Proceedings of the 3rd International Conference on Maritime and Naval Science and Engineering

Basic Principles For Ships Performance Ranking Merit

LUIGI IANNONE
Propulsion and Cavitation Department
I.N.S.E.A.N. – Istituto Nazionale per Studi ed Esperienze di Architettura Navale
via Vallerano, 139 – 00128 Roma
ITALY
l.iannone@insean.it

Abstract: - With the aim to select best members from hull forms families, ships hydrodynamic performance
data must be arranged so as to provide designers with some merit ranking lists allowing comparing
performance variations against geometrical parameters variations. Usefulness of classifying ships performance
parameters according to merit lists is discussed.
More specifically, after stressing why it’s never possible to construct rigorous merit lists completely fulfilling
the similitude law, specific guidelines are given on how to usefully construct some appropriate approximate
merit lists and virtual merit lists fulfilling the similitude law.
The above guidelines are lastly applied in some specific sample examples.

Key-Words: - Dimension; Analysis; Hulls; Families; Merit; Ranking; Lists.

1 Introduction Almost never it’s possible to construct rigorous

Data of hydrodynamic performance of ships can be
essentially directed either to make as easy as
possible prediction calculations of prototype
geosims performance or to select the best hull form
from a family or systematic series of hull forms.
In this latter case, data must be organized so as to
put at disposal of ship designers some so-called
ranking lists of hull forms worthiness or merit or,
more shortly, some hull forms merit rankings under
the form of a worth classification among the family
hull forms allowing to compare performance
variations against variations of form parameters.
This paper makes specific reference to the case of
hydrodynamical performance of every kind of ships
and their reduced scale models in towing operation
conditions.
Basic concepts of similitude laws and dimensional
analysis (see [1], [2], [3], [4] and [5]) are recalled as
a very short but appropriate premise including also
the ship-related definition of dimensionless
parameters - relative to several reference quantities,
like hull wetted length, submerged displacement
volume and wetted surface – of the physical quantity
under comparison, like frictional, residual and total
resistance.
Ships power performance parameters can be
classified according to simple order lists or
according to much more useful merit lists: these
latter ones confer the hull forms of a ships family
with the meaning of behavior worthiness as the
quantity under comparison concerns.
merit lists wholly fulfilling the appropriate
similitude law.
In some practical cases, it’s required to know which
is the family hull form having a certain optimal
quantity with the minimum value of another quantity
under comparison, as for instance the optimal
surface with the minimum total resistance. In such
cases, approximate merit lists must be constructed.
In many other cases it’s usual - as in the Anglo-
Saxon literature – and very useful to construct
virtual merit lists, only virtually fulfilling the
appropriate similitude law in that all hull forms of
the family are reported to a same given quantity, like
displacement volume of 10,000 m3 or length L =
121.92 m (400 ft): in such a case the similitude law
and then the merit list hold only for the hull forms as
reported in geometrical similitude to the assumed
reference quantity.
At last, but not at least, a noticeable property is also
illustrated and appropriately pointed out, which
allows showing up much more significant trends in
merit curves.
2 Similitude Parameters of Ship
Resistance
Dimensionless value of every physical quantity
assumes the same dimensionless value in all
(dynamically) similar phenomena (see [8]).
In particular, in towing conditions, relative
resistance r is the value of ship resistance R made
dimensionless through a ship reference characteristic
quantity like hull form wetted length L, wetted

ISSN: 1792-4707 164 ISBN: 978-960-474-222-6

 Proceedings of the 3rd International Conference on Maritime and Naval Science and Engineering

