Proceedings of the ASME 2010 International Mechanical Engineering Congress & Exposition IMECE2010 November 12-18, 2010, Vancouver, British Columbia

, Canada


Benjamin H. Gully, MSME Graduate Research Assistant Mechanical Engineering Department The University of Texas at Austin

Dr. Michael E. Webber Assistant Professor Mechanical Engineering Department The University of Texas at Austin

Dr. Carolyn C. Seepersad Assistant Professor Mechanical Engineering Department The University of Texas at Austin

ABSTRACT Recent increases in fuel prices have spurred interest in energy efficiency and alternative energy technologies. These interests are especially relevant for the marine industry, which is responsible for transporting over 90% of the world‘s freight. The present global fleet of commercial ships consumes approximately 200 million tonnes of diesel fuel each year – which is expected to rise to around 350 million tonnes a year by 2020 [5]. Studies have been conducted evaluating technologies to increase seagoing propulsion efficiency as well as harness available alternative energy sources. One renewable source, wind, is particularly interesting since 1) it presents a vast source of free energy that has been used throughout much of the history of marine transportation, and 2) novel technologies are available that might make it attractive for modern ships. The purpose of this analysis is to specifically evaluate and compare the ability of two modern wind-based technologies to produce thrust-reducing propulsion power for use in reducing the fuel consumption of a ship, namely a rigid wing sail and Flettner rotor. The analysis focuses on design specifications for each based on existing literature and compares the performance of the two technologies within a specified, but naturally varying wind environment. The force-producing capabilities of each technology are compared as a function of the ship operational parameters of heading and speed. INTRODUCTION The dramatic fluctuations of oil prices in the US in the 1970s sparked a lasting interest in oil as an energy supply,

specifically for transportation and as a key component to our economic livelihood. This turmoil spawned significant policy attention to automotive transportation, with an emphasis on fuel efficiency. Similarly, energy efficiency in the marine industry was investigated from a number of perspectives. As with concerns for terrestrial fuel use, once petroleum prices declined back to previous levels many of these perceived issues and investigations were put on the shelf. With concerns about oil prices and global climate change rising, maritime fuel use is gaining attention again. Although total marine fuel use is difficult to define due to its international nature, in 2007 the US consumed 1.5 quadrillion BTU of fuel energy for marine transportation, domestically [1]. According to the most recent projections from the International Energy Outlook in 2009, due to expected growth in international trade, the volume of freight transported by sea is expected to rapidly increase [2, 5]. Thus we are motivated to revive analysis of energy use in the marine industry, and to attempt to develop technological solutions to the challenge of reducing marine fuel use. The intention here is to focus on the design and development of sail technologies for use as propulsion assistance devices, which reduce the load on the conventional propulsion system and its corresponding fuel consumption. Two modern high-lift sail technologies—a rigid wing sail and a Flettner rotor—are compared for large-scale merchant ship applications. The technologies are compared in terms of their thrust-producing capabilities for a standard wind profile and ship velocity profile. Before the results are presented, pertinent design criteria are discussed for each mechanism, including


