THE RESISTANCE AND MOTIONS

OF AUSTRALIAN TRAWLER HULL FORMS

By Richard Gordon Whitaker

This thesis is submitted towards the degree of Master of Engineering at the

University of New South Wales, Sydney, Australia.

December, 1988.

CERTIFICATE OF ORIGINALITY

I hereby declare that this submission is my own work and that, to the
best of my knowledge and belief, it contains no material previously
published or written by another person nor material which to a
substantial extent has been accepted for the award of any other degree
or diploma of a university or other institute of higher learning, except
where due acknowledgement is made in the text.

(Signed) . . .. . . . .
 •
1

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

The author gratefully acknowledges the assistance of the

following people in this work;

Dr. Prabhat Pal; senior lecturer, Naval Architecture, U.N.S.W.

for his supervision of this research.
Dr. Martin Renilson; senior lecturer, Ship Hydrodynamics
Centre, A.M.C. for his help and guidance throughout the period
of the project.
Mr. John Van Doorn; formerly naval architect, A.S.I. for
helping to establish and supervise the research from the
shipyard.
Miss Mandaley Perkins; for her endless patience in producing
this thesis on word processor.
Messrs. Roy Horne, Chris Flood and Stefan Lenz; tank staff and
fellow researchers for their assistance in the experimental work
of this thesis.
 • •
11

List of Contents

•
Acknowledgements 1
••
List of Contents 11

List of Tables V
•
List of Figures Vl
•••
List of Symbols V111
•
List of Abbreviations Xl
••
Abstract Xll

Chapter 1 Problem Definition

1.0 Introduction 1
1.1 Research and Development in Trawler
Design 1
1.2 Hull Forms of Australian Trawlers 9
1.3 The Problem 10
1.4 The Parent Hull Form 10

Chapter 2 The Resistance Characteristics of Trawlers

2.1 Components of Resistance 14
2.2 Hull Form Parameters which Influence
Resistance 17
2.3 Systematic Series of Model Tests 22
2.3.1 Choice of Parameters for Variation 22
2.3.2 Methods of Parameter Variation 23
2.3.3 Layout of the Model Series 27

Chapter 3 Experimental Apparatus and Procedure

3.1 Test Equipment 29
3.1.1 Towing Tank Details 29
3.1.2 Carriage Details and Model Constraints 29
3.1.3 Transducers 30
3.1.4 Data Logging 31
 •••
111

3.2 Model Details 31

3.2.1 Description of Models 31
3.2.2 Choice of Scale 32
3.2.3 Turbulence Stimulation 36
3.2.4 Pitch Radius of Gyration 37
3.2.5 Appendages 37
3.3.1 Model and Apparatus Preparation 38
3.3.2 Run Details 38
3.4 Tests Performed 39
3.4.1 Chine Shape Tests 39
3.4.2 Beam Tests 40
3.4.3 Draught Tests 40
3.4.4 Other Tests 40
3.5 Analysis of Model Data 41
3.5.1 Analysis of Calm Water Test Data 41
3.5.2 Analysis of Head Sea Tests 41

Chapter 4 Results of Model Tests

4.1 Chine Shape Tests 48
4.1.1 Effect of Chine Shape on Resistance in
Calm Water 48
4.1.2 Effect of Chine Shape on Added Resistance
in Head Seas 49
4.1.3 Effect of Chine Shape on Motions in Head Seas 49
4.2 Beam Tests 49
4.2.1 Effect of Beam on Resistance in Calm Water 50
4.2.2 Effect of Beam on Added Resistance in
Head Seas 50
4.2.3 Effect of Beam on Motions in Head Seas so
4.3 Draught Tests 50
4.3.1 Effect of Draught on Resistance in Calm Water 51
4.3.2 Effect of Draught on Added Resistance in
Head Seas 51
4.3.3 Effect of Draught on Motions in Head Seas 51
4.4 Published Results 51
 •
IV

Chapter 5 Discussion of Results

5.1 General Observations 53
5.2 The Effects of Chine Shape 54
5.3 The Effects of Beam 55
5.4 The Effects of Draught 55
5.5 · Comparison of Results with those of Previous
Research 56
5.6 A Method for Predicting the Effects of Beam
and Draught Variation in Calm Water 57

Chapter 6 Conclusions 60

References

Appendices
1. Body Plans of Model Hull Forms 63
2. Experimental Errors 64
3. The Bi-filar Method 65
4.1 Displacement Tests 66
4.2 Radius of Gyration Tests 68
4.3 Flow Visualisation Tests 70
5 Estimation of Appendage Drag 72
6 Scaling of Model Results to Ship Scale 80
7 Full Scale Prediction Method 87
 V

List of Table s

1. Param eter Rang es of Past Traw ler series 20

2. Restr iction s of Anal yses/ Pred iction Meth ods
(state d by autho rs) 21
3. Hull Form Param eters of Mode ls Teste d 31
4. Calcu lation of Mean Adde d Resis tance 45
5. Possi ble Sourc es of Error s 64
6. Form Facto r Estim ate 82
7. Resu lts Foun d using Diffe rent Scali ng Proce dures 86
 •
VI
List of Figures

1.1 General arrangement of parent vessel 13

2.1 Body plan of parent hull form 23
2.2 Beam variation 25
2.3 Draught variation 25
2.4 Chine shape series 28
2.5 Beam and draught series 28
3.1 The towing tank 30-31
3.2 The carriage 30-31
3.3 A model constrained under the carriage 30-31
3.4 The wavemaker 30-31
3.5 Measurement and recording system 47

Results Section of Thesis 52-53

4.1,4.2 Parent hull form calm water results

4.3,4.4 Round bilge hull form calm water
4.5,4.6 Single chine hull form calm water results
4.7 to 4.12 Effect of chine shape in calm water
4.13 to 4.16 R.A.O.s (chine shape tests)
4.17 Standard I.T.T.C. wave spectra used in the analysis
4.18 to 4.21 Full scale average responses in head seas for chine
variations
4.22 to 4.25 Effect of beam in calm water
4.26 to 4.34 Effect of beam in head seas
4.35 to 4.38 Effect of draught in calm water
4.39 to 4.47 Effect of draught in head seas

Figures in Appendices

A1 The parent hull form 63-64

A2 The round bilge hull form 63-64
A3 The single chine hull form 63-64
A4 The 80% beam hull form 63-64
AS The 120% beam hull form 63-64
A6 The 80% draught hull form 63-64
A7 The 120% draught hull for~ 63-64
AB Calm water residual resistance coefficients
(displacement tests) 67-68
A9 Calm water full scale effective power (displacement
tests) 67-68
 ..
V 11

AlO to A12 RA.O .s (disp lacem ent tests) 67-68

A13 to AlS Aver age respo nses in head seas
(disp lacem ent tests) 67-68
A16 to A18 R.A.O.s (radi us of gyrat ion tests) 69-70
A18 to A21 Aver age respo nses in head seas
(radi us of gyrat ion tests) 69-70
A22 to A27 Flow visua lisati on 71-72
A28 Sche matic plan of the keel cooli ng syste m 72
A29 Sona r trans duce r 74
 • • •
VIII

List of Symbols

A Bulb cross sectional area (m2)

Amax Maximum section area (m2)
B Beam (m)
CB Block coefficient
Cm Maximum section area coefficient
Cp Prismatic coefficient
Cpv Vertical prismatic coefficient
Cr Coefficient of residual resistance
Ct Coefficient of total resistance
Cwp Waterplane area coefficient
© Froude constant as used by Ridgely-Nevitt
Disp. Displaced volume (m3)
fm Model (circular) wave frequency (1 /S)
g Acceleration due to gravity (m/ s2)
H1;3 Significant wave height (m)
hw Wave height (m)
k Constant of proportionality, form factor
L Length (on the design load waterline) (m)
Lb Bulb length (m)
LR Length of run (m)
LCB Longitudinal distance from centre of bouyancy to
midships (+ve fwd) (m)
q Flow rate in m3 Is
r correlation coefficient
Resistance due to surface roughness ·
Wind resistance of hull and superstructure etc (N)
The sum of RAw, RAPP, RA and RAA (N)
Appendage resistance
 •
IX

RAW The added resistance of a vessel in waves

RFo Flat plate frictional resistance
RN Reynold's number
Rp The pressure resistance, the sum of Rpv and Rwp (N)
Rpv Viscous pressure resistance (N)
RR Residual resistance (ITTC 1957)
Rs Spray resistance (N)
RT The total resistance of a vessel (N)
Rv Viscous resistance (N)
Rw Wave resistance (N)
RwB Wave-breaking resistance (N)
Rwr Wave pattern resistance (N)
RAO Response amplitude operator
s Wetted surface area (m2)
SR(roe) Response spectrum
S(roe) ITTC wave spectrum
T Draught (m)
V Speed (m/s)
WSA Wetted surface area (m2)
Za Heave amplitude (m)
Zb Immersion of bulb (m)
aoBS Buttock slope angle (aft of 1 I 4 beam buttock line from horizontal)
1
-aoe Half angle of entry (deg)
2
1
2aR Half angle of run (deg)
~ Displaced mass (tonnes for full scale, kg for model scale)
0 Boundary layer (momentum) thickness (mm)
oR Difference between resistance in waves and resistance in calm
water (N)
 X

oRp Added frictional resistance due to effects of hull form on

bound ary layer (N)
~a Wave ampli tude (m)
A Wave length (m)
Ar Mode l/ship scale ratio
Jl Headi ng angle
v Kinem atic viscos ity
0a Pitch ampli tude
roe Encou nter freque ncy
ro'e Nondi mensi onal encou nter freque ncy
row Circul ar wave freque ncy
 •
Xl

List of Abbreviations

A.M.C. Australian Maritime College

A.S.I. Australian Shipbuilding Industries (W.A) Pty. Ltd
A.T.T.C. American Towing Tank Conference
I.T.T.C. International Towing Tank Conference.
R.I.N.A. Royal Institution of Naval Architects
S.N.A.M.E. Society of Naval Architects and Marine Engineers
Trans. Transactions

Notes on Thesis Style

Text is labelled with page numbers while large sections of figures (for
example, the results graphs) are identified by figure numbers.
References are given in the text in the format of;

Author's name (year of publication).

The references are then found in alphabetical order at the end of the
thesis.

Figures in the appendices are denoted A(number).

 ••
Xll

Abstract

The aim of this research is to improve current understanding of

factors affecting the resistance of a typical Australian trawler hull
form.

This project has comprised five parts corresponding to

background research, selection of three important hull form
parameters, development of a small systematic model series,
model tests in the Australian Maritime College towing tank and
analysis of results for use in the design office.

The three parameters chosen for variation were chine shape,

beam and draught. This meant that with the double chine
Australian Shipbuilding Industries (W.A.) 25 metre prawn
trawler design as a parent hull form, were tested single chine and
round bilge derivatives, 80 % and 120 % beam derivatives and 80
% and 120 % draught derivatives, making a model series of seven
hull forms.

The results show that little difference in performance is made by

chine shape alone and that for simplicity of construction the
parent vessel should be built as a single chine form if it is to
retain the same principal particulars. It would also appear that
beam and draught have far less effect than for slender, deeper
ships. H the parent hull form was to require increased deck space,
capacity or stability the beam can be increased to provide this with
only slightly increased powering requirements. The only
apparent advantage in narrow beam was in terms of seakeeping
in head seas where the narrow model was found to pitch and
heave less than the parent. The influence of draught on
resistance was greater than for beam however it was still less than
expected.
 •••
Xlll

An existing formula relating the effective power of a hull form to

its beam and draught is adapted to the model results for use by
designer s of vessels similar to the parent form.
 1

CHAPTER 1 PROBLEM DEFINITION.

1.0 Introduction.

Fishing vessels take many forms as they operate in a wide variety

of conditions ranging from working from beaches in developing
countries to acting as mother ships to a fleet of deep sea trawlers.
The Australian prawn trawler is a different design to those of
other countries, developed to suit the local conditions of
construction and operation of such vessels rather than to
improve hydrodynamic performance. The remarkable degree of
research performed on the resistance, propulsion and seakeeping
of fishing vessels overseas. has not extended to Australian types
of trawlers, leaving the Australian Naval Architect in a. quandry
as to how to estimate and thereby improve the performance of
his designs.

1.1 Research and Development in Trawler Design.

Traung (1985) summarized the. development of fishing vessel

design from the second world war up to the present,
demonstrating the considerable attention awarded to the
resistance and propulsion, seakeeping, stability, construction,
operation and layout of these vessels. It is evident in his paper
that this is frequently spurred on by losses of fishing vessels, the
need for new fishing fleets for developing countries and the
increasing role of the oceans as a source of food.

In the post second world war period, development of fishing

vessel design began with the European and American fishing
fleets being rebuilt with a number of new features. The
Americans had turned to stern trawlers with forward wheel
houses as opposed to the European side trawlers which still had
their wheel houses placed aft. The first large fishing and
processing vessels, termed 'fish factories' were built for long
distance fisheries in the North Atlantic. Bulbous bows and
 2

propeller nozzles appeared on fishing vessels, encouraged by

research published through the Food and Agriculture
Organization (F.A.O.) of the United Nations. In 1953 the F.A.O.
organized its first international conference involving the
hydrodynamic performance of fishing vessels and two years later
published the first edition of 'Fishing Boats of the World'.

Johnson (1956) performed model tests on four Swedish trawler

hull forms which incorporated bulbous bows and claimed up to
..
20 % improvement at certain speeds and conditions, over the
original (conventional bow) form. Whilst unable to form
conclusions~'hulbous bow performance in waves, Johnson
indicated that slamming could be a problem especially if the bulb
undersides were flat.
..
Ridgely-Nevitt (1956) presented the first results of research on a
series of models based on a typical American trawler. This paper
was concerned with the effects of waterplane and midship section
coefficients, along with the shape of the curve of section areas, on
resistance in calm water. All his models had equal displacement-
length ratio, prismatic coefficient, longitudinal centre of
buoyancy position and beam-draught ratio. He concluded that it
was advantageous to increase the section areas near the ·stern and
to reduce the midship section area. The effect of this was to move
the centre of buoyancy aft and reduce the angle of entry at the
bow.

Johnson (1958) followed his 1956 paper with further tests on his
four Swedish bulbous bow trawler models and concluded that as
well as reducing the wavemaking resistance, the bulbs improved
flow into the propeller thereby raising the overall propulsive
efficiency. A ratio of bulb cross section area to hull midship
section area of 5 % appeared optimum.

Doust and O'Brien (1959) analysed model records at the

National Physical Laboratory (N.P.L.) in. the United Kingdom and
developed a regression equation for resistance in terms of six hull
form parameters for use in the preliminary design stage of
 3

fishing vessels. Their design charts showed a number of trends.

Firstly, for fixed prismatic coefficient, resistance per ton
displacement generally increased with increasing beam-draught
ratio except in the vicinity of a speed-length ratio (ship speed in
knots, ship length in feet) of 1.1 where it was suggested that the
'optimum' value of beam-length ratio was 2.25. Secondly they
recommended that the centre of buoyancy should be placed
further aft with increasing speed-length ratio. Thirdly, the angle
of entrance should be as fine as possible without causing sharp
'shoulders' in the hull form while length-beam ratio is
maximized within the constraints of vessel stability and capacity.
For their forms they found that with the lowest length-beam
'
ratios resistance varied inversely with prismatic coefficient but
that no general trend for this parameter could be seen. Midship
section coefficient appeared to have little effect on resistance for a
speed-length ratio of 1.1, a common value for trawlers in free
running condition. Finally they found that bulbous bows gave
their best results for vessels with length-beam ratios above 5.6,
half angles of entry between 5 and 30 degrees, prismatic
coefficients of less than 0.63 and which operate at speed-length
ratios between 1.0 and 1.1.

In the 1960 edition of 'Fishing Boats of the World', Traung (1960)

presented model data from Swedish tests on a wide variety of
fishing boat hull forms ranging from whale boats to single chine
trawlers. He formed similar conclusions to previous researchers
regarding the position of the centre of buoyancy, the angle of
entry, parallel midbody and pronounced 'shoulders' whilst
adding that the length-displacement ratio, block coefficient (if less
than 0.55) and beam did not appear to greatly influence resistance.
He also concluded that the prismatic coefficient is an important
parameter in terms of vessel resistance (and that a desirable value
is of the order of 0.58) and that transom sterns helped reduce
resistance.

Doust (1961) discussed the merits of bulbous bows on trawlers

and advised that bulbs should be incorporated in the lines of a
vessel from a preliminary design stage rather than being
 4

retrofitted later. He found that a 5 % bulb area-midship section

area ratio could result in 10-15 % reduction in power
requirements through a combination of reduced wavemaking
resistance and improved hull efficiency. The following year
Doust (1962) presented results of optimization of his regression
analysis of the N.P.L. model data in the form of four 'optimum'
hull forms of varying prismatic coefficient within which other
'optimal solutions' could be interpolated for other values of
prismatic coefficient. His hull forms incorporated low deadrise,
fine bows, full midship sections and round bilge construction.
Despite his results of 1961, his 'optimum' forms did not have
bulbous bows.

In 1965 the British Ship Research Association (B.S.R.A.)

commenced model tests on a series of side trawler models with
Pattullo and Thomson (1965) presenting results for models of
constant block coefficient and variations in beam-draught and
length-displacement ratios. They showed that increasing the
beam- draught ratio increases the resistance except near a speed-
length ratio of 1.1 where it has little effect whilst increasing the
length-beam ratio decreases the resistance and delays the speed
where resistance begins to increase rapidly with speed.

To follow on to his paper of 1956, Ridgely-Nevitt (1967) described

further tank tests on American trawler hull forms of varying
prismatic coefficient and varying displacement-length ratio. He
found advantages in using 'vee-shaped' (high deadrise) sections,
extreme flare above the waterline at the bow, bulbous bows and
transom sterns.

Traung et al. (1967) analysed model data from the F.A.O. in a

similar manner to that of Doust (1962) and then tested his four
'optimum' hull forms (he referred to them in terms of length-
displacement ratios rather than as a range of prismatic
coefficients) and found them to be superior to the F.A.O. data base
vessels.
 •
5

Pattullo (1968) presented the second paper on the B.S.R.A. model

series with a set of tests on the variation of block coefficient and
longitudinal centre of buoyancy. He concluded that resistance
increases with block coefficient, especially above a speed-length
ratio of 0.9. At a speed-length ratio of 1.14, for example, the 0.596
block coefficient model showed 25 % less resistance than the 0.613
block coefficient model. Above a speed-length ratio of 0.9, the
resistance decreased rapidly with movement of the centre of
buoyancy aft. Below this point, the centre of buoyancy should be
well forward of amidships although any gains in performance are
small. Finally Pattullo summarized that the further aft the centre
of buoyancy is placed, the greater the savings at high speeds, the
greater the resistance increase at low speeds and the greater the
hump (in the resistance-speed curve) in between.

Using similar methods to those of Doust (1962) and Traung

(1967), Hayes and Engvall (1969) developed a resistance prediction
method for fishing vessels in terms of thirteen hull form
parameters (including two variables related to model testing) and
some seventy one coefficients. This was based on model data
taken from a number of sources including Japanese, European,
American and English towing ·tanks. This analysis was later
optimized by Pal (1981) as part of an overall economic
optimization of a fishing vessel design.

Also that year, Thomson (1969) presented the third set of test
results of the B.S.R.A. series, which was concerned with the
effects of bow and stern variation on trawler resistance. He towed
ten models and found that the use of bulbous bows had little
effect until a speed-length ratio of 0.9 above which he
recommended that the bigger the bulb cross section area, the
bigger the savings in resistance. He warned that a practical limit
of 5 % for the bulb section area-midship section area ratio should
be observed to avoid slamming in head seas. He also
recommended the use of transom sterns in minimizing
resistance and stern bulbs for reducing resistance and improving
hull efficiency (from a propulsion viewpoint).
 6

High fuel prices in the 1970's saw a depressed market for fishing
vessel builders and despite the high operating costs there was
little effort to improve the fuel efficiency of trawlers. Fraser, Jones
and Van Der Net (1973) considered the effect of increasing the
beam of a hull form, for raising stability, on its operating costs. In
predicting the resistance variation of a form (with variation in
beam) using the methods of Doust (1962) and Hayes and Engvall
(1969), they found that operating costs were not greatly affected by
beam. In some cases the resistance of a hull form was actually
reduced by increasing the beam and reducing the block coefficient
to suit.

