19

DESIGN OF SMALL INLAND COMMERCIAL VESSELS

A. Bari and K.H. Chowdhury

Department of Naval Architecture and Marine Engineering

Bangladesh University of Engineering and Technology.
Dhaka. Bangladesh

Int. Shipbuild. Progr., 36, no. 405 (1989) pp. 19-50

Received: September 1987

Accepted: February 1988

Design models for seagoing ships are available in the existing liter-
ature but those for small inland commercial vessels are very rare. This
paper presents consolidated design models. developed as well as
collected and arranged for self-propelled inland cargo vessels and
push towed tug barges having capacity upto 850 DWT. Instead of
random generation approach the design model is static as they are
developed on the basis of regression analyses of data of existing
vessels but adequately suitable for computerisation and optimisation.
Satisfactory consistency of the designs generated by the models and
subsequent finally designed vessels in last four years establishes good
predictability of the model.

Nomenclature

AE/AO blade area ratio

B breadth (ft)
BHP brake horse power (installed)
BHPA approximate brake horse power
BIWTA Bangladesh Inland Water Transport Authority
BM height of metacentre above centre of buoyancy (ft)
CB block coefficient
20

C2 coefficient used in [7]

CC2 corrected value of C2 as obtained from the curve in [7]
Cx,y,z coefficient taken from [20] for four bladed propeller
CWP waterplane coefficient
DWT dead weight (ton)
DWTO operational dead weight (ton)
DWTC carrying capacity (ton)
DMW dry weight of the main engine (ton)
Dx,y,z coefficient taken from [20] for four bladed propeller
EHP effective horse power
f minimum required freeboard (ft)
H water depth (ft)
J advance coefficient
KG height of centre of gravity from keel (ft)
KMT height of transverse metacentre above keel (ft)
KQ torque coefficient
KT thrust coefficient
L length (ft)
LOA length overall (ft)
Lpp length between perpendiculars (ft)
mx BM coefficient
N revolutions per minute
NC number of barges in line
NR number of barges in row
OWT other weight (ton)
PjD pitch diameter ratio
PROY crew effect and provision weight (ton)
QPC quasi -propulsive coefficient
Rf flotilla resistance, lb.
t thrust deduction factor
T draft (ft)
TCFW weight of casting and forging (ton)
TEQW weight of equipment (ton)
Tf overall pusher efficiency
TLWT light ship displacement (ton)
 21

TSWT total steel weight (ton)

TWW weight of wood (ton)
V speed (knots)
W waterway breadth (ft)
x,y,z coefficients taken from [19] for four bladed propeller
displacement (ton)
displacement volume (ft3)
propulsive efficiency (QPC)
open water propeller efficiency
hull efficiency
relative rotative efficiency
wake factor

Introduction

For design of seagoing ships there are mathematical models available,

which can be used at the preliminary stage of design and especially for
the computer aided evaluation of alternatives. A search for such tools
during an original research [1] showed that for small vessels to be
designed for inland waterways, a complete design model is non-existent
in the accessible literature.
With an aim to replace the country-boat fleet operating along the main
waterway channels of Bangladesh the models for design of inland
commercial vessels had to be used in [1] to investigate a series of alter-
natives of self -propelled cargo vessels and push towed tug barge
systems, thus requiring generation of enormous numbers of combina-
tions. The database for the developed models are the collection of data
available in the literature, which is of course very scanty and that of
vessels plying in Bangladesh inland waters.
The models developed are found to generate acceptable results over
range of 25 to 500 tons dead weight (DWT) and for tug barge systems
over a range of barge capacity of 50 to 500 tons for different flotilla
configurations having a maximum of six barges in a flotilla.
During the last four years satisfactory consistency was found between
22

the designs generated by the models and subsequent finally designed

vessels of upto 850 tons DWT. In this paper the design models have
been presented for further critical examination and refinement, if need
be, so that a persisting gap in the field of naval architecture of small
vessels is reduced.

Self -propelled vessels

A computer program was developed using data of 75 self -propelled

cargo vessels plying in Bangladesh. The designs were checked for con-
structional requirements and stability, estimating all weights in order to
assign the dead weight capacity of the vessel.

Dead weight carrier approach

Dead weight carrier approach stands as

Lwelg
. ht = displacement. (1)

Displacement due to appendages and shell which may be smaller than

1% [2] is ignored. Required dead weight capacity and speed has been
taken as a starting point. Developed relationships were as follows:

DWT O = (DWTc)0.50 (2)

tl. = 1.281 • DWT + 7.726 (3)

where

DWT = DWT O + DWTc (4)

tl. = f(L.B.T.C B).
 23

Dimension and form

A general consideration regarding dimension and form in the design of

inland vessels is that the fullness of form is not only a function of ratios
and speed but also of the absolute dimension, e.g. size of the ship. The
bow of small inland cargo vessel is made as full as fair lines permit
avoiding any undue shoulder. To get a proper waterflow at the propel-
ler, the lower part of the afterbody is made fine. This fine form of the
lower part of the afterbody is necessary to avoid trim by bow when
loaded. It also helps in getting proper propeller immersion in light
condition without ballast. This results in block coefficient (CB) often
less than that predicted by the empirical relationships available in the
literature at lower speeds due to comparatively lower proportion of
parallel middle body. At higher speed (CB) predicted by the above
formulae is rather finer than the CB generally used for inland water-
way vessels. As such the design model uses the following empirical
relation developed from regression analysis:

