Transactions on the Built Environment vol 24, © 1997 WIT Press, www.witpress.

com, ISSN 1743-3509

Comparison of model test with ship sea trial

results for a given vessel series
C.Behrendt & T.Kucharski
Institute of Marine Plant Operation, Maritime University of
Szczecin, 70-500 Szczecin, Poland

Abstract
The model test results are the basis for a hull-propeller interaction design premisses
and make it possible to prepare a powering parameters trial prediction. Only after
performance of the Sea Trials Tests can one verify an accuracy of prediction. In this paper
authors presented and compared model test results with Ship Trial Test results on three
vessels of the same type.

1 Introduction

Ship model tests are basis for preparing the full scale vessel powering
trial prediction ( TP ). But one must remember that due to Reynolds scale
effects, when measured model data are extrapolated in order to make full scale
ship prediction, serious uncertainties are introduced and there is not a
straightforward way to correlate crucial self-propulsion parameters [1].
The verification of prediction adequacy can be done only after ship's Sea Trials
Tests ( STT ). At the STT a trial vessel's speed, Main Engine ( ME ) torsional
shaft speed in revolutions per minute ( RPM ) and engine power in kW are
recorded. In order to make the STT results reliable and valid, tests ought to be
performed in nautical conditions consistent with contract and model tests
conditions. When nautical condtions are not proper, the corrections by applying
a proper convertion method for all deviations from the ideal conditions have to
be done.
When the final analysis of STT results is performed, we are able to compare
recorded data with trial prediction. In this puropse, given data are presented in a
form of characteristics that are drawn in one coordinates. It let us perform a
Trial powering prediction based on model test and STT results for 3 vessels this
same type were presented in the paper and then authors verified an accuracy of
predictions with recorded real results.
 Transactions on the Built Environment vol 24, © 1997 WIT Press, www.witpress.com, ISSN 1743-3509

278 Marine Technology II

2 Vessel's Propulsion System

Tests were carried out with 1350 TEU container vessels: length betw.
perpendiculars L?? =154.0 m, breadth B = 25.30 m and mean draught
D = 10.05m.
The vessel propulsion system consists of [1]:

Main Engine ME SULZER

Engine Type 6RTA 62
Engine Power at MCR Ne = 12 1 80 kW
Shaft Speed n^= 109 RPM

Fixed Pitch Propeller ABB Zamech

Diameter D = 5899 mm
Pitch/Diameter Ratio P/D = 0.940
Number of blades Z =5
Disc Area Ratio Ag/Ao = 0.672

3 Model Tests Results

Model tests for the vessel were carried out with the ship model with
assymetric aftbody and with the final design propeller. The design of final
propeller was based on the resulst of propulsion tests carried out with a stock
propeller together with the results of a 3 -dimensional wake survey. The model
propeller was made of aluminium to a scale of 1 : 27.5.
The test program carried out with thefinalpropeller consisted of the following:

1. Open water test with the design propeller.

2. Self propulsion test with the design propeller, draught = 3.6 / 6.5 m
3. Self propulsion test with the design propeller, draught = 10.05 m
4. Resistance test, draught = 3.6 / 6.5 m

The tests and their analysis were carried out in accordance with Froude's
method, Le. the total resistance is split up into a factional and a residual
componenet. As reference length for both the Reynold and Froudes numbers,
the overall submerged length is taken. The frictional coefficient is calculated
according to the 1957 ITTC-Line.

Frictional Resistance Coefficient ( Model )

[-] (1)
 Transactions on the Built Environment vol 24, © 1997 WIT Press, www.witpress.com, ISSN 1743-3509

Marine Technology II 279

Frictional Resistance Coefficient ( Ship ) C?:

Cp= , +C* [-] (2)
(log ^.-2)
where: R« - Reynolds Number
CA - Correlation Allowance Factor, depends on:
-the vessel's lenght
- the vessel's block coefficient
Note: All symbols followed by a subscript of "m" are model values.
Ship values are written without subscript.

