Journal of Ship Research, Vol. 18, No. 4, Dec. 1974, pp.

215-223

Journal of

Ship Research

A Modified Froude Method for Determining Full-Scale Resistance of Surface Ships from Towed Models
Paul S. Granville 1
The Froude method for extrapolating the resistance of towed ship models to full-scale conditions has been modified with respect to the prediction of viscous resistance from an equivalent flatplate resistance. A form factor for extrapolation is to be determined from a boundary-layer calculation of a uniquely defined equivalent body of revolution. Examples of form factors calculated for the Lue),,a.shfonand a hull with a block coefficient of 0.8 are shown to be quite satisfactory.

Introduction
TIlE VALIDITYof the Froude method for determining the resistance or drag of surface ships from that of reduced-scale towed models seems to have become somewhat more uncertain at the present time due in part to more detailed measurements of the resistance components. Wavemaking resistance and viscous resistance have been shown [115 to interact with each other such that wavemaking resistance may be not only a function of Froude number but also of Reynolds number and, conversely, that viscous resistance may be not only a function of Reynolds number but also of Froude number. This contradicts the simpler proposition of one version of the Froude method [2], namely, that wavemaking resistance depends solely on Froude number and viscous resistance depends solely on Reynolds number. The validity of the Froude method [3] has, however, had some measure of uncertainty from its very beginning in the nineteenth century even though it led to the present era of towing tanks. Despite its defects, the Froude method provided more efficient hull shapes and predicted powering requiremeats at a time when ships acquired higher and higher speeds due to the development of more and more powerful steam engines and turbines. Model measurements could be extrapolated to full-scale conditions in a reasonable fashion. This was due to William Froude, who realized around 1868 that ships traveling on a calm water surface are mainly affected by two different types of resistance: that arising from wavemaking as the hull displaces water in its forward motion and that due to viscous friction between the moving hull surface and the water. Froude took care of the wavemaking resistance by towing the model at a speed which was reduced to give a wave pattern similar to that at full-scale; in modern parlance, the full-scale Froude number. He took care of the frictional resistance component due to vis~Naval Ship Research and Development Center, Bethesda, Maryland. Numbers in brackets designate References at end of paper. Manuscript received at SNAME Headquarters June 21, 1973.
DECEMBER 1974

eosity by scaling in terms of an equivalent plank resistance of the same area, length, and speed. Froude determined such plank resistance from towing tests. Since the basic tenets of the Froude analysis are physically correct, they have stood the test of time. However, changes continue to occur in procedures for improving the calculation of the change in viscous resistance from model to full-scale conditions. The advent of dimensional analysis in engineering analysis at the beginning of the twentieth century led to the present statement of the Froude method in terms of dimensionless ratios such as resistance coefficients, Froude numbers, and Reynolds numbers. The idea of the equivalent plank resistance of Froude was transformed to that of the equivalent flat-plate frictional resistance coefficient as a function of a length Reynolds number. Power-law relations for flat-plate resistance developed from power-law similarity laws for turbulent boundary layers proved inadequate at first to cover the required range of Reynolds number from model to full scale. Then improved similarity laws by von KrmAn and by Prandtl for turbulent boundary layers led to the logarithmic Sehoenherr formula for flat plates, which did prove adequate to cover the necessary range of Reynolds numbers. Viscous resistance could then be interpreted as the sum of the equivalent flat-plate resistance and a constant form resistance. I n practice, constant form resistance was usually added to wavemaking resistance, and the sum was termed residual resistance. The construction of smoother ship hulls, particularly by welding instead of riveting, led to a new difficulty for the Froude method. For some ships, correlation of resistance from full-scale trials and model tests led to negative roughness allowances, which, however, are physically impossible. As a way out, Hughes [4] proposed that the form resistance be considered not as a constant but rather as proportional to the flatplate resistance. This leads to a lower predicted full-scale resistance and usually eliminates the negative roughness allowance. The ratio of form resistance to flat-plate resistance is termed the form factor and is determined experimentally from the total resistance of the model at low speeds, where the wavemaking resistance is negligible.
215

