Академический Документы
Профессиональный Документы
Культура Документы
Four
“ee“e
HOR
a
SHIP RESISTANCE
a a
frame «be ealeee
|i _ {4 -ty
= oan
|JS RESIDUARY RESISTANCE
‘tai
| oo
| WAVE i FRICTIONAL RESISTANCE
OR ian
RESISTANCE (FLAT PLATE}
TeGsTRE Ree
a ane a a
“oe
BODY DEEPLY SU8MERGED BODY DEEPLY SUBMERGED
aSR DB. ae
R :
7
rows ; — Teves a ‘
<x SKIN FRICTION
RESISTANCE
NO
RESISTANCE
7 a
i TOTAL RESISTANCE
(GRAND TOTAL)
3
10°C STEERING RESISTANCE
ao AIR RESISTANCE
5 “TOTAL RESISTANCE " SPRAY RESISTANCE
10°R WAVEBREAKING RESISTANCE
t+ev*s Z j
4 f—.— WAVE RESISTANCE
TREE SEPT
pi | | -~——~— WAVE PATTERN RESISTANCE
Da PRESSURE RESISTANCE
[tT ie RESIDUARY RESISTANCE
FRICTIONAL RESISTANCE 45
Wave pattern Resistance, Rwe: The resis
he
ted, the resistance is called the bare hull resis- 4.2.1. Introduction
tance,
Roughness Resistance: This is the resistance As was mentioned previously, the frictional resis-
CE OS
due to the roughness, forinstance, owing to cor- tance is the componentof resistance obtained by
rosion and fouling on the ship hull. integrating the tangential stresses over the wetted
Air Resistance: This is experienced by the surface of the ship in the direction of motion. All
abovewater part of the main hull and the super- fluids have viscosity, which causes friction. The im-
structures owing to the motion of the ship portance ofthis friction in physical situations de-
pends on the typeoffluid and the physical configu-
through theair,
EEE NE
“al
V MOVING
r=
T= BS
aU (4.2.3)
4.2.3
PATHLINES
in model experiments the flow over an unknown tween 0 and x. 7») is the shearing stress on the wall
area of the model can be laminar, which means that
and ts equal to
the experiment’s accuracyis often not as good as is
wanted.
due .
The effects of viscosity are present in turbulent y= (ay J, (4.2.6)
flow, but they are usually masked by the dominant
turbulent shear stresses.
where subscript zero denotes the value at the wall,
that is, forv = 0. R is here equal to the frictional
Sade”
which retard the motion of the fluid in a thin layer Nature of flow
nearto the plate. In the boundarylayer the velocity Reynolds number
of the fluid U increases from zero at the plate to its
Form of surface
maximum value, which corresponds to the velocity
in the externalfrictionless flow Uz (Fig. 4.2.3). The Character and condition of surface
boundary layer thickness, 5, is the distance from
and normalto the surface of the body to the point at The next questions which can arise are: What is the
which the speedattains its equivalent inviscid flow thickness of the boundarylayer? Whatis the veloc-
value. For practical purposes this speed is some- ity distribution inside it? Prandtl and von Karman
Sates 5
times taken as 99% ofthe inviscid flow speed. (Prandtl and Schlichting, 1934) have answered both
The application of the momentum law for a vol- questions in apartly theoretical way, although only
ume element just aft of the plate shows that the loss for plane surfaces. In his work von Karmanstarts
of momentum perunit of time must be equal to the with the following assumptions:
resistance experienced by the plate. This gives the
following equation for the volume element consid- |. The distribution of velocity at the plane surface
ered: is assumed to dependonly on the viscosity of
the fluid, the density of fluid, and the frictional
forces.
[ puw. — Udy = [F rocx =F (4.2.5)
2. The frictional resistance is assumed to vary
with the velocity raised to a certain power 7,
where # is the resistance of the plate section be- which in his work was 1.75,
ulxy) BOUNDARY
LAYER
+ x
WALL
wa
oa | bet
us Un, (-\, | (4.2.8)
ToS
formed, it will be seen that at corresponding speeds
n=l Clean surfaces of merchant ships
the thickness of the frictional belt is relatively much
Smooth, polished surface of wax, plas-
rhe
“esta Sm
0,20 | T T =
creases with distance along the plate surface. The
6 MODELS oy 7 early portion of the boundary layer can be laminar
ons
| i
4 a
| (v5)
—-7
i a
Lay and will then be followed by a transition region
| | ; t ae where the flow changes from laminar to turbulent t
m i
‘
21 _ a
Le é
(Fig. 4.2.7). This transition region consists of burst
aan of turbulence which spreads until they intermingle é
Cae 3 : to result in a fully turbulent region (see the plan }
view in Fig, 4.2.7). This turbulence burst docs not
|| | have fixed location, but moves continually. In the
| |
| B2O037LQ* | fully laminar region the flow will be steady and
nearly one dimensional, whereas the flow in the
6 4 m 19 L We
transition region and in the fully turbulent region
Feperen: RITScrnnneee
Figure 4.2.4. Thickness of friction helt determined by von Kar- will be unsteady and three dimensional. The transi-
mis formula for a model on freshwater. tion takes place ata Reynolds number #,, of aboun
tt cet. aly, btn sli at, ed
FRICTIONAL RESISTANCE a9
1,00
ae
ok
075-1 0,75
thom
0.50}——_- —— i en —
th
0
mom
020 uy 400
U
Figure 4.2.6. Velocity variation in boundary layers. Figure 4.2.8. Velocity distributions in the boundary iayer.
ed
3.2 x 10°. The velocity distribution in the laminar fects can be significant for the resistance due to the
and the turbulent boundary layer may be as shown ship hull surface roughness. The laminar sublayer
in Fig. 4.2.8. However, the drastic change in veloc- represents only a small part of the turbulent bound-
ity gradient near the limit of the laminar boundary arylayer.
layer, as shown in the figure, does not seem to be A mathematical description of the flow in the
realistic; however, it is still the best approximation laminar boundary layer is difficult to establish, and
for the velocity distribution in a laminar boundary only a few simple problems can be treated easily.
layer. Within the turbulent boundary layer there Furthermore, there is no completely analytical solu-
ines
must exist extremely close to the wall a portion that tion for the mean velocity distribution in turbulent
is essentially laminar in nature. The reason for this flows even for such a simplesituation as flow over a
is that the velocity pulsations normal to the wall flat plate. The so-called Navier-Stokes equations
must be dampedout veryclose to the wall. It means are the general mathematical expression for the hy-
that a laminar sublayer must exist and that its ef- drodynamic phenomena involving the inertial and
viscous properties of the fluid. To obtain a solution
of the equations it is often necessary to omit certain
terms in the equations, which thus causes the math-
ematical model to depart fromreal situations. Fora
flow with pulsating disturbances of various frequen-
cies added to the mean flow velocity, the Navier—
Stokes equations have shownthatfor a flow along a
flat plate the pulsations will be amplified and, there-
|
COLO PEEPEE POOP EL, fore, the laminar flow will be unstable at various
‘\
i Reynolds numbers.
TRANSITION! TURBULENT For the flow along the flat plate the pressure gra-
- dient is equal to zero. For the case of a flow where
{ rs
te.
pNP
= - the pressure gradient is negative, the laminar flow
| Mlaow
. J will be stabilized. On the other hand, a positive
pressure gradient can affect the stability of the
laminar boundarylayer and transition to turbulence
can take place. When performing model experi-
ments, all these phenomena can be of importance to
the result.
Wigure 4.2.7, Transition from laminar to turbulent flow, Before leaving this section it must be mentioned
SU) SHIP RESISTANCE
cd
TS eTAERE ney
or
of ta
SEPARATION
Figure 4.2.10. Flow around solid of revolution. External flow
(4.2.11) effect of pressure gradient on boundary layer growth.
TM se
of the phenomenacan be found in the classic work past the solid predicts a decreasing pressure over
Boundary Layer Theory by Schlichting (1955). the front portion of the body and an increasing pres-
SSI
sure over the rear portion. This results in a rela-
tively thin and stable boundary layer over the front
4.2.4. Separation portion and a thick and unstable boundarylayer and
possible separation over the rear portion. Separa-
By flow separation is understood the detachment of tion can occur in laminar as well as in turbulent
the main flow from solid surface due to an adverse flow. In Fig. 4.2.11 the flow around circular cylin-
longitudinal pressure gradient, sometimes caused der is shown. The character of the flow is deter-
by a sudden changeof the direction of curvature of mined by the Reynolds number R,. For very low
Terre 7
the surface. The fluid in the separated flow contains Reynolds numberthe flow is nearly a potential flow.
eddies, and may be nearly static or may contain a As the Reynolds number is increased, the flow will
region of reversed flow. tend to separate. The separation takes place in a
The boundary fayer remains thin relative to the periodic way by shedding von Karman vorticies. A
body dimensionsuntil the condition of separationis Karman vortex street is formed.
reached. A typical picture of flow separation is A further increase in Reynolds number will result
shown in Fig. 4.2.9, indicating streamlines and in a fully separated flow. The laminar boundary
boundarylayer velocities profiles. The slope du/dy layer over the front portion of the cylinder is thin
of the velocity profile at the wall will decrease when because of the negative pressure gradient. An ad-
the flow comes near to the point of separation. At verse pressure gradient exists over the rear portion
Tee
the point of separation the slope becomes zero and and results in a rapid growth of the boundarylayer
and separation. At still higher Reynolds number
the boundary layer becomes turbulent.
The shedding of vortices in the Karman vortex
street forms a regular cyclic pattern as the vortices
are built up and detach at the back of the bodyfirst
BOUNDARY on one side and then on the other side. Therefore,
LAYER the vortex field at the back at any instant oftime is
unsymmetrical, and a pulsating side force with the
frequency of eddy shedding will occur. Manytypes
OY, PLP TOC PEP IPPEE FEED ey Soa PEELE ELE PLEE EE ELE EEE EAE
: POINT OF of hydro- and acrodynamic excited vibrations are a
SEPARATION result of this phenomenon. The “‘singing”’ wire in a
Figure 4.2.9, Flow with separation windis an example,
tinta
FRICTIONAL RESISTANCE 51
mama
LAMINAR
BOUNDARY LAYER
4.2.5. Frictional Resistance Coefficient
jm.
POINT OF 5
SEPARATION Rn < 5*10 integrating the tangential stresses over the wetted
surface of the ship in the direction of motion.
TURBULENT Ra > 5*105
BOUNDARY LAYER The specific frictional resistance or drag coeffi-
cient Cr is then defined by
Rr
Cr = ipV2S (4.2.12)
POINTOF
SEPARATION TURBULENT FLOW
Figure 4.2.11. Flow aroundcircular cylinder. where pis the mass density, V is the speed ofthe
ship, and S is the wetted surface of the ship.
On the other hand, if C; is known at the speed V
Botha positive pressure gradient and a boundary in question, the frictional resistance can be calcu-
layer are necessary for separation to occur. Without lated by
a boundary layer, a flow with positive pressure gra-
dient will not separate, and withouta positive pres- Rr = Crap VS (4.2.13)
sure gradient, a boundary layer will not separate.
By sucking away the fluid in the boundarylayer at Much theoretical and cxperimental research
the point of separation, the separation can be de- work has been devoted to determiningthe localfric-
layed or prevented. The technique of boundary tional resistance coefficient C; as well as the total
layer suction is sometimes used in model experi- frictional resistance coefficient Cr for a body. For a
ments. two-dimensional flow the relation between C,and
Even though performing experiments with big Cy is as follows:
models, laminar separation can occur at the fore-
most shoulder. Further turbulent separation can oc-
cur at the shoulder of the stern. The separation Cr=5 | Gad (4.2.14)
point tends to move aft with increasing Reynolds
number. Hence, the possibility exists that, since ! being the length of the body.
model and ship have very different Reynolds num- With regard to the theoretical treatment of the
bers, when performing towing tests, separation on problem, then, it is in general very difficult to arrive
the model, if it does occur, may be at a point further at a useful result. Only simple problems can be
forward of the geometrically similar point on the solved.
ship. By studying the mean velocity distribution for
Appendages such as shaft brackets can have a the fiow in a turbulent boundarylayer on a flat plate
local Reynolds number that is extremely low. with zero pressure gradient and, among other
Therefore, the boundarylayeror a part of it can be things, by use of the Navier-Stokes equations and
a|
§2 SHIP RESISTANCE
by introducing some constants determined empiri- Froude’s frictional constants for paraffin or smooth
cally, it is possible to come to an implicit equation hard surfaces in salt water can be found in Taylor
for the local frictional drag coefficient Cy. The total (1910, p. 31). R. E. Froude states also that, as re-
drag coefficient Cr defined by Eq. (4.2.14) can be gards the paraffin used in the models, it appeared
iia a
determined from a similar equation, and this is the identical in frictional quality to a smooth painted or
basis for Schoenherr’s flat plate frictional drag for- varnished surface.
mula (Schoenherr, 1932) Later the formula for the frictional resistance in
kilograms (force) had been represented by
I
= 1.79 log(R,Cp) = 4.13 logio (RaCr) x
VCr (4.2.18)
(4.2.15)
Here K, is the Reynolds number and is equal to where y = specific weight of water in kg/m?
