|iae'78) 359 REPORT OF PERFORMANCE COMMITTEE GENERAL MEMBERSHIP AND MEETINGS ‘The following members of the Performance Committee were appointed by the 14th ETC in 1975: M. Aucher B.S. Bowden A. Gross E. Lindgren K.J. Minsaas J.J. Muntjewer£ K. Tamura R. Wermter. H, Lindgren was elected Chairman by the Conference. At the first meeting at the end of the 14th ITTC, the Committee elected J.J. Muntjewerf as the Secretary. M-Aucher was asked to represent the Committee on instrumentation aspects. The Committee has met 6 times; in Ottawa on llth September, 1975, in Wageningen on 4th and 5th Novenber, 1975, in ‘Trondheim on 17th and 18th August, 1976 in London on 4th and Sth April, 1977, in Nagasaki on 24th and 25th October, 1977 and in Paris on 8th and 9th February, 1978. RECOMMENDATIONS OF THE 14th IPTC ‘The work of the Committee has been guided by the technical findings and recomnen- dations of the 14th ITPC. They were as follows: Findings: ‘The experimental determination of the form effect on the viscous resistance is superior to any of the empirical formulae examined by the Committee. The method proposed by Prohaska for determining the form factor is recommended. Recommendations: Prediction methods. At present the Conference is not ready to recommend an analytical prediction360 method for general acceptance. Method 55, described in Appendix 2 of the Committee report represents the best of the methods studied and it should be a starting point for further investigations. It 1s important to complete the test material with data for more slender ships. Prediction methods for unconventional propulsion devices should be examined. Form factors. Further work should be carried out on the influence of separation effects on form factors. Separation. Further studies of flow patterns at the stern of full ship forms are required including studies of flow conditions in self-propulsion tests, studies of scale effects in flow patterns and full scale comparisons. Propulsion factors. Further examination of the flow condi- tions on the propeller blades in the open and behind conditions is of the utmost importance. The interpretation of the propulsion factors, including the scaling of propeller characteristics, wake and relative rotative efficiency, is closely related to this investigation. Adequate knowledge of the lift and drag for ship propellers is still lacking and investigations should continue. Tt is important to determine which type of roughness characterises the propeller surface and how it affects Ky and Ky. Hull deterioration and fouling. Information on hull roughness has been made available by only a few institutions and more data are required. It is hoped that the development of automated gauges will encourage the measurement and ‘ies analysis of roughness effects. Wind, waves and steering. More efforts should be applied to the study of the added resistance due to drift angle, rudder angle, and steering. he resistance increment associated with the diffraction of waves at small sea- states should also be examined. IT. REVIEW OF RESEARCH ON PERFORMANCE, INTRODUCTION ‘The work of the Performance Committee has been concentrated on attempts to formulate @ common analytical performance predict- tion method. As a result of this work, the Committee has decided to propose a method, tentatively called "1978 Inte Performance Prediction Method for Single Screw Ships" for general acceptance. The method is described in detail in the appendix of this report together with a list of a computer program and all necessary instructions. The trial analysis work and the statis- tical studies undertaken to verify different hypotheses are presented in the first Section of the report. In the following sections, 2 - 6, the different assumptions made and the scale effect correction methods adopted are explained more fully. In these sections some still existing short-comings of the methods are also discussed and proposals are made for future work. Sections 7 and 8 deal with the effects of errors in ship model correlation and instrumentation for routine tests. Finally, prediction methods for cP propellers and ducted propellers are treated in Section 9 of the report,iuei78) 1. PERFORMANCE PREDICTION METHODS As recommended by the Fourteenth International Towing Tank Conference in Ottawa 1975, the co-operative work of formulating an analytical prediction method for general acceptance has been carried out during the current ITTC~ period. Method 55, described in |1| , was used as starting point for the investigations. Copies of the TTTc Trial Prediction Test Program, together with instructions, were sent to the model basins in Finland, Ztaly, The Soviet Union, Spain and Yugoslavia, who had expressed their wish to join the calculation work. So far they have, however, not delivered any results to the Committes. The model basins in Hamburg and St. Albans did not take part in the calculations during this IPTC-period. This is unfortunate, as the large amount of trial test results for slender ships collected at st. Albans and probably also at Hamburg would have been a good complement to the more full form ship trials treated by many of the other participants. Ten of the eleven institutions, who took part in the co-operative work during the last ITTC-period, have done so also during this period. Many of them have followed the reconmendations of the Conference to complete the test material with data for more slender ships. Since, however, also the number of data for full form ships was increased, the lack of balance in the material persists, as shown in the following table: finber of Fullness | Propulsion [ships|data points | of ships | system 50} 216 slender | single scres| 24a] 744 fault | single screw] 9} 48 | stender | twin screw 2] 1s feu | ewin screw 363 where one data point is one speed test at the trials. ‘Two subroutines were added to the ITTC- program to analyse the trial test results. ‘The principle of this analysis can be summarized as follows: The torque coefficient Ky, for the ‘os. behind conditions is calculated from the shaft power Pyp and rate of revolu~ tions ng: 2, eres a 08 an-p.D¥ ang? and the open water torgue coefficient Kggg from ‘ors = "n “Kos. a2) where the relative rotative efficiency for the ship is assumed to be the same as for the model, 1.¢. ngg py R wWith Kops as the input value, Jyg and Kgg a€e read off from the propeller characteristics corrected for scale effect in the same way as in ITTC method 55 |1] (Cpy determined by Lerbs analysis method) « The full scale wake wy is then calcula~ ns ted from a3) “rs. and the wake scale effect aw from AW = Ways a.) where Woy 48 the model wake. “The total resistance coefficient Cyg is calculated from y a.)362 and the roughness allowance AC, from ACp = Cyg= (14K) CrgCa-Cay a6) where the thrust deduction t and the form factor k are assumed to be the same for the ship and the model. ‘The results of the analysis calculations for the single-screw ships sent to the Committee were used in attempts to improve the prediction formulae of ACy and Aw. The following types of formulae, suggested by members of the Committee and others, were tested for tCp: + Cy = atb(ks/L)™ a.7) 2. Ay = atb(kg/t)4c.!1og Rip + td (kg /L)". 18109 Ray 0.8) alCpg/Cpy4p) (9) 4. acy, 1,0/fatb ("og (h/kg)) Cag 12.20) and for aw: Le a = (aang rh cag) aan ¢, a= (aangy tb the) OES (2) C, (B+2T,) = bw = (a.vgytb. So gS (13) S +b.Cytc.2, EM _atb.Cpte.B) 4. aw abn Tyghicy 2 a4) ‘The coefficients a, b and ¢ were deter- mined by the method of least squares to give minimum errors in AC, and aw. The exponent n was varied and in some cases some of the coefficients were fixed. Thus, Af a=1.0 and be-1.0 in dw-formula No.2 a formula similar to that of method 55 was obtained. Unfortunately significant discrepancies were found in the mean values of ACp and Aw analysed by the different institutions. To avoid these discrepancies, which probably were due to differences in model and full scale test procedures, individual correction terms, Cpe and dwg Were introduce: ac, a8) F (8p) cormua* Cre tw = (8) sormatatoe (2.16) Also these correction terms were determined by the method of least squares. The analysis showed that it was very aifficult to improve the AC,-formula. However, a slight reduction in standard deviation from o(AC,)=0.192.107? to o(8Cp)=0,186.10"? was found if the AC,rformula of method 55 was replaced by ‘the complicated AC,~formula No. 2 above. ‘The possibilities of improving the 4w- formula were somewhat better. Thus a change from the aw-formula of method 55 to any of the Sw-formulae Nos. 1-3 above decreased the standard deviation from o(dw)=0.048 to o(tw)=0.043, The coefficient " was then 0.4-0.5. Preliminary tests with some of the new formulae showed that the fact that the standard deviations in AC, and Aw are at a minimom does not necessarily mean that the corresponding deviations in the power and rpm corrections Cp and Cy are minimum. This is probably due to the complicated relationship between AC,-iw and Cy ‘0 Due to this uncertainty it was necessary to make a final test. Thus, some of the new ACp- and Aw-formulae were inserted in the ITTC trial test program, together with an alternative simpler method to determine the drag scale effect on the propeller characteristics, and the participants were asked to carry out some systematic calculations. the result of ‘these calculations can be summarized as follows:iwei78) ‘The roughness allowance formulae Es, v5 acy = (71.5 (¢8) ¥'-0.34) 107% ang (1.17) F Ap = 1.34 (Cpg/Cpyp) ? 107 (1.18) where Cyyp is the frictional coeffi- cient of a plate with the same length as the model and the same speed as the ship, gave higher coefficients of variation in C, and C, for 9 of the 10 participants than Es, ¥ acy = (205 (8) -0.64),1079 for (1.19) ship lengths less than 400 m used in method 55. In assessing these formilae a standard roughness of 150 microns has been assumed. ‘The wake scale effect formula ¢, vs, Aw = (0.46 .Wyyen0 043) (1=z2S) ‘nt Cn (0.20) gave slightly higher coefficients of variation in Cp for most participants ‘than a. c vs. bw = (gy =B=0 04) gu used in method 55. On the other hand, some participants have reported impro- vements in the rpm-prediction. When Cyy in the drag scale effect correction of the propeller character- Astics was calculated from £ a4 Spy = 22H), 14 ye ‘ico as in method 57 or from nycne rs yy = at (1.23) PM 25) y.yMe where n,, my and G were determined from the open water characteristics by a method proposed by Aucher |2|, the coefficients of variation in Cy and Cy were almost the same as if Cy was derived by Lerbs analysis method used in method 55. 