Pattullo (1974) presented results of the fourth set of tests in the

B.S.R.A. series, these t~sts investigating the effects of the
longitudinal centre of buoyancy, beam, draught and block
coefficient on the resistance of stern trawlers. This was necessary
as stern trawlers had grown to quite different proportions to side
trawlers by the 1970's, with relatively high beam-draught ratios,
lower length-beam ratios, finer bows, lower block coefficients and
centres of buoyancy well aft compared with side trawlers. Pattullo
found that for this type of hull form the optimum position of the
centre of buoyancy at a speed-length ratio of 1.0 was of the order
of 4.5 to 5 % of the waterline length aft of amidships. Presenting
his beam and draught test results in terms of Mumford indices
(see Mumford (1925)), Pattullo found that the .rate of change of
effective power with change in beam was more than twice that
with change of draught.

While fuel prices remained high into the 1980's research in

fishing vessel design increased in both quantity and variety.
Considerable interest was paid to development of alternative
sources of energy and in improving fishing gear (especially
electronic equipment) and methods.

O'Dogherty (1983) compared four hull forms of stern trawlers,

including a round bilge form, a double chine form and their
bulbous bow sisterships. These forms were the result of statistical
analysis of model data from the El Pardo tank in Spain. At the
 7

design load waterline the conventional bow, double chine form

showed the least resistance while in the ballast condition the
bulbous bow, double chine form was the best.

Recently a number of countries have begun replacing their fleets

of fishing vessels many of which date back to the post world war
period and this has generated considerable research in the vessel
design. Wilson (1985)analysed data collected on American fishing
vessels and used his results to produce design curves for use in
preliminary design. The vessels surveyed were all built between
1960 and 1970 and included many types of fishing craft. Wilson
noted that prismatic coefficient remains almost constant with
increasing vessel length whilst block coefficient tends to increase.
This results in longer vessels typically having fuller midship
sections than shorter forms. This observation agrees with those
of the researchers of the 1960's who noted that the large 'fish
factories' had much fuller midship sections than small trawlers.

Judson (1985) towed three New England trawler models into

head seas to study the added resistance due to motions of this
type of vessel. His models were of a small single chine trawler, a
medium sized double chine trawler and a large fisheries research
vessel. Running his models at their equivalent free running
speeds in random (Pierson-Moskowitz spectra) head seas, he
found that the added resistance could be as much as three times
the calm water resistance. He also found that added resistance
increased with significant wave height up to. a point whereupon
it began to diminish, presumably as the average wavelengths
grew long enough for the vessel to ride over them with ease. He
concluded that his experimental results did not correspond with
those derived from linear ship motions theory, because of the
typically low length- beam ratios of these vessels.

The two smaller models tested by Judson were then used by

Heliotis and Goudey (1985) each model being fitted with twelve
bulbous bow variations. Calm water results indicated an
optimum bulb cross section area- hull midship section area ratio
of 20 % for free running speeds. In head seas, pitch was
 8

minimized with the use of the 20 % bulb but whilst the added
resistance of the medium hull form decreased, that of the smaller
model actually increased. As the motions and added resistance of
a vessel are usually linked, this was an unexpected result.
Trawling tests were attempted in head sea conditions by attaching
a weighted drogue to the stern of each model and towing at
trawling speeds into regular head seas. It was reported that the
resulting motions were irregular with no discernible differences
between the conventional and bulbous bow variations in this
condition.

In 1986 the magazine 'World Fishing' published articles by

Borreguero (1986) and McCraig (1986) concerning the use of
bulbous bows and the factors affecting trawler performance.
Borreguero described the relevance of bulbous bows in trawler
design and presented results of power savings achieved by their
use on vessels of various block coefficient values (from 0.5 to
0.85). He suggested that bulbous bows were of little value on hull
forms of block coefficient less than 0.4, while adding that usage of
bulbs on trawlers was difficult because of the wide range of trim
and displacement conditions such vessels encounter.

McCraig (1986) looked back over the history of fishing vessel

development in much the same way as Traung had in 1985 but
with particular emphasis on stern trawler design. He remarked
that fishing boat operators have gradually increased the size of
their gear and demanded extended range at higher speeds. As
lengths. of vessels are frequently limited by requirements of
classification and port charges (etc) the designers of fishing
vessels have tended to widen their hull forms to achieve this
greater deck space, fuel and hold capacity, stability and wider
sterns for stern trawling. This has resulted in increased calm
water powering requirements and generally wider angles of
entrance with their associated increase in slamming and added
resistance in waves. The increase in beam, although improving
statical stability, has resulted in generally less comfortable vessels
•
In a seaway.
 9

The typical Australian trawler would appear to be an extreme

example of the hull forms described by McCraig, being perhaps
most similar to recent American stern trawlers and of a variety of
vessels developed since the research of Johnson, Doust, Traung,
Hayes and Engvall and the large model series of Ridgely- Nevitt
and Pattullo and Thomson.

1.2 Hull Forms of Australian Trawlers.

Australian trawlers are quite different to the types of vessels

tested over the past forty years because of the economic and
physical constraints placed on trawlers built for and operating in,
Australian waters. Typically the Australian trawler is a steel,
chine vessel due to shipbuilder's reluctance to rolling plates and
the preference for steel as a robust, cheap material for all
workboats where maintenance costs must be minimized. This
type of craft generally is much wider for its length than her
European counterparts for a number of reasons. Firstly most
Australian prawn trawlers tow their nets from long booms which
are effectively long overturning levers in the case of one net
snagging and so the vessels are very wide to ensure high form
stability. Secondly as the vessels operate in very hot conditions
they require refrigerated brine tanks on the main decks for
cooling the catch as soon as it is lifted aboard. These tanks must
be wide and long as the cod end is emptied directly into them.
This requires considerable deck space and for a vessel limited in
length for reasons to be discussed later, this demands wide beam.

Whilst this type of vessel is not dissimilar to recent American

stern trawlers, no fishing vessel model series has been tested in
America since that of Ridgely-Nevitt in 1967 and the Australian
trawler bears little resemblance to those of his or anyone else's
series. This can be seen in chapter 2 where the hull form
dimensions of the A.S.I. trawler are compared with those derived
from a selection of research papers and model series. The
Australian hull form may be seen to be of very low length-beam
 10

ratio, high beam-draught ratio, light displacement and low

midship section coefficient compared to overseas forms.

The other peculiarity of the Australian trawler is that it is

generally of chine construction whereas almost all previous
research has centred on round bilge hull forms with the
exceptions of the five chine hull forms of Heliotis and Goudey
(1985) and O'Dogherty (1983), whose results give no comment on
the effects of the ~hines themselves, and the early F.A.O. data
.
which showed results for single chine vessels but of vastly
different proportions.

1.3 The Problem.

It is clear that Australia trawlers do not tend to fit into the types
of hull forms tested over the past forty years and that they
represent a class of vessels whose performance is poorly
understood. This lack of information impedes development in
the design of such craft and forces the Australian naval architect
to look overseas for data, unsure of its relevance to his local
designs.

This problem is solved in three ways. Firstly this project is

intended to provide trawler model series data for use in the
design of Australian hull forms. Secondly it aims to assess the
popular resistance prediction methods and provide a simple
prediction technique based on the model series results. Thirdly
the project acts to demonstrate the use of Australia's only
commercially consultative towing tank as a design 'tool' for
future development of fishing vessels in Australia.

1.4 The Parent Hull Form.

The vessel chosen as the parent hull form is the 25 metre prawn
trawler designed and built by Australian Shipbuilding Industries
 11

Pty. Ltd. (A.S.I.) of Western Australia, as it is considered to be

typical of large Australian trawlers.

This type of vessel has been developed for trawling for prawns in
the tropical waters of Northern Australia and has the following
requirements over and above those of most fishing vessels.

1. It is required to remain at sea for up to one month at a time

although fuel and stores can be replenished from other vessels.

2. Protection for the catch (and crew) against the heat of the sun
and steel decks is necessary immediately upon the catch being
hauled aboard. The catch must be snap frozen as soon as possible
and kept frozen even until it reaches the markets.

3. A competitive free running speed (usually of the order of 10 to

11 knots) is needed with capability of traveling up to 1000 km to
the grounds. During off season periods these vessels may sail
approximately 3000 km to Fremantle or to India, the Persian Gulf
or areas of South East Asia so extended range (without the need
for refueling) is required.

4. Sufficient stability to avoid capsize should one of the nets

become snagged is required, especially considering the long
booms used for these trawlers.

5. These craft must be easily maintained by the crew as they

operate in remote areas.

Hull dimensions are dictated by regulations, stability and capacity

requirements. For example, the length of this type of vessel in
Australian waters is primarily limited by the Uniform Shipping
Laws Code which increases its requirements of manning, fire
protection, subdivision and safety equipment when the
measured length exceeds 25 metres. (The measured length of a
vessel is defined as "The distance from the fore part of the hull to
the after part of the hull, taken at the upperside of the uppermost
li/

weathertight deck.(U.S.L. code 1984 ed.)) To avoid these added

 12

requirements the length of this A.S.I. vessel is limited to 25

metres with a waterline length of 24.2 metres.

In order that adequate deck space and stability are provided the
beam is relatively high and ballast and the main engine are
placed low in the box keel of the hull. Other features of the design
include the use of a variable pitch propeller in a nozzle and an
external heat exchanger system (termed 'keel cooling') and the
placement of the wheelhouse forward on the raised deck with
good visibility and easy access to the main winch console
mounted on the raised deck looking down onto the main,
working deck.

Principal Particulars of the Parent Hull Form:

Length over all 24.95 m

Length on the waterline 24.2 m
Beam 7.3 m
Draught 3.0 m
Displacement 204 t
Block coefficient 0.38
Prismatic coefficient 0.59
Midship section coefficient 0.63 L
Longitudinal centre of buoyancy 3.1 % (of the lwl aft of
midships)

A general arrangement plan of the vessel is given in Figure 1.1.

 13

PROFIL E

I ''
I

l==::~K::::J::::::::::::::::::::~ ~~:===== ---- - -- - -- - - -~~~~~~~

-- - . ---==-~~~~~
..
----- .--- -~ -- --- --
..::

""-..---------.--.......
'
- -----~' '
'-.....·~

11

PLAN ON MAIN DECK

---'?"
I
I
. I
I~ NH·~

Figure 1.1 General Arrange ment of Parent Vessel.

 14

CHAPTER2 THE RESISTANCE CHARACTERISTICS OF

TRAWLERS

2.1 Components of Resistance

The resistance of a vessel may be broken down into it's

components as follows;
RR (1957 f!TC)

RT = Rpo + SRF + Rpy + Rwp + RwB + Rs + RADD .... (1)

' --....r l._( ~} -V'
)
Rv Rw

where; -- total resistance.

Rpo = "flat plate" frictional resistance, ie. the

sum of the tangential stresses in the
boundary layer of the fluid flow over
the hull.

- added frictional resistance due to the

effect of the hull form on the boundary
layer.

Rpy = viscous pressure resistance, ie. the sum

of the normal stresses in the (turbulent)
boundary layer over the hull.

Rwp = "wave pattern" resistance; the energy

required to generate a wave field.

RwB = "wave breaking" resistance; related to

the break-down of the bow wave.
 15
Rs - spray resistance; related to the making
of spray.

represents the sum of the extra

forms of resistance in the operating of a
vessel;

Where added resistance due to ocean waves

reflected from the hull and due to the
vessel's motion in waves.

RAPP = "a.ppendage" resistance due to the added

drag of appendages fitted to the hull
and due to the steering appendages in
operation.

- resistance due to surface roughness.

wind resistance of the exposed hull and

superstructure.

To this list may be added many more possible forms of resistance

incurred by vessels in operating conditions. For example,
resistance due to flow restrictions ("bank effects", "shallow water
effects", interference between passing vessels or of multihull
vessels.), the resistance due to towed objects (T.R.O.V.s, nets etc.)
and the induced drag of lifting surfaces on a sailing vessel.

The various components of resistance are usually grouped

together as shown above. "Rv" represents the resistance of a
vessel as it moves in a viscous fluid due to the shearing of the
fluid layer covering the hull surface. "Rw" is termed the "wave
resistance" of the vessel and represents the work done in
generating a wave system, a breaking bow wave and spray. Both
these groups of components contain elements which are related
to the pressure distribution over the hull and the term"pressure"
 16
resistance (eqn. (1) above) is used to represent the sum of the
viscous pressure resistance and the wave pattern resistance. The
International Towing Tank Conference of 1957· (ITTC, 1957)
realised a method of correlating model and ship resistance where
the total resistance of a hull form was to be described as the sum
of it's "frictional" resistance and it's "residual" resistance (eqn.(1)
above). It was intended that a method for scaling model data
using Froude number similarity should be comprised of a
viscous resistance term (to be calculated using a Reynold's
number dependant formula) and a second term (being entirely
Froude number dependant) which would be independant of
scale. Unfortunately, the "residual". resistance component as
defined by the ITTC in 1957 is not entirely independant of
Reynold's number as it contains the two components, oRp and
Rpy, which are both dependant upon the boundary layer flow.
The effects of viscosity are also possibly involved in the other
wave resistance terms covered by "residual resistance". As a
result, the scaling of resistance is a problem still yet to be solved.
This is discussed in greater detail in a later chapter.

A survey of model results, suggests that the residual resistance of

trawlers (of less than 30m overall length) far outweighs the
frictional resistance at free running speeds. This is presumably
due to the making (and breaking) of waves as trawlers are
typically of low length/beam ratios and have quite bluff bows.
There has been considerable testing of bulbous bows on trawlers
in an attempt to reduce these effects.

At trawling speeds, the residual resistance is reduced to a lower

proportion of the total resistance of the vessel, however even the
hull form resistance is negligible when compared to the drag of
the nets. In this condition, the towing pull of a trawler is the
most important criteria and so trawling speeds are of little
importance when the resistance of a hull form is considered.
 17
2.2 Hull Form Parameters which Influence Resistance

In defining a hull form, many dimensions and ratios of

dimensions are used, the choice of parameters being generally
based on the need to describe particular operational, structural,
hydrostatic or hydrodynamic characteristics of the form. Listed
below are the parameters generally used when considering the
resistance of a hull form.

L: Length on the waterline

B: Beam on the waterline
T: Draught
L/B, L/T and B/T ~e ratios often used.
Cm: Maximum section coefficient
Cp: Prismatic coefficient
Ca: Block coefficient
Vol: Displaced volume
&. Displacement
LCB: Position (longitudinal) of the centre of buoyancy
from the mid length; -ve aft, +fwd.
1
~e: Half angle of entry
1
~R: Half angle of run
1
aas: Angle of buttock slope (generally 4 beam
buttock, max. slope)
Cwr: Waterplane area coefficient
Cpv: Vertical prismatic coefficient
LR: Length of run of the form
also; details of bulbous bows:
AI Amax: ratio of bulb cross sectional area to the
maximum hull section area.
z.b: immersion of bulb
Lb= length of bulb

For example, the regression analysis of Hayes and Engvall (1969)

was based on a resistance function of the following parameters;
 18

R = fn { L/B, B/T, Cllll Cp, LCB, ~, ~& a.Bs, trim, x, y, k,

a/ Amax)

where x and y refer to towing tank and model

consideratio ns whilst k and a/ Amax refer to bar keel proportions .

Other parameters chosen by previous researchers of fishing boat

resistance include;

Pattullo and Thomson (1965):

121T
Transverse inertia of waterplane, CIT = LB3
·. -· W.S.A.
Wetted surface area, W.S.A., or the form Vol2/ 3
Rise of floor

Ridgely-Nev itt (1956):

_Displacement/length ratio, Vol/ (0.10L)3
Drag (of keel) I length ratio
Wetted surface area coefficient, WSA/ Vvol L

Holtrop and Mennen (1982):

Transverse bulb area
Centre of bulb area above base line or keel line
Transom area (immersed)
Appendage wetted surface area
Stern shape parameter

Harvald (1983):
Length of run
Length of parallel midbody

To these may be added many ill-defined parameters of a hull

form that affect resistance, such as chine shape, surface roughness
both on a micro-scale (defined perhaps as a mean height of
surface particles etc) and on a macro-scale (e.g. the surface of a
 19
planked boat differs from a fibreglass boat due to it's undulating
surface), trim under way and the effects in waves of the mass
radius of gyration and section shape.

It would obviously be impossible to study the effects of all these

parameters and previous researchers have tended to restrict their
investigations to those parameters which they felt were the most
important. With the overall dimensions of vessels (length, beam
and draught) usually determined by considerations of
regulations, operation and stability, designers and researchers
have tended to look at the effects of the coefficients of form,
angles of the lines (eg. half angle of entrance), bulbous bow design
and hydrostatic characteristics (longitudinal centre of buoyancy,
length/ displacement ratio etc.).

Ridgely-Nevitt (1956) noted that, "Most previous trawler tests

have attempted to improve a given design. References (4)1 and
(7)2 are typical examples. In these and other cases the
improvement has been achieved by the obvious expedient of
reducing the prismatic coefficient."

Indeed the prismatic coefficient of a vessel was widely considered

to be the most influential parameter, in affecting it's resistance,
throughout the 1940s, 1950s and 1960s. Traung (1960) suggested
an optimum figure of Cp = 0.575 whereupon a full midship
section should be used to achieve displacement.

This attention then appeared to be coupled with the realisation

that as fine an entrance (and the use of bulbous bows) as possible
without causing sharp "shoulders" was desirable, but that a full,
immersed transom stern was also of benefit. As a result, the
longitudinal centre of bouyancy was moved aft of amidships with
Traung (1960) and Pattullo (1969 and 1974) suggesting (the latter
for V;-{L > 0.9) that the LCB should be 3 to 5 percent of L aft of

1 "Moddellforsk med Fiskefartoyer" by Arstrup, Nand Surd,E in Tekniske Skrifter, No. 5 N.

1952.

2 "Steam Drifters - Tank and Sea Tests" by Edward, Jand Todd, Fin Trans. Institute of
Engineers and Shipbuilders in Scotland, November, 1938.
 20
amidships at higher speeds. Thomson (1969) summed up by
stating that bulbous bows, bulbous sterns and transom sterns
were desirable for V ;-{L above 0.9.

As a result, the effects of the half angle of entrance, longitudinal

centre of buoyancy and coefficients of form are well understood
for traditional European and American fishing vessels. As the
angles of lines and longitudinal centre of buoyancy values are
quite similar for Australian vessels, it may be assumed that the
recommendations in these respects of previous European and
American research are applicable and need not be re-examined.
As the Australian trawler differs greatly from it's overseas
counterpart in terms of length/beam ratio, length/ draught ratio,
maximum section ~oefficient and chine shape it was unknown
how these parameters affected it's performance. Past research
parameter ranges and limits of applicability of resistance
prediction methods are given in tables 1 and 2 to demonstrate the
unique nature of Australian trawlers in these respects.

Series/ Authors
PARA- RIDGELY-NEVITT PATULLO &. THOMSON WILUAMS A.S.I.
METER PARENT MAX MIN PARENT MAX MIN PARENT MAX MIN PARENTMAX MIN

L/B 4.787 4.975 4.34 5.700 5.7 4.31 3.922 4.0 2.5 3.31 4.14 2.76
L!f 11.072 11.45 9.98 11.553 15.48 11.5 7.84 12.0 5.0 8.06 10.08 6.72
BIT 2.313 3.50 2.00 1.980 3.5 2.0 2.0 3.0 2.0 2.44 3.05 1.95
CB 0.528 0.598 0.455 0.565 0.63 0.50 0.50 0.45 0.55 0.375 -
Cp 0.652 0.70 0.55 0.627 0.591 0.492 0.60 0.594 -
Gn 0.810 0.92 0.70 0.900 0.900 0.860 0.84 0.632 -
1
~oe 21° 31' 80 20.5° 23.7" 16.5° 15° 15.3°10° '220 27" 18.3°
1
L/volJ4.710 5.39 3.97 4.85 5.10 4.35 4.0 4.5 3.5 4.134 4.45 3.89

Chines R/B RIB RIB - 2 x chine

LCB 0.87%- 2.88% 1% 6% 3.1% -
Note: LCB given as % of L aft of amidships.

