Model Ship Extrapolation

Prof. TVK Bhanuprakash

For predicting ship power from model tests scaling or
extrapolation is needed
Two main methods of extrapolation
1. Froude which was introduced in the 1870s
2. Hughes introduced in the 1950s and later adopted by
ITTC
Traditional Approach: W. Froude

The method is still used by some naval architects, but it tends

to overestimate the power for very large ships
Form Factor Approach: Hughes CV is a viscous coefficient
taking account of both skin
friction and viscous pressure
resistance and CW is the wave
resistance coefficient.

The form factor (1 + k) depends

On the basis of Froude’s law,
on the hull form and may be
derived from low-speed tests.
At low Fr, CW tends to zero (1 +
k) = CTm/CFm.

This method is recommended by ITTC and is the

one adopted by most naval architects. A form factor
approach may not be applied for some high-speed
craft and for yachts.
Fundamental difference between the two
scaling methods
1. Froude assumes that all resistance in excess of
CF (the residuary resistance C R) scales
according to Froude’s law, that is, as
displacement at the same Froude number.
2. This is not physically correct because the
viscous pressure (form) drag included within CR
should scale according to Reynolds’ law.
1. Hughes assumed that the total viscous resistance
(friction and form) scales according to Reynolds’
law.
2. This also is not entirely correct as the viscous
resistance interferes with the wave resistance
which is Froude number dependent.
3. The form factor method (Hughes) is, however, much
closer to the actual physical breakdown of
components than Froude’s approach and is the
method now generally adopted.
Geosim Series

1. We wrote CT = f1(Re) + f2(Fr)

2. To get f1 and f2 from measurements of total

resistance only, several experimenters have run

resistance tests for a range of differently sized

models of the same geometric form.

3. Telfer coined the term ‘Geosim Series’, or ‘Geosims’

for such a series of models.

1. The successive sets of CT measurements at

increasing Re show successively lower CT values at

corresponding Fr, the individual resistance curves
being approximately the same amount above the
resistance curve for a flat plate of the same wetted
area.
2. In other words, the ship resistance is estimated
directly from models, without separation into
frictional and residuary resistance.
1. Lines drawn through the same Froude
numbers should be parallel with the friction
line.
2. The slope of the extrapolator can be determined
experimentally from the models.
3. Geosim tests are valuable for research work,
not cost effective
Schoenherr Formula

Von Karman

Schoenherr replotted all the available

experimental data from plank experiments
both in air and water and attempted to
determine the constants A and B to suit the
available data.
This formula provides a better basis for extrapolating beyond
the range of the experimental data than does the Froude
method simply because of the theoretical basis behind the
formula.
The data shows scatter and clearly includes both transition
and edge effects
The Schoenherr line was adopted by the American Towing
Tank Conference (ATTC) in 1947.
When using the Schoenherr line for model-ship
extrapolation, it has been common practice to add a
roughness allowance DCF = 0.0004 to the ship value
The Schoenherr formula is not very convenient to use since C F is not
explicitly defined for a given Re.
In order to determine CF for a given Re, it is necessary to assume a

range of CF, calculate the corresponding Re and then interpolate.

Such iterations are, however, simple to carry out using a computer or
spreadsheet.
A reasonable fit to the Schoenherr line (within 1%) for preliminary
power estimates is
 Schoenherr

The ITTC Formula

CF and log(CF) vary very slowly with Re. Here take B =2

Hughes Correction Factor
In 1957 the ITTC adopted one such formula for use as a ‘correlation
line’ in powering calculations.
It is termed the ‘ITTC1957 model-ship correlation line’.
This formula was based on a proposal by Hughes for a two-
dimensional line of the following form:

two-dimensional line

For 3-D, with 12% correction from Hughes formula

1. A comparison of the ITTC correlation line and the Schoenherr
formula, indicates that the ITTC line agrees with the
Schoenherr formula at ship Re values, but is above the
Schoenherr formula at small Re values.
2. This was deliberately built into the ITTC formula because
experience with using the Schoenherr formula indicated that
the smaller models were overestimating ship powers in
comparison with identical tests with larger models.

These lines are used simply as correlation lines from which

to judge the scaling allowance to be made between model
and ship and between ships of different size.
Other Proposals for Friction Lines
Grigson approach

It seems to be agreed, in general, that the Grigson approach is

physically more correct than the existing methods.
However, the differences and improvements between it and the
existing methods tend to be small enough for the test tank
community not to adopt it for model-ship extrapolation
purposes
 Estimation of 1+k

There are a number of model experiments that allow the form factor
to be derived directly or indirectly.
1. The model is tested at very low Fr until CT runs parallel with CF

2. In this case, CW tends to zero and (1 + k) = CT/CF

3. CW is extrapolated back at low speeds.

4. The procedure assumes that:
RW ∝ V6 or CW ∝ RW/V2 ∝ V4

that is CW ∝ Fr4, or CW = AFr4,

where A is a constant.
From two measurements of CT at relatively low speeds, and

using

CT = (1 + k) CF + A Fr4,

(1 + k) can be found.

Speeds as low as Fr = 0.1∼0.2 are necessary for this method

and a problem exists in that it is generally difficult to achieve

accurate resistance measurements at such low speeds. The

methods described are attributable to Hughes

Prohaska

For full form vessels the points may not plot on a straight line and a
power of Fr between 4 and 6 may be more appropriate
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
Prohaska’s Method (contd)
4. This is assumed to be where y is a coefficient and Fn is the
Froude number.
5. Then
6. 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 d = 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)
A later ITTC recommendation as a modification to
Prohaska is

where n, A and k are derived from a least-squares

approximation.
3. Method for determining (1+k)

(1 + k) from direct physical measurement of resistance components:

CT = (1 + k)CF + CW = CV + CW.

(a) Measurement of total viscous drag, CV (e.g. from a wake traverse;

CV = (1 + k)CF , and (1 + k) = CV/CF .

(b) Measurement of wave pattern drag, CW (e.g. using wave probes,

(1 + k)CF = CT − CW, and (1 + k) = (CT − CW) /CF .