5 of the participants 363 reported significant improvements in ACp and 5 in ACy if Cyy of method $5 was replaced by Cyy of method 57. Summarizing, it has not been possible to make any significant improvements in method 55 during the current ITTC-perioa. ‘his result emphasizes the conclusion drawn in the last Committee report that the coefficients of variation in Cy and Cy Of method 55 are close to the limit, under which no prediction method applied to the present test material can come. Furthermore, comparisons with earlier methods show that these in general gave slightly higher coefficients of variation than method 55. On the other hand, experience of this method has shown that the Lerbs analysis procedure used to determine Cy, in the propeller drag scale effect correction is cumbersome, especially for users with low computer capacity. The committee, therefore, suggests that Cyy is instead calculated from the Reynolds-number at the open water tests as in ITTC method 57 |1| as discussed above. A description of this method, tentatively called "1978 TTTC Performance Prediction Method for Single Screw Ships" is given in an appendix to this report together with a list of a computer program weitten in Fortran IV and instruc~ tions for punching input data cards. Examples are given of the input and output data. ‘There are, as mentioned above, signigi- cant discrepancies in results between the different institutions, which stresses the necessity of applying individual corrections. To satisfy this necessity, without destroying the idea of a conmon prediction method, the result printed by the computer program is divided into two parts. The first of these contains non- dimensional results of model tests and364 results of a prediction without any indi- vidual corrections, i.e. CyaCy=1.0 oF ACpoeAw_=0. This method is tentatively called "ITrc standard prediction", see encl. 4 in appendix. The second part gives the final trial predictions of shaft power and rpm together with the in- dividual correction figures used, see encl. 5 in appendix. If the Cy-Cy correc- tions are used it is easy to determine the corresponding AC, .~Awo-values by analysing the final predictions. An important question in connection with the attempts to formulate a conmon trial prediction method is, whether this method is better than earlier methods. to check this, three of the participating institu- tions carried out calculations with their own standard methods and also with the prediction method proposed by Scott |3|. Connon to the standard methods of insti~ tutions 10 and 13 is that the form factor, wind resistance, drag and Lift corrections of the propeller characteristics are zero and the full scale wake wgg is equal to the model wake w, igus Furthermore Institution No. 10 assumes the power prediction factor (1+x) and the revolu- tion factor k; to be functions of ship length and draft and hull roughness. Institution No. 13 assumes AC, to be 0.4. 107? for ali ships, but corrects the calculated shaft power and rpm with trial corrections Cy and Cy, which are functions of ship length and toad condition. ‘The standard method of institution No. 5 is a form factor method similar to the 1978-I9TTC method. The roughness allowance and the wake scale effects calculated from trial test results are used as standard correlation factors. Different factors are used for ies) = cargo and container ships - tankers and bulk carriers in full load ~ tankers and bulk carriers in ballast ‘The open water characteristics obtained at a standard Reynolds number are used in the power calculations. Since institutions Nos. 5 and 13 had carried out the self-propulsion tests according to the continental method they had to assume that the thrust deduction, the wake fraction and the relative rotative efficiency were independent of propeller load when they used scott's prediction method. ‘The results of the comparison are shown in the following table [inst [ber [Gey eye pe Jof data|T978 /Stand]Scott 1978 [stand] Scott] | fpoines |reve meth |meth fame |meth meth i Ineth fmeth | 5 | 88 |o,056]0.055!0.079|0.024/0.02210.028} 10 | 142 |o,076]0.077]0,080 o,022/0.025|0.023 113__| 284 _jo,067]0.072}0.075 Jo.024|0.027|0.025} Zt will be seen that the 1978-ITTC method gave slightly lower coefficients of variation than most earlier methods. FORM FACTORS As the results of the ITTC Trial Prediction Test Program have shown, the introduction of the form factor philosophy leads to a better ship-model correlation. For prac~ tical purposes and conventional ship shapes a form factor determined on an experimental basis similar to Prohaska's method, but using the most suitable exponent for F,, is recommended. With regard to the uncertainty of measuring resistance at very low speeds, it is re- comended to use resistance results ofF,20.12, with an upper Limit of F,@0.2. The problems of ships with partly sub- nerged bulbous bows and the effects of wave breaking resistance for blunt bow forms need further consideration; in both of these cases it is probably advisible to lower the above speed limits. Future developments for the determination of form factors on a more scientific basis As expected from the Resistance Committee. Since the last Conference the Performance Committee has reviewed, collated and tested various proposed methods of form factor determination. ‘The main problem is the separation and determination of resistance components either by calculation or by experiment (waruo |4]).Many influences have been considered separately by numerous authors. The investigations, nevertheless, do not result in universal or mambiguous conclusions, which are applicable in normal tank work. In particular, the Froude-nusber dependence of k, as found by tandweber |5| and Hogben |6[, to wnich no contradiction by the Performance Committee will be given, can not be determined without an elaborate test program. The constancy of k over a wide range of Reynolds-nunbers is not ensured as can be deduced from Dyne's |7| boundary-layer investigations. Sone geosin-tests seem to support this finding, where a slight increase of k with model size was observed (Baba |8|, Wieghardt |9| and also vws-resuits not yet published) . An increasing roughness influence, however, should not be excluded for bigger models. In contrast to this, as a result of wind-tunnel tests, Gadd |10| found a decreasing k-factor with increasing Reynolds-nunber. In the discussion to Gadd's paper, Aertssen contributed 365, similar findings. However, these findings may have been influenced by the extent of separation at different Reynolds-numbers. With regard to the influence of form on the various components of the viscous resistance no clear conclusion can be drawn. Results reported by Tagano |11/ and Wieghardt [9| show that the form mainly influences the viscous pressure drag, while Dyne stated that the pressure drag is low and its influence on k is practically negligible. Furthermore the interaction between different resistance components is hindering the isolation of a single significant factor. For instance, as Landveber |12| reported, a roughness inerease not only resulted in an increase of the viscous resistance, but also to a remarkable decrease in wave resistance. In addition it is obvious that the deter- mination of wave breaking resistance, additional resistance caused by bilge vortices, separation and transom vortices, cannot be carried out without simplified or generalized assumptions, either experi- mentally or theoretically. Most of these parts are assumed to be the same for model and for full scale (Granville |13|, Tamura ligi). For the transom stern resistance Tamura derived from comparative measure- ments, with extended models and classify- ing the differences obtained as a “base drag", rules, which are to be applied be~ fore scaling up the remaining resistance parts. Last, but not least, doubts on the validity of the Froude's law have been submitted. Yokoo and Tanaka |15|, by wave analysis on several geosims, found a scale effect on the wave resistance, In this connection it may also be stated that re~ markable differences occur in the wave pattern resistance between resistance and propulsion tests.366 [ttei28) To exelude unknown or unmeasurable re~ sistance parts Granville |13| and Dyne |7| proposed the method of "equivalent bodies of revolution", where tangential and pressure drag are calculated using boundary layer theory. Me Carthy |16|, doubts on the other hand, the usefulness of such an approach for hulls having stern vortices or flow separation. Even {f a Froude-nunber and/or Reynolds~ number dependence is deduced from sophis- ticated measurements or theoretical inve- stigations, it will be rather difficult to obtain reliable results from routine experiments. With regard to the above mentioned points it is secondary whether the extrapolation is made in the form of Cy TUK Cg tye OF Qn) Cy = (14K) (CogtCy) + (2.2) The differences are small as the ITTC ‘Test Program has shown. The theoretical investigations of Granville |17| support the first formula. Regarding all the above mentioned experi- mental and theoretical difficulties and possible errors the Performance Committee decided to determine k on the basis of the Prohaska-proposal | 18] 4 CglCp = (14K) +P A/Cy (2.3) but introducing some modifications. According to Baba |19| a power of F=d0.1. A check of this proposal with a number of models showed no major differences compared with the other methods. For the above mentioned procedures the differences in k-value as compared to those determined with Prohaska's power assumption are less than 5 %. 