New calculations from HydroComp using quantitative relational elements
In the hunt for better engineering answers,
hydrodynamic codes are evolving with increasing
complexity. One of the marine industry leaders in
hydrodynamic software development and services –
HydroComp, Inc., of Durham, NH USA – is wary of
this complexity and is developing advanced codes
with the specific intent of giving highest priority to
reliability, usability, behavior, and cost-
effectiveness. HydroComp is best known for their
empirically based hydrodynamic prediction
software, notably the popular NavCad™ software,
which is now in its 20th year of service.
“Empirical design tools, such as model testing,
statistical methods of systematic series, and sea trials
– are still the real workhorses of day-to-day
quantitative hydrodynamic analysis. I stress the term
‘quantitative’, as most designers are more interested
in reliably predicting drag and propeller performance
to select the proper engine, for example, than to
tweak the hull form or resolve a flow problem” notes
HydroComp’s technical director, Donald
MacPherson. “Having said that, we acknowledge
that the scope of available statistical methods are
limited and insufficient for some problems. As a
result, engineers are rightly investigating new codes
to fill this void, but we believe that complex codes
are not the universal answer for quantitative
problems.”
Calculation by quantitative relational elements
HydroComp is in the latter stages of a two-year
internal R&D effort to develop a new category of
calculation technique that will offer a cost-effective
alternative to complex codes for the prediction of
bare-hull drag and propeller performance. The codes
are based on what the developers are calling
“quantitative relational elements”. The analytical
basis of “quantitative relational elements” is not
altogether new, but it is implemented in a unique
way to utilize different collections of empirical data
to greatly extend the scope and functionality of these
calculations.
To explain how these calculations work, let’s
consider the performance prediction of a propeller,
and the data required for the calculations. When
calculating performance using systematic series, you
define the propeller by its type (such as the B-
series), number of blades, blade area ratio (which
defines the outline shape), and pitch-diameter ratio
(for the prescribed pitch distribution of the series).
The inflow is described by the nominal effective
wake fraction. As long as the propeller under
consideration matches the foil shape, and
distributions of chord, thickness, camber, and pitch,
the predictions are reliable. Of course, techniques
such as NavCad’s “aligned prediction” can be
applied to improve the accuracy of the prediction,
albeit still with certain constraints.
Highly complex codes offer the ability to fully
define the three-dimensional surface of the propeller,
including the unique distribution of foil thickness
and camber. These codes, however, are costly both
in terms of computation time and resources. It is not
uncommon for computation time to exceed 20
minutes for a single generation, with hundreds of
generations required for a complete analysis.
HydroComp’s new calculations straddle the ground
between the wholly empirical and purely numerical.
The codes allow for practical global variations that
are not available in statistical methods, such as
arbitrary distributions of chord, thickness, camber,
and pitch. It also includes definition of axial and
tangential wake distributions. The characteristics of
the foil itself, such as its shape and lift-drag
coefficient, are prescribed by selecting a foil from
the calculation library.
A rapid quantitative performance prediction can be
achieved by taking a common empirically based foil
definition, such as the popular NACA 66 mod, and
applying it to any set of chord, camber, thickness or
pitch. The following graphic illustrates how a
collection of relational elements – or radial slices
through the blade – can define the propeller.
Figure 1 – Relational element radial slice
Likewise, calculation of bare-hull resistance is
achieved in much the same manner, as the hull is
sliced into longitudinal elements, such as sectional
area. This provides greater global definition of the
geometry that you would have with a purely
statistical series (the might use only the prismatic
coefficient, for example, to define the sectional area
curve). Unlike complex codes, you do not have full
three-dimensional definition of the hull surface,
rather you have a practical and meaningful
distribution of the hull’s global shape.