Copyright © 2010 by ASME

data for this investigation were taken from a 30% plain flap with sealed gap and 30 deg maximum angle of deflection was modeled on the trailing edge of the 0018 aerofoil. The result shows a peak at around 18% for profiles such as NACA 0018. the primary difference being that here. air flows faster over one edge producing a pressure differential. Then. making them capable of sailing into the wind and producing stronger forces than classic square sails. as follows: Cx = CL sinψ – CD cosψ (1) Figure 2. while α represents the sail orientation. represented as a percent of chord length. which forms the basis for comparing the two technologies. This phenomenon creates a lifting force perpendicular to the direction of airflow as well as a drag force parallel to it. Maximum lift coefficients for symmetric NACA 4-digit profiles vary as a function of thickness. triangular sails have been propelling ships using lift. or incidence angle. The symbol ψ represents the angular difference between ship heading and apparent wind direction. Lift and drag coefficients for a sail design are resolved to describe forward propulsion and perpendicular forces. These airfoil shapes are defined by 4 single digits. has been shown to substantially increase lift generation on the order of over 20%. NACA represents the standard for airfoil design selection and here we particularly focus on the 4-digit series of NACA profiles. 30%) of the wing. such as those used for airplane wings. Thus. which correlate to values in a standardized shape formula where the first two numbers represent curvature – and thus are zero for symmetrical profiles. Figure 2 illustrates the maximum lift generated by a profile thickness. [11. [6] If the device is used as a propulsion assistance device. this type of sail design is fundamentally the same as those used for airplane wings. with 2 Copyright © 2010 by ASME . the best performing modern sail designs are high lift devices. such as plain trailing edge flaps. Changes in α produce variation in values of CL and CD.forward propulsion coefficient optimization. shown in Figure 3. Varying the sail orientation. The most common of these are rigid wing airfoils. CY. manipulates the magnitudes of these lift and drag forces. such that 0015 would represent a symmetrical profile of specific curvature with the maximum thickness being 15% of the total chord length. Figure 1. which combine to produce CX. 19]. Sail geometry must be selected to provide desired lift and drag properties. showing a peak at 18%. In accordance with Bernoulli‘s principle. substantial concession must be made for fitting the sail mast within the foil profile. RIGID WING SAIL DESIGN For over a thousand years. with greater values achieved for smoother surfaces [6. 12] Implementing high-lift devices. Increasing the thickness will increase the sail drag. operational details are defined for a simulation. providing a structural benefit to the NACA 0018 profile [6. This design essentially places a hinge for the rear portion (here. As mentioned. Comparisons between these different thicknesses are represented in much of the rigid wing sail literature [6. CX. in degrees. when we consider the large amount of mass that must be supported by the mast for these sail systems. As illustrated in Figure 1. Additionally. then the effect of the lateral forces (CY) is minimal and is assumed to be negligible. 8]. and lateral acceleration coefficient. we desire a symmetric profile to allow lift generation for incidental wind angles from both sides. Figure 1 also illustrates that the ship velocity combines with the true wind velocity to create an apparent wind velocity – which is the wind speed and direction responsible for force production. this drawback is countered with greater tolerance to rapid small angle variation of wind direction (termed incidence angle). with respect to the incidental wind trajectory. which are simply pushed by the wind using drag. As complex effects of these devices cannot be modeled accurately [20]. however. these forces combine to produce a forward propulsion coefficient. The last two digits then represent the thickness of the airfoil as a percentage of its chord (length). 8].

Velocity ratio is the dimensionless ratio of tangential velocity of the cylinder surface (v) divided by the free stream velocity (V). as a function of the primary operational criterion with respect to operation of a Flettner rotor – velocity ratio [3]. Lift and drag coefficients for a NACA 0018 aerofoil with 30% plain flap.‘ commonly symbolized as Γ.1924. as shown in Figure 6. (E)(I). making use of the Magnus effect. Thus.4 Figure 3. as the aspect ratio decreases towards unity. However. (2) FLETTNER ROTOR DESIGN SELECTION A Flettner rotor is a sail device that produces lift by spinning a cylinder in an airstream.5 0 0 0. Taking the 2 dimensional sketch in Figure 4 as the cross section of a cylinder. The aspect ratio used here. Calculating the magnitude of the force created by the Magnus effect proves considerably more] 0. as employed in Figure 5. [3] 1. As this ratio increases. An additional design factor to consider is the sail‘s aspect ratio – the height divided by the chord length. The aspect ratio predominantly affects the rate of change of lift and drag as a function of angle of attack. where curve (A) illustrates the lift calculated by Equation 2. Illustration of direction of lift produced relative to flow and spin velocity as defined by the Magnus effect concept used in Flettner rotor design. viscous effects (vortex shedding at airfoil tips) dominate and reduce efficiency.5 Lift Coefficient.8 1 Drag Coefficient. The textbook representation of the problem consists of the Kutta-Joukowski theorem of lift [3]. Thus.deutsches-museum.92 ˣ 107 [8] sufficient analytical representation is a problem which continues to be of interest. and it can be seen that the majority of experimental values. Cd 1. the envelope created from the Kutta-Joukowski theorem produces a design tool. although higher aspect ratios will also produce higher levels of pressure drag.2 1. high aspect ratios and large sail areas will produce maximum forces. Photograph of one of the original ship prototypes employing a Flettner rotor sail system. In 3 Copyright © 2010 by ASME . respectively. 5. Generally speaking. ships sailing off wind or in low speed conditions benefit from lower aspect ratios and lower sail areas. and development of a closed form solution is still an unsolved problem within the field of fluid mechanics [15]. c. 30° maximum deflection and Reynold’s number 0. which is significantly higher than values obtained in practical experimentation. commonly lie within this range. This method of quantification produces an analytical approximation of lift. lines (B) and (C) represent 25% and 50% of this approximation.6 0. illustrates how this concept can be used as a sail device to produce lift to propel a ship. a region of low pressure is formed where the object surface velocity is in the same direction as the flow and a region of high pressure is created where the surface velocity is in the opposite direction of airflow. this value is of little specific use. 2 Figure 4. The lack of This equation represents the dimensionless lift coefficient. Cl 1 Figure 5. the lift generated by the Magnus effect generally increases. and for this specific sail design was shown to produce favorable lift properties with the lift/drag correlation shown in Figure 3 [8]. provides a good balance of all-around performance in varying wind conditions as well as good structural strength. or width.the resulting gap sealed by an additional passive device. which can be useful in early developmental stages [3]. the Magnus effect describes the fact that when an object spins about an axis perpendicular to airflow.4 0. however. which utilizes a generalized representation of ‗circulation. which reduces to . CL. Thus. This linear oversimplification represents what would be the lift produced by a cylinder rotating in an ideal fluid.2 0. A lifting force is then exerted on the object towards the low pressure region – the same phenomenon behind the motion of a curve ball. [http://www. Shown in Figure 4. limited to +/-30° from straight.