Unfortunately, it is difficult to measure accurately the low-speed resistance of models since the dynamometer readings are at their lowest precision and the turbulent stimulation used to eliminate laminar flow may not be adequate at low speeds, especially for small models. To help remedy this, Prohaska [5] has proposed an extrapolation procedure based on an assumed variation of wavemaking resistance with Froude number. Hughes [4] also introduced an unfortunate complication to his method by proposing lower values for fiat-plate resistance at infinite aspect ratio deduced from tests with towed plates of finite aspect ratio. The values are based on an assumed extrapolation procedure whose validity has received unfavorable criticism [2]. A more recent difficulty [6] with the Froude method has occurred with the development of very full ships. Here, the Hughes form-factor procedure gives an apparent negative wavemaking resistance. Furthermore, recent direct measurements of viscous resistance by wake surveys and of wavemaking resistance from wave patterns show the complex interaction between the two resistances [1]. By comparison, present-day procedures based on simply measuring the total resistance with a dynamometer and extrapolating by the present Froude method seem almost archaic. However, even adopting the much more difficult and expensive direct measurements of the resistance components of the model by wake surveys and wave cuts would still leave the problem of extrapolation to full scale. In an effort to satisfy the latest findings on the nature of ship resistance, and still keep and even improve the simple Froude method of merely measuring the total resistance of the model at the full-scale Froude number, the following proce~ture is now proposed: 1. A new separation of resistance components is made to accommodate current findings on the interactions between wavemaking and viscous resistances. Froude-number-dependent components are separated from viscous resistance, leaving a residue dependent only on Reynolds number. The effect of Reynolds number from model to full scale is then accounted for by the change in viscous resistance at zero Froude number. 2. The viscous resistance of the ship at zero Froude number is to be approximated by the viscous resistance of an equivalent body of revolution which is to be obtained by a boundary-layer calculation. Current methods of three-dimensional boundarylayer calculations for a ship hull are not as well developed as the simpler axisymmetrie methods for a body of revolution. 3. The radii of the equivalent body of revolution are defined by a dual consideration to get as close as possible to both the pressure distribution and the surface area of the actual ship. 4. The viscous resistance of the ship at zero Froude number is also to be defined as a form factor related to the fiat-plate resistance but with the addition of a constant to allow for the added pressure resistance from flow separation at the stern and from the bilges. This is an improvement to the basic Hughes method and was first suggested many years ago by Landweber [7] in another context. 5. The new form factor is to be determined from the calculated viscous resistance of the equivalent body of revolution defined by dual considerations. A simple power-law analysis is used in the boundary-layer calculation since it provides a form factor independent of Reynolds number. 6. The new form factor then defines a line of extrapolation which is unique for the particular hull being considered. Residual resistance as a function of Froude number is determined from this line of extrapolation to predict full-scale total resistance. As examples, form factors were calculated for the Lucy Ashton and a hull of block coefficient 0.8. The results are most reasonable.
216

Proposed separation of resistance components

The total resistance of surface vessels to steady forward motion in a calm sea depends primarily on the viscous characteristics of the water medium and the wavemaking characteristics of the air-water interface. For geometrically similar hulls, the total resistance or drag DT is ~ function of size ~s indicated by length L, the forward velocity U~, the gravitational field controlling wavemaking as indicated by the acceleration due to gravity g, and the physical properties of the water medium--density p and kinematic viscosity v--or Dr = f[L, U~, g, p, v] (1)

By dimensional analysis, these variables may be grouped into dimensionless ratios: a coefficient of total resistance CT which is a function of Froude number F and Reynolds number R, where CT ~-F--

DT

~pUJS
U~

and R~U~L
Y

For hydrodynamic considerations, the coefficient of resistance is defined in terms of wetted surface area S instead of L 2. This is permissible since S / L 2 is a constant for geometrically similar shapes. Then CT = f[F, R] A coefficient of viscous resistance Co is defined as Cv ~ Dv 1 2 ~pU~ S (2)

where Dv is the resistance attributed to viscous effects. Also, a coefficient of wavelnaking resistance Cw is defined as Dw Cw ~ - {pU 2S where D~ is the resistance attributed to wavemaking, and Dr = D~ + Dw CT[F, R] = Cv[F, R] + Cw[F, R] (3) (4)

