are 8.72, 1.40, and Fr=0.28 and 0.41. Uncertainties for ζ are 3.43 and 2.00%
0.61% for Fr=0.10, 0.28, and 0.41, respectively. for Fr=0.28 and 0.41, respectively. Contributions from Bζ
Contributions from Bσ to Uσ is four times higher than that to Uζ is roughly four times higher than that of Pζ for both
of Pσ for Fr=0.10, one-half that of Pσ for Fr=0.28, and Fr. The uncertainty assessment results demonstrate that
roughly equal to Pσ for Fr=0.41. Uncertainties for τ are improvements in the quality of the wave-profile data
10.22, 1.83, and 1.76% for Fr=0.10, 0.28, and 0.41, should focus on more accurate placement of the markers
respectively. Contributions from Pτ to Uτ is roughly equal on the hull and more accurate reapplication of the wave-
to Bτ for Fr=0.10, two times higher than that of Bτ for elevation marks on the hull prior to measuring ζ in the
Fr=0.28, and twenty-five times that of Bτ for Fr=0.41. ship coordinate system.
The uncertainty assessment results demonstrate that Previous uncertainty assessment treatment of Uζ
improvements in the quality of the sinkage and trim data resulted in lower uncertainties, i.e., Uζ=1.3% for Fr=0.316
should focus on improving the linearity of the and Uζ=2.6% for Fr=0.16 for the Series 60 CB=0.6.
potentiometer calibration data through higher quality Comprehensive treatment of the bias error terms in the
potentiometers. present analysis accounts for the increases in the
uncertainties at all Fr. Results from other laboratories (θ Ht′ B Ht′ )2 + (θ Hb′ B Hb′ )2 + (θ Hp′ B Hp′ )2 +
(Longo and Stern, 1996a) indicate Uζ’s ranging from 1.3-
22.0%.
(θ Hs′ B Hs′ )2 + (θ M B M )2 + (θ α B α )2 + (θ φ B φ )2 +
B.7 Nominal Wake
Equations (10)-(20) give the nominal wake data-
reduction equations and are of the form
(θ αp Bαp )2 + (θφp Bφp )2 (B.39)

(
u i = U c−1f i y, z, M ′, M, α, φ, α p , φ p ) (B.34) 2
B Cp (
= (θ Uc B Uc )2 + θ y B y )2 + (θ z B z )2 + (θ P B P )2 +
C p = U c−2 g(y, z, P, M ′, M ) (B.35)
(θ Hc′ B Hc′ )2 + (θ Ht′ B Ht′ )2 + (θ Hb′ B Hb′ )2 +
where
(θ Hp′ B Hp′ )2 + (θ Hs′ B Hs′ )2 + (θ M B M )2 (B.40)

( )
M ′ = M ′ H j′ (B.36) where the sensitivity coefficients are defined in the usual
manner, i.e., equation (B.4). The second and third terms
The measurement system consists of individual in each equation are biases stemming from inaccuracies in
measurement systems for Uc and H´j=c,t,b,p,s where the the position of the five-hole pitot probe in the y and z
second variable is the measured pressures for the center, axes. The axial coordinate (x) positional bias is not
top, bottom, port, and starboard holes, respectively, of the considered. All of the sensitivity coefficients in equations
boundary-layer type, five-hole pitot probe. The bias and (B.37-40) are evaluated analytically except for θy and θz,
precision limits and total uncertainty in u, v, w, and Cp are which are evaluated numerically with TECPLOT at the
evaluated at two locations [low turbulence: (x, y, specific locations where the precision limit tests are done.
z)=(0.9346, 0.1, -0.01375) and high turbulence: (x, y, TECPLOT uses a central-difference method for
z)=(0.9346, 0, -0.02125)] for two Fr=0.28 and 0.41 and evaluation of derivatives.
summarized in Table A.3. The bias limits for Uc, as per the results in section
Bias Limits. The bias limits, equation (B.3), are B.3, are used in the present analysis. The bias in
given by manually positioning the probe tip in relation to the hull
(
B 2u = (θ Uc B Uc )2 + θ y B y )2 + (θ z B z )2 + (θ Hc′ B Hc′ )2 + centerplane (y) and free surface (z) is estimated at 1.0 mm
and is based on the resolution of the traverse scales.
Positional bias due to multiple probe movements in the y,
(θ Ht′ B Ht′ )2 + (θ Hb′ B Hb′ )2 + (θ Hp′ B Hp′ )2 + z-axes are computed similarly as with equation (B.32) and
found to be negligible. Two elemental bias errors for H´j
are considered as indicated in Figure 6. The first error
(θ Hs′ B Hs′ )2 + (θ M B M )2 + (θ α B α )2 + (θ φ B φ )2 + source is associated with the resolution of the traverse
system used for calibrating the pressure transducers and is
(θ αp Bαp )2 + (θφp Bφp )2 (B.37)
negligible. The second error source is associated with the
scatter in the pressure transducer calibration data and is
quantified with the SEE before and after a set of tests. An
(
B 2v = (θ Uc B Uc )2 + θ y B y )2 + (θ z B z )2 + (θ Hc′ B Hc′ )2 + average of the two SEE values at each Fr is used as the
data-reduction bias error BH’j. For the interpolated