VLiv, d = frictional resistance coefficient
The lower limit of validity of this formula for Cr S = wetted area in m? :
is between R, = 2 x 10° and 2 x 10° wheretransi- i
V = speed in m/sec
tion from laminar flow occurs. Experimental data
for the constants exist only up to a Reynolds num-
Le Besnerais expressed the frictional coefficient >
ber of about 4.5 x 108, which perhaps gives the
at a temperature of 15°C by the following formula:
upper limit of validity of the formula. A more ex-
haustive treatment of the theoretical works within
the field can as an example be found in Newman y= 0.1392 + 8 (4.2.19)
(1977, Chapter 3). a 2.68 + L
The classic experimental determination of the
frictional resistance was made by William Froude where L is the model or ship length in meters.
many years ago in the first ship model basin in Tor- If the friction coefficient is to be used for a tem-
quay and is recorded in Froude (1872; 1874), both perature ¢ other than 15°C, the following correction
papers are reprinted in INA (1955). formula maybe used:
Froude used boards 19 in. x 3% in. of various
lengths up to 50 ft and coated with various sub- hk, = ACL + 0.0043An (4.2.20)
stances, which were towed at different speeds in 4
300-ft-long basin containing freshwater; their resis- where Ar = 15°C — 1 (hence it is negative if ¢ >
tance was measured. The results can be found in the 15°C),
papers mentioned above but also in many old stan-
dard works regarding the speed and powerof ships The preceding formulas were recommended by
(Taylor, 1910, pp. 30-31) and someare given in a Contrés International des Directeurs de Bassins,
modified form in Fig. 4.2.12. Furthermore. it ap- Paris 1935 (JTTC, 1935, p. 201) and were used by
pears from these experiments that the frictional re- most of the ship model tanks until about 1960.
sistance of a plane surface could be represented by By combining Eqs. (4.2.12) and (4.2.18), the fol-
the formula lowing relation is obtained:
| | i |
4. | i{—
| LMARNISHED SURFACE |
eee ao
| ---- [Pararriwcn SURFACE | |
ft LU |
|
| i
2 — + bp
|
Mek —|
TT
| | | Por Ty tdy |
- i |
10°* | ig
ita iT, rs HL
ii |
10° é 3 6 5 10° 2 3 43 10’
| : ane
2 3 4 5 108 RA.
Figure 4.2.12, Results from Froude’s resistance tests with boards.
Ah
i
SCHOENHERR: |
0,242
= logig (R,Ce)
JG; ples
200
10° 10'° R 2
n
Figure 4.2.13. Froude’s friction resistance coefficient for Reynolds number in the ship region.
edge effects. The lines for other values of the ing to R, = 108 and 10° have been calculated and
length—breadth ratio are at constant percentages have been inserted in the diagram versus the year
above the basic line. when the formula was proposed. The figure shows
In spite of the fact that a flow along a flat plate of the confusion with regard to the real value of Cp.
infinite length is the most simple turbulent flow a The question is further discussed in Gadd (1967).
final stage has not yet been reached. In Fig. 4.2.15 Towing tanks all over the world have considered
some formulas for the resistance coefficient Cfor the establishment of a uniform practice for the cal-
such a flow are stated. The Cp values correspond- culation of skin friction and the expansion of model
=F
10° i i|
a: ~ a :
——t—-
woe te ———
-- fp |
_ Lg
i | | | | |
4 ——_—_—i—__—_{—__+— -+.-1- i-
| TURBULENT, FLOW, | |
MEAN LINE: = | /
1 Ei top ad
2- jo
| Std |
—_|_
| LAMINAR F
'( BLASIUS )
; | 4
i ; |
| |
ott | ]
10° 7 es
Figure 4.2.14. Spectlic frictional resistance coettigwent for flat plate. lariunmar. and turbulent vs USchoenherr, Pus.
FRICTIONAL RESISTANCE
aN
“Fl
1927 @ PRANDTL: Cro = 0,074/R,,°
1927 O TELFER: Cry = 0,0012 + 0.34/R,"
25 932 @ PRANDTL - SCHLICHTING: C,> = 0,455/(log R,,) 228 —
1932 O SCHOENHERR: 0,262/VCe2 = log(R,C-z)
poate
1940 SCHULTZ - GRUNOW: C,, = 0,427/(tog R, - 0,407)?" _
10°C, 1952 LAP - TROOST: 0,2545/VCr> = 0.9526 + log(R,¥Cr, )
|. 1954 HUGHES: C,, = 0067/(logR, - 2)?
11967 GADD: Cry = 0,0113/( logR, - 3,7)"9
aan bee
a
AoHRn= 10%
2,0
1,5: R —_ R, =10° P\
a
i
59 {1920 1930 1940 [1950 1960 1970 1980
ji |] |
Figure 4.2.15. Formulas for the specific frictional resistance coefficient and a comparison of the coefficients at different Reynolds
number.
data to full size. The International Towing Tank viscous resistance coefficient for the body in ques-
Conference (ITTC) studied many proposals and in tion. It is assumedthat r is independent of Reynolds
1957 agreed on the following formula: number and is the same for all similar models and
ships.
0.075 In Fig. 4.2.16 the frictional resistance coefficient
> TogeR, = oP ae Cr according to Hughes (Eq. (4.2.24)] and Cy for
different values of the form factor r are shown as
The Conference adopted this as the “ITTC 1957 functions of Reynolds number #,. In the same dia-
model—ship correlation line,’ and was careful to gram the “‘ITYTC 1957 model-ship correlation line”’
label “‘only an interim solution to this problem for is inserted. It will be observed that the ITTC corre-
practical engineering purposes’? (ITTC, 1959, p. lation line is merging with the Hughes line r = 1.12.
324). The line is called a model—ship correlation line From Fig. 4.2.14 it will be seen that at low Rey-
and not a frictional resistance line representing the nolds numbers the vanation in the experimental
frictional resistance of plane or curved surfaces. In results is very large. Furthermore, it will be seen
association with his two-dimensional line, Hughes that there are only few results for high Reynolds
proposed a system oflines giving the Cy for sur- numbers and that the maximum Reynolds number
faces that are not plane. Hughes defines a form fac- where experimental data exist is about 4.5 « 108,
tor r by the expression The area of Reynolds numbers for most ofthe ships
is in the two decades from 10° to 10. Owing to
i Cy
r=(1+ == these facts, it is clear that the subject of friction
eee) resistance coefficients of ships for the present is far
from a final solution.
so that
,=
ov ~&n
4.2.6. Turbulence Stimulation
Cro is the two-dimensional flat plate resistance coef- Model experiments are carried out at relatively low
ficient given by Eq. (4.2.23) or (4.2.24) and Cy is the Reynolds number. Therefore, the flow can be
anh. By,
Pa
56 SHIP RESISTANCE
7 as os a s AN ;
orc.| NEA | | | 9242 |
\ ot {al .
it
FL NIN AMAN FE SCHOENHERR : We = (09(RaCe)
A mm om Bo ak
° \A XY | | | _
J SSDS TS Cope henB
Sy bh HUGHES: Ce = toa
Mm
2 -
aot Rom
it
BS
1082
of 7 T
em
n
Figure 4.2.16. The frictional resistance coefficient C; (according to Hughes) and rCy (r being the form factor) as a function of
Reynolds number &,. The “ITTC 1957 model-ship correlation line’? and the Schoenherrt line are also shown.
BR
FMS
laminar as well as turbulent (compare with Fig. tend to destabilize the laminar flow at the fore part
4.2.14). In general, the procedure of conducting a of the model. Unfortunately, the stimulator has also
ship model test and predicting from the results the given the water a forward velocity so that the mea-
resistance of the full-sized ship involves the as- sured speed over the ground orof the carriage is no
ww
sumption that the model is in full turbulent flow; longer the speed ofthe modelrelative to the water.
therefore, every attempt should be made to ensure Furthermore, it must be mentioned that owing to
F
that turbulent flow exists. At the bow of the ship the dimensions of the rods or the wires the separa-
¥
model the local Reynolds numberis low andthereis tion for a given speed is probably in the laminar
a negative pressure gradient, so the chances for state resulting in the disturbances being predomi-
FF
laminar or partly laminar flow is very high. nantly of one frequency. Instead of rods or screens,
££
The techniques to simulate turbulence can be di-
vided into two categories:
FS
MODEL
1, Artificial creation of a high turbulence level in
wT
the area of water in which the model moves.
Artificial creation of turbulent disturbances in
th
we
u
the boundary layer of the model.
mn
er
Sometimes the use of other forms of stunulators parameter. £ is the characteristic length of the
have been discussed. For example, the bowof the plate. It is assumed that the turbulent boundary
model could be vibrated from the inside at a fre- laycr begins right at the leading edge. The relative
quency that destabilizes the laminar boundarylayer roughness L/K, is a function of the magnitude of K,
on the bow. Another example of special stimulators relative to the dimension of the boundary layer. If
is the use of alternating electrical polarity. Small the roughness height & is smal] compared to the
metal tabs can be mounted flush with the hull in an height of the viscous sublayer, the plate is effec-
array a small distance from the stem. A pulsating tively smooth and the frictional drag is independent
electrical polarity creates discreet frequency distur- of k. In the other extreme, if 4 is large compared to
bances and possible laminar instability in the &, the form drag resulting from the roughness ele-
boundary layer. Extremely high voltages have to be ments will be important, which means that the drag
used if the methodis to be effective, but it is danger- will be essentially independent of the Reynolds
ous and not practical. number. Furthermore, Fig. 4.2.19 showsthat if the
relative roughness or the K,/L is the same for the
ship model as for the full-scale ship hull, then the
4.2.7. Roughness smoothness of the full-scale ship hull will be much
more important than the smoothness of the model,
In the previous sections only the frictional resis- owing to the fact that the effects of the roughness
tance along smooth surfaces has been treated. The will increase with Reynolds number.
surfaces have been hydraulically smooth. The sur- If the length of the plate is changed, the Reynolds
faces of ships are not smooth but have various de- number based on the roughness scale U..K,/v re-
grees of roughness depending on the structural fab- mains constant, and the coefficient of skin friction
Tication and design, the character of the paint varies along a curve U..K,/v = const. In the figure a
applied to the surface of the hull, and the accumula- family of such curves is shown. The curves are ap-
tion of marine growth or fouling on the hull. Froude proximately parallel to the curve for the smooth
(1874) performed experiments regarding: ‘‘The na- surface. These curves are more representative for
ture of the variation of the resistance, in terms of the ship roughness than the L/K, curves, insofar as
the variation in the quality of the surface.’’ The the roughness scale of ship hulls of different lengths
materials used by Froude in forming the surface is independent of the length of the ship. Therefore,
were varnish; tinfoil; hard paraffin, laid on thin and in practice, when estimating the resistance of a
scraped perfectly smooth; unbleached calico; and given ship, a roughness allowance can be approxi-
three varieties of sand, differing from one another in mated by a constant additive resistance coefficient.
the coarseness of grain. The additive resistance coefficient will vary from
Nikuradse (1933) carried out a series of very sys- ship type to ship type, with the length of the ship,
tematic, extensive, and careful measurements on and with the character of the paint applied.
rough pipes. The circular pipes used were covered The problem is discussed further in Chapter 5.
on the inside as completely as possible with a defi- The roughness used in Nikuradse’s experimentsis
nite grain size glued onto the wall. By choosing obtained with the grains of sand glued to the wall as
pipes of varying diameters and by changingthe size closely to each other as possible, with the density a
of grain it was possible to vary the relative rough- maximum. In many practical applications the
ness K,/R from about 0.002 to 0.065. K, is the grain roughness density is considerably smaller and can
size or the height of the protrusion and R is the no longer be described by the height of protrusion,
radius, or if it is not a circular pipe, the hydraulic k. A scale of standard roughness has to be intro-
radius, of the cross section. duced. It is convenient to correlate any given
Later Prandtl and Schlichting by calculations roughness with its equivalent sand roughness and to
have applied the results for pipes to the case of define it as that value of L/K, that gives the actual
rough plates. In addition to the local skin friction coefficient of resistance. Schlichting experimentally
fraction, the total skin friction fraction was calcu- determined the equivalent sand roughness for a
lated. In Fig. 4.2.19 the resistance is given in the large numberof surfaces. The results are published
form of a coefficient of total skin friction. The coeffi- in Schlichting (1936; 1955, p. 424). Also Kempf
cient has been plotted against the Reynolds number (1937a; 1937b) and Todd (195i) have studied the
R= U, hfe with the relative roughness L/K, as a problemof equivalent sand roughness. Results from
“SSBUGGNOI ay) pu “y Jo uoNUN] B SE salRd pauayFnos-puvs Jo] 49 JudTAYJE209 MONIUNAS [RIO], “EET p angry
z gl z ,0l
_ ae
PONE AP AP NAP NINN AN
__ — . JAepp gObT Oleh OS
— an — aaona | wees nese oa OZ]
Obl] OS! OLE -OlKZ Ole U
So |-———~2
“yen
rr ‘te — ay — a ery ‘om ae Wat Laity — bh eer mate — — LL — he “what on oe at ower a eae
G0 SHIP RESISTANCE
towing tests of ship tnals with ships in service and where v is the kinematic viscosity of water and Vis
from towing tests of pontoons have been plotted in the speed of the ship. If the speed is 9 m/s, then the
diagrams such as Fig. 4.2.19, and from this, the Kea Will be 13 wm. By way of comparison it can be
equivalent roughness has been estimated. Some of mentioned that roughness of bare stecl plate, ofdip
the results were based on the measurements of the galvanized plate, and of plate poorly sprayed
local resistance of a certain small piece of the shell painted will be 50, 150, and 200 wm, respectively.
in the parallel middle body of the ship, and provide When uniform sand grains are not tightly packed,
a direct measure of pure local frictional resistance. the resistance due to the roughness is atits greatest
The measuredlocal resistances were transferred by when the roughness density is about 75-80%. At
theoretical considerations into total resistance. As 25% density the resistance increment due to rough-
examples it can be mentioned that the equivalent ness is still about 75% of the maximum value.
sand roughness of surfaces coated in different ways It is very difficult to characterize the ship hull
at a Reynolds number of about 2 x 10? are as roughness numerically owing to the fact that hull
follows: roughness arises from many causes and therefore
usually has a mixture of characteristics. The rough-
Zinc chromate LIK, = 3 x 106 ness can be divided into the following dypes:
Cold plastic 2.5 x 108
Anticorrosive 2 x 10° Structural roughness, that is, chine plate wavi-
ness, welds, changes in plate thickness
Hotplastic 1 x 106
Local damage
The uncertainty in fixing the equivalent sand rough- Corrosion pitting
ness is large and this measure to describe the rough- Corrosion products, that is, rust.
