Are you sure?
This action might not be possible to undo. Are you sure you want to continue?
Dr. Prasanta K Sahoo
Senior Lecturer (Hydrodynamics)
Table of Contents
INTRODUCTION .................................................................................................................................................. 1
METHODICAL SERIES ..................................................................................................................................... 1
STANDARD SERIES AND REGRESSION ANALYSIS ........................................................................................................... 2
RESISTANCE PREDICTION BY EMPIRICAL AND STATISTICAL METHODS ............................................................................. 12
SOME FINAL REMARKS ................................................................................................................................. 20
THE RECOMMENDED 'MAGIC CUBE' FOR AMECRC .......................................................................... 25
REGRESSION ANALYSIS ............................................................................................................................................ 26
APPENDAGE RESISTANCE ............................................................................................................................. 30
REFERENCES ........................................................................................................................................................... 31
PROPULSION ...................................................................................................................................................... 33
PROPULSION FACTOR FOR HIGHSPEED VESSELS ......................................................................................................... 41
PROPELLER SCALE EFFECTS ...................................................................................................................................... 42
NOMENCLATURE ............................................................................................................................................. 46
REFERENCES ........................................................................................................................................................... 47
ii
Introduction
METHODICAL SERIES
a) Nordstrom
b) Series 60
c) De Groot Series
d) Norwood ad Silverleaf Data
e) Series 63
f) Series 64
g) SSPA Series
h) NPL Series
i) Series 65, 65B
j) MARIN Series
k) AMECRC Series
Resistance Prediction by testing in Towing Tank
Graphical and Numerical methods of Resistance Prediction
a) Clement (1964)
b) Doust (1961)
c) VanOortmerssen
d) Holtrop and Holtrop & Mennen
e) Jin Pinzhong et at
f) Savitsky & Brown
g) Radojcic
h) Compton
i) Lahtiharju et al
j) etc
1
Standard Series And Regression Analysis
Taylor Series
C
P
= 0.48 to 0.86
B/T = 2.25, 3 and 3.75
W/[Lwl/100]
3
= 20 to 250
CM constant at 0.925
∇/(Lwl)
3
= 0.3 to 8.75x10
3
Cs= S* (∇Lwl)
0.5
for different values of B/T
ATTC friction line to calculate Pe and C
A
= 0.0004
Figure 1: Taylor’s Series
2
Figure 2: Taylor’s Series
3
Nordstrom Series 1936
In 1936, Nordstrom [1]*
*
published the results of tests carried out at the Royal Institute
of Technology in Stockholm with 14 different round bilge models, 5 of which were tested
at more than 1 draught. Three of these models, each tested at 3 different draughts,
form a small systematic series.
The results of resistance tests with these models, carried out in calm water, were
originally analysed with Froude's frictional resistance coefficients. Even though no
turbulence stimulating devices were adopted, subsequent analyses of the results have
not revealed low enough resistance values to suspect significant influence of laminar
flow.
Figure 3
*
indicate reference number at end of text
4
The results obtained by Nordstrom are now only rarely used, with the exception of the
results for the small systematic series. As originally presented, the results are only
useful for a fullscale displacement range of between 10 and 30 m
3
. A more applicable
presentation of these results is given in Fig. 1, in which the residual resistance
displacement weight ratio R
R
/∆ is given as a function of the lengthdisplacement ratio
L /
/
∇
1 3
and the volumetric Froude number F
n∇
. The residual resistance values in Fig. 3
are based on a reanalysis carried out by De Groot [2] using the 1947 ATTC friction line
with C
A
= 0.
 Round bilge hull forms
 tested at 3 diff. drafts
 Useful for full scale displacement up to 30m
3
 Refer fig 1.  for results
where
3 / 1
3 / 1
and f /
∇
·
,
`
.

∇
⇒ ∆
∇
g
V
F
L
R
n R
De  Groot Series
In 1951, De Groot [2] published the results of tests with 31 round bilge, highspeed hull
forms, 7 of which were tested at 2 or more draughts. These models were tested at the
Netherlands Ship Model Basin (NSMB). Four of these 31 models, each tested at 4
draughts, constitute a small systematic series. Tests with these 4 models were also
carried out in the towing tank of the Delft University of Technology.
The results of resistance tests with all 31 models, carried out in calm water, were
analysed using the 1947 ATTC friction coefficients. For the small systematic series, De
Groot presented a diagram displaying the values of the residual resistance coefficient C
R
= R
R
/
1
2
p SV
2
as a function of
V L /
and the displacementlength ratio ∇/(0.1L)
3
which diagram is often referred to by other workers in the field. More benefit of the
work carried out by De Groot, however, lies in the fact that he derived a single graph
(Fig. 8 of Ref. 2), showing the average resistance of 76 models (including the Nordstrom
5
data) as a function of the displacementlength ratio for the speed range corresponding to
V/
L
= 1.0 to 3.5. Unfortunately, the total resistance values given were for model
lengths of 2.25 metres only. Even though De Groot showed how to use this graph in
arriving at a prediction of the resistance of a new design, this procedure has not found
general acceptance. At NSMB, however, these results are used up to this day as a
standard to which the results of model resistance tests of fast, roundbilge hull forms are
compared in order to arrive at a first qualification of the lines of a new design.
To facilitate preparing a resistance prediction using this average data, the total model
resistance values referred to have been converted to values of the residual resistance
displacement weight ratio R
R
/∆ by using the average value for the wetted surface of the
models given by S = 2.75
∇L
, and the 1947 ATTC friction coefficients. These residual
resistance values are given in Fig. 3.
 31 round bilge high speed hull forms
 7 of these tested at 2 or more draft tested at NSMB ( now known as MARIN)
 analysed using ATTC  47 friction coeff.
 C
R
represented as
( )
f
V
L L
,
.
∇ 
.
`
,
1
3
 Obtained a single graph showing the average resistance of the models as a
function of displacement length ratio for
 The total resistance values for model lengths of 2.5m.
 This procedure has not found acceptance.
 To facilitate preparing a resistance prediction using this average data, total
model resistance have been converted to values of the residual resistance
to displacement ratio by using the average value for friction coefficients. fig 2.
The Marwood and Silverleaf Data
6
In 1960, Marwood and Silverleaf [3] presented the results of resistance tests with
approximately 30 unrelated roundbilge forms carried out at the Ship Division of the
British National Physical Laboratory. Mean resistance lines were given for these models,
together with lines representing 5 and 10 per cent deviations from the mean lines. From
these results, Marwood and Silverleaf confirmed earlier observations by Nordstrom and
De Groot that other than the lengthdisplacement ratio, and the Froude number, no clear
evidence of any important systematic variation in resistance with other parameters can
be discerned in the speed range considered, contrary to the case for the low speed range
and the planing speed range.
The Marwood and Silverleaf resistance data presents the resistance coefficient
©· × EHP V 427 1
2 2 3
. /
/
∆
for a range of values of the speedlength ratio and the
displacementlength ratio for a standard length of 100 feet. The values of the speed
length ratio V
L
covered is from 1.4 to 3.5 and the values of the lengthdisplacement
ratio
L/
/
∇
1 3
covered is from 5.2 to 8.2. These results have not been converted to
R
R
/∆  values here as was done for the De Groot data, since this would only form a
duplication of the De Groot data, in that both present average results.
Series 63
Results of resistance tests with models of five 50 feet round bilge utility boats were
reported on by Beys [4] in 1963. These tests were carried out in the towing tank of the
Davidson Laboratory of the Stevens Institute of Technology. These models form a
methodical series in that the body plans of all 5 models are geometrically similar. The
parent model has a nominal lengthbeam ratio of 4. All other models were derived from
this parent model by multiplying the waterline and buttock spacings of the parent model
by a constant so as to obtain nominal L/B values 2.5, 3.0, 4.0, 5.0 and 6.0. The models
had a length of 3 feet. Unfortunately, this procedure of deriving a systematic series
leads to changes not only in L/B, but also in B/T (and hence in C
B
, C
P
, LCB, etc.) when
tests at equal lengthdisplacement ratios are carried out such as is the case here. To
obtain the same L/∇
1/3
for the model with L/B = 2.5 as for the model with L/B = 6.0,
for example, a relatively smaller draught has to be adopted for the model with the
largest beam. Therefore, the differences in the resistance values between the different
7
models at equal lengthdisplacement and Froude number values cannot be attributed
solely to differences in L/B only. Nevertheless, the results obtained with these 5 models
are useful to designers requiring more information on the influence on resistance of hull
form parameters other than the lengthdisplacement ratio. The residual resistance
displacement weight ratio R
R
/∆ for each of these models are, accordingly, given here in
Figs. 3, 4, 5, 6 and 7 in the format used in Figs. 1 and 2. The presented residual
resistance values were derived from the measured total resistance by means of the 1947
ATTC friction line with C
A
= 0.
 Tested in Davidson Lab.
 Models of 50ft round bilge utility boats.
 Body plans of 5 models geometrically similar
 Parent model L/B = 4.
 All models obtained by waterline and buttock spacing by a constant
L/B=2.5,3,4,5,6
 Model length 3ft.
Changing L/B ratio  changes B/T ratio
 Which changes (B, C
p
, LCB etc)
To obtain same L/∇
1
3
for L/B = 2.5 & L/B = 6 for the beamier vessel smaller draft
required.
So different in resistance values at equal L/∇
1
3
for different models cannot be attributed
to changes in L/B only.
 R
R
/∆ for each model shown in fig 3, 4, 5, 6 & 7.
 obtained using ATTC 47 friction coefficient & C
A
= 0.
Series 64 (1965)
Results of tests with 27 models of slender, highspeed, roundbilge displacement forms
at the David W. Taylor Naval Ship Research and Development Center were published by
8
Yeh [5] in 1965. These 27 models comprise a systematic series of which the varied
parameters are ∆ /(0.01L)
3
(from 15 to 55), B/T (from 2 to 4) and C
B
(from 0.35 to
0.55). On assigning values to ∆ /(0.01L)
3
or L/∇
1/3
, B/T and C
B
, the L/B value is no
longer free to choose since:
( )
T / B
/ L C
B
L
3
3 / 1
B
∇
·
The L/B values of these 27 models thus range from 8.454 to 18.264. The speed range
covered corresponds to values of the Froude number F
n
from 0 to 1.5 (equivalent to a
range in V/
L
from 0 to 5.0). The results of the resistance tests in calm water were
reduced to residuary resistance values by Yeh, by using the 1947 ATTC frictional
resistance coefficients with C
A
= 0.
Due to the rather extreme type of hull forms in this series, the resistance results for the
individual models are not often used or referred to. Average resistance values for the
complete series, however, are frequently adopted for use in parametric studies for
slender ships and other purposes. For this reason the average residual resistance
displacement weight ratio R
R
/∆ , as a function of L/∇
1/3
and F
n∇
, is shown in Fig. 8. In
preparing this figure the data for ∆ /(0.01L)
3
= 20 and C
B
= 0.45 was not considered
because of the "inconsistency" of this data with the results for the other models of the
series.
 27 models of slender high speed round bilge displacement forms at DTMB.

( ) ∆/ . 0 01
3
L
varied from 15 to 55
 B/T 24
 C
B
0.35  0.55
On fixing the value of
( ) ∆/ . 0 01
3
L
or L/∇
1/3
9
B/T, C
B
& L/B are no larger free
as
( )
T / B
/ L C
B
L
3
3 / 1
B
∇
·
= 8.454 to 18.264 Speed range Fn 0 to 1.5
Resistance tests were reduced to residuary resistance values making ATTC 1947 friction
coefficient and C
A
= 0. Average resistance value for the complete series is frequently
adopted.
The average R
R
/∆ ratio  f (L/∇
1
3
& F
n∇
) shown in figure 8.
SSPA Series (1968)
In 1968, Lindgren and Williams [6] presented the results of resistance tests with a
methodical series of 9 models of highspeed, round bilge displacement vessels carried
out at the Swedish State Shipbuilding Tank (SSPA). The hull form parameters varied
were L/∇
1/3
(values of 6, 7 and 8) and B/T (values of 3.0, 3.5 and 4.0). The value of
the block coefficient C
B
was kept equal to 0.40 for all models, resulting in L/B values
ranging from 4.62 to 8.20 by virtue of Eg.14. The speed range covered corresponds to a
range in the Froude number F
n
from 0.4 to 1.2 (equivalent to a range in V/
L
from
1.34 to 4.0).
The residuary resistance values of the models were obtained by using the 1957 ITTC
frictional resistance coefficients. Up to a F
n
value equal to about 0.90, the results for
the 3 B/T values are almost identical, again leading to the observation that in the speed
range between F
n
= 0.4 and about 0.9 the lengthdisplacement ratio is the only
significant parameter. For this speed range the residuary resistancedisplacement
weight ratio R
R
/∆ of this series is shown in Fig. 9, as a function of L/∇
1/3
and F
n
∇.
 9 models of high speed round bilge displacement forms
10
L/∇
1
3
6, 7 & 8
B/T 3, 3.5, 4
C
B
 constant at 0.4
L/B  4.62  8.2 by virtue of
L
B
C L
B T
B
·
∇ /
/
/ 1 3
3
Speed range Fn = 0.4 to 1.2.
Using ITTC  57 residuary resistance values were obtained.
Results show for Fn = 0.4 to 0.9 length / displacement ratio is the only significant
parameter.
Refer figure 9 to see R
R
/∆ as function of L/∇
1
3
& F
n∇
.
NPL Series
Very useful resistance data on highspeed, round bilge displacement forms have been
published by Marwood and Bailey [7] in 1969 and by Bailey [8] in 1976, concerning the
tests carried out at the Ship Division of the British National Physical Laboratory with a
systematic series of 22 models of which L/B and B/T were varied. Five models were
tested having a L/B value of 3.33 with B/T values ranging from 3.19 to 10.21, 6 with L/B
equal to 4.54 with B/T values ranging from 1.72 to 6.87, 4 with L/B equal to 5.41 with
B/T values ranging from 1.94 to 4.86, 4 with L/B equal to 6.25 with B/T values ranging
from 1.93 to 5.80 and 3 models with L/B = 7.50 with B/T values ranging from 2.01 to
4.02. Other main hull form parameters were kept constant (C
B
= 0.397, C
P
= 0.693
and the longitudinal centre of buoyancy LCB was positioned 6.4% L aft of the midship
11
section). The speed range covered corresponds to values of the Froude number ranging
from 0.3 to 1.20 (equivalent to a range in V/
L
from 1.0 to 4.0).
The residuary resistance values were calculated from the measured model resistance by
subtracting the frictional resistance as determined by means of the 1957 ITTC skin
friction formulation. The residuary resistancedisplacement weight ratio was then
plotted against L/∇
1/3
for various F
n∇
values for each L/B value. These figures are
reproduced here as Figs. 10, 11, 12, 13 and 14.
Resistance Prediction by Empirical and Statistical Methods
Kafali's Graphical Method
In 1959, Kafali [9] published a graphical procedure for estimating the effective horse
power of small, round bilge highspeed vessels. The procedure adopts the following
formula:
2
E
L
V
V C P
,
`
.