CB = 1.0 - 0.425 V/vIL . (5)

For a particular carrying capacity, allowable maximum breadth (B),

depth (D) and CB results in a least cost ship in that order whereas a
particular speed demands suitable length and CB for economy in
propulsive power. Conceptually, therefore, the least cost ship should
have length as given by the following formula which takes into account
in effect of speed and desired CB:

1/3 1/3
Lpp. C B = 4.9878 V + 20.80. (6)

From Equations (5) and (6) Lpp and CB can be determined for a
particular displacement and speed.
Breadth and depth are determined to meet stability requirement and
to avoid hull deflection as the distance of vertical centre of gravity and
transverse metacentre from keel are functions of depth and breadth,
respectively. In inland navigation, as speed is not very important and as
24

L 0 (Feet)
30 40 SO 60 70 80 90 100 110

35 Lp= (4.9878 V113 -20. 80)/c~3 0

0
120
LO= Length of existing vessels 00 co 110

30 V =Volume of Oisp. (ft3)

100
0

Cb= Block coef ficient

90
o

80 a;
If
, Q.
...J 20 70 ,0-
-
...J

60
50

40
15 20 25 30 3S
LO (Metre)

Figure 1. Estimating relation for length of self- propelled vessel.

BO (feet)
5 10 15 20
8~~---T----~----~--~~

BO= Breadth of Existing

vessel
B~= Calculated (feet)
20
6 o
~

o
o a;
o go <II

,Q.
15~
,Q.
Ol 4 o
Ol

10
o 00 0 B~= [1.8433 (V /LpC~/3)
2 o + 0.249 /c~3] 5

2 4 6 8
BO (Metre)

Figure 2. Estimating relation for beam of self-propelled vessel.

 25

the effect of beam on resistance is less at higher Froude number, these

vessels become beamy. Also restriction in draft makes the breadth draft
ratio higher. As a result, these vessels show usually stability well in
excess of minimum requirement.
Some fifteen full-scale stability experiments carried out by the
authors in association with the Dutch Advisory Team of BIWTA showed
that the stability is also adequately enough at light condition. Hull
deflection is not a problem of these vessels as the length depth ratios are
usually less than 18, which is adequately lower to resist hull deflection
with usual scantlings in inland operating conditions. As such, following
regression relation is established without any constraint:

(7)

Data of the vessels used in regression analysis also shows the following
relation between draft and depth:

D = 1.25 T + 0.50. (8)

Figures 1 and 2 show the relations for determination of length and

beam respectively and the predictability of the relation.

Components of weight

To satisfy Equation (1) it is necessary to know all the weight compo-

nents of the left-hand side. These are estimated as follows:

(a) Steel weight

With the advent of use of computer in ship design, empirical relation
for estimating steel weight were presented by different authors for big
ships [2,3,4].
The following model has been tried to relate the steel weight with ship
parameters

Y = mx + C (9)
26

where Y is the steel weight (tons).

For inland vessels LOA will be a better measure of steel ness than Lpp.
Thus

(10)

and

al =K log10 LOA

a2 = K log10 B

a 3 = K log10 D
(11 )
a 4 = log 10 (3)

and

K = 3 / [log 10 LOA + log10 B + log 10 D].

Using 75 data sets of estimated steel weight, the values of m and C have
been found to be 0.001187 and 5.748, respectively. Figure 3 shows the
model for estimation of steel weight and its predictability.

(b) Machinery weight

To estimate machinery weight approximate BHP is calculated from the
following equation taken from [5]:

BHP A = 0.08 y2.55 • DWT°.45. (12)

Machinery weight estimating relation is usually in the form of y = mxn

[2] dry weight from manufacturer's catalogue for four different
'makes', engine specifications varying on a range of 75 BHP at 2500
RPM to 3000 BHP at 1000 RPM, are used for regression. The abcissa
has been taken as torque rating at a particular RPM for all the data sets.
The derived relation is as follows:
 27

5T; (Ton)

14 0 r--r--=2:,:0'---T--.,40~,....:6r:0---,-....:8T°--r_l:::;0~0-.--......:.;.=--~
130 ST~: Steel weight predicted (ton)
120 120
STe = Estimated Steel weight (ton)
of existing vessel
100 I

OJ 90 cSTp =
C
C
~ 80 80 ~
70 c..
c..
l- 60 til O2 = K Log 10 8
V) 60
50 03 = K Log 10 0
40 40 04= Log 10 ( 3 )
30
20
10
20 40 60 80 100 120 140
STe (Tonne)

Figure 3. Steel weight estimating relation.

DMW = 0.0129 • BHPA 0.90 + 0.16. (13)

Total weight of machinery installation has been taken as 3.5 times the
dry weight.

(c) Other weight

It is conventional to relate the outfit weight to the square number L x B
as done in [3,6]. The relation used is as follows:

OWT = 0.45 • Lpp x B/100 (14)

where OWT is other weight in tons.