Table 1: Parameter Ranges of Past Trawler Series

 21

Regression Analyses I Resistance Prediction Methods

PARA- DOUST& DOUST (1) HAYES& TSUCHIYA HOLTROP DANCK- A.S.I.
METER O'BRIEN ENGVALL WARDT PARENT
(1958/59) (1962) {1980) (1969) (19830 {1977) (1981) (1988)

min max min max min max min max min max min max min max
LIB 4.4 5.8 4.4 5.8 3.4 5.8 3.1 5.6 - 3.9 6.3 3.5 7.0 3.31
BIT 2.0 2.6 2.0 2.6 2.0 4.5 1.8 5.5 - 2.0 3.5 2.44
1
LIVol3 4.2 5.5 - 4.13

Cp 0.6 0.7 0.6 0.68 0.5 0.7 0.55 0.77 0.55 0.71 - 0.55 0.7 0.59
Cm 0.81 0.91 - 0.76 0.94 0.53 0.93 0.45 0.95 - 0.63
ea 0.74 0.77 - 0.45 0.7 0.37
LCB 0 6 1 2 6 -1.5 5 3.1
1
i:O.Oe 5 30 15 37 17 30 - 22

Note: LCB is given as a percentage of LWL aft of midships.

(1) Refers to Van Oortmerssen (1980)

Table 2: Restrictions of Analyses I Prediction Methods (stated by

Authors)

Table 1 shows that the A.S.I. parent hull form has a lower value
of L/B than any other parent form and a relatively high B/T
value. Whilst it's prismatic coefficient is comparable with other
vessels, it's maximum section area and block coefficients are very
low.

Table 2 shows the restrictions suggested by authors for the use of

their resistance prediction methods and compares these
restrictions with the parameter values for the A.S.I. hull form. It
may be seen that the A.S.I. vessel generally lies outside (or at least
at the very extremes) of the suggested parameter ranges. It is
thought that this is why the Australian vessel's performance is
predicted poorly by these methods.
 22

2.3 Systematic Series of Model Tests.

2.3.1 Choice of Parameters for Variation

As shown in chapter 2.2, it was decided that the effects of four

hull form parameters, chine shape, length/beam ratio,
length/ draught ratio and maximum section coefficient were
least well understood with respect to the hydrodynamic
performance of Australian trawlers. All four would appear to
be particularly important in influencing the resistance and as the
Australian trawler differs markedly from the (tried and tested)
European and American trawlers in these four measures,
ignorance of their effects prevents the Australian naval architect
from using overseas experimental results.

Limited by time and funding (the cost of models being the critical
factor), it was decided that the effects of chine shape, length/beam
ratio and beam/ draught ratio should be studied. The testing of
midship section coefficient is suggested as possible further work,
but it was not possible within these project constraints.

The choice of chine shape as a parameter for testing perhaps

needs some clarifying. Due to high labour costs and a reluctance
to roll the steel plates used in the construction of these vessels in
Australia, the great majority of steel vessels built under 30m in
overall length incorporate chines. Fishing vessels and small tugs
generally are of double chine construction with small work boats
often having only a single chine. New fishing vessel designs
around Australia, however, are beginning to turn to single chine
construction even for large fishing vessels in a further effort to
reduce initial construction costs. The effects of such construction
on resistance and propulsion is unknown but it has been
generally accepted that due to extra wetted surface area and
possible vortex shedding increase, single chine vessels are more
costly to run than double chine and likewise for double chine
with respect to round bilge vessels.
 23

The choice of length/beam ratio and length/ draught ratio as the

two other parameters for testing was previewed in section 2.2,
and was due to the extraordinarily low length/beam ratios and
relatively low length/ draught ratios of Australian vessels.

The choices of beam and draught as parameters for variation

have direct application in vessel design and construction. If the
capacity, stability or working area of a fishing vessel are to be
increased at the preliminary design stage, the two parameters of
beam and draught are usually those varied Thus, for vessels of
length effectively limited by regulations, the beam is often
changed to suit the application. Draught is often reduced if the
vessel is to operate in shallow waters. Because of these facts,
.
results for the variation of beam and draught are of great value to
the fishing vessel designer and builder.

2.3.2 Methods of Parameter Variation

Chine Shape.

The existing trawler hull form designed by Australian

Shipbuilding Industries (W.A.) was taken as the parent model for
the trawlerseries. As described previously, the form incorporated
double chine construction as shown in figure 2.1.
I ....
,,.
I

..
, /

I I

I I
I I
I
/
;~----~;;
r---------_jV

Figure 2.1 Body Plan of Parent Hull Form

 24

Single chine and round bilge derivatives were then formed by

joining together and rounding off respectively, the two chines of
the parent hull form. These two hull forms are given in
Appendix 1.

These chine shape variations were performed in such a way as to

minimise any changes in principal or hydrostatic particulars so as
to avoid any unwanted influence of such changes on resistance.
For example, the change in displacement between the double
chine form and the single ·chine form was less than 0.5% which
was considered to be negligible.

Length/Beam Ratio

As the length of vessels is frequently fixed by various

requirements as previously discussed in section 2.2, it was
decided that all the models should be of equal length and that the
beam and draught should be varied to achieve length/beam ratio
changes and beam/ draught changes.

The two beam-variation models were derived by scaling the

beam offsets of the parent hull form by first a factor of 1.2 and
secondly by 0.8. In this manner, a relatively wide model and a
relatively narrow model were defined.

This process is shown in figure 2.2 for the half midship section.
 25

80~ 12<rl.
\

\ '
I
••
l
I

l I
~
j

I
II
I
I
I
I

I
I
I I
I /OWL
,

r I
I
I' I .
I
I

'
I I I

Figure 2.2 Beam Variation

Length/Dra ught Ratio

A similar procedure was applied in varying the draught offsets of

the parent hull form to derive an 80% draught model and a 120%
draught model for comparison with the parent form. This
process is described in figure 2.3 below.

1201a

80~

\'

DWL

Figure 2.3 Draught Variation

 26

Effects of Beam and Draught Variation on other Parameters

The scaling of beam offsets resulted in changes in displacement,

half angles of entry, wetted surface area and various stability
parameters of no concern to resistance and propulsion. The
displacement changes may be shown to be directly proportional
to scaling of the beam offsets as follows;

If the displaced volume of a vessel is described as the sum (along

it's length) of the immersed cross sectional areas,

x=L z=Z2
Vol = I [I fn(z)dz ] dx
x=O z=Zt

where x,y,z, are defined as

shown
and y = fn(z) defines the
cross section curve at any
longitudinal position.

If the beam (y) offsets are scaled by a factor e, the cross section may
be redefined as y = e f n(z) .

As a result the displaced volume becomes;

x= z=Z2
Volnew = [ I 0x fn(z)dz ] dx
x=O z=Zt

X= z=Z2

-- [0I 0x fn(z)dz ]dx

x=O z=Zt
 27
X= Z= 2

[ fn(z)dz ] dx
x=O z=Zt

= 0 Voloid

Using a similar process, it may be shown that the block, prismatic,

midship section, waterplane and vertical prismatic coefficients
remain invariant with the changes in the beam.

The half angle of entry of the parent hull form was 22° and the
half angles of entry of the beam variations may be approximated
by;

....... (2)

where 0 is the factor by which all beam offsets were scaled. (eg. 0.8
and 1.2). There does not appear to be any simple relationship
between the scaling factor, 0, and the wetted surface area due to
the complex shape of the hull form.

As for variation of beam offsets, the variation of draught offsets

resulted in changes in displacement (again linear with draught
changes) and angles of all lines (rake of bow in profile, deadrise
angle etc) which varied in a manner similar to that of the half
angle of entry with change in beam offsets. The waterplane area
coefficient varied inversely with draught variation. The hull
form parameters of these models are given in Table 3, in section
3.2.1.

2.3.3 Layout of the Model Series

Variations of the parameters of chine shape, beam and draught

resulted in a small, seven model series as described in figures 2.4
 28
and 2.5. Beam and draught variations of +I- 20% were chosen to
•
provide a wide range of length/beam and length/ draught ratios
and easily measured differences between models. The body plans
of all models are to be found in Appendix 1.

1 CIDNE 2 CHINES ROUND BILGE

~._----------~~~--------~~-~
PARENT

Figure 2.4 Chine Shape Series

Draught

3.6 m
245 t

3.0 m
204 t

2.4 m
163 t

Beam
)

5.8 m 7.3 m B.B m

163 t 204 t 245 t

Figure 2.5 Beam and Draught Series

 29
CHAPTER 3. EXPERIM:ENTAL APPARATUS AND PROCEDURE

3.1 Test Equipment

3.1.1 Towing Tank Details

The towing tank at the Australian Maritime College measures

60m in length, 3.5m in width and a normal depth of 1.6m with a
constant rectangular cross section. It has a shoaling beach at one
end, with a removable section in front of the wet dock which is
used for ballasting models prior to testing. At the other end the
tank has a single flap, wet backed wavemaker, which is
hydraulically driven and controlled using a B.B.C.
microcomputer.

The tank is housed in the basement of the College with no

windows and a regulated environment. Temperature varies only
slightly, controlled by a heating system along the walls of the tank
room. This environment allows the storage of models with
minimal deterioration for long periods and also avoids growth of
slime in the fresh water of the tank. Fresh water is used primarily
because salt water would cause the steel rails,. carriage and
equipment to corrode. Corrections are made for the differences in
density and viscosity in scaling model data.

A retractable side beach system on one long side of the tank and a
swimming pool lane marker on the other are used to dampen out
the waves made by the models in calm water runs. These devices
are removed for head sea tests.

The tank is shown in figure 3.1 and the wavemaker in figure 3.4.

3.1.2. Carriage Details and Model Constraints

A steel carriage, running on tracks along the walls of the tank is

used to tow the models in calm water and head sea tests. The
 30
carriage is powered by a DC motor driving its two rear wheels and
is capable of speeds up to 4.5 m/s. The steady speed phase of each
run decreases with speed but at 1.33 m/s (free running speed of
the models tested for this project) almost 20 seconds of recording
time was available.

All transducers (other than the wave probe mounted on the tank
wall near the wavemaker) and recording equipment are carried
on board during runs. Video equipment is mounted on and
under the carriage allowing filming of the model under way.

Models are connected as shown in figure 3.3 by two vertical rods,

free to pitch, heave and roll but constrained in surge, sway and
yaw. The models are towed by the forward rod with the aft rod
connected to the models by a fore and aft slide.

The carriage is shown in figure 3.2 and a model constrained under

the carriage in figure 3.3.

3.1.3. Transducers

Resistance is measured using a bidirectional shear, strain guage

block fitted near the base of the forward support rod. Only in the
case of sailing yacht tests has side force been measured, and
usually only fore and aft resistance is required.

Linear Variable Differential Transformers (LVDTs) are used for

measuring the vertical movement of each rod. This gives the
trim and sinkage (or rise) of a model in calm water tests or the
pitch and heave in head sea tests.

Wave profiles in the tank are measured with capacitance wave

probes fitted near the wall of the tank, approximately 20 metres
from the wavemaker.

The strain guage block, rods and LVDTs are shown in figure 3.3.
 31

3.1.4. Data Logging

Data from the LVDTs, strain guage and wave probe were recorded
on an IBM microcomp uter running Tecmar "Labpac" software
and using a Tecmar "Labmaster" analog to digital converter. Data
were stored on 3.5" floppy disks.

A pen recorder was run in parallel with the computer to give a

visual check on the data.

These systems are shown in figure 3.5.

3.2 Model Details

3.2.1 Description of the Models.

Seven models were built for the project; the parent form, two
chine shape variations, two beam variations and two draught
variations. All were built at the 1/15th scale and were of the same
length.

Models Tested

Para- Parent Single Round 80% 120% 80% 120%

meter Chine Bilge Beam Beam Draught Draught
L 1.612m 1.612 1.612 1.612 1.612 1.612 . 1.612
B 0.487m 0.487 0.487 0.390 0.584 0.487 0.487
T 0.200m 0.200 0.200 0.200 0.200 0.160 0.240
!l 58.9kg 58.9 58.9 47.1 70.7 47.1 70.7
LCB 3.1 %aft 3.1 3.1 3.1 3.1 3.1 3.1
Cp 0.594 0.594 0.594 0.594 0.594 0.594 0.594
Cm 0.632 0.632 0.632 0.632 0.632 0.632 0.632
CB 0.375 0.375 0.375 0.375 0.375 0.375 0.375
1
'220 22 22 17.9 25.9 22 22
~e

Table 3. Hull Form Parameters of Models Tested

Fi gures 3 . 1 (top) and 3 . 2: Th e Towin g Tank and Ca rri age .
Figures 3 . 3 (top) and 3 . 4 · t1odel Constrainect under Carriage and
The 1V"avemaker .
'
32

Early models were constructed of styrene foam, coated with a thick

layer of automotive putty and painted. Later models were made
of either wood or fibreglass. Fibreglass appeared to be the most
suitable material, proving to be dimensionally stable, tough and
no more expensive than wood. The foam models were
susceptible to distortion, cracking, scratching and absorbing water
and had to be used with great care.

The models were all built up to the level of the raised deck to give
a horizontal datum plane for the measurement of freeboards (and
thereby trim and heel) and to reduce the likelihood of swamping
in head seas.

The models were made to moulded lines and not extreme lines.
This caused a difference in displacement of less than 0.5% which
was considered negligible. This tiny dimensional error was well
within the expected accuracy of the models.

The accuracy of the models was checked with the aid of transverse
templates and by measuring length, beam and draught. In
ballasting the models prior to testing, freeboards were measured as
another check on the dimensional accuracy of the models.

The surface finish of each model was maintained as carefully as

possible between tests and checked closely after long storage for
any signs of deterioration. Calm water runs were repeated as a
check of both transducer calibration and of model condition.

3.2.2. Choice of Scale.

The models were built to a scale of 1/15 as this gave as large a

model size as possible without incurring serious blockage effects.
 33

Four methods for approximating the local water speed difference

due to blockage were used as follows.

1. Hughes (1961) gives the equation;

+3 +2

v2
where F2nh = gh = 0.12 (all values for 1/15th scale model at
ten knots ship speed.)

V
and m = mean blockage, LA
V= volume of model (ft3)
m= 0.007 L =model waterline length (ft)
A = cross sectional area of model
(ft2)

Therefore we have (1);

Bv Bv
0.120 ( V + 0.360 ( V

which may be solved to give (:V) = 0.0080 = 0.8%

2. Scott (1966) presented the equation;

ov
V 3 0.35v
_1 5 (
= 0.51 (V+L c) A . 1- gh
2
)-0.5 + (1- 1.82Cv)
Dtflt f
(vgh
2
)

where for ;~ < 0.25, f (;~) = 0

 34
where V= immersed volume of model in cubic feet
L = model length in feet
c =a function of Reynold's number
A = tank cross sectional area in ft2 •

v = model speed in ft/ sec

g = acceleration due to gravity (ft/ s2) .
h = water depth in tank (ft)

we have: V= 2.082 ft3, L =5.29 ft, A= 56.52 ft2

vL - ~·
RN =
V
x
=1.876 106

. and 103c = 9.2-0.015 x 10~) = 9.101

Therefore c =9.101 x lQ-3
and
Sv =0.51(2.082 + 9.101 x 10-3 x 5.293) x 56.52-1.5 x (1- 0.35 x 0.120)-0·5
V .

=0.0042

and
ov = 0.42 'l.
V .

3. Taniguchi and Tamura's Method (given by Yamasaki and

Tsuda (1983)) for blockage is given as;

ov
V = 0.85 X m X
(LBPJ0.75
b ·
 35

where Am= midship section area (m2)

AT= tank cross sectional area (m2)
b =width of tank (m)
LBP = model length (between perpendiculars) (m)

=0.0056
av
V
=0.56"/.

4. Ogiwara's method, ~s~ given by Yamasaki and Tsuda (1983) is

of the form;

av X {A(~) X Cp + B(~))
V

where Am and AT are as above

Cp is the model prismatic coefficient

A(~) = - 0.08~3 - 0.33~2 + 1.64~

and B (~) = - 0.01~3 - 0.13~2 + 0.12~

LBP
where ~ = b LBP = model length between
perpendiculars (m)
.
and b = tank width (m)

Therefore ~ = 0.4606
and A(~) = 0.6775 and B(~) = 0.0267
and Am/ AT = 0.01099

Therefore
av (2.01099) .
V =l X (0.6775 X 0.594 +~ 0.02672}
2
= 0.0024
Sv
Therefore V
= 0.24%
 36

From the above analysis, it may be seen that estimates range from
0.24% to 0.8% which would indicate any blockage is very minor.
For this reason no corrections for blockage were made in
analysing the model data.

Hughes (1961) gave Shuster's approximate formula for depth

effects as follows;

and for Fnh = 0.346,

ov
V = 1.6 X JQ-5

Solution of the exact form of Shuster's equation gave an even

smaller result so it was assumed that no depth effects would be
evident.

3.2.3 Turbulence Stimulation

-
The method of Ridgely-Nevitt (1956, 1967) was adopted in
stimulating turbulence over the models. This involved use of a
line of 3mm high by 3mm diameter cylindrical studs placed at
12mm centres, 8% of the waterline length aft of the curve of the
stem. A.t higher speeds this corresponded to a local Reynold's
number at the studs of around 16 x 104 and at the lower speeds of
closer to 6 x 104.

The model resistance was not corrected for stud drag as this was
considered negligible compared with the total model resistance.

Interference between the studs at this spacing was expected to be

negligible according to the criteria of Hoerner (1965).
 37

3.2.4 Pitch Radius of Gyration

The "Bifilar" method (given in Appendix 3) was used to measure

the pitch radius of gyration of models prior to head sea tests.

A standard value of 22.5% (suggested by Bhattacharya (1978)) of

the waterline length was adopted for all models as all models
were of the same length, the pitch radius of gyration was equal for
all models.

As the only rotational motion of the models in the head sea tests
was that of pitch, only the radius of gyration in this sense was
required. To test the possible influence of the pitch radius of
gyration on the results in head seas, a separate set of tests was
performed and is described in Appendix 4.2.

3.2.5 Appendages

All of the models were tested without appendages firstly because

as a constant entity for all models they would not have affected
relative performance and secondly because of uncertainty in the
scaling and accuracy of their drag.

Flow visualisation tests were performed with the parent hull

form and are summarised in Appendix 4.3. This allowed the
measurement of angles of flow over the regions of the appendages
and the prediction of appendage drag at full scale for comparison
of model results with ship trials data. As these vessels are built
with large external keel cooling (engine heat exchanger systems
mounted external to the hull) systems, sonar transducer fins and
nozzles besides the rudder and water intakes and outlets, the
appendage drag represents a large proportion of the overall vessel
resistance. An estimate of 24% of the total resistance at free
running speed was found, as shown in Appendix 5.
 38

3.3.1 Model and Apparatus Preparation

The following procedure was used in preparing the models and

the tank equipment prior to tests.

1. Models checked dimensionally and smoothed or fixed if

necessary.

2. Arrays of studs fitted.

3. The mounting slides for the aft rod and the ball joint for the
forward rod both fixed in the bottom of the model.

4. Models weighed, ballasted and swung. Check of displacement

and freeboards.

5. Connected to towing rods of carriage.

6. Transducers centred and calibrated. Video camera and lights

arranged for filming of run.

7. Tank water temperature and air temperature monitored.

8. Side beaches arranged for calm water tests or removed for head
sea tests.

3.3.2 lttu1 I)etails

The details of the runs are best described as follows.

A. Calm Water Runs.

1. Runs performed (each at constant speed) over set range of

speeds.
 39
2. Resistance measured and plotted against speed. Measurements
taken only during steady state section of each run.