∗ ∗ ∆ ∗ ·
in which P
E
= effective horse power
∆ = displacement in tons
V = ship speed in knots
L = waterline length in feet.
In above eqn. C is a constant, the value of which is to be determined from graphs.
These graphs display C as a function of V/ L, L/∇
1/3
(where L is in feet and ∆ is in
tons) and B/T. One graph is provided for B/T = 3.65 and another for B/T = 4.45. In
Ref. 9, it is stated that the value of C was determined from model tests. No details of
these tests are provided, however. The values for the lengthdisplacement ratio adopted
in these graphs range from 19 to 26 (equivalent to values of L/∇
1/3
of between 5.84 to
8.00). The speed range covered correspondence to a Froude number range of 0.35 to
0.85 (equivalent to V/
L
values from 1.2 to 2.9). Equation and the associated graphs
12
for C, are valid for the barehull case, ie. for hulls without appendages, as is the case for
the methodical series data given in section 3.
In this method, the influence of length on frictional resistance is ignored. Only one value
for C
P
was used in determining the value of the constant C. On using an allowance of
between +5 and +10% to account for the effects of roughness and appendages, Kafali
finds a good agreement between the results of the method and trial results for a 20.8 ft.
and a 112 ft. motorboat.
Clement's Graphical Method
A graphical procedure for the prediction of the total resistance of small, round bilge,
highspeed craft was published by Clement in 1964 [10]. The Nordstrom data [1] and
the Marwood and Silverleaf data [3] were used by Clement to derive a set of eight
graphs presenting the total resistanceweight ratio R
T
/∆ , dependent on the
displacement weight ∆ , the lengthdisplacement ratio L/∇
1/3
and the volumetric Froude
number F
n∇
. Each graph is valid for one value of F
n∇
. Graphs are provided for F
n∇
=
1.2, 1.4, 1.6, 1.8, 2.0, 2.2, 2.4 and 2.6. The values of the lengthdisplacement ratio
covered by the graphs range from 5.2 to 8.2, while the displacement weight values
range from 5,000 to 100,000 pounds. As explained in section 2, a dependence on
displacement or length is necessary when the total resistance is adopted as the
dependent variable in lieu of the residual resistance because of the dependence of skin
friction on the Reynolds number. In deriving the R
T
/∆ values given in the graphs,
Clement made use of the Froude friction coefficients. He used values for the wetted
surface following from the formula S = 0.157L
2
(with L in feet), which formula is valid
for the average value of the (unrelated) models of Ref. 3. Application of the modelship
correlation factor C
A
, as outlined in section 2, is not possible on using total resistance
values derived from graphs such as presented to Clement. To arrive at realistic full
scale values of the resistance, use of an integral allowance of approximately =10%
seems appropriate for small vessels [3].
Van Oortmerssen's Numerical Method
13
Van Oortmerssen used a multiple regression technique to obtain a numerical expression
for the residual resistance of small ships. This work, published in 1971 [11], was based
on 970 resistance data points of 93 models of small vessels tested at NSMB. The basic
expression adopted for the residual resistance was derived from a theoretical model of
the wave resistance of a travelling, twodimensional pressure disturbance, having peaks
at the equivalent at the equivalent stem and stern positions and a pressure minimum in
between, such as occurs for vessels with no parallel middle body. The range of
parameters for which the coefficients of the basic expressions are valid, are as follows:
 waterline length between 8 and 80 metres;
 displacement volume between 5 and 3000 cubic metres;
 lengthbeam ratio between 3 and 6.2;
 breadthdraught ratio between 1.9 and 4.0;
 prismatic coefficient between 0.50 and 0.73;
 midship section coefficient between 0.70 and 0.97;
 longitudinal centre of buoyancy between 7% L and +2.8% L forward of 0.5 L;
 half angle of entrance of design waterline between 10° and 46°.
The speed range covered by the 970 data points lie in the Froude number range between
0 and 0.50 (equivalent to a V/
L
range of 0 to 1.70). Some extrapolation to higher
speeds is permissible, however, because of the theoretical nature of the basic
expression. The numerical expression is as follows:
R
C e
mF
C e
mF
C e
mF
F C e
mF
F
R
n n n
n
n
n
∆
·
−
+
−
+
−
+
−
−
− −
1
2
2
2
3
2
2
4
2
2
9 /
. sin . cos
in which1000 C
1
= 79.32134  0.09287 LCB  0.00209 LCB
2
 246.45896 C
P
+ 187.13664 C
P
2
 1.42893 L/B
+ 0.11898 (L/B)
2
+ 0.15727 C
WL
 0.00064 C
WL
2
 2.52862 B/T + 0.50619 (B/T)
2
+ 1.62851 C
M
14
1000 C
2
= 6714.88397 + 19.83 LCB + 2.66997 LCB
2
 19662.024 C
P
+ 14099.904 C
P
2
+ 137.33613 L/B  13.36938 (L/B)
2
 4.49852 C
WL
+ 0.021 C
WL
2
+ 216.44923 B/T
 35.07602 (B/T)
2
 128.72535 C
M
1000 C
3
=  908.44371 + 2.52704 LCB  0.35794 LCB
2
+ 755.1866 C
P
 48.93952 C
P
2
+ 9.86873 L/B
 0.77652 (L/B)
2
+ 3.79020 C
WL
 0.01879 C
WL
2
 9.24399 B/T + 1.28571 (B/T)
2
+ 250.6491 C
M
1000 C
4
= 3012.14549 + 2.71437 LCB + 0.25521 LCB
2
 9198.8084 C
P
+ 6886.60416 C
P
2
 159.92694 L/B
+ 16.23621 (L/B)
2
 0.82014 C
WL
+ 0.00225 C
WL
2
+ 236.3797 B/T  44.1782 (B/T)
2
+ 207.2558 C
M
and m = 0.14347 C
P
2.1976
In the formulas for 1000C
1
, 1000C
2
, 1000C
3
and 1000C
4
, the value of C
WL
is based on
the value of i
E
in degrees.
In the above expressions, C
WL
= i
E
. L/B, where i
E
is the half angle of entrance of the
design waterline. The values of L/B and B/T can be based on the waterline values of L, B
and T, although Van Oortmerssen used the displacement length L
D
rather than the
waterline length, where L
D
was defined as half the sum of the length between
perpendiculars and the waterline length.
15
Numerical Method Derived by Mercier and Savitsky
Mercier and Savitsky [12] carried out a regression analysis of the resistance results
obtained by Nordstrom [1] for a small systematic series (9 models), by De Groot [2] for
a small systematic series (12 models), by Beys [4] for the series 63 (21 models), by Yeh
[5] for the series 64 (27 models), by Lindgren and Williams [6] for the SSPA series (9
models), and by Marwood and Bailey [7] for the NPL series (23 models). The results
obtained by Clement and Blount [13] for the series 62 hardchine hull forms (17 models)
were also incorporated in the data base. Formulas were derived for the total resistance
displacement weight ratio R
T
/∆ for eleven values of the volumetric Froude number, 1.0,
1.1 to 2.0, for a displacement of 100000 lbs. Four parameters were selected for
inclusion in the resistance equations as independent variables. These are the
displacementlength ratio
∇
1 3 /
/ L
, the beam loading coefficient C B
∆
· ∇/
3
, the square
root of the angle of entrance of the load water line in degrees 2i
E
, and the ratio of
transom area to maximum section area A
T
/A
X
.
Although the formulas derived by Mercier and Savitsky were originally intended for
predicting the resistance of planing craft in the preplaning, displacement mode, they can
also be successfully used for predicting the resistance of displacement hulls, since 101 of
the 118 sets of model data used, are those of roundbilge, displacement hulls!
The general form of the resistance equation adopted by Mercier and Savitsky is as
follows:
R A A X A U A W A XZ A XU A XW A ZU A ZW
T
/ ∆ · + + + + + + + +
1 2 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
+ + + + + A W A XW A ZW A UW A WU
15
2
18
2
19
2
24
2
27
2
where X = ∇ · ∇ · ·
1 3 3
2
/
/ , / , / L Z B U i and W A A
E T X
16
The values of the coefficients A
1
to A
27
are given in Table 4 for the eleven values of the
Froude number and a displacement weight of 100000 lbs (444.97375 kN).
In using above equations it is essential to remain within the range of values of the
independent variables used in the data base. Gross errors can occur otherwise. For
other displacement values, other water temperatures, friction coefficients or C
A
values,
Eg, 18 can be corrected according to the following expression:
( ) ( ) ( )
2
n
3 / 2
2
1
A F
1
f T T
F .
S
. C 18 . Eg C C 18 . Eg / R corr / R
∇
∇
+ − + ∆ · ∆
In Eg. 19, (R
T
/∆ ) corr = corrected value of R
T
/∆ ,
(R
T
/∆ ) Eg.18 = value of R
T
/∆ according to Eg. 18,
C
F
1
= friction coefficient for alternative displacement, water
temperature or friction formulation,
C
F
Eq.18 = friction coefficient according to the 1947 ATTC friction
formulation,
C
A
= appropriate value of the modelship correlation factor,
S = wetted surface.
Table 4. Values of the coefficients in Eg. 18 as a function of Fn ∇ for ∆ = 100000 lbs in