width B, draft T, wetted surface S and displacement Dividing relative resistances r of Eqs. (2) to (6) by
volume ∀ . their corresponding squared relative speeds Fn of
If ρ is the water mass density, g the gravity Eqs. (7) to (11), dimensionless values are again
acceleration and obtained, which represent resistances made
dimensionless through one reference characteristic
∆ = ρ⋅g⋅∀ (1)
quantity and the speed relative to this same
characteristic quantity. If the further numerical
the hull form weigh displacement, generic factor ½ is introduced, these dimensionless
resistances relative to reference characteristics L, B, resistances assume the expressions of the so called
T, S and ∀ are, respectively, given by: specific resistances c – or resistance coefficients c –
relative to reference characteristics L, B, T, S and
R ∀ , as follows:
rL = (2)
ρ ⋅ g ⋅ L3
rL R
R cL = =
1 ⋅F 2 1 ⋅ ρ ⋅ L2 ⋅ v 2
rB = (3) 2 nL 2
ρ ⋅ g ⋅ B3 (12)
rB R
R cB = =
rT = (4) 1 ⋅F 2 1 ⋅ ρ ⋅ B2 ⋅ v 2
ρ ⋅ g ⋅ T3 2 nB 2
(13)
R
rS = (5) rT R
ρ ⋅ g ⋅ S3 2 cT = =
1 ⋅F 2 1 ⋅ ρ ⋅ T2 ⋅ v 2
2 nT 2
R R
r∀ = = (14)
ρ⋅g⋅∀ ∆
(6). rS R
cS = =
1 ⋅F 2 1 ⋅ ρ ⋅ S ⋅ v2
Taking into account the dependence of generic 2 nS 2
resistance R from hull advance speed v, hull (15)
advance speeds or Froude numbers Fn relative to
reference characteristics L, B, T, S and ∀ are, r∀ R
c∀ = =
respectively, given by the following dimensionless 1 ⋅F 2 1 ⋅ ρ ⋅ ∀2 3 ⋅ v2
parameters: 2 n∀ 2
(16).
v
FnL = Among them, the latest two ones are the most
(7)
g⋅L popular to experienced hydrodynamicists. Also very
popular are the following two conversion
v relationships:
FnB = (8)
g⋅B S
c∀ = ⋅ cS
v ∀2 3
FnT = (9)
(17)
g⋅T
S
v cL = ⋅ cS
FnS = L2
g ⋅ S1 2 (18).
(10)
Besides Froude number, taking into account the
gravity effects, the other main parameter governing
v
F n∀ = the advance resistance phenomenon is Reynolds
g ⋅ ∀1 3 number Rn, which takes into account viscosity
(11). effects of water provided with kinematic viscosity ν.

ISSN: 1792-4707 165 ISBN: 978-960-474-222-6

 Proceedings of the 3rd International Conference on Maritime and Naval Science and Engineering

Well then, taking into account the dependence of that say as the sum of frictional resistance, only
generic resistance R from Reynolds number, depending on Reynolds number, residual resistance,
Reynolds numbers Rn relative to reference only depending on Froude number, and a third
characteristics L, B, T, S and ∀ are, respectively, interference term, depending on both Reynolds and
given by the following dimensionless parameters: Froude numbers.
For this kind of ships, similitude law is practically
v⋅L handled through Froude’s approximate method,
R nL = according to which dimensional total resistance is
ν approximately given only by the sum of the first two
(19)
terms of Eq. (28), i.e.:
v⋅B
R nB = R T = R T (R n ,Fn ) ≅ R F ( R n ) + R R (Fn )
ν (26).
(20)
By expressing under the form of resistance
v⋅T coefficients, the above last three expressions become
R nT =
ν respectively:
(21)
cT = cT (R n ,Fn )
v ⋅ S1 2 (27)
R nS =
ν cT = cT (R n ,Fn ) = cF ( Rn ) + cR (Fn ) + cFR (Rn ,Fn )
(22) (28)

v ⋅ ∀1 3
R n∀ =
ν (29).
23).
3 Similitude Laws of Ship Resistance
3.1 Surface Ships
When performance under consideration are those
ones of surface ships operating in towing condition,
the two presentation methods recalled in the above
introduction section are almost always alternative
because, generally, the dependence conflict of total
resistance components from both Froude and
Reynolds numbers does not allow to jointly satisfy
the requirements of both similitude law and worth
classification.
For hull forms of surface ships and submarines
operating at schnorkel depth (see [6]), dimensional
total resistance mainly depends on both Reynolds
and Froude numbers:
cT = cT (R n ,Fn ) ≅ cF ( Rn ) + cR (Fn )
3.2 Submerged Ships
In the particular case of deeply submerged hull
forms – like submarines operating at very deep
depth (see [6]) – the lucky circumstance occurs that
dimensionless residual resistance is, in agreement
with the Haslar tank AEW methodology for ship-
model correlation, a constant value cRmin peculiar
and characteristic – though different from one hull
form to another one - of the hull form geometry
only, so that it is independent not only from
Reynolds number but from Froude number too.
Then Eq. (28) turns out:
cT = cT (Rn ) = cF ( Rn ) + cR min
(30).
which means that dimensionless total resistance is a
function, besides of hull form geometry, only of
Reynolds number.