(θ Ht′ B Ht′ )2 + (θ Hb′ B Hb′ )2 + (θ Hp′ B Hp′ )2 +


variables, M and P, the bias error is BM=0.05747 and
BP=0.01625, respectively, which is roughly 2.3 and 1.6%
of the range of these variables, respectively. The values
(θ Hs′ B Hs′ )2 + (θ M B M )2 + (θ α B α )2 + (θ φ B φ )2 + of BM and BP are the total uncertainties (UM and UP) of M
and P from the wind tunnel calibration. They are
obtained with standard uncertainty assessment
(θ αp Bαp )2 + (θφp Bφp )2 (B.38) procedures, i.e., computation of the bias limits with data-
reduction equations and estimation of the precision limits

( )2 + (θ z B z )2 + (θ Hc′ B Hc′ )2 +
with statistical analysis. However, for this case, the
B 2w = (θ Uc B Uc )2 + θ y B y precision limits are computed with a small-sample (M=3)
approach because of the excessive time commitment
required for M=10 iterations of the wind tunnel respectively for high turbulence while the uncertainty in
calibration. The interpolation error in computing M and P M contributes 0.3-0.7% for both regions. Positional
during the nominal wake tests is considered negligible in uncertainties for the z-coordinate, low turbulence (0.2%)
comparison to the stated values of BM and BP. The bias and z-coordinate, high turbulence (0.7%), account for the
error in the angles (α, φ) of the velocity vector and the remainder of Bv. The majority of Bw is attributed to
preset angles of the five-hole pitot probe (αp, φp) are uncertainty in α and αp, 49.4 and 49.4%, respectively for
estimated at 0.3°. This value is a result of a standard low turbulence. For high turbulence, uncertainty in α and
uncertainty assessment for K and L, two additional αp play a lesser role, 15.9 and 15.9%, respectively, and
coefficients from the wind tunnel calibration that are the positional bias for the z-coordinate is most important,
required to interpolate (α, φ) and (αp, φp) during the contributing 64.1%. Uncertainty in Uc and M play a
nominal wake tests and uniform-flow test, respectively. comparatively minor (0.01-3.7%) role in Bw. The
The uncertainty assessment for K and L, as well as M and majority of BCp is attributed to uncertainty in P and M,
P, addresses traversing errors, probe-position 33.5 and 66.4%, respectively, for low turbulence and 34.7
inaccuracies, and pressure measurement errors at the five- and 65.1%, respectively, for high turbulence. Total bias
hole pitot probe and static probe sustained during the limits for (u, v, w, Cp) contribute >97% to the total
wind tunnel calibration. The total uncertainty in K, L uncertainty for those variables in both low- and high-
(UK=0.00777, UL=0.00636) propagates into the turbulence regions.
calculation of (α, φ) and (αp, φp) as a bias error with a In summary, the bias limits have consistent
magnitude of 0.3°. magnitudes for both Fr and regions of turbulence. Also,
For Fr=0.28 (low turbulence), most of Bu is due to the magnitude of Bu and BCp are mainly influenced by the
uncertainty in Uc and M, 3.5 and 96.3%, respectively. In uncertainty in M and P, whereas, the magnitude of Bv and
the high-turbulence region, Uc and M play a lesser role, Bw are mainly influenced by the uncertainty in (α, φ) and
1.6 and 42.7%, respectively, and the uncertainty in the z- (αp, φp). Interestingly, the uncertainties associated with
coordinate is the major contributor (54.4%) to Bu. The H´c,t,b,p,s are negligible for all cases in comparison with the
majority of Bv is attributed to uncertainty in φ and φp, 49.3 other variables noted above.
and 49.3%, respectively, for low turbulence and 49.4 and Precision limits. The precision limits are estimated from
47.0%, respectively, for high turbulence while the equation (B.12) in an end-to-end procedure of M=10
uncertainty in M contributes 0.5-1.5% for both regions. repeated measurements of (u, v, w, Cp) for high and low
Position uncertainties for the z-coordinate, low turbulence turbulence locations at two Fr=0.28 and 0.41. For
(0.7%) and y-coordinate, high turbulence (2.1%), account Fr=0.28 (low turbulence), precision limits for (u, v, w, Cp)
for the remainder of Bv. The majority of Bw is attributed contribute 0.05-0.3% to the total uncertainty, whereas, for
to uncertainty in α and αp, 49.9 and 49.9%, respectively, the high-turbulence region, contributions of 0.7-8.5% are