Interaction between viscous and wavemaking resistance is accommodated by making both components functions of F and R. Baba [8] recently discovered an additional component of viscous resistance, C~,2, which results from the breaking of waves at the bow, especially for full ships. This component gives rise to symmetric velocity defects which appear port and starboard, well outboard of the centerline. The wavebreaking resistance, although measured as a viscous wake, is a result of a wave buildup on the bow and hence, as shown by Baba, is primarily a futction of Fr~ude number. The wavebreaking resistance C~.2 may be split off from the viscous resistance to give

C~,,[r,

R] = C~[F, R] -

C,,~[F]

(5)

where C~.I[F, R] is the viscous resistance determined from a momentum survey of the usual wake near the centerline of the ship. Measurements of C~,~ show undulations about some mean line [9, 10, 11]. It is now proposed that an undulating cornJOURNAL OF SHIP RESEARCH

portent O~ (which may be ascribed to variations in sinkage and trim due to wavemaking and consequently to Froude number) be split off and that the remaining viscous resistance be considered solely a function of Reynolds number and hence 'the same as a zero Froude number viscous resistance Cv,0, or
C,,0[R] = C,,~[F,R] ~[F] (6)

ration of resistance components has now been enhanced b y actually considering in detail the interactions between viscous and wavemaking resistances.

Evaluation of viscous resistance at zero Froude number

T h e viscous resistance a t zero Froude n u m b e r m a y be experim e n t a l l y determined a t model scale ~by considering the total resistance a t low Froude number, or C~.0[R~] = CT[F ~ O, R,n] (9)

Notice t h a t C~.0 is solely a function of Reynolds n u m b e r R. I n the Froude method, the model is towed a t full-scale Froude n u m b e r F s a n d model-scale Reynolds n u m b e r Rm. Hence the change in wavemaking resistance from model to full scale given b y C~[F,, R,,,] - C~[F~, R~] is solely a function of change in Reynolds number. I t is now proposed t h a t

Cw[F~, R,~] ~

C~[F~,R~]

(7)

or t h a t the change in wavemaking resistance from model Reynolds n u m b e r to full-scale Reynolds n u m b e r is negligible. Obviously, the larger the model, the smaller the difference in Reynolds n u m b e r from model to full scale a n d the less the possibility of a n y significant effect on wavemaking resistance. T h e principal effect of Reynolds n u m b e r on wavemaking resistanee is due to the modification of the pressure field on the stern of a ship by the b o u n d a r y layer. E m e r s o n [12] investigated the effect of boundary-layer modification on wavemaking resistance by towing a model in a basin filled with drag-reducing polymer solution. Since the polymer solution reduces viscous resistance and boundary-layer growth, in effect it simulates a higher Reynolds number. T h e residual resistances determined b y s u b t r a c t i n g the resistance of a towed plank for b o t h water a n d polymer solution showed no noticeable difference. Hence there was no effect on wavemaking resistance for the model in water a n d polymer solution. This tends to validate the statem e n t inferred b y equation (7). Consequently, the Froude m e t h o d for predicting full-scale resistance CT[F~, R~] from model resistance CT[F~, R,,] becomes simply

U n f o r t u n a t e l y , the accuracy of CT is a t its lowest for the low speeds required b y low Froude number, a n d this results in a large scatter in the test data. F o r smaller models there is the added complication of possible ineffective stimulation of laminar to t u r b u l e n t flow a t low speeds. This experimental determination of the viscous resistance is also a troublesome aspect of the Hughes method. Furthermore, even if C~,0[R~] is determined accurately a n d separately b y a wake survey, there still remains the extrapolation to full-scale Reynolds number. To take care of the v a r i a t i o n of Cv,0 with Reynolds number, C~.o[R] m a y be related to the resistance of a flat plate CF[R]. Two methods are in current use: 1. Constant form resistance. This is the traditional m e t h o d where co,0[/~] - Cv.o[R~l = CF[R~] -- ~[R~] (10)

Here C~,0[R] -- CF[R] = e o n s t = C~,j., where Cv.s is the coefficient of viscous form resistance. Usually C~,~ is added to the wavemaking resistance a n d the sum called the residual resistance. 2. Hughes form resistance method. Here it is assumed t h a t
Cv,0[R] --

CF[R] =

C~,.f[R]

= ]~HCF[R]

(11)

where/OH is the form factor as defined b y Hughes [4]. Thus

C~,o[R,~] -- Cv,0[Rs] = (1 ~- /CH)(CF[R,~] -- CF[R~])

and

(12)

