Marine Technology, Vol. 28, No. 4, July 1991, pp.

236-246

Design and Trials of a New River Towboat Propeller

B. C h r i s t o p o u l o s 1 a n d R. L a t o r r e 2

Improvement in river transport requires adopting more efficient towboat propellers. This paper summarizes
the design and towboat trials of a new semi-Kaplan propeller with an unconventional pitch distribution. A
comparison of towboat trip records shows that operation with semi-Kaplan propellers resulted in improve-
ments over operations with conventionally designed propellers. These improvements included a 13.5
percent increase in barge mpg of fuel and a 10 percent increase in tow speed. The trials with the
semi-Kaplan propeller indicated only a small increase in towboat vibration levels. The adoption of this new
propeller has potential for improving present river transport.

1. Introduction The repowering of the towboat with slower, heavy fuel

burning engines rated at 2400 bhp × 600 rpm resulted in a
TOWBOATSpushing multiple barge tows (Fig. 1) are a com- slower 190 rpm (11.5 percent reduction) using the original
mon sight along the 25 000-mile U.S. inland waterway system 3.156-to-1 reduction gear. Since the original 5-bladed propel-
shown in Fig. 2. Barge cargo represents 12 to 15 percent of ler efficiency at 190 rpm was unacceptable, a new propeller
intercity U.S. freight [1].3 Consequently, a reduction in tow- design was required. The design specifications for this propel-
boat operating costs translates into significant transport sav- ler are summarized in Table 2. Preliminary calculations indi-
ings of bulk and liquid cargoes. cated that there are three design alternatives with the design
Fulton's steamboat was the first milestone in river trans- constraints in Table 2:
port. It was followed by paddle wheel steamboats operating
on the inland rivers. The Civil War created a number of new Design A: 4-bladed propeller with semi-Kaplan blades and
developments in steam engineering and use of metal-hulled unconventional pitch distribution.
ships. The ironclad USS Monitor, built in 1862, was driven Design B: 5-bladed propeller with increased blade area
by a steam engine turning a 9-ft propeller. To operate at its and conventional pitch distribution.
10.5-ft draft, Ericsson designed the Monitor with a tunnel Design C: 6-bladed propeller with conventional blades and
stern. Later, the steam engine was replaced by towboats with conventional pitch distribution.
geared diesel engines turning large-diameter propellers in
tunnel sterns [2-6]. The widespread use of towboats with Since Design C represented the most expensive propeller
ducted propellers began after the Second World War [7,8]. to manufacture, it was not pursued. Instead, Design A repre-
Following 1970, high fuel costs resulted in new towboat de- senting the least expensive propeller was developed along
signs emphasizing fuel economy. Towboats are now fitted with Design B. Comparative trials were conducted during
with blended fuel systems and, in some cases, refitted with 1983-1985. It was concluded from the resulting analysis that
heavy fuel burning diesel engines [9,10]. In each development the semi-Kaplan propellers achieved a 10 percent increase
it became apparent that checking items beyond the speed in speed and a 13.5 percent increase in barge mpg, which
trials would ensure successful towboat operation; these are corresponds to a savings of $300 000 per year.
summarized in Table 1. In some barge lines the owner's trials
at delivery represent only the first part of the performance
trials. Extended performance trials over several months are
used in the evaluation. This ongoing activity is one of the
reasons for the limited technical articles dealing with high-
powered towboat propeller design [11-13].
This paper summarizes the development, design, and trials
of a semi-Kaplan ducted propeller (Fig. 3). (Semi-Kaplan and
conventional towboat blade profiles are contrasted in Fig. 4.)
The semi-Kaplan extended trial results are compared with
the conventional propeller trials to show the improved speed,
fuel consumption, and the relatively small changes in vibra-
tion signature when the new semi-Kaplan design is fitted.
This new semi-Kaplan propeller resulted from the new design
requirements following the decision to repower a 7000-hp
triple-screw towboat. The original triple-screw towboat was
fitted with engines rated at 2800 hp at 678 rpm turning a
5-bladed 9.167-ft-diameter ducted propeller at 215 rpm using
a 3.156-to-1 reduction gear [11].
1Formerly, project engineer, Intermarine, Savannah, Georgia.
2Professor and chairman, School of Naval Architecture and Marine
Engineering, University of New Orleans, New Orleans, Louisiana.
3Numbers in brackets designate References at end of paper.
Revised manuscript received at SNAMEheadquarters March 1991. Fig. 1 River towboat pushing large tow at New Orleans

236 JULY 1991 0025-3316/91/2804-0236500.47/0 MARINE TECHNOLOGY

 2. Unique problems of towboat propeller design
In contrast to a conventional propeller design, the towboat
p r o p e l l e r is d e s i g n e d w i t h c o n s i d e r a t i o n t o a n u m b e r o f fac-
Fig. 3 Semi-Kaplan propelJer installed in river towboat
tors including:
(a) P r o p e l l e r l o a d i n g [11] r e l a t e d to t h e t o w m a k e u p a n d
navigation conditions---
1. n u m b e r of b a r g e s b e i n g p u s h e d ,
2. l o a d i n g of b a r g e s , 4. c u r r e n t s p e e d a n d d i r e c t i o n .
3. w a t e r d e p t h h a n d t o w b o a t d r a f t T, h/T, a n d (b) I n f l o w i n t o t h e p r o p e l l e r r e l a t e d to p r e c e d i n g f a c t o r s
1-4 and towboat hull [12]--
5. h u l l l i n e s , e s p e c i a l l y , t h e t u n n e l s t e r n (Fig. 5),
6. o r i e n t a t i o n of a h e a d a n d f l a n k i n g r u d d e r s , a n d
Table 1 Evaluation items for towboat propulsion system 7. p r o p e l l e r b l a d e p i t c h d i s t r i b u t i o n .