sea water at 15°C using the 1947 ATTC friction coefficients with CA = 0.
Fn∇ = 1.0 Fn∇ = 1.1 Fn∇ = 1.2 Fn∇ = 1.3 Fn∇ = 1.4 Fn∇ = 1.5
17
A1
A2
A4
A5
A6
A7
A8
A9
A10
A15
A18
A19
A24
A27
0.06473
0.48680
0.01030
0.06490
0.0
0.10628
0.97310
0.00272
0.01089
0.0
1.40962
0.29136
0.02971
0.00150
0.10776
0.88787
0.01634
0.13444
0.0
0.18186
1.83080
0.00389
0.01467
0.0
2.46696
0.47305
0.05877
0.00356
0.09483
0.63720
0.01540
0.13580
0.16046
0.16803
1.55972
0.00309
0.03481
0.0
2.46696
0.47305
0.05877
0.00356
0.03475
0.0
0.00978
0.05097
0.21880
0.10434
0.43510
0.00198
0.04113
0.0
2.15556
1.02992
0.05198
0.00105
0.03013
0.0
0.00664
0.05540
0.19359
0.09612
0.51820
0.00215
0.03901
0.0
0.95276
0.97757
0.02413
0.00140
0.03163
0.0
0.0
0.10543
0.20540
0.06007
0.58230
0.00372
0.04794
0.08317
0.70895
1.19737
0.0
0.0
Fn∇ = 1.6 Fn∇ = 1.7 Fn∇ = 1.8 Fn∇ = 1.9 Fn∇ = 2.0
A1
A2
A4
A5
A6
A7
A8
A9
A10
A15
A18
A19
A24
A27
0.03194
0.0
0.0
0.08599
0.19442
0.06191
0.52049
0.00360
0.04436
0.07366
0.72057
1.18119
0.0
0.0
0.04343
0.0
0.0
0.13289
0.18062
0.05487
0.78195
0.00332
0.04187
0.12147
0.95929
1.01562
0.0
0.0
0.05036
0.0
0.0
0.15597
0.17813
0.05099
0.92859
0.00308
0.04111
0.14928
1.12178
0.93144
0.0
0.0
0.05612
0.0
0.0
0.18661
0.18288
0.04744
1.18569
0.00244
0.04124
0.18090
1.38644
0.78414
0.0
0.05967
0.0
0.0
0.19758
0.20152
0.04645
1.30026
0.00212
0.04343
0.19769
1.55127
0.78282
0.0
0.0
An analysis of the still water value of the wetted surface of the models comprising the
data base resulted in the following formula, with an accuracy of + 9% for 95% of the
cases comprising the data base.
( )
2 1/3 3 / 2
(B/T) 0.00287 B/T 046 . 0 1 L/ 262 . 2 / S + +
∇
·
∇
Numerical Method Derived by Holtrop and Mennen
18
Recently, Holtrop and Mennen [14] published the results of a statistical analysis of the
results of resistance tests with 191 models of different types of ships at NSMB, including
moderately fast displacement craft. The maximum value of the Froude number of the
data base was 0.45, however, restricting the application of the derived formulas to the
low speed range of the kind of craft addressed in this paper (as is the case with Van
Oortmerssen's formulas). Again, however, Holtrop and Mennen based their formulation
for the residual resistance on a theoretical expression for the wave resistance, which
should allow some extrapolation to higher Froude number values.
Contrary to other data discussed in this paper, the expression for the residual resistance
derived by Holtrop and Mennen must be used in conjunction with a calculation of the
frictional resistance adopting the form factor concept. For highspeed round bilge
displacement vessels the Holtrop and Mennen formulas can be used as follows.
The frictional resistance is calculated from:
( ) ( )
A F
2
2
1
F
C k l C SV R + + ρ ·
where S is the still water wetted surface, V the ship speed, C
F
the friction coefficient
according to the 1957 ITTC formulation, C
A
the modelship correlation factor, and k the
form factor accounting for the effect of the threedimensional hull form on frictional
resistance. The value of l + k can be determined from the following formula:
( ) ( ) ( )
052145 .
P
92497 . 0
R
22284 . 0
C 95 . 0 . L / B . L / T 93 . 0 k l
−
− + · +
( )
69060 . 0
P
LCB 0225 . 0 C 1 . + −
in which L
R
is the length of the run, which can be determined from the following
formula:
( ) 1 C 4 / LCB . C 06 . 0 C l L / L
P P P R
− + − ·
19
The wetted surface for use in Eg. 21 can be calculated from the following formula:
( ) ( )
WP M B M
C 3696 . 0 T / B 003467 . 0 C 2862 . 0 C 4425 . 0 4530 . 0 C B T 2 L S + − − + + ·
The formula for the residual resistance is as follows:
( )
2
n 2
d F m
R
F cos m n l e . C / R
−
λ + · ∆
in which C = 2223105 (B/L)
3.78613
. (T/B)
1.07961
. (90i
E
)
1.37565
m
1
= 0.0140407 L/T  1.75254 ∇
1/3
/L  4.79323 B/L
8.07981 C
P
+ 13.8673 C
P
2
 6.984388 C
P
3
d = 0.9
m
2
= 1.69385 C
P
2
e
0.1
/F
n
2
and λ = 1.446 C
P
 0.03 L/B.
The half angle of entrance of the load water line can be determined from:
( )
3 3
P
2
P E
LCB 155087 . 0 C 32 . 234 C 25 . 162 L / B 67 . 125 i + + − ·
Some Final Remarks
The methods presented in this paper for the estimation of the calmwater resistance of
highspeed, round bilge ships is restricted to the estimation of the barehull resistance
only. No account is given of how to derive the additive resistance of various kinds of
appendages such as bilge keels, rudders, propeller shafting, bossings, etc. Also, no
systematic attempt has been made to determine the validity and accuracy of the
20
reviewed methods for different types of hull forms as covered by parameters such as
L/
/
∇
1 3
, L/B, B/T, C
B
, etc.
The main aspect dealt with in this paper is the stateofthe art of estimating the bare
hull resistance of highspeed, roundbilge ships, in the preliminary design stage, with an
emphasis on the dependence of the resistance on various hull form parameters to
facilitate design decisions.
21
22
23
24
The Recommended 'Magic Cube' for AMECRC
It is recommended that the current AMECRC series of two models should be extended as
shown below which will involve the design and testing of an additional seven hull forms
and which would encompass a range of hull forms which could conceivably be required
commercially.
While there would appear to be the potential for a conflict of interest between the
requirements of pure research and the requirements of the market, the ultimate proof of
the validity of both MARIN and AMECRC research will be the full scale results. Full scale
25
results are more likely to be achieved in that zone of the magic cube which encompasses
the currently perceived requirements of the market.
The proposed magic cube in Fig.4 below is believed to be the best compromise of both
requirements. The range of L/B. B/T and C
B
have been extended as far as possible
without including full scale configurations with no practical application.
Fig.4  Recommended 'Magic Cube' of AMECRC
Regression Analysis
 A Technique with broad applications
Statistical means to fit an equation through a given set of data
Quality and Quantity of data
 Data sample distribution in data base
Range of actual database
26
 Good regression analysis if the data distribution is homogenous
Random model data: error percentage increase in resistance
prediction
offers a better quantitative value for
comparison purposes
 Errors are generally due to
a) Hull shape or dimensions outside the limits of the prediction method
b) Scaling errors
c) Model result measuring errors and poor database
27
HOLTROP
Type of hull forms: A variety of hull forms ranging from tugs and trawlers to
naval vessels
Range of parameters: Cp 0.550.85, L/B 3.99.5
Speed range: Fn 0.050.50
SAVITSKY & BROWN
Type of hull forms: Prismatic and transon stern
Range of parameters: i L A A
e T X
5 0 65 3 13 0 5 1 0
1 3
. , / , / . .
/
− ∇ − −
LCG position (%0.5L) 0.0150.065
Speed range: Preplaning Fnv < 2.0, Planing Fnv > 2.0
VAN OORTMERSSEN
Type of hull forms: Tugs and trawlers
Range of parameters: Average displacement of 600 tonnes, mean L/B 4.6,
mean L 48m, mean Cb 0.6 and mean i
e
22 degrees
Speed range: Fn < 0.60
RADOJCIC
Type of hull forms: Series 62 and Series 65
Range of parameters: A L B
p
/ . . , / . .
/
∇ − −
2 3
4 25 9 5 2 36 6 73
deadrise angle at 50%L 1337.4 degrees,
28
position of LCG from transom 3044.8% of L
Speed range: Fnv 1.03.5
COMPTON
Type of hull forms: Transom stern hulls of round and hard chine bilge
Range of parameters: DisplacementLength ratio of 105150, position of LCG
to length ratio 0.13 to 0.02, L/B 45.2
Speed range: Fn 0.10.6
JIN PINGZHONG ET AL
Type of hull forms: Round bilge Displacement hulls
Range of parameters: ( ) 40 . 0 05 . 0 A / A , 7 . 5 5 . 1 L 1 . 0 / , 6 . 26 6 . 7 i
X T
3 / 1
e
− − ∇ −
Cp 0.60.66, LCB Position as % of L 06.4
Speed range: Fn 0.41.0
LAHTIHARJU ET AL
Type of hull forms: Round bilge and Hard Chine Vessels
A A L B
T X
/ . . , / . . , / . .
/
0 16 0 82 4 47 8 3 0 68 7 76
1 3 3
− ∇ − ∇ −
Range of parameters:
L B B T C
x
/ . . , / . . , . . 3 33 8 21 1 72 10 21 0 567 0 888 − − −
for round bilge hulls and
A A L
T x
/ . . , / . .
/
0 43 0 995 4 49 6 81
1 3
− ∇ −
for hard chine vessels
Speed range: Fnv 1.83.2
29
Appendage Resistance
The appendage resistance was calculated separately for each appendage rather than
adding the wetted surface area to the bare hull and performing the analysis at once.
The expressions for resistance are given below:
Exposed Shafting, Stern Tubes and Bossings [2]
( )
F A
C d L V R sin 1 . 1
2
1
3 2
π ε ρ + ·
Where CF is calculated with Rnd
,
`
.