ness of a surface is therefore not often used. Paint system failures, that is, poorly applicd
An effective roughness-measuring instrument paint, stripped off paint
(wall gauge profileometer) is needed if the relation- Blistered paint
ship between the roughness and resistance of a Roughened surface of exhausted antifouling
point is to be investigated. Some instruments are
Fouling residues
capable of drawing the profile of the surface along
any desired line and of dealing with roughness Any of the above after they have been painted
heights perhaps up to about 5000 wm. Records of over
the surfaces are then drawn on continuous rolls of
paper. Other instruments comprise measuring The resistance increment will vary with type of
heads and analyzer units, which house signal condi- roughness, and the same roughness height can have
tioner and printer. Flexible multicore cables con- different effects. The combination of the above-
nect measuring heads with condition units and bat- mentioned types of roughness will vary from ship to
tery packs. As the measuring headIs traversed over ship and will vary during the lifetime of the ship.
the surface, the printer automatically prints out the Ifin spite of everything one wants to describe the
maximum peak to trough height for alternate 50 mm hull roughness, it can be done in the following man-
sample lengths. The measuring head can be a hand- ner, as suggested byBritish Ship Research Associa-
propelled trolley carrying a ball-ended measunng tion (BSRA):
probe, which contacts the surface under examina- With a wall gauge profileometer, a cross section
tion. The movements of the probe are registered by through the rough surface is taken, amplified, and
a transducer. A timing wheel can be arranged to recorded. When analyzing. the records can be di-
supply a pulse signal every 50 mm of measuring vided in 50 mm lengths and envelope curves can be
head travel. If all the roughness lies within the drawn on top and bottom byeye to touch only one
laminarsublayer, it has no effect on drag. A critical peak in each 50 mmlength (see Fig. 4.2.20A). The
sand grain diameter can be given as (Hoerner, mean separation between the two envelope curves
1965): can be taken as the apparent amplitude of the rec-
ord. In this way long wavelengths are climinated
BSRA proposes that a hull survey has to be com-
Keri 7 100 = (4.2.27)
posed of 80-150 such records, each having about 15
A carattit tien: actatataite
PRICTIONAL RESISTANCE ol
Figure 4.2.20. Rough surface record with the two envelope curves sketch
in.
15 [—
107AC,]
A : Lo
A
erp
1,0
7 A |
/ 0,5 7 cae
er
| a °
0 100 200 300 400 500 600 700 800 $00 1000
PEAK TO VALLEY HEIGHT im
Figure 4.2.21, Increase in friction resistance coefficient Cy due to roughness
.
vee
SE ae wr wow wow ow ow ow wow wo& a w i e be Sarsy
62 SHIP RESISTANCE
about 4 x 10 ® per day out of dock because ofdete- not realistic because it would involve the formation
rioration of the bottom, but for some ships the in- of Jow- and high-pressure areas below the wave
crease can be greater. Figure 4.2.21 shows the in- crests and the wave hollows, respectively. It ap-
crease in friction resistance coefficient Cr or in the pears probable that the particles rotate in circles or
incremental resistance coefficient C, due to rough- ellipses, the plane of which is vertical and perpen-
ness. In other words it also shows the savings in dicular to the line of wave crests. Here it must also
power and fuel oil that a better treatment of the be mentioned that the water particles do not follow
surface of the ship hull will give. The diagram is an exactly circular path, but will show a displace-
based on the results given in Karlsson (1978) and ment in the direction of propagation during each
Todd (1951). revolution. This displacement is small and amounts
to approximately
%
wey
4.3. WAVE RESISTANCE Displacement = (4.3.1)
Ly
4.3.1. Introduction
on the surface during each period. Lf is the wave-
length and éy is the height of a wave. Exact defini-
As was mentioned in Section 4.1 the wavemaking
tions of these two terms will be given in the fol-
resistance Ry is the component of resistance associ-
lowing.
ated with the expenditure of energy in generating
Until recently it was customary in the field of
gravity waves. This component can be split up in
naval architecture to use the trochoidal wave theory
two parts: the wave pattern resistance Rywp and the
as developed by Gerstner[for a short description of
wavebreaking resistance Rywg. Generally, wave re-
the method see SNAME(1967, p. 611)J.
sistance means the wavemaking resistance ignoring
A schematic of the trochoid wave motion is given
the wavebreaking resistance. Before beginning the
in Fig. 4.3.1. The water particles, which in the origi-
discussion of the problems regarding wave resis-
nal still water were on some horizontal line, lic on
tance, a few comments on the nature of deep-water
undulating surfaces, while.those originally in the
waves will be given.
same vertical line lie along lines that sway from side
to side, converging under the crests and diverging
under the hollows.
4.3.2. Deep-Water Waves A schematic of the geometry of a part of a tro-
choid is given in Fig. 4.3.2. The curve joining a
When making a study of the movements of waves, it series of particles originally in the same horizontal
will be observed that the particles of water in a plane is the same as that which is generated by a
wave have verylittle translatory movement, which point on the radius r of a circle with the radius R as
leads to the conclusion that their motion may be the circle rolls along a horizontal straight line. In
either a linear vertical oscillation or a closed path Fig. 4.3.2 the parametric equations of the trochoid
such as a circle or an ellipse. The first hypothesis is are also given.
CORRE SPONDING
STILL WATTER LEVELS
WAVE RESISTANCE 63
th eth
ROLLING
ak
CIRCLE
ee
ee
= -R6-f sind
ziR+rcos 6
6=ut
a
| 26,5 ow |
oe She x, Ly = 27R (4.3.5)
Figure 4.3.3. Definition of wavelength and wave height for a lw eee ~ 125 VLy
simple wave. (4.3.6)
ow ew ee wow
cs] SHIP RESISTANCE
— i
A T Cw w “
2 z
WAVELENGTH Ly=X cyT Se ea oR ec
27 g uy? H
SB,
WAVE PERIOD 1] ~A j2E , 2Mew) 2 21
Cw g g Ww gu *
if
rawweewr ee
WAVE SPEED cy| —~ fg} st 1 ee
T 21 2 W %
CIRCULAR a 1g 27
sf" 3g
fg
FREQUENCY Kew x T Cw '
f
2 2 ‘
WAVE NUMBER x| & ag <r 3 wo 1
cw r gT? cw g
Figure 4.3.4. Relations among wave terms.
c= ry =
rg (4.3.9)
Cw
f= Cy or 2ry = ly (4.3.10)
r= rectly
;
= pie -zicw
2
(4.3.11)
The energy £ in the trochoidal wave can be ex-
pressed by Figure 4.3.5.0 Forces on water murticie on drachondal wows
WAVE RESISTANCE 65
water particle in a trochoidal wave. The gravit
y tions that are set up will manifest themselves by
force mg and a centrifugal force mre? are acting on
changes in the fluid level. These changes in level
a particle at point P; m is the mass of the particle.
will travel at the same velocity as the body itself,
The resultant force is normal to the trochoidal wave
About 1900 Lord Kelvin was working on the
and the two triangles OCP and F’FP are similar.
problem of wavemaking. He considered a single
‘Then
pressure point traveling In a straight line over the
surface of the water, sending out waves that com-
mg mira? bine to form a characteristic pattern. The pattern
Roo (4.3.14)
Tt
Ke. “DIVERGENT f
| \ YsWAVE ~~ ‘
mE es ~
| oe Py
j \ ee
- TRANSVERSE = a
| WAVE — a
1. The bow wave system, owing to high-pressure the predominating influence of the high-pressure
area in the vicinity of the bow. peaks at bow and stern.
The forward shoulder wave system, owing to The four components of the ship’s wave system
bea
the low-pressure area around the shoulder. will be capable of interfering with one another more
3. The aft shoulder wave system, owing to the or less favorably. An example of interfering wave
systems is given in Fig. 4.3.11. It is based on the
low-pressure area around the aft shoulder.
work of Wigley (1930-1931). For a wedge-shaped
4. The stern wave system, owing to the high-pres-
body of infinitely great draught and waterlines as
sure area at the stern.
shown in the figure, the wave systems have been
calculated. The body consists of a parallel middle
It can be difficult to predict the exact place for part and of wedge-shaped fore and aft bodies, each
the wave crest in the bow and the stern wave sys- of length /. The symmetrical surface disturbance
tems, and it is very difficult to predict the place of caused in accordance with Bernoulli's equation is
the troughs of the shoulder wave systems owing to sometimes called the primary wave system, and the
Pre
WAVE RESISTANCE 67
— + SCALE / :
. 20 £00 ~ 800 80d Tcomm
— —
266
WD
AP
J
FP
_ 5660
-4 2-3) -2 +1 Gt 2S UG UT lB
rT] {4 as || haa
\ | i
aa pao { 71,30
— || | boi | | Lis
Ta pe = rr
ft i Ts
[ojfp -
= |}. —| letL"| 1,90
f perT a md
= 7 <T20g
nn
| —~
|— ego.
ee | a| =HPt i | _laz0 E
So
_ o
|| L$;+_| [i 235] |
s+ — |
} im
I | yt J
Figure 4.3.9. Wave system for model 266.
Os SHIP RESISTANCE
266a :
ne 6793 afi
-4 -3. -2——- i) 1 2 3 4 5 x 5 6 7. 8 9 10
ry 4 ] | Ti
! |
i ot i |
i | pet 30 a8
t r inoGeeeee ——
a
|
eS
|_| wo feefet
| || 7
pea
|te
f - a
Poa |
_ f
| |
t
| if
ol
oo
|
E
|i i
Cy
as
5I
wt ftbet p~
i ! i |
Lit bo L | ! 7 ! ft
Figure 4.3.10. Wave system for model 266x.
bow, shoulder, and stern waves systems are called resulting from each of the wavetrains yields:
the secondary wave system. Superposing the five
wave systems gives the resultant wave system. x =r, sin(wt + e)) + r2 sin(wt + e€)
+r; sin(wt + €;) + rs sin(wt + 4) (4.3.19)
RC RIMETRICAL SURFACE
DIST URBANCE
Y
—
VE, systeuY
IPT
pau WA
> =
ZL
UY
N77 | NT
¢ AFTER SHOULDER WAVE SYSTEM
pO
/\~ STERN WAVE SYSTEM
: |
7
DN
TOTAL WAVE SYSTEM (CALCUL ATED) JW
SS
-
ii
Ryx = C'bGiekw
4 ae
By inserting Iq. (4.3.22), an expression for the 4.3.5. Calculation of Wave Resistance
wave resistance is obtained:
Much research has been devoted to the theoreucal
methods of calculating the wave resistance. The
Ry —. gcvurkl
CV x?
{cn 2
+ Che ye
+1 aa 2
+ Gia
methods can be divided into two groups:
1.2 2th 3
The flow around the hull is deter-
Qal
AIR RESISTANCE. 71
fects of viscosity in the calculation of the
wave re- Wind resistance of the ship's above-water parts
sistance,
Wind-induced resistance on the ship’s underwa-
ter hull
4.4. RESIDUARY RESISTANCE
The wind acts on the above-water parts of the ship
causing a reduction in speed, a heeling of the ship,
As mentioned in Section 4.1 the residuary
resis- and a change in the course of the ship if the rudder
tance 1s defined as the quantityofthe resistance that
is obtained by subtracting from the total resist is not used. Owing to the heeling andthe action of
ance the rudder, the resistance ofthe ship is changed, or,
of the hull a calculated friction resistance obtai
ned in other words, an induced resistance is introduced.
by any specific formulation. The residuary
resis- In most cases the wind is not steady but fluctu-
tance (compare with Fig. 4.1.2).includes the wave
resistance, the viscous pressure resistance, and ates both in magnitude and in direction, and further-
the more, the wind causes waves that in turn cause
additional frictional resistance due to the curva
ture added resistance. In this survey the effect of the
of body. With regard to the last mentioned compo
- wind will only be treated for the case of a steady
nentit must be noted that some ship laboratories
do wind on a calm water surface.
not include this component in the residuary
resis- The wind forces for the ship’s above-water parts,
tance.
omtoomeommoa
air
resistance could be divided into two parts, namely,
V = speed of ship
CRETe RY Oy ORY ey
ee
Ay = area exposed to the wind N
Cy — —— (4.5.3)
at
Ayr = projected front area of ship above the water- Spa VA videos
2
line (transverse area)
These coefficients will be used in this section. For
.
Ay = projected side area of ship above the water- the sake of completeness some of the other coeffi-
line (lateral area) cients and definitions of the coefficients used are
5
Aye = lateral projected area of superstructure Xwind
(d) Cy(y) = ——=
Loa = length overall of ship boaLoaVR
i;
S = wetted surface Cry) = wing (4.5.4)
/ bpL24VR
pa = mass density of air
Nyind
Pw = Mass density of water Only) = pos
wy bo,LigVR
ee
(a) The axial wind force coefficient Fw
Cup = 5p, Vi(A VT COS*yp + Avi sin*yp)
xX
Cy = (4.5.1) (4.5.5)
2paVpAyr
the wind resistance coefficient:
(b) The transverse wind force coefficient
Cur = Coup COSY — ¥R — YW)
Y
Cy = > (4.5.2)
2paVRAvL These formulas are in accordance with the formulas
(4.5.1) and (4.5.2) for wind coming from dead ahead
and coming across the ship obliquely.
400 (f) Hughes (1932) used the following resistance
ALTITUDE ABOVE coefficient:
SEA - LEVEL h
A
R cos(a — @)
OR 300 K=Vidsn+ Coase “4°
meg i .
DISTANCE FROM) =o)
TUNNEL WALL
MULTIPLIED BY 200 -— _ I
SCALE RATIO /
a .