1. Propulsive efficiency measured by fuel consumption and speed L o w p r o p u l s i v e e f f i c i e n c y ~o

over river routes. D u c t e d p r o p e l l e r s , t u n n e l s t e r n s (Fig. 5), a n d t w i n , t r i p l e
2. Backing performance with large tow with following current.
3. Vibration levels in engine room, accommodations and pilothouse. a n d s o m e t i m e s q u a d r u p l e - s c r e w t o w b o a t s [13] h a v e a l l o w e d
the designer to obtain incremental increases in propulsive

Nomenclature

A = power coefficient ( = 18.7 for K = tow a u g m e n t coefficient = 7.200 v = vibration level, in./sec
triple-screw towboat; = 19 for for 3 X 5 tow w = wake fraction
twin-screw towboat) L = barge tow length, ft W = width of waterway, ft
Greek symbols
B -- barge tow beam, ft l = barge length, ft
a = depth coefficient = 1.46 (h -- T)
C -- depth coefficient = 0.142 m = n u m b e r of empty barges fl = velocity coefficient = 2.0
Cr = load coefficient, equation (1) n = propeller rps ART = tow a u g m e n t for shallow water,
D -- propeller diameter, ft n = barge tow coefficient = 1.56 for 3 equation (5), lb
E = speed factor, equation (3) X 5 tow T = draft coefficient = 0.60 + 5.0/
EP = effective " p u s h " of pushboat, P = propeller pitch, ft (W-B)
equation (2), l b + PB = pushboat horsepower, h p 8 = tow length coefficient = 0.38
F = nonintegrated tow factor = 0.061 R = gear ratio E= tow width coefficient = 1.19
Fh = depth Froude n u m b e r R r = barge tow resistance, lb ~?D = propulsive efficiency
shafting efficiency
g = fuel consumption, gal T = draft, ft ~?s ~s =
7/G = gear efficiency
h p = pushboat horsepower t = t h r u s t deduction TO ratio of propeller to total t h r u s t
h = waterway depth, ft V = stillwater speed, m p h re = propeller loading p a r a m e t e r

JULY 1991 MARINE TECHNOLOGY 237

 E P = A • PB [1.0 ÷ C ( h / T - 1.78)] [1.0 - E V 2] lb (2)
using t h e speed factor

[ooo,, Pb

Comparison with published data [12] shows t h a t equation (2)

provides a reasonable correlation w i t h 5600-hp an d 1800-hp
twin-screw (Fig. 7) as well as 7000-hp triple-screw towboats.
In t h e second stage of the propeller design, t h e t h r u s t de-
duction factor, t, in Table 2 is used. Th e problem of d e t e r m i n -
ing t h e a p p r o p r i a t e t h r u s t deduction factor t was also encoun-
tered in t h e large ducted propeller design for t h e 280 000-dwt
t a n k e r MS T h o r s a g a [19]. This r e m a i n s a critical problem
w h e n designing highly loaded propellers.
Sensitivity of barge tow resistance
Th e second i m p o r t a n t design factor is the barge tow resist-
ance sensitivity to t h e size of t h e two and n a v i g a t i o n channel.
Fig. 4 Comparison of semi-Kaplan and conventional towboat blade profiles
Th e semi-empirical f o r m u l a of H o w e [20] can be used to esti-
m a t e t h e barge tow resistance R T w h e n h / T >_ 5.0:

power. Nevertheless, model tests [14-17] and actual trials RT= F e ~ V ~ T ~ L ~ B E lb (4)
[11,13] h a v e shown low propulsive efficiency ~D:
For shallow water, 1.33 _< h / T < 2.0, the R T values h a v e
PE been e s t i m a t e d using a modified A p u k h t i n d i a g r a m [12] as
~D - - (1) well as by adding a resistance a u g m e n t [21] ART:
P.
The values of 0.30 < ~D < 0.40 for river towboats are lower Rr= F e ~ V~ T 7 L 8 B e + A R r l b
t h a n t h e values of 0.50 < ~D < 0.60 for oceangoing t a n k e r s AR T = 0 f o r V < 6mph (5)
a nd 0.55 < ~D < 0.65 for high-speed containerships. V o l k e r
[18] reasoned t h a t these low values of towboat propulsive L~tR T = K(V - 6.0) n lb for V _> 6 m p h
efficiency ~D are due to t h e ~suction force" shown in Fig. 6.
Towboat propeller inflow field
To account for this '~suction force" the a u t h o r s have indepen-
d e n t l y developed a two-stage design procedure. T h e first stage The t h i r d i m p o r t a n t design factor is t h e u n i q u e towboat
accounts for this '~suction force" by directly reducing t h e propeller inflow. T h e investigations of t h e late G. L u t h r a ,
towboat push, E P . Th e v a lu e of t h e towboat push E P is esti- performed in t h e shallow w a t e r towing t a n k of t h e Versuch-
m a t e d from t h e towboat horsepower PB [12]: s a n s t a l t fur Binnenschiffbau e.V., Duisburg, G e r m a n y [15],

