Ship Resistance Calculations

Prof. TVK Bhanuprakash

Dept of Marine Engg
Andhra University College of Engg
Visakhapatnam – 530003
India
 Froude’s Experiments

Froude’s Resistance Tests with Boards for Re upto 4.85 x 108

Froude’s Resistance coefficient based on the equation shown, For Re = 108 to 1010
Telfer's Method:
Consider a family of geometrically similar models
Situation 1
1. Keep Froude Number Constant
2. Determine the specific resistance by varying Re
Situation 2
1. Keep Re constant
2. Determine the specific resistance by varying Fr (Speed-Length
ratio)
3. Since Re is constant, Specific Frictional resistance is constant. So
change occurs only due to wave making or more generally inertia
resistance.
Most of the material is from R and P - Harvald
3. All contours of constant speed-length ratio will be
mutually parallel to a base of Re
4. To a base of speed-length ratio, all contours of Re will be
parallel.
5. This principle of parallelism was brought out by Telfer

Most of the material is from R and P - Harvald

Most of the material is from R and P - Harvald
 Telfer Proposed the function

1. 'a' depends on the speed-length ratio and is constant for constant

speed-length ratio and 'b' depends on the amount of total
resistance subject to scale effect
2. The value of 'b' was found for very fine forms to be the same as that
derived from plank tests.

Most of the material is from R and P - Harvald

8. The ship extrapolators will have a slightly greater slope than that
of the plank and in general every form of model will have a
different extrapolator.
9. The extrapolator for any form can be determined when a number
of geometrically similar models are tested and analyzed by the
methods described.

Most of the material is from R and P - Harvald

12. Telfer's Method for a fine form.
13. By using as abscissa
the extrapolator will be a straight line

Most of the material is from R and P - Harvald

13. The first condition that an extrapolation method has to fulfill is that
it should enable the experimental results obtained with models of
the same ship to various scales to be derived from one another.
14. Therefore by using the results obtained from experiments with a
number of geometrically similar models a so called model family,
this condition is automatically satisfied.
15. The slope of the extrapolator is well determined in the region
covered by the experiments carried out with the model family.
However even with reliable results from experiments with a large
model family at one's disposal, extrapolation outside the
experimental region of the Re remains a risky affair.

Most of the material is from R and P - Harvald

Results from experiments with a model family

Most of the material is from R and P - Harvald

16. The total resistance coefficient is given as
function of Re for different models of the ship
17. The above equation gives the total resistance coefficient for the
underwater part of the hull of the smooth ship.
18. If the coefficient CTS for the rough ship is wanted, a roughness
allowance CA ( in general called the incremental resistance
coefficient for model-ship correlation) has to be added.
19. An air resistance coefficient can also be added if this correction is
not included in the CA.

Most of the material is from R and P - Harvald

20. The curves for constant Froude numbers are nearly parallel to the
line described by which is the Shoenherr's flat plate
friction drag formula.
21. This line can therefore be used as an extrapolator.
22. The resistance of the ship is then determined by
where CTS is the total resistance coefficient for ship

Most of the material is from R and P - Harvald

Problems With Telfer's Method:
1. Even when using a large model family the distance from the
model region to the ship region is very large.
2. Minor inaccuracy on the extrapolator can imply a large
inaccuracy on the resistance forecast.
3. One of the conditions to be met for obtaining satisfactory results
from experiments with model family is complete similarity. This
means that the ships model as well as the surroundings have to
be similar.
4. When performing experiments with big models in the family, the
towing tank boundary will often be at a distance that it can give
rise to interfering influence.
Most of the material is from R and P - Harvald
4. Usually the wall results in increased model resistance.
5. When testing the small models in the family the flow over a large
party of the models can be laminar. If laminar flow occurs along part
of the model, the result with be that a resistance is measured which
is low compared with those in turbulent flow.
6. To perform experiments with a model family is expensive and time
consuming.
7. Some of the largest families have been that of Simon Bolivar model
family (Lammeren 1938) and the series in the so-called Victor ship
research program (Lammeren et 1l 1955). In this last family a 21 m
model model was also includede

Most of the material is from R and P - Harvald

ITTC Method:
1. The main question discussed in nearly all ITTC has been "how to
transform the model test result from model to full scale”.
2. This method (ITTC Method), is based on Froude's principle and
on the ITTC 1957 Model ship correlation line
3. In 1957, ITTC decided that the line given by the formula be
adopted as correlation line.