for low turbulence. For high turbulence, uncertainty in α estimated for (u, v, w, Cp). For Fr=0.41 (low turbulence),
and αp also play an important role, 42.1 and 42.1%, precision limits for (u, v, w, Cp) contribute 0.3-2.8% to
respectively, but bias associated with M is also important, the total uncertainty, whereas, for the high-turbulence
contributing 10.5%. Uncertainty in Uc plays a region, contributions of 0.3-2.6% are estimated for (u, v,
comparatively minor (0.01-0.4%) role in Bw. The majority w, Cp).
of BCp is attributed to uncertainty in P and M, 33.0 and In summary, the precision limits are consistently
65.9%, respectively for low turbulence and 34.3 and smaller than the respective bias limits, sometimes one-two
64.5%, respectively for high turbulence with minor orders of magnitude smaller. This is a positive result of
contributions from the uncertainty in the z-coordinate the low-pass filtering of the data in the signal conditioners
(~1%). Total bias limits for (u, v, w, Cp) contribute >99.7 and the natural low-pass filtering in using water to
and >91.5% to the total uncertainty for those variables for transmit pressures to the pressure transducers. For
the low- and high-turbulence regions, respectively. Fr=0.28, the low-turbulence precision limits are
For Fr=0.41 (low turbulence), most of Bu is due to consistently smaller than for the high-turbulence precision
uncertainty in Uc and M, 1.9 and 97.6%, respectively. In limits, however, this trend is not evident for Fr=0.41.
the high-turbulence region, Uc and M play a lesser role, Total uncertainty. Total uncertainties are expressed
0.2 and 10.5%, respectively, and the uncertainty in the z- as percentages of the ranges of the individual variables (u,
coordinate becomes the major contributor (88.4%) to Bu v, w, Cp). For Fr=0.28 (low turbulence), the uncertainties
due to a large gradient of u along the z-axis at the location are 1.19, 5.54, 4.08, and 29.10%, respectively, while in
of the high-turbulence region. The majority of Bv is the high-turbulence region, the uncertainties are 1.02,
attributed to uncertainty in φ and φp, 49.8 and 49.7%, 3.33, 2.53, and 9.52%, respectively. Note that Uu, Uv, Uw
respectively, for low turbulence and 50.4 and 48.1%, and UCp decrease between low and high-turbulence
regions. For Fr=0.41 (low turbulence), the uncertainties
are 1.15, 5.00, 4.56, and 22.82%, respectively, while in
the high-turbulence region, the uncertainties 2.29, 3.37,
5.24, and 10.31%, respectively. Moderate increases occur
for Uu and Uw, and moderate and significant decreases in
Uv and UCp, respectively, are observed between low and
high-turbulence regions. The levels of uncertainty
between Fr=0.28 and 0.41 are very similar for all
variables between both turbulence levels.
The uncertainty assessment results indicate that the
bias limits are the dominant terms in the total
uncertainties, regardless of Fr or high/low turbulence
region. Efforts to improve the quality of the mean-flow
data should focus on reducing the bias limits, particularly
those associated with the wind-tunnel calibration of the
five-hole pitot probe. This could be accomplished with
higher-precision traverses for angular movements of the
five-hole pitot probe and increased angular resolution in
the yaw and pitch planes. The goal is reduction of (BM,
BP) and (Bα, Bφ), which would yield improvements in the
uncertainties of (u, Cp) and (v, w), respectively. Also,
during the experimental setup of the mean-flow tests,
more accurate initial positioning of the five-hole pitot
probe in the z-coordinate would substantially reduce bias
limits for u and w.
Early uncertainty assessment treatment (Toda et al.,
1992) of Uu,v,w,Cp resulted in estimates of 2.5% for the
magnitude of u, v, w and 9.5% for Cp. Subsequent
improvements (Longo and Stern 1996b) to the analysis
yielded results of 1.5 and 3.0% for the magnitude of
velocity and pressure, respectively. The current
uncertainty estimates for Uu,v,w are comparable with the
later efforts, however, UCp is significantly larger for the
current work due to the comprehensive treatment of the
bias error terms. Results from other laboratories (Longo
and Stern, 1996a and Stern et al., 1998) indicate Uu,v,w,Cp’s
ranging from 0.8-5.0%.
Table A.1. Summary of uncertainties for surface area S, carriage speed Uc, and resistance CT15C.
Fr=0.10 Fr=0.28 Fr=0.41