NATURAL BOUNDARY LAYER i
BOUNDARY LAYER AT
4 \/
/|
:
TUNNEL WALL LZ
ape -
o
0 O2 G4 06 o8 io
Vi
LL
Figure 4.3.1 Velocity profiles: wis local wind velocity and Vpis
pe pee
p = density of the medium of the experiment. force coefficients of the small-scale models will be
The forward resistance ¥ will then be
2
A = R cosa. (4.5.8)
oo
liminary designs and when not knowing the C, | GENERAL CARGO SHIPS Ava
x
/
a
x
Cas (4.5.9)
7
~ 3p,,.V25
models. This fact may be among the reasons for the (20% (general cargo ships)
poor correlation. —~ Cy + 10% (container ships)
Cx HOM
If the model is equipped with many details, the (30% (ferries)
wind force coefficients will be relatively high. Be-
hind many of the details eddies will be formed at 35% (general cargo ships)
particular wind directions and wind speeds resulting Cynom = Cr + 10% (container ships)
in changes in the wind force coefficients. 40% (ferries)
Isherwood (1973) has analyzed about 100 wind- 40% (general cargo ships)
resistance experiments carried out at several differ- 10% (container ships)
Cynom = Cy +
ent test centers on models covering a wide range of 45% (ferries)
merchant ships. He has given equations for estimat-
ing the components of wind force and wind-induced (4.5.11)
yawing moment, respectively, in the following
form: The corrections are based on the results from a rela-
tively few measurements. The uncertainty is there-
C = flyr, L, B, Avr, Avi, Ave, etc.) (4.5.10) fore large. /
All the curves in Fig. 4.5.4 are given for models
In his paper the constants in the equations are tabu- corresponding to the fully loaded conditions of the
lated along with the residual standard errors as ships. If wind coefficients are wanted for other con-
functions of the angle of the relative wind off the ditions, the coefficients must be corrected. In light
bow yz. For yg = 0 the standard error of Cy is given or ballast condition the Cy is 5-20% less than in
as 0.09. The standard error of Cy is 0.05 at yz = 90°. loaded condition in a head wind. However, in a
Furthermore, the standard error of Cy is 0.017 at stern wind the difference is relatively smaller. The
yr = 130°. The standard error on the coefficients value of Cy in light or ballast condition 1s 5—10%
will not be essentially bigger when a diagram as higher than that in loaded condition. Cy in light or
LE RT
given in Fig. 4.5.4 is used for estimating the wind ballast condition is 10-70% higher than in loaded
force coefficients. condition. However, in a stern wind the differences
The wind force coefficient must depend on the are smaller.
number, the relative size, and the form of the super- In still air, the relative wind velocity 1s caused by
structures, and on the amount and type of equip- the motion of the ship itself through the water. The
ment on the weather deck of the ship. Therefore, magnitude of this resistance will be from about 2 to
the following grouping can be regarded as suitable: 4% of the water resistance. The air resistance can
be diminished in different ways but not by much. By
Group [: General cargo ships, bulk carmers, stepping the bridge back, by rounding the bridge
tankers, fishing boats, and tugs front, or by making the bridge moderately stream-
lined the air resistance can be reduced by about 10%
Group 2: Container ships
{compare Shipbuilding Research Association of Ja-
Group 3: Passenger ships andferries pan (1954)}. By removing one floor of the bridge,
the reduction can be 4-8%. Removing derrick
The average curves for Cy, Cy, and Cxfor the three posts, masts, ventilators, winches, and windlasses
groups are given in Fig. 4.5.4. All the curves are for can give a reduction of about 3% of the air resis-
models placed in a natural boundary layer wind. tance. The most effective means of diminishing the
The velocity profile is as shownin Fig. 4.5.1, where wind resistance will therefore be to keep the bridge
itis marked with *‘Boundarylayer at tunnel wall.” superstructure as low as possible, to round and
Also, in the same figure a velocity profile is given streamline the superstructures, or to use a stepped
for a natural boundary layer over open sea. Natu- back construction where possible, and to combine a
rally this boundary layer will depend on the envi- number of smaller superstructures to one more or
RET
ronment, the sea state, and the weatherconditions. less streamlined form. It can also be of advantage to
If the wind force coefficients for the model in a place minor parts in the shadow of bigger parts. It
homogeneous field are wanted. the following cor- must be considered, however, how important such
rections generally have to be made: improvements are in relation among other things to
ry
oOE Oo ., ,08t
eA,OSl Oz 6 09 OE
oA
Oo | Oat el 6 09 ,O€ O,
\s'o= Ott 0 ae “}st'0= TG 1'0-
{ | | PS
— —0'0- Lf a oo -
| | MaKNYL BOUY ABBA
- apa GOO- Lf). —— STR Pgawnyi|900-
“4Og0 KO | SYBIWsyo wind
SYSNIVLNOD ON SdIHS.dinv | \ \
0 | + ; 0
oo Q en S00 35004 ao, . | .—f//I60'0
“330 NO -
SUSNIVLNODD 40 Saal ed |
| _ mtnpn | pe | N 1 S1V08 ONIHs
a) 2 SdlHS osu WHN | /| N9
— — sro si'0 | | ! f_Ievo
| 06 Oy 08 06 0h
=a oo —+}- {20 ra
| ON
i Wvinod 70 SUSYNYL f 70
<SU3NIVINOD 0 go BOUT AN3A Suannvt| 919
q-— : vo Wing
A ee we| tA PN Oe Z|
' | 2 WOO ho i 2 [six Soni
| or oouyS 2)
' SuaNivLNoo | . SivO8 OKIHSI4 “WHANZO|
ol : ol A ol
70
|_| yo30 ONS SFr
SESNIVINOD wo . y -
FQ nn Tt Tt
| i * Sugai € i . | 4
; oe Woad NO { j
6 | seo 0 0
| wm
QO a WoO Lb. to |SON L |e,
LS | 7 [Sivoe Susi 70
°
Xx coef x
ro Sjgggg|"9 | I 2 S&<>
—_ | SOSANWL
suaiguva wing *O
| SdiHS YBONSSS¥d |oQ | _SdIHS_YBNIVINOI |p |___SdIHS 0089WeaN30 | 80
the costs, to an efficient use of floor space, and to problems in connection with the resistance of ships
capacily of the decks and of the superstructures. moving In shallow water will be discussed.
When determining the effective power for prelimi- One of the first experimental investigators in this
nary designs and when not knowing windage ofthe field was Captain A. Rasmussen (1899). His first
ship designs, the following still air resistance coeffi- expenments were performed in 1882 with some
cient is often used: Danish torpedo boats. The experiments with the
xX torpedo boats Makrelen and S#bjgrnen took place
(4.5.12)
Caa > TWAS in 1894 and 1898, respectively. Some of the results
ee
from the experiments with the S@bjdérnen are repro-
Vis the speed of the ship and S§ is the wetted sur- duced in Fig. 4.6.]. The abscissa is the speed ofthe
face. boat and the ordinate is the indicated power P,,
The relation between C4, and Cy for yg = 0 is as which is the effective power Pe = RV (resistance
follows: multiplied by speed) divided by the total propulsive
efficiency 7. The configuration of the resistance
Pa Ayr Ayr curves will be nearly the same as the power curves.
Cas = Cy
Po S- ~ Cy
soos 49-13) The ratios of water depth to draught at amidships
(A/T) were 2.6, 6.6, 8.5, and 21 for the four condi-
From the results of the wind tunnel tests the follow- tions for which curves are given in the diagram.
ing average values of the wind resistance cocffi- When the water shoals, the resistance of the ship
cients C4, were obtained: moving through it will become greater. The three-
dimensional motion of the water will approach a
General cargo ships Cy, = 0.1 x 1073 two-dimensional character. The pressure set up by
Bulk carriers Ca, = 0.08 x 1073
the ship’s motion will be greater and this extra
pressure in shallow water causes waves larger than
Tankers Caa = 0.08 x 1073
those in deep water. In shallow water the lengths of
Very large tankers Ca, = 0.04 x 1073 waves accompanying the ship, at a given speed, are
Fishing boats Ca, = 0.13 * 1073 greater than for the same speed in deep water. Fur-
Container ships Cas = 0.08 X 10° (4.5.14) thermore, the change in stream velocities past the
(no containers surface of the ship when in shallow water will in-
on deck) crease the resistance somewhat.
Container ships Ca, = 0.1 x 1073 For a new ship proposal, the increase in resis-
(containers tance due to the shallow water effect can be esti-
on deck) mated by performing experiments or by the method
Passenger ships Cag = 0.09 x 1073
i
1800 T
Ferries Ca, = 0.1 x 1073
PI | TORPEDOBOAT S@BIGRNEN c DA
1806 ,-——_ -
kW | T= 2,38m, Tp 013m B
a i
1409 K-—— Seis
CISPLACEMENT 132 t ai i
td
4.6. RESISTANCE AT RESTRICTED AND / CURVE A 45m DEPTH OF WATER | |
i B ti4m “ . 5 H '
SHALLOW WATER 1200 -—T C 14,6m ”
| | CURVE 0 36,6m DEPTH OF waTER
woop +—+—-44 “| fanff _
The term “‘restricted water’’ is used to describe a 1} 4 Pot df |
body of water in which the boundaries are close goo} —f my | i od
enough to the ship to affect its resistance, speed,
00h + ——
id
ee
attitude, maneuvering, and other performance char-
acteristics, as compared with its corresponding |
éoo{—.. i
i
jug i
characteristics in an open, unlimited, body of wa- fot |
ter. Principally, ‘‘restricted’’ applies to the proxim- 200}—__——_. ! pt
| ' ! | i i i
ity of the water boundaries in a horizontaldirection. i | pote |
0 Jott | | pi ti ff
The term ‘“‘shallow water’? is used to describe a 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 F 8B 9 WW Wo 1 47 BH 1
ms y
body of water in which the boundaries are close to
Figure 4.6.1. Power curves for torpedo boat moving in shallow
the ship onlyin the vertical direction. In this section Waller.
Ragpeesenopesenpeenee ners
Peere
EBs
Ly
v= Se = ow (4.6.8)
co _
leLy |b lp .
Cws = Ve Vz = Cy Vs (4.6.3)
oTLy/!?
=
27h 2ih
SHIP o¥ Ve
Ly Ly Ry Rw
Vsg = V- Ac
and
R, = C, bpVv’s Regs Ce > pV'S
Ve 2 Vo57 AV,
»Low ark
Cws = (eet rm = Veh (4.6.7) Ry, = Rp + Ry Rig = Res + Ry
Figure 4.6.2. Resistance of ship in shallow water.
[ed
4
78 SHIP RESISTANCE
ews
— vetanh aah \/aytanh ane,
zee — \ltatanh 2S
Vv i
Le Zz Ve Av, Ac ‘Re
rc pedne f
(4.6.10) ssbe rr
/
ee
! pat 4
V — Vss = Cw — Cws = Ac Or Vss = V — Ac. / =| |
7 jal t |
v E——
en
4
tole
on
frictional resistance Rr. AS an approximation
| {
ee
Schlichting assumed that the frictional resistance “
a x, | |
a
because of the increase in potential or displacement method. f
flow around the hull owing to the restriction of area
a
by the proximity of the bottom. The potential flow
acquires a more two-dimensional character and as a area of the hull. The results of the work of Schlicht-
consequence the flow velocities along the ship be- ing are reproduced in Fig. 4.6.3, which gives a chart
come higher than in the three-dimensional case. In for calculating reduction in speed in shallow water.
other words the frictional resistance mentioned Arrows illustrate how to use the diagram. Figure
above will appear at a lower speed. Schlichting in- 4.6.4 gives a schematic representation of Schlicht-
vestigated this reduction in speed by model tests in ing’s method.
3
deep and shallow water, using geometrically similar A summary of the method can be as follows:
models. He found that the principal factor control-
ling the reduction in speed AV, was the ratio 1. A curve giving total resistance at infinite depth
SS
VA,/h, where A, is the maximum cross sectional of water as function of speed is drawn.
=
; X 0,7 AR,
. + 0,6 Re
» 6.4
Ly
Ke
Lo.
oe
0.6 \ \ N 03
or
O14 \ \ \ 0,2
Fr
FF
0,2 * ‘ 6,1
0 | | a
YY
vi
03 2,5
gh
Figure 4.6.3. Diagram for determining the effect of shallow water on reststunee according to Sehfielitiung,
RESISTANC E AT RESTRICTED AND SHALLOW WATER 79
iW _
| | | be estimated point by point as shown schemati-
wo/—_— __|- _ cally in Fig. 4.6.4.
NO SHALLOW —
,| WATEREFFECT
: i po
It should be noted that the method can only be con-
Ae _ | _ sidered as a good engineering solution of a compli-
cated problem, not as a theoretically correct
method. The limit of the shallow water effect on the
SHALLOW | resistance depends on the type, the size, and the
i au WAIER EFFECT
speed of the ship. A rough idea of the area without
a |
es to lo —
shallow water effect can be obtained through Fig.
° Po tmm) FY 4.6.5.
(m'} Yh When large, medium-speed ships or very high-
Figure 4.6.5. Area with and without shallow water effect. speed ships have to run trial tps, it is desirable to
have a location where the water is deep enough to
2. A curve giving the frictional resistance is ensure that the effect on resistance and speed will
drawn. This curve is not needed if Schlichting’s be negligible or within stated limits. If the trials are
approximation 1s used (Fig. 4.6.3). carried out at a place where the necessary deep
Reduction AV in speed is estimated by use of water is not available, it will be desirable to be able
Fig. 4.6.3 and by use of the parameters VA,/hA to correct the trial results to obtain the probable
and V7/gh. performance in deep water. These corrections can
V,=V-AV be performed by use of Schlichting’s chart.
IDM
a
~~]
RISE ——
war
BOW
(Te)
ff
me
AMIDSHIPS
(T) pNP
fe
oof
~— DROP
ea
=
STERN
ee (T,)
7
|
Ll
LIFT REGION
=
0 ~ _ — |
AL 5 I
T
098|——7, a
Thy / ASTERN ;
i; —~——--—
!