our ultimate design selection must be one of the designs represented in Figure 7. 7. it is agreed that a higher aspect ratio produces higher lift given all other criteria the same. while it has been concluded that ratios below 4 are unfavorable [11].7 4. 4. it is commonly the least varied parameter.addition to these inaccuracies. 4 Copyright © 2010 by ASME . or data in the form of CL/CD with no representation of the relative velocity ratios. but an optimum value of 6 has been proposed [3]. Much of the analytical literature investigating Flettner rotors or the Magnus effect consists of only lift data. the inclusion of end plates.6x10 4 5. of obvious benefit. existing analytical representations provide no concession for quantifying drag produced. The use of end plates is a common practice.5x10 1 3. Figure 7.7 None 2 None Reynold’s Number Infinite Infinite Infinite 5 4. Although not well represented by accessible experimental data. 6.5x10 These charts serve to illustrate many of the key factors involved in Flettner rotor design.2x10 4 11. In 1986. One of the most important factors. 6]. A substantial body of literature was developed in the mid1980‘s surrounding Flettner rotor applications for ships. Borg [3] compiled existing data sets for a wide range of geometries and operating conditions. and hence this analysis will utilize existing tabulated lift and drag data to calculate propulsion forces from the Flettner rotor. Data sets (G) and (H). etc. Experimental data sets for Flettner rotor lift coefficient as a function of velocity ratio [3] Table 1. As testing variation of aspect ratio requires construction of an entirely new test apparatus. which must be resolved experimentally. in Figure 6 and 7.0 Infinite End Plate – Diameter Ratio None None None 1. Thus. is the concept of aspect ratio.58 None 1. Experimental data sets for Flettner rotor drag coefficient as a function of velocity ratio [3] Figure 6. this experimental directive embodies the most reliable methodology that currently exists for approximating the lift and drag generated by the Magnus effect [3. represent identical configurations with the exception that (G) has been fitted with end plates. such that sufficient experimental data is available.7 4. 8. in conjunction with determining favorable geometry characteristics. consisting of placing flat discs of diameter slightly larger than the cylinder itself on the end of the rotor. 9. the details of which are shown in Table 1. Thus.3-11. This is the ratio of rotor height to rotor diameter. the relevant subset of which is shown in Figure 6.2 13. Geometry specifications for experimental Flettner rotor data [3] Curve A B C E F G H I L Aspect Ratio Infinite Infinite Infinite 6. and that it significantly reduces drag [3. 11]. Few explicit rules of thumb exist. Each of the different curves shown represents a structural variation – in aspect ratio. Figure 7 represents the relatively small subset of existing data that does include drag measurement. although these factors must be considered in conjunction with structural requirements.3 4. The dynamic analysis undertaken here requires both lift and drag data as a function of velocity ratio.2x10 4 5.15x10 4 3. End plate diameter is expressed as a diameter ratio – the diameter of the end plate divided by the diameter of the cylinder. different Reynold‘s numbers. yet often underrepresented in the literature.