Term Magnitude % Magnitude % Magnitude %


Model geometry (S)
BS1 0.6077e-02 m2 c
78.3% 0.6077e-02 m2 c
78.3% 0.6077e-02 m2 c
78.3%
BS2 0.3197e-02 m2 c
21.7% 0.3197e-02 m2 c
21.7% 0.3197e-02 m2 c
21.7%

BS 0.6867e-02 m2 100.0% 0.6867e-02 m2 100.0% 0.6867e-02 m2 100.0%


PS - - - - - -
US 0.6867e-02 m2 0.50% 0.6867e-02 m2 0.50% 0.6867e-02 m2 0.50%
Carriage speed (Uc)
a a a
Bn1 1 bit 18.0% 1 bit 18.0% 1 bit 18.0%
a a a
Bn2 1.5 bits 40.4% 1.5 bits 40.4% 1.5 bits 40.4%
a a a
Bn3 1.5 bits 40.4% 1.5 bits 40.4% 1.5 bits 40.4%
a a a
Bn4 0.25 bit 1.2% 0.25 bit 1.2% 0.25 bit 1.2%

b b b
Bn 0.2358e+01 bits 0.65% 0.2358e+01 bits 0.23% 0.2358e+01 bits 0.16%
b b b
BD 0.1145e-03 m 0.03% 0.1145e-03 m 0.03% 0.1145e-03 m 0.03%
b b b
B∆t 0.1025e-04 s 0.01% 0.1025e-04 s 0.01% 0.1025e-04 s 0.01%

Bnθn 0.3528e-02 m/s c


99.8% 0.3528e-02 m/s c
98.1% 0.3528e-02 m/s c
96.1%
BDθD 0.1641e-03 m/s c
0.2% 0.4600e-03 m/s c
1.7% 0.6736e-03 m/s c
3.5%
B∆tθ∆t 0.5598e-04 m/s c
0% 0.1569e-03 m/s c
0.2% 0.2297e-03 m/s c
0.4%

BUc 0.3532e-02 m/s 94.2% 0.3561e-02 m/s 85.9% 0.3599e-02 m/s 82.3%
PUc 0.8727e-03 m/s 5.8% 0.1443e-02 m/s 14.1% 0.1671e-02 m/s 17.7%
UUc 0.3638e-02 m/s 0.66% 0.3842e-02 m/s 0.25% 0.3968e-02 m/s 0.18%
Resistance (CT)
a a a
BFx1 0.6847e-05 kg 0% 0.6847e-05 kg 0% 0.6847e-05 kg 0%
a a a
BFx2 0.9201e-06 kg 0% 0.7174e-05 kg 0% 0.2245e-04 kg 0.1%
a a a
BFx3 0.8384e-03 kg 100% 0.8384e-03 kg 100% 0.8384e-03 kg 99.9%

b b b
BFx 0.8384e-03 kg 0.87% 0.8385e-03 kg 0.11% 0.8387e-03 kg 0.04%
b b b
BT 0.2 °C 0.77% 0.2 °C 0.78% 0.2 °C 0.77%
b b b
BUc 0.3532e-02 m/s 0.64% 0.3561e-02 m/s 0.23% 0.3599e-02 m/s 0.16%
BS 0.6867e-02 m2 b
0.50% 0.6867e-02 m2 b
0.50% 0.6867e-02 m2 b
0.50%

BFxθFx 0.3980e-04 c
28.4% 0.5067e-05 c
2.6% 0.2358e-05 c
0.4%
BTθρρT 0.2393e-06 c
0% 0.2375e-06 c
0% 0.3459e-06 c
0.0%
BUcθUc 0.5895e-04 c
62.2% 0.2105e-04 c
44.8% 0.2112e-04 c
28.7%
BSθS 0.2298e-04 c
9.4% 0.2281e-04 c
52.6% 0.3321e-04 c
70.9%

BCT 0.7475e-04 87.6% 0.3145e-04 89.2% 0.3943e-04 80.5%


PCT15C 0.2807e-04 12.4% 0.1094e-04 10.8% 0.1940e-04 19.5%
UCT15C 0.7985e-04 1.46% 0.3330e-04 0.63% 0.4394e-04 0.60%

a: % of B2i range; b: % of the individual variable range; c: % of B2r range; italic: % of U 2r range; bold: % of mean value or range of the result
Table A.2. Summary of uncertainties for sinkage σ and trim τ and wave profiles ζ.
Fr=0.10 Fr=0.28 Fr=0.41