3. Transducers calibrated three times per day.

4. Runs repeated regularly as a check of results and procedures.

B. Head Sea Tests.

1. Model speed set at 1.328 m/s (10 kts full scale).

2. Wavemaker set to regular waves of chosen frequency but as

amplitude could not be specified directly, a number of runs were
performed at each frequency (with varying amplitude) and the
required results found by interpolation.

3. Tests run over required frequency range within constraints of

excessive motions (at low frequencies the ·wave heights needed to
give a wave slope of 1/30 became too high for data measurement)
or lack of response. (At high frequencies the waves were very
small and barely of any effect.)

3.4 Tests Performed

3.4.1 Chine Shape Tests.

The three chine variations were tested in both calm water and
head seas to measure the calm water resistance and ·the added
resistance and motions at free running speed in head seas.

Calm water tests were run over the Froude number range of
0.167< FN < 0.434 at three trims corresponding to O.Sm down by
the bow, level trim and O.Sm down by the stern (at full scale).
 40
All of the three models were tested at the same displacement.
Head sea tests were run in regular waves ranging in length from
0.34 < A,fL < 2.7 with a Froude number of 0.33 (free running speed)
throughout. (A,/L is the ratio of wavelength to ship length.)

3.4.2 Beam Tests

The 80% and 120% bea~ models were tested at only one trim
condition (level) but otherwise testing followed a similar
procedure as for that of the parent model and chine variations.

The two beam variations were ballasted to equal draughts, so the

models had 80% and 120% of the parent displacement.

3.4.3 Draught Tests

A similar approach to that of the beam tests was adopted for the
draught variations with the shallow and deep models ballasted to
80% and 120% of the parent displacement respectively. The
shallow draught model was covered with a plastic (sheet) deck to
reduce swamping because of the lower freeboard.

3.4.4 Other Tests

A variety of model tests were performed to investigate factors

possibly influencing the chine shape, beam and draught tests.

To check the influence of displacement, the round bilge model

was towed, in calm water, over a range of draughts. This was
done by adding or subtracting ballast while maintaining level
trim. At each draught, the model was run through the full speed
range of other model tests.

To check the influence of the pitch radius of gyration on the

motions and added resistance of each model in waves, the double
 41
chine parent model was ballasted in such a way as to vary the
pitch radius of gyration and then run into head seas.

In estimating the resistance attributed to the keel cooling systems

on the full scale vessels, an idea of the angles of flow over the
relevant sections of the parent form was found through tufting
the model and placing it in the circulating water channel at the
A.M.C., Beauty Point Campus.

Details of these tests are given in Appendix 4.

3.5 Analysis of Model Data.

3.5.1 Analysis of Calm Water Test Data

The calm water test results were scaled to full size using the ITTC
1957 ship - model correlation method as was standard at the
A.M.C. towing tank. The method is described in Harvald (1983)
pages 98 to 100 and are not repeated here although a discussion of
the use of form factors is given in Appendix 6. The standard
explanatory appendix provided in the A.M.C. model test reports is
given as Appendix 7 for those unaware of the ITTC 1957 method.

3.5.2 Analysis of Head Sea Tests

Model resistance and motions were measured at 1.33 m/s (10

knots at ship scale) into regular (head) waves of various
frequencies and amplitudes. At each frequency a number of runs
were performed at a range of amplitudes and the results for the
amplitude required for a wave slope of 1/30, were then found by
interpolation.

Wave slope was defined as;

1
hw/A = 30
 42

1
or ~a/A = 60

where hw = wave height (m)

~a = wave amplitude (m)
A, = wavelength (m)

1/30 was chosen as it was considered representative of the

operating conditions of the vessel.

Added Resistance.

The added resistance of the model was calculated as the difference

of the total resistance in ~the head sea and the total resistance in
calm water. This was scaled to ship scale using the assumption
that viscous effects were negligible compared to the effects of wave
making, spray making, reflection of ocean waves from the hull
and the motions of the vessel. This assumption allows the added
resistance to be scaled as follows;

(oR)s

or;

Therefore
 43
So, for ship-model scale ratio Ar = 15, water densities p 5 = 1026
kg/m3 and Pm = 1000 ks/rn 3
(oR)s = 3462.75 (oR)m

Wave amplitude at ship scale was simply scaled linearly from

model size;

The response amplitude operator was then found for this wave
frequency as the ratio of added resistance to wave amplitude
squared (both at ship scale).

The wave frequency at ship scale was found from;

1 21tfm
COws = ~r X Olwm =~

and the full scale encounter frequency was then calculated;

COws 2 Vs COS J.1

COe~ = COws - g

where J.1 = 180° for head seas, Vs = 5.144 m/s and g = 9.81 m/s2

Therefore Oles = COws + CJJws2 x 0.5244 radians/seco nd"'

• From hereon denoted 1 Is.

This was then nondimensio nalised by multiplying as follows;

 44

Ole' s = Oles x ~
Ls = ship D.W.L. length

Wave spectra for various significant wave heights were calculated

using the standard ITTC spectrum;

S(roe)
s<mw>
= -------
1- ( g
Vs)
4roe
cos Jl

where S(mw) = rows A X

(-B)
exp eow4

A = 8.10 X 1Q-3g2
'\

3.11 X 104
B= (H )2
1/3

V = ship speed (m/s)

g = 9.81m/s2

Jl = 1800 for head seas

The response spectrum for each sea state was found as the product
of the response amplitude operator and the wave spectrum
ordinate over the range of encounter frequencies.

The mean added resistance was then given by twice the area
under each response spectrum, that is by;
 45

The integration was performed using the simple trapezoidal

method which was expected to be of reasonable accuracy due to
the steep, almost straight sided shape of the response spectra,
overestimating areas to either side of the peak and
underestimating the areas at the peak itself.

This process is shown for the parent hull form in a head sea of
2.0m significant wave height in table 4.

Ship R.A.O. Wave Response Area (i)

Spectrum Spectrum
1/s Njm2 m2s Ns N

0 0* 0 0 0
0.500 1000* 0.000 0.000 0.00
1.000 4000* 0.2327 930.80 232.70
1.469 10492 0.3757 3941.84 1142.63
1.812 32534 0.2585 8410.04 2118.35
2.181 59900 0.1610 9643.90 3330.95
2.577 46891 0.0991 4646.90 2829.58
3.001 29895 0.0621 1856.48 1378.72
3.455 33193 0.0399 1324.40 722.06
3.933 42212 0.0264 1114.40 582.87
4.440 49587 0.0180 892.57 508.77
4.973 69600 0.0125 870.00 469.72
5.535 72863 0.0089 648.48 426.69
6.127 97185 0.0065 631.70 378.93

* Extrapolated from R.A.O. plot. L = 14121.97 N

Table 4. Calculation of Mean Added Resistance
 46

The mean added resistance, RAw then may be found as;

RAw = 2 x 14121.97
= 28244 N
~ 28.2 kN

and at 10 knots ship speed, this corresponds to a mean added

power of;

PAW = 10 X 0.5144 X 28244

~ 145.3 kW

Motions

The analysis of pitch and heave response in the head sea tests
followed a similar procedure to that for added resistance but the
response amplitude operators were as follows;

R.A.O. (pitch) = (~)

R.A.O. (heave) =

These response amplitude operator spectra were then applied to

standard ITTC wave spectra of various significant wave heights,
the res~lting response spectra being integrated to give average
motions response for each sea state.

Manipulation of R.A.O. Spectra

Two regions of data on all of the R.A.O. spectra were changed as

follows. Firstly, the low frequency results (motions as well as
resistance) were limited by the physical ranges of transducers used
in the experiments. For frequencies lower than 1.0 rad/sec
(encounter frequency) the wave heights for a slope of 1/30 were
higher than could be accomodated by the test apparatus, so for
 47
these low frequency data estimated values were substituted. For
high frequencies, added resistance experimental data was again
replaced by estimates to avoid scatter in the results. As the R.A.O.
is given by the ratio of the difference of rough water and calm
water resistance (very similar values in high frequency waves) to
the square of wave amplitude (approaching zero for high
frequencies), this ratio is prone to error. As a result considerable
scatter was found.

Resistance Motions Waves

I Bidirectional (Shear)
Strain Guage Block
I Schaevitz 2000 HR
Linear Variable
Churchill Controls
Capacitance
Differential Wave Probe

~ Transformers
+
I Filter I· •
Churchill Controls
Filter and
Amplifier I Wave Monitor and
Power Supply

I Analog to Digital
Converter
I I Yew 3063
Pen Recorder
I
ffiM Personal System/2 Model 30
Micro with Tecmar "Labmac"
Data Logging Software

Figure 3.5 Measurement and Rec ording of Test Data

 48
CHAPTER 4 RESULTS OF MODEL TESTS

4.1 Chine Shape Tests

4.1.1 Effect of Chine Shape on Resistance in Calm Water

The results of calm water tests on the three chine variations are
presented in Figures 4.1 to 4.12. These graphs cover tests at
three different trims, corresponding to level trim, 0.5 metre
bow down trim (full scale) and 0.5 metre stern down trim.

Level Trim

The calm water results for the three chine variations are given
in Figures 4.1 to 4.6. Results are given in both nondimensional
(residual resistance coefficient versus Froude number) and
dimensional terms (full scale effective power in kilowatts
versus ship speed in knots).

Figures 4.7 and 4.8 compare the three hull forms' performance
at level trim in calm water.

Bow Down Trim

Figures 4.9 and 4.10 show the comparison of results for the
three chine variations at bow down trim.

Stern Down Trim

As for the other two trims the results of calm water tests on the
three chine variations are compared in terms of residual
resistance coefficients and full scale effective power in Figures
4.11 and 4.12.
 49

4.1.2 Effect of Chine Shape on Added Resistance in Head Seas

The added resistance response amplitude operators (R.A.O.,

oR/ ~2) for the three chine variations are given in Figure 4.13.
The curves were corrected as described in chapter 3.5.2 to give
the R.A.O.s of Figure 4.14. These R.A.O. spectra were
multiplied against the standard I.T.T.C. wave spectra (of
significant wave heights 0.5, 1.0, 1.5, 2.0 and 2.5 metres) shown
in Figure 4.17 to give added resistance response spectra. These
were then integrated to give values of average added resistance
(Figure 4.18) and average added effective power (Figure 4.19) to
maintain 10 knots ship speed in the various sea states.

4.1.3 Effect of Chine Shape on Motions in Head Seas

The pitch R.A.O. (e2 I ~2) and heave R.A.O. (za2 I ~2) spectra are
given in Figures 4.15 and 4.16 respectively.

Average values of pitch and heave were found for each sea
state as for added resistance data, and are given in Figures 4.20
and 4.21.

4.2 Beam Tests

The results of tests of the beam variations follow a slightly

different format to those of the chine variations as the narrow
and wide beam variations were only tested at level trim. The
results for these tests are shown in Figures 4.22 to 4.34.
 50
4.2.1 Effect of Beam on Resistance in Calm Water

Plots of residual resistance versus Froude number and of full

scale effective power versus ship speed for the three beam
variations are given as Figures 4.22 and 4.23. The full scale
effective power variation with beam was predicted using the
method of Holtrop (1977) and these data are cross plotted in
Figure 4.24 for comparison with the data from the model tests
as shown in Figure 4.25.

4.2.2 Effect of Beam on Added Resistance in Head Seas

The R.A.O.s for added resistance for the three beam variations
are compared in Figure 4.26 and were corrected for and re-
plotted for Figure 4.27. As for the ·chine variations the average
added resistance and average added effective power were
calculated using the method described in chapter 3.5.2 and are
given in Figures 4.30 and 4.31. These added power results are
shown cross-plotted in Figure 4.32.

4.2.3 Effect of Beam on Motions on Head Seas

The RA.O.s for pitch and heave amplitudes for the three beam
variations are given in Figures 4.28 and 4.29. The average pitch
and heave amplitudes are then presented in Figures 4.33 and
4.34 respectively.

4.3 Draught Tests

The draught tests were conducted in the same way as the beam
tests and the results follow an identical format.
 51

4.3.1 Effect of Draught on Resistance in Calm Water

Figures 4.35 and 4.36 show the calm water resistance results for
the three draught variations. Figures 4.37 and 4.38 compare
data predicted using the method of Holtrop (1977) with that
from the model tests.

4.3.2 Effect of Draught on Added Resistance in Head Seas

The added resistance R.A.O.'s for the three draught variations

are presented in Figures 4.39 and 4.40. These sets of data were
used as for previous results to calculate average added
resistance values for each hull form in various sea states as
shown in Figure 4.43. Average added power (required for 10
knots ship speed) values for each condition are shown in
Figure 4.44 and then cross-plotted in Figure 4.45.

4.3.3 Effect of Draught on Motions in Head Seas

The pitch and heave amplitude R.A.O.s for the three draught
variations are given in Figures 4.41 and 4.42 respectively. The
corresponding average values of pitch and heave amplitude are
shown in Figures 4.46 and 4.47.

4.4 Published Results

The effects of chine shape variation on the resistance of the

hull forms were published in the paper "Hydrodynamic
Optimisation of Trawler Hull Form Design - Effects of Chine
Shape" presented at the Bicentennial Maritime Symposium at
the University of New South Wales, Sydney, in January 1988.

The effects of chine shape variation in head seas are to be

presented at the Symposium on Ship Resistance and Powering
 52
in Shanghai, China, in April 1989.

The results of beam variation tests were presented in a paper

"The Effects of Varying Beam on the Hydrodyna mic
Performanc e of Trawlers in Head Seas" at the World
Symposium on Fishing Gear and Fishing Vessel Design at St
John's, Canada, in November 1988.
 30.00

25.00
<>
6<><>
D

20.00 -I ~
60
.--..
0
0
I bd
0
.....-i I ~~
-* 15.00 <>
(_ ~
u
~

10.00

5.00
~
~<>

6. <>~
£:$~~~~<>~
0.00
0.10 0.15 0.20 0.25 0.30 0.35 0.40 0.45
FROUDE NUMBER
DLEVEL TRIM L BOW DOWN TRIM <>STERN DOWN TRIM

Figure 4.1 Parent Form (3 Trims): Calm Water Residual Resistance

Results.
 900.00
~

800.00
I
<>
<>
700.00 ~ ~
<>

-
3:
I D

-
.Y.
600.00
a: [3l>
w

~.
3: D
0
n. 500.00 6.
UJ
bJ
>
~
H 1St
400.00
~
t-
u
w
lL
l.L
w 300.00 ~ ~
200.00

100.00

0.00
4.00 5.00 6.00 7.00 8.00 9.00 10.00 11.00 12.00 13.00 14.00
SHIP SPEED (KNOTS)
D LEVEL TRIM L BOW DOWN TRIM <>STERN DOWN TRIM

Figure 4.2 Parent Form (3 Trims): Calm Water, Full Scale Effective Power.
 30.00
~

25. 00 -
~

~~
~

20. 00 - ~
~
,..-...
0 ~
0
0
~
~~
-* 15. 00 -
a
~

L
u
~a

10. 00 - ~t:::.C

L:::. L:::. ~~
L:::. g Lg~ ~
L
5. 00 -
!:::.~ c
L:::. L:::. L:::. b ~ L:::. ~ L:::.~ ~
0.00 I T J J . T
0. 15 0.20 0.25 0.30 0.35 0.40 0.45
FROUDENUMBER
DLEVEL TRIM ~BOW DOWN TRIM <>STERN DOWN TRIM

Figure 4.3 Round Bilge Form (3 Trims): Calm Water Residual Resistance Results
 1000.00
6.

900.00

800.00 <>

-
~ 700.00
-
:X.
I
L:o
<>
rr I

w 600.00 D
3:
0 <>
D..
w 500.00 I ~
> I <>
H
~

~
u
w 400.00
CJ<>
lL
lL <>
w .
300.00 -1 ~
200.00 I
A@~

100.00

0.00
~~~~
5.00 6.00 7.00 8.00 9.00 10.00 11.00 12.00 13.00 14.00
SHIP SPEED (KNOTS)
DLEVEL TRIM b. BOW DOWN TRIM <>STERN DOWN TRIM
I.

Figure 4.4 Round Bilge Form (3 Trims): Calm Water, Full Scale Effective Power.
 24.00 I

6
D
6<>
20.00 ~
D
<>

16.00 ~
JS]<>
,......
0 <>
0
0 ~D
~

-* 12.00 LPO
&](;>
(_
u
~<>

8.00

.6. @00---J::>
.6?

0.00
0. 15 0.20 0.25 0.30 0.35 0.40 0.45
FROUDE NUMBER
DLEVEL TRIM ~BOW DOWN TRIM <>STERN DOWN TRIM
Figure 4.5 Single Chine Form (3 Trims): Calm Water Residual Resistance Results.
 700.00
4:1
<>
~
600.00
£:4>

3:
500.00
-
~

~
a:
w
~
400.00
2
0 <>
a..
w
AJ
> <>
H
1- D
u 300.00
w 4:>
LL
LL
w tE
L9
200.00 ~<>

&,
100.00
~a>~
~ ~AOO> ~ ~
0. 00 l
5.00
r&fZl LX;} CJ[n
6.00
w.
7.00
LKJ

8.00 9.00 10.00 11.00 12.00 13.00

SHIP SPEED (KNOTS)
DLEVEL TRIM ~BOW DOWN TRIM <>STERN DOWN TRIM

Figure 4.6 Single Chine Form (3 Trims): Calm Water, Full Scale Effective Power.
 28.00

L
24.00
I
o>~
L
20.00 ~
D
LX
<W.
-
0
0 16.00 J ~
0
........ I ~

-* <>
(_
12.00 I ~
u

8.00
~~
<> ~<tt!Jr.D
4.00 ~<>~

<> <> oo<>

~~<>~~
~

0.00 I I I I
0. 15 0.20 0.25 0.30 0.35 0.40 0.45
FROUDE NUMBER
D DOUBLE CHINE PARENT 6 ROUND BILGE <>SINGLE CHINE
Figure 4.7 Effect of Chine Shape on Residual Resistance in Level Trim.
 700.00
<>
D

600.00
fj
D
D
~

3:
500.00
-
::L
9
a:
w
3: ~
0 400.00
0..
<>
w
>
H
~
u 300.00
w
I.J...
lL
w
200.00

100.00

o ooo ~ ~ oo
0.00
5.00 6.00 7.00 8.00 9.00 10.00 11.00 12.00 13.00
SHIP SPEED (KNOTS)
D DOUBLE CHINE PARENT ~ROUND BILGE <>SINGLE CHINE

Figure 4.8 Effect of Chine Shape on Full Scale Effective Power in Level Trim.
 30.00
~

25. 00 -

20. 00 -
,_
6
0
0
0
~ ®
-* 15. 00 - <>
~
(_
u
~
10. 00 -
&J

5. 00 -
<> ~~1£J
~
D
er?~ BP~ ~<><ru
0.00 r r -.------ I
0.10 0.15 0.20 0.25 0.30 0.35 0.40 0.45
FROUDE NUMBER
D DOUBLE CHINE PARENT L ROUND BILGE <>SINGLE CHINE

Figure 4.9 Effect of Chine Shape on Residual Resistance in Bow Down Trim.
 1000.00
~

900.00
D

800.00

-
~ 700.00
-
~
~

a:
w 600.00
I <9
~
0
D...
w
>
500.00 ~ Et
H
t-
u
rff
w
LL
lL
w
400.00
l <>
300.00

200.00

100.00

0.00
4.00 5.00 6.00 7.00 8.00 9.00 10.00 11.00 12.00 13.00 14.00
SHIP SPEED (KNOTS)
D DOUBLE CHINE PARENT ~ROUND BILGE <>SINGLE CHINE
Figure 4.10 Effect of Chine Shape on Full Scale Effective Power in Bow Down Trim.
 28.00

~
24.00 -1 D
cP
26.
20. 00 ~ ~

L
-
0
0 16.00 D
d?
0
oorl 46>
0
-*
(_
u 12.00 03
~

8.00
~~~
4.00 o<ci-8~
o [3]>0 <b o
~
~ o drlo~ <$6l
0.00
0. 15 0.20 0.25 0.30 0.35 0.40 0.45
FROUDE NUMBER
D DOUBLE CHINE PARENT ~ROUND BILGE <>SINGLE CHINE
Figure 4.11 Effect of Chine Shape on Residual Resistance in Stern Down Trim.
 ~
100.00