Cr[F~, R~] = Cr[F~, Rm] - C~.0[R~] C~.0[R~]

(8)

even after considering the various interactions. This is basically the same result produced b y the simple analysis which assumes t h a t viscous resistance is solely a function of Reynolds n u m b e r C~[R] a n d t h a t wavemaking resistance is solely a function of F r o u d e n u m b e r C~[F]. However, the validity of such a sepa-

k~ =

C~.0[R] C~[R] CF[R] -

C~.0[R] CF[R]

(13)

For low Froude number, kH is determined a t model scale, t h a t is:

,Nomenclature A = cross-sectional area of ship C~ = coefficient of resistance for flat plate CT = coefficient of total resistance C, = coefficient of viscous resistance (C~) = C~ for nonseparating body of revolution C,.I = component of C~ due to form C,,0 = component of C~ at zero Froude number C~,1 = component of C~ obtainable from wake survey C,.2 = component of C~ due to wavebreaking at bow Cw = coefficient of wavemaking resistance D r = total drag or resistance D~ = viscous drag or resistance D~ = wavemaking drag or resistance F = Froude number g = acceleration due to gravity DECEMBER 1974

h = shape parameter for axisymmetric boundary layers k = general form factor kH = Hughes form factor kl = Landweber form factor for nonseparated part of drag k2 = Landweber form factor for separation drag L = length of ship or body of revolution l = axial length from nose n = power-law exponent P = perimeter of ship q = wake factor R = Reynolds number r = radius of meridian of body of revolution rA = radius of equivalent body of revolution based on A r p = radius of equivalent body of revolution based on P S = wetted surface of ship

s = distance along meridian of body of revolution U = velocity outside boundary layer U~ = forward velocity a = angle of meridian to axis of body of revolution ~" = power-law constant 0 = momentum thickness A = nondimensional length of ship = kinematic viscosity of water p = density of water Tw = wall shearing stress ~t = m o m e n t u m area of axisymmetric boundary layer Subscripts e = conditions at tail end of body of revolution m = model scale s = full-scale ship scale co = conditions at infinity downstream 217

U~

~
- - o . -

"------~A KE ~

I--

Fig. 1

Boundary layer on a body of revolution

]CH -Hence the difficulties

CT[F --~ O, Rm] CF[Rm]

(14) determining

mentioned earlier for

at the given longitudinal position 1. The radius of the equivalent body of revolution rp required for the boundary-layer calculations to accommodate the wetted surface area of the ship is obtained from the perimeter P of the hull such that

CT[F"~ O,Rm] at low speeds also apply to kn. Prohaska [5] has
a method to improve this. 3. Combination of constant form resistance and fiat-plate dependence. The third possible method is ascribed to Landweber [7]. Here Q0[R] = (1 + k,)C~[R] + k~ (15)

rp [l] = PIll
71"

(18)

where kl and k~ are constants independent of R or F. However, both kl and k2 are functions of geometric shape. Also, obviously k1 ~ kg. The factor of constant form resistance k2 takes care of pressure drag due to flow separation such as occurs on blunt sterns. More recently it has been discovered that there is an additional drag caused by vortices generated by flow over the bilges [13, 14]. Probably most ships have this added separation drag, which may now be included in the constant form resistance factor k2. The principal difficulty with the Landweber proposition is its lack of procedure for implementation either experimentally or theoretically. One further simplification results for the Froude extrapolation method which requires only the change in C,.0. The k2 factor then drops out since

This is obviously the radius of a half circle having the same perimeter as the hull at the given longitudinal position l. The cross-sectional area A and perimeter P of a ship are easily obtained from the hull geometry as given in a body plan or a table of offsets.

Form factor from boundary-layer calculation of a nonseparating equivalent body of revolution

The new form factor kl is to be evaluated from a calculation of the viscous resistance of an equivalent body of revolution; see Fig. 1. Since separation drag has been included in the other form factor k2, the viscous resistance of the equivalent body of revolution is to be calculated without separation. Granville [15] has designed a simple method for streamlined bodies of revolution, that is, without separation, wherein a constant boundary-layer shape parameter is used to integrate a differential equation. Since shape parameters increase greatly at separation, the use of a constant shape parameter means that kl includes no contributions from separation drag. The power-law analysis used by Granville also gives a form factor independent of Reynolds number, which is what is desired here. Now the method described by Granville is to be further simplified by making an appropriate allowance for the skirt friction of the thick boundary layer on the tail. If the simple thin boundary-layer precedm'e for skin friction is used for the whole body including the tail, the resulting error can only be small since the tail contributes a small surface area and consequently a small skin friction to the total drag. The simplification is made as follows: For bodies of revolution, a momentum area ft is defined for a thin boundary layer: = rO (19)