R T = R T (R n ,Fn ) 4 Ranking Merit of Ships Resistance

(24),
which can be expressed as follows: 4.1 Order and worth classification
In general, an abacus constituted by a set of curves
R T = R T (Rn ,Fn ) = R F ( Rn ) + R R (Fn ) + R FR (R n ,Fn )
representing simply ordered values of dimensional
(25), resistances at a given ship advance speed – as
referred to different hull forms family members of a
same ship typology – assumes only the meaning of

ISSN: 1792-4707 166 ISBN: 978-960-474-222-6

 Proceedings of the 3rd International Conference on Maritime and Naval Science and Engineering
an order classification but not necessarily the worth
classification for the family hull forms resistance at
that ship advance speed.
An order classification is a worth classification only
if it is respectful of the similitude law. Indeed, in
order to assume also the meaning of the worth
classification for the family hull forms resistance at
the given relative speed, it’s necessary that - besides
geometrical similitude of hull forms, assumed as a
comparison basis – the order classification relative
speed would be the only parameter on which the
family hull forms resistance depends.
Comparisons among values of dimensional
resistance at that relative speed only hold in such a
case, the only one in which it’s possible to attach to
the order classification the meaning of hull forms
behaviour quality with respect to their resistance
encountered at that relative speed.
So, the classifications cRL(RnL), cRB(RnL),
cRS(RnL) and cR∀  R nL  are not appropriate for
establishing the worth classifications for residual
resistances of surface ships because dimensionless
residual resistances do not depend on Reynolds
number but on Froude number.
Likewise, the classifications cFL(FnL), cFB(FnB),
cFT(FnT), cFS(FnS) and cF∀  Fn∀  are
appropriate for establishing the worth classifications
for frictional resistances of both surface and
submerged ships because dimensionless frictional
resistances are not dependent on Froude number but
on Reynolds number.
Instead, an order classification of residual
resistances of a surface hull forms family is the
worth classification for residual resistances if it’s
respectful of Froude’s law, that say if it’s
represented against Froude number and its ordinates
are made dimensionless through the same quantities
(hull advance speed and wetted length) appearing in
the abscissa Froude number. Likewise, an order
classification of frictional resistances of a
submerged hull forms family is the worth
classification for frictional resistances if it’s
respectful of the similitude law of Eq. (30), that say
if it’s represented against Reynolds number and its
ordinates are made dimensionless through the same
quantities (hull advance speed and wetted length)
appearing in the abscissa Reynolds number.
4.2 Rigorous merit classifications
Not all dimensionless worth ranking lists are
rigorous worth classifications, i.e. not all of them
allow to establish valid comparisons among the
ordinate set values. To this end, a worth
classification requires that its ordinates would be
made dimensionless through all and only the same
ISSN: 1792-4707
quantities appearing in the abscissa parameter: as a
matter of fact, only in such a case ordinate set values
can be compared at identity of all quantities
appearing in the abscissa.
In this sense, the order classifications cRL(FnL),
cRB(FnB), cRT(FnT), cRS(FnS), c R∀ (F n∀ ) and
cFL(RnL) of a surface hull forms family are all, with
no doubt at all, rigorous because cR only depends on
Froude number Fn and cF only depends on Reynolds
number Rn.
Likewise, as a submerged hull forms family
concerns, cRL(FnL), cRL(RnL), cRS(FnS), cRS(RnS),
cR∀  Fn∀  , cR∀  R n∀  , cFL(RnL), cFS(RnS),
cF∀  R n∀  and cTL(RnL) are all rigorous worth
classifications. Among them, for instance, cTL(RnL)
allows to choose, for each RnL value, the best hull
form presenting, at identity of advance speed v and
wetted length L such as to meet the abscissa through
Eq. (19), the minimum total resistance RTmin. Of
course, the cTL value of this best hull form is the
same for all geosims of this latter one.
When either multiplying or dividing all ordinates of
a curve set constituting a worth classification by any
not power of their corresponding abscissas, all ordinates
values at each abscissa will suffer a variation of the
same magnitude so that their merit comparisons
remain unvaried and the worth classification
meaning still holds.
In the practice, this noticeable property often turns
out very useful because allows, for example, to
transform a worth classification of relative
resistances r, versus Froude number Fn, in another
fully equivalent one of resistance coefficients
r
c =
1 ⋅F 2
2 n
(31),
whose curves exhibit much more flattened and
smoothed trends, so making much more evident and
significant their merit variations (see Fig. 1
compared to Fig. 2).
4.3 Approximate merit classifications
When ordinates of their worth classification are
made dimensionless through – besides the quantities
in the abscissa – at least one quantity not included in