Reynold‘s number is assumed to be irrelevant [16]. for the entire range of potential incident wind angles. suggesting that 3046% of the energy saved by the wind-assist system was used to drive the rotor. 6]. and the suggested practical range is of 1. This benefit of the Flettner rotor lies in the behavior at velocity ratios around 1 – when cylinder surface velocity is equivalent to the airflow. These geometric ideals focus our options to data sets (E). where 0° indicates sailing directly into the wind. Bergeson [6] refers to model-calculated results of 50-66% fuel savings from integrating the Flettner sail system. we can run an optimization routine to determine the maximum potential forward propulsion coefficient. ψ. Flettner rotor sail designs also provide significant concession for safety during dangerous storm or high-speed wind conditions [3. (I) and (L). which thus lends insight into the nature of drag development being a function of effects at cylinder end. (L) represents experimental data from a test set up using an infinite aspect ratio. where we can produce no forward force. each of these valuations is assessed in the final analysis. Only a few investigations have ventured to include analytical representation of this factor and all of these methods are derived from surface friction approximations. Configuration (E) provides enhanced performance as shown by its higher lift coefficients (at the cost of increased drag) due to its higher aspect ratio. as in Equation 1. (4) such that frictional force can be calculated as (5) from Ar. 15 Flettner Rotor Wing Sail 10 Cx 5 0 0 20 40 60 80 100 120 Incident Angle (deg) 140 160 180 Figure 8. This is then used to calculate the frictional coefficient [4]. 6]. 5 Copyright © 2010 by ASME . To conduct this optimization. as shown in Figure 7. drops below levels experienced at stand still. where a nominal amount of drag allows us to still produce some force. respectively). although practical utilization has yet to prove this benefit and there is likely a very large increase in driving torque demand. From this the torque can be calculated by multiplying Ff by radius. If the system is to operate at a variable speed in response to wind velocity fluctuation a significant amount of energy must be put into driving this system. this study will utilize (I) as it meets identified design criteria and has complete data through a velocity ratio of zero. we vary the sail angle (for the wing sail) and velocity ratio (for the Flettner rotor) over the entire feasible range to determine what resulting combination of CL and CD produces the maximum CX. for each apparent wind angle. Given these specifications.These components also increase the required drive torque with increasing diameter. The apparent wind angle range is restricted to 0180° as these results are symmetric (an apparent wind angle of 90° will produce the same CX as an angle of 270°). however. Of final consideration with regard to the Flettner rotor is the need to approximate the required input torque. Designs (E) and (I) both incorporate end plates (of 1.58 and 2 times the cylinder diameter. or power by multiplying Ff by cylinder rotational velocity. within the range studied here. In addition to this analytical method. The results of this optimization are shown in Figure 8. SIMULATION: OPERATIONAL PARAMETERS The previously selected designs for sail and rotor determine the values of lift and drag characteristics for the configuration. The most practical evaluation is based on an evaluation of the coefficient of friction using Reynold‘s number such that (3) Where crot is the velocity ratio. Experimental results revealed 20% savings when fuel used to drive the motor was accounted for. Providing the most substantiated of assumed drive power requirements. Forward propulsion coefficient (CX) results from optimizing control parameters for each sail design. the surface area of the rotor and Urot.5 to 2 times the base cylinder diameters. as well as the importance of this concept. and 180° corresponds to sailing directly with the wind. μ is the dynamic viscosity of air and ρA and VA are the density and speed of airflow. where 0° represents sailing directly into wind and 180° sailing parallel with wind. Known as the Barkley phenomenon. some studies simply consider input power to be a percentage of generated power. Due to the large uncertainty associated with all of these figures. it gives the Flettner rotor tremendous safety advantage because the Flettner rotor is able to reduce its presence to below that of a full rigged vessel operating with bare poles [3. It is also important to note that it was shown that within this range of velocity ratio less than unity was when lift forces experienced substantial fluctuation as a function of Reynold‘s number – meaning that lift varied as a function of absolute speed in addition to speed ratio. CX (referring to Figure 1). At this point the drag coefficient. LRe is the characteristic length (circumference of the rotor). Although theoretically some limit should exist. These effects have been studied in significant detail to show that there is potential benefit of lift increase by introducing additional discs equally spaced along the cylinder [18]. the surface velocity.