Table 2 Design specifications for repowering 700O-hp triple screw towboat with heavy-fuel engines

Item Symbol Units Value Notes

Tow CONDITIONS
1. 5 >< 6 barge tow length L ft 975 5 × 195-ft barge length
2. 5 X 6 barge tow beam B ft 210 6 × 35-ft barge beam
3. 5 × 6 barge tow draft T ft 9
4. Channel depth h ft 45 deep water: h / T = 5.0
5. Channel width W ft 1500 lower Mississippi
6. Current velocity Vc mph 0 average conditions up and down river
7. Tow velocity V mph 8.5 Fig. 10
8. Tow resistance at V = 8.4 mph Rr lb 139 000 Fig. 10, 46 333-1b/propeller
TOWBOAT
9. Length L ft 145
10. Beam B ft 49
11. Draft T ft 9
12. Propeller, rpm Np rpm 190 11.5% reduction in rpm from original value
of 215 rpm
13. Propeller diameter D ft 9.167 unchanged in repowering
14. Nozzle dia. at prop. Dn ft 9.27 unchanged in repowering
15. Nozzle dia. at exit Do ft 9.85
16. Wake fraction at V = 8.4 mph w ... 0.16
17. Thrust deduction at V = 8.4 mph t ... 0.12
18. Gear ratio R ... 3.156 to 1 unchanged in repowering (3.055 to 1 astern)
19. Gear efficiency ~a ... 0.972
20. Bearing efficiency ~?B~?s ... 0.97
NEW ENGINE
21. Engine horsepower hp hp 2400 17% reduction in hp from original engine
2800 bhp
22. Engine, rpm rpm rpm 600 11.5% reduction in rpm from original
engine 678 rpm
23. Delivered horsepower dhp hp 2263 dhp = hp ~G ~?a ~8
24. Propeller torque Q ft-lb 62 554 Q = g dhp/Np

238 JULY 1991 MARINE TECHNOLOGY

 j .

-'-'"' " !:i;,

:-::..
i;B
L
Zl /H
j,.1 / - / K " 1/ : "" ,/.
:£-WL

20 I~ 1~ 17 16 15 14 15 lZ :I 9 6 i 5 5 4 J Z 1 O--IL~-

21/, 7(J "19 18 17 16

', "
15 ~ 1.f 12
,t
II I0 9 d l 5" 5 4 j"

A) 5-'~ .5
4 . 4
23

/ -
--WL 3 II --3
0 "" 20 WL--

:I
--2
J ,,-" 19
6., ",.i" " "
:18 --1
, 7-' / \ \ 17 15-9
,...
--BASE
9-15" LINE

B)

1 2 3 20

8-I01 ~ 15-10 LINE

Fig. 5 Illustration of tunnel stern

illustrate the unique propeller inflow pattern ahead of the

propeller in a tunnel stern. Figure 8 shows the horizontal
inflow contours of Va/V measured without propellers. The
heavy load of the towboat propeller distorts these contours
A A / as well as accelerating the inflow. Figure 9 shows the contours
of V,,/V measured ahead of the operating propellers. Due to
this heavy propeller loading, it is difficult to use the design
IO0 procedures developed for lightly loaded propellers. This re-
. %
quires a two-stage design procedure described in the following
sections.
rd
-5
m
3. Design procedure
First s t a g e o f t o w b o a t p r o p e l l e r d e s i g n
& In the first stage of the towboat propeller design procedure,

Y
row boat E H P
the equilibrium tow speed and required towboat thrust are
estimated. The first stage of the design procedure is divided
into three parts:
1. Estimation of towboat push E P from equation (2).
0 Towboat Speed ~
2. Estimation of barge tow resistance RT from equation (4).
Bollard With Tow Free 3. Estimation of operational match speed when E P = R T .
Running
At the operational match speed V, it is necessary that the
Fig. 6 Illustration of Volker's "suction force" in towboat operation [18] towboat push E P equal the barge tow resistance RT:

JULY 1991 MARINE T E C H N O L O G Y 239

 ESTIMATED PUSHBOAT PUSH EP calculated using equation (4) for a range of 8 < V < 9 mph.
EP
Ibs TWIN DUCTED PROPELLERS The match point is graphically obtained in Fig. 10. It corres-
Deep h=45ft KEY BHPChannel Source ponds to V = 8.5 mph and E P = R T = 139 000 lb (Table 2).
Shallow h = 16 ft
16000, i i [ I 5600 Deep Eq
2 5600 Shallow Eq
Second stage of towboat propeller design
"~" ~,,,. 3 1800 Deep Eq The propeller design is completed at the second stage of the
140001 4 1800 Shallow Eq
o 5500 REE~, F10.25
procedure, which is divided into four parts:
o 1800 Deep PROJECT 1. Selection of pitch distribution.
12000{ 2. Estimation of propeller and duct thrust.