the abscissa and not the same for all hull forms of
the family, all ordinates at the same abscissa are
varied by different entities so that the comparisons
rightness is lost. Therefore, in this case the worth
ranking list so obtained can only be considered as an
167 ISBN: 978-960-474-222-6
 Proceedings of the 3rd International Conference on Maritime and Naval Science and Engineering
approximate worth classification.
In this sense, the order classifications cRB(FnL),
∀ (F nL ) , c RL (F n∀ ) ,
cRT(FnL), cRS(FnL), c R∀
c RB (F n∀ ) , c RT (F n∀ ) , c RS (F n∀ ) , cFB(RnL),
cFT(RnL), cFS(RnL) and cF∀ ∀ (R nL ) of a surface
hull forms family are only approximate. Among
them, for instance, c R∀ ∀ (F nL ) allows to
individualize, as residual resistance RR concerns,
the best hull form inside the hull forms family, at
identity not only of hull advance speed v and wetted
length L but also of displacement volume ∀ : in
other words, it indicates which hull form in the
family presents, at identity of hull advance speed v
and wetted length L, the optimal displacement
volume ∀ optimal with the minimum residual
resistance RRmin.
Likewise, as a submerged hull forms family
concerns, cRL(v), cRS(v), cR∀ (v ) , cTS(RnL) and
cT∀  R nL  are all approximate worth classifications.
Among them, for instance, cTS(RnL) and cT∀  R nL 
allow to choose, for each RnL value, the best hull
form presenting, at identity of hull advance speed v
and wetted length L such as to meet the abscissa
through Eq. (19), the optimal wetted surface Soptimal
or displacement volume ∀ optimal with the
minimum total resistance RTmin. Of course, in such
cases too, the cTS or cT∀∀ values of these best hull
forms are the same for all geosims of these latter
ones.
When represented under the resistance coefficients
form of Eq. (31), also approximate worth
classifications enjoy the same noticeable property as
the rigorous ones.
4.4 Virtual merit classifications
For evaluating hydrodynamical performance of
ships operating in towing conditions, the most
interesting and anyway the most definitive worth
classification is that one referred to total resistance.
Indeed, as submerged ships concerns, an order
classification of total resistance coefficients cT do
would hold as a worth classification because its
ordinates would respect the similitude law when
expressed against Reynolds number.
Instead, as surface ships concerns, an order
classification of total resistance coefficients cT
would not hold - if represented only against Froude
number Fn or only against Reynolds number Rn - as
a worth classification because its ordinates would
ISSN: 1792-4707
not respect the similitude law in that not expressed
against both Reynolds and Froude numbers.
Nevertheless, it is possible to virtually obviate to
such a drawback, reporting in geometric similitude
all family hull forms to a same given value of a
selected dimensional characteristic – either
appearing or not in the abscissa - and then
calculating, at this value, all resistances of all family
hull forms at all abscissas. In so doing, the
similitude law becomes – though only at the given
value of the selected dimensional characteristic -
implicitly satisfied and it’s possible to utilise the
order list as the worth classification for total
resistance. However, as it holds not only at identity
of the quantities appearing in the abscissa but also of
the reference quantity, it constitutes a virtual worth
classification in that it’s valid only for the hull forms
reported in geometrical similitude to the same
assumed reference characteristic.
Virtual worth classifications too can be rigorous or
approximate according to ordinates comparison is or
isn’t valid at identity of all and only quantities
appearing in the abscissa and of the assumed
reference characteristic quantity.
So, cTL(FnL) = cTL(v) at L = const and
cT∀  Fn∀  = cT∀ (v ) at ∀ = const are virtual and
rigorous worth classifications for a surface hull
forms family.
Likewise, for a submerged hull forms family,
cFL(FnL) at L = const, cFL(v) at L = const,
cF∀  Fn∀  at ∀ = const, cF∀∀ (v ) at ∀ = const,
cTL(FnL) at L = const, cTL(v) at L = const,
cT∀  Fn∀  at ∀ = const and cT∀∀ (v ) at ∀ = const
are all virtual and rigorous worth classifications.
Among them, for instance, cTL(v) at L = const or
cT∀∀ (v ) at ∀ = const allows to choose, for each hull
advance speed value v, the best hull form
presenting, at identity of hull advance speed v and
wetted length L, the minimum total resistance
RTmin. In such cases be careful that the cTL or cT∀∀
value of this best hull form applies itself, not to all
geosims of this latter one, but only to the family hull
form with the assumed reference value of wetted
length L = const or displacement volume ∀ =
const.
Instead, cTS(FnL) at L = const, cTS(FnL) at ∀ =
const, cTL(FnL) at ∀ = const and cT∀  Fn∀  at L =
const are virtual and approximate worth
classifications for a surface hull forms family.
Likewise, for a submerged hull forms family,
cFL(FnL) at ∀ = const, cFL(v) at ∀ = const,
168 ISBN: 978-960-474-222-6
 Proceedings of the 3rd International Conference on Maritime and Naval Science and Engineering

cF∀  FnL  at L = const, cF∀∀ (v ) at L = const,
cFS(FnL) at L = const, cFS(v) at L = const,
cTS(FnL) at L = const, cTS(v) at L = const,
cT∀  FnL  at L = const, cT∀∀ (v ) at L = const are all
virtual and approximate worth classifications.
Among them, for instance, cTS(FnL) at L = const or
cT∀  FnL  at L = const allows to choose, for each
Froude number value FnL, the best hull form
presenting, at identity of hull advance speed v and
reference wetted length L such as to meet the
abscissa through Eq. (10), the optimal wetted
surface Soptimal or displacement volume ∀ optimal
with the minimum total resistance RTmin. In such
cases too, the cTS or cT∀∀ value of this best hull form
applies itself, not to all geosims of this latter one,
but only to the family hull form with the assumed
reference value of wetted length L = const.
In the technical literature, it’s often used the virtual
and rigorous classifications, at ∀ = 10,000 m3,
cT∀  Fn∀  = cT∀ (v ) , for surface ships, and cT∀∀ (v ) ,
for submerged ships, which allow to choose the best
hull form presenting, at identity of advance speed v
and displacement volume ∀ = 10,000 m3, the
minimum total resistance RTmin. Still more, Anglo-
Saxon people – very loyal to their tradition – have
not yet deserted, for surface ships, the old, virtual
and approximate, worth classification representing
cTS(FnL) at L = 121.92 m (400 ft), which allows to
choose the best hull form presenting, at identity of
advance speed v and wetted length L = 121.92 m
(400 ft), the optimal wetted surface Sopt with the
minimum total resistance RTmin.
The comparison outcome of a virtual worth
classification will not necessarily be valid also for
reference characteristic values distinct from that one
for which the classification has been built: on the
contrary, the ordinate value will certainly change.
For example, it’s not said that the surface hull form
indicated as the best one by a worth classification
volume hulls family reports for such a hull form at
the same advance speed.
5 Some Frigates Merit Ranking
Results
The above guidelines have been applied to the six
frigates hull forms of Table 1, whose model results
of resistance tests, carried out by INSEAN (see [7]),
are all reported in Table 2.
Due to space reasons, only for only one hull form of
frigates the resistance relative and specific
coefficients of their rigorous, approximate and
virtual classifications are presented in Table 3 and
Table 4: in all frictional calculations a hull
roughness allowance cA = 2·104 is assumed. On the
contrary, almost all the above classifications are
shown in Fig. 1 to Fig. 7.
6 Conclusion
In the present paper, the fundamentals of utilizing
appropriate worth classifications for selecting the
best hull forms with respect to ships hydrodynamical
performance parameters are first of all stressed
and discussed. Useful procedures are then
conceptually developed for selecting ships hull
forms, with respect to hydrodynamical performance
parameters related to towing conditions. Some
specific examples for frigates ships are lastly
developed and their results presented.
Table 1: Ship geometrical characteristics and
model testing data of a frigates family. The symbols
in the first column are: Los = maximum wetted
length; Bwl = width at waterline; Tm = mean depth;
∀ = underwater volume; S = wetted surface; cB =
block coefficient; λ = scale ratio of towing test
model; t = water temperature in towing testing
C. 2379 C. 2397 C. 2430
Hull C. 1712 C. 1649 C. 2520

cT∀  Fn∀  = cT∀ (v ) at ∀ = 5,000 m3 will keep to be form Maestrale Lupo Horizon Horizon Horizon
FREMM
1st 2nd 3rd
the best one, i.e. will keep presenting the minimum Los, m 115.896 106.340 136.888 142.013 142.995 130.065
total resistance RTmin, also at ∀ = 10,000 m3; on
Bwl, m 12.838 11.948 17.850 17.955 18.100 17.270
the contrary, the cF∀  Fn∀  value, pertaining at Tm, m 3.872 3.680 4.850 5.025 5.363 5.256
identity of advance speed to the geometrically ∀ , m3 2,756.1 2,282.9 5,750.2 6,292.7 6,975.6 5,804.9
similar hull form with a double volume, should be 2
S, m 1,785.00 1,538,80 2,834.00 2,983.10 3,135.00 2,783.58
calculated again – in order to derive from it the total
Los/Bwl 9.028 8.900 7.669 7.909 7.900 7.531
resistance dimensional value RT – because it’s
Bwl/Tm 3.316 3.247 3.680 3.573 3.375 3.286
distinct from that one the worth classification of half
cB 0.4784 0.4883 0.4852 0.4911 0.5025 0.4917

ISSN: 1792-4707 169 ISBN: 978-960-474-222-6

 Proceedings of the 3rd International Conference on Maritime and Naval Science and Engineering

λ 18.01 13.5 25.0 25.0 25.0 18.0 10-9 103 104 103 102
FnL FnS Fn∆∆
t, °C 15.5 13.5 11.0 12.3 17.3 13.2 RnL cFS cRL cRS cR∆∆
0.153 0.254 0.439 0.502 1.670 1.162 0.874 0.794
Table 2: Results from resistance model tests on
0.183 0.305 0.526 0.603 1.632 1.568 1.180 1.071
frigates family of Table 1
0.214 0.356 0.614 0.703 1.600 1.715 1.291 1.172
Ship Model resistance, N 0.244 0.407 0.702 0.803 1.573 1.788 1.345 1.221
speed C. 1712 C. 1649 C. 2379 C. 2397 C. 2430 C. 2520
m/s 0.275 0.458 0.790 0.904 1.550 1.793 1.349 1.225
Maestrale Lupo Horizon Horizon Horizon FREMM
4 5,982 0.305 0.509 0.877 1.004 1.530 1.830 1.377 1.251
6 4,119 12,356 0.336 0.559 0.965 1.105 1.512 1.904 1.433 1.301
8 7,551 20,985
10 98,060 98,060 12,061 12,846 13,925 32,262 0.366 0.610 1.053 1.205 1.496 2.152 1.619 1.471
12 117,672 117,672 17,553 18,141 19,808 47,167 0.397 0.661 1.141 1.306 1.481 2.590 1.949 1.770
14 137,284 137,284 23,731 24,711 26,574 63,739
15 72,761 0.427 0.712 1.228 1.406 1.468 3.176 2.390 2.170
16 156,896 156,896 30,497 31,870 34,811 82,076 0.458 0.763 1.316 1.506 1.456 3.556 2.676 2.430
18 176,508 176,508 38,734 40,401 44,862 101,884
20 196,120 196,120 49,128 50,403 56,581 123,458 0.488 0.814 1.404 1.607 1.444 3.676 2.766 2.512
22 215,732 215,732 60,307 61,288 69,525 145,325 0.519 0.865 1.492 1.707 1.434 3.651 2.747 2.495
24 235,344 235,344 71,094 72,270 82,468 173,076
26 254,956 254,956 85,704 85,704 97,374 220,145 0.534 0.890 1.536 1.758 1.429 3.598 2.708 2.459
27 106,689 252,603
28 274,568 274,568 105,513 120,418 288,296
29 119,535 118,849 135,519
30 294,180 294,180 133,362 133,656 151,699 366,744 7 Acknowledgements
32 313,792 313,792 161,309 The present work was supported by the Italian
34 333,404 333,404 Ministry of Transportation and Navigation in the
35 343,210 343,210 frame of INSEAN Research Plans.
Table 3: Frictional and residual relative
resistances of frigate Maestrale Fig. 1: rRL versus FnL rigorous ranking of Table 1
family
10-9 104 105 104 103 Rigorous merit classification of six frigates residual resistance: rRL vs FnL
FnL FnS Fn∆∆ rRL - mimimum residual resistance at the same hull speed and length -
RnL rFS rRL rRS rR∆∆ 7,0E-05