4. Figure below illustrates the method. The total resistance

coefficient for the model is determined by the towing test and
from the formula

Most of the material is from R and P - Harvald

Most of the material is from R and P - Harvald
5. The residuary resistance coefficient for the model is then
calculated by CRM = CTM-CFM where the frictional coefficient
resistance is calculated from
6. Now it is supposed that the residuary resistance coefficient for the
ship at the same Froude number as for the model and at the
corresponding Re number is CRS = CRM
7. Using ITTC 1957 model-ship coefficient for a smooth ship can be
determined by CTSS = CFS + CRM and CTS = CFS +CRM + CA
8. CA can be taken same for all ships or

Most of the material is from R and P - Harvald

Hughes's Method:
1. In Hughes Method we use
2. Good agreement of this formula with the experiment curve.
3. Hughes Proposed - hull resistance as being sum of 3 parts –

a. The friction resistance in two-dimensional flow (i.e. without edge

effect) of a plane surface area and the same mean length as the hull.
b. The form resistance, being the excess above (1) that would be
experienced by the hull if deeply submerged as part of a double
model.
c. The free surface resistance, being the excess of the total resistance of
the surface model above that of a deeply submerged hull when part of
a double hull

Most of the material is from R and P - Harvald

Most of the material is from R and P - Harvald
9. The resistance equation of Hughes could be written as
Total resistance = Base friction resistance + form resistance + free
surface resistance.
Using the law, this now becomes
Total Resistance = (Basic friction resistance)* r + free surface resistance
where ‘r’ is the resistance ratio and is constant factor for a given hull
form or “r = 1+k” where k is the form factor

Most of the material is from R and P - Harvald

Most of the material is from R and P - Harvald
8. For basic friction resistance coefficient, one can use the formula
9. The curve of CF together with the curves of CF *(1+k) for different
values of k can be drawn as a function of Re

Most of the material is from R and P - Harvald

10. The value of r or k can be determined from the low speed test. The
specific resistance from this test is plotted in the diagram, a
resistance curve CT is drawn, and the curve CF (1+k) having tangent
common with the CT curve is found (run-in-point).
11. Thereby k is determined and the CF (1+k) curve can be used as an
extrapolator.
12. The free surface resistance can be found from the model tests as the
excess of the total resistance above the friction plus form resistance.
It will be assumed that this scales up according to Froude's Law.
13. A correction CA taking into account the roughness of the hull surface
can be undertaken and the total resistance for the ship can be
calculated by

Most of the material is from R and P - Harvald

14. With regard to the decisions made at ITTC ( after discussing Hughes
Method), most delegates were in favour of adopting a single line (the
ITTC Model Ship correlation line) owing to the difficulty in
estimating the value of the form factor 'k'.
15. Many towing tanks have used Hughes method with good results,.
16. Often this method is combined with Prohaska’s method.
17. An investigation of the 1+k variation with some of the form
parameters has been carried out at NPL.
18. Fig shows, according to this investigation, 1+k may vary with the
block coefficient and with the length displacement ratio L/∆1/3

Most of the material is from R and P - Harvald

Most of the material is from R and P - Harvald
19. For ships below 100m, k is very difficult to determine.
20. Many of these small ships have sharp shoulders and shapes
leading to separation and high pressure drag.
21. Owing to the procedure normally used, the high resistance
measured at the model tests will result in high values of the form
factor k.
22. Minsaas (1979) gives values for 1+k between 1.2 and 2.1, the
highest being for full forms. It is unrealistic to assume that the
highest of these form factors are the real form factors.

Most of the material is from R and P - Harvald

23. In cases where strong vortices are created owing to sharp
shoulders and where the model tests have been given a form
factor that is much higher than that of a conventional ship of
similar dimensions, then some towing tanks discard the form
factor assumption and instead treat form drag in the same
way as wave drag.
24. This means that the form drag coefficient is assumed to the
same in model and full scale.