3. HULL ROUGHNESS ‘the analyses of ship-model correlation data leading up to the 14th Conference |1] indicated that the effects of hull surface roughness on ship resistance could be estimated using the following equation: 1.19) where k, is the mean apparent amplitude of the surface roughness over a 50 mm wavelength and L, the ship length, should‘imei2s) 367 not exceed 400 m. This equation is suitable when extrapolating resistance using a form factor method and the 1957 ITTC line. The relationship was established from an analysis of thrust measurements taken during ship trials and its derivation has been described in references 21 and 22. The roughness amplitudes actually measured for the ships were used when deriving theeqation but for the sub- sequent Performance Committee investi- gations a standard amplitude of 150 microns was generally assumed since roughness values were not available for many of the ships in the data sample. Analyses carried out for the 14th IPTC demonstrated that the roughness equation was an important contribution in reducing the scatter in the correlation factors for many of the tanks, even though a standar@ roughness was assumed. Since September 1975, other types of formulae have been tested in the TTTC Trial Prediction Test Program to examine whether the scatter in the correlation factors could be further reduced. Equations of the following form, suggested by members of the Committee and others, have been assessed: 1s Op = atb(kg/,) an 2. Bey = atb(ky/,)"#e-109, gRyp td. (ky/p) 109 6% aL, (1.8) 3. AC, = alcyg/C, a.) EMP) 4. AC, = 1/{atb. logy 9 (L/k,)™} Cys (1.10) ‘The analyses showed that none of the above formulae brought about a significant improvement in the correlation procedure ana, the Committee recommends that equation (L19)above should continue therefore, to be used. As well as the work carried out by the Performance Committee, it is pertinent to refer to two other investigations currently being undertaken and which may be expected to lead to a better under- standing of the basic influence of ship- type roughness. One of the investigations is being carried out by SSPA in co- operation with a shipyard, and the other is being undertaken at Liverpool University under the sponsorship of BSRA. Both of the studies are based on the work of Clauser |23] who has shown that the inner the wall for a hydraulically rough surface law of can be expressed as (u/ay) 'o) rough” "0 'g) smooth 24/Yg (3-1) du/a, is known as the ‘downward velocity shift’. u is the local mean velocity and Ugr the shear velocity, is defined by Vi7p where t is the shear stress at the wall. Clauser has also derived a closely related skin friction law exhibiting the same shift. ~tu/u, (3.2) Hana |24| has postulated, and this has ‘smooth = Wy = We) been supported by other studies, that Buf, = Se lugkA 4, (3.3) where k and are, respectively, some measures of the height and spacing-to- height ratios of the surface roughness. The velocity shift can be determined from experiments for various types of roughnesses but the main problem is to establish satisfactory methods for defining the roughness in terms of k and \, For the SSPA investigations, experiments are being made on flat plates having surfaces re~ presentative of typical ships" shell368 plating. The velocity shifts are obtainea from measurements on the plates in a water tunnel using a floating element balance and various definitions of k and i are being studied. For the investigations at Liverpool Uni- versity, sponsored by BSRA, Musker has developed a technique for transferring typical ship hull roughnesses on to the interior of a pipe. Air is used as the working fluid and measurements are made of the pressure drop over the test section of the pipe for different rough surfaces. ‘To date, four surfaces covering the expected range measurements have been made for of roughness values for ships and an examination is being made of various para~ meters for defining the roughnesses. As was noted above, these two investi gations may well lead to a better under- standing and definition of ship roughness. However, until an improved method becomes available, it will be necessary to continue to define roughness in terms of mean apparent amplitude. In this respect, it is noted that several types of roughness gauges can be purchased which give an automatic read-out of roughness amplitude. More roughness measurements are required and it is hoped that the availability and convenience of these gauges will encourage more shipbuilders and shipowners to use them. PROPULSION FACTORS a. Wake fraction Since the 14th ITTC, there has heen no practical alternative to the Tanaka - Sasajima method which is based on the assumption that there is a linear relation between the wake fraction and the frictional (viscous) resistance coefficient. Though lite 78 physically not quite correct, the method gives results which are acceptable for the effective wake. Recently Dyne |7| made a theoretical stuay of the flow around the stern of a body of, revolution with amethod capable of solving the problem of a thick axisynmetric boundary layer with crosswise pressure gradients. He concluded that the nominal wake could be approximated by a linear function of viscous drag and propeller diameter - ship length ratio which supports the assumptions of Tanaka - Sasajima. Assuming linearity,the scale effect is: Sys Bm = (ggg) ay cum where w, ig = Potential wake (w at Cy=0). An alternative is obtained by assuming that the velocity profile of the (turbulent) flow may be approximated by the power law: (4.2) also in the propeller plane. Neglecting the potential wake at the stern of the ship and integrating (4.2), the relation between the volumetric wakes for the ship and model then is: a3 This equation applies both for a body of revolution and a flat plate if n is the same for model and ship. The n is a function of Ry, but mainly a function of the pressure gradient in front of the propeller or after~ body parameters like water line, angles etc, Analysis of the total ITTC trial material gave the following simplified expression for n if (4.3)was used:‘we78, a a 4.4) (0,087, 40.554.C,-0.497)~ Assuming linearity as in (4,1) Wy will normally increase with C, and increasing girth length to propeller diameter ratio. The girth length is increasing with B+2T. ‘The potential wake may also be a function of total wake and thrust deduction. Ih order to determine the influence of the different parameters, w, was expressed 0 as: cutarny) (454.8 1p 7 Maytbtte. 2 —— +2, see below) AW was defined as in equation (4.1). Analyses of the total ITTC material gave the constants below. The open water diagrams used for the trial analyses were corrected for scale effects in a similar way as in method 55. a= 0.582 b= 0 c=0 a=0.041 (4,5) a = 0,584 b= -0.153 ¢ = 0 a=0.050 (4.6) a= 0.621 b=0 © = 0.0016 a0 (4.7) ey Oe el e=0 a=0.106 (4.8) ‘The constants determined by the method of least squares and the standard deviations, Combination (4.4) (4.5) 4.6) (4.7) (4.8) St.dv. in Aw 0,0486 0.0462 0.0462 0.0462 0.0517, (4.8)is equivalent to the Tanaka - Sasajima method with d=0. This shows that it was possible to improve the Tanaka - Sasajima method by making certain assumptions about the potential wake, Also the flat plate solution gave an improvement. No improvements were ob- 0 and by replacing d with tained with more complicated forms involving thrust deduction, ship - propeller dimensions , 369 roughness allowance etc. When power and Xpm prognoses were made with the combi- nations mentioned above, the smallest standard deviation in power was not automatically obtained with the combi- nations giving the smallest standard deviations for Aw .As the Tanaka ~ Sasajima method gave a very small standard deviation in power and the improvements in Aw with the other formulae were small, the committee can see no reason for re~ commending any other formula for the sealing of the wake than the simple Tanaka ~ Sasajima formula. b. Thrust deduction. In [25] a review of papers discussing scale effects on the thrust deduction was given. As a conclusion it was recommended that pos- sible scale effects could be neglected and there seems to be little reason to change this aseuption. Recently Ikehata |26|, presented a mathematical model for calculating the integrated propulsion system of ship and propeller. Basic inputs are the wake field of the model and the self propulsion data. An outstanding feature of the method is the capability of calculating directly thrust and torque generated by the propeller working in the wake field of the full scale ship, obtained for example by the Tanaka - Sasajima method. The action of the pro- peller in the non-uniform wake is simu~ lated by quasi-steady blade element theory modified by corrections for induced velocities. Applying this methed both for ship and model, scale effects on thrust deduction, effective wake and relative rotative efficiency are calculated taking differences in the wake distribution into consideration. Such methods at the moment look too complicated for application in routine work and need to be verified more thoroughly.370 c. Propeller characteristics. There has been discussion whether analyses of self-propulsion tests should be made with open-water characteristics obtained at aR, as high as possible (standard R,) or at aR, equal to that of the propeller when the model is self-propelled at full speed. Both methods are in use today, but will give different results as shown by ‘Tamara and Sasajima [27| who concluded that the R, had a strong influence on the ny and the effective wake. Tt should be logical to apply a R, between the extent of turbulent and such that the ratio laminar flow is the same in open water as in the behind condition. Visualization of the flow on the blades in both conditions |27| , showed that the flow could be laminar also in the behind condition, and that the flow for identical R, differed very little: however, the extent of turbulent flow was somewhat larger in the behind condition. Attempts to make the flow turbulent in both conditions by turbulence stimulators gave promising results |27|,|28], but the method is not yet suitable for adoption as a standard routine. In |29|, Minsaas proposed to increase the R, of the propeller and the extent of turbulent flow during self propulsion experiments by decreasing the pitch and sharpening the leading edge of the propeller. Tsuda, Konishi and Watanabe |25|, recently