·
υ
Vd
, where L is the length of shaft, d is the diameter
and ε is the inclination of shaft relative to keel.
Struts and Rudders [2]
,
`
.

,
`
.

+
,
`
.

+ ·
4
2
60
c
t
2 1 2
2
1
c
t
C S V R
F A
ρ
Where CF is calculated with Rnc
,
`
.

·
υ
Vc
, t/c is the thickness to chord ratio.
Bilge Keels [4]
,
`
.

+
− ·
y x
z
C S V R
F B A
2
2
2
1
2
ρ
Where CF is calculated with SB as the bilge keel wetted surface area and RnL
,
`
.

·
υ
Vl
Transom Wedges [1]
( ) δ τ ρ δ +
,
`
.

·
2
1
S c 046 . 0 0052 . 0
2
V R
A
Where δ is the wedge angle and τ is the trim angle of vessel.
Air Resistance [4]
30
2
V
2
1
T D AIR
A C R
AIR
ρ ·
References
1. Nordstrom, H.F., "Some Tests with Models of Small Vessels", Teknisk Tidskrift,
Skeppsbyggnadskonst, 1936. Published in English as publication No.19 of the
Swedish State Shipbuilding Experiment Tank, Göteborg, 1951.
2. Groot, D. de., "Weerstand en voortstuwing van motorboten", Schip en Werf, 1951.
Published in English in International Shipbuilding Progress, Vol.2, No.6, 1955.
3. Marwood, W.J., and Silverleaf, A., "Design Data for High Speed Displacement 
Type Hulls and a Comparison with Hydrofoil Craft", Third Symposium on Naval
Hydrodynamics, ONR ACR65, 1960.
4. Beys, P.M., "Series 63 Round Bottom Boats", Davidson Laboratory, Stevens
Institute of Technology, Report No. 949, 1963.
5. Yeh, H.Y.H., "Series 64 Resistance Experiments on HighSpeed Displacement
Forms", Marine Technology, July 1965.
6. Lindgren, H. and Williams, A., "Systematic Tests with Small, Fast Displacement
Vessels, Including a Study of the Influence of Spray Strips", Proceedings of
Diamond Jubilee International Meeting, Society of Naval Architects and Marine
Engineers, 1968.
7. Marwood, W.J., and Bailey, D., "Design Data for HighSpeed Displacement Hulls of
RoundBilge Form", British National Physical Laboratory, Ship Division, Report
No.99, 1969.
8. Bailey, D., "The NPL HighSpeed RoundBilge Displacement Hull Series", Royal
Institution of Naval Architects, Maritime Technology Monograph No.4, 1976.
31
9. Kafali, K., "The Powering of Round Bottom Motorboats", International Shipbuilding
Progress, Vol.6, No.54, 1959.
10. Clement, E.P., "Graphs for Predicting the Resistance of Round Bottom Boats",
International Shipbuilding Progress, Vol.11, No.114, 1964.
11. Oortmerssen, G. van, "A Power Prediction Method and Its Application to Small
Ships", International Shipbuilding Progress, Vol.18, No.207, 1971.
12. Mercier, J.A., and Savitsky, D., "Resistance of TransomStern Craft in the Pre
Planning Regime", Davidson Laboratory, Stevens Institute of Technology, Report
No.1667, 1973.
13. Clement, E.P., and Blount, D., "Resistance Tests of a Systematic Series of Planing
Hull Forms", Transactions, Society of Naval Architects and Marine Engineers,
Vol.71, 1963.
14. Holtrop, J. and Mennen, G.G.J., "A Statistical Power Prediction Method",
International Shipbuilding Progress, Vol.25, No.290, 1978.
32
Propulsion
In carrying out the investigation, the following constants for operating conditions were
carried throughout:
• Operating Medium: Sea Water (Salinity level 3.5%)
• Water Temperature: 18
0
C
• Water Density: 1.0252 t/m
3
(ITTC, 1963)
• Kinematic Viscosity: 1.10438 x 10
6
m
2
/s
• Sea State 4 or 5
For the vessel and propeller the following parameters were used:
• Wake Deduction Fraction (w): 0.03 Condition: 1.0 < FN∇
< 2.0
• Thrust Deduction Fraction (t): 0.015 Condition: 1.0 < F N∇
< 2.0
• Number of Propeller blades (Z): 4
• Rotation Rate (n): 8.1 rps (s
1
)
With a set rotation rate and blade number, it is possible to determine the best propeller
by varying P/D, BAR and D. Software was then developed within Microsoft Excel using
the VBA programming language to handle multiple calculations and vary all the three
propeller parameters as mentioned previously. The program takes advantage of the
polynomial expression published in [5] for the Wageningen Bscrew Series for Rn=2 x
10
6
;
∑
·
·
47
1 n
v u
O E
t s
Q
(Z) ) /A (A (P/D) (J) C K
∑
·
·
39
1 n
v
u
O E
t s
T
(Z) ) /A (A (P/D) (J) C K
The various coefficients for C, s, t, u and v are shown in Table 6 and 7 below for thrust
coefficient KT and KQ respectively.
33
Table 6: Coefficients for the KT polynomial representing the Wageningen B
Screw Series Propellers for a Reynolds number of 2 x 10
6
.
Thrust Coefficient (KT)
n C s t u v
1 0.00880496 0 0 0 0
2 0.204554 1 0 0 0
3 0.166351 0 1 0 0
4 0.158114 0 2 0 0
5 0.147581 2 0 1 0
6 0.481497 1 1 1 0
7 0.415437 0 2 1 0
8 0.0144043 0 0 0 1
9 0.0530054 2 0 0 1
10 0.0143481 0 1 0 1
11 0.0606826 1 1 0 1
12 0.0125894 0 0 1 1
13 0.0109689 1 0 1 1
14 0.133698 0 3 0 0
15 0.00638407 0 6 0 0
16 0.00132718 2 6 0 0
17 0.168496 3 0 1 0
18 0.0507214 0 0 2 0
19 0.0854559 2 0 2 0
20 0.0504475 3 0 2 0
21 0.010465 1 6 2 0
22 0.00648272 2 6 2 0
23 0.00841728 0 3 0 1
24 0.0168424 1 3 0 1
25 0.00102296 3 3 0 1
26 0.0317791 0 3 1 1
27 0.018604 1 0 2 1
28 0.00410798 0 2 2 1
29 0.000606848 0 0 0 2
30 0.0049819 1 0 0 2
31 0.0025983 2 0 0 2
32 0.000560528 3 0 0 2
33 0.00163652 1 2 0 2
34 0.000328787 1 6 0 2
35 0.000116502 2 6 0 2
36 0.000690904 0 0 1 2
37 0.00421749 0 3 1 2
38 5.65229E05 3 6 1 2
39 0.00146564 0 3 2 2
Table 7: Coefficients for the KQ polynomial representing the Wageningen B
Screw Series Propellers for a Reynolds number of 2 x 10
6
.
34
Torque Coefficient (KQ)
35
n C s t u v
1 0.00379368 0 0 0 0
2 0.00886523 2 0 0 0
3 0.032241 1 1 0 0
4 0.00344778 0 2 0 0
5 0.0408811 0 1 1 0
6 0.108009 1 1 1 0
7 0.0885381 2 1 1 0
8 0.188561 0 2 1 0
9 0.00370871 1 0 0 1
10 0.00513696 0 1 0 1
11 0.0209449 1 1 0 1
12 0.00474319 2 1 0 1
13 0.00723408 2 0 1 1
14 0.00438388 1 1 1 1
15 0.0269403 0 2 1 1
16 0.0558082 3 0 1 0
17 0.0161886 0 3 1 0
18 0.00318086 1 3 1 0
19 0.015896 0 0 2 0
20 0.0471729 1 0 2 0
21 0.0196283 3 0 2 0
22 0.0502782 0 1 2 0
23 0.030055 3 1 2 0
24 0.0417122 2 2 2 0
25 0.0397722 0 3 2 0
26 0.00350024 0 6 2 0
27 0.0106854 3 0 0 1
28 0.00110903 3 3 0 1
29 0.000313912 0 6 0 1
30 0.0035985 3 0 1 1
31 0.00142121 0 6 1 1
32 0.00383637 1 0 2 1
33 0.0126803 0 2 2 1
34 0.00318278 2 3 2 1
35 0.00334268 0 6 2 1
36 0.00183491 1 1 0 2
37 0.000112451 3 2 0 2
38 2.97228E05 3 6 0 2
39 0.000269551 1 0 1 2
40 0.00083265 2 0 1 2
41 0.00155334 0 2 1 2
42 0.000302683 0 6 1 2
43 0.0001843 0 0 2 2
44 0.000425399 0 3 2 2
45 8.69243E05 3 3 2 2
46 0.0004659 0 6 2 2
47 5.54194E05 1 6 2 2
36
To make these results applicable for Reynolds Numbers greater than 2 x 10
6
a correction
is applied, again as published in [5] and shown in table 8 and 9.
x
9
1 n
v u
O E
t
s
T
) 301 . 0 ( (Z) ) /A (A (P/D) (J) C K − · ∆
∑
·
LogRn
x
13
1 n
v u
O E
t
s
Q
) 301 . 0 ( (Z) ) /A (A (P/D) (J) C K − · ∆
∑
·
LogRn
Table 8: Coefficients for the ∆KT polynomial for Reynolds number >2 x 10
6
.
∆KT
n C s t u v x
1 0.000353485 0 0 0 0 0
2 0.00333758 2 0 1 0 0
3 0.00478125 1 1 1 0 0
4 0.000257792 2 0 1 0 2
5 0.000064192 2 6 0 0 1
6 1.10636E05 2 6 0 0 2
7 2.76305E05 2 0 1 1 2
8 0.0000954 1 1 1 1 1
9 3.2049E06 1 3 1 2 1
Finally, the KT and KQ values for the propeller are the sum of the two components. It is
specified the following conditions need to be adhered to before the above methods can
be employed:
No. of blades 2 ≤ Z ≤ 7
Blade Area Ratio (BAR) 0.3 ≤ AE/AO ≤ 1.05
Pitch ratio (normally taken at 0.7R) 0.5 ≤ P/D ≤ 1.40
Table 9: Coefficients for the ∆KQ polynomial for Reynolds number >2 x 10
6
.
∆KQ
n C s t u v x
1 0.000591412 0 0 0 0 0
2 0.00696898 0 1 0 0 0
3 6.66654E05 0 6 0 0 0
4 0.0160818 0 0 2 0 0
5 0.000938091 0 1 0 0 1
37
6 0.00059593 0 2 0 0 1
7 7.82099E05 0 2 0 0 2
8 5.2199E06 2 0 1 0 1
9 8.8528E07 1 1 1 0 2
10 2.30171E05 0 6 0 0 1
11 1.84341E06 0 6 0 0 2
12 0.00400252 0 0 2 0 1
13 0.000220915 0 0 2 0 2
And Total Thrust Coefficient = KT + ∆KT
and Total Torque Coefficient = KQ + ∆KQ
Given that the number of blades has been fixed at 4, the BAR and P/D ratios can be
varied between these values. The diameter of the propeller is limited to between 1.5
metres and 1.95 metres; the specified propeller being 1.801 metres [6]. By
systematically varying the parameters within the polynomials, a series of data is
produced at varying propeller configurations, allowing developed thrust curves to be
calculated.
TREQ =
t 1
R
T
−
T
4 2
DEV
K D ρn T × ·
where T is the thrust produced (kN)
RT is the total resistance (bare hull + air+ appendages + added resistance in
waves in sea state 4 where H1/3 = 2.5 m + additional frictional resistance due to
fouling taken at 18%)
ρ is the water density (t/m
3
)
n is the rotation rate of the propeller (RPM in s
1
)
D is the propeller diameter (m)
KT is the thrust coefficient of the propeller
Q
2 K
J K
T
O
⋅
⋅
·
π
η
where J is the advance coefficient for the propeller
nD
V
J
A
· and KQ is the torque
coefficient of the propeller. The advance velocity is VA=V(1w) – with w being the wake
38
deduction fraction of the vessel. To widen the extent of analysis the data was filtered
and reduced to only those developed thrust curves, which intersected the required thrust
curves. The required thrust curves are directly calculated from the resistance of the
vessel and its speed. The data was further filtered to those curves, which intersect within
1 knot of the specified service speed.
Having found the propeller characteristics we must firstly verify the results produced by
the software, determine weather or not the thrust produced fits within the operational
envelope of the specified engine and then apply cavitation theory to ensure there will be
no ill effects due to this phenomenon. To verify the results the propeller characteristics
found were used in the KTKQJ charts for the Wageningen Bscrew series to find the
thrust developed and open water efficiency. We can then proceed to find whether or not
the developed thrust fits within the engine envelope at the required rotation rate. In
doing so the following calculations, taken from Lewis (1988), were used, assuming a
mechanical drive train for the following calculations:
Required brake power of the engine (kW)
M
B
B
η
P
P
Required
·
Brake power of engine accounting for gear box efficiency (kW)
GB
S
B
η
P
P ·
Shaft power (kW)
S
D
S
η
P
P ·
Power delivered to propeller (kW)
B
A
D
η
V T
P
⋅
·
Efficiency of propeller in behind hull condition
O R B
η η η ⋅ ·
• ηM is the mechanical efficiency (taken as 0.97 [2])
• PB is the brake power
• η GB is the gear box efficiency taken as 0.98
• ηB is the efficiency behind the hull = ηO ηR
• ηO Open water efficiency of the propeller, obtained by selection of propeller
• PS is the shaft power
• ηS is the shaft efficiency (taken as 0.98 [2])
• PD is the delivered power to propeller
39
• ηR is the relative rotation efficiency (taken as 0.99 [4], Condition: 1.0 < FN∇
< 2.0
and the vessel’s FN∇
is approximately 1.55)
Finally to check for cavitation the following expressions are used in association with the
Burrill’s Chart (1943),
2
R 2
1
V 0
ρV
P P
σ
−
·
where σ is the cavitation number
P0 – PV is the pressure at the shaft centre line kN/m
2
P0 = PATM + ρgh, where g is acceleration due to gravity (m
2
/s) and h is the
propeller immersion to shaft centreline.
PATM is taken as 98.1 kN/m
2
PV is the vapour pressure of the fluid (1.7 kN/m
2
)
( )
2 2 2
7 0
A R
V πnD . V + ·
( )
D
P
D
P
0.229 1.067
A
A
− ·
from Taylor’s formula [5]
where AP is the projected area of the propeller (m
2
)
AD is the developed area of the propeller (m
2
)
P
2
R 2
1
A ρV
T
τ ·
where τ is the thrustloading coefficient.
Using the values for τ and σ so calculated we can then observe any cavitation prediction
from the chart as derived by Burrill (1943). The detailed results are shown in Appendix
F. The Burril’s chart is shown below.
40
Figure 4: Burrill’s chart to determine cavitation.
Propulsion Factor for HighSpeed Vessels
41
Figure 5: Wake & Thrust fractions for typical vessel types [5].
Propeller Scale Effects
Open water characteristics are frequently determined from model experiments on
propellers run at high speed and having diameters of the order of 200300mm. The
question is how the reduction in propeller speed and increase in diameter at full scale
will affect the propeller performance characteristics.
The scale effect affecting performances are essentially viscous in nature and as such are
primarily due to boundary layer phenomenon dependent on Reynolds number. Due to
methods of testing model propellers and the consequent changes in R
n
between model
and full scale, there can arise a different boundary layer structure to the flow over the
blades. While it is generally recognised that most full scale propellers have a primarily
turbulent flow over the blade surface, this need not be the case for the model where
laminar flow can prevail over significant parts of the blade.
42
At present the principal analytical tool available is the 1978 ITTC performance prediction
method, which is based on a simplification of Lerb's equivalent profile procedure. Lerbs
showed that a propeller can be represented by the characteristics of an equivalent
section at a nondimensional radius .7R or 75R.
Calculation of performance characteristics is as follows:
Revised thrust & torque characteristics are
K
Ts
= K
Tm
 ∆ K
T
K
Qs
= K
Qm
 ∆ K
Q
Where scale corrections ∆ K
T
& ∆ K
Q
are given by
∆ K
T
= .3 ∆ C
D
(P/D)
,
`
.

D
cZ
∆ K
Q
= + 0.25 ∆ C
D
,
`
.

D
cZ
Where m & s = suffixes for model and ship
∆ C
D
= change in drag coefficient
introduced by differing flow
regimes at model and full
scale and is given as
= C
DM
 C
DS
Where C
DM
= 2
]
]
]
]
−
,
`
.

+
3 / 2 6 / 1
5 044 . 0 2
1
n n
R R
c
t
and C
DS
= 2
5 . 2
10
log 62 . 1 89 . 1
2
1
−
,
`
.

,
`
.

+
,
`
.

+
p
K
c
c
t
43
Here
t
c
= section thickness to chord ratio =
( )
O
E
A
A
Z Z
073 . 2
00125 . 0 185 . 0 −
P/D = pitch ratio
c = Chord length
R
n
= local Reynolds number all relating to the section located at 0.75R
K
p
= blade roughness 30 x 10
6
m
In this method it is assumed that the fullscale propeller blade surface is hydro
dynamically rough and scaling procedure considers only the effect of R
n
on the drag
coefficient.
In calculating the R
n
based on chord length of the section and the undisturbed inflow
velocity
Rn =
υ
c V
R
and VR the resultant velocity at .7R is found by
( ) [ ]
2 2 2
7 .
A R
V nD V + · π
44
Example
Propeller particulars
D = 6.5m
·
,
`
.