Most of the material is from R and P - Harvald

Prohaska’s Method
1. Prohaska's Method builds on the principles of Hughes
2. According to Prohaska, the three-dimensional form factor k is
given by where CV is the specific total viscous
resistance coefficient and CFO is the frictional resistance coefficient
in two-D flow
3. When no separation is present, CT = CW + (1+k) CFO where CW is the
specific wave-making coefficient
4. This is assumed to be where y is a coefficient and Fn is
the Froude number.
Prohaska’s Method (contd)
4. Then
5. Values of CT/CFO therefore will plot on a straight line with slope y and
intercepting 1+k on the ordinate axis when Fn4/CFO is used as
abscissa.

Prohaska’s Method for determining the form factor

Prohaska’s Method (contd)
7. CT is estimated by performing perhaps 10 low speed towing tests
corresponding to 0.1<Fn<0.22.
8. Here it must be mentioned that the uncertainty of measuring
resistance at low speeds is very large, which also means it is difficult
to determine the 'run-in-point' exactly.
9. For full forms say δ = 0.8 the points may plot on concave curves
indicating that either 1+k or y or both are speed dependent.
10. Perhaps it can be more appropriate for full ships to use a power of Fn
between 4 and 6 instead of 4.
Prohsaka’s Method (Contd)
1978 ITTC Performance prediction Method for Single Screw Ships
1. In 1978 ITTC advised the use of tentative standard called "1978
ITTC Performance Prediction Method for single screw Ships“
2. The total resistance coefficient of a ship without bilge keel is CTS =
(1+k) CFS + CR + CA + CAA where k is the form factor determined from
resistance test, CFS is the frictional coefficient of the ship according
to the ITTC 1957 ship-model correlation line, CR is the frictional
resistance calculated from the total and frictional coefficient of the
model in the resistance tests.
3. CR = CTM - (1+k)CFM
4. CFM is the frictional coefficient of the model according to the ITTC
1957 ship model correlation line
5. CA is the roughness allowance where ks is the
mean apparent amplitude of the surface roughness over a 50 mm
wavelength.
6. If a ks value is unavailable, a standard amplitude of 150x10-6 m can
be employed. LWL = length of the waterline CAA = air resistance, CAA =
0.001(AVT/S) where AVT is the transverse area (or projected front
area of ship above the waterline) and S is the wetted surface of the
hull
8. If the ship is fitted with bilge keels, the total resistance is as follows
where SBK is the surface area of the bilge keels
9. ITTC test program shows that the introduction of form factor
philosophy leads to a better ship-model correlation than the 1957
method.
10. For practical purposes and conventional ship shapes a form factor
determined on an experimental basis similar to Prohaska’s method
but using the most suitable exponent of Fn was recommended.
11. Owing to the uncertainty of measuring resistance at low speeds, it
was recommended that one use resistance results of 0.12<Fn<0.20.
12. Regarding ships with partly submerged bulbous bow and also
regarding the effects of wave breaking resistance for blunt bow there
exists problems.
13. In both the cases it is probably advisable to lower the speed limit.
14. Instead of determining k on the basis of Prohaska's method, ITTC
recommends where the exponent 'n' of Fn has to be
evaluated in order to obtain the best approximation of the measured
data points.
15. The parameters n,c,k are to be determined using least squares
approximation
16. The method is built on the Froude's law, but there can be doubts
about the validity of this law.
17. Perhaps a scale effect on the wave resistance should be added in
the future.
Evaluation of the Methods
1. Displacement of 30000 m3 and length 180 m.
2. If the model scale ratio is 30, this will give a model of size 6 m.
3. The physical model gives CT for the model.
4. CR has to be estimated from the experimentally measured CT by
combining these results with the results from the mathematical
model giving CF (1+k)
5. In this way all the uncertainty will be for CR and will be directly
transferred to the total resistance coefficient for the real ship.
6. As a result the confidence interval for CT will be relatively larger for
the ship than for the model.