investigated low pitch propellers in this connection and obtained improvements (more consistent results). However, consistent self- propulsion coefficients may be obtained with propellers differing considerably from the final propeller or from normal propellers. this gives considerable free~ dom in future attempts to find methods which secure similar propeller flow in the two conditions as far as this is possible and desirable. {ice'28) ‘The "full scale" propeller for speed prognoses and trial analyses should be scaled up from the model propeller applying corrections for scale effects on lift and drag. This scaling is com plicated and requires open water tests at several R,. The R, normally used (up to 3.5910°) are not high enough to eliminate scale effects or to secure fully turbulent flow |27]. to use model propellers of diameters up A tempting idea is 0 300 mm and to test these at R, above 108 (25-35 revs./sec). Such R_ may hardly be achieved with the standard equipment normally applied today except in some cavitation tunnels. From such tests where the flow is close to fully turbulent flow, extrapolation of C, up to full scale should be possible when the full scale drag is known. Analyses of open water test results with Lerbs' method have shown that there is a considerable scale effect on the lift characteristics of the equivalent section as well as on the drag, aucher|31| proposed to use the following equation for the sealing of the lift of the equivalent section: Hke, D Cy, = Yo-e (4.9) where Cho = theoretical 1ift (or a constant) Cp = drag of the equivalent section k = constant, for constant J or constant angle of attack a. ‘The problem with this formula is that k is only known for blades with laminar flow remaining up to R, as high as 8 - 10°. Marked scale effects on the lift are present up to this value and in 2-dimensional flow, the lift near the transition point may be higher than in fully developed turbulent fiow [30], It is still not known if thisalso applies for propellers. the lift coefficient of the model may be stable and equal to the lift Tf Cp, is the drag coefficient of the section at the above a certain R coefficient for full scale. R, of the open water tests, and C’, is the drag coefficient at which the lift has the same value in laminar flow as in full scale, then: » (4.10) may be used as basis for the correction of the model diagram to full scale. The value of the constant k may be different from propeller to propeller. In order to determine k it is therefore necessary to nake open water tests at several R Normal values for k are: k= 5 to 15 15 to 75 J = constant: a = constant: k = the problem is how to determine G). Tf the propeller could be tested at Gitferent 2, high enough to secure turbulent flow, the extrapolation ould be much simpler, As shown in |1| Lerbs' equations not only for analyses of 1 it is possible to use open water test results, but also for corrections of the propeller diagrams after having made assumptions concerning the scale effects on both drag and lift, For drag corrections Lindgren - Bjarne |1] ‘and Aucher |31| proposed to use the sim plified equations: AKpp = 0.3002. (2) 7 sP/D. By (4-11) 0.75 ana Okgy = 0.250218) ae (42) a 0.75 which are recommended by the comnittee. For corrections due to scale effects on the 1ift, Aucher |31] proposed: BRpy = b (Cyn - Cys) aaa an akg, = BE lCpg - pg) ‘on = 23 bpm ~ “ds ay where b is a function of ¢/D, 2 and Jp, Tf AC, has been determined separately, for example by (4.10), it 1s possible to apply the following equations which are easily derived from Lerbs' method by assuming that x = 0.75 and P/D wx. t9(B 4Cp/C,) : 0.73340.132.57 9 Op 22733H2232.S se, Sox Viv0.160. (8/5)? Dow & (415) and Qeui70.021.g% +2+(%) sae, ox, 5 L ‘Qu" “ viso.160. (775)? O78 (4.16) However, the committee does not feel that it is able at the present time to re- commend any method for scaling of the lift. an |1] , Aucher proposed the following formala for scaling of the propeller section drag up to full scale: po (4.17) : “ie Woe where A is a constant depending on the ¢ transition point. In the ITTC program, the committee proposes to use A= 5 as a standard value representative for the mean value of Cyq for propellers tested at R>3-4-10%, But values may be obtained which deviate considerably from the re~ commended value if R, is smaller. See fig. Oosterveld and Van Oossanen |32| analysed the B-series propellers and showed that there was an BAR/2 effect: and a P/D effect on the drag. The EAR/z effect is shown in fig.2. From fig.1 and fig.2 it is seen that A = 5 seems to give a reasonable mean372 value for C, if it is impossible to use Com values from analyses of the open water diagram applying the Lerbs' method. ° 1108 2x0 Be ey aR? ax? Fig.1. Uncorrected value of the minimun drag coefficient of equivalent profile of B-series propellers. Plust9 FoR ALL owts ome) ibis face Deaces tes. Sos. tess $810% 1 bec30 fates a beces Deals 386 60 fasies Ser ss fosiwo 887.70 aio Ago 020—~—«O25 Fig.2. Three-dimensional effect on minimum drag coefficient of equivalent profile of Wageningen B-series propellers. ‘inte 78) Te has occasionally been reported that Aigferences in Ky and Ky are obtained for geosim propellers made with different aianoters but having the same R, [bol and [53]. This indicates that sone unknown factor may be present, and care should be taken in using the R of the equivalent section as the only parameter in comparing open water results. It is widely known that the rudder in- fluences the propulsive performance through mutual interaction with the propeller. The important and lasting question whether the rudder is a kind of appendage of the hull or a part of the propulsor, when placed behind the propeller, has not been answered. As a consequence a new question is raised: should the open water tests be made with a rudder behind the propeller or not? Tamura [33 made propulsion and open water tests both with and without a rudder behind the propeller, and reported that the presence of the rudder had an influence on the flow in the afterbody of ship models with high block coefficients. The influence of rudder thickness on thrust deduction, relative rotative efficiency and wake was reduced by analysing the propulsion tests with open water test results obtained with the rudder behind the propeller. It is also referred to in an important study by Suzuki [34] who came to similar conclusions. rt may be an important task of the Performance Committee to advise on how the rudder effect should be treated in the analyses of self-propulsion tests of models and in the trial analyses of ship data. a. Relative rotative efficiency. If thrust identity is used, the relative rotative efficiency may be expressed as:ite) 373 (open water) (behind condition) (4.18) where x = equivalent radius a = angle of attack of the propeller section drag of the propeller section Lift of the propeller section Both for the model and in full scale the magnitude of ng is consequently dependent on the flow in the behind condition and a function of the flow conditions for the open water tests. When dealing with ng it is therefore important to know: a) Whether the open water diagram used for the ship has been corrected for scale effects on lift and drag. b) The rates of revolution for open water tests and self-propulsion tests, ¢) How much do a’ and ag change from model scale to full scale? In |35} Davison gave some interasting information on scale effects on ng. Propeller thrust and torque were measured on several trials and it was concluded that np Was higher for the ship than for the model if the propeller diagram was uncorrected. If the open water diagram was corrected for scale effect on the drag, the difference in ng between ship and model was reduced. Model tests nor- mally give a decrease in np with reduced increased the R, during self-propulsion tests by reducing the pitch. In |32| Oosterveld and Oossanen showed that the drag of the propeller section was very high for small values of EAR/Z while for larger values the drag was constant. At small R., the drag is increasing very rapidly with decreasing R,. This leads to the conclusion that, if possible, the self-propulsion tests should not be made with propellers having high blade numbers and small blade area ratio. In order to obtain more consistent self-propulsion factors and to eliminate the fall in np, propellers with high BAR/Z values mast be used. The circumferential inequality of flow to the propeller will have an influence on the angle of attack a' necessary to obtain a given thrust. This angle is normally larger in homogeneous flow. Yamasaki |36| used unsteady Lifting surface theory to calculate the performance characteristics of propellers working in non-uniform flow and showed that the influence of the different harmonics of the unsteady components of the wake was the predominant part of ny. Recently Tkehata [26] proposed a prediction method for ship performance using the wake field of the ship. The propeller characteristics were calculated both for the behind condition and for the open water condition using quasi-steady blade element theory. The wake field of the model was corrected for scale effects according to the method of Sasajima - Tanaka. Also these calculations showed that the main contribution to ng was the inequality of the cizcunferential woke and that the radial variation was of minor importance. Tt was also clear that the scaling of the wake had marked influence on np. In |37| » Van Oossanen calculated Ky and Ky for different 0 harmonics of the axial and the tangential wake by quasi-steady theory. The same374 values were also calculated for the open water condition. He showed that the different harmonics had significant in- fluence on ng. The time has not arrived for such methods, but if the accuracy in speed prognoses shall be improved further, similar methods must be applied and developed for practical use. 5. PLOW SEPARATION During the 12th and 13th TTTC,the presence of two types of flow around the stern of full ship models due to flow separation was pointed out as being an important, problem in model testing since the pre- diction of power and revolutions for the full scale may be affected by this