iO000C
'-----'~"~---. %t 3. Estimation of astern thrust.
4. Cavitation check.
Selection of pitch distribution
80000
Reviewing the design specifications in Table 2, it is clear
that the only propeller design variables are blade number,
60OOC pitch distribution, and area ratio. The mean pitch P value is
estimated using the Bp - 8 diagram for the K a 4-70 propeller
in Nozzle No. 19a [7] (see Table 2):
.4000C
N P °'5 190 X 22630.5
Bp -- - - - -- 94 (7)
2000C V2.5 6.212.5
ND 190 × 9.167
a = -- - 280.5 (8)
2 4 6 8 I0 12 V, 6.21
STILL WATER SPEED V MPH
For these values of Bp and 8, the value o f P / D = 1.1 at 0.7r
Fig. 7 Estimated towboat "push" EP versus tow speed V compared with data is found from the charts. In Fig. 11, the traditional pitch
from 5600-hp and 1800-hp twin-screw towboats [12] distribution and the constant pitch distribution adopted in
the semi-Kaplan design are compared. Figure 12 shows the
semi-Kaplan blade profile and pitch distribution. The semi-
EP = RT (6) Kaplan propeller design is summarized in Table 3. The blade
Since engine overloading is to be avoided, the propeller design tips of the semi-Kaplan propeller were pitched to have higher
condition is taken for the tow pushing the loaded barge tow loading. In this manner the required thrust was delivered
in deep water [11]. Then when the towboat pushes the empty by a four-bladed semi-Kaplan propeller in contrast to the
barge tow in deep water, the engine will be rpm limited, but five-bladed conventional ducted propeller.
not overloaded. Following the specifications in Table 2, the
Estimation of propeller and duct thrust
operational match speed V is determined for a 7000-hp tow-
boat pushing a 5 × 6 loaded barge train in deep water. The The adoption of a ducted propeller requires assignment of
curve of E P in Fig. 10 is calculated using equation (2) for a the ducted propeller thrust to the propeller Tp and duct TD
range of 7 < V < 9 mph. The curve of R T in Fig. 10 is thrust:

MEASUREMENT
PLANE ~ i h = 5,OO m
M 838 ' ~ . ~
Tl= 3 . 0 0 m
.. ~ + "~/~
I 1 1 Lt) 7
v--- ~2.~7.~ %

t-[o i
',1, Idt:,r _--:
a
/
.- J. --1 [--F_o!// V.1
__--zt-t : _.k2Y'I -I y 17o..,,r/)
. . . . i ....... 1 ........... J#._.

Fig. 8 Wake field of VJV of a triple-screw towboat pushing a 3 X 2 barge train measured without propeller
in duct at 0.4 D ahead of propeller plane [27]

240 JULY 1991 MARINE TECHNOLOGY

 i

MEASUREMENT
PLANE i h = 5.O0 m
M ~38 A A TL= 3.00 m
~1 t I I ~,.2v~"~ "-- ~-,~,kmh
8 n = 228 rpm

't t t ,,l'l/l! , ,'f It tlt t ~ I ', 1:~'i~,,~,

",i~2,,',?itl v °;~:V<~t"t ~,t"kk\r,"kd ..-"/'/Z ,I / ~', /
Fig. 9 Wake field of VJV of a triple-screw towboat pushing a 3 X 2 barge train measured with propeller in
duct at 0.4 D ahead of propeller plane [27]

1.0R
GRAPHICAL SOLUTION FOR V
7000HP T o w b o a t Pushing
5x6 Loaded Barge Tow
2. 2/
in Deep Water
1 T o w b o a t Push EP
2 B a r g e Tow R T
EP, RT
Ibs
0.5 2
150000

140000 0.2
• ~ I i I
1.0 09 0,8 PP-axm
130000
COM PAR ISON
OF PITCH P/Pmax
.~ I I I I I I I

? 8 9 10 11 V MPH 1 Conventional
STILL WATER SPEED 2 Semi-Kaplan
Fig. 10 Graphical solution for operational speed V using equation (2) for a Fig. 11 Comparison of conventional pitch distribution with constant pitch
7OO0-hp towboat pushing a 5 X barge tow in d e e p water distribution adopted in present design

T = Tp + T n (9) CT-- (Tp + T O) _ 7.13 (11)

T he t h r u s t ratio To be given by ~T

V.
T O -- -
T.+ T.
-
Va = V(1 -- w) = 10.474 f t / s e c

It is possible to e s t i m a t e th e value of To corresponding to (T~ + T o ) = E P / ( 1 - t) = 52 642 lb (12)

high propeller efficiency ~D when the t h r u s t coefficient CT is D = 9.167 ft
known:
Based on the specifications in Table 2 and reference [7], t he
2
~?D = (10) r e c o m m e n d e d ratio is r = 0.675 with CT = 7.13 and A o / A e x i t
1 + X/1 + r o C T = 0.885. This corresponds to a ducted propeller (propeller +
where duct system) efficiency of ~? = 0.485. W i t h this e s t i m a t e of ro
= 0.675, Tp = 35 540 lb and T o = 17 112 lb.

JULY 1991 MARINE TECHNOLOGY 241

 1.0R
0.9R
0.SR
0:7 R

O.6R
0.5R
0.4R
0.3R
0.2 R \ -..j
1.0 0•85
P(R)~ma x

Fig. 12 Semi-Kaplanpropellerdesign

Checking further, it can be shown t h a t 182 r p m corresponds Propeller cavitation check