28

Powering

Ayre presented a method and data for calculating effective horse power
(ERP) without differentiating the origins of components of resistance
and subsequently updated them.
Main thesis of Ayre's method which has been followed, is to pick up the
C2 value [6] against speed length ratio from the C2 curve correspond-
ing to the length/displacement ratio (L/V I /3). C2 value thus obtained
is corrected for the difference between actual and standard longitudinal
centre of buoyancy position if needed, and length factor. Thus
3
EHP = 0.64 x V (15)

Propulsion

Emerson's formula (7) as follows is used in estimating quasi-propulsive

coefficient (QPC)

QPC = K - NL/18,000. (16)

The value of K has been taken as 0.84 as suggested by Watson and

Gilfillan [2] for single screw which takes into account the modern
improvement of propeller design.

(a) Transmission efficiency

Shaft loss has been taken as 2% and loss due to gearing as 3% resulting
in a transmission efficiency of 0.95.

(b) Maximum continuous rating

This has been taken as 80% to 90% increasing with increasing speed.

(c) Engine derating

Because of tropical operational environment, thermal efficiency achieved
is lower than usual. As such increased installed power is needed to get a
 29

particular thrust. This factor has been taken as 1.08 which was deter-
mined by the authors in association with the Dutch Advisory Team
examining cooling water temperature during full-scale trial of inland
vessels.

(d) Service margin

This is a factor which depends to a great extent on the operational
environment. The authors prefer to take a typical service margin factor
of 1.10 and a constant nominal reserve power in all cases.

Consistency between installed power calculated by model (BHP) and

installed power of existing vessel has been checked and a good consis-
tency is found to exist.

Barge

Recommendations on barge hull forms can only be made with respect to

particular size and flotilla configuration, degree of integration, uni-
formity of loaded draft and speed. The hull form of a barge for a
pushed tow is mainly guided by the aim of getting a solid uniform
flotilla to reduce turbulence. It was seen that deadweight ratios and
light weight of similar size barges vary over a wide range depending
on the nature of commodity to be carried, intended service and the
nature of operation. The design model, therefore, has been developed
using relations derived from regression analyses of data of 42 barges,
designs which have been approved by BIWTA over a period of five
years. Ignoring hull form details, CB has been taken as 0.85 which will
allow a suitable forward rake and slope. The hull forms of the barges
will be with appropriate forward rake, straight side and rectangular
stern with round bilge which will make them suitable for semi-
integrated flotilla configuration.
 30

Dimensions

For a particular barge capacity, dead weight is estimated and is calcu-

lated from line B of Figure 4. To initialise the design process, the light
weight is calculated against L x B x D and hence the displacement. It is
followed by dimensions estimated as follows:

Lpp = 4.356 • yl/3 (17)

and

B = 0.235 • Lpp. (18)

Lines of Equation (17) and Equation (18) are shown in Figure 5.

900
30 A Deck Roosted Lighters for Expor ts 30

28 C"\~ 800 B
C
Bangladesh Dry Cargo Borges
Homburg Conal Lighter
28

26\\ \\ D Homburg Harbour Lighter 26

::,...,.....
,\0 ',\\
-
,., - 24 700 E I ron ore Cor rier in Rhine 24.!! ~
:: ~ €.~. \ \..\ M
\ E u
22:.g ~
-£ 22 \ \ \ \
8 ~20
.!,'
600 a.
,,~
u

\, 20 -g ~
x I! \, '. \ ~ x
-£ ~ IS \\ \' 500
180 .£:
-" ~
o " \ '. - "C
"8 : g
t
m
~
! 14
16 ,

\
\ .
\.

\ \ 400
.
16·<;

"om
"-
o \ . VI x
\\\ 12 ~
-
'"
£
c:
0\
\ .\ \ \ . 300 10 :: ~
\ '\
\\. 8

f
'- \\~ 200

r
" \~\

I, • \~'lI0
oL-~~-L_~ __~~-L~__~~-L-L~__~~-L~~__~~-L~~__~~-L~~,o
125 100 75 50 25 50 100 150 200 250 300 350 400 450
Light weight (Tonne) Deadweight (Tonne)

Figure 4. Dimensions of different types of barges.

 31

Freeboard requirement as discussed in the case of self -propelled vessels

also applies for barge design.

D = 1.25 T. (I9)

For seatrade, the buckling of the flotilla and the required barge pro-
portions and scantlings are considered in the barge design in [8]. For
inland barges, LID ratio of 20 is adequate. As such a constraint as
follows is incorporated:

L/D::c.:; 18. (20)

Components of weight

Steel weight is calculated using similar model as in self -propelled

vessel. Values of coefficient and constant are found to be 0.001013 and
4.5620 respectively from regression of 42 data sets. However, barges
for a pushed tow should have greater scantlings than that of barges
plying at present. Towards getting the flotilla as a solid unit so that
turbulence can be minimum, generally, the usual fender is avoided.
Instead a side shell of heavier scantlings is provided. As such a coeffi-
cient of 0.00110 and constant of 5.50 are taken which will allow some
7.5% increased scantlings. Thus:

al a2 a3 a4
Steel weight = 0.0011 • LOA • B • D • C B + 5.50 (21)

where

al = 3 log10 LOA I (logl O LOA + log10 B + 10gl0 D)

a 2 = 3 loglO B I (loglo LOA + loglO B + log10 D)
a 3 = 3 log10 D I (1oglo LOA + log 10 B + log10 D)
a4 = log10 (3).
 32

140 4 140

40
120 120
0
0 35 <II
....
(j; -;:;
100 E 100 ::::

- -
0
o
30 -E
o 0 00 0
.c
0

o 0 0
C1I
c 0 0
'"
C
<II
-EC1I 80 25 ~O

r
'"

r
o 0 ...J
...J

r
C 0 o 0
<II 0
...J
20
60
15
40 <l 10
t> 40

9 8 7 6 5 4 3 40 4.5 5.0 5.5 6.0 6.5 7.0 7.5 8.0

Breadth in metre '/3 (m)
V
Figure 5. Dimensions 0/ barges 0/ Bangladesh.