Term Magnitude % Magnitude % Magnitude %


Sinkage and Trim (σ and τ)
a a a
B∆FP1 0.1199e-04 m 3.8% 0.1199e-04 m 3.8% 0.1199e-04 m 3.8%
a a a
B∆FP2 0.9116e-08 m 0% 0.8894e-08 m 0% 0.4343e-08 m 0%
a a a
B∆FP3 0.6025e-04 m 96.2% 0.6025e-04 m 96.2% 0.6025e-04 m 96.2%

a a a
B∆AP1 0.1199e-04 m 10.7% 0.1199e-04 m 10.7% 0.1199e-04 m 10.7%
a a a
B∆AP2 0.3845e-09 m 0% 0.2082e-09 m 0% 0.2355e-09 m 0%
a a a
B∆AP3 0.3500e-04 m 89.3% 0.3500e-04 m 89.3% 0.3500e-04 m 89.3%

b b b
B∆FP 0.6143e-04 m 6.41% 0.6143e-04 m 0.66% 0.6143e-04 m 1.35%
b b b
B∆AP 0.3670e-04 m 90.9% 0.3670e-04 m 1.68% 0.3670e-04 m 0.15%
b b b
BUc 0.3532e-02 m/s 0.64% 0.3561e-02 m/s 0.23% 0.3599e-02 m/s 0.16%

(B∆FPθ∆FP)σ 0.1994e-02 c
71.8% 0.2523e-03 c
47.5% 0.1181e-03 c
27.3%
(B∆APθ∆AP)σ 0.1191e-02 c
25.6% 0.1507e-03 c
17.0% 0.7056e-04 c
9.7%
(BUcθUc)σ 0.3829e-03 c
2.6% 0.2183e-03 c
35.5% 0.1796e-03 c
63.0%

(B∆FPθ∆FP)τ 0.3989e-02 c
71.4% 0.5046e-03 c
60.8% 0.2362e-03 c
73.1%
(B∆APθ∆AP)τ 0.2383e-02 c
25.5% 0.3014e-03 c
21.7% 0.1411e-03 c
26.1%
(BUcθUc)τ 0.8332e-03 c
3.1% 0.2710e-03 c
17.5% 0.2474e-04 c
0.8%

Bσ 0.2354e-02 82.2% 0.3661e-03 30.3% 0.2262e-03 42.8%


Pσ 0.1094e-02 17.8% 0.5549e-03 69.7% 0.2617e-03 57.2%
Uσ 0.2596e-02 8.72% 0.6648e-03 1.40% 0.3459e-03 0.61%

Bτ 0.4720e-02 50.8% 0.6472e-03 36.1% 0.2763e-03 4.1%


Pτ 0.4642e-02 49.2% 0.8617e-03 63.9% 0.1341e-02 95.9%
Uτ 0.6621e-02 10.22% 0.1078e-02 1.83% 0.1369e-02 1.76%
Wave Profile (ζ)
a a
Bζ1 0.3280e-03 22.9% 0.3280e-03 22.9%
a a
Bζ2 0.4921e-03 50.0% 0.4921e-03 50.0%
a a
Bζ3 0.3280e-03 22.9% 0.3280e-03 22.9%
a a
Bζ4 0.1640e-03 4.2% 0.1640e-03 4.2%

Bζ 0.6959e-03 83.7% 0.6959e-03 81.6%


Pζ 0.3069e-03 16.3% 0.3308e-03 18.4%
Uζ 0.7605e-03 3.43% 0.7705e-03 2.00%

a: % of B2i range; b: % of the individual variable range; c: % of B2r range; italic: % of U 2r range; bold: % of mean value or range of the result
Table A.3. Summary of uncertainties for nominal wake (u, v, w) and Cp.
Fr=0.28 Fr=0.41
Low turbulence High turbulence Low turbulence High turbulence