to this o p t i m u m propeller rpm (Fig. 15 of reference [7]). How-
ever, the available ahead gear ratio (3.156 to 1) results in a
190-rpm propeller, which is 4 percent higher. The estimated
propeller t h r u s t at 190 rpm is s u m m a r i z e d in Table 3. The
r e s u l t i n g ahead t h r u s t is calculated as 54 265 lb with the
propeller providing 67 percent, or 36 365 lb. The correspond-
ing t h r u s t deduction factor (1 - t) is calculated as 0.854 or t
= 0.146.
E s t i m a t i o n of a s t e r n t h r u s t
The a s t e r n t h r u s t is calculated with the towboat moving
ahead a n d the propeller r p m reversed. The estimated a s t e r n
values are s u m m a r i z e d in Table 3. The ratio of astern:ahead
t h r u s t is 0.603. The astern t h r u s t is 32 723 lb.
With heavily loaded propellers, cavitation can be a prob-
lem. To e n s u r e the propeller loading is w i t h i n reasonable
cavitation limits (that is, less t h a n 10 percent back cavita-
tion), it is necessary to make a cavitation check.
Experience has shown t h a t a 6.3-psi blade loading is appro-
priate for calculating the projected blade area, Ap. As indi-
cated in Table 3, this results in a value ofAp = 40.08 ft 2. The
a r r a n g e m e n t drawings of the propeller in the t u n n e l stern
show the propeller depth of submergence to be h = 3.86 ft.
The local cavitation n u m b e r at V = 8.5 mph is calculated as
Cro.7 = 0.562. The propeller t h r u s t loading coefficient % at 6.3
psi is equal to % = 0.219. This corresponds to 6 percent back
cavitation on the Burrill chart [22], well below the 10 percent
back cavitation limit.

Table 3 Semi-Kaplan propeller design parameters: K~ 4-70, No. 19-A nozzle [7]

Item Symbol Units Value

AHEAD OPERATION
Velocity Vo ft/sec 10.474
Revolutions n rps 3.167 (190 rpm)
Diameter D ft 9.167
Advance ratio J 0.361
Expanded ratio Ac/AD 0.70
Pitch diameter ratio P/D 1.1
Open-water eff. 0,465
Thrust coeff. 0,385
Duct thrust coeff. KTN 0.127
Total thrust 54 265
Duct thrust lb 17 900
Propeller thrust lb 36 365
ASTERN OPERATION
Velocity Vo ~/sec 10.474
Revolution n rps --3.217 (193 rpm)
Advance ratio J --0.355
Thrust coeff. KT --0.225 (est.)
Open-water eff. ~D 0.3 (est.)
Astern thrust To is" --32723
Ratio astern/ahead ITo/TI 0.603
CAVITATION C H E C K
Projected blade area based on 6.3 psi blade Ap ~2 40.08
loading
Local cavitation number °'o7 0.562
Thrust loading coefficient Tc 0.219
Estimate of back cavitation 6%
Developed blade area AD 47.7
Area ratio A D/Ao 0,70

242 JULY 1991 MARINE TECHNOLOGY


I E E E
Towboat
Fig. 13 Arrangement of 8 X 5 tow for speed/stopping trials: 34 loaded
barges, 5 empty barges (marked "'E"), and two safety boats, (marked 1 and 2)
Finally Taylor's approximate formula [22] is used to deter-
mine the developed blade area, AD:
A D = Ap/(1.067 - 0.229 P / D )
From equation (13) the developed blade area is AD ~ 47.7 ft 2,
giving A p / A D = 0.84, and A D / A o = 47.7/67.5 = 0.70. Figure
12 illustrates the design of the semi-Kaplan propeller which
was installed. The pitch distribution represents a nonconven-
tional design as shown in Figs. 4 and 11. The semi-Kaplan
propellers were manufactured to comply to the American
Bureau of Shipping Rules and installed on the towboat in
1983.
4. Trial results
The trials of the towboat fitted with the semi-Kaplan pro-
pellers were conducted in three parts:
1. Trial measurement of speed with a large 5 X 8 tow
against 2.0-mph river current.
2. Monitoring the engine operation for 10 to 15 trips to
establish speed and fuel consumption with the semi-
Kaplan propellers and then changing over to conven-
tional propellers and again monitoring engine operation
for 10 to 15 trips.
3. Measurement of vibration with conventional and semi-
Kaplan propellers installed.
Performance trials--Part 1
On November 16, 1983, trials with the towboat pushing a
5 X 8 tow, shown in Fig. 13, were begun. The tow draft was
9 ft with a corresponding displacement of 70 560 short tons.
The tow speed was measured going upriver against a 2.0-mph
current. The speed estimated using the design procedure indi-
cated t h a t the tow speed should be 6.4 mph. The towboat
achieved a higher speed of 6.9 mph (Table 4). This indicated
a performance increase of 10 percent. The trial results were
Table 4 Trial results for towboat fitted with semi-Kaplan propellers
pushing 5 X 8 tow against 2.0-mph river current
Item
Engine settings
rPm°
bhp a
max. speed, mph
stopping trial
time 4 min, 24.6 sec
distance, ft
a Refers to port, center, and starboard engines.
JULY 1991
converted to bollard pull values, indicating a 10 p e r c e n t in-
crease in the towboat's push. F u r t h e r checks on the vibration
signatures did not reveal the presence of cavitation. The stop-
ping trials showed the towboat to have a shorter stopping
distance than earlier measurements of 1210 ft. These per-
formance trials were considered successful and the extended
operational trials, P a r t 2, were begun.
Performance trials--Part 2
To identify the improvements from the semi-Kaplan design
a readily calculated index, termed equivalent barge mile per
gallon of fuel, denoted as E B M / g is adopted
(n + 0.6 m)R
EBM/g - (14)
g
where
n = number of loaded barges
m = number of empty barges
R = trip distance in miles
g = gal of fuel consumed
(13) Table 5 summarizes the comparison for 15 trips made with
the 4-bladed semi-Kaplan and 5-bladed conventional propel-
lers going northbound against the river current. Taking 1/
( E B M / g ) we obtain 2.7 g a l / E B M for the semi-Kaplan propel-
lers and 3.125 g a l / E B M for the conventional 5-bladed propel-
lers (13.5 percent difference). The higher speed implies the
semi-Kaplan propeller would realize three additional trips
(Cairo, Illinois to Baton Rouge, Louisiana), corresponding to
an increased revenue of approximately $100 000. The reduced
fuel costs represent a savings of $200 000. Consequently, the
semi-Kaplan design generates a combined savings and in-
creased income of $300 000 per year.
Vibration trials--Part 3
To compare the vibration levels, measurements in the tow-
boat engine room were made with the semi-Kaplan propellers
and later with the conventional propellers. Figure 14 shows
the location of the measuring points. The measurements were
made at different times with the towboat pushing different
tow arrangements and barge numbers as noted in Table 6.
Nevertheless, they provide an index of the vibration.
Experience has shown that the blade number affects the
unsteady force levels. It has been demonstrated that increas-
ing the blade number from 4 to 5 will reduce the measured
hull vibration levels. It was expected t h a t the 4-bladed semi-
Kaplan design with large blade area and no skew would be
affected by the tunnel inflow and t r a n s m i t high vibration
levels into the propulsion system. It was therefore pleasant to
find t h a t the engine room measurements showed the 4-bladed
semi-Kaplan vibration levels only slightly higher than the
levels measured with the 5-bladed conventional propellers.
Figure 15 shows the vertical velocity, in./sec, measured for
the towboat going ahead. These measurements are compared
on the basis of the first, second, and third order of the propel-
ler blade rate. The corresponding operating conditions are
summarized in Table 6. It is clear that while the semi-Kaplan
and conventional propeller have equivalent vibration on the
port and starboard engine, the center engine vibration is
Value
higher in the first order. For the second and third order the
conventional propeller exhibits slightly higher values.
600 The horizontal velocity, in./sec, measured for the towboat
2400
6.9 going ahead is shown in Fig. 16. The results are similar to
Fig. 15 with the port engine having higher levels in the first
order. For the second and third o r d e r - - t h e horizontal veloc-
1155
i t y - t h e conventional propeller exhibits slightly higher
values.
MARINE TECHNOLOGY 243
 Table 5 Comparison of towboat trip data with semi-Kaplan and conventional propellers; northbound against river current