phenomenon. Thus, the importance of basic studies on separation of flow at the stern was emphasized. During the 14th ITTC, this problem was reviewed |1|. It is stated that the propeller action influences the flow pattern of full form models in two ways, i.e. it stabilizes the flow ahead of the propeller and, on the other hand, it initiates or increases the separation area above the propeller near the water surface, It was thought that the latter may contribute to the occurrence of an unusual flow type for which the effective wake is very large and cannot be explained by the above effect of the propeller. Under these circumstances, a joint stuay was started in Japan in 1975, organized by SR159 Committee of the Japan Ship- building Research Association in order to investigate this phenomenon |33|. Up to this time it has become evident, by conducting flow observations and propul- sion tests, that for the unusual type of flow the separation zone above the propeller appears sometimes on the (ie) starboard side and sometimes on the port side. Thus, the flow pattern around the stern becomes unsymmetrical even though At is completely symmetrical in the towed condition. The values of thrust and torque delivered by the propeller and the direction of the side force delivered at the stern are closely correlated with the position of the separation zone. When separation occurs at the port side, strong reverse flow appears at that side above the propeller shaft while the flow at the starboard side is rather smooth. ‘he thrust and torque increase and a side force is delivered to the star-board with a right-handed turning propeller. On the contrary, when separation occurs at the starboara side , the reverse flow appears at the starboard side, the thrust and torque decrease and the direction of side force is delivered to port. The change in the separation zone does not occur periodi- cally. It is still unclear why the se- paration zone is shifted from one side to the other. With a left-handed propeller, the fluctuations in thrust and torque and the direction of side force are reversed in relation to the position of the se~ paration zone. Tt is shown that the presence of the side force delivered at the stern relates closely to the so-called "unusual phenomenon in manceuvering motion" |39|, lao]. it is probable that this unusual type of flow occurs less for the ship than for the model. Up to this time, the trial results of ships for which the models are Liable to have unusual flow around the stern, scarcely show such high wake fractions or irregularities as for the model wake. However, it has been reported ‘that unusually stable course-keeping characteristics have been observed on some full ships. This may indicate the375, occurrence of unusual flow around the stern for the full scale, since there exists a close relation between both the phenomena. Further examination for full scale ships is necessary. In any event, it is a serious problem in model testing to identify the unusual type of flow and to provide adequate model- ship correlation factors for prediction. For this reason, it is essential to determine from the correlation data the variation ine," (1-fipg)/ (Nyy) fordi fferent models with and without unusual types of flow. It is expected that e, will be larger when unusual flow appears on the model and does not occur on the ship. Further attention should be paid to the trial results to examine this point in more detail and accumulation of analysed data for ships of this type is eagerly awaited. Another solution to the estimation of the wake fraction for the full scale ship from the results of model test having unusual flow is to use the nominal wake fraction and to take account of the suction ue to the propeller | 41]. The occurrence of unusual flow around the stern of full models can be identified by the following means |40|: 1) By measuring the side force acting on the towing guides of the model during the self-propulsion tests and obser ving whether a significant side force is delivered at the stern guide. 2) By conducting propulsion tests with the propeller loading varying from zero thrust to model self-propulsion point and observing whether the effective wake fraction remains almost unchanged or increases steadily, or shows sone irregularity when increasing the propeller loading. 3) By comparing the nominal wake fraction with the effective wake fraction and observing that the effective wake is nearly equal to or even larger than the nominal wake. (The effect of suction due to the propeller is not taken into account.) 4) By making flow visualization tests and observing whether a separation zone exists above the propeller near the water surface and whether an unsysme- trical flow pattern occurs. 6. WIND, WAVES AND STEERING EFFECTS. The 1978 IPTC Performance Prediction Method currently takes no account of the effects of waves or steering, except as they may be indirectly related to the quality indices. Trial input data of speed, propeller re~ volutions, power and thrust are corrected for wind and current. The total resistance coefficient of the ship is (HD CpgtCptAC eta, (6.2) ops" Fo*Cr’ k = form factor frictional coefficient of ship by ITTC-1957 line model residual resistance coeffi- cient cy = roughness (or correlation) allo~ Cyq = ai resistance further (6.2) where Ay = transverse area S = wetted area376 thus the Cyg is corrected for still air drag. ‘The program also incorporates quality figures for wind, such as 1 = wind velocity < 4 m/s 2 = wind velocity = 4-8 m/s 3.5 wind velocity = 8-12 m/s and 0 on. A similar set of indices is provided for current. This allows for an option of rejecting data above any index considered desirable; and for wind effects, sea state of steering, some option could be exer- cised with regard to these parameters. However, definitive input is Lacking. ‘There have been numerous investigations, both experimentally and analytically, into the problen of the added resistance in waves, Tn general, the added resistance has been regarded to be closely associated with ship motions. Hence, for a ship no- ving in a seaway, whenever there are no noticeable ship motions observed, the ad~ Ged resistance is usually assumed to be negligible, In the past several years, however, the importance of wave diffrac tion has been recognized. Takahashi and Tsukamoto [42] xan model tests on a full ship with blunt bow and observed high values of added resistance for waves that induced no discernible ship motion. These waves had relatively low heights OH, ship length. speca losses in the neigh vourhood of 0.5 knots were observed for sea state 4. Pig. 3 from Ref. |42| dononstrate this effect. m) and short periods compared to Nakamura and Fujii also reported similar findings in [43]. they plot speed loss against significant wave height, and although they vary both mean wave period and significant height, they conclude the effect of significant height to be dominant in shorter wave length. For sea fw TOTAL RESISISTANCE INCREASE PaeRavio) Pant) DUE TO shi MOTION aw (0) = ? A ouelr0 eow REFLECTION os Ramis) 204646 290 Fig. 3. Components of resistance increase in waves. state 3 with H,,= 1 m (30 mm model scale) the speed loss appears to be in the order of 0.3 knots. Finally, in [44], Laredo et al. reported speed loss experienced by a large tanker due to long regular swells (300 to 400 m long) with low amplitudes (approximately 3 m total heights). The results reported in this reference were deduced from full- scale trials of a 550,000 dwt tanker. ‘The influence of swells can be evaluated from model tests on similar ships or from theoretical calculations, or both. From the results of model tests for a similar tanker conducted in both regular and irre- gular waves the following speed losses can be calculated under the assumption of the swell effect mentioned above, while the spesi loss in the irregular wave condition is Listed for comparison: 0.8 knots in regular waves of 300 m length, 3 m height 1.5 knots in regular waves of 400 m length, 3 m height 0.4 knots in irregular waves of 3 m significant height. It appears that what the ship must see, whether irreaular waves as reported inlines) [43], or xegular waves as reported in [42] and [44], is a wave that is reasonably long (although shorter than ship length) with a height that is low compared to length. This produces a scattering effect (digfraction) caused by the blunt curved bow, and thus increases resistance. Ref. [44] is a little puzzling in that the effect persists to a length greater than that of the ship. Little additional work has been reported on the effect of steering since Norrbin in [45]. He considered the effects of added resistance due to (1) sideslip or drift in wind, (2) the coupled yawing and swaying motion and (3) the increment of induced rudder resistance. Induced rudder arag and centrifugal force in periodic yawing motion were concluded to be the two main contributors to the added resistance. Tt was further concluded that the effect of steering makes up a substan- tial part of the total added resistance (G.e., waves, wind, steering, motions, etc.). The total added resistance is small compared to the total resistance. A table is presented in 145! waich indicates that for a cargo liner the speed loss due to steering would be in the order of 0.01 knots while for a tanker the figures would increase to 0.09 knots. From the previously presented results of Refs. |42|, |43| and [44], the effects of wave diffraction alone seem much more significant and it would appear the above conclusion might be questioned (at least for large tankers with blunt bows). Ref. |43] also indicates smaller added resis- tance effects due to steering. ‘he influence of wind was discussed in |1| and little additional work has been reported. From data as given in |1| and other tests with modern ship designs calculation methods for wind effects like Isherwood's |48| may be improved. Standard techniques for assessing added 377 power in waves should also be considered insofar as these will have an effect on the establishnent of design and service nargins. It was therefore considered advi- sable to reconsider the standards proposed during the 1972 Conference. During the Thirteenth I17C, Murdey [46] proposed an interim standard technique for predicting power increase in irregular wa~ ves from model experiments in regular waves. In attempting to assess the degree of accep- tance of this procedure as a standard, a questionnaire was circulated to the menber institutes prior to the Fourteenth rPTc. rt was found that few organizations had adopted the procedure; however, rather than abandon the techniques prematurely it was thought that the Performance Committee in co-opera~ tion with Seakeeping and Manceuvering Conmit- toes would once more review the situation. One result of the questionnaire indicated that many member organizations did not have facilities to conduct powering in wave tests and if they aid work in waves at all, resistance in waves was the primary measurement. This, of course, leads to the thought that perhaps two standards are required, one employing powered techniques ‘and one employing drag experinents. Ref. |47| provides a sumnary of the various techniques available and was prepared in direct response to the questions raised by the IrTc. The techniques outlined in |47| are as follows: : Added resistance in waves, still-water propulsive characteristics, Technique 1 An added resistance experiment is conduc- ted in waves with model of appropriate scale, Calm water propulsive coefficients are then applied to predict added power. Experience at DINSRDC has shown that there is Little difference in added resistance between that obtained by constant towing force techniques and that obtained by378 constant speed techniques. These tests can be performed in either regular or irregu- lar waves; however, the former technique allows some additional latitude in predic ting performance in a variety of sea states. Technique 2 : Added resistance in waves, still-water overload propulsive characteristics. ‘he basic experiment in waves in this case is the same as used for Technique 1. How- ever, the propulsion test in calm water is varied so that the propulsive coeffi- experiment condition cients are derived from an which includes an overload corresponding to the added resistance in waves. This technique than attempts to account for the increased propeller load due to the waves. If a propulsion test were not possible, increased propeller loading calculations could be made using the propeller open-water characteristics. Technique 3 : Propulsion in waves. Model self-propulsion experiments are performed in calm water as well as in waves. The difference between the two experiments is the added power in waves. ‘The experiment in waves is normally conducted at the model propulsion point; however, an overload condition by using external it would be possible to apply thrusters. Ref. |47| further discusses the short comings of the various techniques. First, Technique 1 is inadequate because there is evidence that the propulsion coefficients do not have the same value in calm water as in waves. Technique 2 yields conflic~ ting results. te that the overload predict Some of the results indica~ fon technique does lead to reasonably accurate estimates of the added power, while other results give inaccurate predictions. The authors conclude that Technique 2 is not always valid for use in predicting the power ine'78 required in a seaway. The variety of results obtained may well be a function of the particular form being tested, and of the resultant motions of that form. ‘The authors further conclude that of the three techniques discussed, the self- propulsion test is the most preferable. This leads to the further conclusion that the interim standard proposed to the ‘Thirteenth ITTC should be continued. Since most member organi zations perform only resistance in waves measurements, it is obvious that a standard for predic- ting added power from added resistance tests is necessary. The establishment of such a standard is not straightforward. Technique 2 is controversial, at times yielding reasonable results, at other times not. On the other hand, that Technique 1 is not valid since it At is known has been shown that propulsive coefficients do change in a seaway. It would be the proposal of the Performance Conmittee that more systematic data be evaluated and that Technique 2 be more critically assessed. The effect of hull form and (and their be more the accompanying motion response effect on propeller loading) critically evaluated. Concluding remarks: L.Wave diffraction does seem to have a significant effect on added resistance in waves (especially for large tankers with blunt bows), with speed losses being registered as high as 1.5 knots. Additional systematic work should be performed in this area. 2.The effect of steering on speed loss should be further assessed. 3.Standards should be adopted for deter mining speed loss or power increase due to waves. a. I£ powered tests are possible thislies) is the preferred method of conducting model experiments. b. If resistance tests only are possible, additional work is needed to further assess the techniques of applying propulsive factors determined by over-load tests conducted in calm water. For further information reference should be made to the Report of the Seakeeping Committee. 7, THE EFFECT OF ERRORS IN SHIP MODEL ‘CORRELATION ‘The Performance Committee has attempted to determine more precisely the magnitude of the different sources of errors (measurements and others) for comparison with the standard deviations obtained in the ITTC Trial Prediction Test Program. ‘The sources of errors are numerous and can be classified as follows: 1. Model test errors. a. Instrumentation errors (dynamometer, velocity, ....). From an instrumentation questionnaire circulated by the Performance Committee, these errors are about 0.5 - 18 on resistance and propulsion characteristics (standard deviation on meas.) b. Errors due to the procedure and experiment conditions, i.e. due to differences in fitting bilge keels, rudder, or turbulence stimulators - correction for blockage effect, tur~ bulence of tank water, residuary current, time elapsed between runs, number of measuring points, etc.. (nm proc. 2. Prediction method errors. ‘These errors are due to incorrect or 379 approximate assumptions to take account of scale effects. For instance the influence of F, on form factor, of R, on wave resistance, wake, thrust deduction, bilge vortices resistance, influence of wake pattern on ng, hull and propeller roughnesses of the new ship design which are unknown at the time of the prediction (and can vary for sister ships built in the same shipyard), etc prea.) - 3. Sea trial errors. As for model tests, the following can be distinguished: a, Instrumentation errors (torsiometer and speed), (0, peas.) b, Other error: (5 other) -difference (deliberate or not) between ship and model propeller, ~corrertion for trim, displacement, wind, current . vinfluence of seawater, temperature, micro-algae, -propeller cavitation, etc. Tt As possible to estimate theoretically ee ee bGpg-+ on the power and propeller rom |49| bub the digeiculty Lies in giving an accurate value for each source of error. ‘The Performance Committee questionnaire on instrumentation has enabled an estimate to be made of the measuring errors, but for the other errors a reliable estima~ tion is not possible. Nevertheless the following conclusions have been drawn from an analysis of the available material ("errors* meaning deviation (in t) or absolute standard deviation according to the parameter in question)380 ine78) aE 2 2 8 G2eg2an? 1, Model test errors = (020% neas.*m prec) total * Y*9e* ered (7.3) (wy Te 4s possible to estinate the errors in Ry Py ny w ses by analyzing of comparing test results cbsained with a standara nodel cizoulated between institutions, by repeated tests in the sane institution, oF aso by comparing the predictions made by two (or more) tanks for the sane ship fron routine tests. The following error values are inferred from a Linived amount of such information: 1-20 in Ry 2-2,58 An Py 0.5°0.88 in a: 0.01 in spp 0.007 in tp 0.008 Sn tpy. 2. Sea triais errors = (02202 meant? gener? (2) ‘the following errors have been obtained by analysing tho erial resules for sister shipa built by the sane shipyard: Standard errors + 3.5-4.58 in P; 171,58 in ne From the above it follows that the experiment errors (model + sea trial) can only explain errors of about 4-58 in P and 1-28 inn. Prediction method errors - (¢p.43) Since the exact laws governing all of the scale effects are not known, the accuracy of the proposed ITTC prediction method can only be deduced from the standard deviation obtained from the ITTC Trial Prediction Test Program (ITTC 1975). In this Prediction Program standard devia~ tions of about 6-7 in P and 2.4% inn have been obtained for a large sample of ships. ‘The above estimated value errors for model tests and sea trials cannot explain such deviations. From the formala it may be concluded that the prediction method errors (o,,¢q) are about 4-5¢ in P and 1,6-1,88 inn, From the analysis of the sea trial re- sults of the same sample of ships (ITTC Prediction Test Program) and from some other considerations it is probable that the main source of error of prediction Lies in the misappreciation of the real influence of the hull roughness on Cog (about 38 in P, and 1% in n) and uncorrec- ted wake and ng scale effect assumptions (about 2-38 in P and 1.5% in a). The other prediction method errors seen to be of less importance, providing flow sepa~ ration does not occur. ‘The above estimates are very rough, but nevertheless it seems clear that the experiment errors on models or sea trials cannot entirely explain the total standard deviation of the 1978 TTTC Prediction Method. Only intensive further work on resistance, wake and propellers can help to throw light on this difficult problem. Tt is interesting to compare the standard deviation of the 1978 TTTC Method and the Froude Method (method 71) with empirical prediction factors (14x) and k, proposed by Moor at the 1972 177C |50| when they are applied to a large sample of data of a given institution. The Froude-Moor method is based on regression analysis and contains 14 empirical coefficients (8 for 14x and 6 for ky). Applied to the material for 2 institutions (284 and 