each system undergoes periods of minimal power production.Experimental Losses (HI) Rotor . a simulation was executed for a defined ship heading relative to the wind profile. This hypothetical ship has a speed and direction which affects the performance of the sail. peak of 11. 10 and 12 m/s) are shown in Figures 11-14. SIMULATION: COMPARISON AND RESULTS This analysis approaches the comparison from the standpoint of quantifying the propulsion power produced by a single sail of each design fitted to a hypothetical ship. The relative scales used by Wind Ship Company [6]. calculated both analytically and using the given experimental metrics. continuous one following the ship‘s trajectory – again reflecting more of a standardized comparison of sail technologies than explicit performance for a trans-Atlantic voyage. with a histogram of the direction distribution shown in Figure 9. The power generated is calculated from Equation 6. Results will be based on variations of that heading direction. and performance is evaluated at speeds of 6.2 m/s) is taken from a datacollecting buoy in the Atlantic Ocean.A wind profile of fairly even speed distribution (mean speed of 5. Here the range between the high and low experimental estimates for losses from drive torque input is represented by the shaded region. Then.Experimental Losses (LO) Rigid Wing Sail This framework thus assumes that each device is able to instantaneously adjust to current wind conditions. 8. and periods of higher performance. this assumption does not take into account the energy consumed in accelerating the rotor nor repositioning the sail. which is valid from a propulsion perspective as wind data is given as hourly average. due to unfavorable wind directions or speeds. 8. 300 Figure 9. but the ability of each sail mechanism to produce useful propulsion forces is independent of any other ship parameter. (6) To this point all pertinent geometries and velocities required for calculating sail power as in Equation 6 have been analyzed except for the sail area. Instantaneous propulsion power produced by each design for a sample time at a heading of 40° and a speed of 8m/s (HI represents the high estimate of experimental rotor losses. were used for these analyses: 3. which are assumed to be of similar enough magnitude to cancel each other out.Analytical Losses Rotor . The results of such a comparison for the ship speeds indicated earlier (6. 10 and 12 m/s.000 ft2 wing sail and 360 ft2 rotor. Thus. This profile is selected as it displays wind directions predominantly of a single direction. Wind speed and direction averages are given hourly for an 11 day time period in May 2008. The result is a profile of power produced by each system as a function of time. along the common trade route between the US and Britain [14]. The average power produced over the length of the simulation by each unit (net for the rotor) is used to illustrate each technology‘s performance comparable to the other systems for that specific ship heading. the majority of the wind is approaching the notional ship from the rear and hence a heading of 180° will represent sailing most directly into the wind. meaning directly from the south. However. derived from experience. Ship speed is assumed to be constant over the 11 day period. in the actual simulation. As the actual wind data used are for a single stationary spot it is thus assumed that this profile would be a 200 Power (kW) 150 100 50 0 80 100 120 140 Time (hr) 160 180 200 Figure 10. Here we can see that wind blows primarily from 180°. with some noise – as desired for representing natural fluctuation.3 m/s. The power required to drive the Flettner rotor is then subtracted from the propulsive power it produces. LO indicates the lower estimate) 6 Copyright © 2010 by ASME . As shown. A histogram of the wind direction distribution for the profile used for simulation shows a concentration at 180° 250 Rotor . such as the example illustrated in Figure 10.