Towboat fitted with semi-Kaplan design 4-blade Towboat fitted with conventional 5-blade propeller
propeller (11/83-9/84) (9/84-2/85)
EBM, EBM/g, Speed EBM, EBM/g, Speed
Trip barge-mile barge-mile gal V, mph barge-mile barge-mile gal V, mph
1 15.0" 0.299 a 4.96 a 19.0 0.320 3.88
2 26.0 0.407 4.27 22.8 0.319 3.85
3 15.4 0.365 5.83 24.0 0.357 4.02
4 15.0 0,347 5.83 24.0" 0.228 a 2.83 ~
5 21.6 b 0.530 b 5.92 b 22.8 0.305 3.46
6 20.4 0.343 4.55 18.4 0.338 4.29
7 27.0 0.341 3.25 22.0 0.253 3.79
8 20.0 0.383 4.67 20.8 0.302 2.56
9 20.0 0.344 5.44 22.0 0.369 4.04
10 26.6 0.505 4.54 16,6 0.312 5.29
11 22.0 0.415 9.06 20.4 0.325 4.60
12 26.8 0.394 3.50 18.2 0.288 4.58
13 27.6 0.337 2.86 18.4 0.341 4.60
14 21.0 0.303 3.90 25.6 b 0.395 b 3.65 b
15 20.0 0.325 4.71 24.2 0.345 3.50
Avg. c 22.13 0.370 4.49 m 20.7 0.320 4.04
% Gain d 6.8% 13.5% 10% base base base
NOTES:
a Disregarded as low value of EBM/g.
b Disregarded as high value of EMB/g.
c Avg. of remaining 13 trips.
Value - base
x 100%.
base

LOCATION OF VIBRATION
M E A S U R E M E N T S ON T O W B O A T
(9(9 and®
Fig. 14 Location of vibration measurements on towboat

F i g u r e 17 s h o w s t h e r e s u l t s for a s t e r n m e a s u r e m e n t s . It is to s m a l l c h a n g e s in t h e p r o p e l l e r pitch, e s p e c i a l l y a t t h e tip.

c l e a r t h a t v a l u e s for t h e c o n v e n t i o n a l p r o p e l l e r a r e signifi-. So t h e r e is a possibility to " t u n e " t h e s e m i - K a p l a n p r o p e l l e r
c a n t l y h i g h e r in t h e first-order h o r i z o n t a l v e l o c i t y m e a s u r e - design by s l i g h t a d j u s t m e n t to t h e p i t c h d i s t r i b u t i o n . W h i l e
ments. t h i s w a s n o t a t t e m p t e d , it s h o u l d be c o n s i d e r e d in f u t u r e
I t s h o u l d be n o t e d t h a t t h e s e v i b r a t i o n l e v e l s a r e s e n s i t i v e s e m i - K a p l a n t o w b o a t p r o p e l l e r designs.