Term Magnitude % Magnitude % Magnitude % Magnitude %


Nominal Wake (u, v, w, Cp)
b b b b
BUc (m/s) 0.3561e-02 0.2263e+00% 0.3561e-02 0.2258e+00% 0.3599e-02 0.1628e+00% 0.3599e-02 0.1627e+00%
b b b b
By (m) 0.001 0.7483e-01% 0.001 0.7483e-01% 0.001 0.7819e-01% 0.001 0.7819e-01%
b b b b
Bz (m) 0.001 0.1265e+00% 0.001 0.1265e+00% 0.001 0.1094e+00% 0.001 0.1094e+00%
b b b b
BP (nd) 0.01625 0.1625e+01% 0.01625 0.1625e+01% 0.01625 0.1625e+01% 0.01625 0.1625e+01%
b b b b
BH´c (m h2o) 0.2918e-04 0.2354e-01% 0.2918e-04 0.5820e-01% 0.8897e-04 0.3457e-01% 0.8897e-04 0.7200e-01%
b b b b
BH´t (m h2o) 0.5872e-04 0.1224e+00% 0.5872e-04 0.4320e+00% 0.1814e-03 0.1959e+00% 0.1814e-03 0.9894e+00%
b b b b
BH´b (m h2o) 0.2854e-04 0.5857e-01% 0.2854e-04 0.7322e-01% 0.1206e-03 0.1062e+00% 0.1206e-03 0.1357e+00%
b b b b
BH´p (m h2o) 0.4661e-04 0.7183e-01% 0.4661e-04 0.1592e+00% 0.1531e-03 0.1081e+00% 0.1531e-03 0.2184e+00%
b b b b
BH´s (m h2o) 0.3247e-04 0.9267e-01% 0.3247e-04 0.1937e+00% 0.8515e-04 0.1184e+00% 0.8515e-04 0.2448e+00%
b b b b
BM (nd) 0.05747 0.2299e+01% 0.05747 0.2299e+01% 0.05747 0.2299e+01% 0.0547 0.2299e+01%
b b b b
Bα (°) 0.3 0.6000e+00% 0.3 0.6000e+00% 0.3 0.6000e+00% 0.3 0.6000e+00%
b b b b
Bφ (°) 0.3 0.6000e+00% 0.3 0.6000e+00% 0.3 0.6000e+00% 0.3 0.6000e+00%
b b b b
Bαp (°) 0.3 0.6000e+00% 0.3 0.6000e+00% 0.3 0.6000e+00% 0.3 0.6000e+00%
b b b b
Bφp (°) 0.3 0.6000e+00% 0.3 0.6000e+00% 0.3 0.6000e+00% 0.3 0.6000e+00%

(BUcθUc)u 0.2233e-02 c
0.3515e+01% 0.1253e-02 c
0.1612e+01% 0.1624e-02 c
0.1879e+01% 0.1075e-02 c
0.2060e+00%
(Byθy)u 0.1613e-03 c
0.1836e-01% 0.3446e-03 c
0.1221e+00% 0.2331e-03 c
0.3875e-01% 0.1922e-02 c
0.6590e+00%
(Bzθz)u 0.1869e-03 c
0.2463e-00% 0.7277e-02 c
0.5442e+02% 0.5401e-03 c
0.2079e+00% 0.2226e-01 c
0.8835e+02%
(BHc´θHc´)u 0.1925e-03 c
0.2613e-01% 0.3176e-03 c
0.1036e+00% 0.2911e-03 c
0.6041e-01% 0.4163e-03 c
0.3092e-01%
(BHt´θHt´)u 0.9684e-04 c
0.6613e-02% 0.1598e-03 c
0.2623-01% 0.1484e-03 c
0.1570e-01% 0.2122e-03 c
0.8035e-02%
(BHb´θHb´)u 0.4706e-04 c
0.1562e-02% 0.7764e-04 c
0.6196e-02% 0.9865e-04 c
0.6937e-02% 0.1411e-03 c
0.3550e-02%
(BHp´θHp´)u 0.7687e-04 c
0.4167e-02% 0.1268e-03 c
0.1653e-01% 0.1252e-03 c
0.1118e-01% 0.1791e-03 c
0.5722e-02%
(BHs´θHs´)u 0.5354e-04 c
0.2022e-02% 0.8833-04 c
0.8019e-02% 0.6965e-04 c
0.3459e-02% 0.9962e-04 c
0.1770e-02%
(BMθM)u 0.1168e-01 c
0.9628e+02% 0.6447-02 c
0.4272e+02% 0.1170e-01 c
0.9764e+02% 0.7681e-02 c
0.1052e+02%
(Bαθα)u 0.1464e-03 c
0.1511e-01% 0.6505e-03 c
0.4349e+00% 0.2461e-03 c
0.4318e-01% 0.7489e-03 c
0.1000e+00%
(Bφθφ)u 0.2577e-03 c
0.4682e-01% 0.2191e-03 c
0.4933e-01% 0.1782e-03 c
0.2264e-01% 0.1760e-03 c
0.5526e-02%
(Bαpθαp)u 0.1464e-03 c
0.1511e-01% 0.6505e-03 c
0.4349e+00% 0.2461e-03 c
0.4318e-01% 0.7489e-03 c
0.1000e+00%
(Bφpθφp)u 0.2579e-03 c
0.4689e-01% 0.2276e-03 c
0.5322e-01% 0.1790e-03 c
0.2283e-01% 0.1877e-03 c
0.6285e-02%