C,,0[R~I - C~,0[R~]=

(1 + k~)(CF[Rm] - CF[R~])

(16)

There still remains the problem of evaluating/:~. The calculation of the viscous resistance of an equivalent body of revolu~ tion is now proposed as a method for evaluating k~ for individual hulls.

Equivalent body of revolution

The viscous resistance at zero Froude number Cv,0 is to be evaluated from the viscous resistance of an equivalent body of revolution. I n principle, Cv.o should be obtained by a threedimensional boundary-layer calculation. Since such methods are still being developed and are of great intricacy and questionable quality, it is believed that the much simpler axisymmetrie boundary-layer calculation on a body of revolution is sufficiently accurate for extrapolation purposes. In general, a boundary layer develops under the influence of the pressure field acting on its surface. The equivalent body of revolution is now defined to accommodate both the pressure field and the actual surface area of the hull. The pressure field is to be obtained from an equivalent body of revolution whose radius distribution ra [/] gives a cross-sectional area distribution equal to twice that of the ship A [l], or rA[l] = ~ 2 A [ / ] (17)

where r is the cross-sectional radius of the body and 0 is the usual two-dimensional momentum thickness. Now a flat-plate skin friction formula is used for the turbulent skin friction

rw

where rw = wall shearing stress U = velocity outside the boundary layer ~', m = constants
JOURNAL OF SHIP RESEARCH

where 1is the longitudinal position. This is obviously the radius of a half circle giving the same cross-sectional area as the hull
:)18

An average ~" and m are to be used to cover the range of Reynolds number up to full scale. Constant values of ~" and m are required for the power-law analysis to give a constant form factor. In terms of momentum area for the thin boundary layer: rw pU 2 ~" (_~)~ (21)

Here re has been substituted for r to provided the equivalent radius to give the same surface area as the ship. The term (U/U~)[I/L] is obtained from a calculation of the potential flow about a body of revolution defined by ra which gives the same displacement as the ship. Equation (27) represents two simple quadratures which may even be evaluated by the Simpson rule.
Ntrmerical results Numerical values for constants

If this skin friction relation is also used for the thick boundary layer on the tail, it can be used in the momentum equation [15] to cover the boundary-layer development from nose to tail:

d~ ~ dU d-~ + (h + 2) U ds

r~ r pU 2

(22)

where h is an axisymmetric boundary-layer shape parameter and s is the meridian coordinate starting at the nose. Using the skin friction relation, equation (21), and keeping h constant, which is the case for nonseparating boundary layers, provides an integrable form for the differential equation of the Bernoulli type. The nondimensional solution for the whole body with a completely turbulent boufldary layer from nose to tail is

Numerical values are required for the constants in the calculation of the form factor in equation (27). The Sehoenherr formula is selected as the reference flat-plate resistance formula because it has proved reliable. However, since a general procedure is being proposed here, the practitioner is free to choose any flat-plate formula. Granville [16] derived a local skin friction formula ~,,/pU~[Ro] from the Schoenherr formula in order to perform boundary-layer calculations. This relation has a logarithmic term and has to be fitted by a power law, equation (20), to suit the present analysis. A power-law fit [15] gives m = 0.1686 and ~" = 0.006361. Granville [15] also recommends values of h = 1.4 and q = 7.
Calculations for Lucy Ashton

~A

\L~/,

R ~

where a is the angle of the meridian contour with reference to the axial direction, tuna = dr/dl, and subscript e refers to conditions at the tail end. The coefficient of viscous resistance for the nonseparating body of revolution (C~) is obtained [15] from 47r ~
(C~) -

S/L 2

(9

(24)

where (~/L~)~ is the momentum area ratio downstream at infinity. As shown by Granville [15]:

where q is a constant. A choice of q > 1 is more in accordance with experiments than the well-known formula of Young, who uses q = 1. Now the form factor 1 + k~ is to be the ratio of the viscous resistance of a nonseparating equivalent body of revolution (Cv) to that of the equivalent flat plate CF such that 1 + k~ = (Co~) CF (26)