The convertion of the measured model results to those of ship is- for
comparative purposes - at first done without corrections according to the
equations:

SpeedV: V = V*^ [knot]

= m p p a [kN ] (4)

TorqueQ: Q = Qm^P/Pm [kNm] ( 5)

Effective Power N%:

NE = &TV = (RTm-FD)VaA3.Sp/p^ [kW] (6)

Power Delivered at Propeller Np:

ND = 2%nQ = 2%n%nQinl3.5p/p^ [kW] (7)

Revolutions n: n = n^ A.-0.5 [1/min] (8)

where: 1 - Ship-Model Scale Ratio

p - Mass Density of Water
RT - Total Resistance
FD - Towin Force in Propulsion Test

The wake fraction and the propeller efficiency are determined assuming
thrust identity. The propeller open water characteristics are corrected for fully
turbulent friction at the Reynolds number( the correction takes care of the fact
that the propeller inflow has a higher degree of turbulence in the "behind"
condition than in "open water".
The added resistance of the zinc anodes, unevenness of the hull and
small openings ( which are typical of real ships but which cannot be modelled )
are accounted for in the Correlation Allowance Factor C*. For larer
appendages and/or hull openings not present with the model, an allowance -
( additional resistance related to thefrictionalresistance - Rp ) is made.
 Transactions on the Built Environment vol 24, © 1997 WIT Press, www.witpress.com, ISSN 1743-3509

280 Marine Technology II

The wind resistance of the superstructure - R^ is estimated based on

the relative velocity of the wind - V& and the area - Ay exposed to it.
X YR'^r'CAA'PA [kN] (9)

where : PA - Mass Density of Air

VR - Relative Wind Velocity
Ay - Area Exposed to Wind

The next step in the analysis considers Reynolds number scale effects on
wake as well as on propeller efficiency.
As the propeller revolutions of the ship differ from those calculated by
equation ( 8 ) because of the relatively lower wake and the higher propeller
loading, the correct number of revolutions is determined in next procedure,
giving the following expression :
[ 1/min]
where: w - Taylor Wake Fraction
J - Propeller Advance Coefficient

Finally, the power at the propeller is calculated according to equation:

K, _o_ _ ^ ,3.5 P 1-w

where: - rjom - open water efficiency of the model propeller corrected for
turbulent flow behind the model
- TJO - corrected values of the full size propeller

Model Tests results and above mentioned equations made it possible to

calculate a full scale powering trial prediction. In Table 1 are presented the trial
predictions.

Table 1. THE TRIAL PREDICTION [2].

Draught = 5.05 m ( mean ) Headwind 2.365 m/s 2BF
V % n
[knots] [kW] r 1/min]
17.0 5130 92,1
17.5 5660 95,2
18.0 6270 98,4
18.5 6950 101,8
19.0 7760 105,4
19.5 8740 109,3
20.0 9940 113,9
20.5 11440 119,3
 Transactions on the Built Environment vol 24, © 1997 WIT Press, www.witpress.com, ISSN 1743-3509

Marine Technology II 281

4 Sea Trials Tests results

During vessel's Sea Trials Tests there were done measurements on 7 this
same type ships. But in four cases nautical conditions were not in accordance
with contractual agreements and model test conditions, therefore results from
three vessels only ( when nautical conditions were proper ) were used for further
analysis.
Measurements were recorded at following conditions:
- headwind - up to 2.365 m/s
- wind force of Beaufort - to 2^BF
- draught: 5.050 m ( mean ) ( 3.60/6.50 )
- deep water exceeding 10 times the draught of the vessel

In Table 2 are presented Sea Trials Tests results for 3 vessels.

Table 2. SEA TRIALS TESTS RESULTS

VESSEL REVOL. POWER SPEED
No 1/MIN kW knots
Vessel A 95.5 6233.0 17.62
105.5 8637.0 19.74
106.0 8880.0 19.00
110.0 10126.0 19.96
110.0 10126.0 20.12
Vessel B [94.0 6265.0 17.76
95.0 6303.0 17.43
105.5 8876.0 19.52
105.0 8762.0 19.54
113.0 11158.0 20.36
113.0 11280.0 20.43
Vessel C 95.0 6229.0 17,92
105.0 8449.0 19.22
105.0 8322.0 19.36
109.0 9580.0 19.89

Values of power delivered to propeller ND [kW] and propeller

revolutions ng [RPM] are taken with use of MAIHAK torquemeter as an
average reading of 15 minutes measuring periods. Ship's speed was given by
taking the readings of a log.