T,
010}-———-_-- oa ~ —
h/t mo Om i :
015
te = 1,50
= 1,25 7
Figure 4.6.7. Change in draught aft (7) and draught forward (T7;-), bulk carrier, 6 = 0.80.
the sinkage of the stern as well as the sinkage of the With regard to the wave resistance for a ship
bow will increase when the depth of water de- moving in a channelit is reasonable to assume that
creases. An exampleis given in Fig. 4.6.7. A model Schlichting’s method ofcorrection can be used. The
of a bulk carrier of about 60 000 t deadweight(Fig. speed correction for the displacement flow has to be
4.6.8) has been tested in shallow water at a model modified to take into account the additional restric-
tank andat these tests also the sinkages at several tion introduced by the channel walls. The change in
different speeds, both ahead and astern, have been resistance and speed will depend on the form and
registered (Harvald, 1977). It will be seen that when dimension of the ship and on the form and dimen-
running in shallow water there is a real dangerofthe sions of the channel and especially of the form of
ship striking the bottom if the speed is high and, the cross section of the channel. It is possible to
therefore, it is necessary to go at very low speeds distinguish between three speed ranges for a ship
when passing an area of shallow water. If the ship is navigating a channel: a subcritical range, a cnitical
running in restricted water, which here means shal- range, and a supercritical range. In the critical range
ra
low water, restricted laterally as esturaries, rivers,
LL
a Stationary condition is impossible. It is not possi-
or Canals, the increase in resistance or the loss of ble for all the water to flowpast the side ofthe ship;
LR
speed will be further enhanced. only a certain portion can pass, the remainder being
‘,
ly VAX
A
Ee
SECT.O SECT.
aef
AIP
SECT.9ue SECT.10
FP
= 7368 - . |
SOLALE
a — aT ee
o 200 ett AO 600 Tee Wok] Tm
Figure 4.6.8. Body plan, profile of stern, und stem of model 73089.
paper
BLOCKAGE AND BLOCKAGE CORRECTION 81
dammedup in front of the ship. A wave is cause
d have frequently been discussed during the Interna-
and will run ahead ofthe ship while constantly
in- tional Towing Tank Conferences [sec, e.g., ITTC
creasing in size. The resistance in the critical
speed (1975, Vol. 3 pp. 13 and 62)]. In many cases when
range will be an explicit function of the ship form,
performing resistance tests in the model basin a cor-
the speed, and the cross section of the channel and
rection based on semiemperical or emperical analy-
will be large owing to the fact that the ship has
to ses can be used.
accelerate the mass of water that cannot flow The general blockage corrector given by Scott
throughthe channel past the sides ofthe ship and of
(1976) can be described as
the channel. The resistance increases very rapidl
y
whenthe critical velocity zone is reached and de-
ACy ad {nypCrbhVA- ae
creases again to a lower value after the critical
+ KL + kN Cul — ee! (4.7.1)
speed range has beentraversed in the direction of
the supercritical speed range [for a more-detailed
where ACyis the reduction of total resistance coeffi-
description see Lap (1957)],
cient Cyin unrestricted water at constant speed. ay
Owing to the many parameters much research
is the power to which speed has to be raised to
work has not been done in the field, and it
is not produce 4 quantity proportional to actual resistance
possible to give a good method for determining the
in the vicinity of the speed concerned:
increase of resistance.
ny = 24 ales
(FN id
(4.7.2)
4.7. BLOCKAGE AND BLOCKAGE
CORRECTION
where F, = the Froude number.
Byblockage is meant theeffect of the boundaries of V = model volume displacement
a channel or tunnel on the fiowaround a body. The A = tank cross sectional area
blockage correction is the correction to the results J = model-tank function
i
fected by the fank boundaries, especially the bot- Froude number. R, is Reynolds number.
tom. The first two effects are thus partly viscous
=
The viscous flow effects as well as the inviscid 4.7.1 illustrates the variation of 6 with R,, and the
tiow effects on blockage have been considered ana-
a.
form factor.
lytically many times but often the results have not
& is a function of Froude number only and is a
been readily deducible to simple formulas. The ana-
parameter used in the wavemaking correction. Fig-
lytical methods for estimating the block corrections ure 4.7.2 illustrates the variation of k with F,.
82 SHIP RESISTANCE
0,6 ——
02 oo fp
0
0,32 0,36 0,40 Ode O48 052 0,56 060
Fy
? é 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20
Figure 4.7.3. Waniation of c with Froude number.
22
10-5R,
-6
E
§ = TBT block coefficient
Ship dimensions
B= a midship section coefficient
L = length on waterline BI :
Lp» = length between perpendiculars V . . .
= AT ™ Prismatic coefficient
Los = length overall submerged
L/B = length-breadthratio
B/T = breadth-draught ratio
LW'S = length-displacementratio
st
080 Ly —__
LCB/L,, = distance of center of buoyancy abaft
amidships ratio
=
2B
BS SHIP RESISTANCE
807 i ] | - T
a
| to | |
CHANNEL BOATS
a i |
__! po
ya | t |
| | 1 j
: of al 2 | BARGES i
7.0 . nk - |
os |PASSENGER SHIPS |
a] of k ;
| poais| fe | eo) =. s 8 {* -
= io € | GR. LAKE SHIPS
° oo jo ° ° ® |
6.0 .
L FERRIES |e sb
oO os a
_ .
a
u E ° "
Bote a -4 me ~ _—
: “Se ef Te
5.0;/~-—tsi ee
i oe Fj
“e
# COASTERS
oe:
CUTTERS 2 (CE BREAKERS ©° | B .
| dc fel tRawErs : ;
Pe Rp I
—— } |re TUG Jo a _ ee Se_
| A” o o j
4oj—— | +
% i i i | i
‘ i
pe | Hl po | |
to i| 4
ly ° o | | i
|
| |
|
|
| |
pape fptp | \ :
— i
—
. |
| | | | | |
| | | | I |
3,0 L to | | | | | |
030 0.40 0,50 0.60 070 0.80 0.90 § 1,00
Migure 4.8.2. Correlation between block coefficient & and length-displucement ratio £/¥
loom
oe
ces
TABLE 4.8.1. DATA FOR MODELS with the big and the small models. Furthermore, it
OF THE M/S MICHIGAN can be seen that even with many test runs with the
small models it is not possible to determineif there
_ Model MIS Michigan Units is any powering advantage to fitting a bulb to the
L=Ly 1.054 6.402
parent ship.
m
Lop 1.020 6.195 m The next example is also about cargo ships with
B 0.150 0.911 m deadweights of about 7000 t (Freimanis and Lind-
T 0.0583 0.355 m gren, 1957). In Figs. 4.8.5 and 4.8.6 are shown the
Vv 0.00543 1.288 mm body plan for two ships with a very distinctly V-
Ss 0.196 7,263 m?
Son 0.608 0.614 shaped and a very distinctly U-shaped form, re-
a 0.589 0.594 spectively. The two ships have the same principal
B 0.983 0.982 dimensions (120 m X 17 m x 7.083 m) and the same
ge 0.399 0.605 displacement (9750 m3), Tests have been made with
LNs $.999 5.978 models of these ships and with models where the U-
LIB 727 7.027
BIT 2.573
shaped bow has been combined with the V-shaped
2.566
LCBIL,, 0.008 0.008 stern and vice versa. The resistance for the combi-
nation V-form aft with U-formfore at a speed of 8.5
ere
5O SHIP RESISTANCE
tree
20 .
més is about 18% less than the resistance tor the
i
EEE Se
ICe Mis “MICHIGAN” i — | combination U-form aft with V-form fore. Propul-
105m MODEL | sion tests with the models showedthat the ship with
1976.04 SERIES , | U-form aft as well as fore ut the same speed was
ES yee nan
20h -- 7 | ; a J
about 12%better with regard to power consumption
1 | |
A | than the ship with V-formed sections, which was
“ . the poorest one. (See Fig. 4.8.7.) At a speed of
N. about 9 m/s the difference in power consumptionfor
™~ t 4
ws | 1
Lo— “. EF - +" — - +
the four ships was negligible. However, the results
| {\
9
Fa a, PARENT FORM —— @ | showthat it is possible to alter the lines in such a
. Whe BULB I ---- @| way that the necessary power for propulsion in
a i BULB 0 —— A calm weather is a minimum.
OL. | | | The third example is as follows: In order to eluci-
ols 020
date some of the problems concerning tests with big
models, some results from a series of tests with
3.0
models of bulk carriers (Harvald and Hee, 1978)
3 will be given. The lines have been constructed in
such a way that nearly all areas of the ship surfaces
are single curved or plane. For simplification
20}. -— knuckle lines are placed in the fore ship just above
the load water line and in the after ship at the same
height as the top of the stern frame. Figure 4.8.8
shows the lines and stem and stern contours for one
Loe _ wt of the models, A, and the data are given in Table
4.8.2. This model represents in scale 1:26 a bulk
carrier of a deadweight of approximately 50 000 t.
| ! The two other models incorporated in the test series
a J a i had the same main dimension and form, but were
O15 0.20 0,25 0,30 Vi gc 0.35
¥ L fuller, as stated in Table 4.8.2 (model B and C).
Figure 4.8.4, Results of towing tests with models of M/S Michi- Figure 4.8.9 shows the residuary resistance coeffi-
gan. cient Cg obtained from resistance tests using the
7 ———-+
| : 710
yp ey,
10 a ~— : — oe ee — ae au 10
| 120 000 :
too
LL TOT TUL TL a a)
o 5000 20000 mm
Figure 4.8.5. Body plan and profile of stern and stem of ship with V-farmed sections
HULL FORMS 87
120.000
SCALE .
i[TET . 17a
o 5000 10.000 15. OO 20000 mm
Figure 4.8.6. Body plan and profile of stern and stem of ship with U-formed sections.
ITTC-57 line for frictional resistance. Even though In Fig. 4.8.9 Cx is also shown for model D, which
the three models have the same form and main di- has the same form as A, B, and C except that it has
mensions it can be seen that Ce is not changing in a some more cutaway at the stem (see Fig. 4.8.8).
systematic way with the fullness. Using the ship There is a small difference in the main dimensions
resistance diagrams (see Section 5.5.4) one should (see Table 4.8.2), but it should be of no significance.
expect changes in Cz in the same way as those for It is seen that the Cg curve of this model corre-
the curves marked ¢ = 0.76, » = 0.78, and g = 0.82 sponds to the A, B, and C curves. The figure indi-
(Fig. 4.8.10). The deviations of the shape of the cates that it should not be expected that a single set
experimental curves from the expected shape can of tests always can help to decide if some form is
be due only to the uncertainty of thetests. better than another. It must be inferred that a Sys-
tematic change in a model parameterwill result in a
systematic change in the Cr curves. In Fig. 4.8.9
7.000 -—— the uncertainty ofthe test results has concealed this
PP
= | | | i;| | fact.
Two other model test results are represented in
6 000 | - ~
|
Fig. 4.8.9. Model E has the same main dimensions
kW i | P ay) and hull form as A, B, and C, but the stem is of the
5 000} _. 4 cylindrical type (see Fig. 4.8.8 and Table 4.8.2).
Model E has been run twice, in 1974 and in 1975.
4 000,—- 4_ The 1974 test results fit quite well the set of Cr
curves, but the 1975 test results lie much higher.
Why this is the case cannot be explained on the
3 000 _
basis of the standard material forwarded from the
towing tank to the customer.
2000 Apt The residuary resistance coefficient of model F,
| voV
as Tepresented in Fig. 4.8.9, was determined in an-
i —+- 713) u Vv
1000 | i
|
- - other laboratory. It is of the same form as the other
i ! = 722; VU
models, althoughit has beenfitted with a small bulb
| — 725 UU
ee | | | (sce Fig. 4.8.8 and Table 4.8.2). It could be ex-
7 8 My 9 V 10 pected that the results were closer to those of model
Figure 4.8.7. Power curves for four ships with the same main B, which haspractically the same block coefficient.
dimensions and displacement (#, = effective power; Py = brake It is quite normal that tank test results in different
power). laboratories are not fully compatible, although the
<
7366
oo: I SCALE
: i]
a 200 <a 600 so0 woo 1200
Figure 4.8.8. Body plan andprofile of stern and stem of model A. The stems for models
B, C, D, E, and F/are indicated,
powering requirements can nevertheless be the values between two adjacent flat surfaces, resis-
i same because of the empirical coefficients adopted tance values close to those of equivalent round form
by the different laboratories for the prediction tech- were obtained. For a ship like that shown in Fig.
nique. 4.8.11 at service speed, the speed can be 0.1 m/s
Some ships have been built with hull forms con- less or the resistance 6% higher than for the round
sisting offlat plates on straight line frames Gag Dev,
ship. Full scale trials with ships with flat-sided hulls
1968; Gallin, 1977-1978). All plates and profiles are have also given satisfactory results. From this it can
produced without rollers or bending presses. Figure
be seen that there are many possibilities for the vari-
4.8.11 shows the form ofthe ship hull. Many model ation of the lines of a ship.
tests have been carried out to ensure that the
When designing lines for new ship, Lindblad’s
knuckles are placed in such a way that they are (1961) On the Design of Lines for Merchant Ships
lying nearly in direction of the flow. It has been and Guldhammer’s (1962) Formdata can be very
determined that through careful arrangement of the
useful to the naval architect, but neither gives the
edges in the streamlines and limitation of angular
resistance as a function of form. In general, it can
Model A B Cc D E F Units
L= Lug 7.534 7.534 7.534
bey 7.360 7.360 7.360
754? 7.235 m
B 1.115
7.368 7.069 m
1.115 1.115
T L115 1.052 m
0.432 0.432 0.432 0.432 0.432 0.399
Vv 2.742 2.846 m
2.972 2.905 2.927
Ss 12.087
2.378 m
12.375 12.690 12.526 12.653 11.12 mm
Bop O.773 0.802 0.837 0.818 0.824
é 0.802
O.755 0.783 0.818 0.799 U.805 O.784
B 0.996 0.996 0.996 0.996 0.996
eo 0.997
0.758 0.786 0.821 0.802 0.808 0.786
Lea SAR? 5.316 5.240) 5.2B5 5.272
LIB 5.42
6.755 6.755 6.755 6.762 6,762 6.88
BIT 2.579 2.579 2.579 2.579
LCBIL,, — 0.0182 0.0191 0.0294 - 0.0197
2.579 2.64
-0.0233 ~0.0202
PSP,AARP co STHcy AO AARa. AA,II
4,0;
do MODEL /C |
R MODEL EXPERIMENTS
30
2,
10
re,
PR
0 |
AERP
40: | ; -
Cr
‘°c FROM
tPA
Ro “SHIP RESISTANCE”
3,0 ee
em,
vem
ART,
2,0;——---
cee
Oo _ ;
010 015 020 Wer 9.28
Figure 4.8.10. Residual resistance coefficient from Figs. 8.5.7 and 5.5.8,
RY
wy SHIP RESISTANCE
PIONEER |
PARENT FORM |
A\P 151450
— —— - _ oS
F|P
SCALE
0 10000. 20000mm
Figure 4.8.11. Bodyplan and profile of stern and stem of hull form with straight-line frames.
be said that if the ship does not have very eXagger- reasons it can be partly loaded or it can be in a
ated lines and if the hull form looks nice and attrac- ballast condition. Therefore it is of interest for the
tive, the resistance of the ship will be low. designer to know howthe resistance changes with
the condition of the ship.