(BUcθUc)v 0.1115e-03 c
0.2295e-01% 0.9813e-04 c
0.5366e-01% 0.5563e-04 c
0.5634e-02% 0.5834e-04 c
0.1370e-01%
(Byθy)v 0.8824e-04 c
0.1438e-01% 0.6171e-03 c
0.2122e+01% 0.2279e-03 c
0.9453e-01% 0.7793e-04 c
0.2445e-01%
(Bzθz)v 0.6304e-03 c
0.7340e+00% 0.5132e-04 c
0.1468e-01% 0.3296e-03 c
0.1978e+00% 0.4184e-03 c
0.7050e+00%
(BHc´θHc´)v 0.9609e-05 c
0.1706e-03% 0.2488e-04 c
0.3449e-02% 0.9976e-05 c
0.1811e-03% 0.2260e-04 c
0.2057e-02%
(BHt´θHt´)v 0.4835e-05 c
0.4317e-04% 0.1252e-04 c
0.8731e-03% 0.5086e-05 c
0.4707e-04% 0.1152e-04 c
0.5346e-03%
(BHb´θHb´)v 0.2350e-05 c
0.1020e-04% 0.6083e-05 c
0.2062e-03% 0.3380e-05 c
0.2080e-04% 0.7659e-05 c
0.2362e-03%
(BHp´θHp´)v 0.3837e-05 c
0.2720-04% 0.9935e-05 c
0.5501e-03% 0.4291e-05 c
0.3352e-04% 0.9723e-05 c
0.3806e-03%
(BHs´θHs´)v 0.2673e-05 c
0.1320e-04% 0.6921e-05 c
0.2669e-03% 0.2387e-05 c
0.1037e-04% 0.5408e-05 c
0.1178e-03%
(BMθM)v 0.5833e-03 c
0.6285+00% 0.5051e-03 c
0.1422e+01% 0.4011e-03 c
0.2928e+00% 0.4170e-03 c
0.7001e+00%
(Bαθα)v 0.3039e-05 c
0.1706e-04% 0.1351e-04 c
0.1017e-02% 0.1146e-04 c
0.2389e-03% 0.3486e-04 c
0.4893e-02%
(Bφθφ)v 0.5167e-02 c
0.4932e+02% 0.2976e-02 c
0.4937e+02% 0.5229e-02 c
0.4976e+02% 0.3538e-02 c
0.5040e+02%
(Bαpθαp)v 0.3039e-05 c
0.1706e-04% 0.1351-04 c
0.1017e-02% 0.1146e-04 c
0.2389e-03% 0.3486e-04 c
0.4893e-02%
(Bφpθφp)v 0.5165e-02 c
0.4928e+02% 0.2904e-02 c
0.4701e+02% 0.5223e-02 c
0.4965e+02% 0.3458e-02 c
0.4814e+02%

a: % of B2i range; b: % of the individual variable range; c: % of B2r range; italic: % of U 2r range; bold: % of mean value or range of the result
Table A.3. Concluded.
Fr=0.28 Fr=0.41
Low turbulence High turbulence Low turbulence High turbulence

Term Magnitude % Magnitude % Magnitude % Magnitude %


Nominal Wake (u, v, w, Cp)
(BUcθUc)w 0.6328e-04 c
0.7502e-02% 0.2806e-03 c
0.3943e+00% 0.7659e-04 c
0.1067e-01% 0.2330e-03 c
0.7290e-01%
(Byθy)w 0.1495e-03 c
0.4187e-01% 0.4076e-03 c
0.8323e+00% 0.8472e-04 c
0.1306e-01% 0.3770e-03 c
0.1909e+00%
(Bzθz)w 0.9739e-04 c
0.1777e-01% 0.9015e-03 c
0.4070e+00% 0.6149e-03 c
0.6880e+00% 0.6908e-02 c
0.6410e+02%
(BHc´θHc´)w 0.5456e-05 c
0.5577e-04% 0.7113e-04 c
0.2534e-01% 0.1373e-04 c
0.3432e-03% 0.9027e-04 c
0.1094e-01%
(BHt´θHt´)w 0.2745e-05 c
0.1412e-04% 0.3579e-04 c
0.6415e-02% 0.7001e-05 c
0.8919e-04% 0.4602e-04 c
0.2844e-02%
(BHb´θHb´)w 0.1334e-05 c
0.3334e-05% 0.1739e-04 c
0.1515e-02% 0.4654e-05 c
0.3940e-04% 0.3059e-04 c
0.1257e-02%
(BHp´θHp´)w 0.2179e-05 c
0.8894e-05% 0.2841e-04 c
0.4042e-02% 0.5908e-05 c
0.6350e-04% 0.3883e-04 c
0.2025e-02%
(BHs´θHs´)w 0.1518e-05 c
0.4315e-05% 0.1979e-04 c
0.1961e-02% 0.3286e-05 c
0.1965e-04% 0.2160e-04 c
0.6265e-03%
(BMθM)w 0.3312e-03 c
0.2055e+00% 0.1444e-02 c
0.1045e+02% 0.5521e-03 c
0.5547e+00% 0.1665e-02 c
0.3725e+01%
(Bαθα)w 0.5159e-02 c
0.4986e+02% 0.2899e-02 c
0.4210e+02% 0.5209e-02 c
0.4937e+02% 0.3445e-02 c
0.1594e+02%
(Bφθφ)w 0.1035e-04 c
0.2009e-03% 0.6302e-04 c
0.1989e-01% 0.1992e-04 c
0.7221e-03% 0.7405e-04 c
0.7365e-02%
(Bαpθαp)w 0.5159e-02 c
0.4986e+02% 0.2899e-02 c
0.4210e+02% 0.5209e-02 c
0.4937e+02% 0.3445e-02 c
0.1594e+02%
(Bφpθφp)w 0.0000e+00 c
0.0000e+00% 0.0000e+00 c
0.0000e+00% 0.0000e+00 c
0.0000e+00% 0.0000e+00 c
0.0000e+00%