R
D
P
75 . 0
0.907
A
Ao
E
= 0.726
Z = 4
t/c = .0305
c/D = 0.42 chord dia ratio
λ = scale factor = 22
n
s
= revs = 2.079 sec
1
Open water tests are
J KTO KQO η o
0 0.4959 0.06646 0
0.1 0.4514 0.06106 0.118
0.2 0.4051 0.05562 0.232
0.3 0.3574 0.0501 0.341
0.4 0.3082 0.04443 0.442
0.5 0.2578 0.03858 0.532
0.6 0.2062 0.03249 0.606
0.7 0.1573 0.0261 0.656
0.8 0.1004 0.01938 0.66
0.9 0.0464 0.01226 0.542
0.95 0 0.00584 0
45
Nomenclature
β Deadrise angle in degrees
∆ Displacement in tonnes
ρ mass density of fluid (t/m
3
)
τ Running Trim (degrees)
ε Shaft Angle to Keel (degrees)
δ Wedge Inclination (degrees)
ρ AIR Density of Air (kg/m
3
)
AT Transverse Projected Area (m
2
)
B Beam (m)
c Chord Length (m)
CB Block coefficient
CD Coefficient of Drag
CF ITTC ’57 friction line
d Shaft Diameter (m)
D Propeller diameter (m)
Fb Froude beam number
gB
V
Fn Froude Number
gL
V
Fn∇
Froude beam number
3 / 1
∇ g
V
ie Half angle of entrance of load
waterline in degrees
L Length (m)
LCG Longitudinal Centre of Gravity
(from AP in m)
LWL Length of waterline (m)
P/D Pitch ratio
RA Appendage Resistance (kN)
RAIR Air Resistance
Rn Reynold’s Number
RT Total Resistance including sea
state 4
S Wetted Surface Area (m
2
)
T Draught at LCF (m)
t Thickness (m) and also thrust
deduction fraction
V Velocity (m/sec)
VCG Vertical Centre of Gravity (m)
w Wake fraction
46
References
1 Savitsky, D. and Brown, P. W. (1976), “Procedures for Hydrodynamic Evaluation
of Planing Hulls in Smooth and Rough Water.” Marine Technology, Vol. 13.
2 AMECRC notes p.193
3 Lewis, E., (ed.), 1988, Principles of Naval Architecture, SNAME publication, Vol. 2.
4 Blount, D. L., and Bjarne, E., 1989, “Design and Selection of Propulsors for High
Speed Craft”, Proceedings J.LipsPropeller Sysmposium, 2122 September,
Noordwyk on Sea, NL, pp 5.15.24.7
5 Bernitas, M.M., Ray, D. and Kinley, P., 1981, “KT, KQ and Efficiency Curves for
Wageningen BSeries Propellers”, The University of Michigan, College of
Engineering, No. 237, pp 1102.
6 Sahoo, P., (2003) Ship Resistance and PropulsionLecture Notes 2003, Australian
Maritime College, Launceston, Australia.
Table of Contents
INTRODUCTION..................................................................................................................................................1 METHODICAL SERIES.....................................................................................................................................1 STANDARD SERIES AND REGRESSION ANALYSIS...........................................................................................................2 RESISTANCE PREDICTION BY EMPIRICAL AND STATISTICAL METHODS.............................................................................12 SOME FINAL REMARKS.................................................................................................................................20 THE RECOMMENDED 'MAGIC CUBE' FOR AMECRC ..........................................................................25 REGRESSION ANALYSIS............................................................................................................................................26 APPENDAGE RESISTANCE.............................................................................................................................30 REFERENCES...........................................................................................................................................................31 PROPULSION......................................................................................................................................................33 PROPULSION FACTOR FOR HIGHSPEED VESSELS.........................................................................................................41 PROPELLER SCALE EFFECTS......................................................................................................................................42 NOMENCLATURE.............................................................................................................................................46 REFERENCES...........................................................................................................................................................47
ii
Introduction
METHODICAL SERIES a) b) c) d) e) f) g) h) i) j) k) Nordstrom Series 60 De Groot Series Norwood ad Silverleaf Data Series 63 Series 64 SSPA Series NPL Series Series 65, 65B MARIN Series AMECRC Series
Resistance Prediction by testing in Towing Tank Graphical and Numerical methods of Resistance Prediction a) b) c) d) e) f) g) h) i) j) Clement (1964) Doust (1961) VanOortmerssen Holtrop and Holtrop & Mennen Jin Pinzhong et at Savitsky & Brown Radojcic Compton Lahtiharju et al etc
1
Standard Series And Regression Analysis Taylor Series CP = 0.48 to 0.86 B/T = 2.25, 3 and 3.75 W/[Lwl/100]3 = 20 to 250 CM constant at 0.925 ∇ /(Lwl)3 = 0.3 to 8.75x103 Cs= S* (∇ Lwl)0.5 for different values of B/T ATTC friction line to calculate Pe and CA = 0.0004
Figure 1: Taylor’s Series
2
Figure 2: Taylor’s Series 3 .
Even though no turbulence stimulating devices were adopted. The results of resistance tests with these models. each tested at 3 different draughts. Nordstrom [1]** published the results of tests carried out at the Royal Institute of Technology in Stockholm with 14 different round bilge models. subsequent analyses of the results have not revealed low enough resistance values to suspect significant influence of laminar flow. Three of these models. Figure 3 * indicate reference number at end of text 4 . 5 of which were tested at more than 1 draught.Nordstrom Series 1936 In 1936. were originally analysed with Froude's frictional resistance coefficients. carried out in calm water. form a small systematic series.
in which the residual resistancedisplacement weight ratio RR/∆ is given as a function of the lengthdisplacement ratio L / ∇1/ 3 and the volumetric Froude number Fn∇ . where L RR / ∆⇒ f 1/ 3 ∇ an Fn∇ = d V 1 g∇ / 3 Round bilge hull forms tested at 3 diff. carried out in calm water. work carried out by De Groot.The results obtained by Nordstrom are now only rarely used. 2). however. 3 are based on a reanalysis carried out by De Groot [2] using the 1947 ATTC friction line with CA = 0. 7 of which were tested at 2 or more draughts. As originally presented. lies in the fact that he derived a single graph (Fig.for results De . the results are only useful for a fullscale displacement range of between 10 and 30 m 3. carried out in the towing tank of the Delft University of Technology. For the small systematic series. The residual resistance values in Fig. drafts Useful for full scale displacement up to 30m3 Refer fig 1.Groot Series In 1951. each tested at 4 Tests with these 4 models were also systematic series. The results of resistance tests with all 31 models. draughts. De Groot [2] published the results of tests with 31 round bilge. were analysed using the 1947 ATTC friction coefficients. constitute a small Four of these 31 models. These models were tested at the Netherlands Ship Model Basin (NSMB). highspeed hull forms. 1. with the exception of the results for the small systematic series. 8 of Ref. showing the average resistance of 76 models (including the Nordstrom 5 .1L)3 More benefit of the which diagram is often referred to by other workers in the field. De Groot presented a diagram displaying the values of the residual resistance coefficient CR = RR / 1 2 p SV2 as a function of V / L and the displacementlength ratio ∇ /(0. . A more applicable presentation of these results is given in Fig.
Even though De Groot showed how to use this graph in arriving at a prediction of the resistance of a new design. 31 round bilge high speed hull forms 7 of these tested at 2 or more draft tested at NSMB ( now known as MARIN) analysed using ATTC . 3.5m. and the 1947 ATTC friction coefficients.47 friction coeff. To facilitate preparing a resistance prediction using this average data. To facilitate preparing a resistance prediction using this average data.fig 2. 3 L ( . At NSMB. CR represented as V ∇ f . the total model resistance values referred to have been converted to values of the residual resistancedisplacement weight ratio RR/∆ by using the average value for the wetted surface of the models given by S = 2. this procedure has not found general acceptance.25 metres only. total model resistance have been converted to values of the residual resistance to displacement ratio by using the average value for friction coefficients.75 ∇L ..0 to 3.1L) Obtained a single graph showing the average resistance of the models as a function of displacement length ratio for The total resistance values for model lengths of 2. These residual resistance values are given in Fig. Unfortunately. roundbilge hull forms are compared in order to arrive at a first qualification of the lines of a new design. the total resistance values given were for model lengths of 2.data) as a function of the displacementlength ratio for the speed range corresponding to V/ L = 1. these results are used up to this day as a standard to which the results of model resistance tests of fast.5. however. This procedure has not found acceptance. The Marwood and Silverleaf Data 6 .
0. From these results. The parent model has a nominal lengthbeam ratio of 4. These tests were carried out in the towing tank of the Davidson Laboratory of the Stevens Institute of Technology. Unfortunately. together with lines representing 5 and 10 per cent deviations from the mean lines.0 and 6.0. in that both present average results. These models form a methodical series in that the body plans of all 5 models are geometrically similar.5 and the values of the lengthdisplacement ratio L / ∇1/ 3 covered is from 5. Therefore. 4. These results have not been converted to RR/∆ .) when tests at equal lengthdisplacement ratios are carried out such as is the case here. but also in B/T (and hence in CB. a relatively smaller draught has to be adopted for the model with the largest beam. To obtain the same L/∇ 1/3 for the model with L/B = 2.4 to 3.0. CP. Marwood and Silverleaf [3] presented the results of resistance tests with approximately 30 unrelated roundbilge forms carried out at the Ship Division of the British National Physical Laboratory.values here as was done for the De Groot data.2 to 8.5 as for the model with L/B = 6. LCB. contrary to the case for the low speed range and the planing speed range.2. The Marwood and Silverleaf resistance data presents the resistance coefficient © = EHP × 427.In 1960. Series 63 Results of resistance tests with models of five 50 feet round bilge utility boats were reported on by Beys [4] in 1963.0. The models had a length of 3 feet. 3. this procedure of deriving a systematic series leads to changes not only in L/B. etc. no clear evidence of any important systematic variation in resistance with other parameters can be discerned in the speed range considered. All other models were derived from this parent model by multiplying the waterline and buttock spacings of the parent model by a constant so as to obtain nominal L/B values 2. Marwood and Silverleaf confirmed earlier observations by Nordstrom and De Groot that other than the lengthdisplacement ratio. The values of the speedlength ratio V L covered is from 1. since this would only form a duplication of the De Groot data.5. and the Froude number.1 / V 2 ∆2 / 3 for a range of values of the speedlength ratio and the displacementlength ratio for a standard length of 100 feet. the differences in the resistance values between the different 7 . Mean resistance lines were given for these models. for example. 5.
6 & 7. highspeed. the results obtained with these 5 models are useful to designers requiring more information on the influence on resistance of hull form parameters other than the lengthdisplacement ratio.4. So different in resistance values at equal L/∇ 1 3 for different models cannot be attributed to changes in L/B only. Body plans of 5 models geometrically similar Parent model L/B = 4. Models of 50ft round bilge utility boats. given here in Figs. LCB etc) To obtain same L/∇ 1 3 for L/B = 2.  obtained using ATTC 47 friction coefficient & CA = 0. 1 and 2. Nevertheless.6 Model length 3ft. 4.5 & L/B = 6 for the beamier vessel smaller draft required.5. RR/∆ for each model shown in fig 3. Series 64 (1965) Results of tests with 27 models of slender. 3. Taylor Naval Ship Research and Development Center were published by 8 . 4.3. 5.  Tested in Davidson Lab.5. 6 and 7 in the format used in Figs. accordingly. The presented residual resistance values were derived from the measured total resistance by means of the 1947 ATTC friction line with CA = 0. roundbilge displacement forms at the David W. The residual resistance displacement weight ratio RR/∆ for each of these models are. Changing L/B ratio .models at equal lengthdisplacement and Froude number values cannot be attributed solely to differences in L/B only. Cp. All models obtained by waterline and buttock spacing by a constant L/B=2. 5.changes B/T ratio Which changes (B.