For a model of a multipurpose ship, model
4.9. DEPENDENCE ON SHIP CONDITION 76091-54 (see Fig. 6.4.36), experiments have been
carried out underfour conditions. The principal di-
When performingtrial tests it will not normally be mensions and coefficients for the model in the four
possible for the shipyard to ballast the vessel to full conditions are given in Table 4.9.1 and the results of
load, except perhaps for tankers. Also, in service
the towing experiments are given in Fig. 4.9.1.
the vessel is often not fully loaded. For different
From the position and formof the contours in this
figure it will be seen thatit is very difficult to estab-
lish simple rules for the resistance change versus
the speed change.
TABLE 4.9.1, PRINCIPAL DIMENSIONS AND
COEFFICIENTS OF MODEL 76091-54
Laboratory Numbers ae
| SHIP MODEL
Condition Units 1 2 3 4 10°C —76091- 54
40>
L= Ly m 6.451 6.670 6.228 6.316
cop m 6.246 6.246 6.246 6.246
B m 1.046 1.046 1.046 1.046 I,
ry 30! 468
™m 0.464 0.464 0.314 0.514 30, O64
Tig m 0.464 0,389 0.314 i Ogi
0.239
Tre m 0.464 f 0.374
0.314 0.314 0.164 0.306
A mi} 2.232 1.823 1.414 1.071 oe t
5 m 10.322) Q 141 7.RS0 6.806
6 O.712 0.672 0.691 0.646
yg OFl6 0.664 0.694 0.635 1} -- :
By 0.995 0.979 0.993 0.967
LA 4.937 5.460 5.5500 6.373
LIB 6.167 6.375 5.953 6.037 o1_ i -_
BIT 2.253) 2.689 3.332 4.377 aos 25 030
LCB mn 0.106 0.024 0.2703 0.021 En Weg
{aft of amidship) Figure 4.9.1. Results of towing experiments with model under
different conditions.
a4 _ 0.06
AVERAGE we
6 = 0,852 0.025
4 . of |
OK = . O43
: _ VB/¥ = 0,57 0.78
O4 \ \ a : ~ Tp/T = 060 bo
— os
103 \ a
SS (Ta-TeY_ = 0018 398
.
a
-04
nt, LAIN. amet.
OL_
010 015
.
020 025 0.30
v_
aaNet,
¥gl
Figure 4.9.2. The difference between resistance coefficient of partly loaded
or ballasted ship Ces and of fully loaded ship Cy versus
speed—length ratig.
;
91
92 SHIP RESISTANCE
To get some general lines the following investi- 5 LowSpeed Service Speed Trial Speed
gation has been carried out. Resistance curves
have been collected and arrangedin groups accord- 0.85 0.05 0.08 0
ing to the block coefficient for the fully loaded 0.80 | 0.2 0.2 0.3
ship. The differences between the resistance coeffi-
0.75 0.2 0.2 0.15
cient of the partly loaded or ballasted ship Cry and
0.70 0.1 0.05 0
of the fully loaded ship Cp have been calculated.
Contours of these differences versus the speed— 0.65 0.1 0 -0.1
length ratio are given in Fig. 4.9.2. At first it seems These corrections can be used to predict the resis-
difficult to draw conclusions. The scattering is tance for a ship not fully loaded or in ballast.
large and the contours have different forms. A For ships with bulbous bows the correction will
Closer inspection will show that the scattering is depend on the form of the bow and on the position
large, in general, only outside the normal working of the ballast water line in relation to the location of
region. Average lines can be drawn and from such the maximal thickness of the bulb. If the maximal
lines the following corrections on 10°C; can be thickness is just at the waterline, the resistancewill
found: be relatively high. /
Chapter
Five
DETERMINATION OF
SHIP RESISTANCE
5.1. INTRODUCTION AB y3
P, = = c
(5.1.2)
When making preliminary proposals for new ships
or transportation studies, the vital question facing where A, and V, are the displacement and the de-
the shipowner, naval architect, politician, econo- sired speed for the proposedship, respectively. The
mist, or student is often how much poweris neces- powerneededis here assumed to be proportional to
sary. The answer can be found in different ways. the total resistance of the ship.
Just as in preliminary ship design there are three When the second-mentioned method is used,
groups to choose among: propulsion data for a set of ships are collected and
examinedstatistically. The results can be given as
Type ship methods programs for a calculator or as a set of diagrams
Statistical methods giving. the poweras a function of perhaps block co-
efficient, displacement, and length—displacement
Piecewise methods
ratio. A set of such diagrams can be found in Chap-
ter 9,
When the first-mentioned method is used, a type With the third method, contrary to the twofirst,
ship has to be chosen. The type ship must be of the it is necessary to know the resistance of the ship.
same type as in the proposal. Furthermore, the This can be estimated in different ways. The idea of
main dimensions of the type ship and the velocity towing models in water for the purposes of estimat-
must be nearly the same as expected for the pro- ing the resistance of full-sized ships as mentionedin
posal. An admiralty coefficient A, for the type ship Chapter 3 is a very old one, dating from about 1500
is calculated: (Tursini, 1953), but until 1868 no usable method for
transforming the model data to reality was available
é
Weer
as the “ruling dimension,’ and f is a function the
cerned. In order to get a finish on the model surface
nature of which we seek to discover, Which, takenin
that can be achievedin all model tanks, the surface
conjunction with dimension and velocity, expresses
of the paraffin and wooden ship models are as the force along the line of motion, exerted by the
ee eee eee
highly polished as possible. model in wave genesis.
The towing forces are registered by the resis-
tance dynamometer over a range of speeds, cover-
In other words Froude assumed that ship or model
ing all speeds ofinterest for the ship in question. By
resistance could be split up into two parts: (1) the
plotting all resistance points in a diagram on a base
frictional resistance and (2) the residuary resis-
of speed, a fair curve can be drawn through these
tance. The latter was due to the influence of gravita-
points, representing the model resistance curve.
tional and inertia forces, the former due to the influ-
Then this curve has to be transformed to the ship
ence of viscous and inertia forces. Thus a
resistance curve. In order to do that some assump-
eee
sophisticated splitting up of the resistance, in many
tions have to be made. As is shown in Section 3.6
parts as sketch in Fig. 4.1.2, had not taken place.
SEE
regarding laws of comparison, it is impossible to
If the residuaryresistance is assumed to be inde-
make a model dynamically similar to the prototype
pendent of the frictional resistance, model experi-
when, in addition to inertia forces, both gravita-
ments can be carried out in the following manner.
tional and viscous forces are present. Only the con-
Froude’s model law is obeyed, which means that
ditions regarding kinematical and geometrical simi-
larity can then be satisfied. The assumptions can be
different giving different methods of transforma-
(5.2.2)
tion.
Lary
’ Rew
a t a
because the experimentis carried out in accordance Vy -= Vo A“12
with Froude’s law.
If A, is equal to 1, then the residuaryresistance
for the ship will be
Vs
Rrs = Res + Res = Res + Aph?Rew Figure 5.2.1. Sketch showing Froude’s conversion methou.
Here £ is the length of the model or of the ship in that is, that
meters, fis the temperature in degree Celsius. § is
the wetted area in m? and Vis the speed in m/sec. ¥ R ¢ f ¥ V )
is the specific weight of the water in kg/m).
pave “S\Sepe WE. (5.2.12)
ney
The models are given smooth surfaces and the
frictional coefficients for smooth surfaces are used, The variation of specific resistance throughout a
“8
whereas for the ship, frictional coefficients for family of geometrically similar models could thus be
rough surfaces may be applied. The formula given investigated by studying the variations in specific
above for A, takes this into account. It should also resistance at constant speed—length ratios over the
be mentioned that Froude’s skin friction coeff- range of Reynolds number covered by the model
cients for long lengths and high speeds are found by family. Similarly, at constant-length Reynolds num-
extrapolation to lengths and speeds very much ex- ber the variation could be studied over the range of
ceeding those at which the experiments were car- speed—length ratio; and since when Reynolds num-
ried out. Furthermore, the pressure resistance is ber is constant the specific frictional resistance is
included in the residuary resistance in spite of the constant, the only change with speed—length ratio
fact that the occurrence of pressure resistance is will be that due to wavemaking, or more generally,
exclusively dependent on the viscous properties of inertia resistance. Fromthis it follows that all con-
the fluid. Using Froude’s assumptions, the follow- tours of constant speed—length ratio will be mutu-
ing have also been ignored: ally parallel in the first presentation to a base of
Reynolds number; and in the second presentation to
1. That the fluid particles describe rather compli- a base of speed-length ratio, all contours of Reyn-
cated paths along the hull owing to the wave olds number will be parallel.”’ This principle of
formed when the ship is moving ahead or parallelism was the main feature brought out in
astern. Telfer’s 1927 paper. To make use of this principle as
2, That the speed of the fluid over some parts of a practical means of extrapolating model specific
the hull can exceed the speed of ship, and that resistance, it Was essential to determine the lawof
on otherparts the opposite is true. variation of the constant speed—length ratio con-
3. That separations can occur. tours with Reynolds number. Telfer proposed that
4. That the boundary layer can be thinner at some “the function adopted take the form
places of the hull surface and thicker at others
than for the corresponding flat plate.
R po \t3
DAV? = at+b (=) (5.2.13)
In spite of these drawbacks Froude’s principle of
where a, for total specific resistance, depends upon
splitting up the resistance into two parts is still the
the speed—length ratio and is constant for constant
most used principle at towing tanks all over the
speed—length ratio: and b depends upon the amount
world. The frictional formulas and coefficients
of total resistance subject to scale-effect. The value
given by R. E. Froude are, however, only used at a
of 6 was found, for veryfine forms, to be practically
few towing tanks today. the same as that derived from plank tests.”’
The ship extrapolators will have a slightly greater
slope than that of the plank and in general every
5.2.3, Telfer’sMethod form of model will have a different extrapolator.
The extrapolator for any form can be determined
In 1927 E. V. Telfer (1927) published a paper deal- when a number of geometrically similar models are
ing with the problem of ship and model resistance tested and analyzed by the methods of this section,
and describing one of the author’s methods for com- In Fig. 5.2.2 a schematical representation of
bining Froude’s and Reynolds’ laws ofresistance Telfer's method is given for afine form. Byusing
similarity. Furthermore, the author suggested a
Wa I a
practical means of extrapolating model resistance p
MODEL EXPERIMENTS 97
8
10°C,
7 ne Vv.
¥Vgol
6 L- - eS |
jt
pfSs MODELS
Se ee 0
| 1 p77] eo —T -+
oe =
& pe SHIP 7] — a — 3, oT —-- vA
poPO
er jt4-F —— |_t _—
ye
ee
Ke
3h Lt ———— _—- Cy]
Po |
pT |__—EXTRAPOL ATOR
aeen
1 ~ —_ eee ee nef
a Ss 2 5 2 5 2 5 rye y'/3
101° 108 108 R, 107 BASE oF (==
Figure 5.2.2. Schematic representation of Telfer’s method.
felt that the plank extrapolator could be used with is given as a function of Reynolds number R, for the
safety; and since as far as can be scenall ship ex- different models and for the ship. Ry is the total
trapolators must have a greater slope than that of resistance, V is the speed of the models or the ship,
the plank, it follows that the gencral use of this and § is the wetted surface of models or ship.
latter would always tend somewhat to overestimate Equation (5.2.14) gives the total resistance coeffi-
the ship resistance. cient for the underwater part of the hull of the
The first condition that an extrapolation method smooth ship. If the coefficient Crs for the rough ship
has to fulfill is that it should enable the experimental is wanted, a roughness allowance C, (in general
results obtained with models of the same ship to called the incremental resistance coefficient for
various scales to be derived from one another. model—ship correlation) has to be added. Anair re-
Therefore by using the results obtained from experi- sistance coefficient can also be addedif this correc-
ments with a number of geometrically similar tion is not included in Cy.
models, a so-called model family, this condition is The curves for constant Froude numbers are
automatically fulfilled. nearly parallel to the line described by
So far Telfer’s method seems to be a veryattrac-
tive one. The slope of the extrapolator has been 0.242
well determined in the region covered by the experi- = logio(R.Cr) (3.2.15)
ments carried out with the model family. However,
VCy
even with reliable results from experiments with a which is the Schoenhert’s flat plate frictional drag
large model family at one’s disposal, extrapolation formula [see Eq. (4.2.15)]. This line can therefore
outside the experimental region of Reynolds num- be used as an extrapolator. The resistance of the
ber remains a risky affair. In Fig. 5.2.3 the results ship is then determined by
from experiments with a model family are given.