5. D i s c u s s i o n and c o n c l u s i o n s

Table 6 Trial conditions for vibration measurements H e a v i l y l o a d e d t o w b o a t p r o p e l l e r s r e q u i r e a d e s i g n ap-

p r o a c h d i f f e r e n t f r o m t h a t used for l i g h t l y l o a d e d p r o p e l l e r s .
Barge tow Engine T h i s h a s b e e n p o i n t e d o u t by V o l k e r in 1961, N a r i t a in 1974,
Trial Date condition rpm Propeller a n d t h e p r e s e n t a u t h o r s in 1983. T h e a u t h o r s h a v e d e v e l o p e d
A 11/8/83 34 loaded, 5 empty 600 semi-Kaplan a t w o - s t a g e t o w b o a t p r o p e l l e r d e s i g n a p p r o a c h to m a n a g e t h i s
B 2/7/84 25 loaded 600 semi-Kaplan p r o b l e m a n d h a v e a p p l i e d it to t h e d e s i g n of t h e s e m i - K a p l a n
C 10/31/84 18 loaded, 2 empty 600 conventional
t o w b o a t p r o p e l l e r d e s c r i b e d in t h i s paper.

244 JULY 1991 MARINE TECHNOLOGY

 T h e e x t e n d e d t r i a l s of t h i s s e m i - K a p l a n p r o p e l l e r r e s u l t e d
v VERTICAL MEASUREMENTS AHEAD in a n i m p r o v e m e n t in speed a n d fuel c o n s u m p t i o n . T h e v i b r a -
in/s KEY Test Propellers t o r y levels in t h e e n g i n e r o o m s h o w e d e q u i v a l e n t or s l i g h t l y
A Semi-Kaplan h i g h e r levels for t h e 4-bladed s e m i - K a p l a n p r o p e l l e r d e s i g n
0.3 c o m p a r e d w i t h t h e c o n v e n t i o n a l 5-bladed p r o p e l l e r s . T h e
B SemVKaplan semi-Kaplan towboat trials demonstrated:
1. h i g h e r p r o p u l s i v e e f f i c i e n c y ( ~ 10 p e r c e n t im-
~- C Convent ~anal
provement),
(12 2. good b a c k i n g p e r f o r m a n c e as e v i d e n c e d by trials, a n d
3. e q u i v a l e n t or s l i g h t l y h i g h e r v i b r a t i o n .
I n addition, t h e s i m p l i f i e d s e m i - K a p l a n d e s i g n r e p r e s e n t s
0:1 a s i m p l e r p r o p e l l e r to m a n u f a c t u r e . It is a n t i c i p a t e d t h a t
a d j u s t m e n t to t h e p i t c h d i s t r i b u t i o n will r e s u l t in l o w e r vibra-
tion levels a n d f u r t h e r p e r f o r m a n c e i m p r o v e m e n t s .

2 3 1 2 3 1 2 3 Acknowledgment
C) BRORDER © BR.ORDE R ( ~ BIRORDER T h e a u t h o r s a r e g r a t e f u l to Mrs. M. L a t a p i e for t y p i n g t h e
Fig. 15 Comparison of vertical vibration levelsat towboat engines manuscript.