In preparing this figure the data for ∆ /(0.0). 27 models of slender high speed round bilge displacement forms at DTMB. These 27 models comprise a systematic series of which the varied parameters are ∆ /(0.45 was not considered because of the "inconsistency" of this data with the results for the other models of the series. For this reason the average residual resistance displacement weight ratio RR/∆ . 8. The results of the resistance tests in calm water were reduced to residuary resistance values by Yeh.5 (equivalent to a range in V/ L from 0 to 5. however. ∆ / ( 0. is shown in Fig.01L)3 or L/∇ 1/3.454 to 18. Due to the rather extreme type of hull forms in this series.0.Yeh [5] in 1965.35 to 0. Average resistance values for the complete series.0 L) 1 B/T 24 3 varied from 15 to 55 CB 0.35 . On assigning values to ∆ /(0. as a function of L/∇ 1/3 and Fn∇ . B/T (from 2 to 4) and CB (from 0.264.01L)3 (from 15 to 55). the L/B value is no longer free to choose since: C B L / ∇1 / 3 L = B B/ T ( ) 3 The L/B values of these 27 models thus range from 8.01L)3 = 20 and CB = 0. by using the 1947 ATTC frictional resistance coefficients with CA = 0.0 L) 3 or L/∇ 1/3 9 .55).55 1 On fixing the value of ∆ / ( 0. B/T and CB. the resistance results for the individual models are not often used or referred to. The speed range covered corresponds to values of the Froude number Fn from 0 to 1. are frequently adopted for use in parametric studies for slender ships and other purposes.
Lindgren and Williams [6] presented the results of resistance tests with a methodical series of 9 models of highspeed. Average resistance value for the complete series is frequently adopted. round bilge displacement vessels carried out at the Swedish State Shipbuilding Tank (SSPA).14. The hull form parameters varied were L/∇ 1/3 (values of 6.5 and 4.  9 models of high speed round bilge displacement forms 10 . as a function of L/∇ 1/3 and Fn∇ .264 Speed range Fn 0 to 1. weight ratio RR/∆ of this series is shown in Fig.0.4 and about 0.90.62 to 8. The speed range covered corresponds to a range in the Froude number Fn from 0. SSPA Series (1968) In 1968.B/T. The value of the block coefficient CB was kept equal to 0.454 to 18.0). again leading to the observation that in the speed range between Fn = 0. 7 and 8) and B/T (values of 3. the results for the 3 B/T values are almost identical.20 by virtue of Eg. The average RR/∆ ratio . The residuary resistance values of the models were obtained by using the 1957 ITTC frictional resistance coefficients.34 to 4. 9.9 the lengthdisplacement ratio is the only For this speed range the residuary resistancedisplacement significant parameter.4 to 1.40 for all models.f (L/∇ 1 3 & Fn∇ ) shown in figure 8. CB & L/B are no larger free as L = B C B L / ∇1 / 3 B/ T ( ) 3 = 8. 3.2 (equivalent to a range in V/ L from 1.0).5 Resistance tests were reduced to residuary resistance values making ATTC 1947 friction coefficient and CA = 0. resulting in L/B values ranging from 4. Up to a Fn value equal to about 0.
5.72 to 6. 6 with L/B equal to 4.8.L/∇ 1 3 6.01 to 4.57 residuary resistance values were obtained.constant at 0. 4 with L/B equal to 6. Other main hull form parameters were kept constant (CB = 0. 7 & 8 B/T 3.62 .4.9 length / displacement ratio is the only significant parameter.93 to 5.2.02. Refer figure 9 to see RR/∆ as function of L/∇ 1 3 & Fn∇ .397.19 to 10.2 by virtue of CB L / ∇ L = B B/T 1/ 3 3 Speed range Fn = 0. concerning the tests carried out at the Ship Division of the British National Physical Laboratory with a systematic series of 22 models of which L/B and B/T were varied. 3. Five models were tested having a L/B value of 3.87. 4 with L/B equal to 5.4 to 1. round bilge displacement forms have been published by Marwood and Bailey [7] in 1969 and by Bailey [8] in 1976.4% L aft of the midship 11 .4 L/B .4 to 0.33 with B/T values ranging from 3.693 and the longitudinal centre of buoyancy LCB was positioned 6.50 with B/T values ranging from 2. CP = 0.80 and 3 models with L/B = 7.25 with B/T values ranging from 1.41 with B/T values ranging from 1.21. NPL Series Very useful resistance data on highspeed. 4 CB . Results show for Fn = 0.86.94 to 4. Using ITTC .54 with B/T values ranging from 1.
The values for the lengthdisplacement ratio adopted in these graphs range from 19 to 26 (equivalent to values of L/∇ 1/3 of between 5.20 (equivalent to a range in V/ L from 1. the value of which is to be determined from graphs. 11. 9. In above eqn.0). round bilge highspeed vessels. Kafali [9] published a graphical procedure for estimating the effective horse power of small. 10.45. it is stated that the value of C was determined from model tests.35 to 0. No details of these tests are provided.84 to 8.65 and another for B/T = 4.85 (equivalent to V/ L values from 1. The speed range covered corresponds to values of the Froude number ranging from 0. C is a constant. however. One graph is provided for B/T = 3.3 to 1. Resistance Prediction by Empirical and Statistical Methods Kafali's Graphical Method In 1959.section). 13 and 14. The speed range covered correspondence to a Froude number range of 0.00). plotted against L/∇ 1/3 The residuary resistancedisplacement weight ratio was then for various Fn∇ values for each L/B value. Equation and the associated graphs 12 . formula: The procedure adopts the following V PE = C ∗ ∆ ∗ V ∗ L in which PE = ∆ V L = = = 2 effective horse power displacement in tons ship speed in knots waterline length in feet. 12. These figures are reproduced here as Figs.2 to 2.0 to 4. These graphs display C as a function of V/ L . In Ref. L/∇ 1/3 (where L is in feet and ∆ is in tons) and B/T.9). The residuary resistance values were calculated from the measured model resistance by subtracting the frictional resistance as determined by means of the 1957 ITTC skin friction formulation.
a dependence on displacement or length is necessary when the total resistance is adopted as the dependent variable in lieu of the residual resistance because of the dependence of skin friction on the Reynolds number.000 pounds. As explained in section 2. 1. Graphs are provided for Fn∇ = 1.0. as is the case for the methodical series data given in section 3. is not possible on using total resistance values derived from graphs such as presented to Clement. Application of the modelship correlation factor CA. Each graph is valid for one value of F n∇ . while the displacement weight values range from 5. He used values for the wetted Clement made use of the Froude friction coefficients. 1. motorboat. 2. The Nordstrom data [1] and the Marwood and Silverleaf data [3] were used by Clement to derive a set of eight graphs presenting the total resistanceweight ratio RT/∆ . as outlined in section 2.2. are valid for the barehull case. highspeed craft was published by Clement in 1964 [10]. In this method.for C. seems appropriate for small vessels [3]. round bilge. and a 112 ft. Clement's Graphical Method A graphical procedure for the prediction of the total resistance of small. the influence of length on frictional resistance is ignored.157L2 (with L in feet).2 to 8. 2.8.2.8 ft. dependent on the displacement weight ∆ . 2. 1.2. the lengthdisplacement ratio L/∇ 1/3 and the volumetric Froude number Fn∇ . Only one value for CP was used in determining the value of the constant C. On using an allowance of between +5 and +10% to account for the effects of roughness and appendages. 3. surface following from the formula S = 0.4.000 to 100. which formula is valid for the average value of the (unrelated) models of Ref.6. The values of the lengthdisplacement ratio covered by the graphs range from 5. ie. use of an integral allowance of approximately =10% 13 . for hulls without appendages. In deriving the R T/∆ values given in the graphs. Van Oortmerssen's Numerical Method To arrive at realistic fullscale values of the resistance.4 and 2. Kafali finds a good agreement between the results of the method and trial results for a 20.6.
2.0.0.52862 B/T + 0.62851 CM 14 . breadthdraught ratio between 1. longitudinal centre of buoyancy between 7% L and +2. prismatic coefficient between 0.50 (equivalent to a V/ L range of 0 to 1.Van Oortmerssen used a multiple regression technique to obtain a numerical expression for the residual resistance of small ships.45896 CP + 187.5 L.15727 CWL . was based on 970 resistance data points of 93 models of small vessels tested at NSMB.42893 L/B + 0. such as occurs for vessels with no parallel middle body.70 and 0.32134 .246. cos Fn −2 ∆ in which 1000 C1 = 79. This work.73. The speed range covered by the 970 data points lie in the Froude number range between 0 and 0. The numerical expression is as follows: 2 − 2 2 RR − mFn / 9 − mFn 2 − mFn − mFn = C1e + C2e + C 3e .00064 CWL2 .50 and 0. twodimensional pressure disturbance.70). are as follows: waterline length between 8 and 80 metres. midship section coefficient between 0.11898 (L/B)2 + 0. displacement volume between 5 and 3000 cubic metres.97.09287 LCB . Some extrapolation to higher speeds is permissible. half angle of entrance of design waterline between 10° and 46°.13664 CP2 . having peaks at the equivalent at the equivalent stem and stern positions and a pressure minimum in between.8% L forward of 0.1. sin Fn −2 + C 4 e . because of the theoretical nature of the basic expression.0. published in 1971 [11]. lengthbeam ratio between 3 and 6. The basic expression adopted for the residual resistance was derived from a theoretical model of the wave resistance of a travelling. The range of parameters for which the coefficients of the basic expressions are valid.2.0.9 and 4. however.00209 LCB2 .50619 (B/T)2 + 1.
07602 (B/T)2 .0.0.83 LCB + 2.00225 CWL2 + 236.0.86873 L/B .36938 (L/B)2 .1866 CP . 1000C3 and 1000C4.01879 CWL2 . the value of CWL is based on the value of iE in degrees.9198.71437 LCB + 0.024 CP + 14099.49852 CWL + 0.021 CWL2 + 216.4. where iE is the half angle of entrance of the design waterline.44923 B/T .14347 CP 2. The values of L/B and B/T can be based on the waterline values of L. 1000C2.79020 CWL .93952 CP2 + 9.24399 B/T + 1.25521 LCB2 .92694 L/B + 16.28571 (B/T)2 + 250.13.35794 LCB2 + 755. although Van Oortmerssen used the displacement length LD rather than the waterline length.14549 + 2.44.72535 CM 1000 C3 = .159.2558 CM and m = 0.52704 LCB . B and T.88397 + 19.9.6491 CM 1000 C4 = 3012.19662.23621 (L/B)2 .1976 In the formulas for 1000C1. CWL = iE.908.77652 (L/B)2 + 3. In the above expressions.3797 B/T .48.1000 C2 = 6714.60416 CP2 . 15 .82014 CWL + 0.1782 (B/T)2 + 207.66997 LCB2 . where LD was defined as half the sum of the length between perpendiculars and the waterline length.904 CP2 + 137.0.35.44371 + 2.128.33613 L/B .8084 CP + 6886. L/B.
0. by Beys [4] for the series 63 (21 models). Formulas were derived for the total resistancedisplacement weight ratio RT/∆ for eleven values of the volumetric Froude number.0. by Yeh [5] for the series 64 (27 models). U = 2i E and W = A T / A X 16 . since 101 of the 118 sets of model data used. and the ratio of Although the formulas derived by Mercier and Savitsky were originally intended for predicting the resistance of planing craft in the preplaning. 1. for a displacement of 100000 lbs. Z = ∇ / B3 . they can also be successfully used for predicting the resistance of displacement hulls. by Lindgren and Williams [6] for the SSPA series (9 models). The results obtained by Clement and Blount [13] for the series 62 hardchine hull forms (17 models) were also incorporated in the data base. displacement mode.Numerical Method Derived by Mercier and Savitsky Mercier and Savitsky [12] carried out a regression analysis of the resistance results obtained by Nordstrom [1] for a small systematic series (9 models). the square root of the angle of entrance of the load water line in degrees transom area to maximum section area AT/AX. and by Marwood and Bailey [7] for the NPL series (23 models). 1. the beam loading coefficient C ∆ = ∇ / B3 .1 to 2. Four parameters were selected for These are the inclusion in the resistance equations as independent variables. 2i E . by De Groot [2] for a small systematic series (12 models). displacement hulls! The general form of the resistance equation adopted by Mercier and Savitsky is as follows: R T / ∆ = A1 + A 2 X + A 4 U + A 5W + A 6 XZ + A 7 XU + A 8 XW + A 9 ZU + A10 ZW + A15W 2 + A18 XW 2 + A19 ZW 2 + A 24 UW 2 + A 27 WU 2 where X = ∇ 1/ 3 / L. displacementlength ratio ∇1/ 3 / L . are those of roundbilge.