these two regions become similar over an increasing range. thus additional verification is warranted. Conversely. once ship heading approaches the range of 30-60°. Average power produced by each sail model for a notional ship speed of 8 m/s as a function of heading. or high speed ships) would have less benefit from the Flettner rotor. used for comparison provide a strong. these figures likely take into account an efficiency loss through the combustion of the 7 Copyright © 2010 by ASME .Figure 11. Average power produced by each sail model for a notional ship speed of 12 m/s as a function of heading. Figure 13. It is also clear that for scenarios where the ship heading is in the opposite direction of incident wind. they are the same for the majority of the spectrum. even basis for contrasting the capabilities of each. Generally speaking. Thus. which corresponds to a low heading (ie 0°). Depending on vessel speed. Figure 14. Average power produced by each sail model for a notional ship speed of 10 m/s as a function of heading. Average power produced by each sail model for a notional ship speed of 6 m/s as a function of heading. and thus higher net power levels of production. Figures 11-14 show that the selected sail and rotor sizes. For all scenarios. losses due to drive torque as derived from experimental data are based on measured fuel quantities. the Flettner rotor is able to produce better performance. The methodology used to derive this number is based on a simplified model. the analytical approximation of the amount of torque and power required to drive the Flettner rotor indicates significantly lower power demands. or areas. a logical conclusion from its significantly higher drag values. Figure 12. it can generally be said that wing sail performance is easily within the range of experimental uncertainty for Flettner rotor power production. As ship speed increases. The fact that the Flettner rotor produces proportionately higher drag along with its increased lift also indicates that applications where lateral accelerations are of concern (smaller ships. to the point where at a velocity of 12 m/s. with the wing sail actually producing increased performance for headings most directly into the wind.

which does not vary with time. Experimental evidence has a significant range of uncertainty and has a substantial discrepancy with analytical approximations. for high 8 Copyright © 2010 by ASME . as well as restrictions to the use of cranes to load and unload cargo are vital to the economic livelihood of the ships." The Borg/Luther Group. 1985. the Flettner rotor‘s footprint is the circular cross sectional area of the cylinder. TN. Greenwald. the high drag that accompanies the Flettner rotor‘s high lift may be of specific concern. Energy Information Administration. 1(2). including all reasonable estimates for required drive torque. ―Exposition of Calculation Methods to Analyse Wind-Propulsion on Cargo Ships. the actual amount of energy used to rotate the cylinder is less than the total amount of energy consumed in the form of fuel. A wing sail design will require substantially more area to operate as it must be able to freely rotate 360°. 75-80.K. S. Additionally. speed ships.... the performance of each design begins to normalize. [2] International Energy Outlook. Despite these uncertainties. F. deck space utility is a primary concern. K. mechanical power. of Environmental Science and Engineering. the smaller area of the Flettner rotor compared with the rigid sail produces a significantly reduced height. The different designs also have different performance characteristics. These factors combine to indicate that the Flettner rotor design produces a sail system weighing only 22% of the equivalent sail system [6]. 1985.. P.K. as can be seen in the figure below. KTH Centre for Naval Architecture.. Therefore. Additionally. which also represents a large degree of uncertainty. from an energy or power perspective. International Symposium on Windship Technology 4A (WindTech '85). and losses from this are potentially smaller than indicated.000 ft2 wing sail on top and 360 ft2 rotor on bottom [6]. U. or ships which intend to derive the majority of their propulsion from wind power. [6] Bergeson. In contrast. U. 2009.K. although needing further testing and verification. International Symposium on Windship Technology 4A (WindTech '85). [5] Shukla. for the application studied here of providing sail-assist performance in the interest of reducing fuel consumption on large scale ships while taking up minimal deck space. Diegel. F. 2009. J. a Flettner rotor is able to produce equivalent – if not better – propulsion performance when compared to the best practice wing sail design." Master's thesis. REFERENCES [1] Davis. DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS The primary conclusion of this analysis is that for a cross sectional area of almost an order of magnitude less. with the 3. This requirement leads to a circular footprint with a radius of up to the sail chord length. In addition. U. 1985.An Overview of its Past and Future Practical Applications. The analytical approximations used here are based on surface friction factors on the cylinder. we see that the Flettner rotor.." Int. such as container and cargo ships. L. pp. "The Magnus Effect . Naval Sea Systems Command Contract #N00024-83-C-5350 [4] Silvanius. [3] Borg. Sweden. International Symposium on Windship Technology 4A (WindTech '85).. Oak Ridge." Proc. if we consider this analysis within the scope of retrofitting to large-scale merchant ships. Report # DOE/EIA-0484. certainly presents a comparable if not superior design alternative to the wing sail. particularly given a representation utilizing surface friction for calculation. U. "Sail Assist Developments 1979-1985. indicating potential benefit for the rigid wing sail. M. "Wind Assisted Propulsion for Pure Car and Truck Carriers. C. Southhampton. J." Oak Ridge National Lab. where as this analysis is chiefly comparing useful. Southhampton. "Transportation Energy Data Book: Edition 28. 2009.S. S. as the surface/air interactions produced by the Magnus effect are not well understood. 1986. 2009. ORNL-6984.‖ Proc. Ghosh.‖ Proc. Additionally. Inhibiting the capacity to store cargo. Center for Transportation Analysis.. These observations suggest the need to collect data regarding drive requirements in conjunction with the ongoing need for more lift and drag force data.. Figure 15. Stockholm. [8] Fiorentino. Absolute conclusions on the capabilities of each design rely on the accuracy and methodology for calculating Flettner rotor drive torque. The rotor provides significantly better performance at low speeds and under directions following closely with the wind. Southhampton. ―Exposition of Calculation Methods to Analyse Wind-Propulsion on Cargo Ships. As ship speed increases. it is likely that these same effects would impact drive torque requirements. Illustration of the relative scale of each sail system. "Revival of the Modern Wing Sails for the Propulsion of Commercial Ships..engine. The factors at play are both deck area occupied as well as system height. [7] Smulders.