(BUcθUc)Cp 0.1561e-03 c
0.3190e-02% 0.3787e-03 c
0.1764e+00% 0.1909e-03 c
0.4637e-02% 0.1853e-03 c
0.2152e-01%
(Byθy)Cp 0.1270e-03 c
0.2114e-02% 0.6489e-04 c
0.5179e-02% 0.2774e-03 c
0.9790e-02% 0.1764e-03 c
0.7602e-01%
(Bzθz)Cp 0.2915e-02 c
0.1113e+01% 0.8792e-03 c
0.9507e+00% 0.8960e-03 c
0.1021e+00% 0.9465e-04 c
0.2188e-01%
(BPθP)Cp 0.1587e-01 c
0.3296e+02% 0.5282e-02 c
0.3431e+02% 0.1622e-01 c
0.3348e+02% 0.7441e-02 c
0.3468e+02%
(BH´cθH´c)Cp 0.1385e-03 c
0.2511e-02% 0.1265e-03 c
0.1969e-01% 0.2113e-03 c
0.5682e-02% 0.1961e-03 c
0.2409e-01%
(BH´tθH´t)Cp 0.1859e-03 c
0.4527e-02% 0.1794e-03 c
0.3958e-01% 0.2896e-03 c
0.1067e-01% 0.2818e-03 c
0.4973e-01%
(BH´bθH´b)Cp 0.9036e-04 c
0.1069e-02% 0.8718e-04 c
0.9348e-02% 0.1925e-03 c
0.4715e-02% 0.1873e-03 c
0.2197e-01%
(BH´pθH´p)Cp 0.1476e-03 c
0.2852e-02% 0.1424e-03 c
0.2494e-01% 0.2444e-03 c
0.7598e-02% 0.2378e-03 c
0.3541e-01%
(BH´sθH´s)Cp 0.1028e-03 c
0.1384e-02% 0.9918e-04 c
0.1210e-01% 0.1359e-03 c
0.2351e-02% 0.1322e-03 c
0.1096e-01%
(BMθM)Cp 0.2243e-01 c
0.6591e+02% 0.7239e-02 c
0.6445e+02% 0.2284e-01 c
0.6637e+02% 0.1020e-01 c
0.6513e+02%

Bu 0.1191e-01 99.75% 0.9864e-02 92.16% 0.1184e-01 99.63% 0.2368e-01 99.67%


Bv 0.7358e-02 99.70% 0.4236e-02 91.48% 0.7412e-02 97.58% 0.4983e-02 97.41%
Bw 0.7306e-02 99.92% 0.4468e-02 97.37% 0.7413e-02 97.19% 0.8629e-02 99.53%
BCp 0.2763e-01 99.95% 0.9017e-02 99.31% 0.2804e-01 99.75% 0.1263e-01 99.32%

Pu 0.5986e-03 0.25% 0.2878e-02 7.84% 0.7177e-03 0.37% 0.1357e-02 0.33%


Pv 0.4026e-03 0.30% 0.1292e-02 8.52% 0.1167e-02 2.42% 0.8130e-03 2.59%
Pw 0.2006e-03 0.08% 0.7347e-03 2.63% 0.1261e-02 2.81% 0.5941e-03 0.47%
PCp 0.6042e-03 0.05% 0.7507e-03 0.69% 0.1392e-02 0.25% 0.1048e-02 0.68%

Uu 0.1192e-01 1.19% 0.1028e-01 1.02% 0.1187e-01 1.15% 0.2372e-01 2.29%


Uv 0.7369e-02 5.54% 0.4429e-02 3.33% 0.7503e-02 5.00% 0.5049e-02 3.37%
Uw 0.7308e-02 4.08% 0.4528e-02 2.53% 0.7520e-02 4.56% 0.8649e-02 5.24%
UCp 0.2764e-01 29.10% 0.9048e-02 9.52% 0.2807e-01 22.82% 0.1268e-01 10.31%

a: % of B2i range; b: % of the individual variable range; c: % of B2r range; italic: % of U 2r range; bold: % of mean value or range of the result