Core attributes

Fundamental criteria for all of the new calculations

are reliability, usability, behavior, and cost- Figure 2 – Irregular waterline offsets through a
effectiveness. Attributes of the calculations can be propeller pocket
summarized as:
One development priority was that all of these new
• Description of hull and propeller codes could be used without special knowledge of
distributions using “elements”. element modeling or unusual manipulation of input
• Predictions are well behaved with no data. Simplifying the distribution data to avoid
unusual results. potential problems, like the propeller pocket
• Any set of data can be applied. No special illustrated above, was an easy compromise for the
knowledge of element modeling is required. developers. “We have always held to the maxim
• Calculation options are limited, and pre-set that, to the best of our ability, we will give you no
where possible. The intent is to remove the answer before giving you the wrong answer” points
need for user “fudge factors”. out Mr. MacPherson, “and sometimes that means
keeping things practical and uncomplicated.”
• Extensive validations fully expose the scope
of the calculations to users.
The bare-hull drag module predicts not just wave-
• Fast calculation times, with most full
making drag, but also viscous drag and thus total
analyses taking less than one minute.
bare-hull drag. Wave-making drag is important only
in so far as it leads to correct prediction of total bare-
Bare-hull drag calculations
hull drag, and extensive effort has been put into
reliable prediction of frictional drag and form factor.
The bare-hull drag module is built upon a novel
The module also provides automatic data checks and
implementation of thin-ship theory. The most well
correlation functions, including viscous effects on
known of the various thin-ship theories is the
wave-making, immersed transom stern, sinkage and
“Michell Integral”, which uses hull offsets to
trim, and pressure drag. These correlation functions
describe the hull. “Early investigations suggested
are automated in the code, and it is important to
that a Michell Integral approach would not be
point out that no special user decisions were made in
suitable for our purposes. The detail afforded by
the creation of these validation calculations.
describing the surface by offsets was canceled by the
practical matter of how irregular changes in offsets,
Validation studies were conducted using open
for things like tunnel thrusters or propeller pockets,
published data to provide complete transparency to
caused significant inaccuracies in the calculations.
users. Representative validation plots are shown
So, we simplified the approach and developed a
below, and a full set of validation reports are
comparable linear code that used sectional areas and
available from HydroComp.
their vertical centroid, as well as waterplane
distribution. While this limits the ability to locally
describe the hull geometry, it makes for much more
well-behaved and reliable code. We are also looking
for this to be extensible to ‘not-so-thin’ ships.”
 INSEAN 2340 [Free]
the off-design condition. Data exchange is currently
available to both NavCad and HydroComp’s
0.009
0.008
PropCad™ propeller geometric modeling software.
0.007
CT-test
The module can be applied for full wake-adapted
CT, CF, CW

0.006
0.005 CT-calc
0.004 CF-calc design of optimal characteristics or off-design
0.003
0.002
CW-calc analysis of performance and KT-KQ curves. A
0.001 variety of design choices are available, including
0
0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5
different optimal circulation methodologies and tip
Fn or root unloading. Analysis options include foil
characteristics, hub effects, and water properties.
Propeller configurations include both open and
Figure 3 – Prediction of INSEAN 2340 model ducted propellers, with work continuing on counter-
(DTMB 5415 variant); automated correlation rotating propellers.

Wigley [Fixed] “The empirical correlation functions really make the

propeller performance module a ‘fully-baked’
0.009
0.008 propeller design tool.” Comments Mr. MacPherson.
0.007
CT-test
“If a user does not need to explicitly define the foil
CT, CF, CW

0.006
0.005 CT-calc shape and selects a foil from the list, then the tool is
0.004 CF-calc perfectly suited for final design of that particular
0.003 CW-calc
0.002 style of propeller, including pitch and camber
0.001
0.000
distribution. If they do need more local control over
0.0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1.0 the foil shape, then the module is an ideal pre-
Fn processor for more complex analyses.” The analysis
functions predict a complete set of results including
foil lift and drag, circulation, performance,
Figure 4 – Prediction of Wigley model; no sinkage cavitation, and even blade strength.
and trim correction (for validation)
The empirical correlation functions also extend to
NPL C3 [Free] ducted propeller performance. Part of the R&D tasks
0.014
for the propeller performance module included data
0.012 analysis and fitting of nozzle-propeller thrust ratios,
0.010 CT-test and prediction of the nozzle’s influence on induced
CT, CF, CW