The former ferry Lucy Ashton has been the subject of intensive investigation with respect to resistance. Different-sized models have been towed to investigate scale effect. The full-size vessel has even been externally propelled by aircraft engines to eliminate interference from marine propellers. Like any ferry, Lucy Ashton is rather broad; the ratio of half-breadth to draft is 10.03:4.65. The block coefficient is 0.685, and the length-tobreadth ratio is 9. From the body plan [17], the offsets for the equivalent body of revolution were determined from the cross-sectional area distribution and from the wetted perimeter as shown in Fig. 2. The cross-sectional area equivalent radii were used to calculate the pressure distribution for potential flow by the well-known Douglas program [18]. Figure 3 shows the more useful velocity ratios U/U~ instead of pressure distribution plotted against relative axial distance l/L. Since physically U/U~ cannot go to zero at the tail as required by potential flow, an adjustment is made as shown in Fig. 3. This adjustment was made arbitrarily, but it can be done by repeating the calculation for the original body plus the displacement thickness. Using these U/U+ values and the radii from the wetted perimeter rp/L in equation (27) gives kl = 0.043. Connet al. [17] give a value of k,~ = 0.08 based on the Schoenherr line. This agrees with the proposition that kl ~< kw. Conn et al. [17] correlated the geosyms of Lucy Ashton with either the usual constant difference method or the Hughes method with kn = 0.08 within the experimental scatter. Hence a value of kl = 0.043 is very satisfactory. The full-scale ship had a rough hull, and the extrapolations led to reasonable roughness allowances. Comparison of full-scale results is shown in Fig. 4 using an enlarged scale.
Moor-Model 684

A simple evaluation of CF may be made from the integration of the momentum area, equation (23), by keeping U/U~ = 1. This tends to minimize the error due to using a power law. Then from equations (23), (24), and (25):

1 +k~

If0 L

1 (?)l+m ( U~ (l+m)(h+2)-m \~/ seco~ d

1 /rp\l+m

1-~m

An example of a full merchant ship is Model 684 for which Moor [19] gives geometrical and resistance characteristics. Here the block coefficient is 0.08. The 26-ft draft was investigated. The radii of the equivalent body of revolution are shown iu Fig. 5 and the corresponding velocity distribution is given in Fig. 6. The calculated kl = 0.185 while, relative to the Schoen-

X .--.
DECEMBER 1974

/U\

\vo/~

1-h

(27)

I n general the total resistance of a full-scale ship is given by equations (8) and (16), or
219

B/2 -L rp
--

= 0.0653

HALF-BEAM/LENGTH RATIO

%
x

PARAMETER

/ 1

rA -L

CROSS-SECTIONAL A R E A

,=

~-

= 0.0244

DRAFT/LENGTH RATIO

k\\\\\~
cc // LUCY ASHTON BLOCK COEFFICIENT = 0.685

I
0.1 0.2 0.3

I
0.4

I
0.5

I
0.6 L

I
0.7

I
0,8

1
0.9

1.0

R E L A T I V E A X I A L DISTANCE FROM NOSE

Fig. 2

Equivalent

body of revolution

for LucyAshfon

1.03

1.02 ADJUSTED F O ~ - 1 ' 2 VISCOUS EFFECTS1

, 1.01 (LEFT-HAND SCALE) STERN (RIGHT-HAND SCALE) 1.00

"

-1.0

-o8 ,=,

0.99

--0.6

0.96

-0.4

0.97

-0.2

0,96

0.1

0.2

0.3

0.4 0.5 0,6 R E L A T I V E A X I A L DISTANCE FROM NOSE

0.7 ~(~ L

I
0.8

I
0.9 1.0

Fig. 3

LucyAshton--outside velocity distribution

for equivalent area

body of revolution defined by cross-sectional

CT[F., Rfl = CT[F~, R ~ ] -- (1 + k)(C~[Rm] -

C~[Rfl)

(2S)

k = k~, Hughes method k = kl, proposed method of this report The extrapolation of the model results of Moor-Model 684 for the three methods is shown in Fig. 7. The linearized resistance diagram [2] is used here where A is substituted for Froude number F as the independent variable. As shown by Granville
JOURNAL OF SHIP RESEARCH

where k is any form factor. This form factor may be also consider~d an extrapolation factor. For the three methods given here k = 0, constant form factor Z20