References
1 Big Load Afloat, American Waterways Operators, Washington,
D.C., 1973, pp. 1-5.
2 McEntree, C. C., "Model Experiments with River Towboats--Stern
v HORIZONTAL MEASUREMENTS AHEAD Wheel and Tunnel Propeller Types Compared," Trans. SNAME, Vol. 33,
i% KEY
1925, pp. 63-66.
3 Waller, W. P., "Tank Tests with Towboats and Barges in Deep and
Same as FIG14 Shallow Water," Transactions, Institute of Engineers and Shipbuilders
0.3 (Scotland), Vol. 94, 1950, pp. 210-274.
4 Mitchell, A. R, "Tunnel Type Vessels," Transactions, Institute of
Engineers and Shipbuilders (Scotland), Vol. 96, 1952-53, pp. 126-188.
5 Baier, L. A., "American River Towboats," International Shipbuild-
ing Progress, Vol. 6, No. 61, 1955, pp. 482¢-485.
0.2 6 Latorre, R., "River Towboat Tunnel Stern," International Ship-
building Progress, Vol. 29, No. 338, 1982, pp. 257-259.
7 Oosterveld, M., W. C., "Ducted Propeller Systems Suitable for Tugs
and Pushboats," International Shipbuilding Progress, Vol. 19, No. 219,
1972, pp. 351-371.
0,1 8 Van Manen, T. D. and Oosterveld, M. W. C., "Analysis of Ducted
Propeller Design," Trans. SNAME, Vol. 74, 1966, pp. 522-562.
9 Marbury, F., "Least-Energy Operation of River Shipping," MARINE
TECHNOLOGY,VOI. 16, No. 2, April 1979, pp. 136-155.
10 Spock, P., "The ACBL Blended Fuel Development Program,"
1 2 3 2 3 1 2 3 SNAME, Great Lakes and Great Rivers Section, Jan. 28, 1983.
11 Christopolous, B. and Latorre, R., "River Towboat Hull and Propul-
( ~ BRORDER (~) BR ORDER (~) BR ORDER sion," MARINETECHNOLOGY,Vol. 20, No. 3, July 1983, pp. 209-226.
Fig. 16 Comparison of horizontalvibration levels at towboat engine 12 Latorre, R, "Shallow River Pushboat Preliminary Design," ASCE
Journal of Waterway, Port, Coastal and Ocean Engineering, Vol. 111, No.
4, 1985, pp. 678-692.
13 Allan, R. E., "Shallow Draught Towboats in the Canadian North-
land," Proceedings, Second International Tug Conference, Paper 1, 1971.
14 Luthra, G., "Investigation of the Wake Distribution of a Towboat
Pushing a Barge Train," HANSA, Vol. 3, No. 18, 1974, pp. 1515-1521 (in
German), English translation [25].
v 15 Luthra, G., "Investigation of the Wakefield of a Triple and Quadru-
HORIZONTAL MEASUREMENTS ASTERN ple Screw Pusher Towboat," Versuchsantalt "fur Binnenschiffbau.ev, Re-
in/s KEY port 919, 1979 (in German), English translation [25].
16 Luthra, G, "Effect of Profile Thickness and Angle of Attack of
~&e as i °s Flanking Rudders in Pusher Tugs on Thrust Deduction and Propulsion
0.3 F IG. 14 Power," Schiff und Hafen, Heft 10, 1979 (in German), English translation
[26].
17 Basin, A. M., "Influence of Shallow Water on Hull Propeller Inter-
action of Passenger Vessels," Ship Hydrodynamics in Shallow Water,
0.2 Sudostroyeniye, Leningrad, 1976, pp. 150-163 (in Russian), English trans-
lation [25].
18 Volker, H., Written discussion to K. H. Pohl, "Uber die Weehsel
wirkung Zwisschen Schiff und Propeller," STG Jahbuch, 1961, pp. 298-
300, English translation [24].
0.1 J 19 Narita, H., Kunitake, Y., and Yagi, H., "Application and Develop-
ment of a Large Ducted Propeller for the 280 000-dwt Tanker, MS Thor-
sage," Trans. SNAME, Vol. 82, 1974, pp. 244-273.
20 Howe, C. W., et al, Inland Water Transportation, Johns Hopkins
University Press, Baltimore, 1969.
0 . -- - -
21 Latorre, R. and Warinner, C., "The Resistance of a 5 × 3 Barge
3 I 2 3 Tow Moving in Shallow Water," ASCE Journal of Waterway, Port, Coastal
( ~ BR.ORDER © BR ORDER (~) BR. ORDER and Ocean Engineering, Vol. 112, No. 4, 1986, pp. 531-535.
22 Principles of Naval Architecture, E. V. Lewis, Ed., 2nd Revision,
Fig. t7 Comparison of vibration levelsat towboat engineswhen backing VoL 2, SNAME, 1988, p. 182.

JULY 1991 MARINE TECHNOLOGY 245

 23 "Ship Vibrational and Noise Guidelines," SNAME Technical & Architecture and Marine Engineering, Report No. 249, University of
Research Bulletin No. 2-25, Jan. 1980. Michigan, Ann Arbor, 1982.
24 Latorre, R., "Flow Around Full Ship Stern: Translations of Selected
Japanese and German Technical Articles," Department of Naval Archi-
tecture and Marine Engineering, Report No. 198, University of Michigan,
Ann Arbor, 1976. Metric Conversion Factors
25 Latorre, R. and Dunow, H., "Improvement of River Towboat Pro- 1 ft = 0.3048 m
pulsion: Translations of Selected German and Russian Technical Arti- 1 ft 2 = 0.0929 m 2
cles," Department of Naval Architecture and Marine Engineering Report 1 lb = 0.45 kg
No. 243, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, 1981. 1 gal = 3.785 L
26 Latorre, R., Luthra, G., and Tan, K., ~Improvement of Inland Wa-
1 hp = 0.7457 kW
terway Vessel and Barge Tow Performance: Translations of Selected Chi-
1 mph = 1.6 km/h
nese, German and Russian Technical Articles," Department of Naval
1 psi = 6.895 kPa

SNAME FORTHCOMING EVENTS

1991
September 4-6 Ship Production Symposium San Diego Section Pan Pacific Hotel
San Diego, CA

September 17-18 Propellers '91 - Panel M-15 Cavalier Hotel

Virginia Beach, VA

September 26-27 New England Section Marine Computers '91 Boston Marriott Burhngton
Burhngton, MA

November 13-16 SNAME 1991 Annual Meeting and International Maritime Exposition New York Hilton Hotel
New York, NY
1992

May 4-7 Offshore Technology Conference and Exhibition Astrodomain

Houston, TX

June 24-27 Intersociety High Performance Marine Vehcile Conference and Exhibit Ritz Carlton Hotel
Arlington, Va

September San Diego Section San Diego, CA

(dates to be determined) Technical Advance in Yacht Racing Sympostum

September 1-4 Second International Symposium on Propellers and Cavttation (ISPC '92) Hangzhou, China

November 11-14 SNAME 1992 Annual Meeting and International Maritime Exposition New York Htlton Hotel
New York, NY
1993 - CENTENNIAL YEAR

May 3-6 Offshore Technology Conference and Exhibition Astrodomain

Houston, TX

September 14-19 SNAME Centennial Annual Meeting and International Maritime Exposition New York Hilton Hotel
New York, NY
1994

May 2-5 Offshore Technology Conference & Exhibition Astrodomain

Houston, TX

November 16-19 SNAME 1994 Annual Meeting and International Maritime Exposition Fairmont Hotel
New Orleans, LA

Tentative Dates September 13-17, 1995: September 18-22, 1996: September 10-14; 1997
SNAME Annual Meeting

246 JULY 1991 MARINE TECHNOLOGY