0.00
4.00 5.00 6.00 7.00 8.00 9.00 10.00 11.00 12.00 13.00 14.00
SHIP SPEED (KNOTS)
D DOUBLE CHINE PARENT L ROUND BILGE <>SINGLE CHINE

Figure 4.12 Effect of Chine Shape on Full Scale Effective Power in Stern Down Trim.
 80000
<>
D
70000 - D <>
~

60000 - D ~

~
-
( \J
50000
I

~
(

E
..........
z
l 0
D
<>

- I

<> ~
D
~
~
40000
0
.
I <>
<( I

D
g
rr: 30000 ~ ~
D
<>
<>

20000 -· <>

10000 __J ~

~
0 i!i ~ I I I
0.00 1.00 2.00 3.00 4.00 5.00 6.00
ENCOUNTER FREQUENCY (sec-1)
D DOUBLE CHINE 6 ROUND BILGE <>SINGLE CHINE
Figure 4.13 Added Resistance Response Amplitude Operators for Chine Variations.
 80000.00
<>

70000.00 __,
L

60000.00 - D

L
-
( \J
(
50000.00 -i
I

<>
E I D
"-z
40000.00 ~
I <> L
0
.
I <>
<! .
D
a: 30000.00 ~ L D

20000.00 - iOi

~
10000.00 ~ B
~ i031
~ ~
0. 00 - I I I I I ~ I
0.00 1.00 2.00 3.00 4.00 5.00 6.00
ENCOUNTER FREQUENCY (s-1)
D DOUBLE CHINE PARENT. ~ROUND BILGE. <>SINGLE CHINE.
Figure 4.14 Corrected Added Resistance R.A.O.'s for Chine Variations.
 0.02.4

<> D
0.020
D

-
( \J
<
~

E 0.016
<>
"-
~

0
•
<{ 0.012
~
a:
I
u
1-
<>
~
H
a.. 0.008 D
~
~
D

0.00.4
I <>

iOj
@
iQJ
0.000 -
0.00 1.00 2.00 3.00 4.00 5.00 6.00
ENCOUNTER FREQUENCY (sec-1)
D DOUBLE CHINE L ROUND BILGE <>SINGLE CHINE
Figure 4.15 Pitch Amplitude Response Amplitude Operators for Chine Variations.
 1.80
~

1.60

1.40 D
<>

1. 20 l ~
6.
0 I
g
<(
1. 00 • ~ :g
li
w
>
<( 0.80
w
I

0.60

0.40

0.20
~

0.00 r- - - ----- -- --- 1 -- 101 t7\J

----~

0.00 1.00 2.00 3.00 4.00 5.00 6.00

ENCOUNTER FREQUENCY (sec-1)
D DOUBLE CHINE PARENT ~ROUND BILGE <>SINGLE CHINE

Figure 4.16 Heave Amplitude Response Amplitude Operators for Chine Variations.
 0.70

+
0.60

U) +
"ru 0 . 50
<
E
u
>-
~ 0.40 +
H
(f) X
z
w
0

[; 0.30
X+
0:
w X
z
w X +
0.20 oO X
0 +
oX
<>~
<>
~~
0.10
6~~6~

0.00
0 6
~
.0.z~
ODD DD
~~~~~ ~
0.00 1.00 2.00 3.00 4.00 5.00 6.00
ENCOUNTER FREQUENCY (sec-1)
DO. 5 m ~ 1. 0 m <>1.5 m X2. 0 m +2.5 m

Figure 4.17 Standard I.T.T.C. Wave Spectra Used in Analysis.

 60000.00
<>
6
-
I
50000.00 I

D
<>
6
--z 40000.00 .,
I
D

U)
w
a:
<>
0 30000.00 -I .6..
0
<( I D

w
>
<(
20000.00 -

~
D
10000.00 -

0.00
0.40 0.80 1.20 1.60 2.00 2.40 2.80
SIG. WAVE HEIGHT (m)
D DOUBLE CHINE PARENT .6.. ROUND BILGE <>SINGLE CHINE ...

Figure 4.18 Chine Variations: Average Added Resistance at 10 knots.

 300.00
<>
~

250. 00 - D
<>
6
-
3 D
-
:::£ 200.00 _,

Cl.
.
w <>
L
0
150. 00 -
0 D
4

w
>
<(
100.00 ~

~
D
50. 00 ~

0.00
0.40 0.80 1.20 1.60 2.00 2.40 2.80
SIG. WAVE HEIGHT. (m)
D DOUBLE CHINE PARENT. ~ROUND BILGE. <>SINGLE CHINE.
Figure 4.19 Chine Variations: Average Added Power to Maintain 10 knots.
 0.10
reJ
0.09 - I

~
8
I
.....,
0.08
I
I
6.
...--..
LJ
ro 0.07
- (._ 9
I 6.
_j
0.06 -
CL
2
<!
I
u 0.05 -
~
H D
0... <>
. 0.04 ~
w
>
<l:
0.03 -

0. 02 -

0.01 ~
~

0. 00 - I I -- T T I
0.40 0.80 1.20 1.60 2.00 2.40 2.80
SIG. WAVE HEIGHT. (m)
D DOUBLE CHINE PARENT. ~ROUND BILGE. <>SINGLE CHINE.
Figure 4.20 Chine Variations: Average Pitch Amplitudes at 10 knots.
1.00
~

0 . 90 _, 6
I:5J
0. 80 -
L

0. 20 -

0. 10 --1

0.00 I . - -- --r I I I

0.40 0.80 1.20 1.60 2.00 2.40 2.80

SIG. WAVE HEIGHT. (m)
D DOUBLE CHINE PARENT. L ROUND BILGE. <>SINGLE CHINE.

Figure 4.21 Chine Variations: Average Heave Amplitudes at 10 knots.

 ...

24.00

22.00 ~
-i
D

20.00 --f 6
D
&;:]

18.00 ~ ii:
16.00
I ~
-
0
I <>
0
0 14.00
~

-* I ~

(_ 12.00 I rif
u

10.00

8.00 <>

6.00
<> <), " '
<> <> ~ ~
4.00 <> <> <>.LfrJ D
<> <> <> <> <> <>
<> ~DD D
2.00 .-~-- ----.
0. 16 0.20 0.24 0.28 0.32 0.36 0.40 0.44
FROUDE NUMBER
D 80 % BEAM. L PARENT FORM . <> 120 % BEAM.
Figure 4.22 Effect of Beam Variation on Calm Water Residual Resistance Results.
 700.00

6.

600. 00 -
~ D
6.
-
3:
500. 00 -
D
-
::L

<>
AD
(I
w ~D
~
0 400. 00 - <>
D...
w r§l
>
H
<>
1-
300. 00 -
u
w <> L.

<> ~~D
lL
LL
w
200.00- 4~0
<> D

<> <>a,a
<>~r§l
100.00-
<>~<>~~~

<> <> <>

<> <> @
<>~6
£2 D<> D<> D "-EJ.-.J
0.00 I T
5.00 6.00 7.00 8.00 9.00 10.00 11.00 12.00 13.00
SHIP SPEED (KNOTS)
D 80 % BEAM. L. PARENT FORM. <> 120 % BEAM.
Figure 4.23 Effect of Beam Variation on Calm Water,· Full Scale Effective Power.
 500.00

450.00

400.00

-
~ 350.00
-
~

n.. 300.00
•
w
w
_j
<{
250.00
u
en
_j
_j
200.00
::J
lL
150.00

0 <>
100.00 <;>----

A----- 6 6
50.00
n D D

0.00
80 % BEAM 100 % BEAM 120 % BEAM
PERCENTAGE OF PARENT BEAM
D 8 KNOTS ~ 9 KNOTS <> 10 KNOTS X 11 KNOTS + 12 KNOTS
Figure 4.24 Effects of Beam Variation on Full Scale Effective Power,
Predicted with Holtrop (1977).
 500.00

450.00 ------t

400.00

-
~ 350.00
-
.::£

•
o_ 300.00
•
w
w
_J
<(
250.00
u
en
_j
_j
200.00
::J
lL
150.00

100.00
---6.
8 ----------------------------~
50.00
D ~~--------------------
c:::t
-----EJ

0.00
80 % BEAM 100 % BEAM 120 % BEAM
PERCENTAGE OF PARENT BEAM
D 8 KNOTS 6. 9 KNOTS <> 10 KNOTS X 11 KNOTS + 12 KNOTS
Figure 4.25 Effect of Beam Variation on Full Scale Effective Power: Model Results.
80000

6.
70000 -
D
<> 6.

20000 -
D

10000 - ~

D
® g
Q m I I I I
0.00 1.00 2.00 3.00 4.00 5.00 6.00
ENCOUNTER FREQUENCY (sec-1)
0 80 % BEAM. 6. 100 % BEAM <> 120 % BEAM

Figure 4.26 Added Resistance Response Amplitude Operators for Beam Variations.
 70000.00 <..>

60000.00 - 6

D <>
50000.00 -
I
~
-
( \J
<
I

E
......... 40000.00 -
z
-. I
D
<>
0 6
<t
([
. 30000.00 J <> ~

I D

20000.00 - D
~

10000.00 - ~

D
g iOll
~
®
0.00
-
0.00 1.00
I
2.00
r

ENCOUNTER FREQUENCY
I
3.00 4.00
(s-1)
I I
5.00
~
6.00

D 80 % BEAM. ~PARENT FORM. <> 120 % BEAM.

Figure 4.27 Corrected Added Resistance R.A.O. 's for Beam Variations.
 0.024

<>
6.
0.020 D
~

-
( \J
<
E 0.016
"'-""' I <>
D
0
. I
•
<(
•
0.012
([

:r:
u
t-
H
()_
0.008 ~ ~
D
<>
L
D
0.004 <>

iOj D
L
~ <>
0.000
0.00 1.00 2.00 3.00 4.00 5.00 6.00
ENCOUNTER FREQUENCY (sec-1)
D 80 % BEAM. 6. 100 % BEAM. <> 120 % BEAM.

Figure 4.28 Pitch Amplitude Response Amplitude Operators for Beam Variations.
 1.80

1.60
D

1.40 6

D
. ~
1.20
.
0 I

10t
4:
1.00 iCj D
a:
w
>
T D

<! 0.80
w I 0
I

0.60

0.40

D
0.20 ~
<>
0.00 ~
0.00 1.00 2.00 3.00 4.00 5.00 6.00
ENCOUNTER FREQUENCY (sec-1)
D 80 % BEAM L PARENT FORM <> 120 % BEAM
Figure 4.29 Heave A~plitude Response Amplitude Operators for Beam Variations.
 60000.00

<>
50000.00 -
~

<>
--z 40000.00 --1
I
~
. D
I
U1
w
([
I

D
0 30000.00 ~ <>
0
4 I ~

w
> I D
~
20000.00 -

<>
6
10000.00 - D

0.00
0.40 0.80 1.20 1.60 2.00 2.40 2.80
SIG. WAVE HEIGHT (m)
D 80 % BEAM ~PARENT FORM <> 120 % BEAM

Figure 4.30 Beam Variations: Average Added Resistance at 10 knots.

 180.00

e
160.00-

L.
140.00 <>
~ D
3:
-
~
120.00 -
rr I L. D
w
~ 0
0 I
0.. 100.00 -
0 I.
UJ D
0
0 80.00 -
<t

w L.
>
<{ 60. 00 -
B
40. 00 -

20. 00 - L.
D
<>
0.00 r -----.---- -- - r 1

0.40 0.80 1.20 1.60 2.00 2.40 2.80

SIG. WAVE HEIGHT (m)
D 80 % BEAM. ~PARENT FORM. <> 120 % BEAM.

Figure 4.31 Beam Variation s: Average Added Power to Maintain 10 knots.

 180

~------------------------~

160

140 X

,........._ 120
3:

-.Y. ~
---- ~
~
li
w 100
3:
0
0.. I ~
0 80
w
0
0
<{

60 ~ ----
----------- 6

40

20 B
[3-----
EJ

0
80 % BEAM 100 % BEAM 120 % BEAM
PERCENTAGE OF PARENT BEAM.
D H 1/3 = .5 m ~ H 1/3 = 1 m <> H 1/3 = 1. 5 m X H 1/3 = 2 m + H 1/3 = 2. 5 m

Figure 4.32 Effect of Beam on Added Power to Maintain 10 knots in Head Seas.
 0.10
~

0.09 - I

D
~
-
I
0.08
D
-
TI
I
0.07
I
CO
~
-
(_

D
• I
_j
0...
0.06 -
::E
<(

I
u 0.05 -
l-

~
H
0..
0.04 -
I
•
w
>
<{
0.03 -

0. 02 -

0. 01 -
~
0.00 I --.---- -~-- ------ -l
I
0.40 0.80 1.20 1.60 2.00 2.40 2.80
SIG. WAVE HEIGHT. (m)
D 80 % BEAM. L PARENT FORM. <> 120 % BEAM.
Figure 4.33 Beam Variation s: Average Pitch Amplitude at 10 knots.
 1.00 I

6
<>
0.90 I
I
0
I
L

0.80 -4 <>
D

--
E 0.70 I
~

_J I ~
o_ 0.60 -
:E
<!
w
>
<(
0.50 -
w
I
0.40
w
>
<( l ~
0.30 -1

0. 20 -

0.10 -1

~
0.00 r r- - -- -- --- - r l -~ --- ~-~ - - ~ T
0.40 0.80 1.20 1.60 2.00 2.40 2.80
SIG. WAVE HEIGHT. (m)
D 80 % BEAM. L PARENT FORM. <> 120 % BEAM.
Figure 4.34 Beam Variat ions: Averag e Heave Amplit udes at 10 knots.
 24.00

20. 00 - $L
<>,6.
<>
<>~
~
16. 00 - D
<>
-
0
0
~D
D

0 <>D
~
~

-* 12.00 -
(_
u
8 pg.~
~~
8. 00 - <>
~
;~~
~ c§J D
~ C!! 6 D
s<> cF
4.00 -i <><> <> <> LoD
D
<> D D
D
JLh D
D
I .,
0.00 I I I I

0. 16 0.20 0.24 0.28 0.32 0.36 0.40 0.44

FROUDE NUMBER
D 80 % DRAUGHT ~PARENT FORM <> 120 % DRAUGHT

Figure 4.35 Effect of Draught on Residual Resistance Results.

 700.00

600. 00 ~

$~

<>L
--.. 500. 00 -
3:
<>
-
.Y.
<>A
a: D
w L
~
0
400.00...,
0.. D
w
<>
> ~D
H D
r--
u
w
300. 00 - <o'd
LL

~~~
lL
w
200. 00 - ~m
<> <>~
-~L D
100.00 ~ <> @
~D
<> <:><> 2: ~ ~ t::;. D
D D C!J--1 oD
0. 00 - D o9> ~ I f I I

5.00 6.00 7.00 8.00 9.00 10.00 11.00 12.00 13.00

SHIP SPEED (KNOTS)
D 80 % DRAUGHT L. PARENT FORM <> 120 % DRAUGHT

Figure 4.36 Effect of Draught on Calm Water, Full Scale Effective Power.
 500.00

450.00

400.00

.........
3: 350.00
-
.Y.

a:
w 300.00
3:
0
0..
w 250.00
>
H
t-
I X
u
w 200.00
LL
LL
w
150.00

100.00

50.00

0. 00 - I
80.00 85.00 90.00 95.00 100.00 105.00 110.00 115.00 120.00 125.00
PERCENTAGE OF PARENT DRAUGHT.
DB KNOTS ~ 9 KNOTS <> 10 KNOTS X 11 KNOTS + 12 KNOTS .
Figure 4.37 Effect of Draught Variation on Full Scale Effective Power,·
Predicted with Holtrop (1977).
 500.00

450.00

400.00

-
3: 350.00
-
::£

a:
w 300.00
~
0
(L

w 250.00
>
H
1-
u
w 200.00
LL
LL
lJJ

150.00 ----~

Al --- -
100.00 ---6

50.00

0.00 .~------~----~------~------~------~----~------~------~----~
80.00 85.00 90.00 95.00 100.00 105.00 110.00 115.00 120.00 125.00
PERCENTAGE OF PARENT DRAUGHT.
D 8 KNOTS ~ 9 KNOTS <> 10 KNOTS X 11 KNOTS + 12 KNOTS

Figure 4.38 Effect of Draught Variation on Full Scale Effective Power: Model Results.
 80000
<>
L.
70000 L.
D
D

60000 -1 D
~ D
D
. I
0
<l: 5000'0 6.
• D
a: L

en I L.
w 40000
a: <>
0
I
w

~
L L
0
0 30000 L D
<! <> <>
<>
20000 I D

<>
10000 L
D
~
0 ~
0.00 1.00 2.00 3.00 4.00 5.00 6.00
ENCOUNTER FREQUENCY (sec-1)
D 80 % DRAUGHT 6 PARENT DRAUGHT <> 120 % DRAUGHT
Figure 4.39 Added Resistance Response Amplitude Operators for Draught Variations.
 80000.00
<>

70000.00 -
D
D

60000.00 ....
~
D

-
( \J
(
50000.00 -
E I ~
"-z
40000.00 -
0
•
<( .
~
a:
30000.00 ~ L. D

<>
20000.00 --j D ~

<> ~
10000.00 ~ ~

D
IZSI
~ ~ ~
0. 00 - I I <V <> 01 <> Q fZSl I
0.00 1.00 2.00 3.00 4.00 5.00 6.00
ENCOUNTER FREQUENCY (s-1)
D 80 % DRAUGHT ~PARENT FORM. <> 120 % DRAUGHT
Figure 4.40 Corrected Added Resistance R.A.O.'s for Draught Variations.
 0.024

0
<!
• 0.012
•
a:
I
u
f-
H
0... 0.008 J ~
D

0.004
<>
6

L
B
0.000
0.00 1.00 2.00 3.00 4.00 5.00 6.00
ENCOUNTER FREQUENCY (sec-1)
D 80 % DRAUGHT ~PARENT DRAUGHT <> 120 % DRAUGHT

Figure 4.41 Pitch Amplitude Response Amplitude Operators for Draught Variations.
 1.80
~

1.60

1.40 ~
0
~
1.20
0
<>
~ D
•
<(
1.00 iCj ~ D D
((

w
>
<( 0.80
w
I I

I
<>
0.60
I
D

0.40

0.20 ~ D
<> 0
D
0.00
0.00 1.00 2.00 3.00 4.00 5.00 6.00
ENCOUNTER FREQUENCY (sec-1)
D 80 % DRAUGHT L PARENT FORM <> 120 % DRAUGHT
Figure 4.42 Heave Amplitude Response Amplitude Operators for Draught Variations.
 60000.00

D
-
I
50000.00 .
~

D
--..
z
- 40000.00 ., ~
<>
0
I
UJ
w
a: I

D
0
0
30000.00 ~
'
<( 6.
0

w <>
>
<!
20000.00 --I

D
6
10000.00 -
<>

0. 00 ~ IOJ I I I I I I
0.40 0.80 1.20 1.60 2.00 2.40 2.80
SIG. WAVE HEIGHT (m)
D 80 % DRAUGHT L PARENT FORM <> 120 % DRAUGHT

Figure 4.43 Draught Variations: Average Added Resistance at 10 knots.

 300.00

250. 00 - ~

~
~ L.
200.00 <>
-
.Y.
•
Cl.
•
w D
•
0 150.00 ~

0 I 6.
<{

w
•
<>
>
<!
100.00 -
D

L.
50. 00 -
<>

0.00 ~.~~------~--------~----------~----------~--------~--------~
0.40 0.80 1.20 1.60 2.00 2.40 2.80
SIG. WAVE HEIGHT. (m)
D 80 % DRAUGHT. L. PARENT FORM. <> 120 % DRAUGHT .
Figure 4.44 Draught Variations: Average Added Effective Power to Maintain 10 knots.
 300

250

....-...
3:
200
-
.:::£.

n..
•
w
0 150
0
<!

w
>
<(
100

50

Q ~ rp J Ej1 I 4J '
70.00 80.00 90.00 100.00 110.00 120.00 130.00
PERCENTAGE OF PARENT DRAUGHT.
DH1/3=0.5m ~H1/3=1.0m <>H1/3=1.5m XH1/3=2.0m + H1/3=2. 5m
Figure 4.45 Effect of Draught on Average Added Effective Power to Maintain 10 knots
in Head Seas.
 0. 12

D
. <>
0.10 -
~
D
-
TI
CD
I
<>
L

-(_
0.08
_j D
D.... 0
2
<(

I 0.06 _,
u
t-
H
D....

w L
>
<( 0. 04 - D
<>

0. 02 -

L
D
0.00
0.40 0.80 1.20 1.60 2.00 2.40 2.80
SIG. WAVE HEIGHT (m)
D 80 % DRAUGHT. L PARENT FORM. <> 120 % DRAUGHT.

Figure 4.46 Draught Variations: Average Pitch Amplitudes at 10 knots.

 1.00
6.
g
0. 90 -
L

0. 80 - ~

--
E 0.70 -
L

J
•
_j
[]_ 0.60 8
::E:
<{

w
>
<{
0.50 -
w
I
0.40 l ~
w
>
<{ .
D
0.30 -4 <>

0. 20 -

0. 10 -
~

~
0.00 I l I I I
0.40 0.80 1.20 1.60 2.00 2.40 2.80
SIG. WAVE HEIGHT. (m)
D 80 % DRAUGHT. L PARENT FORM. <> 120 % DRAUGHT.

Figure 4.47 Draught Variations: Average Heave Amplitudes at 10 knots.

 53
CHAPTERS DISCUSSION OF RESULTS

5.1 General Observations

In the calm water tests it was noticed that all the models trimmed
down by the bow and squatted slightly when under way. This
dynamic trim was enough to delay transom immersion at free
running speeds, indeed at lower speeds the sterns of the models
were well clear of the water.

Observations of builder's ship trials proved this dynamic trim to

occur at full scale. This trim creates in effect a short, squat vessel
of increased resistance and it is suggested that the vessels should
be designed to float with stern down trim for periods of free
•
running.

At all trims, it is seen that resistance increases rapidly with speed

and whilst the economics of a particular fishery dictate operational
requirements, it should be noted that a reduction in free running
speed from 10 knots to 9 knots would save 42 percent in effective
power. On the other hand another 64 percent of effective power
would be needed to achieve 11 knots.

Observation of the models at peak response in head seas indicated

the necessity of high freeboard and the sharp knuckle set up on
the bow of the design in reducing the amount of water washing
over the bow. In waves where the reduced draught (and reduced
freeboard) model was regularly being swamped, the increased
draught model remained dry.

Finally, it is noted that generally peak response in terms of added

resistance and pitch occurred in waves of length equal to 1.5 times
the vessel length whilst heave response occurred at wavelengths
of twice the vessel length.
 54
5.2 The Effects of Chine Shape

At level trim, in calm water the three chine variations showed

very similar resistance as can be seen in figures 4.8 and 4.9 .. The
full scale effective power of the single chine hull form was
approximately 3 to 4 percent higher than that of the round bilge
hull form which was only slightly better than the double chine
form.

The resistance of each of the models increased with bow down

trim, perhaps as it only exacerbated the problem of dynamic trim
under way. Of the three chine variations, the round bilge hull
form showed the greatest increase of resistance, with bow down
trim and it may be seen in figure 4.9 that the double chine hull
form performed the best of the three in the bow down trim
condition. This would suggest that excessive trim does not
adversely affect flow over the chines, or at least that such flow
does not affect resistance greatly.

In head seas the differences between model's performance were

again quite small. The response amplitude operators (R.A.O.) for
added resistance for the chine variations (figure 4.14) show that at
peak response (We ==:: 2.1 sec-1)) the single chine hull form has
greater added resistance than the round bilge and double chine
forms, whilst at higher encounter frequencies (above 3.3 sec-1) the
single chine form had the least added resistance of the three. The
average added power results of figure 4.19 show that little
separates the three hull forms in head seas. The pitch and heave
results however, show a slight advantage in the round bilge hull
form whilst the single and double chine hull forms showed
almost identical motions throughout the range of significant
wave heights for which average responses were calculated and
graphed in figures 4.20 and 4.21. This could be seen in the
response amplitude operator spectra for pitch and heave
amplitudes where the round bilge form had considerably lower
peak response than the other two hull forms.
 55
5.3 The Effects of Beam

Figures 4.22 and 4.23 show that whilst the resistance of the parent
hull form increases with· any increase of beam, the effect is very
slow compared to that of narrower vessels. This would suggest
that the parent hull form is already so wide for it's length that any
increase in beam hardly affects an already ridiculous situation.
This also suggests that the effects of beam on resistance pass
through a transition from being extreme for "thin ships" to being
only slight for vessels of this type.

In head seas, the peak added resistance would appear to increase

with beam, the order than reversing for higher frequency
response. The average added resistance results show that there
may be some advantage· for the narrow hull form in head seas
whilst the parent hull form and wide beam form had equal
response. The narrow hull form pitched the least of the three hull
forms whilst the wide beam form heaved the ·-least, although all
models showed similar response up until significant wave heights
of above 1.5 metres.

5.4 The Effects of Draught

Figures 4.35 nd 4.36 indicate that resistance increases with draught

throughout the entire speed range of the tests. The residual
Tcsistance of the deep draught hull form is considerably greater.
than that of the other two forms up to a Froude number of around
0.33 (10 knots full scale) where the difference begins to diminish.
At a Froude number of 0.28 (8.4 knots full scale) the residual
resistance of the deep form is some 24 percent above that of the
parent form.

Head sea tests indicated that the increased draught hull form has
greater added resistance at peak response and lower added
resistance above such frequencies, than the other two draught
variations. It would also appear from figure 4.40 that the
encounter frequency of peak response decreases with increasing
 56
draught. This was not evident in the beam variation results nor
was it found in the results of Appendix 4.1 concerning variation of
the displacement of the parent hull form. It is suggested therefore,
that this frequency shift is not due to effects of inertia or
displacement as first thought, rather it is due to the form of the
hulls.

The relatively narrow frequency range of high response of the

deep draught hull form resulted in it having lower average added
resistance than the other two draught variations, this effect
increasing at higher significant wave heights.

Figures 4.46 and 4.47 show that the average motions of the three
draught variations are virtually equal throughout the entire range
of significant wave heights, although the response amplitude
operators for the three forms showed that the parent form pitched
and heaved the most of the three at peak response frequency.

5.5 Comparison of Results with those of Previous Research

The comparing of the results of this series with those of previous

research is hampered by the great differences in parent hull forms.
For example, the results of Ridgely-Nevitt (1956) presented as
Froude constants:

s
© = 39.84 x Ct x 0 . 2; 3
lSp.

show that the© value of his "improved" form was 22 percent less
than that of the A.S.I. parent hull form at a comparable Froude
number. Whilst this shows the relative inefficiency of the
Australian design the comparison is not entirely valid. If the
Ridgely-Nevitt hull form was scaled to give a vessel of the same
length as the A.S.I. vessel, it's beam would be 40 percent less than
the latter, resulting in a vessel of greatly reduced stability (though
higher displacement).

As all of the resistance prediction methods commonly used in the

 57
design of fishing vessels are based either partly or wholly on
model data, one would expect their predictions to represent the
performance of the hull forms tested to form their data bases. In
this respect, the methods of Dahle (1982), Van Oortmerssen (1973,
1980), Williams (1986), Hayes and Engvall (1969) and Holtrop
(1977) should be expected to indicate the performance of the A.S.I.
hull form relative to those round bilge, full bodied vessels that
formed their data. Indeed these methods all underestimate the
resistance of the A.S.I. design, some by up to 35 percent. This
indicates firstly that the A.S.I. design is likely to be outside the
parameter ranges of some of the methods and secondly that
generally the design is more expensive to operate then the older
vessels of their data bases.

Perhaps a better comparison may be achieved with the results of

Traung et. al. (1967) given in terms of the coefficient, CR 16 , which
was defined as;

RJ6 X LJ6
CR16 = Disp.t6 (V t6)2

(ie. Resi.stance R, length L, displacement Disp.,.and speed V, scaled

for a 16ft vessel.)

Traung's resistance results for a vessel of simjlar size to the A.S.I.

hull form are some 30 percent lower than for the latter design.

5.6 A Method for Predicting the Effects of Beam and

Draught Variation in Calm Water

In order that the results of the model series should be useful for
designers of fishing vessels of similar principal and hydrostatic
particulars to those of the parent hull form, the simple formula of
Mumford (1925) taken as;

was used as the basis for analysing the series model results.
 58
This may be rewritten as;

PE = kSXTY ..................... (3) •

where B and T represent the beam and draught of the form, and
PE, the effective power. (Note: Band Twill be measured in metres
whilst PE is expressed in kilowatts.)

Then, for a given speed, the values of k, x and y may be found as

follows (in this case for 8 knots).

Beam Tests
B PE log1oB log1oPE
5.84m 33kW 0.766 1.519
7.30 41 0.863 1.613
8.76 50 0.943 1.699

Draught Tests
T PE Iog1oT log1oPE
2.40m 31kW 0.380 1.491
3.00 41 0.477 1.613
3.60 54 0.566 1.732

where taking logarithms of (3) forT= constant gives

log1oPE = xlog1oB + (ylog1oT + log1ok) (Beam tests)

and for B = constant;

log1oPE = ylog1oT + (xlog1oB + log1ok) (Draught tests)

If the linear regression is applied to the log1oB vs log1oPE and

log1oT vs log1oPE results, straight line equations are found as
follows;

log1oPE = 1.015 log1oB + 0.740 (kW) (r = 0.9996)

and log1oPE = 1.365 Iog1oT + 0.969 (kW) (r = 0.9990)
 59

It may be seen that x = 1.015 and y = 1.365.

The constant k may be solved as k = 1.232 and the form of (3)
becomes;

PE = 1.232 B1.015 T1.365 kW

Similarly, the following results may be obtained for other speeds;

Speed k X y
8 knots 1.232 1.015 1.365
9 knots 4.752 0.824 1.075
10 knots 12.85 0.716 0.813
11 knots 35.37· 0.620 0.544
12 knots 54.05 0.588 0.794

for the general formula; PE = kBXTY (B,T in m, PE in kW)

This may be used to estimate the results of the beam and draught
variations to within 3% accuracy and avoids linear interpolation
for other beam and draught combinations .
•

As a final note, it may be seen that for an equivalent speed, the

results of Pattullo (1976) are quite different. Compared to (x,y) =
(0.716, 0.813) for the A.S.I. parent hull form at free running speed,
Pattullo's indices were (x,y) = (1.16, 0.52). This indicates that the
effect of beam on calm water resistance is much lower for the
A.S.I. parent than for Pattullo's while the effect of draught is
greater. It is noted that the length/beam and length/ draught
ratios of 3.31 and 8.06 for the A.S.I. trawler differ considerably from
the values of 5.0 and 12.1 for Pattullo's form.
 60
CHAPTER 6 · CONCLUSIONS

The following conclusions can be made for the parent hull

form, based on the results of the results of this research.

1. The typical Australian trawler is considerably less efficient

than her English, European and American counterparts of two
to three decades ago, in terms of the ratio of resistance to
capacity.

2. Any increase in speed above the current free running speed

of ten knots is likely to be very expensive due to the rapidly
increasing slope of the resistance-speed curve around and
above this speed.

3. Chine shape has little effect on resistance or seakeeping,

when considered on its own.

4. Beam has less effect on resistance than draught with neither

parameter causing the changes. in resistance that would be
expected for slender ships.

5. The parent hull form performs best in stern down (static)

trim, tending to trim down by the bow under way.

6. Peak added resistance and pitch response occur in head seas

of wavelength equal to 1.5 times the vessel length whilst peak
heave is found for waves twice the length of the vessel.

7. A reduction in beam by 20 % from that of the parent hull

form lowers the added resistance and pitch response in head
seas but little difference is made by increasing the beam by the
same amount.

8. Draught variation has minimal effect in head seas except in

terms of added resistance where a reduction in draught sees an
increase in added resistance. 61

9. The popular resistance prediction method of most validity

to the parent hull form is that by Holtrop (1977) but even this
method underestimates the bare hull resistance by up to 15 %.
A suitable method for describing the effects of beam and
draught variation on resistance is through the use of Mumford
Indices.

The following design changes are recommended in the light of

the above conclusions.

1. The parent hull form should be built as a single chine form

as the expense of double chine and round bilge construction
does not necessarily result in improved performance. The
chine slope should be increased towards the bow.

2. If greater capacity were required it should be achieved

through increased beam as this barely affects performance.

3. The vessel layout should be such as to avoid bow down

trim.

The possibilities for research in this model series seem endless,

limited in reality by cost and time. The following topics are
suggested as valuable extensions to this work for the future.

1. There would appear to be a transition between the effects of

beam for a slender ship ( L/B = 10 etc.) to those for the parent
hull form ( L/B = 3.3 ). This transition is of importance to a
wide range of hull forms from naval vessels to sailing yachts
and it is yet to be fully understood.

2. The effects of length-beam and beam-draught ratios on

pressure distribution, boundary layer, frictional resistance and 62
wavemaking resistance require study, particularly for short,
wide and shallow vessels like the parent form.

3. The accurate prediction of appendage drag, whilst being a

large proportion of the total resistance of the parent vessel, is at
present impossible. The validity of model tests is dubious and
the use of aerodynamics research data is, at best, approximate.
There is the need for an accurate method for estimating such
drag if bare hull model results are to be of any use in the design
office.

4. As suggested in points 2 and 3, the scaling of model results

to ship scale is yet to be well understood. This research has
been conducted using standard methods (I.T.T.C. 1957 etc.) but
their accuracy is expected to be poor for this type of vessel.

5. Multi-directional wave tests are required for the

performance of the parent hull form to be fully understood.
At the very least, the testing of the models at rest in beam seas
would give valuable information concerning the effects of
chine ·shape and beam on roll.
 REFERENCES

Abbott, I.H. and Von Doenhoff, A.E., (1959), "Theory of Wing

Sections", Dover Publications, New York.

Borreguero, A., (1986), "When a Bulbous Bow Pays Off" World

Fishing magazine, October 1986,pp5,6.

Bhattacharyya, R., (1978), "Dynamics of Marine Vehicles", Wiley-

Interscience Publications, Wiley and Sons, New York.

Chapelle, H.I., (1960), "Comments on Hull Design of Fishing

Boats", Fishing Boats of the World vol 2, F.A.O., Fishing News
(Books) Ltd, England. pp 460-467.

Conn, J.F.C., (1968), "Results Obtained With a Series of

Geometrically Similar Models", Trans. R.I.N.A., vol 110, July,
1968, No. 3 pp 255-300.

Dahle, E., (1982), "Fuel Saving and Fuel Conservation in Fishing"

International Conference on Propulsion for Small Craft,
Propellers, Sterngear, Engines and Installation, R.I.N.A. Small
Craft Group, November 1982.

Dankwardt, E.C.M., (1981), "Algorithm for Predicting the

Resistance of Stern Trawlers", Seewirtschaft No. 13, November
1981, pp 551-556.

Digernes, T., (1982), "An Analytical Approach to Evaluating

Fishing Vessel Design and Operation", Dr. Ing. thesis, NTH 1982.

Doust, D.J. and O'brien, T.P., (1958), "Resistance and Propulsion of

Trawlers", Trans. North East Coast Institution of Engineers and
Shipbuilders, vol 75, 1958-59, pp 355-436.

Doust, D.J., (1961), "Bulb Trawlers", Ship and Boat Builder, June
1961,pp 40-42.
Doust, D.J., (1962), "Optimised Trawler Forms", Trans. North East
Coast Institution of Engineers and Shipbuilders, vol 79, 1962-63,
pp 95-136.

Emerson, A., (1959), "Ship Model Size and Tank Boundary

Correction", Trans. North East Coast of Engineers and
Shipbuilders, vol 76, 1959-60, pp 59-78.

Ferguson, A.M., (1983), "An Extrapolation Method for Ship

Resistance Based on the Variation of Sinkage and Trim", R.I.N.A.
Spring Meetings, 1983.

Fraser, D.J., Jones, D.I. and Van Der Net, G.A., (1973), "Cost of
Stability for Fishing Vessels", Marine Technology, January 1973,
pp 64-73.

Hamlin, C., (1986), "Systems Engineering in the Fishing Industry",

Marine Technology, vol23, No. 2, April, 1986, pp 158- 164.

Harvald, S.A., (1983), "Resistance and Propulsion of Ships",

Wiley-Interscience Publications, Wiley and Sons, New York.

Hayes, J.C. and Engvall, L.O., (1969), "Computer Aided Studies of

Fishing Boat Hull Resistance", F.A.O. Fisheries Technical Paper
No. 87, Rome, 1969.

Hoerner, S.F., (1965) "Fluid Dynamic Drag", Hoerner Fluid

Dynamics, Albuquerqe, N.M., U.S.A.

Holtrop, J., (1977), "A Statistical Analysis of Performance Test

Results", International Shipbuilding Progress, vol 24, No. 270,
February 1977, pp 23-28.

Holtrop, J. and Menen, G.G.J., (1982), "An Approximate Power

Prediction Method", International Shipbuilding Progress, vol 29,
July 1982, pp 166-170.
Holtrop, J., (1984), "A Statistical Re-analysis of Resistance and
Propulsion Data", International Shipbuilding Progress, vol 31, No.
363, November 1984, pp 272-276.

Hughes, G., (1961), "Tank Boundary Effects on Model Resistance",

Trans. R.I.N.A. vol 103, 1961, pp 421-440.

Johnson, N.V., (1956), "Bulbous Bows on Trawlers", International

Shipbuilding Progress, vol3, No. 28, December 1956, pp 641-658.

Johnson, N.V., (1958), "Further Tests with Bulbous Bows on

Trawlers", International Shipbuiding Progress, vol 5, No. 52,
November 1958, pp 522-529.

Judson, S.R., (1985), "Added Resistance of Fishing Vessels in Head

Seas", International Conference on Design, Construction and
Operation of Fishing Vessels, Florida Institute of Technology, May
1985, pp 140-151.
•
Karppinen, T.O., (1983), "Comparison of Theoretical Seakeeping
Predictions with Model Test Results for a Wide Beam Fishing
Vessel", vol 12, Proceedings of the Twentieth General Meeting of
the A.T.T.C., New York, August 1983, pp 1047-1064.

Lackenby, H., (1949), "On the Systematic Geometrical Variation of

Ship Forms", Trans. R.I.N.A., vol 90, pp 289-316.

McCormick, B.W., (1979), "Aerodynamics, Aeronautics and Flight

Mechanics", John Wiley and Sons, New York.

McCraig, J. and Watson, G.L., (1986), "More Boat for Your Money",
World Fishing, October 1986, pp 4,7.

Mumford, E.R., (1925), "The Experimental Tank in Relation to

Ship and Propeller Design", Engineering, London, vol 120, p271.

Netsvetaev, Y.A., (1983), "An Approximation for Calculating the

Additional Resistance of a ship in Rough Seas", International
Symposiun on Ship Hydrodynamics and Energy Saving, El Pardo,
Spain, 1983, Paper 11.8.

O'Dogherty, P., (1983), "Hydrodynamic Optimisation of an Energy

Saving Trawler", International Symposium on Ship
Hydrodynamics and Energy Saving, El Pardo, Spain, September
1983.

Pal, P.K., (1981), "Optimum Design of Trawlers", Phd Thesis,

Department of Naval Architecture, Indian Institute of
Technology, Karagpur.

Pattullo, R.N.M. and Thomson, G.R., (1965), "The B.S.R.A.

Trawler Series (Part 1)", Trans. R.I.N.A., vol 107, 1967, pp 215-241.

Pattullo, R.N.M., (1968), "The B.S.R.A. Series (Part 2)", Trans.

R.I.N.A., vol 110, April1968, No. 2. pp 151-183.

Pattullo, R.N.M. and Thomson, G.R., (1969), "The B.S.R.A. Series

(Part 3)", Trans. R.I.N.A., vol 111, pp 317-342.