5 Discussion and comparison trials predictions with SST results

Based on data collected in Tables 1 & 2 it was possible to draw

dependence characteristics diagrams: propeller shaft speed as a function of the
vessel speed - ne = f (v) and power delivered to propeller as a function of the
vessel speed - ND = f (v). Thus, in Fig. 1 are plotted ng = f (v) curves presenting
trial prediction and STT results. In Fig. 2 presented ND = f (v) curves.
 Transactions on the Built Environment vol 24, © 1997 WIT Press, www.witpress.com, ISSN 1743-3509

282 Marine Technology II

120

• Prediction!
Q Vessel A ;
A Vessel B j
% Vessel C \

18,5 19 19,5 20 20,5

v [ knots ]

Fig. 1 Curves n£ = f ( V )

Having such a characteristics it is possible to compare predicted powering

parameters with results obtained on existing full scale ships during sea trials.
L The comparison of characteristics presented in Fig. 1 let us notice that
in the whole their course, HE = f (v) curves run below the trial prediction curve.
Extreme differences ocurre when vesssels sail with maximum speed. For
instance, at the speed 20.5 knots the predicted ME shaft speed ought to have
value abt 119 RPM, whereas ME shaft speeds recorded during sea tests were
comprised within the range of 112.5 - 114 RPM, makes the difference of less
than 5,5% . Within the range of high speeds 19.6 - 20.5 knots, obtained curves
indicate greatest divergences between prediction and SST results. However
within the range of 17 - 19.6knots, STT ng = f (v) curves seem to be the most
parallel to the predicition curve.
 Transactions on the Built Environment vol 24, © 1997 WIT Press, www.witpress.com, ISSN 1743-3509

Marine Technology II 283

12000

11000

I• Prediction
;B Vessel A
A Vessel B
jx Vessel C

5000
17 17,5 18 18,5 19 19,5 20 20,5
v [ knots ]
Fig. 2CurvesND = f(v)

EL Analysing ND = f (v) curves, it is interesting to notice that the highest

degree of accuracy of STT results with predicted curve occures within the range
of speeds 19.3 - 20.5 knots. Within the range of 17 - 19.3 knots for all vesels,
power delivered by ME to propeller in order to reach a demanded vessel speed
is higher than the predicted one. Largest differences appear at the speeds abt. 18
knots, where predicted power has value ND = 6270 kW while the biggest
recorded power was ND = 6848 kW , makes the difference abt. 8 %. Sailing
during SST with the speed 19.4 knots and faster demanded the deliverance of
less power than it was predicted.

6 Summary

Based on presented trial prediction and Sea Trials Tests results the
comparison of predicted and full scale values of power delivered to propeller
and ME shaft speed related has been done.
Presented results show that there occure some differences between trial
prediction and SST results. But we may come to conclusion that those
 Transactions on the Built Environment vol 24, © 1997 WIT Press, www.witpress.com, ISSN 1743-3509

284 Marine Technology II

differences in courses of curves presented in Fig. 1 & 2 are rather natural and
may be affected by: measuring inaccuracy, differences in hull forms,
dimensional deviations and different grade of blade surface roughness. The
water mass density and sea currents effects on final results, too. On the other
hand when model test results are converted into full scale predictions, for
instance Reynold's scale effects are introduced and it influence the obtained
prediction. Number of obtained measuring points and a scatter of results
depends on quality of measuring equipment and way of averaging the results.
Besides a number measuring points had a crucial influence on shape of obtained
curves.
Finally we can state that the full scale powering trial prediction do not
significantly differs from Sea Trials Test results.

References

1. Technical Specification of 1350 TEU Container Vessel, 1995.

2. Model Tests for a 1350 TEU Container Ship. Final Report No WP 27/92.