Badr. 2005. Terslov. International Symposium on Windship Technology 4B (WindTech '85). 1985.. Southhampton.php?station=410 01. Ingham. International Symposium on Windship Technology 4B (WindTech '85).. pp. 459-484. International Symposium on Windship Technology 4B (WindTech '85)." Transactions of the ASME. J. U. S. Ueno... Theory of Wing Sections.K. and 0018 Airfoils in the Full-Scale Tunnel.K. G." NACA Report 647. International Symposium on Windship Technology 4B (WindTech '85).ndbc. Vol. M. 1985. Journal of Basic Engineering. 9 Copyright © 2010 by ASME . International Symposium on Windship Technology 4B (WindTech '85). 1985. LLNR 635. Southhampton. "Some Comments on the relative merits of Various Wind Propulsion Devices. U. International Symposium on Windship Technology 4A (WindTech '85).. Dennis. Chapter 8. Von Doenhoff. P. Satchwell. "Unsteady Flow Past a Rotating Circular Cylinder at Reynolds numbers 103 and 104. "A Review of the Methods of Calculation of Added Resistance for Ships in a Seaway. 2008. C. National Data Buoy Center. H." Proc. Menard. 1985. A. O. U. W. 1990.K." Proc.. "Wind Tunnel Tests and Manoeuvre Simulator Tests with Different Types of Sails and Ships. M.. pp 82-95. Southhampton. U.. K. Southhampton. P. U. Goett.. Wilson.. "Sail-Sail and Sail-Hull Interaction Effects of HybridSail Assisted Bulk Carrier" J. Fluid Mech. "Aerodynamic Design of Aerofoils. U. Coutanceau. Southhampton.[9] [10] [11] [12] [13] [14] [15] [16] [17] [18] [19] [20] Shenzle. Clayton.K.. H." Proc." Proc.. Station 41001. Dover Publications. T. 0012. P. "BWEA Initiative on Wind Assisted Ship Propulsion (WASP).. 1985. Marine Science Technology. C. Abbott. http://www.. 1961.. Southhampton. Including a Summary of Airfoil Data.noaa." J. 60-WA-150. 1985 "Estimation of Wind Assistance Potential.. New York. Hearn.. Swanson. I. F. B. Wellicome. V10. pp 461-470." Proc. Inc.. Historical Climate Data. 1939 "Tests of the NACA 0009. "The Magnus Effect: A Summary of Investigations to Date. Kitamura.K." 1959. Fujiwara.. Bullivant. 220...K. Paper no..

Sign up to vote on this title
UsefulNot useful