Pattullo, R.N.M., (1974), "The Resistance and Propulsion Qualities

of a Series of Stern Trawlers", Trans. R.I.N.A., pp 347-372.

Ridgely-Nevitt, C., (1956), "The Resistance of Trawler Hull Forms

of 0.65 Prismatic coefficient", Trans. S.N.A.M.E., vol 64, pp 433-468.

Ridgely-Nevitt, C., (1967), "The Resistance of a High

Displacement-Length Ratio Trawler Series", Trans. S.N.A.M.E.,
vol 75, November 1967, pp 51-78.

Sachdeva, R.C., and Preston, J.H., (1976), "Investigation of

Turbulent Boundary Layers on a Ship Model", Schiffstechnik, Bd
231976, pp 1-30.

Salvesen, N., (1978), "Added Resistance of Ships in Waves",

Journal of Hydronautics, vol 12, No. 1, January 1978, pp 24-34.
Scott, J.R., (1964), "On Ship Model Resistance Errors", Trans.
R.I.N.A., vol 206, 1964, pp 449-459.

Scott, J.R., (1966), "A Blockage Corrector", Trans. RI.N.A., vol 108,
1966, pp 153-163.

Scott, J.R., (1970), "On Blockage Correction and Extrapolation to

Smooth Ship Resistance", Trans. S.N.A.M.E., vol 78, 1970, pp 288-
326.

Scott, J.R., (1970), "A Comparison of Two Ship Resistance

Estimators", Trans. R.I.N.A., December 1970, pp 375-385.

Strom-Tejsen, J., Yeh, H.Y.H. and Moran, D.D., (1973), "Added

Resistance in Waves", Trans. S.N.A.M.E., vol 81, 1973, pp 109- 143.

Traung, J.O., (1966), "Some Tank Tests", Fishing Boats of the

World, F.A.O., Fishing News (Books) Ltd, England, pp 281-319.

Traung, J.O., Doust, D.J. and Hayes, J.G., (1967), "New Possibilities
for Improvement in the Design of Fishing Vessels", Fishing Boats
of the World, vol 3, pp 139-158. ,

Traung, J.O., (1985), "50 Years of Improvements in Fishing

Vessels-From 1950 to 2000", International Conference on Design,
Construction and Operation of Commercial Fishing Vessels,
Florida Institute of Technology, May 1985, pp 12-20.

Tsuchiya, T., (1983), "An Example of Computer Aided Design of

Fishing Boat's Hull Form Having Desired Form Parameters."
PRADS '83 - The 2nd International Symposium on Practical
Design for Shipbuilding, 1983, Tokyo and Seoul.

Van Oortmerssen, G., (1973), "A Power Prediction Method For

Motor Boats", Symposium Yacht Architecture, H.I.S.W.A., The
Nether lands ,1973.

Van Oortmerssen, G., (1980), "A Power Prediction Method and its
Application to Small Craft", Naval Architecture Course Notes,
DelftUniversity, 1980, pp 118-136.

Williams, A., (1986), "Undersokning Av Skrovformer For Fiske-

Och Arbetsbator", S.S.P.A. Internal Report, April 1986.

Wilson, W.B., (1985), "Fishing Vessel Design Curves",

International Conference on Design, Construction and Operation
of Commercial Fishing Vessels, Florida Institute of Technology,
May 1985, pp 94-111.
 63

Appendix 1

Body Plans of Model Hull Forms

 • • •.• y ......

_.___.----

---- ..--.- -·-· ---

_________________________ ,. ........-- ----·

......__. ·-··-· -~~ s.... •. ,.
---- c ........... ....
---- ----

Figu re Al: The Pare nt Hull Form

 , ................

,..,..... .. _,....

Figure AZ: The Round Bilge Hull Form

 - - - - s-. l·ll. - -

Figure A3: The Single Chine Hull Form

 - ----~ ------ . .,/' ---- -- ---.. .--
) I

// I

\ ;· I
\
\
I

\
\ I
/ I
I

--------· . -------~--------

---- -
I
---- -..- .J- ----
--- -~---

------------- ---- ---- - - - - - · - -

Figu re A4: The 80% Beam Hull Form .

 -· ·-- ..... -·- . ~- _-_-_.....-------r···--
... ... -~

/
/
.
~ , _,
/ ~
(

/
/
----, L_.... /
/
.
/
I
/ ,
I ,
I ,
/

..
---
---
--L ;·-··~ .
I ---- - . .;...__
;,
·-... / I
/
~,_,.,
~ . ·':,
,. .,
/

Y-'1""---- .,. --- --- --- --- --+ --- --- --- --- -- --- -

..... -
__ ... -- L-- -··· - - . .. - -.

•
..-..._

--.
-- --
-·-..._..
.. ....... -·~
.. .~-:::::
• ...
-..._,_ .. -
_.... -...
~ -~· .......--:··----
~. ~

·-
...........

Fig ure AS: The 120% Bea m Hu ll For m.

 -----.__._ __ --,. . ) .-.-_-·-----
/ .•..
r·· -- -
/ .
/ .~··

~~------r---~
//
.
---L_
·
/ ..
I
/
~ ...

,
; • I
1
I

L..---- --
... --
___ . _--- . ._.-.. - .......

. . . .. -..............
. ·'--.:..·.... ............. .
. . · :" - '"'~t.=:. ·-. . ---· ..
-~­
.:.:.::

Figu re.A 6: The 80% Drau ght Hull Form .

 ( -_-:~- -::::-:: ~"1'-:,a.:.·;::·:_:_--- -- =-J--= ________ ...
-
-·· ---------- ··--1f--t---t------~-----------~--------- .---. ·---..::::..... --+--~ --1:-. --~-·

___
------ ___"'_-·_\
.....__

-·
-~-------=~
" ',
-\
-
- ---
~-
I
// I
·- --·-
--·-·- -----·-
.... --
7" \ --....-------
..

~~---~------~-
\ \,

------------------- .
.-
~· -----~-
.., -

..... --~~·---

..............
- --
. "~ .. ~

--............... ....---
----····----·------~.:':._":'.;__~,
., ,____ /-/
~~-
·-""0·.~/---
/./
.. ... -
.. -~

-:.·- ~ ~----.. -
,,, . ....... '""".... '.' ' / /.-'_ ~-:: ~
~

---- '·- ........ ...... '

../
'... .
>.~~~<..~,;:~'~ --·-_7/?~·;:3:7'·-------·---
·"' . . .. ..... -
./ . . /

-
... ..
•••••
.. '
-411 ..... · -
.. -·
::-~"" / / /. .-'/:/
/,~
.·
/
/ .. ·...-

__________ >(_~_-_~_~_-~ {~- -· _-_-_--_-_-_-----~----_-_-·_·_-~~~------~-~:I~-~----.-------::---- - -

-------------- ------

-
1 --- .. ~-

f -·· -- .........
.......
J
I
•
'
--· ---
••

·----·
'I
I
I
....
.-·-----~-

-••.. ·----~-

.. --- -- --- ... -- ·- ... ----+-

-------------·- ____
-- --·----L-- _____________ __ ) J I
.: '·--- ... ~--
------. ------ ---····------------------~,...,..,. ___... -
1 ••... _. ____ .... ...
........ - ... I
..... - ___/
--------- ---------:..-=:-::;;&;-;-~-c-::-::-=.~-:=====~~J~~~~-~~~~=-·- --- ---
------·
..... --
~··-- ~~

-· -·

----- ---- ·-- ..... - -...-· --- ·---

-·-------- ·-··-------- ~··--
., .. ~ ..... -
-·-----. -··---~ -· ..... --
-

-
Figure A7: The 120% Draught Hull Form.
 64

Appendix 2 Experimental Errors.

Table 5 lists possible sources of error in the experimental results of this

work. It does not attempt to describe the likely accuracy of the ITTC (1957)
ship-model correlation method as this is discussed in Appendix 6.

Source of Error Possible Magnitude Effects on Results

Model Accuracy +1- lmm Unlikely to detect.

Turbulence stimulation unknown Unknown, expected negligible
Blockage dv/v < 0.8% Negligible, described in eh. 3
Wetted surface area calc. =2% Slightly affects all results.
Surface roughness negligible Models smoothed carefully.
Displacement +1- 0.2% Negligible, see appendix 4.1.
Radius of gyration =3% Negligible, see appendix 4.2.
Trim = 0.1% Negligible, see chapter 4.
Speed measurement +I- O.Olm/s Negligible.
Drag measurement =2% Directly affects results.
Motions measurement = 6% Directly affects results.
Wind resistance of negligible Negligible compared with
model hydrodynamic drag.
Vertical position of
towing force +1- 3cm No effect on dynamic trim.
Water temperature +1- 0.25°C Negligible.

Table 5 Possible Sources of Errors

Many tests were repeated from day to day and the model results were
generally consistent. The author has confidence in these results but it
should be kept in mind that such problems as appendage drag and ship-
model correlation remain unsolved.
 65

Appendix 3 The Bifilar Method

The Bifilar Method was used for measuring pitch radii of gyration for all
models prior to head sea tests.

This method assumes that the radius of gyration for pitch is equal to that for
yaw and involves suspending the model at it's bow and stern by two wires
hung from the ceiling and measuring it's period of (yaw) oscillation about
it's centre of gravity. As the wire lengths and spacing are known, the model
radius of gyration can be calculated from;

Ta g_
k = 21t L
T =period of oscillation (seconds)

a= (wire spacing /2)

L = wire length
g = acceleration due to gravity

A value of k may be estimated for a vessel of this type as approximately 20 to

25% of the length of the vessel. ·The figure of 22.5% was used throughout
this model series, each model being ballasted to give the corresponding
period of oscillation.

Details of this method, and of the estimates of radii of gyration are given in
Bhattacharya (1978) and are not repeated here for the sake of brevity.
 66
Appendix 4.1 Displacement Tests

The effects of displacement on calm water performance and

resistance and motions in head seas was investigated through
the use of extra model tests performed with the round bilge
model in calm water and the double chine in waves. The calm
water tests were made possible by extra towing tank time
available just after the testing of the round bilge hull form but at
a time when the parent hull form (the double chine form) was
not fit for testing. For this reason, the round bilge model was
used for the extra calm water tests rather than the double chine
model.

Calm water tests at four displacements were performed,

corresponding to 91, 150, 204 (standard) and 250 tonnes at full
scale. The results of these tests are given in terms of residual
resistance coefficient (against Froude number) in figure AB and
as full scale effective power (against ship speed) in figure A9. It
can be seen that at a free running speed of 10 knots, the increase
of 175% in displacement from 91 tonnes to 250 tonnes incurs an
increase of 51% in effective power. This is less than expected
and when the residual resistance data are examined it is evident
that the light displacement has the highest coefficients of
residual resistance at all speeds, except up at the top end of the
speed range. The undulations of the residual resistance curve
for this light condition are less pronounced than for the heavier
displacements and between 10.5 and 11.5 knots, where the
residual resistance coefficient curve of the heavy displacement
condition shows a "hollow", that for the light condition is
considerably higher.

Head sea tests were conducted using the parent model at two
displacements corresponding to it's standard (204 tonnes)
displacement and a light condition of 150 tonnes.

Whilst the displacement varied, ballast was adjusted to

maintain a constant pitch moment of inertia.
 67

As for the other head sea tests, the results are presented in
figures AlO to A12 for the response amplitude operators of
added resistance, pitch and heave and then the average
responses for various sea states are given in figures A13 to AlS.
It can be seen that the reduction of displacement resulted in a
slight lessening of added resistance RAO and greater reductions
of pitch and heave, at peak response. At frequencies other than
that of peak response however, the light displacement condition
resulted in greater pitch than for the standard condition and this
is reaffirmed by the average pitch results. The average response
curves show that the reduction in displacement caused a
reduction in resistance and heave but these changes were only
small.
 28.00

. -.... ~
a <>
() 24. 00 - ~
Ct
--
X
·...____...
~
w 0
u 20. 00 -
X
z L <>
<l:
1--
(J) D
H
UJ <>
w 16. 00 - <>
a:
•
D
<>
en
w X
a.:
12.00 L~
• -
LL
LL D ~
w
0 ~
u >{-><>
oD
8. 00 - 0
D 0.$( <$>
D <X~
<>~

0~0 <If:..~~
4. 00 -
.60
xo
0.00 r ----- --~ ---. - 1
~
0. 15 0.20 0.25 0.30 0.35 0.40 0.45
FROUDE NUMBER
D 91 t. ~ 150 t. <> 204 t. X 250 t.
Figure AB: Calm Water Residual Resistance Coefficie nts.
 800.00

700. 00 - X

600. 00 ~
~ <:A
~

-a:
~

500. 00 -
w
3:
0 D
n. 6.
w 400. 00 __, <>
>
H
X
t-
u
w
D
~
lL 300. 00 -
LL
w X
<>
~D.
200. 00 - x<> o
o<§'
x<3(><> D
100.0 0-
0
~o<> ~o
g
<>~
~o<>~
0. 00 ' X 0 I~ r r r 1 r
5.00 6.00 7.00 8.00 9.00 10.00 11.00 12.00 13.00
SHIP SPEED (KNOTS)
091 t. ~ 150 t. <> 204 t. X 250 t.
Figure A9: Calm Water, Full Scale, Effect ive Power.
 60000.00 A
~

50000.00 -
~

40000.00 _,
-
( \j
(

"-z I ~
D
• 30000.00 -i 1::::.
0
•
<{
•
a: I D

20000.00 ~ IZSJ

lZSJ
10000.00 _, ~
D

IZSJ
IZSJ
~ ~
0.00 ~ I . I I I I llSl I
0.00 1.00 2.00 3.00 4.00 5.00 6.00
ENCOUNTER FREQUENCY (s-1)
D PARENT (LIGHT DISP.) L PARENT (STANDARD)

Figure AlO: Added Resistance R.A.O.s.

 0.024

6.
0. 020 -
~

-ru
I 0. 016 - D

-
E

0 I D
•
<! _,
• 0.012
([

I I D
u
t-
H
CL
0.008 __J ~

D
~

0. 004 -

~
~

0. 000 BsJ ~ I
~ ~. 6 A A I
0.00 1.00 2.00 3.00 4.00 5.00 6.00
ENCOUNTER FREQUENCY (s-1)
DMODEL 1 (LIGHT DISP.) ~MODEL 1. (STANDARD)
Figure All: Pitch R.A.O.s.
 1.80
~

1.60

D
1.40 ~

D.
1.20 D
l D
I
0

~ tJ
•
<(
• 1.00 ~
([

w
>
<( 0.80
w
:c

0.60

0.40
D

0.20 ~

~
0.00
0.00 1.00 2.00 3.00 4.00 5.00 6.00
ENCOUNTER FREQUENCY (sec-1)
D MODEL 1 (LIGHT DISP.) L MODEL 1 (STANDARD)

Figure Al2: Heave R.A.O.s.

 50000.00
~

45000.00 -
D

40000.00 - ~

D
_....,. 35000.00 -
z
-
•
(fJ 30000.00 _,
w
a: L
0
0
•
25000.00 J D
<{

•
w 20000.00 -
>
<(

15000.00 -

10000.00 ~
~

5000. 00 ~

0.00
0.40 0.80 1.20 1.60 2.00 2.40 2.80
SIG. WAVE HEIGHT (m)
D PARENT (LIGHT DISP.) ~PARENT (STANDARD)

Figure Al3: Average Added Resistance Results.

 0.11
D

0.10
L
D
l
0.09 I
L
~
0.08
I
TI
ro
-
(_

0.07 J D
L:::.
•
0...
2
<(
0.06
I
u
J-
H 0.05
0... I

. I
6
w 0.04 I
> D
<(

0.03
I
D
I
0.02

0.01
6.

0 . 00 ' --------- ----r-----------r--------r--~--------4

0.40 0.80 1.20 1.60 2.00 2.40 2.80
SIG. WAVE HEIGHT (m)
D MODEL 1 (LIGHT DISP.) L MODEL 1 (STANDARD)

Figure Al4: Average Pitch Amplitudes.

 1.40

L
1. 20 - D

L
'E 1. oo -
- D
•
_j
n..
2 0.80 -
<(

w L.
>
<(
D
w
I
0.60 -
•
w
>
<{

0.40 -
~

0. 20 -

0.00 ~-~------------------~----------~--------~----------~--------~
0.40 0.80 1.20 1.60 2.00 2.40 2.80
SIG. WAVE HEIGHT (m)
D MODEL 1 (LIGHT DISP.) L MODEL 1 (STANDARD)
Figure A15: Average Heave Amplitude s.
 68

Appendix 4.2 Radius of Gyration Tests

To study the effect of the pitch radius of gyration on

motions and added resistance in head seas, the radius of
gyration (assumed in the bifalar method to be equal for pitch
and yaw) of the parent model was increased from 22.5% of
the static waterline length (standard throughout series) to
30%. This was done by moving the ballast weights to the
ends of the model , retrimming and swinging the model
using the bifalar method of appendix 3.

The model was then towed into head seas in the same
manner as for the other models.

Figures A16 to A18 show the response amplitude operator

spectra for added resistance has increased with the higher
radius of gyration whilst the pitch amplitudes have been
reduced dramatically .

The heave results do not show much variation with radius

of gyration with only a slight reduction in heave at peak
response.

The pitch response amplitude operator spectra show that

increasing the pitch radius of gyration tends to lower the
encounter frequency of peak response.

Figures A19 to A21 give the average responses of the parent

model with the two radii of gyration. It is apparent that the
average added resistance of the hull form in head seas
increases rapidly with increases of pitch radius of gyration.
For example, in a sea state of two metre significant wave
height, the 33% increase in pitch radius of gyration resulted
in a 113% increase in the average added resistance at 10
knots. The motions results do not seem to agree with this,
as the pitch is decreased by some 15% in the same conditions
 69

whilst the heave is unchanged. The reduction in average

pitch amplitude is greatest at lower significant wave heights
as expected, as the high pitch moment of inertia is less
effected by the short (high encounter frequency) waves of
such sea state.

It may be concluded that a vessel of this type, operating in

confined (limited fetch) waters may pitch less if it's heavy
tanks and machinery are placed in the ends of the vessel.
The opposite should be encouraged for vessels operating in
open ocean in waves of long wavelength relative to the
vessel length.
 80000.00

6.
70000.00

60000.00 L D
~
I
-ru
<
50000.00
E I D
"z
_.....

40000.00
0
•
<t:
D
a: ~
30000.00 IZSJ

20000.00 ~
6.

~
10000.00 D

~
~
D
~ ~
. 0. 00 ---=
0.00 1.00 2.00 3.00 4.00 5.00 6.00
ENCOUNTER FREQUENCY (s-1)
D PARENT. (INC. RAD. GYR.) ~PARENT (STANDARD)

Figure Al6: Added Resistance R.A.O.s.

 0.024

~
0.020
~

-
~
(
0.016
- E

0
•
<{
• 0.012
a:
I D
u I
I-
H
D
0...
0.008 J ~

D
~

0.004

IZSJ D
~

LZSJ D
0.000 b-N I g) s, ILJI A 8 I
0.00 1.00 2.00 3.00 4.00 5.00 6.00
ENCOUNTER FREQUENCY {s-1)
D MODEL 1 (INC. RAD . GYR.) ~MODEL 1 (STANDARD)
Figure Al7: Pitch R.A.O. s.
 1.80
6

1.60
D

1.40 6

~
1.20
0 I
~
<(

([
0 1.00 m IZSJ

w
>
<! 0.80 ~ D
w
I

0.60

0.40

0.20 L
D

0.00
0.00 1.00 2.00 3.00 4.00 5.00 6.00
ENCOUNTER FREQUENCY (sec-1)
D MODEL 1 (INC. RAD. GYR) ~MODEL 1 (STANDARD)
Figure Al8: Heave R.A.O.s.
 70000.00

60000.00

D
50000.00
~
~
z
-
(f)
w 40000.00 ~
([

•
0 D
0
<(

. 30000.00
w I L
>
<{

20000.00

D
L.
10000.00

. 0. 00 +--~----- I ... - ·~T·----- ----- - -----------~--.

I T
0.40 0.80 1.20 1.60 2.00 2.40 2.80
SIG. WAVE HEIGHT (m)
D PARENT (INC. RAD. GYR.) ~PARENT (STANDARD)
Figur~ A19: Average Added Resistance Results.
 0.10
6.

0.09
D
L

0.08

~
D
0
<! 0.07 L
-
([

Q_ 0.06
~
<! I D
I
u 0.05
r-
H
(L I ~

• 0.04
w
>
<(

0.03
D

0.02

0.01
~

0.80 1.20 1.60 2.00 2.40 2.80

. SIG. WAVE HEIGHT (m)
D MODEL 1 (INC. RAD GYR.) L MODEL 1 (STANDARD)

Figure A20: Average Pitch Amplitude s.

 1.10

1.00 D
L

0.90
~
0.80
--
E

0.70
0...
~
<(
t1
w
0.60
>
<{
w
I 0.50

w
~ 0.40 ~

D
0.30

0.20

0. 10
~

0. 00 t_g_ - 1.20 - -----,----- •

nn-un • I

2.00
n•nn - - - - .

2.40
0.40 0.80 1.60 2.80
SIG. WAVE HEIGHT (m)
D MOD.EL 1 (INC. RAD GYR.) L MODEL 1 (STANDARD)

Figure A21: Average Heave Amplitudes.

 70
Appendix 4.3 Flow Visualisation Tests

Flow under the parent hull form was observed using the
model fitted with tufts and placed in the circulating water
channel of the Australian Maritime College. This was done
so that the flow directions necessary for the estimation of
appendage drag could be seen.

Two centimetre long woollen tufts were glued to the hull

surface at buttock line/ transverse station intersections,
along the lower chine, behind the studs at the bow and
along the keel centreline. The model was then tethered by
wires to the bow and stem in the open test section of the
channel, carefully aligned with the flow. A water speed
equivalent to ten knots (full scale) was chosen and
photographs were taken of the tufted hull with a camera
held on a long rod underneath the model.

Figures A22 to A27 show a variety of views of the

undersides of the model and of .the method of tethering the
model in the channel. Figure A23 shows the underwater
port side of the model with tufts positioned in the grid
pattern described earlier. It may be seen that generally the
flow follows the buttock lines, something also evident in
figures A25 and A26. It is also noted that the tufts along the
keel are not swept to one side of the centreline, indicating
that the hull is correctly aligned with the flow. Figure A26
shows that flow near the stern follows the inward curve of
the box keel towards where the propeller would normally be
and then tends outwards before straightening again to
follow the buttock lines.

The line of the crest of the transverse stern wave appears to

meet the hull centreline at the end of the box keel as shown
in figure A25. At this point the curve of section areas drops
sharply due to the discontinuity of the box keel.
 71

According to figure A24, if the lower chine were required to

fo~low a streamline it should be steeper at the bow and
closer to horizontal amidships. The same view shows the
array of tufts behind the array of studs at the bow of the
model, the angle of deflection ranging from around 45
degrees below horizontal to level at the keel. Bubbles can be
seen behind the studs in figure A27.

..
Ficrll res A22 (top) and P_23 (botto m): Flo\v \Tisu alisa tion Tests .
F · g ll r s ~~ 2 4 ( t o p ) an cl 1-\ 2 5 ( h o t t o 111 ) .. F l o \rJ \ Ti s ll a 1 i s A t i on T e s t s .
Figure s A26 (top) and A27 (bottom )· Flow Visual isation Tests .
 72
Appendix 5. Estimation of Appendage Drag

In order that the full scale effective power of the A.S.I. trawler
might be estimated, the drag of the vessel's appendages must be
predicted and added to the 'bare hull' resistance results from the
model tests.

Appendages fitted to these types of vessels include keel cooling

systems, sonar transducers, a rudder and a nozzle around the
propeller. Other objects such as water intakes and lifting eyes
may also be considered, as can bilge keels on some vessels but
on this design the water intake and lifting eye (above and aft of
the propeller) create little drag and no bilge keels are used.

Keel Cooling

Flow visualisation tests (see Appendix 4.3) show that flow

underneath the parent hull form in the regions of the keel
cooling systems follows the buttock lines. This is approximately
perpendicular to the keel cooling channels shown in figure A28

0.076 m

/ / / / / /

IB m

Figure A28: Schematic Plan of the Keel Cooling

System.
 73
The form drag of the keel cooling systems is estimated using the
method and data of Hoemer (1965) (pages 5-6 and 5-7).

Boundary layer thickness at 5 metres from bow (start of keel

cooling) is;

0
- ~ 1.6% (given by Hoerner)
X

h 0.076
--
X- 5 = 1.5%, so should be within B.L.

Co = 1.20 (from figure 9 pages 5-7, Hoerner.)

qeff = 0.75 X h)
(
~
1/3
X q
1
(q =2pv2)

= 0.75 X (0.94)1/3 X 12813

= 9414 kg/ms4 (allows for being inside boundary
layer)
Frontal area S = 0.11m2

Form drag D ~ Co x qeff x 0.11

~ 1.2 X 9414 X 0.11

~ 1243 N

PE ~ 5 X 1243 ~ 6 kW
for two systems; PE = 12kw

Assuming a fully turbulent boundary layer over the keel

cooling, the skin friction drag of the appendage may be
approximated by;

where RN= 76 x 106 for V= 5 m/s, L = 18m, v = 1.19 x 1Q-6m2/s

Therefore cf = 1.96 X 1Q-3
 74
So the skin friction drag is given by
1
RE = 2" pV 2S X Cf

where p = 1025 kg/m3, V= 5 m/s, 5 = 1.2 m2, cf = 1.96 X lQ-3

Therefore Rf = 30 N

As the majority of the keel cooling lies within the boundary

layer of the hull, it•s interference drag is expected to be very
small (Hoerner (1965), section 8-10).

The total drag of each keel cooling system is of the order of;
DT = 1243 + 30 = 1273 N at free running speed.

For the two systems on the parent vessel, the drag is then;
I>r = 2546N
= 2.5 kN

Sonar Transducers

The sonar transducers fitted to the bow of the parent vessel, as

illustrated below, are used as "fish finders .. in operation at the
fishing grounds and whilst navigating in shallow waters.

C·4- m

o. I M 0. :a """ O.l"'
LiZOSS. ~u:.·noN .

Figure A29: Sonar Transducer.

 75
The form drag at 10 knots ship speed may be estimated using the
coefficient values by McCormick (1979).

cdo = o.s
where the form drag is;
1
D = 2PV2 X Ccfo X A
where A = frontal area = 0.06 m2
cdo = o.5
p = 1025 kgfm3
V = 5 m/s

Therefore D = 384 N

The skin friction drag, assuming fully laminar flow is given by;

1.328
where cf = ""
2.16 X 10
6

= 9 X 10-4

and S = total added surface area = 0.44m2

1
Therefore Df = 2 x 1025 x 52 x 0.44 x 9xl0-4
=SN

Hoerner (1965) suggests that for an angle of incidence of 60°

between the transducer and the hull surface, the interference
drag is likely to approach 65% of the skin friction drag,

R1 = 0.65 x 5 = 3 N

The total drag, therefore of each sonar transducer is given by;

RT = 384 + 5 + 3 = 392N,
and for the pair of transducers (one on either side of the bow);

RT = 784N
 76

Nozzle

The lecture notes on Propeller Design by DR. P.K. Pal in the

Naval Architecture course at the University of New South
Wales give an expression for the total drag of a nozzle as
follows;

CIJN = 2Cf (1 + 2 (t/ c)2)

where Ct = 0.455 ( log(~ 0 2)J2·58

where t =maximum thickness of cross section

c =Chorct-lengthof cross section
D = internal diameter of nozzle
VeD
Reo = Ve = velocity into nozzle
V
v = 1.19 x 10-6 m2/s

The dimensions of the nozzles used on these vessels are;

C = O.Bm
t/c = 10%
Ve = Sm/s
D = 1.7m

Therefore Reo = 7.1 x 106

Therefore Ct = 0.455 x (log~:~ x 7.1 x 106)}2.58
=4.6 X lQ-3
Therefore CON= 2 x 4.6 x io-3 (1+2 (0.1)2)
= 9.4 X 10-3

1
Therefore D= 2PV2 x CON x xDC
1
=2X 1025 X 52 X 9.4 X 10-3 X 1t X 1.7 X 0.8
=515N
 77

The drag of the rudder is calculated assuming no angle of helm

and that it is approximately a NACA 0012 section.

The form drag may be estimated using the data of Abbot and
Von Doenhoff (1959) which gives;

Co0 = 0.006

and for a surface area of 4.62 m2 and a speed of 5 m/s,

1
D = 0.006 x2 x 1025 x 52 x 4.62 = 355 N

(Note that as for the nozzle drag calculations, no speed

variation for "wake-fraction" has been considered, as the
calculations are at best rough estimates only.)

The skin friction drag of the rudder may be calculated assuming

fully turbulent flow over the surface using the formula;

1
of= cf x 2PV2S
0.074
where Cf =RNl/5 = 0.0034

1
So, Df = 0.0034 X 2x 1025 X s2 X 4.62
=202N

The total drag of the rudder is then;

DT = 355 + 202 = 557 N
 78
Summary of Appendage Drag

Item Drag@ Effective

10 knots Power@
10 knots
2 x Keel Cooling Systems 2546N 1309'1 w
2 x Sonar Transducers 784N 403'3 w
Nozzle SlSN 26+'W
Rudder 557N 286SW
Total 44o2N 226+i w
: 2.2.·6kW

This combined with the added drag due to roughness (CA =

0.0004) of 1010 N (or 5 kW) means that approximately 27~ kW
should be added to the ef!ective power estimate at 10 knots from
the model tests, in predicting the effective power of the parent
vessel.

ie. PE (total, full scale) • 130 kW (bare hull)

+ 27.' kW(appendages;
roughness)
= 157., kW

This figure can be used to predict the full scale brake power
required for 10 knots, when combined with estimates for hull
and propeller efficiency made using the "Wolfson Unit
computer software" for resistance and propulsion;

Vs = 10 knots
Wake fra,tion = 0.13 ·
Thrust deduction factor = 0.21
Hull efficiency = 0.98
Relative rotative "efficiency" = I. 052.
Open water (propeller) efficiency = 0.52
Shaft "efficiency" = 0.97

Therefore quasi-propulsive efficiency

= 0.98 X 1.052 X 0.52 X 0.97
= 0.52
 79

Therefore brake power required

157
= 0.52 = 302 kW

This may be compared with a value of 345 kW from the ship

trials conducted by the builders.
 80

Appendix 6 Scaling of Model Results to Ship Scale

The Use of Form Factors

The most widely used method for the scaling of model

resistance to full scale is that of the ITTC 1957 model-ship
correlation line which is based on the assumption that the total
resistance of a vessel may be broken into two parts consisting of
the resistance due to viscous effects (Reynold's number
dependent) and the resistance due to pressure effects (Froude
number dependant), where the former may be calculated with
the formula;

0.075
Cp-
- (log1oRN - 2) 2

Whilst the latter represents the residual resistance calculated as

the difference of the measured model resistance and the viscous
resistance (Cp above).

where CT is the total (measured) resistance

Cp is calculated using the above formula

It should be noted that the formula for Cp was derived from an

earlier formula by Hughes (1954) for the frictional resistance of
flat planks;

0.067
Cp-
- (log1oRN - 2) 2

The difference in numerators of the two expressions represents

an attempt to allow for the effects of hull form on velocity,
pressure and boundary layer distributions and the resulting
change to viscous resistance. It does not, however, pertain to
 81
any particular ship form or curved surface but it cannot be
expected to apply to particularly full vessels or vessels of low
length/beam ratio because of relatively high velocity and
pressure gradients over their hull surfaces. As a result, use of
the formula for scaling of model data of very low length/beam
ratio trawlers is quite unrealistic.

In 1978 the ITTC included a correction to the viscous resistance

component (which was intended to account for such form
effects),

where Cp was still calculated using the original ITTC 1957

formula and the "form factor", (1+k), was to be found from
particularly low speed model tests. Froude number ranges of 0.1
to 0.2 were suggested for such tests which caused problems of
extensive laminar flow over small models and considerable
scatter in results. Estimates of the form factor of the parent hull
form and the beam- and draught variations may be achieved
through the use of a formula presented by Holtrop (1977) and
later in Holtrop and Mennen (1982).

T)0.2228446 ( B )0.92497 -0.521448

(1+k) = 0.93 +( L X LR X (0.95- Cp)

0.6906
X (1- Cp + 0.0225 LCB)

where T,L, and Bare draught, length on waterline and beam

respectively.
Cp is the prismatic coefficient.
LCB is the longitudinal position of the centre of
bouyancy expressed as a percentage of the waterline
length forward of amidships.
LR is the length of the run of the vessel, approximated
by the formula;

LR = L (1- Cp + 0.06 CpLCB/(4Cp -1))

 82

Using this formula, the form factors or the parent model and
the beam and draught variations were predicted and are given
in table 6.

Model Length. Beam Draught Cp LCB (1+K)

Description (m) (m) (m) %fwd (Holtrop,
ofL/2 1977)
Parent 1.612 0.487 0.200 0.594 -3.1 1.403
120% Beam 1.612 0.584 0.200 0.594 -3.1 1.489
80% Beam 1.612 0.39 0.200 0.594 -3.1 1.315
120% Draught 1.612 0.487 0.240 0.594 -3.1 1.423
80% Draught 1.612 0.487 0.160 0.594 -3.1 1.380

Table 6 Form Factor Estimates

The 12% difference between the highest and lowest form factor
estimates suggests that even when using the same correlation
method for all hull forms no comparison of their relative merit
can be made with real confidence.

The table also shows that the use of the I.T.T.C. 1957 method of
taking form factors (1 + k) of unity is likely to be grossly
incorrect. In effect the frictional resistance Rf is underestimated
by some 40 % for the wide beam model (if these estimated
values are correct). Unfortunately the researcher who uses small
models is limited to such a method.

Comparison of I.T.T.C. 1957, I.T.T.C. 1978 and A.T.T.C.

Methods.

Using the I.T.T.C. 1957 formula for the parent model results at
the equivalent of 10 knots free running speed, the "frictional"
resistance coefficient may be calculated.
 83
0.075

10 X 0.5144
where FN = ----;:::::=======-- = 0.334
~9.81 X 24.175

VM = 0.334 X ~9.81 X 1.612

= 1.328 m/s

1.328 X 1.612
Therefore (RN)M = 1.08155 x 10-6 = 1.979 X 106

Note: Vfw (@ 17°C) = 1.08155 x 10-6 m2/s (Harvald pg 334)

0.075
Therefore (Cp)M = Oog10 (1.979 x 106)-2)2
= 4.063 X 10 -3

From the model tests; (CT)M = 11.655 x l0-3

Therefore CR = (11.655- 4.063) X lQ-3

= 7.592 X 10-3

Applying the form factor estimate made using the formula

given by Holtrop;

CR = 11.655 X JQ-3 - (1.40297) X 4.063 X 1Q-3

= 5.955 X 1Q-3

This represents a reduction in the CR estimate found above of

21.6%.

Alternatively, Schoenherr's flat plate friction line may be used.

0.242
:rc;
where RN= 1.979 x JQ6 (from above, for free running speed)
 84
0.242
therefore --r;:::- = Iog1o (1.979 x 106 Cp)
-vCF

which may be solved to give Cp = 3.880 x 10-3

and using Granville's "form factor" estimate (see Harvald

(1983))

Cv 33.8 x 0.3752
Lp = 1 + (3.310)(8.058)

= 1.178

therefore Cv = 1.178 x 3.880 x 1Q-3 = 4.571 x l0-3

So, CR = CT - Cy
= 11.655 X 10-3- 4.571 X 10-3
= 7.084 X 1Q-3

(CR) 5 = (CR)M, CT = CR + Cp
therefore (CT)s = (Cp)5 + (CR)M

0.075
For the I.T.T.C. 1957 method; (Cp)5 = (logto(RN)s _ 2 )2

(1+k) 0.075
I.T.T.C. 1978; (Cp)s = (loglQ(RN)s - 2)2

A.T.T.C.;

0.242
· where = loglo(RN Cp)
VcF
 85

5.144 X 24.175
I.T.T.C 1957; (RN>s = 1 .8831 x 10-6

(vsw = 1.18831 x 10-6m2/sat 15°C) •

0.075
therefore (Cp)s = OogJo(104.6 x 106)5 - 2) 2

therefore (CT)s = 2.070 X J0-3 + 7.592 X J0-3 = 9.662 x J0-3

I.T.T.C. 1978; (1 +k) = 1.403 as previously.

therefore (Cp)S = 1.403 X 2.070 x l0-3 = 2.904 X 10-3

therefore (CT>s = 2.904 x l0-3 + 5.955 x 10-3

= 8.859 X 10-3

A.T.T.C. (RN>s = 104.6 x 106

0.242
therefore ~ = log10 (104.6 X 106 X (Cp)S)
(Cp)s

therefore (Cp) 5 = 2.059 x Io-3

and (1 + k1) = 1.178 as before

therefore (Cv)s= 1.178 X 2.05~ X 10-3 = 2.426 X J0-3

therefore (CT)s = 7.084 X l0-3 + 2.426 x l0-3

= 9.510 X 10-3
 86

Method (1 + k)

0.075
I.T.T.C.
(log1oRN- 2) 2
- CR =CT-CF 2.070 X 10-3 9.662 X 10'3

1957 4.063 X 1 7.592 X IO'·

I.T.T.C. as above (1) CR =CT - (1 + k)Cp as above

-3
1978 as above 1.403 5.955 X 1Q-3 as above 8.859 X 10

0.242
A.T.T.C. <\j =logtQ(RN Cp) (2) CR =CT - (1 + k)Cp
Cp
-3
3.880 X lQ-3 1.178 7.084 X lQ-3 2.424 X lQ-3 9.510 X )0

(1) Holtrop (1984)

(2) Granville (see Harvald. (1983))

Table 7 Results Found Using Different Scaling Procedures

Table 7 shows that whilst the I.T.T.C. 1957 method produces a

similar result to that of the A.T.T.C. (Shoenherr and Granville)
method, the I.T.T.C. 1978 result is approximately ten percent
lower. This discrepency remains .unsolved unless large scale
models are tested - a suggestion for further work.
 87

APPEND I X 7

FULL SCALE PREDICTION METHOD

For a resistanc e test the model is towed at speeds giving the

same Froude Number <F,,) as for the full scale vessel. The total
model resistanc e RTM is measured.

The conversio n from model to ship is made according to the 1957

ITTC Performan ce Prediction Method. This implies that the
fl,..ictiana l r·esist.anc e coef·ficie nt <CF> is c:alcLtlate d from the
ITTC model - ship correction line, giving the relation between CF .
and Reynolds number <Rn>.

= • Rn = VL Fn = V
(log 10 Rn-2> 2 ' V ~,.gL

V = speed, 1n m/s

L - length of waterline in m

u = kinematic viscosity , in m 2 /s

g = accelerat ion of gravity, in m/s 2

I t is assLtmed that the residuary resistanc e coefficie nt

identical for model a.nd ship at the same Fn and that the
resistanc e is the sum of the frictiona l plus residuary
component s.

Hence: -
1/2p "'V"' 28rn

and CF'nl - ~
(.)."'7C'
(_)
._J

( 1 og 10 R,m - 2) 2

thLlS - CTM - CFrn

\I'Jhen the SLtbsc:ript 11

ffi 11
stands for model valLte.

l\l o ~..., s i n c e ,

-
-

and

where the sLtbscrip-t "s" s·tands for ship valLte ..

 88
f

Hence the effective power can be calculated from:

F'e - Va

A roughness or fouling allowance can be made to CFe if required

and appendage drag can be added to RTe where necessary.

The required brake horse power can then be obtained from:

- F·e
'1 ol1 a

t~here = quasi propulsive coefficient

-- shaft transmission efficiency

no and ~a depend on the hull form, the type and position of the
propeller<s>, the shaft, gearbox, and stern tube efficiencies
etc. but as a first approximation ~o~a can be assumed to be 0.5.
This figure may be modified from full scale experience with
sitnilar vessel types.