6,0E-05
0.153 0.254 0.439 0.502 0.534 0.135 0.279 0.764 C2520
C1649

5,0E-05 C2379

0.183 0.305 0.526 0.603 0.750 0.263 0.543 1.485 4,0E-05

0.214 0.356 0.614 0.703 1.002 0.391 0.808 2.211 3,0E-05

C2430
C2397
2,0E-05
0.244 0.407 0.702 0.803 1.286 0.533 1.100 3.009 C1712
1,0E-05

0.275 0.458 0.790 0.904 1.604 0.676 1.396 3.820

0,0E+00
0,00 0,10 0,20 0,30 FnL 0,40 0,50 0,60

0.305 0.509 0.877 1.004 1.954 0.853 1.760 4.815

0.336 0.559 0.965 1.105 2.337 1.073 2.215 6.061 Fig. 2: cRL versus FnL rigorous ranking of Table 1
0.366 0.610 1.053 1.205 2.752 1.443 2.979 8.152 family.
Rigorous merit classification of six frigates residual resistance: cRL vs FnL
0.397 0.661 1.141 1.306 3.198 2.039 4.208 11.515 cRL
6,5E-04
- mimimum residual resistance at the same hull speed and length -

6,0E-04
0.427 0.712 1.228 1.406 3.676 2.899 5.984 16.375 5,5E-04

5,0E-04 C2379

0.458 0.763 1.316 1.506 4.184 3.726 7.692 21.046 4,5E-04

C2520
C2430
4,0E-04 C1649

3,5E-04
0.488 0.814 1.404 1.607 4.724 4.383 9.048 24.758 3,0E-04 C2397
2,5E-04

0.519 0.865 1.492 1.707 5.294 4.914 10.144 27.756 2,0E-04

C1712
1,5E-04

1,0E-04
0.534 0.890 1.536 1.758 5.591 5.132 10.594 28.989 5,0E-05

0,0E+00
0,00 0,10 0,20 0,30 FnL 0,40 0,50 0,60

Table 4: Frictional and residual resistance

specific coefficients of frigate Maestrale Fig. 3: cRS versus FnS rigorous ranking of Table 1
family.

ISSN: 1792-4707 170 ISBN: 978-960-474-222-6

 Proceedings of the 3rd International Conference on Maritime and Naval Science and Engineering

Rigorous merit classification of six frigates residual resistance: cRS vs FnS Virtual approximate merit classification of six frigates total resistance: cTS vs FnL
cRS - mimimum residual resistance at the same hull speed and surface - cTS - optimal surface with minimum total resistance of 400 feet hulls at the same speed -
4,0E-03 4,00E-03