2.9

2.8

LUCY ASHTON 2.7 FULL-SCALE 190.5-FOOT SHIP A = 1.213 x 109 2.6 % x Z5 FULL-SCALE TESTS ALUMINUM PAINT WITH FAIRED SEAMS (EQUIVALENT SAND ROUGHNESS ~ 0.0023 INCH)

2.4 ,o~

///

2.3

2"2I 2.1 7.9

Fig. 4
I I I I I I

8.0

8.1

8.2 log R

8.3

8.4

8.5

8.6

Comparison

of full-scale

predictions

f o r Lucy

Ashfon

B rp L

PERIMETER

~
CROSS-SECTIONAL AREA B / 2 / L = 0.0672 HALF-BEAM/LENGTH RATIO "~"t

r~A

-H L = 0, 0636 --

DRAFT/LENGTH RATIO

i
.~
a: I w 3 -! I 4 I I

i/

t I I I I I I

MOOR-MODEL 684

BLOCK COEFFICIENT = 0.S

1 1

t l
1

l
I 0.1 I 0.2 I 0.3
0.4 0.5 0.6 RELATIVE AXIAL DISTANCE FROM NOSE

I 0

i\
t

0.7 L

I
o,8

I
0.9 1.o

Fig. 5 Equivalentbodyof revolutionfor Moor-Model684

DECEMBER

1974

221

1.12

ADJUSTED FOR VISCOUS EFFECTS - - -1.2 STERN (RIGHT-HAND SCALE} -1.0

.+

11o- /i
1.08 - - !
=1= 8
I

. .....

%,
1.06 1

{, -

-0.8

_o.e:

1.04

-0.4

1.02

--0.2

1.00

0.1

0.2

0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 ,1~ RELATIVE AXIAL DISTANCE FROM NOSE - L

0.7

0.8

0.9

0 1.0

Fig. 6 Moor-Model 684--outside velocity distribution for equivalent body of revolution defined by crosssectional area

16-FOOT MODEL

MOOR-MODEL 684

400-FOOT SHIP

+ .7.+ _~ -+-'27---..2uG,~s. .~o ~;x: ~ ~o~

~ _ " '~UTot~R

F,~
,+

A: 309 x

lO'
I

A~" .~ ~ C T o R

CONSTANT FORM - ~ .

7,,i
- -

c7---__._.___

"

1-CF x 103 3.5 4 3,4 3.3 3.2 3.1 7 8 3,0 2.9 2.8 2.7 2.6 2,5 2.4 2,3 2,2 6 2.1 2,0 1.9 1.8 1.7 4 5 6 1,6 1.5

Jl

h
5

h
6

~I I In nl
9 107

nl

la

In

it n l t l d n
7 8 910 8

It
2

h
3

ntltln

II
8 109

2 3 4 5 REYNOLDS NUMBER R

Fig. 7 Linearized resistance diagram for Moor-Model 584

[2], a nondimensional length A is required by the nondimensional system, that is CT = )[A, R] where
A ~--- L3/2g1/2 v R F

(29)

The predicted full-scale resistances of the Moor-Model 684 are shown more clearly in Fig. 8. It is seen that the proposed method gives results that fall in between those of the .methods in use. This seems desirable to investigators who consider the results of the constant factor method too high and those of the Hughes method too low.

Conclusion
(30) The proposed modification of the Froude method for extrapdating the resistance of models to full-scale ships is wellJOURNAL OF SHIP RESEARCH

For the linearized resistance diagram

CT = f[A, CF]
222

3.6

3.4

/
. "