140 data points) the Scott method gives res- pectively standard deviations of 7.5-8% in P and 2.5-2.1% inn. The 1978 rrTc method, with only 2 theoretical coeffi- cients (AC, and at), gives standard deviations of 7-7.18 in P and 2.1-2.4¢ in Re(iwe78) 8. INSTRUMENTATION FOR RESISTANCE AND PROPULSION ROUTINE TESTS. A questionnaire on the instrumentation used for routine resistance and propulsion tests has been sent to 46 institutions and 27 replies have been received. To avoid an unnecessary amount of work for the different ITTC menber organisations, this questionnaire was simple, the purpose being to give, as a first stage, a general survey of the instrumentation and tech- niques used in “Tankery" for resistance and propulsion tests. The replies can be summarized as follows: 1. Dynamoneters (resistance, thrust and torque). They can be classified in two main categories: a) Difgerential-mechanical or electro- mechanical dynamometers (53%). The largest part of the force (or torque) is balanced by calibrated weights and the remaining force by a spring, electro-mechanical device, or aynano- meter (with strain or inductive gauges). ‘he connection between model and carriage is quasi-stiff, the model being only free in trim and sinkage. (Accuracy claimed 0.2 - 1 8). bp) Integral dynamometer (47%). The elastic deformation of a component (for instance cantilever beam or DTNB cube) due to the force (or torque) is measured by a strain gauge or inductive (variable reluctance) sensor. The connection between the model and carriage is elastic. Generally strain gauges are preferred to inductive sensors due to the simplicity of the associated electronics. Accuracy: 0.18 - 0.5% with computer data acquisition 0.28 - 18 recorders. with analog 3a calibration: Generally with calibrated weights on site before tests or, more rarely, every month in laboratory. 2. Carriage speed. By a special wheel on the carriage and photo-cell impulses (50%) or inductive or magnetic pulse generator (32%) or by measuring the time elapsed over known distances (16%). Only 5 out of the 27 institutions measure residuary current of the tank. Accuracy: 0.1 - 0,28 in V. 3. Propeller rpm. By photo-cells (278) or inductive (65¢) pulse generator, or electrical switches fitted on propeller shaft (78) associated with digital counter Accuracy: 0.18 in n, 4, Propeller open water tests. 358 of propeller open water tests are conducted with a special boat and 65% with a streamlined body. The thrust and torque dynamoneters are generally of the same type as for propulsion tests. 9. PREDICTION METHODS FOR UNCONVENTIONAL PROPULSION DEVICES. During the 14th ITTC it was recommended that prediction methods for unconventional propulsion devices should be examined. After discussions in the Performance Committee, it was decided that the work on this item should be limited for the time being to the most common types of unconventional propulsion devices and c.P. and Ducted Propellers were selected.382 ie8) C.P. Propellers For a ship equipped with a C.P. propeller an analysis was made of the trial results with the ITTC Trial Prediction Test Program using open water characteristics determined at various pitch settings | 51]. From the analysis it was clear that, although the pitch angle of the ship in question at the speed trials was reported to be 20.5 degrees, the actual pitch angle could only have been around 19 degrees. From similar experiences by several other members of the Committee, it is felt that the fact that the pitch is not always accurately known for the ship trials poses a serious problem with C.P. propeller analysis and prediction work. A further complication with c.P, propellers is found to be the absence of open water characteristics at pitch angles differing from the design pitch angle. This inconvenience can be reasonably overcome by estimating the open water characteristics at off-design pitch angles from those at the design angle by a simple method suggested by tamura |52| , which in principle is based on the following considerations: 1) Correction factors for thrust and torque constants, AK, and AKy are to be obtained at the pitch angle at which the open-water characteristics of the subject C.P.P. are given, as follow nel.) estima) wan a fe for each slip ratio Ap (6.2. estimated nae where Ky (C.P.P.) and Ky (C.P.P.) are the thrust and torque constant of the subject C.P.P. and K, (estimated) and ‘r Ky (estimated) are those for the same principal particulars as for the C.P.P. but estimated from systematic series tests of conventional propellers. 2) ‘hen open-water characteristics of the C.P.P. at different pitch angles are estimated by using these AK, and AK. a Ky! = Kp(estimated) + ak, (3.3) {for each slip . ratio ‘o' = Ko(estimated) + aK, Q Q (9.4) For an example, where 4K, and 4X, were 9 P ; os obtained at 2 = 0.6222, Ky" and Ko’ values at several pitch angles were calculated by use of Ky (estimated) and K, (estimated) values. The results of these calculations showed that Ky/Ky and ny values at +8002, 0.7572, 0.7145 are estinated within an accuracy of about 1¢ and even at E.o.6723 the accuracy is still better han 2.58 as compared to the values actually measured at these piten ratios. Ducted Propellers. As is well known from recent literature [53], [54], |55],| 56], trial test analyses and consequently trial predictions for ships fitted with ducted propeller arrange- ments have been found more uncertain and unreliable than for ships fitted with conventional propellers. There is a clear need, therefore, to re- consider the analysis and prediction procedures for ducted propeller arrangements and this task has been undertaken both by the Propeller Committee, for the more fundamental aspects of this subject, and by the Performance Committee with regard to the practical implications as far as the new ITTC Trial Prediction Program is concerned.(Mtei78) ‘The work carried out at the instigation of the Performance Committee, as reported in | $6] , concerned the analysis of trial results of ships with ducted propellers using open water diagrams obtained both with and without rudder behind the propeller. ‘The results of this investigation are presented as OC, and A(I-W) values in Figure 4 for sister ships with conventional propellers and ducted propellers. Ace 10? Fig.4. The influence of scale effects on Lift and drag of the propeller sections. As shown in Figure 4 the influence of scale effects on lift and drag of the propeller sections were investigated and it is indicated that the scale effect on the sectional propeller 1ift must be con- 383 sidered more seriously if the accuracy of speed prognoses is to be improved for ducted propeller arrangements. In the analyses of the ducted propellers it was assumed that there is no scale effect on thrust deduction and n_, which is also normally assuned for ships having conventional propellérs. The results of open water tests at various rpm /56] indicate that a considerable scale effect is present on total thrust, propeller thrust and torque. This trend is in ac~ cordance with experience from extensive teats, both in towing tanks and cavitation tunnels. The most important findings of Minsaas* investigations |56) can be sunnarized as follows: a) It is reconfirmed that the presence of the rudder in tests with ducted propellers will have significant effects upon open water performance and analysis of wake fractions derived from model propulsion experiments. with the rudder behind the propeller during the open water tests, wake fractions and, values which are in accordance with the values for conventional pro- pellers were obtained. b) The scatter in 4w and 4c, is consider~ ably reduced if corrections for scale effects on lift and drag are applied to the open water diagram used for the analyses of the trial results. For ships with ducted propellers and ships with conventional propellers these values will have the same order of magnitude if such corrections are applied. ©) The scale effect on the lift needs more research. It is of particular importance to know what happens at 8, above 5.10%,3e4 REFERENCES 1 10, aL “Report of Performance Committee, 14th International Towing Tank Confe- Proceed, 14th ITTC, Vol. 3, 1975. rence". ottawa, Aucher, M.: "Approximate Formulas for the Calculation of the Drag Coeffi- cient Cyas, and the Lift Correction of the Open Water Characteristics of Propellers", Working paper prepared for the ITTC Performance Committee, 1974. Scott, J.R.: "A Method of Predicting rial Performance of Single screw Merchant Ships", Trans. RINA, Vol.115, 1972. Maruo, H.! "On the Separation of Resistance Components". Int.Sem. on Ship Technology, Seoul, Febr. 1976. Brard, R,, Gadd, G-E, and Landweber, 1 "Various Possible Methods of Predic- ting Ship Resistance from Model Data". Proceed, 14th IPTC, Vol. 3, Ottawa, 1975. Hogben, N, and Standing, R.G.: "Wave Pattern Resistance from Routine Model Tests". RINA, 1975, summarized in Proceed. 14th ITTC, Vol. 3, Ottawa, 1975. Dyne, G.: "A Theoretical scale Effect Study on the Propulsion Coefficient of a Body of Revolution", Symp. on Hydrodynamics of Ship and Offshore Propulsion systems, Oslo, 1977. Baba, E.: “Wave Breaking Resistance of Ships". Int.Sem. on Wave Resistance, Tokyo, 1976. Wieghardt, K.: “Remarks to the Viscous Ship Resistance". Int.Sem. on Ship ‘Technology, Hydrodynamics Session, Seoul, Febr. 1976. Gadd, G.£.: "Scale Effect on Stern Separation of a Full Hull Form". RINA, 1977. ‘agano, H. Resistance of Full Ships". Kansai Society of NAT, 1973, “Form Effect on Viscous 12. 13. 14, 15. 16. a7. 18. 1s. 20. a. 22. 23. "Effect of Wake on 1th ATIC, Annapolis, Landweber, L. Wave Resistance’ Aug. 1977. Granville, P.S.: from Equivalent Bodies of Revolution for the Froude Method of Predicting Ship Resistance". STAR Symposium 1975, g-. Tamura, K.: "A Power Prediction Method for High Block Coefficient Ships with ‘Transom Stern". Mitsubishi Technical 115, Nov. 1976. Yokoo, K. and Tanaka, H.: "Applica~ tion of Wave Analysis to Tank Experi- "partial Form Factors Bulletin No. ments". Int.Sem. on Wave Resistance, Tokyo, 1976. McCarthy, J.H.: "Ship Boundary Layer Research Since about 1974". Annapolis, Aug. 1977. Granville, P.S.: "A Prediction Method for the Viscous Drag of Ships and Underwater Bodies with Surface 1sth ArTC Roughness and/or Drag-Reducing Poly- mer Solutions". 