friction coefficients or CA values. = = appropriate value of the modelship correlation factor.4 Fn∇ = 1.F n∇ 2/3 ∇ corrected value of RT/∆ .5 17 . Gross errors can occur otherwise.0 Fn∇ = 1. Fn∇ = 1. (RT/∆ ) Eg. (RT/∆ ) corr = S 2 . friction coefficient for alternative displacement.18 CA S = = friction coefficient according to the 1947 ATTC friction formulation.2 Fn∇ = 1. Table 4. 19. wetted surface. value of RT/∆ according to Eg. For other displacement values.The values of the coefficients A1 to A27 are given in Table 4 for the eleven values of the Froude number and a displacement weight of 100000 lbs (444. Values of the coefficients in Eg.18+ ( C f 1 − C F Eg. 18 can be corrected according to the following expression: ( R T / ∆ ) corr = ( R T / ∆ ) Eg. other water temperatures. 18 as a function of Fn ∇ for ∆ = 100000 lbs in sea water at 15°C using the 1947 ATTC friction coefficients with CA = 0.97375 kN). In using above equations it is essential to remain within the range of values of the independent variables used in the data base. Eg.18+ C A ) 1 2 .18 = C F1 C F Eq. water temperature or friction formulation.1 Fn∇ = 1. In Eg. 18.3 Fn∇ = 1.
03163 0.18186 1.0 0.10776 0.52049 0.0 1.00356 0.01089 0.09483 0.262 L /∇ 1/3 1 + 0.0 Fn∇ = 2.18062 0.13289 0.05036 0.0 0.0 0.55972 0.0 An analysis of the still water value of the wetted surface of the models comprising the data base resulted in the following formula.00215 0.05967 0.08317 0.78414 0.0 0.12147 0.92859 0.12178 0.0 0.93144 0.0 Fn∇ = 1.18288 0.0 2.0 0.18119 0.04343 0.01467 0.04343 0.7 0.04645 1.04113 0.00244 0.01540 0.05097 0.20540 0.03013 0.03901 0. S / ∇ 2 / 3 = 2.0 Fn∇ = 1.03194 0.58230 0.0 0.00389 0.20152 0.55127 0.05198 0.97310 0.10434 0.8 0.72057 1.78195 0.46696 0.09612 0.06490 0.15597 0.04744 1.05877 0.00356 0.0 Fn∇ = 1.01634 0.83080 0.00308 0.0 0.10543 0.0 0.0 0.13444 0.63720 0.06191 0.51820 0.19442 0. with an accuracy of + 9% for 95% of the cases comprising the data base.06473 0.08599 0.19737 0.0 0.95276 0.0 0.00360 0.04124 0.05540 0.19758 0.40962 0.0 0.00287 /T 2 (B ) Numerical Method Derived by Holtrop and Mennen ( ) 18 .0 0.00150 0.04436 0.05487 0.03481 0.02413 0.0 0.0 0.046B /T+ 0.03475 0.00105 0.9 0.0 0.88787 0.43510 0.01030 0.04187 0.00332 0.07366 0.00140 0.46696 0.21880 0.78282 0.47305 0.15556 1.0 2.02992 0.0 0.05612 0.0 0.0 0.19769 1.00978 0.00664 0.48680 0.14928 1.04794 0.17813 0.00272 0.0 0.0 2.70895 1.05877 0.0 0.38644 0.10628 0.16803 1.06007 0.0 Fn∇ = 1.01562 0.18090 1.30026 0.00212 0.16046 0.19359 0.47305 0.00372 0.6 A1 A2 A4 A5 A6 A7 A8 A9 A10 A15 A18 A19 A24 A27 0.97757 0.05099 0.A1 A2 A4 A5 A6 A7 A8 A9 A10 A15 A18 A19 A24 A27 0.02971 0.18569 0.00309 0.00198 0.95929 1.13580 0.04111 0.0 0.29136 0.18661 0.
however. The frictional resistance is calculated from: R F = 1 2 ρSV 2 ( C F ( l + k ) + C A ) where S is the still water wetted surface.95 − C P ) −.69060 in which LR is the length of the run. which can be determined from the following formula: L R / L = l − C P + 0. however.(1 − C P + 0. Again. and k the form factor accounting for the effect of the threedimensional hull form on frictional resistance. including moderately fast displacement craft. the expression for the residual resistance derived by Holtrop and Mennen must be used in conjunction with a calculation of the frictional resistance adopting the form factor concept. The value of l + k can be determined from the following formula: l + k = 0.LCB / ( 4C P − 1) 19 .22284 . restricting the application of the derived formulas to the low speed range of the kind of craft addressed in this paper (as is the case with Van Oortmerssen's formulas).052145 . Holtrop and Mennen based their formulation for the residual resistance on a theoretical expression for the wave resistance. which should allow some extrapolation to higher Froude number values. CA the modelship correlation factor. Holtrop and Mennen [14] published the results of a statistical analysis of the results of resistance tests with 191 models of different types of ships at NSMB.( B / L R ) 0.0225 LCB) 0. V the ship speed. For highspeed round bilge displacement vessels the Holtrop and Mennen formulas can be used as follows.Recently.( 0.92497 . Contrary to other data discussed in this paper.45.93 + ( T / L ) 0.06 C P . CF the friction coefficient according to the 1957 ITTC formulation. The maximum value of the Froude number of the data base was 0.
9 1. propeller shafting. rudders.69385 CP2 e0.07981 CP + 13.4.07961.0140407 L/T . 21 can be calculated from the following formula: S = L( 2T + B ) C M ( 0.25C P + 234.78613.e m l F n d + m 2 cos λFn in which C = ( −2 ) 2223105 (B/L)3.1 /Fn2 m2 = and λ = 1.32 C P + 0.984388 CP3 d = 0.4425C B − 0. Also.67 B / L − 162. (T/B)1.37565 m1 = 0.3696 C WP ) The formula for the residual resistance is as follows: R R / ∆ = C. bossings.03 L/B.75254 ∇ 1/3 /L . No account is given of how to derive the additive resistance of various kinds of appendages such as bilge keels. (90iE)1.The wetted surface for use in Eg. etc.0.003467 B / T + 0.6.4530 + 0.8673 CP2 .155087 ( LCB) 2 3 3 Some Final Remarks The methods presented in this paper for the estimation of the calmwater resistance of highspeed. The half angle of entrance of the load water line can be determined from: i E = 125.79323 B/L 8.1. round bilge ships is restricted to the estimation of the barehull resistance only.2862 C M − 0.446 CP . no systematic attempt has been made to determine the validity and accuracy of the 20 .
reviewed methods for different types of hull forms as covered by parameters such as L / ∇1/ 3 . with an emphasis on the dependence of the resistance on various hull form parameters to facilitate design decisions. 21 . roundbilge ships. etc. The main aspect dealt with in this paper is the stateofthe art of estimating the barehull resistance of highspeed. L/B. CB. in the preliminary design stage. B/T.
22 .
23 .
24 .
The Recommended 'Magic Cube' for AMECRC It is recommended that the current AMECRC series of two models should be extended as shown below which will involve the design and testing of an additional seven hull forms and which would encompass a range of hull forms which could conceivably be required commercially. Full scale 25 . the ultimate proof of the validity of both MARIN and AMECRC research will be the full scale results. While there would appear to be the potential for a conflict of interest between the requirements of pure research and the requirements of the market.
Fig.4 . The proposed magic cube in Fig. B/T and CB have been extended as far as possible without including full scale configurations with no practical application.Recommended 'Magic Cube' of AMECRC Regression Analysis A Technique with broad applications Statistical means to fit an equation through a given set of data Quality and Quantity of data Data sample distribution in data base Range of actual database 26 .4 below is believed to be the best compromise of both requirements. The range of L/B.results are more likely to be achieved in that zone of the magic cube which encompasses the currently perceived requirements of the market.
 Good regression analysis if the data distribution is homogenous Random model data: error percentage increase in resistance prediction offers a better quantitative value for comparison purposes  Errors are generally due to a) Hull shape or dimensions outside the limits of the prediction method b) Scaling errors c) Model result measuring errors and poor database 27 .
5 − 1.6. 0 − 65.5.0.HOLTROP Type of hull forms: A variety of hull forms ranging from tugs and trawlers to naval vessels Range of parameters: Speed range: SAVITSKY & BROWN Type of hull forms: Prismatic and transon stern Cp 0.5L) 0. L / B 2. mean Cb 0. A T / A X 0.50 Range of parameters: i e 5. 36 − 6. L / ∇1/ 3 3 − 13. mean L/B 4. 73 deadrise angle at 50%L 1337.065 Speed range: VAN OORTMERSSEN Type of hull forms: Range of parameters: Preplaning Fnv < 2.0 Tugs and trawlers Average displacement of 600 tonnes.6 and mean ie 22 degrees Speed range: RADOJCIC Type of hull forms: Fn < 0.050.4 degrees.550. 28 . mean L 48m. 0 LCG position (%0.0150. 25 − 9.60 Series 62 and Series 65 Range of parameters: A p / ∇ 2 / 3 4. Planing Fnv > 2.99.5 Fn 0. L/B 3.85.
81 for hard chine vessels Speed range: Fnv 1. L / ∇1/ 3 4. 33 − 8.position of LCG from transom 3044.05 − 0.66. 995.40 Cp 0.7.16 − 0.1L ) 1/ 3 1. A T / A X 0. B3 / ∇0.6 Range of parameters: i e 7.6 − 26.8% of L Speed range: Fnv 1.0 A T / A X 0. 68 − 7. 43 − 0. 888 for round bilge hulls and A T / A x 0. 21.60.6.2 Speed range: JIN PINGZHONG ET AL Type of hull forms: Round bilge Displacement hulls Fn 0.2 29 .83. position of LCG to length ratio 0. C x 0.41. B / T1. 76 Range of parameters: L / B3.10. 82.5 COMPTON Type of hull forms: Range of parameters: Transom stern hulls of round and hard chine bilge DisplacementLength ratio of 105150. 21. LCB Position as % of L 06. L / ∇1/ 3 4. ∇ / ( 0.13 to 0.03.5 − 5.02. 567 − 0. 49 − 6.4 Speed range: LAHTIHARJU ET AL Type of hull forms: Round bilge and Hard Chine Vessels Fn 0. 72 − 10. L/B 45. 3. 47 − 8.
1 sin 3 ε + π C F 2 ( ) Vd = υ Where CF is calculated with Rnd . d is the diameter and ε is the inclination of shaft relative to keel. The expressions for resistance are given below: Exposed Shafting.046 c S δ ρ V 2 (τ + δ ) 2 Where δ is the wedge angle and τ is the trim angle of vessel.0052 0.Appendage Resistance The appendage resistance was calculated separately for each appendage rather than adding the wetted surface area to the bare hull and performing the analysis at once. t/c is the thickness to chord ratio. where L is the length of shaft. Bilge Keels [4] RA = 1 2z ρ V 2 S B CF 2 − 2 x+y Vl = υ Where CF is calculated with SB as the bilge keel wetted surface area and RnL Transom Wedges [1] 1 R A = 0. Struts and Rudders [2] RA = 4 1 t t ρV 2 2 S C F 1 + 2 + 60 2 c c Vc = υ Where CF is calculated with Rnc . Air Resistance [4] 30 . Stern Tubes and Bossings [2] RA = 1 ρ V 2 L d 1.
"Systematic Tests with Small. and Silverleaf. 2. Report No. W.J.. 1976. "Design Data for High Speed Displacement Type Hulls and a Comparison with Hydrofoil Craft". 6. Lindgren. Marine Technology.F.4. ONR ACR65.Y. "Series 63 Round Bottom Boats". Marwood. July 1965.M.99. H. 1936. D. British National Physical Laboratory. Including a Study of the Influence of Spray Strips".6. Davidson Laboratory. No. 8. 1955. A. 1963. Schip en Werf. Skeppsbyggnadskonst. Marwood. 1951. 1969. Stevens Institute of Technology. Vol. 3. 31 .2.. and Bailey. Nordstrom. Göteborg.. A. Published in English as publication No. Third Symposium on Naval Hydrodynamics. and Williams.. "Design Data for HighSpeed Displacement Hulls of RoundBilge Form". Fast Displacement Vessels. D..R AIR = CD 1 ρ AT V 2 2 AIR References 1.19 of the Swedish State Shipbuilding Experiment Tank. Published in English in International Shipbuilding Progress.. 1968. P. Ship Division. 1951. W. 7. H. Report No. Proceedings of Diamond Jubilee International Meeting. de. Maritime Technology Monograph No. Royal Institution of Naval Architects. 1960. 5. Society of Naval Architects and Marine Engineers.. "Series 64 Resistance Experiments on HighSpeed Displacement Forms". 949. D.H.J. 4. "Some Tests with Models of Small Vessels". Groot.. "The NPL HighSpeed RoundBilge Displacement Hull Series". Beys. Teknisk Tidskrift.. H. Bailey. Yeh. "Weerstand en voortstuwing van motorboten"..
International Shipbuilding Progress. Transactions. No. G. 1978. Holtrop.. and Savitsky. Vol.6. "Resistance Tests of a Systematic Series of Planing Hull Forms". 10. 1964. No. J. and Mennen. "Resistance of TransomStern Craft in the PrePlanning Regime". 1963. Clement.. E. Mercier. 1973. Clement. D.114. No. International Shipbuilding Progress. 13. 14. E.11. 1971. K.A. Vol. "The Powering of Round Bottom Motorboats". 32 . International Shipbuilding Progress. Vol. International Shipbuilding Progress.1667.25. "Graphs for Predicting the Resistance of Round Bottom Boats".290.71. D. "A Power Prediction Method and Its Application to Small Ships". No.. G. Society of Naval Architects and Marine Engineers. 12. Davidson Laboratory. Kafali. van..P. J.9. Stevens Institute of Technology.. 11.J. 1959. Vol. Oortmerssen..18.54.207. Vol. "A Statistical Power Prediction Method"..P.G. and Blount. Report No.
0 Condition: 1.03 Thrust Deduction Fraction (t): 0.5%) Water Temperature: 180C Water Density: 1. t.0 With a set rotation rate and blade number.1 rps (s1) Condition: 1.0252 t/m3 (ITTC.0 < F N∇ < 2. u and v are shown in Table 6 and 7 below for thrust coefficient KT and KQ respectively. KQ = C ∑ n= 1 47 The program takes advantage of the polynomial expression published in [5] for the Wageningen Bscrew Series for Rn=2 x (J) s (P/D ) t (A E /A O ) u (Z v ) KT = C ∑ n= 1 3 9 u (J) s (P ) t (A E /A O ) (Z v /D ) The various coefficients for C. s.10438 x 106 m2/s Sea State 4 or 5 For the vessel and propeller the following parameters were used: • • • • Wake Deduction Fraction (w): 0. the following constants for operating conditions were carried throughout: • • • • • Operating Medium: Sea Water (Salinity level 3.015 Number of Propeller blades (Z): 4 Rotation Rate (n): 8.0 < FN∇ < 2. it is possible to determine the best propeller by varying P/D.Propulsion In carrying out the investigation. BAR and D. 33 . Software was then developed within Microsoft Excel using the VBA programming language to handle multiple calculations and vary all the three propeller parameters as mentioned previously. 106 . 1963) Kinematic Viscosity: 1.