I L l

3.2

%
x

3.0

A:3s x.,

/
, /

,',1
,'1

2.8

Fig. 8 Full-scale resistance for Moor-Model 684 as predicted by three methods

2.6

i j

2.4

BoDY OF ~-,...../ J PROP . . . . . O,185"1 ~'~ J REVOLUTIO~ ~..~ ....... ~---- ....... s - OSED E Q U I V A L E N T

2.2

2.o

8.62 8.64 8.66 8.68 8.70 8.72 8.74 8.76 8.78 8.80 8.82 8.84 8.86 8.88 LOG R

9.00

founded in present-day fluid mechanics. The boundary-layer concept provides the physical justification for Froude's original separation of the resistance of ships into viscous and wavemaking components. Viscous effects that give tangential stresses and the viscous drag are due mostly to the flow in the boundary layer net to the hull. Pressure effects from waves formed outside the boundary layer at the free surface produce the wavemaking drag. The boundary-layer concept is utilized further in this report to calculate the drag of an equivalent body of revolution, thus providing a line of extrapolation for residual resistance. Each ship hull has its own line of extrapolation which represents its own individual geometry. The numerical results from the two examples treated here are most promising. Like all new methods, the full benefit a n d validity can come only from further usage.
Acknowledgment

The work described in this report was funded by the Naval Ship Systems Command (Code 034) under the General ttydromechanies Research Program, SR-023-0101, Work Unit 1-1541-001.
References

1 Paffett, J. A. H., "The Components of Resistance," Report of Resistance Committee, 13th International Towing Tank Conference, Hamburg, Germany, 1972. 2 Granville P.S. "The Viscous Resistance of Surface Vessels and the Skin Frictaon of Flat Plates, Trans. SNAME, Vol. 64, 1956. 3 Todd, F. H., "Resistance and Propulsion," Chapter VII of Principles of Naval Architecture, J. P. Comstock ed., S N A M E 1967. 4 Hughes, G., "Friction and Form Resistance in Turbulent Flow, and a Proposed Formulation for Use in Model and Ship Correlation," Trans. INA, Vol. 96, 1954. 5 Proh~ska, C. W., "A Simple Method for the Evaluation of the
DECEMBER 1974

Form Factor and the Low Speed Wave Resistance," Proceedings of 11th International Towing Tank Conference, Tokyo, Japan, 1966. 6 Couch, R. B. and Moss, J. L., "Application of Large Protruding Bulbs to Ships of High Block Coefficient," Trans. SNAME, Vol. 74, 1966. 7 Landweber, L., Discussion of "Skin Friction Resistance and the Effects of Surface Roughness" by F. H. Todd, Trans. SNAME, Vol. 59, 1951, p. 360. 8 Baba, E., "A New Component of Viscous Resistance of Ships," Journal of Society of Naval Architects. of Japan, Vol. 125, June 1969. 9 Townsin, R. L., "Viscous Drag from Wake Survey Measurements in the Wak6 of a Lucy Ashton Model," Trans. RINA, Vol. 110, 1968. 10 Corm,J. F. C. and Ferguson, A. M., "Results Obtained with a Series of Geometrically Similar Models," Trans. RINA, Vol. 110, 1968. 11 Amfilokhiev, W. B. and Conn, J. F. C., "Note on the Interaction between the Viscous and Wavemaking Component Resistances," Trans. RINA, Vol. 113, 1971. 12 Emerson, A., "The Calculations of Ship Resistance: An Application of Guillotin's Method," Trans. RINA, Vol. 109, 1967. 13 Tatinelaux, J., "Experimental Investigation of the Drag Induced by Bilge Vortices," Schiffstechnik, Vol. 17, No. 87, May 1970, p. 37. ]4 Sasajima, H. et al., "On Stern Flow Field of Full Ship Forms and Induced Drag Due to Bilge Vortices," Journal of Society of Naval Architects of Japan, Vol. 128, Dec. 1970, p. 43. 15 Granville, P. S., "The Calculation of the Viscous Drag of Bodies of Revolution," David Taylor Model Basin Report 849, July 1953. 16 Granville, P. S., "A Method for the Calculation of the Turbulent Boundary Layer in a Pressure Gradient," David Taylor Model Basin Report 752, May 1951. 17 Conn, J. F. C. et al., "B.S.R.A. Resistance Experiments on the Lucy Ashton: Part II--The Ship Model Correlation for the Naked Hull Condition," Trans. INA, Vol. 95, 1953. 18 Smith, A, M. O. and Pierce, J., "Exact Solution of the Neumann Problem, Calculation of Non-Circulatory Plane and Axially Symmetric Flows about or within Arbitrary Boundaries," Douglas Aircraft Company Report ES-26988, April 1958. 19 Moor, D. I.,"'The.~of Some 0.80 CB Forms," Trans. RINA, Vol. 102, 1960.
223