18th ATTC, Annapolis, aug. 1977. Prohaska, C.W.: "A Simple Nethod for the Evaluation of the Form Factor and Low Speed Wave Resistance". Proce Gings 11th TTC, 1966, Baba, E.: "Blunt Sow Forms and wave Breaking". STAR Symposium 1975, 6-1. Holtrop, J.: "Evaluation of Perfor~ mance Model Tests and the Power Prediction from Nodel Test Statistics". 4th Int. symp. on Ship Automation, Genoa, 1974. Bowden, 8.5. and Davison, N.J.: "Ship Resistance and Hull Roughness". NPL Ship TH 356, July 1973. Bowden, B.S. and Davison, H.J.: "Resistance Increments Due to Hull Roughness Associated with Form Factor Extrapolation Methods", NPL Ship 1 380, duly 1974. Clauser, P.H.: The Turbulent Boun- dary Layer". Advances in Applied Mechanics, Vol. 4, 1956. Nov.2a. 25. 26. 27. 28. 29. 30. 31. 32. 33. Hama, F.R.: “Boundary Layer Character- istics for Smooth and Rough Surfaces". ‘rans. SNAME. Vol.62, 1954. Tsuda T., Konishi, S., Watanabe, Ss. "on the Application of the Low Pitch and Hagh Revolution Propeller to the Self-propulsion Test". Presented to the IPTC Performance Committe Meeting, London, April 1977. Ikehata, M.: "A Prediction Method of Ship Performance using the Data of Velocity Field of Flow in the Propeller Disk behind the Hull". Autumn Meeting of Three Societies of Naval Architects in Japan, November, 1976. Tamura, K., Sasajima, T.+ tigations on Propeller - Open Water characteristics for Analysis of Self-Propulsion Factors". Mitsubishi Technical Bulletin No. 119 Nagasaki, March 1977. Suzuki, J.: “Effect of Turbulence Stimulating Device on the Results of Propeller Open Water and Self-Propul- sive Tests". Technical Note of Shipbuilding Research Center of Japan, Vol. 2, 1974. “RINA Symposium on Ducted Propellers". Yondon, 1973. Preliminary report from DTNSRDC presented to the ITTC Performance Committee Meeting in London, April 1977. Aucher, Met on the Section Drag on Propeller characteristics". Prepared for the IPTC Performance Committee Meeting at Trondheim, September 1973. Oosterveld, M.W.C., Oossanen, “Recent Developments in Narine Propeller Hydrodynamics". International Jubilee Meeting on the Occasion of the 40th Anniversary of the NSMB, "Some Inves~ "useful Points of View PB. vant Wageningen, 1972. Tamura, K.: "Effect of Interaction between Rudder and Propeller on Pro- pulsive Performance". Report prepared 34. 35. 36. 37. 38. 39. 40. a. 42. 4a. 385 for IPTC Performance Conmittee Meeting London, April 1977. Suzuki, I.: "An Experimental Inves- tigation on the Interaction between Ship Hull, Propeller and Rudder”. Papers of the Ship Research Centre of Japan. Vol. 1, 1977. Davison, N.J.: "Scale Effect on Propulsion Factors for Single-screw ships". NPL, November 1975. Yamasaki, R.: "On the Theory of Screw Propellers in Non-Uniform Flows". Memoirs of the Faculty of Engineering, Kyushu University. Vol.xXV, No, 2. Van Oossanen, P.: "Dhe Choice of Propeller Design Parameters with Respect to Cavitation Control". ‘Symposium on Hydrodynamics of Ship and Offshore Propulsion systems. Oslo, March, 1977. R159: “Study on the Flow Pield Around Stern of Models with High Block Coefficient". Report No. 225, March, 1976 and No, 273, March, 1977, Japan Shipbuilding Research Association. Tagano, H. and Asai, S.: "On Unusual Phenonena in Manocuvering Motions of Full Ships". Journal of S.N.A. of Japan, Vol.138, Dec. 1975. Watanabe, K. and Tanibayashi, H.t "Onusual Phenomenon at the Stern of Full Ship Models". Symposium on Hydrodynamics of Ship and Offshore Propulsion Systems. Oslo, March, 1977. ‘Tamura, K.: "Speed and Power Predic- tion Techniques for High Block Ships Applied in Nagasaki Experimental Tank", STAR-Alpha Symposium, Washington D.C., Aug. 1975. Takahashi , T. and Tsukamoto, 0. "EEfect of Waves on the Results of Speed Trial of Large Full ships". ‘Transactions of the West ~ Japan Society of Naval Architects, No. 54, August 1977. Nakamura, S, and Fujii, W. Speed Loss of Ships in Waves". PRADS~ International Symposium on Practical “Nominal386 4a. 45. 46. an. 48. 49. 50. si. 52. design in Shipbuilding, Tokyo, Octo~ ber 1977. Laredo, A. et al: "Design of the First Generation of 550,000 DWT Tankers". Annual Meeting of the Society of Naval architects and Marine Engineers, New York, N.Y., November 1977. Norrbin, N.H, tance due to Steering on a Straight course". Appendix 8, Performance Committee Report to the 13th Interna~ tional Towing Tank Conference, Berlin/ Hamburg, Sept. 1972. Murdey, D.C. (1972): "On predictions of Power Increase in Irregular Waves from Model Experiments in Regular 13th YrTc, Sept. 1972, Pp. 882-901, Day, W.G., Reed, A.M. and Lin, W.C.: “Experimental and Prediction Tech- niques for Estimating Added Power Requirements in a Seaway". Propulsion Committee Report, 18th ATTC, Annapolis, Maryland, Rug. 1977, pp. 5-1 ~ 5-21. Isherwood, of Merchant ships’ Vol. 115, 1973. Aucher, M.: "Influence of the experi- mental Errors on the Ship Performance Predictions". Working paper presented at Performance Committee Meeting in ‘Trondhein, Aug. 1976. Moor, “Proposed Performance Prediction Factors for Single Screw Ocean Going Ships".13th T7TC, Sept. 1972. “on the Added Resis- waves". R.M.: "Wind Resistance RINA, . Trans. D.t. Tamura, K.: “An Example of the Analysis of a Ship Equipped with a Controllable Pitch Propeller by TTTC ‘Trial Prediction Test Programme". Report prepared for the ITTC Perfor- mance Committee, august 1976. ‘Tamura, K.: "A Consideration on the Trial Analysis of a Ship Equipped with a Controllable Pitch Propeller". Report prepared for the ITTC Performance Committee, April 1977. 53. 54. 55. 56. Yazaki, A. et al: "Performance Ana~ lysis of Full Ship Equipped with Ducted Propeller". Technical Note No. 3, 1975. The shipbuilding Research Center of Japan. Gearhart, W.S. of Ducted Propellers fitted to Surface Craft". 18th ATTC, Propulsion Committee Report, August 1977. Dyne, G.: "Scale Effect Experiments with Ducted Propellers". Proceedings of PRADS symposium, Tokyo, October 1977. Minsaas, K.J.: "Discussion on Ship- Model Correlation for Speed and Power of some Single Screw Ships with Ducted Propellers". Report prepared for the ITTC Performance Committee, September 1977. Berry, L.W.: "Propeller Boundary Layer Flow and Scale Bffect". NPL Report SUR 12, 1959. et al: "Performance(ideiz8| ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS. ‘The Committee is very grateful to all of the institutions who provided data for the analyses and assisted with the in- vestigations. It is especially appreciative of the important contribution made by the Swedish State Shipbuilding Experimental Tank, and Dr. Gilbert Dyne in particular, for preparing the computer programs and collating the results. III. PRE-CONFERENCE REMARKS AND RECOMMEN= DATIONS OF THE PERFORMANCE COMMITTEE. 1, 1978 IPTC Performance Prediction Method for Single Screw Ships. ‘The ITTC member organisations are re- commended to use, as a tentative standard, the above method described in detail in the Appendix of the present report. 2. Future Work of the Committee. Performance of the following types of ships should be further investi- gated: 1, Low block coefficient, high powered, single screw ships 2. Multiple screw ships 3. High performance craft, such as planing, hydrofoil, surface effect ships etc. B. The work on scale effects on propul- sion factors and propeller character- istics should be continued. Efforts must be made to improve the quality of the results of full scale trials as well as model tests. In this connection new ideas concerning methods of conducting model tests have to be further investigated. 387 D. Some investigations are currently being carried out into the effects of hull roughness and they should be pursued. E, The Committee should begin paying attention to service margin deter- mination.388 APPENDIX TO THE REPORT OF THE PERFORMANCE COMMITTEE OF THE 15TH INTERNATIONAL TOWING TANK CONFERENCE, 1978. 1978 19TC Performance Prediction Hethod for Single Screw Ships. Computer program. 1, ‘INTRODUCTION The method predicts rate of revolution and delivered power of a ship from model results. The procedure used can be des- cribed as follows: The viscous and the residuary resistance of the ship are calculated from the model resistance tests assuming the form factor to be independent of scale and speed. The roughness allowance AC, is obtained fron : seg [in te] where the roughness of the hull k, is taken as kg = 150.107 m, and the air resistance from De Cag = 0-001 5 Assuming the thrust deduction to be independent of scale and the full scale wake Wig to be vs Wg = (£40204) + (Wpynt-0.04) aE rs ‘on Cn where the thrust deduction t and the wake fraction Wy, are determined from the resistance, self-propulsion and open-water tests. The ITTC standard predictions of rate of revolutions and delivered power are obtained from the full scale propeller characteristics. These characteristics have been determined by correcting the model values for drag scale effects according to a simple formula. Individual corrections then give the final predic- tions. 2. INPUT DATA All data are either non-dimensional or given in SI-units. Every data card defines several parameters which are required by the program; each of these parameters must be input accor- ding to a specific format. "Er" format means that the value is to be input without a decimal point and packed to the right of the specified field. "r" format requires the data to be input with a decimal point; the number can appear anywhere in the field indica~ ted. format indicates that alphanumeric characters must be entered in the appropriate card columns. ‘The card order of the data deck must follow the order in which they are des- cribed below. Gard No. 1 Identifications Card |Bomat Oc Symbol [Definition icolum| rei fb Project: No. oie ia le Ship model No. aed ia |- Propeller model No. 25-32 |p __|scamm__|scate ratio card No. 2 ship particulars (Gard ]ommat [SE ]oFinicion ota yt 16 [FBP |angth betwen perpendioulan| | 9-16 |P UNL | Length of waterline lee pe brafe, forward fossa |p |ma orate, ate lao [Fp | reaath (41-48 | iS Wetted surface, without bilge! eels 1s-s6 |p [brow | Displacement 57-64 [PF Isux__|Wetted surface of bilge keel: