The Resistance of a High Displacement-Length

Ratio Trawler Series

By C e d r i c R i d g e l y - N e v i t t , ~ Member

A series of related hull forms with large volumes for their lengths has been developed
and tested in smooth water. Covering a range of prismatic coefficients from 0.55 to
0.70 and displacement-length ratios from 200 to 500, their residuary resistance cont"ours
and wetted surface coefficients have been plotted in order to make resistance estimates
possible at speed-length ratios from 0.7 to 1.5. Evidence is presented to show that ~total
resistance changes rather slowly as a function of beam-draft ratio. One nonseries model
has been designed and tested to show the effect of the simultaneous additions of a pro-
jecting bulbous bow and a transom stern.

Introduction resistance qualities while maintaining all the

THIS paper is the last of three covering the
design and testing of a group of high displacement-
length ratio hull forms in order to ascertain their
resistance values in smooth water. For many
years the designers of these types of vessels have
had to proceed without satisfactory systematic
test data enabling them to predict, with accuracy,
not only the horsepowers, but, especially, the
quantitative variations resulting from design
modifications.
The first paper [1 ],2 presented to the Society in
1956, covered the choice of a particular type of
vessel for series tests, a single-screw fishing trawler;
the range of variables to be tested; and the
development of a suitable parent hull with a
prismatic coefficient of 0.65, a displacement-
length ratio of 300, and a beam to draft ratio of
2.30. A t that time this set of parameters rep-
resented average American practice for such a
ship. In 1963 a second paper [2] reported the
development of three additional parent hulls
with prismatic coefficients of 0.55, 0.60, and 0.70
and demonstrated, by comparisons with other
model tests, that all four parents had desirable
*Professor, Webb Institute of Naval Architecture,
Glen Cove, N. 5:.
2 Numbers in brackets designate References at end of
paper.
Presented at the Annual Meeting, New York, N. Y.,
November 18-18, 1967, of THE SOCIETY"OF NAVALARCm-
TEC'I'S AND M A R I N E I~NGINEERS.
normal characteristics of practical ships. With
the latter d e m e n t in mind, conventional non-
bulbous bows and cruiser sterns were used. In
order that hull forms would be reasonable, they
were all designed up to a standard sheer line.
The flare above water often affects the shape
below and it was felt that the complete hull should
be delineated to assure satisfactory overall shapes
for the models tested.
The present installment includes testing of
displacement-length ratios from 200 to 500
derived from the four parent hulls which had
values of 300. The results have been presented
in the form of residuary resistance contours which
both the author and his m a n y assistants hope
will be useful to designers of fishing vessels, tugs,
fireboats, icebreakers, oceanographic ships, yachts
and other short, beamy ships falling outside the
range of the Taylor Series or Series 60.
The author would like to emphasize the fact
that this work has been carried on by means of
m a n y willing, able, and unpaid hands. A large
majority of it has been accomplished by means of
a series of undergraduate theses at Webb In-
stitute of Naval Architecture. Reference [1]
was based on five theses, reference [q] was carried
forward by six more, and the present work in-
dudes the results of work by Messrs. Endrizzi
and McGowan [:3] in 19(i2 and Birkhead and
Olson [4] in 19(53. In all, there have been twelve

51
undergraduate theses, one graduate thesis, and
25 students directly involved. T h e y have de-
signed and tested 26 of the 30 models covered by
these reports. In 13 cases they constructed, ~? ~ a , 00o.,,o. ~ o~ ,>:
finished, and outfitted the models as well. Fur-
ther thesis work included the design and construc-
~~o~ ~ ~ ~ -
..# ..-#
tion of a large capacity dynamometer in order
to test the models at high speed-length ratios and 0

the investigation of stinmlation problems which

made the tests repeatable at low and moderate '0

speeds.
Working at the rate of about one thesis or two
models per year, this project has not achieved c , ca ~ t-.. c,~ cq ...... ~ c,'~ o u"a ~c.q~

any records for speed in completion. The

author has contributed to its low rate of progress 00c,l cO "0
since he has introduced further delays by retesting
all the models to insure that no inconsisteueies,
due to technique, might be present. He is directly
responsible for making the restricted channel
corrections to the model test results and for the
preparation of the resistance contours in this
'

. "co~" 4~
Ig o O. ~
C q

' d
paper. He has also been involved in further o oc,~
'4
developments of the pin-type stimulators used.
~. 0 Co oO b,- C,l ~,1 . . . . . . ~

,-~ ,,-i O 0

The Series 0 .
M.
i u-I
As already noted, the general type of hull, "B
-i- d
chosen in 1951, is a fishing trawler of conventional
shape This choice was a result of correspondence "6
with m a n y designers of small craft Those who 0
"B
0
00 ~ o o o ~ '~o o o,~
specialized in this type showed the most interest ._g . .C~I~. CO ~ ."00, ~0
in a resistance series and provided the most in- -'O 0 ~ Cq "0 0 ,~

formation as to lines and other data covering their

designs. Since this is a single-screw ship with , . . . . qcq-Wmt-t--e~co "'l,r~ ~~O

considerable keel drag, it is not possible to derive

reasonable hull forms from a single parent a
0 ~ OO 0 C~I ,1 --cp 0~ 0 . Cb
A n y prismatic change would result in unsatis-
factory end profiles and a curved keel line if 0

sections were relocated in the normal way. It O1 I ~ , ~ r.,,O 0 ~'~ ,- ~ .'.'.'.'.'.0'.'.'.'~ ~.~ O 0 O0

was, therefore, necessary to adopt four parent

0
hulls, one for each prismatic coefficient to be
investigated. .Og. O0 ~ - ~ CO0 O0
All four had the same stern profle, but the bow C, ,
rake decreased progressively as the prismatic
increased. Essentially the same midship section
was adopted but these are not quite identical
since they are affected by the maximmn section
moving aft as the hulls grow finer I t is the area
of the maximum (not the midship) section that is
used herein for expressing elements such as the
prismatic coefficient. The normal nmxinmm area
coefficient (based on maximum beam aud draft ~-a g e
amidships in order to maintain the relationship
C~ = C,C~,) is 0.761 but there are slight variations
of 4-0.003 from this. Centers of b u o y a n c y move
from 8.6 percent aft of amidships on the finest
hull to 0.9 percent aft for the fullest; the trend

52 Resistance of a High Displacement-Length Ratio Trawler Series

 \
\
\

/o ,9.~
Fig. 1 O.554 prismatic coefficient parent--Model W- 16

Fig. 2 0.597 prismatic coefficient parent--Model W. 18

is generally in accordance with American practice.
T h e b e a m - d r a f t ratio is kept constant at about
2.30 which again is average for ships of this type.
All parent hulls were given a displacement-length
ratio of 300 and a keel drag of 3 percent of the
length between perpendiculars, the latter being
used for the computation of all form character-
istics. T h e four parents chosen had prismatics
of 0.554, 0.597, 0.650, and 0.700.
Reference [2] presented cross plots to indicate a
fair progression throughout the series of selected
water lines, the bilge diagonals, stem profiles,
and section area curves. A further plot showed
gradual variations in the hydrostatic elements.
From each parent, three addition models were
derived by multiplying both beam and draft by
the same constant to produce hull forms of 200,
400, and 500 displacement-length ratio. For
comparison purposes, the Taylor Series [5] stops
at 250 at low speeds and at 170 for speed-length
ratios of 1.30 and higher. Thus the present
series of four prismatics and four displacement-
length ratios results in a total of 16 models, all
with the same beam to draft ratio. The partic-
ulars of these hull forms are summarized in
Table 1; all dimensions are for a ship length be-
tween perpendiculars of 100 ft, the standard
length used throughout the paper for speed-
length ratios as well as dimensionless resistance
values which are given in the form of ~).

Resistance of a High Displacement-Length Ratio Trawler Series 53

 I

/o ~ .~ o
Fig. 3 0.650 prismatic coefficient parent--Model W-8

Fig. 4 0.700 prismatic coefficient parent--Model W-20

B o d y plans and bow and stern profiles for the
four parents, W-16, W-1S, W-S, and W-20 are
presented in order of increasing prismatic coeffi-
cient in Figs. 1 through 4. Section area curves
are shown in Fig. 5 and load water lines in Fig. 6.
Test Procedure and Expansion Methods
All models are built of wood, without append-
ages of a n y kind, finished with marine spar
varnish, and tested in the W e b b Towing T a n k in
fresh water a t S0.0 4- 0.5 deg F. Since these are
very small models, stimulation was achieved b y
three means: first, the elevated water tempera-
ture; second, by the least possible interval be-
tween runs, in order to maintain the turbulence
level in the t a n k ; and, finally, by a row of pin
stimulators located 4 in aft of the stem. In all
cases the models were tested with two different
s t i m u l a t o r configurations over the lower half of
the speed range and the more effective one of the
two used for expansion. All, however, had the
same stimulator at speed-length ratios above 1.0.
F u r t h e r details are given in the Appendix.
T h e speed range covered by the tests was from
V/v/L = 0.7 to 1.5. The model size was k e p t
small to keep down the blockage, the ratio of
midship area to t a n k area. W i t h a rectangular
t a n k 10 ft wide by 5 ft deep, the blockage values
ranged from 0.:3 to 1.0 percent. While m a n y

54 Resistance of a High Displacement-Length Ratio Trawler Series

 0

1
_+-

t
+
I I , l! I , ~ ! L

I ! ~ I I I I I ' ,
103~Sdgkd 7 6 S ~ 3 f i~ / ~'A o
Fig. 5 Section area curves

I/// .~_xi"%<~
,+i. .6

.4-

~'~ -

Fig. 6 Load waterlines

QIOE
I // QIO0
3..5-

,,%0
"~/o~S= Z O O /// ,3.0
z)4".OTZ"~= , 3 0 0

2.0"
J ~.5 / i i
2.0
65~o

ZO
if ~//
.d- I
7 d ,9 /0 /I / 2 /3 /4 /,5- 7" ,:9 .9 / 0 / I /~ /.3 l'~ /.5"
,.%P~Z'D -/'FT-~. d P C~'D - /'f T,5.

zb /o z'= z'4 ~'~z'= Jo J'z J.'4 J'6 /I 6 /I 2./0 212 2..~2..6 ~..~ J.O ~i I i i I

Fig. 7 Expanded resistance--200 displacement-length Fig. 8 Expanded r e s i s t a n c e - - 3 0 0 d i s p l a c e m e n t - l e n g t h

ratio ratio

Resistance of a High Displacement-Length Ratio Trawler Series 55

 Q/oo
.3.6-

~o~ ~=4oo
,3.6"
I
~/'.aTz-~ =5oo /
,3..O ,3.0

2.,5-

2..0

"~- // '~, /,5- .6"/ a

_._.. _/.@ ~ . ~

/.0
ZO / - ~ ~._,._ 4
.6-6"

.5
7" ~ ,9 I0 I/ /~" /,3 /~ /,5" ;7 ~ ,9 /0 // /2 /3 /4 /,,5-
..%'~-ED - AT"T.~. ,,..%PEEZ~ - K T,.5".

Fig. 9 Expanded resistance--400 displacement-length Fig. 10 Expandedresistance---500 displacement-length
ratio ratio

"~/a-;z "
v/v2-=. 7
f ~ -'-'- ~ ,5"00

- 4 5 O

\ \ -o

J - 6 .~-0 .60 .6~ .~4 G6 .ff~ .70

e.
Fig.II ResiduaryresistancecoeJ~cients--V/~/L = 0.7
56 Resistance o f a H i g h Displacement-Length Ratio Trawler Series
 8 ./.o-Tz *

.--,..--....,_ ,,
, oo

200
..4-6 . ,5",~ 60 . ~'~-~ .6~ .6" 6 .68 . 70
Cp
Fig. 12 Residuary resistance coe~cients--V/.~/L = 0.8

tanks operate routinely with values this high,
they are usually testing large merchant ships of
lower speed-length ratio and relatively low wave
making resistance. Trawlers with large beams
and high speeds have large wave patterns and are,
therefore, more likely" to suffer resistance in-
creases due to even these small channel restrictions.
Unfortunately, there is no general agreement
as to a satisfactory means for blockage correction.
The author has used the Landweber approach
[6]. With this basis, the computed corrections
to total model resistance varied from zero, on the
four 200 displacement-length ratio models at all
speeds, to a maximum of 4.7 percent at a speed-
length ratio of 1.a for the 0.55"4 prismatic, 500
displacement-length ratio model, hi passing, it
should be noted that the two previous reports
[1 and 2] did not make blockage corrections.
They were involved, however, in merit compari-
sons between hulls of 300 displacement-length
ratio. The present analysis indicated that the
quantitative wflues for such a group would be
only 1.8 percent of model resistance as a :maximum
and could be neglected for all speeds below
Vx/L = 0.9. Differences between models would
not be appreciably affected.
The author has made a number of comparisons
between small models tested in the Webb Tank
and large ones with adequate stimulation and low
blockage values [7]. Although all results have
not been published, they cover a number of types :
cargo ships, tankers, a destroyer, a submarine,
and a planing hull. All this material has shown
that the American Towing Tank Conference Line
(the author still prefers to call it Schoenherr
friction which is both a shorter and more accurate
description) is not steep enough at the lower
Reynolds nmnbers. Because of this difficulty,
the Webb Tank has used the International Tow-
ing Tank Conference Correlation Line [8] since

Resistance of a High Displacement-Length Ratio Trawler Series 57


.0"6" .O"~ .60 .6~
Cp
Fig. 13 Residuary resistance coefficients--V/x/L
1959. Fortunately (and a result of careful
planning), the A T T C and I T T C values are prac-
tically identical in the large ship range.
The model data, after correction to zero block-
a ~ were expanded via the I T T C line to a ]l)0-ft
lbp ship in 59 deg F salt water with a correlation
(or roughness) allowance of 0.0004. If one does
not have reference IS] readily available, the fric-
tion values used are:
0.075
C's = (loglo R~ -- 2) 2
Cf = friction coefticient
R~ = Reynolds number
The results for the ship are plotted in Figs. 7 to
10. An inspection of the curve shapes shows that
the hmnps and hollows are accentuated on the
slimmest hulls and are much decreased in prom-
inenee as the displacement-length ratios increase.
58 Resistance of a High Displacement-Length Ratio Trawler Series
,5"OO
~b-O
400
Jb-o
.3oo
P_O"O
,200
.6~ .G6 .~ .7"0
= 0.9
I t is also evident that, for this particular series,
an optimmn prismatic coefficient exists that is
I)rimarily a function of speed-length ratio but is
further influenced by the displaeenaent-length
value.
With the proper choice of prismatic coefficient,
it is possible to keep wavemaking dements under
reasonable control up to speed-length ratios of
approximately 1.15. Thereafter, the curves rise
rapidly at low prismatic values and are already
excessively high at high ones. Higher speeds,
while attainable, require the liberal use of horse-
power.
Resistance Contours
The residuary resistance coefficients for the
models, free from blockage, have been cross faired
and contour plots derived at speed-length ratios
from 0.70 to 1.5() at 0.10 intervals. These are
presented in Figs. 11 through 19. The wetted
surface values, upou which the plots are based,

,5-6 . d-~ 6 0 . ~
Fig. 14 Residuary resistance
r a t i o of2.30.
can be d e t e r m i n e d from Fig. 20 a t a b e a m - d r a f t
T h e a u t h o r suggests, in the i n t e r e s t s of con-
sistency, t h e use of I T T C coefficients [8] for ship
e s t i m a t e s w i t h at c o r r e l a t i o n a l l o w a n c e of 0.001)4.
F o r t h o s e who are f i r m l y w e d d e d to the Schoen-
herr f o r m u l a t i o n [9], it can be s u b s t i t u t e d w i t h
the s a m e c o r r e l a t i o n a l l o w a n c e and will give re-
suits within 1 p e r c e n t of the p r e v i o u s v a l u e s pro-
v i d e d the ship l e n g t h is a t least 50 f t and, simul-
t a n e o u s l y , t h e s p e e d - l e n g t h r a t i o 1.00 or b e t t e r .
S h o u l d t h e user be satisfied w i t h n e i t h e r frietion,
he can r e c o n s t r u c t the m o d e l d a t a b y a d d i n g
t h e I T T C f r i c t i o n coefficient for fresh w a t e r a t
80.0 d e g F to t h e r e s i d u a r y coefficient f r o m t h e
p l o t a n d t h e n r e - e x p a n d t h e r e s u l t to ship size b y
a n y o t h e r m e a n s t h a t satisfies him.
As at r o u g h guide for p r a c t i c a l p r e d i c t i o n s , t h e
a u t h o r would a d d aboul: 3 p e r c e n t of t o t a l resist-
ance to c o v e r a well s t r e a m l i n e d r u d d e r a n d s t e r n
f r a m e of a steel ship a n d 8 to 10 p e r c e n t for t h e
stem, keel, r u d d e r , a n d stern f r a m e of a w o o d e n
Resistance of a High Displacement-Length Ratio Trawler Series
.y~. b-TZ-a
v/,/z"= z o
' r //// . oo
L ,~t~o
~ Joo
A~O0
7"0
coefficients--V/-v'L = 1.0
vessel. T h e l a t t e r figure varies with how carefully
the r u d d e r a n d stern f r a m e are s t r e a m l i n e d w i t h
t h e u p p e r figure m o r e likely.
The Effect of Beam-Draft Ratio
to draft, 2.:30.
T h e series r e p o r t e d is for o n l y one ratio of b e a m
I t would, of course, be nice to
test m a n y m o r e m o d e l s ill o r d e r to i n c l u d e t h e
effect of this variable. T h e a u t h o r has n o t done
so for two reasons. H e does n o t feel t h e r o u t i n e
tests of this n a t u r e would b e useful in e d u c a t i n g
s t u d e n t s . Second, he hats no desire to c o n t i n u e
this p r o j e c t b e y o n d its ah-eady long s p a n of years.
F o r t u n a t e l y , p a s t tests h a v e been m a d e w i t h
p a r t i c u l a r parertt hulls a n d these show t h a t t h e
b e a m - d r a f t r a t i o hats a q u i t e small effect on the
t o t a l resistance of fishing vessels g e n e r a l l y similar
in s h a p e to the ones r e p o r t e d here. T h e y also
show t h a t an increase in b e a m - d r a f t r a t i o some-
times increases resistance, b u t can, j u s t as fre-
q u e n t l y , r e d u c e it. A n i n h e r e n t p a r t of t h e v a r i a -
tion should be t h e w e t t e d surface and its friction
59
 ...---%o \ xX,!1/I/!1! i' ! ..o
I, ,o

\ X '

~ - 6 .d-~ 60 ~- .64" .66 .69 7 0

Fig. 15 Residuary resistance coefficients--V/~/L = 1.1

drag. Fig. 20 is d r a w n to a v e r y large v e r t i c a l Fig. 22 is an e x a c t l y similar p l o t p r e p a r e d from

scale a n d d e m o n s t r a t e s t h a t t h e w e t t e d surface
c h a n g e s q u i t e slowly in c o m p a r i s o n w i t h t h e b e a m -
d r a f t ratio. As t h e l a t t e r goes from 2.0 to 3.2, t h e
w e t t e d surface c h a n g e s less t h a n 3 percent. I t s
p r a c t i c a l effect, then, is minor.
As p a r t of t h e B r i t i s h S h i p b u i l d i n g R e s e a r c h
A s s o c i a t i o n ' s w o r k on t r a w l e r s [10], Messrs.
P a t t u l l o a n d T h o m s o n t e s t e d five m o d e l s w i t h
B / H v a l u e s from 2.00 to 3.50. Fig. 21 is a r e p l o t
of some of t h e i r results in t h e f o r m of a c o r r e c t i o n
f a c t o r which is a p p l i c a b l e to t h e t o t a l resistance of
a ship to a c c o u n t for B / H d e v i a t i o n s from 2.30.
As a q u a n t i t a t i v e i n d i c a t i o n , it shows t h a t b e a m -
d r a f t changes f r o m t h e i r series would p r o d u c e a
p r e d i c t i o n no m o r e t h a n 4-2 p e r c e n t in error in
a r a n g e from 2.20 to 2.50 and, if a 4-4.5 p e r c e n t
m a x i m u m e r r o r were allowed, we could go all
t h e w a y f r o m 2.00 to 2.75. T h e s e a r e for a hull
of 250 d i s p l a c e m e n t - l e n g t h r a t i o a n d 0.645 pris-
m a t i c coefficient.
five s y s t e m a t i c t r a w l e r m o d e l s t e s t e d b y A s t r u p
a n d S u n d [11]. I n this case we h a v e an even
higher d i s p l a c e m e n t - l e n g t h ratio, :390, and a lower
prismatic, 0.632. T h e results i n d i c a t e t h a t t o t a l
resistance decreases, o v e r m o s t of the speed range,
as . B / H is e i t h e r raised a b o v e or decreased below
2.30. I t confirms t h e p r e v i o u s tests in t h a t re-
sistances in t h e v i c i n i t y of 2.50 can be d e t e r m i n e d
w i t h o u t a resistance c h a n g e of m o r e t h a n 2 per-
cent, a n d t h a t a v a l u e of a b o u t 2.10 w o u l d lower
t o t a l resistance n o t m o r e t h a n 4 p e r c e n t from t h e
s t a n d a r d value.
F i n a l l y , t h e a u t h o r has m a d e some c o m p u t a -
tions oi1 a 200 d i s p l a c e m e n t - l e n g t h ratio, 0.60
p r i s m a t i c ship similar to M o d e l W-27 b y m e a n s of
t h e D o u s t s t a t i s t i c a l d a t a [12] and, once again,
finds it possible to v a r y ]3/H v a l u e s b y 4-0.30
from 2.30 w i t h o u t c h a n g i n g r e s i s t a n c e m o r e t h a n
4-4 percent. H e r e again t h e resistance a t m o s t
speeds goes d o w n as t h e b e a m is increased.

60 Resistance of a High Displacement-Length Ratio Trawler Series


i i
"/I .. \
.5"15" .O'~ .6"0 .62
Fig. 16 Residuary resistance
The author believes, therefore, that Figs. 11
through 19 can be used with reasonable con-
fidence for resistance predictions of ships with
beam-draft ratios from 2.00 to 2.60, with an order
of accuracy of better than 4. percent due to the
latter effect. In a majority of cases, the figures
will tend to overestimate rather than underesti-
mate the result. He would advise making the
total resistance and the horsepower computations
with the series wetted surface for B / H = 2.30,
from Fig. 20, in order to avoid the complication
of correcting the residuary resistance coefficients
to a different area value.
Should a beam-draft value higher than 2.60
be desired, Fig. 21 giw~s some idea of a correction
factor that could be applied to the above estimate
in order to arrive at horsepowers for craft up to
B / H = 3.50.
The Optimum Prismatic Coefficient
For this particular series, Figs. 11 through 19
can be used as a guide in selecting' the prismatic
Resistance of a High Displacement-Length Ratio Trawler Series
6-O0
'1
l 4.fO
6''d ~
400
JS"O
\ lll .oo
,~-5 " 0
.6"4 .6,ff .6c9 .70
coefficients~g/a/L = 1.2
coefficient for minimum residuary resistance
coefficient. Since, moreover, wetted surface
values vary rather slowly with prismatics, and
friction components are considerably smaller than
they are for lower displacement-length ratios,
the minimum total resistance value is very close
to the point indicated on the charts for the mirfi-
nmm residuary coefficient. Fig. 23 summarizes
the results, not only from the plots, but also from
the unpublished curves used in their preparation.
Since, for lower speeds, the minimum is normally
for prismatics below the range t e s t e d an addi-
tional curve is added from Taylor [5] covering a
displacement-length ratio of 200 and beam-
draft value of 2.25. It will be noted that this
fairs into the series very nicely.
The figure shows considerable variation in opti-
mum value depending upon the displacement-
length ratio. Another interesting feature should
be noted: The curve for the fattest group, with
500 for this quantity, is two branched. There is a
definite minimum resistance with relatively high
61
 /0/'/ j i;/ , ,"
,5"6" .O"dr .G O
Fig. 17 Residuary resistance coefficients--V/~/L = 1.3
prismatics at low speeds. Furthermore, very
probably, another minimum with lower resistance
occurs at a prismatic somewhere below 0.55.
Fig. 11 indicates a similar situation for A/(0.01L)3
= 400 at V/V/L = 0.7 but this single spot is
not shown on Fig. 23.
From a practical viewpoint, the actual models
of 0.55 prismatic coefficient have extensive dead-
wood at either end that would make a ship both
costly to build and difficult to design from a struc-
tural point of view. The author suggests a mini-
m u m prismatic of about 0.57, regardless of resist-
ance elements, for a commercial design. If this
were adopted, it would be the choice for all design
speeds below V/V/Z. = 1.10 which represents the
region in which the series was not carried down
to low enough prismatic values to determine the
optimum. M a n y modern fishing vessels, tugs,
and other high displacement-length ratio designs
do operate at free speeds well above 11 knots for a
].00-ft ship and, in this case, Fig. 23 can be con-
62 Resistance o f a High Displacement-Length Ratio Trawler Series
. ,
.oo
. 6"~2 6".,~ 66 . 6"6' .70
c-,,
sulted to help ascertain a suitable coefficient for
design purposes.
A Nonseries Design
As soon as the results of any series of related
models become available, every naval architect
who deals with the type of ship in question tries
to produce a better hull form. Those who are
not directly involved proceed to advise the author
as to what he should have done instead of what he
did and assure him that their suggestions would
produce a much superior hull. The author de-
cided to join in the suggestion-redesign-improve-
ment game before leaving the subject.
Model W-IS, the 0.60 prismatic, 300 displace-
ment-length ratio hull form was chosen as the
one to be improved upon. I t has the dimension
and parameters in line with recent American
practice for fishing trawlers. Its resistance values
are extrenmly good; they correspond to the mini-
mum possible ones predicted by Doust in his
 S
v//z- --- ,,.

/ ./
400

// / ./
,,J
,'//j 0

Cp. ~,/ O . O .~lO -~

.~OO
.0-6" .0"~ 6 0 6 ~ .64 .66 .6a .70
c',.
Fig. 18 Residuary resistance c o e f f i c i e n t s l V / x / L ~- 1.4

1962 paper [12]. I t is already considerably Table 2

superior to published bulbous bow designs with Model W-18 W-30
comparable parameters by Johnson [13] and Bow Normal 6.34% Bulb
Tothill [14]. The simultaneous application of a Stern Cruiser 0.00% Transom
bulbous bow and transom stern was adopted as a Cb 0. 456 0. 457
Cp 0. 597 0. 599
practical way to better the performance. C. 0. 764 0. 762
The author had found such a combination very C~ O. 731 o. 737
satisfactory in 1959 when he developed the lines C~p O.,524 O.620
Lcb aft 2. ,55% 2.46%
adopted by the Davidson Laboratory for their L/B 4. ,344 4. 345
high-speed ship series [15] tested in both smooth B/H 2.30 2.30
A/(O. O1L)3 300 300
water and waves. In addition, a bulbous bow,
alone, always tends to pull the longitudinal center
of buoyancy forward when added to a conven-
tional hull. Since a transom has the opposite author's supervision by J a y Paris, then a student
effect, the combination can be used to avoid any at Webb Institute. As in the lines from refer-
movement from the position adopted in the nor- ence [15], the author used a bulb projecting for-
mal hull. Since this is an important resistance ward of the fore perpendicular with an area of
parameter in ships of this type, the new design 6.34 percent of the midship section. The transom
should duplicate the old location if the comparison was designed with zero immersion at rest, but,
is to be a fair one. since there is a considerable stern wave, it has
Lines for Model W-30 were prepared under the effective immersion, increasing with speed, when

Resistance of a High Displacement-Length Ratio Trawler Series 63

 A/o-jZ
V//v/L
=/..5-

/ / ..-- /

...--/ ,300

t.5- ~ ~ ~ ~?O'-O

@00
d-6 .d-4~ .60 .6~ .6~ .66 .66 70
Cp
Fig. 19 Residuary resistance c o e f f i c i e n t s - - V / x / L = 1.5
IIZ i i
~/o~ ~ ~ s o
C p = . 6 "I~5-
ZlO ~0 -

P.75

270

~6S-

260
.,5-5 .60 .65 .70
Cp
Fig. 20 Wetted surface coefficients

.96
\ / \
~ .z .a .9 zo Zl ze
~ B p
Fig. 21 Effect o f beam-draft ratio on total r e s i s t a n c e - -
BSRA Series

64 Resistance of a High Displacement-Length Ratio Trawler Series

 /.06-
,o. I I ~./oTZ~ o a o
/.oz
c,. - . 6 J ~
" \
.~0
.7 .d .,9 /.0 /.I
Fig. 2 2 Effect of beam-draft ratio on total resistance--
Astrup and Sund
under way. Although not intentional, the fining
of the bow waterline and the filling of the stern
resulted in a waterplane coefficient within 1 per-
cent of that of the conventional hull. As a re-
sult, only a minor metacentric height change
could be expected. The body plan and end pro-
files are shown in Fig. 24, the section area and
waterline shape in Fig. 25 and essential parameters
compared in "Fable 2.
T h e expanded resistance curves of the two
models are shown in Fig. 26. I t should be noted
that there is no increase in resistance at low speeds
despite the bulb and an increase in wetted surface.
Furthermore, the m a x i m u m i m p r o v e m e n t is
7.5 percent at a speed-length ratio of 1.05 and
appreciable savings exist over the range from
V/%/L = 0.85 to 1.20.
Conclusion
Once a set of parent models has been developed,
in order to produce good hull forms, expanded
into a related series, and the results analyze(/
and put down in a form convenient for resistance
and horsepower predictions, it takes time and use
to digest the result and arrive at a n y really
worthwhile c.onclusions. For the present the
author and his m a n y assistants have tried to pro-
duce material of use to designers of small special-
ized craft. In this eountry, at least, the owners
of these ships rarely have an engineering back-
ground. Once the need for a new boat is estab-
Resistance of a High Displacement-Length Ratio Trawler Series
.6~-:~
%
-- >10:S-
"I
.GO
.o-_q- -
.F .d~ ._9 / O A/ /:2 Z,3 Z4 /,5-
/" zcz~-,~
Fig. 23 Optimum prismatic coefficients
/
lished, they are far too impatient to wait for design
alternatives to be worked out, tested in model
tanks, and thorough analyses made. T h e y are
/Z" /.3 certainly unwilling to finance such activities.
The success of the tugs, trawlers, fireboats, and
other such craft have resulted from a handful
of small design organizations whose highly skilled
personnel continuously solve difficult problems
by means of imagination, intuition, and most of
all, long practical experience. This series was
done in an a t t e m p t to provide these frequently
forgotten practitioners in the field of naval archi-
tecture with a quick and easy method of estimat-
ing the effective horsepower of their designs.
For others with enlightened clients who will
finance model tests, it is hoped that this series
will be useful as a means of ascertaining the merit
of new designs. E v e r y effort has been made to
m a k e the series represent practical, realistic ships
which could be built without difficulties. The
above water shape has large :flare and this, to-
gether with the Vee-shaped sections forward,
should lead to reasonable pertormance in rough
as well as smooth water. The latter quality has
been compared, model b y model, to all the similar
published test data available and the conclusions
reached t h a t the series, throughout its range, is
very good.
There are still, however, a n u m b e r of ways by
which improvements of appreciable magnitude
are possible if we depart from the conventional
bow, cruiser stern, and hull parameters currently
used.
Model W-30 with a transom stern and a moder-
ate bulb has shown ,;avings up to 7 percent with-
out departures from no,Trial hull coefficients.
Doust in reference ,!12] has shown that, with a
proper choice of dimensions, angles of entrance
and longitudinal centers of buoyancy, a marked
i m p r o v e m e n t over existing practice is possible.
65
 \

Fig. 24 Bulb-transom h u l l - - M o d e l W-30

A/A
z~/Z~ ,'fA x

( ..

i , I t I ('t'qt! I I I I I :
/0.9~ @ ~ ~ ~ 6 o- -~ .9 ~ //~ / /~ o
Fig. 25 Section area and load waterline--Model W-30

T h e centers of buoyancy, however, are extremely
far aft in comparison with normal American de-
signs. Another way, again departing from exist-
ing practice, is to use very fine prismatic coeffi-
cients in the order of 0.53 for a n y designs whose
speed-length ratios are below 1.05. And a final
possibility is to use a very large bulb extending
well ahead of the bow in order to achieve bow
wave cancellation over a portion of the speed
range. There is one thesis under way in this
field at the time of writing and it shows model
resistance values for a 0.65 prismatic coefficient
hull at V/'V~ = 1.10 can be reduced as m u c h as
25 percent.
authors. Their individual theses have been
listed in the references of the three papers pro-
duced to cover the progress, and, with this one,
the completion of the investigation. There have
been other students who have contributed sub-
stantial amounts of time to the project. For
the present paper, Messrs. Donald Moore, J a y
Paris, and K a r l K i r k m a n have prepared model
drawings, drawn lines, and m a d e computations.
Starting in 1958, THB SOCIETY OF NAVAL
ARCHITECTS, through the Resistance and Pro-
pulsion Panel of the Hydrodynamics Committee,
has contributed funds to cover the construction
of the last 15 models in the series.

Acknowledg ments References

The author wishes to t h a n k all of those former 1 C. Ridgely-Nevitt, " T h e Resistance of
students at Webb Institute who have made this Trawler Hull Forms of 0.65 Prismatic Coefficient,"
project possible. I n effect, he has had 25 co- TRANS. S N A M E , vol. 64, 1956.

66 Resistance of a High Displacement-Length Ratio Trawler Series


ZS----- ~
/.6 - - - - -
v /
/.o
7 c5 .9 /O / /
-~PL"~'D-/1"7-3.
Fig. 2 6 R e s i s t a n c e c o m p a r i s o n for
normal hulls
2 C. Ridgely-Nevitt, " T h e Development of
Parent Hulls for a High Displacement-Length
Series of Trawler Forms," TRANS. SNAME,
vol. 71, 1963.
3 F. Endrizzi and R. McGowan, " T h e
Resistance of Trawler Hull Forms of Various
Displacement-Length Ratios at 0.70 Prismatic
Coefficient," senior thesis, ~rebb Institute of
Naval Architecture, 1962.
4 G. W. Birkhead and H. A. Olson, " T h e
Resistance of Trawler Hull Forms of Various
Displacement-Length Ratios at 0.60 Prismatic
Coefficient," senior thesis, Webb Institute of
Naval Architecture, 1963.
5 D. W. Taylor, The Speed and Power of
Ships, third edition, 1943.
6 L. Landweber, "Tests of A Model in
Restricted Channels," U S E M B Report No. 460,
M a y 1939.
7 C. Ridgely-Nevitt, "Geometrically Similar
Ship Models---An Investigation of Some Problems
Resulting fronl Their Resistance Values," Inter-
national Shipbuilding _Progress, July 1959.
8 J . B . Hadler, "Coefficients for International
Towing Tank Conference 1957 Model-Ship Cor-
relation Line," D T M B Report 1185, 1958.
9 "Tables of Coefficients for A.T.T.C. Model-
Ship Correlation and Kinematic Viscosity and
Density of Fresh and Salt Water," S N A M E
Technical and Research Bulletin, No. 1-25,
1964.
10 R. N. M. Pattullo and G. R. Thomson,
" T h e B.S.R.A. Trawler Series (Part I) Beam-
Draft and Length-Displacement Ratio Series
Resistance and Propulsion Tests," Trans. R I N A ,
vol. 106, 1964.
Resistance of a High Displacement-Length Ratio Trawler Series
f/
%
z / / r/ I
/ -G
- -
Fig. 27 Two turbulence stimulator arrangements
/Z /,.Y
bulb-transom and
11 E. Sund and N. Astrup, "Modellforsok
med Fiskefartoyer Del I[," '3kippsmodelltankens
~feddelelse, Nr. 7, 1951.
12 D . J . Doust, "Optimized Trawler Forms,"
Trans. North East Coast Institution of Engineers
and Shipbuilders, vol. 79, 1962-63.
13 N. V. Johnson, "Bulbous Bows on Trawl-
ers," International Shipbuilding Progress, De-
cember 1956.
14 J. T. Tothi][1, "An Advanced Hull and
Propeller Design," ~ishing Boats of the World, vol.
2, 1960.
15 P. R. Van 5,,tater, Jr., R. B. Zubaly, and
Petros M. Beys, "Hydrodynamics of High Speed
Ships," Davidson Laboratory, Report R-876, 1961.
16 J. A. Burns and P. J. Murphy, "An In-
vestigation of Turbulence Stimulators on Ship
Models Employing H o t Film Anemometers as
Detection Devices," senior thesis, Webb In-
stitute of Naval Architecture, 1962, and Inter-
national Shipbuilding Progress, April 1965.
17 A. E. yon Doenhoff and E. A. Horton,
"A Low Speed Expe.rimental I~avestigation on the
Effect of a Sandpaper T y p e of Roughness on
Boundary Layer Transition," NACA Technical
Note 3858, 1956.
,~ppendix 1
Stimulator Performance or, Small Models
The development of satisfactory turbulence
stimulators, together with an adequate technique
of testing--which i,; essential if the stimulators
are to do their work--has had to proceed simul-
taneously with the models being designed and
tested. I t should be emphasized that the models
are only 4 ft 0 in long and are, therefore, the short-
est that the Webb T a n k has ever tested. Refer-
ences [1] and [2] included in their appendices the
67
 Table 3 Summary of Stimulator Performance
Failure Excess
1/~ Angle all resistance Small
of small alternate pins Alternate
entrance pins, pins, saris- pins
Model degrees C~ A/(.01L) 3 ft/see ft/sec factory necessary
W-19 7.0 0.554 200 2.5 2.7 Yes
W-30 7.7 0. 599 300 2.3 3.1 Almost Yes
W-16 8.5 0.554 300 Very Very Yes
low low
W-22 9.8 O. 554 400 2.4 3.3 Almost Yes
W-26 10.9 O. 554 500 3.2 3.3 Yes
W-27 13.3 O. 597 200 2.0 3.1 Yes
W-18 16.1 O. 597 300 2.7 3.5 Yes
W-IO 18.2 O. 650 200 2.0 2.8 Yes
W-28 18.5 O. 59"/ 400 2.7 3.4 Yes
W-29 20.5 O. 597 500 2.1 3.6 Yes
W-8 22.0 O. 650 300 1.7 2.4 Yes
W-11 25.0 0.650 400 2.8 3.4 Yes
W-23 25.8 O. 700 200 2.8 3.5 Yes
W-12 27.5 O. 650 500 2.3 2.4 Almost Yes
W-20 30.6 0. 700 300 1.8 3.0 Yes
W-24 34.4 0. 700 400 3.6 3.7 Yes
W-25 37.4 0. 700 500 2.1 3.9 Yes
Minimum 1.7 2.4
Average 2.4+ 3.2--
Maximum 3.6 3.9

d e v e l o p m e n t l e a d i n g to t h e final f o r m of t h e s t i m u -
lators.
U n f o r t u n a t e l y , i t was n o t possible to h a v e one
s t a n d a r d t y p e t h a t could a l w a y s b e i n s t a l l e d a n d
t r u s t e d to t r i g g e r t r a n s i t i o n . Fig. 27 shows
t h e t w o t y p e s t h a t were finally selected for all
t h e 16 series m o d e l s plus t h e b u l b - t r a n s o m case.
T h e a l l - s m a l l - p i n t y p e was i n v a r i a b l y s a t i s f a c t o r y
a t t h e high s p e e d e n d of t h e r a n g e ( a b o v e
V / x / L = 1.05), b u t p r o v e d q u e s t i o n a b l e a t t h e
low speed end. T h e a l t e r n a t e large a n d s m a l l
p i n a r r a n g e m e n t i n v a r i a b l y h a d excessive s t i m u -
l a t o r d r a g a t h i g h speeds. S o m e w h e r e in t h e
m i d d l e of t h e speed range, w i t h the e x c e p t i o n of
m o d e l W-16, i t w o u l d give e x a c t l y t h e s a m e re-
s i s t a n c e as t h e s m a l l p i n case and, a t slow speeds,
i t was s o m e t i m e s a b e t t e r s t i m u l a t o r , s o m e t i m e s
not, a n d s o m e t i m e s still g a v e i d e n t i c a l r e s i s t a n c e
v a l u e s w i t h t h e small pins.
All m o d e l s of t h e series were t r i e d w i t h b o t h
a n d w h i c h e v e r one g a v e t h e h i g h e r r e s i s t a n c e a t
low speeds was d e e m e d t h e b e t t e r s t i m u l a t o r .
S u b s e q u e n t t e s t s on a Series 60 a n d a t a n k e r hull
w i t h h o t film a n e m o m e t e r s [16] confirmed t h e f a c t
t h a t t h e h i g h e r r e s i s t a n c e a t low speed was d u e to
t u r b u l e n c e a n d n o t j u s t a d d e d s t i m u l a t o r drag.
I n all cases t h e s t i m u l a t o r d r a g was i n c l u d e d
in t h e m o d e l resistance. P r e v i o u s w o r k [1]
i n d i c a t e d t h a t i t was t h e p r o p e r o r d e r of m a g -
n i t u d e to c o m p e n s a t e for t h e l a m i n a r f r i c t i o n
v a l u e s p r e v a i l i n g in t h e a r e a a h e a d of t h e pins.
T h e d r a g of p i n s is, f o r t u n a t e l y , m u c h lower t h a n
s a n d s t r i p s and, on s o m e models, c o n s i d e r a b l y
lower t h a n t r i p wires.
T a b l e 3 h a s b e e n p r e p a r e d in an a t t e m p t to
d e t e r m i n e whether, a f t e r 17 t e s t s w i t h two t y p e s
of s t i m u l a t o r s , some definite conclusions could b e
r e a c h e d to j u s t i f y t h e choice of a specific one, in
a d v a n c e of testing, for t h e low speed region w i t h a
new model. T h e d a t a are a r r a n g e d in o r d e r of
i n c r e a s i n g half angle of e n t r a n c e , since this is
t h e chief v a r i a b l e affecting t h e s h a p e of t h e hull
a h e a d of t h e pins and, therefore, t h e p r o b a b l e
c h a r a c t e r of t h e a l m o s t e n t i r e l y l a m i n a r b o u n d a r y
l a y e r r e a c h i n g t h e s t i m u l a t o r . S p e e d s in feet p e r
second a r e q u o t e d below which t h e small p i n
c o n f i g u r a t i o n fails to f u n c t i o n s a t i s f a c t o r i l y in
c o m p a r i s o n w i t h t h e a l t e r n a t e large a n d small
pins. A s e c o n d c o l u m n of speeds gives t h e u p p e r
l i m i t for use of a l t e r n a t e large a n d small pins
before excessive d r a g b e c o m e s e v i d e n t .
T h e t a b l e shows no set p a t t e r n w i t h angle of
e n t r a n c e a n d no p r o g r e s s i v e v a r i a t i o n of speed
r a n g e for s a t i s f a c t o r y p e r f o r m a n c e as a f u n c t i o n of
this v a r i a b l e . All we can s a y is t h a t in 7 cases of
17 t h e small pins are s a t i s f a c t o r y ; in t h r e e a d d i -
t i o n a l cases t h e y are good d o w n to a s p e e d - l e n g t h
r a t i o of 0.75, which is a l m o s t s a t i s f a c t o r y . I n t h e
o t h e r cases t h e a l t e r n a t e p i n a r r a n g e m e n t is n e e d e d
a t speeds w h i c h m a y b e as low as 1.7 f t / s e c
(V/'v/L = 0.5) or as high as 3.6 f t / s e c (V/.~/L =
1.06). T h e a v e r a g e roughness R e y n o l d s n u m b e r
a t w h i c h t h e s m a l l pins fail, b a s e d on free s t r e a m
v e l o c i t y a n d p i n p r o j e c t i o n , is 765 a n d t h e r a n g e
is f r o m 500 to 1100. T r a n s i t i o n d u e to r o u g h n e s s
a t R e y n o l d s n u m b e r s of a b o u t 800 are in accord-
ance w i t h a e r o n a u t i c a l d a t a [17] a n d t h e a u t h o r
uses this as r o u g h c r i t e r i o n for s t i m u l a t o r design

68 Resistance of a High Displacement-Length Ratio Trawler Series

on surface models. Completely submerged bod-
ies have required higher values.
T a b l e 3 illustrates one of the most frustrating
elements in the testing of small (and quite prob-
ably large) models. T h a t is the erratic nature
of stimulator performance. T h e only definite
statement one can m a k e is t h a t all the models of
400 displacement-length ratio are particularly
difficult and require the alternate pins. This,
however, cannot be extrapolated to any general
Discussion
Robert Taggart, Member: Professor N e v i t t has
again demonstrated his ability to present the re-
sults of a long and arduous research project in
a thorough and concise manner. His three papers
on the Webb Trawler Series represent a major
contribution to the profession. As one who at-
t e m p t e d t w e n t y years ago to compile resistance
d a t a on tug and trawler forms, I can attest to the
fact t h a t he has filled a gapping void in our knowl-
edge of ship hydrodynamics.
M y p r i m a r y c o m m e n t is related to the use of
this information b y those who are concerned with
the design of vessels of this type. Although these
three paper,; give the salient d a t a developed in
the course of the study, they necessarily omit some
of the detail needed for m a x i m u m use b y designers.
Before these details are lost in the files of the
Institute, they should be assembled and published
in a f o r m a t which is immediately available and
usable.
In view of the interest and support which this
project has received from the H-2 Panel of the
H y d r o d y n a m i c s Committee, it is suggested t h a t
they sponsor this publication. I t should contain
sufficient definitive information on the hull form
of each of the series models so t h a t it can be re-
produced together with the model test speed and
resistance points and their expansion to a standard
ship length. In addition, the publication should
contain the contours of residuary resistance, wetted
surface coefficients, and curves indicating the cor-
rection for be.am/draft ratio. Finally, instructions
and forms should be provided for predicting the
effective hor,~epower of a n y new design of this type
of ship.
To m y knowledge only two of these series models
are included in the Resistanee D a t a Sheets pub-
lished b y the Society. T h e remainder of the
models should most certainly be described in
this manner which would fulfill the initial re-
quirements of the suggested publication. T h e
contours of residuary resistance, wetted surface
coefficients, and b e a m / d r a f t ratio correction are
Resistance of a High Displacement-Length Ratio Trawler Series
s t a t e m e n t dealing with other types of models.
T h e Webb T a n k has found no alternative, to
date, to testing with both the stimulators shown
in Fig. 27 and inspecting the resistance curves to
see which one to use in the low speed range.
For very accurate research purposes, in the vicin-
ity of V/x/L = 0.5, neither may be satisfactory
and double rows of small triangles of the Inui
type [7] m a y be necessary.
contained in the present paper as are generalized
recommendations for full-scale expansion.
I t is suggested t h a t the work involved in prepar-
ing this publication could be undertaken b y W e b b
students with H-2 Panel financial support. Since
all of the data are available at Webb Institute, this
would be a logical procedure. Professor N e v i t t
would also be available for consultation but I
would hesitate to recommend t h a t he be burdened
with further responsibilities in this regard. H e
has already indicated t h a t the twelve or more
years devoted to this project has lessened his
enthusiasm for its continued pursuit. H e should
now be allowed to retire gracefully with a re-
sounding "Well Done."
G. R. Thomson,3Visitor: With increasing universal
interest in fishing w_~ssel design the results given in
the paper are a valuable addition to existing d a t a
on the subject. Over the past ten years the
resistance of trawler hull forms has improved
considerably and systematic variations with ship
models have contributed to more efficient hull
designs.
T h e writer has at~.empted a comparison between
the BSRA trawler series and the Webb Institute
series. At first sight it appeared t h a t the two
series might link up at the common block coeffi-
cient of 0.53 and estimates were made from the
BSRA series for a 100-ft ship based on the par-
ticulars of Webb )/[odel W.20. While accurate
corrections for changes in breadth-draught ratio,
length-displacement ratio, fullness, longitudinal
center of buoyancy and trim could be applied to
the resistance values of the ba,sis BSRA hull, the
difference due to ch:~nge in m a x i m u m section area
could not be accounted for in the same way and,
therefore, was omitted. At a speed-length ratio of
1.1 the I T T C resistance value.., with a roughness
allowance of 0.0004, derived from the BSRA series
8 British Ship Research Association, Wallsend Research
Station, Wallsend, Norl:humberland, England.
69
came out at 1.523 compared with the Webb value
of 2.29, a difference of some 50 percent.
In the development of the BSRA trawler series
parent form, 4 a decrease in m a x i m u m section co-
efficient from 0.89 to 0.82, with the other basic
particulars remaining constant, resulted in an
increase in resistance of about 30 percent at the
speed-length ratio of 1.1. I t is conceivable,
therefore, t h a t the difference of 50 percent men-
tioned above could be attributed to decreasing the
m a x i m u m section coefficient from the BSRA basis
of 0.885 to t h a t of 0.761 for Webb Model W.20.
Variations of m a x i m u m section coefficient in-
vestigated b y the author at Webb Institute on
forms of 0.65 prismatic coefficient showed rela-
tively small changes in resistance compared with
the BSRA series.
In connection with the effect of breadth-draught
ratio, it will be seen from Fig. 21 t h a t in the BSRA
series, resistance increases with increase in this
ratio for a given speed and the Astrup and Sund
results plotted in Fig. 22 generally show the
same trends. In the writer's experience, a reduc-
tion in resistance with increase in breadth-
draught ratio would appear to be the exception
rather than the rule.
BSRA trawler series variations of position of
longitudinal center of buoyancy 5 have shown t h a t
savings in resistance of up to about 40 percent m a y
be achieved b y moving the LCB from 1 to 6 per-
cent aft of midships for speed-length ratios above
unity. I t is, therefore, to be recommended t h a t
the LCB should be placed as far aft as is practical.
Finally, the writer is very interested in the
results obtained with the form having combined
transom stern and bulbous bow. Individual
effects of different types of bow and stern con-
figurations were examined relative to the BSRA
trawler parent form but the combined effect was
not ascertained.
Cyrus Hamlin,Member: There is not a great deal
one can say to augment this p a p e r - - t h e s t u d y is
so complete as it is. But, as with all good work,
it carries one's thinking beyond it into the future.
N a v a l architects have traditionally relied on a
fairly small number of parameters to define their
vessels. These are generally as follows:
4 I-I. Lackenby, "Resistance of Trawlers," Fishing Boats
of the World, vol. 2, 1960, p. 364.
5 R. N. M. Pattullo, "The B.S.R.A. Trawler Series
(Part II). Block Coefficient and Longitudinal Centre
of Buoyancy Series. Resistance and Propulsion Tests,"
Paper issned for written discussion by RINA, August,
1967.
70 Resistance of a High Displacement-Length Ratio Trawler Series
Geometric
Length, L
Beam, B
Linear
Depth, D
Draft, H
Wetted surface, WS }
Midsection area, M A ~ Area
Water plane area
Displacement, Volume
Relationships and Coefficients
L/B
B/H
C,,, = midsection coefficient
C~ = prismatic coefficient
Cb = block coefficient
Cwp = waterplane coefficient
A/(0.01L) 3
Positiona!
LCB aft
G M = metacentrie height
W P C G = waterplaue center of gravity
1/9ao = 1~ angle of entry
As hydrodynamic research becomes more re-
fined and sophisticated, will it not be necessary to
refine further the definition of hull forms beyond
the limits of the aforementioned parameters? I t
seems reasonable to suppose t h a t the next step
will be to define b y ordinates or other measures the
o p t i m u m shapes of certain curves. These might
include the 45-deg diagonal, the quarter b e a m
buttock, and the load waterline.
I would like to ask Mr. Ridgely-Nevitt if he
has had an opportunity to check his series of
trawler hulls against the statistical analysis of
fishing vessel resistance reported b y Messrs.
Doust, Hayes, and Tsuehiya at the 1965 FAO
Fishing Boat Congress. If so, would he report
the results of the comparison ?
T h e anomalies in the turbulence stimulation re-
ported b y Mr. Ridgely-Nevitt lead to considera-
tion of other means of stimulation. Perhaps
better uniformity of results could be achieved by
overall tank turbulation b y means of underwater
air or water jets.
T h e cooperative effort between Mr. Ridgely-
N e v i t t and Webb students is exemplary. Un-
doubtedly all gained from the association. T h e
success of the Webb Institute effort suggests t h a t
this type of cooperation could become more widely
used to the benefit of all if there existed a clearing-
house to bring together on the one hand engineers
and scientists having specific problems with, on the
other hand, students with facilities available and
the desire to work op such problems.
 A final word a b o u t S N A M E papers in general.
I suppose I am a minority of one Oil the matter,
but I do not seem able to remember definitions of
all the symbols from one paper to the next.
Would it not be possible to include all the per-
tinent nomenclature in each paper, or volume,
even if it seems stupidly redundant? If the
editors wished to m a k e the readings of their pa-
pers flow even more smoothly, the table of symbols
could be printed on a foldout page so as to be
available for reference with a mere flick of the eyes.
T. W. Pross, Member: The paper presents valu-
able information to the fishing vessel and small
boat naval architect in determining desirable hull
forms for various speed and power requirements.
I t is noted that the tests were conducted in smooth
water. The results in rough water and when
under trawling conditions would be of interest.
The speed a vessel makes through the water is
very important to most fishermen. On a recent
tuna vessel under construction in the Fishing
Vessel Subsidy Program, a bulbous bow was in-
eluded. Model tests on this vessel indicated a ~/4-
knot increase in speed, all other conditions remain-
ing the same. While this increase in speed m a y
not appear great, its effect over a 3- to 4-month
fishing trip is appreciable. Also, when tuna
vessels are working together in a given ocean area
the added speed enables the vessel to arrive at a
new school of tuna quicker. The first vessel able to
set its net usually receives the best results. Like-
wise, in the long run to the grounds, when un-
loaded, and returning home, full with tuna, the
added speed is of prime importance.
Therefore, Mr. Ridgely-Nevitt's work will be
most valuable in this important fishery. The
shrimp fleet should also benefit as the new shrimp
grounds off Brazil are developed and higher speed
vessels are required.
In other fisheries, speed, while important, is not
so important as seakindliness. Fishing vessels, as
a rule, work in rougher seas, relative to their
size, than most ocean craft. When the weather
gets difficult, the fisherman must still handle his
gear out on deck. He cannot button up the vessel
and stay inside. If he does he will not be produc-
tive.
The king crab vessels and trawlers operating off
Alaska and out the Aleutian chain expe.rienee some
of the most difficult fishing weather in the world.
For example, the Cape St. James weather office, in
Queen Charlotte Islands, which is nearly central
to the Hecate Straits, the most prolific trawling
grounds on the West Coast, indicates the yearly
average wind speed on 8.4 out of 10 days equals or
exceeds Force'. 5 and on 4.7 days out of 10 equals or
Resistance o f a High Displacement-Length Ratio Trawle,r Series
exceeds Force 7. Groundwells and tidal velocities
in this area are also strong. The New England
Trawlers operating on Georges and Grand Banks
also experience difficult working conditions.
The need of seakindly and seaworthy vessels
in these operating conditions is more important
than speed and therefore speed at times has been
sacrificed to develop a hull which provides comfort
and safety to the crew.
The determination of proper hull form, hull
proportions, and weight and displacement dis-
tribution are required to develop a seakindly
vessel. These, of course, v a r y depending upon the
fishery, fishing grounds, type of vessel, prominent
wave characteristics, average weather and sea
conditions, material of vessel, and so forth.
Resistance, seakindliness and directional sta-
bility are of such importance that their correct
determination b y the naval architect for each fish-
ing vessel is of prime importance. The paper will
be of great assistan,ze to the naval architect in his
determination of resistance esfimates. However,
its importance coupled with seakindliness should
never be overlooked.
D. J. Doust, Member: This excellent paper shows
the valuable results which can be derived from
ship-model experiments when proper care and
attention are given to overcome the problems of
turbulence stimulation and tank blockage.
T h e discusser particularly wishes to endorse the
use of m a x i m u m area coefficient, as adopted by the
author, rather than the more usual midship sec-
tion area eoefficierLt. Most of the conclusions
reached in this paper confirm and reinforce the
statistical work performed b y the discusser and his
former colleagues at Ship Division, N. P . L . Of
particular interest to the designer is the small effect
of b e a m / d r a f t ratio on resistance coefficient at
certain speed-length ratios; a conclusion sup-
ported b y the BSRA Trawler Series and the work
of Astrop and Lund.
The forms indicated b y the author, for which
full resistance data have been presented, are re-
garded as an excellent guide to designers and prac-
titioners in this field of ship design. Regarding
the question of the o p t i m u m location of the longi-
tudinal center of buoyancy and the additional
reductions in resistance coefficient which can be
achieved by further movement of this location aft,
it is suggested that this should always be con-
sidered in relation to other practical requirements
such as trim, which depends on the internal load-
ing arrangements of such vessels and the layout
of the propulsion ,,system employed. T h e dis-
cusser is pleased to note the benefits obtained in
this work by fitting a bulbous bow and transom
71
 10 10
9

8
L=9; TO RUE DER PO,( T
TUG- / 9

8
(.01 L)=I 415 t
1001 LW Cp= 615
(.0~= 385 971 To I /
7 7
Cp =.63 3 //
6 cr6 /
/
Nevitt
Cr 5 x1()'5
xl0 "s 4 4
971 N e v i :t L g
3 3
1001Ne~ tt Lg ~ ~ -1501 Tul a Boat
2 2
I 1
0 0
0.6 0.7 0.8 0.9 1.0 1.1 1.2 1.3 1.4 0.6 &7 Q8 0.9 1.0 1.1 1.2 13 IA
v V
vE

Fig. 28 Ocean-going tug (LT) Fig. 31 150-~ tuna boat

'10
9
I
With ;ulb: W i t h ) u t Bulb:
(.01 L) 3= 418
A -', 8 - -
(.0~-)~= 225 (.01L)~ ~221 Cp = 626
7 /
Cp= .5 56 Cp=,E 54 /
Cr /
Cr6 /
/

=10' Nev it ~ . ~ E 54 / xlo"5 t /

~// 350 1 )n Tuna I ~ o a t ~ ~,. ~. /
4 j-/
Ship~ ithout B~ b ~
3
S h i p ~ ith Bulb- ..__.__..~ - ~ ' / S ' ~ - - N evit t
- __a~ X---~ ~ Nevitt 1;p = .566
2 - -
1
0
0.6 0,7 0.8 0,9 1.0 1.1 1.2 1.3 1A 0,6 0.7 0.8 0.9 1.0 1.1 1.2 1.3 1,4
v V
v-

Fig. 29 147-ft fisheries research ship Fig. 32 350-ton tuna boat

10
Con( ition A Conditiol B
9 /X 2, for vessels of that class. In an endeavor to esti-
(.01 L)~ : 318 (.01 L) *= 377 ~ / ~ I mate the applicability of the contours given in the
8 Cp = .575 Cp = 592
7
paper to a wide range of different types and kinds
144f Tug Cond A-
of high displacement length craft, Cr resistance
Cr 6
x 10-35 1441 Tug ~ond B- ~. / ~ values have been plotted for five vessels designed
by my office. These vessels are two tugs, two
4
large tuna fishing vessels, and one oceanographic
~ Nevitt :ond B research vessel, all having lengths in the neighbor-
2 hood of 130 to 150 ft. T h e results of these plots
..... ~ ~ ~-- ~ ~ ' - N e v i : t Cond e~
are shown in Figs. 28 through 32.
0
0.6 0.7 0.8 0.9 1.0 1.1 1.2 1.3 1.4
Fig. 28, showing plots of residuary resistance
v__ from model basin tests and as calculated from the
v~
papers "Contours of Residuary Resistance," illus-
Fig. 30 1 4 4 - f t ocean-going tug trates one great danger in indiscriminate use of
these contours. Mr. Ridgely-Nevitt uses length
from the centerline of the rudder post, whereas the
stern, which are generally in line with practical model basin data are based on length to the water-
experience over the speed ranges quoted. line. The resistance values are all brought back
to the 100-ft expanded resistance base used in the
G. C. Nickum, Member: Only those who have Society's tabulated model resistance data sheets.
groped blindly through the voids of data existing Obviously, if the waterline length is used, assuming
on high displacement length/ratio vessels can that displacement and midship section coefficient
appreciate the value from the estimating stand- are unchanged, then the calculated prismatic co-
point of realistic contours of residuary resistance efficient will be less than that obtained if the

72 Resistance o f a High Displacement-LengthRatio Trawler Series

length from the eenterline to the rudder post is
used. In Fig. 28 the solid line shows the model
resistance fignres--the lower dotted line shows the
resistance figure from the paper calculating the
prismatic coefficient on the basis of 100-ft water-
line l e n g t h - - a n d the upper dotted line shows re-
sistance contours from the paper calculating the
prismatic coefficient on the 97-ft length which
corresponds in the vessel in question to the length
based on the rudder post. As one would expect,
the contours of residual resistance are extremely
sensitive to prismatic coefficients. Carelessness
in not using lengths which exactly correspond to
those used in developing the paper can result in
errors in residual resistance values up to 25 per-
cent.
T h e fact t h a t in all five cases illustrated the
residuary resistance figures for Professor Ridgely-
N e v i t t ' s standard form are under those of five
vessels actually in service, with the exception of
one shown on Fig. 31 which was specifically
designed to operate at a speed-length ratio of 1.15,
leads to two conclusions. The first bears out what
would be expected; i.e., Professor N e v i t t has done
an excellent job in developing a very efficient
trawler hull. T h e second is t h a t in applying these
values of residuary resistance to a wide variation
of hull types found in this high displacement
length/ratio type of vessel caution should be used
in applying these values, and during the pre-
liminary design stage, at least before estimates can
be verified by model tests, some margin should un-
doubtedly be added to the values given.
J. W. Gilbert, Member: In the past, small craft
designers have been relegated to using the three
publications, namely the "Resistance and Pro-
pulsion of Trawlers," by D. J. Doust, Takagis'
"Graphical Methods for Power Estimations of
Fishing Boats," and " T u g b o a t Design," by T. D.
Roach.
A review of the basic concepts applied in the
parent series contained in the paper illustrates a
number of departures from normal modern
trawler speed power calculations. Recent prac-
tice for modern hull forms uses the designed
waterline length in lieu of length between perpen-
diculars to avoid appendage corrections, espe-
cially with regard to stern trawlers and small
seiners where the rudder stock m a y be located as
much as 15 percent of the designed waterline
length forward of the stern profile waterline inter-
section.
The author is quite clear in stating that the hull
form selected was based on 1951 trawler character-
istics and this would appear to be the most serious
drawback to the use of the data. Modern
Resistance of a High Displacement-Length Ratio Trawler Series
trawlers seldom have midship coefficients less than
0.78. For vessels approximately 100 ft in length,
a midship coefficient of 0.80 to 0.82 is considered
optimum, resulting from a full block coefficient
necessary to sustain the increased weight of fish-
ing equipment and outfitting being used t o d a y as
a result of increased power in the main and auxil-
iary machinery. In the 100-ft length, the op-
t i m u m prismatic in ready--for-sea conditions is
considered to be somewhere: between 0.50 and
0.61. Smaller vessels have a gradually increasing
prismatic. Larger vessels have a slightly de-
creasing prismatic. In the last few years more
and more fishing vessels became involved in full
trips by virtue of refrigeration allowing topped
off holds or working at least p a r t of the year on
seining for mackerel, herring, and other industrial
fish. Vessels of this type should have a speed-
power calculation made for the full load condition.
T h e m a x i m u m prismatie considered both sea-
kindly and reasonable with regard to power for a
vessel 100 ft long in the full load condition is about
0.67.
T h e body plans for the various models tested
do differ from modern practice for fishing vessels
100 ft and over as follows:
The rise of floor is considered at the high
end and, in general, would be in the vicinity of
between l l and 16 deg. The bilge radius appears
especially slack in view of the improved roll
damping achieved b y hard bilges in the middle
length of the hull. The afterbody sections exhibit
a rather noted narrowing at both the deck and
waterline.
The modern fishing vessel is generally over-
powered. This is not for speed but for towing in
rough weather. The owner buys a large engine,
then derates it by operating at somewhat reduced
rpm and considerably reduced leading. As
the weather worsens, the demand for power in-
creases. I t is here t h a t excess power no longer
seems impractical and often makes the difference
in a sueeessflfl operation.
Trial and ready-for-sea speed-length ratios
Vk/VL on most of the recent vessels we have
designed are approximately 1.25, a speed which the
owner does not necessarily use. I t does give an
idea, however, as to how close to the limit the
hull forms are being driven.
Frictional and appendage resistances are diffi-
cult to deternfine. Most tishing boats of the
trawler type have chafing strips attached in
vertical rows. Steel w:ssels nearly ahvays have
bilge keels, and often have propeller guards,
especially on seallopers, consisting of a U-shaped
frame surrounding the propeller.
A recently trialed trawler was calculated for
73
speed-power using the Cr curves in the paper.
This was plotted against the same calculation
using Doust and Roach. Also plotted are three
points achieved on trials. I t is noted t h a t Ridgely-
N e v i t t is the lowest resistance and the full power
trial point agrees with this. At lower speeds the
Doust data more nearly agree with the trial points.
I t has been our practice to use D o u s t for vessels
over 125 ft in length. However, it does not per-
m i t full power speed determination on smaller
vessels. The Roach tug data are most suitable
on the tub stern vessels and full formed boats up
to a b o u t 100 ft.
A. K. Romberg, Member: This systematic series
of model tests does indeed fill a real need and the
author's analysis and presentation of the results
will be greatly appreciated b y the designers
and owners of h e a v y fishing vessels, tugs, and
other vessels of large displacement-length propor-
tions. As the author notes, such vessels usually are
designed without benefit of model tests because of
time and cost.
An important by-product of this project was the
splendid opportunity it gave a number of students
to participate in model basin work, perhaps for the
only time in their careers.
Our profession owes the author and his col-
laborators a vote of thanks.
J a n - O l o f Traung, Member: Professor Ridgely-
N e v i t t ' s statement t h a t wavemaking can only be
kept under reasonable control up to speed-length
ratios of approximately 1.15 and t h a t at higher
speeds excessively high powers are required, in-
duces me to suggest again that a prismatic co-
efficient of about 0.575 is o p t i m m n for all prac-
tical purposes for high displacement, nonplaning
commercial craft.
Sixteen years ago, I found that the o p t i m u m
prismatic was practically the same magnitude as
suggested in Nevitt's paper, i.e., 0.57 (Traung,
1951). A further paper (Traung, 1955) brought
up to date the study of model tests and also in-
cluded results of some systematic tests with
Pakistani fishing vessels, again indicating t h a t
optinmm prismatic was about 0.575.
I t was then decided that FAO should sponsor
testing of four models having prismatics of 0.525,
0.575, 0.625, and 0.675. T h e results (Traung,
1960) indicated t h a t from the resistance point of
view o p t i m u m prismatic was 0.575 but from the
propulsion point of view optimum prismatic w a s
0.55 in calm water and 0.525 in waves. The sub-
sequent discussion suggested testing a model with
a still lower prismatic, namely 0.475. However,
74 Resistance o f a High Displacement-Length Ratio Trawler Series
15.o FAO-OPTIMIZED FORMS (TRAUNG, DOUST, HAYES 1967)
.... N E V I T T - GRAPHS
~oo __ //
J //T
50
O
0.9
I
1.0
1
I.I
I
1.2
v/K"
Fig. 3 3
these subsequent tests did not change the original
conclusions.
In waves the 0.525 prismatic model required
least power but such sharp models become difficult
and uneconomical to build, and space utilization
becomes a problem.
Inui bulbs were also tested (Yokoyama, 1961)
for the models with prismaties of 0.575 and I).675.
None of the bulbous bows on the 0.575 prismatic
model made any i m p r o v e m e n t at speed-length
ratios below 1.1. The Inui bulb was slightly
better at high speed-length ratios. The Inui bulb
on the high prismatic model made a considerable
improvement; however, total resistance did not
decrease to t h a t of the low prismatic model.
Fitting a transom stern to the model with 0.575
prismatic resulted in a decrease of resistance in
calm water, b u t when self-propelled in waves the
cruiser stern had less resistance.
I t is unfortunate t h a t few series have had
transom sterns as there is no doubt t h a t for fish-
ing vessels a transom stern is ideal, and will be
standard in the future.
FAO in collaboration with the National
Physical L a b o r a t o r y (NP), UK, has made a
statistical analysis of model test data of fishing
vessels (Doust, Hayes, Tsuehiya, 1967; Traung,
Doust, Hayes, 1967). In order to test whether it
was possible to optimize the best combination of
parameters, four models were developed having
lengths of 40, 55, 70, and SO ft and displacement
length ratios of 555, 459, 377, and 310. Two of
the models were drawn from the computer op-
timized parameters at FAO, one at NPL, and one
at Chahners. There was reasonable correlation
between the model test results and computer pre-
dictions especially at the speed-length ratio of 1.1
on which optimization was made.
We have now compared the E H P from the
model tests with the 55, 70, and 85 footers with the
E H P calculated from N e v i t t ' s resistance contours
in Fig. 33. This suggests at higher speeds t h a t
when i m p o r t a n t second grade parameters have
been determined from a suitable optimizing proc-
ess and if one is using a transom stern other lower
resistance values might be obtained than those
from N e v i t t ' s contours.
N e v i t t ' s conclusion derived from studies of
other model tests is t h a t the effect of B/H is nearly
negligible. At FAO we have calculated, in
collaboration with N P L , four of N e v i t t ' s models
with the regression equation for hull resistance.
The results indicate that this effect might be con-
siderably larger than N e v i t t assumes. T h e
tendency of the computer calculated relations be-
tween b e a m - d r a f t ratio and resistance is very
clear and therefore worth mentioning.
T a b l e 4 shows approximate changes in per-
centage of resistance, when varying b e a m - d r a f t
ratio.
Table 4
Model L/B when B/H
No. B/H = 2.3 2.0 2.3 2.5 3.0
11 4.04 -{-6 0 0 -I-6
12 3.62 0 0 -t-3 +14
28 3.88 --4 0 -{-4 -}-19
29 3.47 -- 8 0 -t-9 -/-40
An I M C O / F A O Working Group on Stability of
Fishing Vessels has been studying the required
m i n i m u m stability. T h e Working Group has
more or less confirmed Rahola's (1939) findings.
One b e a u t y with Rahola's criterion is t h a t if one is
giving a vessel an agreeable period of roll, the
stability will be sufficient to fulfil the criterion.
In this connection it should be mentioned t h a t it
has happened t h a t when the prismatic coefficient
of a particular design has been reduced and one
has ensured the same a m o u n t of stability b y in-
creasing beam, because the inertia of the water
plane otherwise became too small, and thus the
frequency of roll has become the same, the crew
has complained a b o u t too soft motions. A
Belgian shipbuilder has found t h a t vessels with
low prismatic coefficients should have higher G M
and thus shorter period of roll if one wants the
crew to get the same feeling.
P. A. Gale, Member: I h a v e looked forward to the
publication of this paper for m a n y years. These
Resistance of a High Displacement-Length Ratio Trawler Series
d a t a are b a d l y needed and will be often used b y
naval architects.
When a new model series becomes available, the
naval architect wonders how it compares with
hull forms with which he is familiar. M a n y of the
high displacement-length ratio ships with which
I have been concerned have twin screws, transom
sterns, and considerably higher B/H ratios than
the N e v i t t Series hull forms.
In Fig. 34 I have compared the residual resist-
ances of two such ships with predictions made
from the d a t a in this paper. Ship A has a keel 12
in deep and 9~//6 in wide which was not included
in the form coefficients used to m a k e the N e v i t t
prediction. However, in the wetted surface
comparison for Ship A the denominator includes
the keel-wetted surface. Ship B has a stern form
similar to Model W-30 with small transom immer-
sion at rest. The N e v i t t predictions for these two
ships are made for B/H = 2.30 and hence the
comparisons include the influence of B/H varia-
tion on residual resistance and wetted surface.
Ship A is penalized by the vresence of the keel
and, at lower speeds, b y the large transom immer-
sion. Ship B is penalized b y an LCB location far
forward of the o p t i m u m position. These d a t a
m a y be of some use to naval architects designing
fat twin-screw ships, often with nonoptinmm LCB
locations.
In Fig. 35 I have compared the residual resist-
ance of a T a y l o r Standard Series hull with the
equivalent N e v i t t hull. T h e difference between
the wetted surfaces is inte.resting and can be
attributed to the differences in the C~'s and the
bow and stern profiles of the two hulls. 1 suspect
t h a t at low speeds the T a y l o r hull was experienc-
ing some laminar flow. At higher speeds the
penalty due to a nonoptimum LCB location is
striking.
Fig. 20 of the paper enables one to calculate the
wetted surfaces of the hull forms of this Series.
Would the author explain the source of the d a t a
in t h a t figure for B/H ratios other t h a n 2.30?
Also, why do the models of this Series show no
variation in wetted-surface coefficient with chang-
ing displacement-length ratio? I would like to
emphasize the importance of proper wetted-sur-
face estimation. N a v a l architects using the d a t a
in this paper to estimate the resistance of hull
forms somewhat different from those of the
N e v i t t Series should bear in mind t h a t wetted sur-
face is influenced b y C~, transom width, skeg
length, stem rake, and bulb size: (if a bulbous bow
is present), as well as b y Cp, B/H, and displace-
ment-length ratio.
I am greatly interested in the performance of
Model w-g0. Would the attthor include in the
75
 SHIP A SHIP B
MINESWEEPER OCEAN RESCUE TUG

L model (fl.) 13.521 11.22

" / ( ~.-~o)= 203" 185
Cp o.57e" 0.566
Ca 0.817* 0.8 I I
B/H 3.125" 2.85
TRANSOM AREA ( % OF A~ ) 7.5 1.5
~TRANSOM WIDTH ( % OF B~ )
L C B pos. ( % L A F T ~ - - )
59.5
2.9
62.2
-0.2 (FWD)
ITTC FRICTION
WS . ~ . - _ 0.958 I .072 CRN PREDICTION FOR B / H 2 . 3 0

1.8.~
MODEL HAS KEELNOT INCL.IN THESE N O S ~ / / / ~ ~

1.6.4
J _ \
Rr~=peL 1.4 _
R I'~.RN
1.2 - -

1.0
I I , ,
0.8

0.6 _

0.4 I I I I I
0.7 0.8 0.9 1.0 I.I 1.2
V/,~
Fig. 34 Two twin-screw transom stern hulls compared with Nevitt

paper a comparison of the residual resistance of
Models W-30 and W-IS similar to the ones I have
presented for other ships? Also, I would like
very m u c h to see a comparison of the trim and
sinkage d a t a for these two models.
I would like to acknowledge the assistance of
Michael Shen with the calculations and figures.
Author's Closure
As soon as new information becomes available,
it needs to be tested against previous experience.
A nmnber of the discussors have done this and,
thereby, gratified the author and increased the
value of the paper to those who do not have such
information available. ~[r. Nickum, in particular,
has emphasized the fact t h a t small length changes
produce large resistance changes in ships of this
type. T h e author agrees; for a meaningful com-
parison making use of the charts in the paper,
length between perpendiculars m u s t be adopted
for prismatic, displacement-length, and speed-
length ratios. Mr. N i c k u m ' s first example illus-
trates how large the effect is; his later compari-
sons are truly representative of merit.
Mr. Gilbert has compared the present paper
with the results from two of its predecessors from
the literature and added trial data, corrected, it is
assumed, for propulsive coefficients and append-
ages. Since the latter are major elements in the
comparison, the author cannot c o m m e n t further;
the results depend on the assumed values in-
volved in the computation.
tk~r. Gale has chosen residuary resistance as a
basis of comparison. T h e author regrets this
choice since such a resistance subdivision is a
result of purely arbitrary (and scientifically un-
sound) splitting up of the elements invalid. He
considers a total resistance comparison one with
physical meaning t h a t leads to a factor of merit
more suitable for general use. T h e residuary
ratios tend toward large numbers which are, as
Mr. Gale notes, often affected adversely by wetted
surface variations.
Mr. T r a u n g ' s comparisons are also somewhat
obscured b y the question of w h a t is the length of
the ship or model being tested. T h e author has
adjusted the four H a y e s - T r a u n g - D o u s t - T s u c h i y a
designs to an L B P of 100 ft for an L W L of 103.12
ft (comparable to his models) and finds quite
different displacement-length ratios from those

76 Resistance of a High Displacement-Length Ratio Trawler Series

 BOTH HULLS : TA, YLOR NEVITT

L = 20.5' C~ 0.950 0.762

"/(~f= 2oo LCB (%L AFT~) 0 3.03

Ce : 0.580 WS ~ - 1.052
l.l~,f
B/H : 2.30
B ~ . ( , ~ , T.,=~ = I. 1045
ITTC FRICTION T&'~ "Tky

2.0

I.E
//
/
1.6.
/
/
?/
R r ~,N 1.4 /
/
1.2

1.0

0.8

0.6

4).4
J
y I I I I
I

I I-
0.7 0.8 0.9 1.0 I. I 1.2
V/,/'~L
Fig. 3 5 A comparison between Taylor and Nevitt Rr

quoted by Traung. As a result, he would produce
different power curves. He has, in the past,
reduced some of his models to 16 ft 0 in long on
the waterline in order to compare with the pub-
lished values in "Fishing Boats of the World : 3."
Model W - i S under this latter arrangement be-
comes superior to the Traung 85-ft model, which it
most nearly resembles, at all speed-length ratios
except 1.20. All the FAO designs, however,
should be superior, according to the published
regression analyses, because their longitudinal
centers of b u o y a n c y are well aft of the Webb
models (in order of 4.5 percent as opposed to 2.5
percent of L B P aft of amidships based on LBP).
The author is pleased that his models show up so
well considering that they were worked out by
mere human beings rather than by the all powerful
machine that we, too frequently, tend to believe.
Other points have been brought up: a major one
being t h a t it would be nice to have the perform-
ance of these models in waves. The author agrees
completely. W h y doesn't someone with a well-
automated tank and an adequate supply of stu-
dents undertake this ?
The author m a y be misinterpreting Mr. Gilbert,
but he gets an impression that the discussor's
suggestions for dry decks indicate he favors a
rather full form for seaworthiness. Traung, on
the other hand, based on self-propelled tests of
quite small models in Japan, favors a very fine one
- - i n the sense of prismatic coefficient. The author
has not seen enough good systematic tests to be
sure. He regards the Traung models as too
small--their self-propulsion data were badly
confused by laminar separation on the propeller
models which leads to both unduly low and
erratic propeller efficieneies. The low midship
section and water plane coefficients of the series,
commented on by Mr. Gilbert, were selected as a
means of reducing smooth water resistance; they
came out of the early tests of the series and were
reported in the author's 1956 paper. The author
believes that but cannot prove they would also be
advantageous in waves.
Mr. Thomson takes a most original view of the
resistance problem. He compares Model W-20,
the one with a prismatic coefficient of 0.70, with
the British Ship Research Association's data on a
basis of a block coefficient of 0.53. The resulting
model, after corrections for the minor variables,

Resistance of a High Displacement-Length Ratio Trawler Series 77

 has less resistance. Since it also has a prismatic
of 0.597, it certainly should ! T h e author thought
t h a t his plots clearly showed the prismatic co-
efficient to be a major variable t h a t could not be
ignored. He has, incidentally, found t h a t the
BSRA models behave in a much more com-
prehensible manner if they are replotted with the
prismatic, rather than the block, as the major
variable in footnote 5 of Mr. T h o m s o n ' s dis-
cussion.
Another item mentioned b y several discussors is
the longitudinal center of b u o y a n c y position.
The author agrees with the regression analyses
t h a t a farther aft position would be desirable from
a resistance viewpoint. T h e four models dis-
cussed b y T r a u n g are examples. However, he is
not totally convinced t h a t this position would pro-
duce both a healthy ship arrangement and com-
pletely satisfactory flow conditions to the propeller.
As a result, he has accepted a less favorable posi-
tion and shown that, even with this as an adverse
element in the series, good resistance character-
istics are possible in the regions where most
American ships are actually built.
With regard to the transom-bulbous bow design,
it has been suggested t h a t this model be sawed in
half and the ends grafted on conventional ends.
This is an easy experiment to do and a difficult
one to interpret. One does not know whether the
resistance change results from the LCB move-
m e n t or the bulb or transom addition. For a real
comparison changing only one variable at a time,
both ends m u s t be redesigned in order to keep the
center of b u o y a n c y at a constant position for a
series of four models, one with a bulb, one with a
transom, one with neither, one with both. T h e
author had expended the available funds for
model construction when only two of these models
had been tested.
Mr. Gale brings up the wetted-surface matter.
M a n y years ago the International Towing T a n k
Conference defined wetter surface as the " m e a n
girth times the length" of a ship. A little thought
will show that, for a series of displacement-length
modification based on a single parent, the T a y l o r
t y p e wetted-surface coefficient will not change.
T h e fact t h a t it does in Gertler's replotting of the
T a y l o r Series is unfortunate and indicates t h a t an
obliquity correction was used in the data from
which he worked. I t is also unfortunate t h a t the
new volume of Principles of Naval Architecture
78 Resistance of a High Displacement-Length Ratio Trawler Series
was not brought into line with current tank prac-
tice in its discussion of wetted surface calculations.
An i m p o r t a n t question is how the resistance
changes with b e a m - d r a f t ratio. T h e author had
originally hoped to have regression computations
from the FAO-National Physical L a b o r a t o r y anal-
ysis for the four models of his series t h a t would
still overlap it when they were varied from B / H =
2.00 to 3.00. After waiting a year, he was unable
to obtain these results; consequently he presented
only the replots of model data in the paper. He
is h a p p y to hear t h a t computations are now avail-
able, even though he has not seen them. Mr.
T r a u n g ' s brief s u m m a r y for these four models
(with A/(O.O1LBP) 3 values of 400 and 500, Cp's of
0.597 and 0.650) do not present the variation with
speed which m u s t exist. W-29, the model t h a t
shows a 40 percent increase in resistance for a B / H
of 3.00 is, unfortunately, just outside the valid
limits of the analysis at this point; the author
simply does not believe the enormous increase
quoted. H e has tested, on a number of occasions,
models t h a t show opposite trends from regression
predictions and, therefore, considers the l a t t e r ' a s
rough, rather than final guides. Sometimes they
even predict the wrong sign for carefully planned
and measured resistance changes. He still thinks
the Thomson-Pattullo and Astrup-Sund d a t a are
the best possible information available on the
subject.
Finally, some discussors were kind enough to
suggest t h a t the various papers and the in-
dividual pieces of d a t a on which they are based
were worth assembling in one place. T h e author,
once again, thinks this is a splendid idea as long
as it does not take up any further time on his part,
and uneducational, as well as unrewarded, time on
the p a r t of his future students. To design a hull,
test it, and assess its performance against all
the similar designs one can find is educational.
To rework, redraw, replot past d a t a is not.
T h e discussors have been most helpful in show-
ing how to use the paper, in showing how its
material compares with existing designs and other
methods of computation, in showing where the
parent hulls agree with present practice and in
showing where they disagree. T h e y have pre-
sented valuable opinions backed b y design experi-
ence and indicated where useful areas of work
should be planned and carried out. T h e author
is m o s t grateful for their comments and additions.