Crew accommodation on deck will be avoided for better visibility in

case of push towing of light barges, which will provide provision of
extra increased scantlings.
Other weight is calculated according to Equation (22):

OWT = .00302 Lpp • B. (22)

Tug

There exists quite an extensive literature on design of tow boats or tugs.

However, the hull form of a tow boat gets less attention from resistance
point of view as the flottila in front of a tow boat always determines
the hydrodynamic characteristics. Where free running is important, the
design is likely to be governed by the criterion of free running speed.
However, the preliminary design here aims at providing a particular
 33

LBp
3 10 20 30 SO
1000
~
10
~ 30 1200 900
Q;
E 800
8 1000
"0
c
2S ~ 700 ~
0 '"
E ~
20 800 600 ::
a; 6
~

"0 "-
~ c
0
500 ~
15 600 0
1,00 0-

-'"
E 4 a;
0 "0

'"
m 10 1,00 ~ 300 ~
m .2
~ 200 1/1
2 5 E 200 lii
c

'0
~
0 100
"- 0-
0 0
20 1,0 60 80 100 120 140 160 180
LBp (feet)

Figure 6. Preliminary pusher dimensions.

LBp (Metre)
.... 10 20 30 1,0
'" a;'"
"-
J!! 20
C
0
S~c
'" 15
E
I, E
0

-.... 10
"C
0
"- 3 '0
....
"-
0
"0
C
Draft (mean) 2 "0
0 C
0
.e I.e
a. C.
III
0 III
0 0
20 1,0 60 80 100 120 11,0 160
L8 p (feet l

Figure 7. Depth and draft of pusher.

34

power, a suitable crew accommodation, adequate beam to ensure stabi-

lity and a suitable draft within the limit set by available water depth to
accommodate propeller to absorb power. As the pusher usually has two
screws to ensure adequate manoeuvrability required for flottila
handling specially in inland waterways, a draft allowing adequate
propeller diameter to absorb power without overloading is not really a
constraint at usual speed except in extremely restricted water. Medium
or high speed diesel to avoid excessive machinery weight, with reserve
reduction gear controlled directly from wheel house so that the pilot
can react immediately to an emergency, will be the prime mover of the
pusher.

Tug power

It is assumed that the installed power needed to deli ver thrust will
overcome the sum total resistance of flotilla and pusher. It can be argued
that due to interaction of the flotilla and pusher hull, the summation of
the separate EHP of the flotilla and the pusher may not give total accu-
rate EHP of the tow. This is undoubtedly true, and an increase of resis-
tance may be encountered depending on the shape of the barge where
the pusher joins the flotilla due to pressure increase in the vicinity of
the joint and negative effect of the wake stream. On the other hand, the
pusher self -resistance behind a flotilla is likely to be less due to the
advantage of a much lower speed-length ratio than that when running
free at an associated higher speed-length ratio. The problem can be
resolved only by model tests for a particular tow and translating the
findings properly to full scale. It is likely that the increase in resistance
due to interaction will be balanced by decrease in pusher resistance
working behind the flotilla.
When the barge dimensions, flotilla configuration and tow speed are
known the flotilla resistance can be calculated according to Howe's
resistance function [9, I 0] as given below:
 35

where Lf = L·Ne and Bf = B·NR.

The authors have compared the resistance predicted by Howe's func-
tion with the curves of flotilla resistance presented by Lenderer [II]
for six different flotilla configurations for comparatively small-sized
barges which have rectangular waterlines with extremities in parabolic
shape and found them to be consistent.

Dimensions and form

Unless a preliminary estimate of pusher dimensions and forms are made,

its resistance, propulsive efficiency etc. cannot be known. Again the
primary consideration of choosing the length is its ability to accommo-
date the machinery necessary to give the required tow speed. Selecting a
suitable length for a favourable resistance is rarely done mainly consid-
ering the manoeuvrability, a wider beam and adequate draft to avoid
excessive tunneling requirement in case of a pusher design. Flotilla
EHP is suitably increased to get an estimated tow EHP and a pusher
propulsive efficiency is assumed to get the preliminary estimate of
required installed power. First estimate of pusher length is made from
Figure 6 taken from [12]. Pusher breadth and draft are estimated also
from Figure 6 against length. Pusher depth is estimated from Figure 7
taken from [13] against draft.

Components 0/ light weight

Kari's tug steel weight [14] and the same model as used in the self-
propelled vessels have been used. The values of m and c of Equation (9)
have been found to be 0.00161 and 5.4666 respectively for pusher tugs.
The degree of fitting is shown in Figure 8.
36

5T K (Tonne)

120 20 40 60 80 laO

5TK = Kari tug steel weight

100
ST = Calculated by Author's
90 P model
m = 0.001610 c= 5.4666 80 <II
C
C

-
c 0
t-
o
o
60
a. 60 a.
t- t-
V'! o • River Scantlings V'!
o Lloyd's lOa Al 40
30
20

30 60 90 120
ST K (Ton)

Figure 8. Predictability of steel weight estimation model (pusher).

Machinery weight is calculated using the same relation as for self-

propelled vessel.

DWM = [0.0129 (BHP/2)0.90 + 0.1563] • 2.0. (25)

However, pusher will be twinscrew and as such BHP is divided by 2

and the dry weight is taken twice. Total weight of pusher machinery
installation will be higher than that of a self -propelled vessel for a
corresponding power. Therefore, instead of a multiplier of 3.5 used in
the case of a self -propelled vessel, a multiplier of 4.0 is used.
Approximate outfit weights for different class of tugs have been
given by Caldwell as mentioned in [15]. However, the following values
for pushers have been approximated:
 37

TWW = TSWT x 8.5/75.0

TCFW = TSWT x 9.5/75.0 (26)
TEQW = TSWT x 7.0/75.0.

Hence light weight is achieved.

TLWT = . hts = TSWT + TWW + TCFW + TEQW.

Lwelg (27)

As the length is determined to accommodate a particular required

machinery, more specifically, a particular light weight, the minimum
required length is re-estimated here when the light weight is known
from the following equation derived from [12]:

log10 Lpp = 0.3775 x log10 (TLWT) + 1.1125. (28)

The whole process is repeated with new length calculated according to

Equation (28) until successive estimated length comes into an acceptable
closeness.

Stability

In usual tug design, stability always gets greater attention and yet trip-
ping of tug on tow line is not unknown. Caldwell [15] presented a table
of formulae and ranges of metacentric height (GM) given by different
authors and according to the existing practice of different countries,
which can be used to check static stability.
However, Simpson's formula taken from [15] for the required beam
to get a good GM is used to check the stability. The formula stands as:

5C - 2C
B = [KM - [T ( ~~ B)] T / mx] 1/2. (29)
WP

CWP has been calculated according to [15] and the value of mx is

calculated according to [17].
38

The range of stability of a tug is also very important. For the towing
tug, the range of positive stability should be up to 70 degrees [12]. In
the preliminary design, this is largely accounted for by ensuring ade-
quate freeboard. Simpson [16] recommended a minimum freeboard of
10% of the beam. A constraint as follows is incorporated:

f ~ 0.10 B. (30)

o perationa! dead weight

On inland waterways, operational dead weight will be mostly due to
the weight of bunkers. Bunker capacity has been provided for seven
days 24 hours operation. Specific fuel consumption is taken as 0.38
IbjBHPj hour. Bunker weight calculated as such is increased by 10% to
include lub oil and residue effect.
Crew effect and provision weight has been calculated as follows:

PROY = 0.2 x [(0.129 (LoB)0.S7 + 0.10 (BHP)0.6S]. (31)

Tug EHP

Reference [18] is used to estimate pusher EHP. The predictability of

the method can be seen from Figure 9 taken from [18]. The distribution
of form parameters of the models as shown in [1 8] covers the range of
pushers normally plying on inland waters in different countries.

Propulsion

The propeller of a pusher works in favourable wake of the flotilla [8].

There is hardly any work done on finding relation for estimating the
wake factor of a tow, nor any relation defining the quasi-propulsive
efficiency of a pusher. The following relation (Eq. (32)) has been
developed on the principle described in [8]:
 39

I
Mean error 7" 7 'I. /
Tug I
10 I
I
I
I
~

01
/
:.:: /
/
a. I
III
Predicted /
""0 --o.f
/
~ / Model test
I Results
CI>
c 5 ;.
~
I.
.::; /
/
(j; ,,-
,,- /
a.
//
GI
u
c .- ..... -- --
B
III
"iii
4>
0:::

°6 7 8 9 10
Speed in Knots

Figure 9. Predictability of model of estimating EHP (pusher).

Tf = 3.769 (fr:] - 13.271 (fr:) 2 + 27.708 (fr:) 3 +

- 33.492 (;t) 4 + 20.943 (;t) 5 - 5.323 (;t) 6. (32)

The relation is developed using data generated by the following model.

Efficiency predicted by the model is checked by hand calculation for
consistency and cavitation criteria.
Taking 5% transmission loss, 8% for engine derating for tropical condi-
tion and 10% for service margin

T f = n D x 0.95 x 0.92 x 0.90 (33)

nD = PE/PD = nO x nR x nR (34)

nO = (KT/KQ) (J/21l") (35)

40

and according to [19]

KT = C (AE/ AO)x (P/D)Y (J)z

x,Y,z
(36)
x Y z
KQ = D x,y,Z (AE/AO) (P/D) (J).

Values of coefficients Cx,y,z and Dx,y,z and values of x, y and z are

taken from [19] for four bladed propeller.
The value of thrust deduction factor (t), wake factor (wt), have been
found from relations used in [18]. The relative rotative efficiency is
also found from the relation available from [18]. Maximum continuous
rating has been taken as 80% to 90% increasing linearly with increasing
speed.

Summary of design process

The design process in case of self -propelled vessel starts with estimating
preliminary dimensional parameters using relations developed from the
regression analysis. This is followed by estimation of components of
weight. For machinery weight, the power is calculated using empirical
relation [5] at this stage. The process is repeated and final dimensional
parameters as well as block coefficient are determined satisfying the
constraint Lweight = displacement. For the required speed, EHP is
calculated using Ayre's data and his method [6]. Emerson's formula is
used for estimating quasi-propulsive coefficient. Delivered power thus
obtained is increased for transmission loss, margin for maximum contin-
uous rating, engine derating for tropical condition and typical service
margin.
The design model for barges has been developed using relations
derived from regression analysis of data of barges plying in Bangla-
desh. The model for steel material estimation, which is similar as in the
case of self -propelled vessels, takes into account increased scantlings
required for barges to be used in a pushed tow operation.
 41

The tug design model aims for designing a suitable pusher tug for a
specified flotilla and a given tow speed. Thus the model is mainly
flotilla resistance-oriented. The flotilla EHP is calculated using Howe's
resistance function [9,10]. The EHP is calculated using the model pre-
sented in [18]. The tug hull form coefficients and principal dimensions
are determined mainly on the basis of relations and diagrams available
from existing literatures. The tug steel material weight is calculated
using similar model as in the case of self -propelled vessels but with the
slope and constant, which are determined from regression analysis using
Kari's tug steel weights [14] with appropriate modification for modern
practice. Simpson's formula is used to ensure stability criteria of the tug.
The overall propulsive efficiency of the tug, which includes similar
margin as in the case of self -propelled vessel is determined using an
empirical relation derived from regression analysis and data generated
by using the model presented in [19] for open water propeller effi-
ciency.

Sample output

Table 1 shows main designed particulars of sample vessels as have been

obtained from the design model of self -propelled vessels. Figure 10
shows a general arrangement plan of a vessel of 150 tons capacity
having a length of 26 m and an engine of 47 kW which will give a
service speed of 6 miles/hour. The plan shows the available space of
about 250 m 3 for cargo storage and a crew accommodation with typical
facilities for a complement of 8. The dimensions predicted by the design
model meet the requirement of space for cargo storawe, crew
accommodation on aft deck and a suitable engine room underdeck.
42

TABLE 1. Particulars of sample self -propelled vessels

PARTICULARS OF SELF-PROPELLED VESSELS

Carry- length breadth depth block displ. light steel power
ing betw. mold mold coef. fresh wt. wt. instal.
capac. perp. (m) (m) water (ton) (ton) (kW)
(ton) (m) (ton)

Design speed 5 miles/hour

50 16.82 4.76 l.84 0.752 8l.0 52.2 20.0 24.0
100 2l.77 5.51 2.12 0.782 147.0 39.2 3l.8 27.6
150 25.35 6.06 2.32 0.798 21l.9 52.4 43.2 3l.1
200 28.06 6.53 2.49 0.808 276.4 64.8 54.0 34.7
250 30.55 6.91 2.63 0.816 340.3 77.2 65.0 38.1
300 32.65 7.23 2.75 0.822 40l.6 89.0 75.4 4l.4
350 34.86 7.61 2.82 0.827 466.5 102.7 87.6 44.9
400 37.38 8.14 2.82 0.831 537.0 120.4 103.3 49.2
Design speed 7 miles/hour
50 17.85 5.01 l.93 0.663 84.l 27.6 2l.4 43.2
100 22.83 5.75 2.20 0.702 150.9 42.7 33.7 50.9
150 26.23 6.32 2.41 0.722 215.8 56.2 45.2 58.4
200 29.31 6.76 2.58 0.737 282.3 70.1 57.2 65.6
250 31.67 7.15 2.72 0.747 345.8 82.7 68.2 72.8
300 33.95 7.54 2.82 0.755 410.8 96.3 80.1 80.2
350 36.81 8.06 2.82 0.762 480.4 114.6 96.2 88.6
400 39.45 8.49 2.82 0.768 546.l 132.8 112.3 96.5
Design speed 9 miles/hour
50 19.00 5.31 2.04 0.580 88.1 3l.3 23.0 88.9
100 24.09 6.04 2.31 0.627 156.6 47.5 36.2 102.7
150 27.67 6.58 2.51 0.652 223.0 62.2 48.6 117.6
200 30.41 7.04 2.68 0.668 287.6 75.9 60.2 13l.7
250 32.93 7.41 2.81 0.681 352.6 89.6 72.0 144.3
300 35.97 7.98 2.82 0.691 42l.3 108.1 88.0 156.7
350 39.04 8.52 2.82 0.700 494.1 128.8 106.2 169.8
400 4l.98 8.99 2.82 0.708 565.7 150.4 125.2 182.5
 43

~
1.0 co cOl.D CO:::S:::
_ NCO....,._M""O
-
E N
r---:LS1""~~"':"
N ...z c

E ~ ~
o
_ ·c
0 u
1111-- Vl
CO.oN

-a

- '"'"
C
o.
C-
III

E '"
-0...-
'" u
Ei:: ..
8~LL

I~
8
11

,~
\

,..,o o
N

Figure 10. General arrangement of a 150 tons self-propelled cargo

carrier.
44

o
00

~~ID~Cn
I I I I
:: "O'-f...u,
\
Ol N

.t: .s
.t:-
_"U.s=, .....
0\0 _ _ .!!!
C Q.I 0.. 0 o
u
~m~.5 Vl

o~

,..,
o
\
'I
..
u
o
0..
Vl
01
C
:~
--'

------~------~ ....~
u

I • I I
,..,o
I I I I I I I I I I
o o
N ....o o
III

Figure 11. General arrangement of a 200 tons pusher barge.

 45

TABLE 2. Sample barge particulars

cap. length breadth depth draft displ. light steel

(ton) (m) (m) (m) (m) (ton) wt. wt.
(ton) (ton)

150 24.76 5.91 1.98 1.58 197.05 43.56 37.25

200 27.07 6.46 2.17 1.73 257.44 53.22 45.70
250 29.05 6.92 2.33 1.86 318.00 62.65 54.00
300 30.78 7.33 2.47 1.97 378.32 71.84 62.14
350 32.33 7.69 2.59 2.07 438.46 80.85 70.15

Table 2 shows sample barge particulars evolved from the model. Figure
11 shows the G.A. plan of a 200 tons capacity barge having a length of
27m designed by the model. Accommodation of two men has been
provided at the aft under deck which will help to have a good visibility
from comparatively less high navigation bridge of the tug. The neces-
sary deck fittings are shown in the plan. The plan shows more than 335
m 3 available space which will be enough for 200 tons cargo commodi-
ties that are normally transported in Bangladesh waters.
Table 3 shows the main design particulars of sample tow boats
designed by the model. Figure 12 shows the general arrangement plan
of a pusher tug, having a length of 15.42 m and a power of 272 kW,
designed by the model. The tug corresponds to 2x2 flotilla of 250 tons
capacity barges and 6 miles/hour tow speed.
The navigation bridge will provide clear visibility with a flotilla of
light barges in front. The spaces on deck and underdeck provided for
the crews will ensure a comfortable accommodation for a complement of
7. The engine room is spacious. However, a man in the engine room for
constant watch is not necessary for such a craft. There is adequate space
for bunkering for inland operation.
46

It. (m)
Length OA S6~9 17.3
Length BP SO:'6" IS.4
Breadth (ext r) 16'· 0" 4.88
Breadth (mid) 15'-0' 4.57
Depth (mid) 6'- 06' 1.85
DroIt 4'- 3" 1.3
Power 18Sx2BHP 136x2KW
Complement 7

30

Scale in It.

20

10t~~~~~
~--ro 4.S Tonnes

---g=D TOP ROOF PLAN NAVIGATION BRIDGE

10

20

:0
I!!I I

Q
--- ~L------
I 30
o 10
I

DECK PlAN
40

so

60
UNDER DECK PLAN

Figure 12. General arrangement of a 15 metre pusher (2x2 flotilla

of 250 tons barges 6 st. miles/hour speed).
 47

TABLE 3. Particulars of sample pushers

PUSHER PARTICULARS
tow length breadth depth draft displ. light steel mach. power
speed betw. (m) (m) (m) (ton) wt. wt. wt. (kW)
miles/ perp. (ton) (ton) (ton)
hour (m)

Barge size: 250 tons Configuration: (in line 1 x in row 1)

4 12.13 3.81 1.34 0.89 20.2 18.1 11.6 2.6 48
5 12.63 3.95 1.42 0.95 23.3 20.1 12.3 3.8 73
6 13.34 4.15 1.53 1.04 28.3 23.2 13.3 5.5 113
7 14.15 4.37 1.68 1.17 35.5 27.4 14.6 8.0 174
8 15.34 4.70 1.84 1.30 46.2 33.9 16.7 11.6 267
9 16.97 5.15 2.03 1.44 62.2 43.6 20.1 16.7 403
Barge size: 250 tons Configuration: (in line 2 x in row 1)
4 12.28 3.85 1.37 0.91 21.2 18.7 11.8 3.0 55
5 12.89 4.02 1.46 0.98 25.0 21.2 12.6 4.4 87
6 13.74 4.26 1.59 1.09 31.4 25.0 13.9 6.5 138
7 14.73 4.53 1.75 1.22 40.1 30.3 15.6 9.6 214
8 16.14 4.92 1.93 1.36 53.2 38.2 18.3 13.8 327
9 17.78 5.37 2.14 1.53 71.8 49.3 22.0 19.9 492
Barge size: 250 tons Configuration: (in line 1 x in row 2)
4 12.75 3.98 1.44 0.96 24.1 20.6 12.4 4.1 79
5 13.66 4.24 1.58 1.08 30.9 24.7 13.8 6.3 133
6 14.78 4.54 1.75 1.22 40.5 30.6 15.7 9.7 217
7 16.32 4.97 1.95 1.38 55.1 39.3 18.7 14.3 342
8 17.98 5.43 2.16 1.54 74.2 50.7 22.5 20.6 518
9 19.92 5.97 2.40 1.73 101.0 66.4 27.9 29.2 765
Barge size: 250 tons Configuration: (in line 3 x in row 1)
4 12.39 3.88 1.38 0.92 21.8 19.2 11.9 3.2 61
5 13.07 4.07 1.49 1.01 26.5 22.0 12.9 4.8 97
6 13.87 4.29 1.64 1.13 33.2 26.1 14.1 7.2 155
7 15.13 4.64 1.80 1.26 43.6 32.4 16.3 10.7 243
8 16.61 5.05 1.99 1.41 58.1 41.1 19.3 15.4 369
9 18.33 5.53 2.20 1.58 78.6 53.3 23.4 22.0 553
48

TABLE 3 (continued)

tow length breadth depth draft displ. light steel mach. power
speed betw. (m) (m) (m) (ton) wt. wt. wt. (kW)
miles/ perp. (ton) (ton) (ton)
hour (m)

Barge size: 250 tons Configuration: (in line 2 x in row 2)

4 13.05 4.07 1.48 1.00 26.1 21.9 12.9 4.8 96
5 14.02 4.34 1.66 1.15 34.5 26.8 14.4 7.6 165
6 15.42 4.72 1.85 1.30 46.8 34.3 16.9 11.8 272
7 17.20 5.21 2.06 1.46 64.6 45.0 20.6 17.5 429
8 10.02 5.72 2.30 1.65 88.4 59.0 25.3 25.2 649
9 21.16 6.31 2.55 1.85 121.4 78.1 31.9 35.6 951
Barge size: 250 tons Configuration: (in line 3 x in row 2)
4 13.26 4.13 1.52 1.03 27.8 22.9 13.2 5.3 108
5 14.37 4.43 1.70 1.19 37.2 28.5 14.9 8.6 188
6 15.90 4.85 1.91 1.35 51.2 37.0 17.8 13.3 312
7 17.74 5.36 2.14 1.52 71.4 49.0 22.0 19.8 492
8 19.75 5.92 2.38 1.71 98.6 64.9 27.4 28.4 742
9 21.93 6.52 2.63 1.91 134.4 85.6 34.5 39.6 983

Conclusion

The foregoing is a description of the design model developed for small

inland commercial vessels. As the literature for naval architecture of
small vessels are very rare, the model would surely be able to fill in the
gap. These have successfully been used for optimisation study of a series
of alternatives of self -propelled cargo vessels and pushed towed tug
barge system. Though these were originally developed for vessels up to
500 DWT capacity the authors have carefully observed their successful
use for vessels up to 850 DWT. The good predictability of the model is
due to real life data used as database.
 49

Acknowledgement

The authors gratefully acknowledge the sponsorship of the Association

of Common Wealth Universities for extending the financial assistance
which made the original research possible. They also acknowledge
gratefully the help and support of Dr. I.L. Buxton of the University of
New Castle upon Tyne, U.K., for his encouragement and guidance
during the study. A debt of gratitude is also owned to BIWTA for the
information they so kindly have provided.

References

[1] Bari, A., 'The design and evaluation of alternative inland water-
way transport systems for a developing country', Ph.D. Thesis,
University of New Castle upon Tyne, U.K.
[2] Watson, D.G.M. and Gilfillan, A.W., 'Some ship design methods"
The Royal Institution of Naval Architects, March 1977.
[3] Kupras, L.K., Optimisation methods in parametric study in pre-
contracted ship design, Int. Shipbuild. Progr., Vol. 23 (1976).
[4] Buxton, I.L., Unpublished, Department of Naval Architecture and
Shipbuilding, University of New Castle upon Tyne, U.K.
[5] Castro, R.A., 'La determinancion delas caracteristic principles on
los buques modernos de cabotage', Ingenieria Naval, October 1977.
[6] Ayre, A.L., Approximating EHP - Revision of data given in
papers of 1927 and 1933, North-East Coast Inst. of Engineers
and Shipbuilders, Vol. 64 (1947/48).
[7] Emerson, A. and Witney, N.A., Experimental work on merchant
ship models during the war, North-East Coast Inst. of Engineers
and Shipbuilders, Vol. 64 (1948).
[8] Matson Research Corp., 'Transocean tug barge systems - A con-
ceptual study', Vol. III - Appendices, Maritime Adm., U.S. Dept. of
Commerce, July 1970.
[9] Moors, A.J., 'Resistance of barge tows model and prototyp'e inves-
tigations" Civil work, Investigations 814 and 835, Cincinnati,
August 1960.
50

[10] Howe, C.W., 'Mathematical model of barge tow performance,

lourn. of Waterway and Harbour Div., November 1967.
[11] Lenderer, A., 'Les bateaux a faible tirant d'eau pour transports -
Commercially sur les reseaux fluvia des pays tropicans', First Int.
Conf. Binnenschiffahrt, Strasbourg, 1979.
[12] Rouch, C.D., Tug boat design, Soc. of Naval Architects and
Marine Engineers, Vol. 62 (1954).
[13] Corlett, E.c.B., Discussion on paper by D.A. Argyriadis: Modern
tug design with particular emphasis on propeller design
manoeuvrability and endurance, Soc. of Naval Architects and
Marine Engineers, Vol. 65 (1957).
[14] Kari, A., Design and cost estimating of all types of merchant
and passenger ships, Technical Press Ltd., London, 5th ed., 1948.
[15] Wood, J.N. and Caldwell, A., Caldwell's screw tug design,
Hutchinson Educational, 2nd. ed., 1969.
[16] Simpson, D.S., Small craft construction and design, Soc. of Naval
Architects and Marine Engineers, Vol. 59 (1951).
[17] Argyriadis, D.A., Modern tug design with particular emphasis on
propeller design, manoeuvrability and endwards, Soc. of Naval
Architects and Marine Engineers, Vol. 65 (1957).
[18] Van Oort-Merssen, G., A power prediction method and its appli-
cation to small ship, Int. Shipbuild. Progr., Vol. 18 (1971).
[19] Van Lammeren, W.P.A. et al., The Wageningen B. screw series,
Soc. of Naval Architects and Marine Engineers, Vol. 77 (1969).