The total resistance coefficient
Rs = Crs(bpV3S5) (5.2.16)
where Crs is the total resistance coefficient of the
Cy = Cr + Cr = a (5.2.14)
ko VS ship. Furthermore, Fig. 5.2.3 shows some of the
O8 DET ERMINA’ 7 ues OFSHIP RESISTANCE —
Ka
| [* > JM TANK WALL | |
“INAS ‘ oN)
I. Sepep tite
OR _
a, [|
|
P “ |
ee
“LAMINARS PS|
FLOW ! a | ~SS as
er
3 “>= !
ee
| 0,262 |_
l | Ver= l0Gi9 (Re Ce) | |
a ed {SCHOENHERR) I
|1 || i| yoaat
rr ee —— |
——_.__ { | | | i
| : | | |
| | | | | || |
0-1 tL | po
P08? > 107? > 108? "1 * pS
Figure 5.2.3. Telfer’s prediction method.
problems with using Telfer’s method: measured which is low compared with those in
turbulent flow.
lL. Even whenusing a large model family the dis-
tance from the modelregion to the ship region To perform experiments with a model family is ex-
is very large. A minor inaccuracy on the extrap- pensive and time-consuming. Therefore, only a few
olator can imply largeiinaccuracy on the re- experiments in this field have been carried out.
sistance forecasted. Some of the largest families have been the Simon
One of the conditions to be met for obtaining Bolivar model family (Lammeren, 1938) and the se-
satisfactory results from expenments with a ries in the so-called Victor ship research program
model family is complete similarity. This means (Lammeren et al., 1955). In this last family a 21-m-
that the ship modelsaswell as the surroundings long model boat was also included,
have to be similar. When performing experi-
ments with the big models in the family, the
towing tank boundary will often be at a distance
§.2.4. TVETC 1957 Method
that it can give rise to interfering influence.
Usually the wall results in increased model re-
The main question discussed at nearly all the Inter-
sistance.
national Towing Tank Conferences (ITTC) has been
When testing the small models in the family, the
how to transform the model test result from model
flow over a large part of the models can be scale to full scale. It is very difficult, perhaps nearly
laminar. If laminar flow occurs along part ofthe impossible, to give a correct reply to this question.
model, the result will be that a resistance is The method here, called the TUTC 1957 method, is
MODEL EXPERIMENTS 99
based on Froude’s principle and on the “‘ITTC 1957 where Aryis the model resistance, V is the sp
model—ship correlation line’? (also mentioned in the model, Say is the wetted surface of the mode!,
Section 4.2.5). In 1957 the ITTC (1959) decided that and py is the density of the water in the towing
the line given by the formula tank.
The residuary resistance coefficient for the
Ce = 5 model is then calculated by
(5.2.17)
* (logiRa — 2)
Cra = Cra > Cem (5.2.19)
be adopted as correlation line, and it will here again
be pointed out that it was understood that the deci-
where the frictional resistance coefficient is calcu-
sion was to be regarded only as aninterim solution
lated using Eq. (5.2.17).
to this problem for practical enginecring purposes.
Cr is friction resistance coefficient for the ship Now it is supposed that the residuary resistance
form. coefficient for the ship at the same Froude number
as for the model and at a corresponding Reynolds
Figure 5.2.4 illustrates the ITTC 1957 method.
number is
The total resistance coefficients for the model are
determined by the towing tests and from the for-
mula Crs = Cra (5.2.20)
a | | i
10°C, ITTC 1957 METHOD
\ MODEL | !
_ ° SHIP |
F fn [ _ |
a) | \ ~
Fre
STR: sigs
4 |i 7 Eom
a, |1 = anes a
|
MY i '
“> lil | Fad
3-7 : 1.
™
| ~ | | Cr
2 i | —_—_____| ot = ——}—
9.075 ah EL |
, Cem (log.gRayn 2) | pi [Te
' : {| | fo |
i | | ic __ _0075
| | | FS” (logy Rag 2)’
| | | |
oT
> 08? ° 10? ee 108 th 109 ee
Re
Figure 5.2.4. Schematic representation of the [TTC 1937 method.
100 DETERMINATION OF SHIP RESISTANCE
Rs = CrspsV355)
For a given body the mean specific resistance is a
where Vsis the speed and Ssis the wetted surface constant ratio of the specific resistance of a plane
of
the ship. psis the density of the sea water. surface ofinfinite aspect ratio at the same Reynolds
number. The ratio is independent of Reynolds num-
ber and depends onlyon the form of the body.
5.2.5. Hughes’ Method
As mentioned above, the resistance equation could
In 1954 G. Hughes proposed a formulation for be written as
use
in model and ship correlation (Hughes, 1954). In the
same paper the results were given for many experi Total resistance = Basic friction resistance (1)
-
ments on friction resistance of smooth plane + Formresistance (2)
sur-
faces in turbulent flow. For the friction resist + Free surface resistance (3)
ance
coefficient, the following formula was proposed: (5.2.25)
c= 1.066 5304 Using the law, this now becomes:
F (og, R, = 2.03% ene Total resistance = (Basic friction resistance) «
There was a good agreement of this formu
la with + Free surface resistance
the experiment curve.
iS 9 26)
MODEL EXPERIMENTS 101
7x
10°C \\ r=14k
HUGHES’ METHOD
6 NX \ 15
Cw
(FREE SURFACE RESISTANCE }
EXTRAPOLATOR|
2
/ Cee
F
—0
(logo
i _ (BASIC FRICTION RESISTANCE}
i
i
od
102 DETERMINATION OF SHIP RESISTANCE
135 -— ner
1+k |
4,30 i __|
| |
Lé5 ~ 7 —— ;
j TT ——+ en -—
according to this investigation, 1 + & may vary with This means that the form drag coefficient is as-
the block coefficient and with the length-displace- sumed to be the same in model and full scale.
ment ratio L/V',
Sometimes for ships with lengths below 100 m it
can be very difficult to estimate the form factor & 5.2.6. Prohaska’s Method
correctly. Many of these small ships have sharp
shoulders and shapes leading to strong separation Prohaska’s method builds on the principles of
and high pressure drag. Owing to the procedure Hughes. In 1966 Prohaska proposed in the discus-
normally used in the experiments and the calcula- sion of a paper by Hughes (1966) a method for an
tions, the high resistance measured at the model experimental determination of the form effect on
tests will result in very high values of the form fac- the viscous resistance or, in other words, a method
tor k. Minsaas (1979) gives values for 1 + & between for determining the three-dimensional form factor
1.2 and 2.1, the highest being for full forms. It is on flat plate friction
unrealistic to assume that the highest of these form
factors are real formfactors. Cy ~ Cr
The main components of the drag in these cases
ka (5.2.28)
Cro
are probably pressure and base drag. In his book
Fluid Dynamic Drag Hoerner (1965) gives the fol- where Cy is the specific total viscous resistance co-
lowing definition of base drag: ‘‘At the base ofpro- efficient and Cre is the frictional resistance coeffi-
jectiles, there originates a pressure drag which is cient In two-dimensional flow. |
consequently termed ‘base drag.’’’ The drag com- When no separation is present, |
ponents follow different scaling laws and are diffi-
cult to separate from each other with the existing Cr = Cy + (1 + BCro (5.2.29) {
model techniques, especially when only the total
resistance is measured. Furthermore, verylittle is where Cy is the specific wavemaking coefficient.
known about how the vortex resistance scales. This is assumed to be: t
In cases where strong vortices are created owing
to sharp shoulders and where the model] tests have .
Cw 7 yF4
; (5.2.30)
(
given a form factor that is much higher than that t
of a conventional ship of similar dimensions, then where yis a coefficient and /’, is the Froude num- é
some towing tanks (Lindgren and Dyne, 1979) dis- ber. Then, t
card the form factor assumption and instead treat
the form drag in the same way as the wave drag, CriCra — Ct A) at ve Cpe (8.2.30) i
i
&
Pom
MODEL EXPERIMENTS 103
eT 1,35
Foya0H
7
TTT
—
i
an
>
Cy is the residual resistance calculated from the
total and frictional coefficients of the model in
the resistance tests:
| a
! o
1254 i 4
Cr a Cry —_ Cl + WCerny (5.2.33)
i o
1204+ Lt
opt Le | Cy; is the frictional coefficient of the model ac-
ph
1.15 Gt “Hy
\ cording to the ITTC 1957 ship-model correlation
line.
b |
119 Ln ®! pFae 0.2 C, is a roughness allowance:
0 01 02 03 O04 O05 O06 OF GB Os 1.9
ky
C4 [ 105(
&
Fn
Ly
yr 0.64| x 10-3 (5.2.34)
Ce
Figure 3.2.7. Prohaska’s method for determining the form fac-
tor.
where &, is the mean apparent amplitude of the sur-
face roughness over a 50 mm wavelength (see Fig.
4.2.20 in Section 4.2.7). Ifa &, value is not available,
a standard amplitude of 150 x 107* m can be em-
Values of C7/Cry therefore will plot on a straight ployed.
line with slope y and intercepting 1 + & on the ordi-
nate axis when F7/Ceois used as abscissa (see Fig. Ew, = length of the waterline
5.2.7). Cy is estimated by performing perhaps 10
low-speed towing tests corresponding to 0.1 < F, < Ca4 = air resistance
0.22. Here it must be mentioned that the uncer-
tainty of measuring resistance at very low speed is Cu -= 0.001( Ayr’
<7)
relatively large, which also means thatit is difficult
to determine the ‘‘run-in point’? exactly. For full where Ayris the transverse area (or projected front
forms, say 5 about 0.80, the points may plot on area of ship above the waterline) and S is the wetted
concave curvesindicating that either 1 + & or y, or surface of the hull.
both, are speed dependent(see Fig, 5.2.8). Perhaps If the ship is fitted with bilge keels, the total resis-
it can be more appropriate for full ships to use a tance is as follows:
power of F, between 4 and 6 instead of 4.
+ Sex
Crs =—S FEL + Crs + Cy]
5.2.7 1978 ITTC Performance Prediction Method + Cr+ Cara (5.2.35)
for Single-Screw Ships
TTC 19877-~
I ! i
j f : | =—9,075
CeM= Tingk we 2P !|
|
Jobee “4 —_ —ts=—F |
| | ; | Cece - 01078
! | | | PE osPns2
|¢ |
__! fo Hoe po — fo | _—L
° 5 6 2 5 7 2 5 ae 5 9 : 5
10 10 10 10 R.
Figure 3.2.9, The ITTC 1978 prediction method.
mee
method (see Section 5.2.6) but using the most suit- The method is built on Froude’s law, but there
able exponent for F,, was recommended. Owing to can be doubts about the validity of this law. Perhaps
the uncertainty of measuring resistance at very low a scale effect on the wave resistance should be
speeds, it was recommendedthat one use resistance added in the future.
results of 0.12 < F, < 0.20. With regard to a ship
with partly submerged bulbous bowsand theeffects
of wavebreaking resistance for blunt bow, therestill 5.2.8. Evaluation of the Methods
exist problems. In both of these cases it is probably
advisible to lower the above speedlimits. Instead of Some of the institutions taking part in the ITTC
OS
5,0 7 j
° C, = Cite) Cp 1 f
Lol FOR Cy
| 7 Ft |
wo! [oo |
a
2 ol ee
-| 9067
© =| logy Rok
wohjo
OL — ee d
O15 2
O20 O25 Fy 030
3
Figure 5.2.10. Confidence intervals for C; and Cy. This model is 6 mlong and ship is 180 m long.
In Fig. 5.2.10 is given an example on the predic- ried out with the results published in a form applica-
tion of the resistance coefficient for a ship with a ble for the designer of new ships.
displacement of about 30 000 m3 and a length of 180 Among the earliest and most complcte series of
m. If the model scale ratio is 30, this will give a model tests carried out to investigate ship propor-
length of the model of 6 m. The physical model (the tions and form are those made by Taylor (1933) and
model experiment) gives the Cr for the model. Cr Kent (1919). The forms used in the Taylor series are
has to be estimated from the experimentally mea- based on the form ofthe lines of the British armored
sured Cy by combining these results with the results cruiser of about the year 1900. Body plan and stem
from the mathematical model giving C-(1 + 4). In and stern profiles for the parent form of Taylor stan-
this way all the experimental uncertainty will be for dard series are given in Fig. 5.3.1. Figure 5.3.2 gives
Cr and will be directly transferred to the total resis- the relative curves of sectional areas for this stan-
tance coefficient for the real ship. As a result the dard series. The Kentseries is based on a merchant
confidential interval for Cy will be relatively larger ship form of twin-screwdesign (sce Fig. 5.3.3). All
for the ship than for the ship model. This method the models were obtained by geometric variation of
represents the best of the methods presented above, the parent set of lines. The Taylor series covered a
but the method has to be lookedatonly as a tenta- large variation in prismatic coefficient (p = 0.48-
tive ITTC standard. Also, Telfer’s method can be 0.86), length-displacement ratio (L/V'!3 = 5.2-10),
considered a good method, but this method is too and beam to draft ratio (B/T = 2.25, 3.00, and 3.75),
expensive for practical engineering purposes. but there was no variation in the longitudinal posi-
Pp
tion of the center of buoyancy. All the models had a
very low midship section coefficient (6 = 0.923).