00638407 0.0144043 0.00410798 0.0025983 0.168496 0.00421749 5.00648272 0.133698 0.147581 0.010465 0.65229E05 0.0317791 0. 34 .00102296 0.0168424 0.481497 0.0125894 0. Thrust Coefficient (KT) n 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 C 0.0507214 0.158114 0.000328787 0.166351 0.0606826 0.00146564 s 0 1 0 0 2 1 0 0 2 0 1 0 1 0 0 2 3 0 2 3 1 2 0 1 3 0 1 0 0 1 2 3 1 1 2 0 0 3 0 t 0 0 1 2 0 1 2 0 0 1 1 0 0 3 6 6 0 0 0 0 6 6 3 3 3 3 0 2 0 0 0 0 2 6 6 0 3 6 3 u 0 0 0 0 1 1 1 0 0 0 0 1 1 0 0 0 1 2 2 2 2 2 0 0 0 1 2 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 1 2 v 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 1 1 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 1 1 1 1 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 Table 7: Coefficients for the KQ polynomial representing the Wageningen BScrew Series Propellers for a Reynolds number of 2 x 106.0854559 0.00132718 0.415437 0.00880496 0.00841728 0.00163652 0.000690904 0.0049819 0.204554 0.0504475 0.0109689 0.018604 0.Table 6: Coefficients for the KT polynomial representing the Wageningen BScrew Series Propellers for a Reynolds number of 2 x 106.0143481 0.000560528 0.000606848 0.0530054 0.000116502 0.
Torque Coefficient (KQ) 35 .
n 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 C 0.000302683 0.97228E05 0.00438388 0.188561 0.0269403 0.030055 0.0417122 0.00379368 0.00183491 0.00083265 0.00370871 0.00474319 0.0885381 0.0106854 0.00350024 0.0397722 0.00344778 0.000425399 8.00318278 0.00110903 0.0502782 0.00723408 0.00383637 0.00334268 0.000313912 0.00155334 0.00318086 0.0001843 0.0196283 0.032241 0.00513696 0.0035985 0.0558082 0.00142121 0.0161886 0.0471729 0.108009 0.54194E05 s 0 2 1 0 0 1 2 0 1 0 1 2 2 1 0 3 0 1 0 1 3 0 3 2 0 0 3 3 0 3 0 1 0 2 0 1 3 3 1 2 0 0 0 0 3 0 1 t 0 0 1 2 1 1 1 2 0 1 1 1 0 1 2 0 3 3 0 0 0 1 1 2 3 6 0 3 6 0 6 0 2 3 6 1 2 6 0 0 2 6 0 3 3 6 6 u 0 0 0 0 1 1 1 1 0 0 0 0 1 1 1 1 1 1 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 0 0 0 1 1 2 2 2 2 0 0 0 1 1 1 1 2 2 2 2 2 v 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 36 .0209449 0.00886523 0.015896 0.000269551 0.69243E05 0.000112451 2.0126803 0.0004659 5.0408811 0.
00333758 0.40 Table 9: Coefficients for the ∆KQ polynomial for Reynolds number >2 x 106.3 1 ) x 0 ∆ Q = K C ∑ n= 1 1 3 t u v (J) s (P ) /D (A E /A O ) (Z ) (L g n oR −0. the KT and KQ values for the propeller are the sum of the two components.3 ≤ AE/AO ≤ 1.000257792 0. ∆KT n 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 C 0.000591412 0.0000954 3.To make these results applicable for Reynolds Numbers greater than 2 x 10 6 a correction is applied.5 ≤ P/D ≤ 1.000938091 s 0 0 0 0 0 t 0 1 6 0 1 u 0 0 0 2 0 v 0 0 0 0 0 x 0 0 0 0 1 37 .7R) 2≤Z≤7 0.00478125 0. ∆KQ n 1 2 3 4 5 C 0.0160818 0.05 0.76305E05 0. again as published in [5] and shown in table 8 and 9. It is specified the following conditions need to be adhered to before the above methods can be employed: No.00696898 6.3 ) x 01 Table 8: Coefficients for the ∆KT polynomial for Reynolds number >2 x 106. ∆ T = K C ∑ n= 1 9 (J) s (P ) /D t (A E /A O ) u (Z v ( L g n ) oR −0.10636E05 2. of blades Blade Area Ratio (BAR) Pitch ratio (normally taken at 0.000353485 0.2049E06 s 0 2 1 2 2 2 2 1 1 t 0 0 1 0 6 6 0 1 3 u 0 1 1 1 0 0 1 1 1 v 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 2 x 0 0 0 2 1 2 2 1 1 Finally.000064192 1.66654E05 0.
6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 0.5 metres and 1.5 m + additional frictional resistance due to fouling taken at 18%) ρ is the water density (t/m3) n is the rotation rate of the propeller (RPM in s1) D is the propeller diameter (m) KT is the thrust coefficient of the propeller ηO = KT ⋅ J 2π ⋅ K Q where J is the advance coefficient for the propeller J = VA and nD KQ is the torque coefficient of the propeller. a series of data is produced at varying propeller configurations. the specified propeller being 1.00400252 0.000220915 0 0 2 1 0 0 0 0 2 2 0 1 6 6 0 0 0 0 1 1 0 0 2 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 2 1 2 1 2 1 2 And and Total Thrust Coefficient Total Torque Coefficient = KT + ∆KT = KQ + ∆KQ Given that the number of blades has been fixed at 4.00059593 7. By systematically varying the parameters within the polynomials.8528E07 2.95 metres.801 metres [6]. allowing developed thrust curves to be calculated.82099E05 5. The diameter of the propeller is limited to between 1.30171E05 1.84341E06 0. The advance velocity is VA=V(1w) – with w being the wake 38 . the BAR and P/D ratios can be varied between these values. TREQ = RT 1−t TDEV = ρn 2 D 4 × K T where T is the thrust produced (kN) RT is the total resistance (bare hull + air+ appendages + added resistance in waves in sea state 4 where H1/3 = 2.2199E06 8.
determine weather or not the thrust produced fits within the operational envelope of the specified engine and then apply cavitation theory to ensure there will be no ill effects due to this phenomenon. which intersect within 1 knot of the specified service speed.98 [2]) PD is the delivered power to propeller 39 . We can then proceed to find whether or not the developed thrust fits within the engine envelope at the required rotation rate. assuming a mechanical drive train for the following calculations: Required brake power of the engine (kW) Brake power of engine accounting for gear box efficiency (kW) PB Required = PB = PS ηGB PB ηM Shaft power (kW) Power delivered to propeller (kW) PD ηS T ⋅ VA PD = ηB PS = η B = η R ⋅ ηO Efficiency of propeller in behind hull condition • • • • • • • • ηM is the mechanical efficiency (taken as 0. obtained by selection of propeller PS is the shaft power ηS is the shaft efficiency (taken as 0. The required thrust curves are directly calculated from the resistance of the vessel and its speed. which intersected the required thrust curves. taken from Lewis (1988). Having found the propeller characteristics we must firstly verify the results produced by the software.deduction fraction of the vessel.97 [2]) PB is the brake power η GB is the gear box efficiency taken as 0.98 ηB is the efficiency behind the hull = ηO ηR ηO Open water efficiency of the propeller. The data was further filtered to those curves. In doing so the following calculations. To widen the extent of analysis the data was filtered and reduced to only those developed thrust curves. were used. To verify the results the propeller characteristics found were used in the KTKQJ charts for the Wageningen Bscrew series to find the thrust developed and open water efficiency.
067 − 0. Using the values for τ and σ so calculated we can then observe any cavitation prediction from the chart as derived by Burrill (1943).99 [4].229 ( P D ) from Taylor’s formula [5] AD where AP is the projected area of the propeller (m2) AD is the developed area of the propeller (m2) τ= T 2 1 2 ρVR A P where τ is the thrustloading coefficient. where g is acceleration due to gravity (m2/s) and h is the propeller immersion to shaft centreline. Condition: 1. PATM is taken as 98.55) Finally to check for cavitation the following expressions are used in association with the Burrill’s Chart (1943). The Burril’s chart is shown below.7 kN/m2) 2 2 V R = ( 0. σ= P0 − PV 2 1 R 2 ρV where σ is the cavitation number P0 – PV is the pressure at the shaft centre line kN/m2 P0 = PATM + ρgh.7πnD ) 2 +V A AP = 1. 40 . The detailed results are shown in Appendix F.0 and the vessel’s FN∇ is approximately 1.0 < FN∇ < 2.1 kN/m2 PV is the vapour pressure of the fluid (1.• ηR is the relative rotation efficiency (taken as 0.
Figure 4: Burrill’s chart to determine cavitation. Propulsion Factor for HighSpeed Vessels 41 .
will affect the propeller performance characteristics. The question is how the reduction in propeller speed and increase in diameter at full scale 42 . The scale effect affecting performances are essentially viscous in nature and as such are primarily due to boundary layer phenomenon dependent on Reynolds number.Figure 5: Wake & Thrust fractions for typical vessel types [5]. While it is generally recognised that most full scale propellers have a primarily turbulent flow over the blade surface. there can arise a different boundary layer structure to the flow over the blades. Due to methods of testing model propellers and the consequent changes in Rn between model and full scale. Propeller Scale Effects Open water characteristics are frequently determined from model experiments on propellers run at high speed and having diameters of the order of 200300mm. this need not be the case for the model where laminar flow can prevail over significant parts of the blade.
∆ KQ Where scale corrections ∆ KT & ∆ KQ are given by ∆ KT = .At present the principal analytical tool available is the 1978 ITTC performance prediction method. Lerbs showed that a propeller can be represented by the characteristics of an equivalent section at a nondimensional radius .∆ KT KQs = KQm .7R or 75R.044 5 and CDS = 2 1 + 2t 1. Calculation of performance characteristics is as follows: Revised thrust & torque characteristics are KTs = KTm .89 +1.62 log 10 c c Kp − . which is based on a simplification of Lerb's equivalent profile procedure.25 ∆ CD cZ D Where m & s = suffixes for model and ship ∆ CD = change in drag coefficient introduced by differing flow regimes at model and full scale and is given as = CDM .5 2 43 .3 ∆ CD (P/D) cZ D ∆ KQ = + 0.CDS Where CDM = 2 1 + − 2 c R1 / 6 Rn / 3 n 2t 0.
185 − 0.00125 Z ) Z 2.7R is found by 2 2 VR = (.073 AE AO P/D = pitch ratio c = Chord length Rn = local Reynolds number all relating to the section located at 0.75R Kp = blade roughness 30 x 106 m In this method it is assumed that the fullscale propeller blade surface is hydro dynamically rough and scaling procedure considers only the effect of R n on the drag coefficient.7πnD ) 2 + V A [ ] 44 .t Here = section thickness to chord ratio = c ( 0. In calculating the Rn based on chord length of the section and the undisturbed inflow velocity Rn = VR c υ and VR the resultant velocity at .
0464 0 KQO 0.4 0.656 0.0261 0.542 0 45 .00584 ηo 0 0.0501 0.01226 0.532 0.95 KTO 0.118 0.6 0.8 0.03858 0.3574 0.04443 0.06106 0.7 0.Example Propeller particulars D = 6.66 0.42 chord dia ratio λ = scale factor = 22 ns = revs = 2.5 0.907 D 0.079 sec 1 Open water tests are J 0 0.0305 c/D = 0.4051 0.01938 0.03249 0.4514 0.442 0.606 0.2578 0.2062 0.232 0.726 Ao Z=4 t/c = .3082 0.3 0.9 0.5m P = 0.2 0.1 0.75 R AE = 0.341 0.05562 0.4959 0.06646 0.1573 0.1004 0.
Nomenclature β ∆ ρ τ ε δ ρ B c CB CD CF d D Fb Fn Fn∇ ie L LCG LWL P/D RA RAIR Rn AIR Deadrise angle in degrees Displacement in tonnes mass density of fluid (t/m3) Running Trim (degrees) Shaft Angle to Keel (degrees) Wedge Inclination (degrees) Density of Air (kg/m3) Transverse Projected Area (m2) Beam (m) Chord Length (m) Block coefficient Coefficient of Drag ITTC ’57 friction line Shaft Diameter (m) Propeller diameter (m) Froude beam number Froude Number V gL V 1 g∇ / 3 RT state 4 S T t V VCG w Total Resistance including sea Wetted Surface Area (m2) Draught at LCF (m) Thickness (m) and also thrust Velocity (m/sec) Vertical Centre of Gravity (m) Wake fraction deduction fraction AT V gB Froude beam number Half angle of entrance of load Length (m) Longitudinal Centre of Gravity Length of waterline (m) Pitch ratio Appendage Resistance (kN) Air Resistance Reynold’s Number waterline in degrees (from AP in m) 46 .
Proceedings J.M. (1976). Australia. M... L. P. and Bjarne. 237. 2 3 4 AMECRC notes p. . pp 5. SNAME publication. Blount. D. P. “Procedures for Hydrodynamic Evaluation of Planing Hulls in Smooth and Rough Water.” Marine Technology. No. KQ and Efficiency Curves for Wageningen BSeries Propellers”. P.. College of Engineering. Noordwyk on Sea.LipsPropeller Sysmposium.References 1 Savitsky.. Launceston. E. (ed. 13. and Kinley.24.7 5 Bernitas. 1989. 1988. E.. Australian Maritime College. Vol. 2122 September. NL. D. “KT. pp 1102. (2003) Ship Resistance and PropulsionLecture Notes 2003.193 Lewis. “Design and Selection of Propulsors for HighSpeed Craft”. Principles of Naval Architecture. Vol. W.. 6 Sahoo. 2. Ray.). D.15. The University of Michigan. 1981. and Brown.
This action might not be possible to undo. Are you sure you want to continue?