3,5E-03 3,50E-03
C2379
L = 400 feet C2379
3,0E-03 C1649 3,00E-03 C1649

C2430 C2430
2,5E-03 2,50E-03
C2520 C2520
C2397
2,0E-03 2,00E-03

C1712 C2397
1,5E-03 1,50E-03
C1712
1,0E-03 1,00E-03

5,0E-04 5,00E-04

0,0E+00
0,00E+00
0,00 0,10 0,20 0,30 0,40 0,50 FnS 0,60 0,70 0,80 0,90 1,00 FnL
0,00 0,20 0,40 0,60 0,80 1,00 1,20 1,40 1,60

Fig. 4: Table 1 family cRS versus FnL approximate

ranking
Approximate merit classification of six frigates residual resistance: cRS vs FnL
cRS
4,50E-03
- optimal surface with minimum residual resistance at the same hull speed and length - References:
4,00E-03 [1] Barenblatt, G.I., Dimensional Analysis, Gordon
3,50E-03

C2430
C2379 and Breach Science Publishers, 1987.
3,00E-03

2,50E-03
C1649
[2] Ferretti, P. & Taddei, M., Meccanica Delle
C2520

2,00E-03
C2397 Macchine, Liguori Editore, Naples, Italy, 1966,
1,50E-03
C1712
Volume II, Misure Meccaniche, Capitolo IV,
1,00E-03
Leggi di similitudine
5,00E-04

0,00E+00
[3] Munson, B.R., Young, D.F. & Okiishi T.H.,
Fundamentals of Fluid Mechanics, 2nd edition,
0,00 0,10 0,20 0,30 FnL 0,40 0,50 0,60

John Wiley & Sons, 1994

Fig. 5: Table 1 family cRS versus Fn∆∆ approximate [4] Golia, C., Fluidodinamica dal Corso di
ranking Fluidodinamica, anno accademico 2004-05,
cRS
Approximate merit classification of six frigates residual resistance: cRS vs Fn∆ ∆
- optimal surface with minimum residual resistance at the same hull speed and volume -
Università di Napoli II, Italy, 2004, Capitolo 6,
4,00E-03
Analisi Dimensionale e Similitudini
3,50E-03

3,00E-03
C2379
C1649
[5] Guadagnini, A. & Riva, M., Appunti di
2,50E-03
C2430 Similitudine e Modelli dal Corso di Meccanica
C2520

2,00E-03
dei Fluidi II, anno accademico 2004-05,
1,50E-03
C1712
C239
Politecnico di Milano, Italy, 2004
1,00E-03 [6] Iannone, L., Implementazione Metodologia di
5,00E-04
Sperimentazione per Carene Sommerse, Ricerca
0,00E+00
0,00 0,20 0,40 0,60 ∆
Fn∆ 0,80 1,00 1,20 1,40 1,60 PERF3 del PROGRAMMA RICERCHE INSEAN
1984-85, INSEAN, Rome, Italy, 1989
Fig. 6: Table 1 family cT∆∆ versus Fn∆∆ virtual rigorous [7] INSEAN, Technical Reports of model testing on
ranking C. 1712, C. 1649, C. 2379, C. 2397, C. 2430, C.
∆
cT∆
Virtual rigorous merit classification of six frigates total resistance: cT∆ ∆ vs Fn∆
- minimum total resistance of 10.000 m3 volume hulls at the same speed -
∆
2520, C. 2309, C. 2389, C. 2390, C. 2409, C.
5,20E-02

4,80E-02
2428 hull forms, INSEAN Proceedings, Rome,
∆ = 10.000 m3
4,40E-02

4,00E-02 C2430
C2379
C1649
Italy, 1974 ÷ 1988
3,60E-02

3,20E-02
C2520
[8] Iannone, L., Merit Rankings For Ships Power
2,80E-02
C2397
Performance, FAST 2009, Athens, Greece, 2009,
2,40E-02 C1712
2,00E-02 pages 799 to 810
1,60E-02

1,20E-02

8,00E-03

4,00E-03

0,00E+00
0,00 0,20 0,40 0,60 ∆
Fn∆ 0,80 1,00 1,20 1,40 1,60

Fig. 7: cTS versus FnL virtual approximate

ranking of 121.92 m (400 ft) frigates of
Table 1 family

ISSN: 1792-4707 171 ISBN: 978-960-474-222-6