0.008 CT-calc velocity. HydroComp plans to make definition of

0.006 CF-calc
CW-calc
nozzle performance extensible to user-defined data,
0.004
0.002
so that companies can use the module for their own
0.000 custom nozzle shapes.
0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1 1.2
Fn
Validation plots are shown below for typical
propeller performance curves. Like validation
Figure 5 – Prediction of NPL C3 model; automated studies for all HydroComp software, all data used to
correlation validate the propeller performance module is taken
from public sources. For example, the Kaplan 4.55
Propeller performance propeller in the 19A nozzle is well documented.
Model DTRC4119 is a three-bladed propeller that is
The propeller performance module utilizes a frequently used for evaluation and validation of
fundamental vortex lattice lifting-line code for propeller flow codes. The range of interest for this
moderately loaded propellers, with a connection to propeller is typically from J = 0.5 to 1.1, and the
empirical data. For example, most lifting-line codes propeller performance module shows excellent
use a generic value for drag coefficient, whereby this results even well away from the design condition
new code allows the user to select from a list of foil (J=0.833). You will note that the validation plot for
types, such as NACA 66 mod, Segmental, and Bi- the DRTC4119 does show the typical reduction in
Circular, to more accurately predict performance in predicted values as it goes from moderately loaded
and approaches the heavily loaded bollard condition correlate the prediction to the known results of a
(low J). However, the new ducted propeller inflow model test. Therefore, one model test can be used to
velocity correlation produces very good results for enhance accuracy for any similar hull or propeller
the Kaplan 19A, even near bollard performance. variant.

0.6 About HydroComp

0.5
Donald MacPherson has been HydroComp’s
0.4
KT technical director since its inception. He is the
KT, 10KQ, KTN

0.3
10KQ author of numerous technical papers and
KTN
KT-calc
presentations on applied hydrodynamics, is
0.2
10KQ-calc Instructor of Naval Architecture at the University of
0.1
KTN-calc
New Hampshire, and is a member of SNAME’s H8
0
Propellers panel.
0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8
-0.1
Celebrating its 25th year of operation in 2009,
J
HydroComp provides software and services for the
performance analysis and design of marine vehicles
Fig 6 – Propeller performance, Kaplan 4.55 in 19A to industry, research, academic, and government
nozzle clients. The company is proud to have served over
600 customers from more than 60 countries. For
0.7 more information about the new calculation modules
using quantitative relational elements, please contact
0.6
HydroComp at info@hydrocompinc.com, or through
0.5
their web site at www.hydrocompinc.com.
KT
KT, 10KQ

0.4
10KQ

0.3
KT-calc You can see the new calculations first hand at a
10KQ-calc
number of trade shows and conferences in 2009,
0.2
including SNAME Propeller/Shafting and Annual
0.1
Meeting, National Marine Propeller Association, and
0 METS.
0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1 1.2
J

Fig 7 – Propeller performance, DTRC 4119

Development plans include aligned prediction

capability

HydroComp has employed a technique called “align

prediction” in its NavCad software for many years.
Future development plans include incorporating this
technique for the new calculation modules.

Aligned prediction offers user the ability to use

quantitative relational element calculations with
specific empirical data, such as model tests, to
further improve the quantitative accuracy of the
prediction. Using an aligned prediction technique is
a simple matter of setting up a hull resistance or
propeller KT-KQ model test with the model’s own
distributive elements. Then, the user can simply
point to the model and allow the calculation to learn
if it needs to add or deduct a small amount to