5.3. STANDARD SERIES OF EXPERIMENTS The series consisted of a total of 158 models, which
i
were tested during the years 1907, 1908, 1913, and
Over the years, a large number of merchant ship 1918. Some of the results were published in Speed
models have been tested in the model basins of all and Power of Ships (Taylor, 1910) in the form of
the maritime nations. In most cases these have been contours of residuary resistance in pounds perton
isolated models, applicable only to a specific de- displacement as function of the displacement length
sign. In other cases they were a small series in ratio A/(L/100)? (in English units), the longitudinal
which only one or two parameters have been var- coefficient ¢ for B/T equal to 2.25 and 3.75 and with
ied. Very fewseries of larger extent have been car- the following speed-length coefficients V/VL (Vin
106 DETERMINATION OFSHIP RESISTAN
CE
+— —. an —r- —
|! i TAYLOR
| PARENT FORM
eine a
g 1/2 10
AP
| FP
6200
SCALE
Cc™ I I I I I I I I I
o 300 1000 mm
Figure 5.3.1. Body plan and stern and stem profiles for the parent form
of the ‘Taylor standard series.
f
knots and ZL in feet): 0.60, 0.65, 0.70,. .., 1.30,
Series 60, and data for the new parent models were
1.35, 1.40, 1.50, 1.60, 1.80, and 2.00.
given by Todd (1953) together with the results of the
The Taylor data were later reanalyzed, and new
towing tests. The block coefficients were the same as
contours based on the Schoenherr frictional
resis- for the models in series 57. Body plan and stem and
tance coefficients [0.242/VC, = logio(®,,Cp)]
were stern profiles for one ofthe parent forms (6 = 0.70)
published by Gertler (1954). Gertler gave chart
s of are given in Fig. 5.3.4. The longitudinalpositions of
the residual resistance coefficient Cr to a
base of the center of buoyancy (LCB) chosen for these
Froude number V/VgLy,. The design charts give
models were from a position 1.5% of Lpp aft of mid-
contours of Cr against F, for various values of V/
ships for the 0.60 block coefficient to 2.5% of Lipp
Livt, each chart being fora particular value of » and
forward of midships for 0.80 block coefficient. In
BIT.
order to investigate the effect of the change in LCB
The Kent series from 1919 consisted
of 20 position, three other models were designed at each
models each having been tested at three draug
hts. block coefficient, making, with the parent, four
Body plan and stem and stern profiles for
parent models in each set. The results of the towing tests
form are given in Fig. 5.3.3. The fullness was
varied are given in Todd and Pien (1956). Based on these
by the addition of a parallel body.
experiments the five series 60 models having the
In 1948 the Society of Naval Architects and
Ma- near-optimumlocation of LCB and covering thefull
rine Engineers agreed to sponsor the prepa
ration of range ofblock coefficient then had their lines varied
parent lines for a series of single-screw
merchant geometrically to cover L/B values from 5.5 to 8.5
ship forms. The primary purpose of this stand
ard and B/H values from 2.5 to 3.5 (Todd et al., 1957).
series was to provide guidance to the indus
try on In all, this new set consisted of 45 models, which
the choice of proportions and coefficients
for new means that there were 60 models in the series 60.
designs. The work was planned in such a
waythat The resistance results are given as contours of re-
individual parts of it could be published
and made siduaryresistance perton of displacement, as in the
available and be useful to the industry as
they were Taylor standard series charts. The contours of con-
completed. The first results were publi
shed by Todd Stant Cp are given versus the block coefficient and
and Forest (1951) giving a discussion
of the neces- the L/B, each chart being for a particular value
sary range of proportions for a metho of
dical series BIT and VIV'L. Also contours of
and a discussion of the derivation of the
basic lines,
Furthermore, the main dimensions, the
tables of
: Pe
offsets, and lines of the five parent model
s were ©= 427.1 AMyA (5.3.1)
given. The block coefficient for the five
parent
models, called series 57, were 0.60, 0.65,
0.70, 0.75, were given. Pr is the effective power (RV), A is the
and 0.80. The resistance results of this series
were displacement, and Vis the speed, all in English
somewhat disappointing and therefore new
parent units.
forms were drawn out. The new series
Was called later the British Ship Research Association
107
“SAMS WUIY] ayy JO WO] juouRd |] Joj sayyord wojs puv ways pue ued Apog
"ees aunty
‘= OOO DE coo? 000 Ot 0
L T I I L |
B1V3S
ee
OZB1ZL
art
S3ld3S LN3Y
WeOd iN3uVd | |
Sulpucdsatioo ay] Ww uo psyou sey oauno Yue ‘Seas puvpuey “‘Walayyeas yeulpnyrauoy
s Jo]AR], ay} JO sare yeuonsas Jo saaino PANELOY 'ZWe'g
andy
dai
Ol 6
TS
SS
i
ae _DE ule STEulosOF SHIP RESISTANCE
AP
\<_——_
WwW
ed LL
121920
121 —
aa
a
F
SCALE
COC
0 5000 10000 15 000 20000 mm i
Figure 5.3.4. Body plan and stern and stem profiles for the 0.70 C, form from series 60. e
wee
(b) Stern variation (Dawson and Thomson,
presentation of the resistance data of series 60. The 1969)
resistance is presented there in the form of design-
(c) Variation in parallel middle body (BSRA,
ers’ charts generally similar to those adopted in the
“ara
1969)
overall analyses of the BSRA Methodical Series.
5. Series of 0.85 Block Coefficient Forms
Over the years many experiments have been car-
ried out for BSRA and the results published. The (a) Variation in LCB (Clements and Thom-
following series had to be mentioned: son, 1962)
6. Trawler Series
ET
1. Series of 0.65 Block Coefficient Forms (a) Variation in beam-draught ratio and
mee
(a) Variation in LCB position and bilge radius length-displacement ratio (Pattullo and
{Almy and Hughes, 1954) Thomson, 1965)
ae
(b) Variation in breadth-draught ratio and (b) Variation in Block Coefficient and LCB
length-displacement ratio (Ferguson and (Pattullo, 1968)
Meek, 1954)
(c) Stern variations (Thomson and White, From time to time overall presentations of geomet-
rical particulars and experimental results for the
1969)
models of BSRA Mcthodical Series have been given
(d) Variation in parallel middle body (BSRA,
(e.g.. Moor et al. (1961), Lackenby and Parker
197 1a}
(1966), Thomson and Bowden (1977)]. For standard
2. Series of 0.70 Block Coefficient Forms draughts curves of ©) [for definition see Eq.
(a) Vanation in LCB position (Blackwell and (5.3.1)], each for a numberof speeds, are given ona
Goodrich, 1957) base of block coefficient. A basic position of LCB
(b) Variation in breadth-draught ratio and has been chosen dependent on the fullness. For
length-displacement ratio (Blackwell and each condition of draughts and trim, a correction
Doust, 1957) factor can be appliedto the basic © for deviations
(c) Variation in parallel middle body (BSRA, in longitudinal position of center of buoyancy from
1971) the unique basic position appropriate to the block
3. Series of 0.75 Block Coefficient Forms (Fergu- coefficient. Also, correction factors to be applied to
son and Parker, 1956) the basic resistance for breadth—draught ratios and
for length—-displacement ratios, other than the par-
4. Series of 0.80 Block Coefficient Forms
ent values, are given in the form of such diagrams.
(a) Variation in LCB (Clements and Thom- Each diagram refers to one speed and is plotted ona
son, 1962} base of block coefficient for the designed load con-
USE OF STATISTICAL METHODS 109
dition. Further contours of corrections to the basic When making an estimate of the power necessary
resistance values, for changes in parallel middle
for propulsion of new ships, data from the series
body are given in one ofthe presentations (Thom-
can be used when the new ships are within the
son and Bowden, 1977). Finally the results of the
sphere ofthe series. It has to be noted that some of
BSRA Methodical Series often have been discussed the old series have been carried out without use of
partly referring to Thomson and Bowden (1977) and turbulence stimulation, and the flow may then have
partly to individual papers [e.g., Moor (1975)]. been laminar over a great part of the model making
The last largerseries that will be referred to is the the results uncertain. Furthermore, some models
SSPA Cargo Liner Series from the Swedish State have been equipped with trip wire and others with
Shipbuilding Experimental Tank. Many towing studs (compare Section 4.2.6), which perhaps may
tests with systematically varied ship forms have result in differences in the resistance measured dur-
been performed at the Swedish tank. The following ing the experiments.
is a list of some of the series:
1. Ships with Spe = 0.525 (Edstrand and Lind- 5.4. USE OF STATISTICAL METHODS
gren, 1956)
2. Ships with 6pp = 0.675 (Freimanis and Lind- 5.4.1. Introduction
gren, 1958}
3. Ships with S22 = 0.600-0.750 (Freimanis and Doust (1962, 1964) was one of the first to demon-
Lindgren, 1959) strate howstatistical theory could be applied in ship
4. Tankers (I-V) (Edstrand et al., 1953a, 1953b, design and powerestimating. Using a computer, the
1954, 1956: Lindgren, 1956) method yields a regression equation that expresses
ship resistance for a particular ship type in terms of
5. Coasters (Warholm, 1953)
certain basic form parameters at any required
In an overall presentation of some of the results Froude number. Evaluation of this regression equa-
(Williams, 1969) the nondimensional presentation tion for specific combinations of form parameters
follows the recommendations of the International provides corresponding estimates of resistance for
Towing Tank Conference 1957, thatis, all frictional the vessel under consideration, while minimization
data are given on basis of Reynolds number. For of the equation within the practical ranges of the
different values of Spp, curves of Ce each for a form parameters gives an indication of where im-
length-displacement ratio, are given on a base of provements in ship resistance can be made in spe-
the Froude number. In the same paper contours of cific cases.
effective power are also given.
escheat cee
_
a)
oO
met
lI
be
by Foreachi= 1,2,.. .,n,yis a number that can be
placed in front or back whenperforming the mullti-
which is a(p X 1) column vector;
plications. By summing from i = | toi = # and
combining with Eqs. (5.4.11) and (5.4.12), the fol-
yO = [y]® (5.4.9) lowing is obtained:
which is a (1 X 1) matrix.
For simplification the indices (i) will be omitted LE = Tyy’ — 2b'B + b’Ab (5.4.18)
in the following equations: ¥’ is the transpose of £ = Yyy’ — 4B (5.4.19)
and is a (1 X p) row vector. <%’ will then be a qua-
dratic matrix (p x p). (@ - ¥") - b will be a (p X 1) = Syy’ — (6'B)'
column vector [(p X p) -(p x 1) = (p X ])]. Also = Syy' — B’b
x+y will be a (p X 1) column vector, which in
matrix notation means that
(5.4.11)
Or To get good results or a good mathematical model
the number ofresults from the experiments has to
6 = AB (5.4.12) be essentially larger than the number of regression
coefficients.
- ’ -
where A = xand B = S&y. For each roworfor The calculations of the regression coefficients 4,
each i from I to nin the system of equations (5.4.4) bs, by, 2, 6, and the standard deviation have to
the following notation can be used: be carried out by computer, perhaps by using a
standard program. The regression equation estab-
y=2'-b+é (5.4.13) lished can then be used for optimization of the de-
sign with regard to the demand for power.
OF An example of the establishment and the use of a
regression equation can be found in the papers ‘‘A
(5.4.14) Statistical Analyses of FAO Resistance Data for
112 DETE R ee OF SHIP RESSIST.ANC E
+ ayXjX— + ay XTXE + XXb Again it must be pointed out that to make a mean-
+ AX\Xq + aggXiXq + AysX,X?2 ingful regression analysis the number of eXperi-
ments has to be considerably larger than the number
t aygX 1X4 + QyXTXG + aygX1X3
of constants.
+ aagX2X4 + asgX 3X, + as\X2X3
+ asaX4X5 4 a53XUXs + s4X4Xz
+ assXGX6 + a5¢XX6 + as7XqXh 5.4.3, 2%-Factor Tests
+ asgXgXq + asgXZX3 + aggX4X3
+ ig X4Xg + agXiXy + ggX4X3 In the towing tank, statistical methods can also be
b
Aga XX3 + agsXTXy + 115g.XXG used in ways other than those describedin Section
+ ag XX6+ aggX3X, + ieneae 5.4.2. The statistical methods deal with the uncer-
tainty caused by experimental errors, instrument
+ aXXo + ay XX + a7XsX? errors, Variations in the environments, etc, Fre-
+ a3X{Xg + ayXiX + aX\XF quently, in an investigation to compare two meth-
t+ A7gX2Xg + anX5Xg + ayyXsXi ods or models, say, or to estimate some physical
+ A79XsXg + agyXiXy + ag)X3X2 quantity ee as resistance or propeller thrust, one
+ Gg2(Bin) + ag3(Byn)? + agsd; + A538: experiment is not enough. Too many would be
asteful, b ut too few would mean too great a risk of
where Cry) = RL/AV?, a resistance criterion that at drawing the wrong conclusions. Statistical methods
constant Froude number enables help to determine the right number of experiments
comparison of performance to be to perform, and to assess the precision of the
made in terms ofresistance per ton results. It often happens that the results will depend
displacement on several factors. If these factors were indepen-
Cr, = the resistance criterion when L = dent of one another, it would be possible to deter-
16 ft (4.9 m) mine first the optimum of the first factor, then the
X, = L/B optimum ofthe second factor, and so on. Unfortu-
nately, the problem is often complicated by interac-
Xy = BIT
lions between the various factors. Frequently the
X,= p factors are so numerous and can be variedin so
Xg=o@ Many ways that it is impossible or uneconomical to
Xs = LCB test every possible combination of them. It is neces-
X, = 4a° sary then to design a limited number of experiments
in such a way as to extract the maximum amount of
X= laf
information at a minimum cost in time and money.
Xs = abs Suchfactorial experiments can be designed and the
Xy = trim results analvzed bythe aid ofstatistical methods.
USE OF DIAGRAMS 113
Here only the so-called 2*-factor tests
will be peared over the years. Among the first were the
mentioned. The experiments concern K
factors, diagrams published in Speed and Power of Ships by
eachat twolevels. By performing blocksof exper
i- Taylor (1933), where residual resistance per ton of
ments each Consisting of 2* experiments, the displacement is given as a function of specd—length
inter-
action betWeen the K factors can be investigat
ed. ratio. Later Taylor's test data were reanalyzed by
The factoria] design permits the calcu Gertler (1954). Furthermore, it should be mentioned
lation of the
effect of each factor singly and in all combinations
, that on the basis of tests carried out at the Nether-
and every individual result Is based onthe total
data lands Ship Model Basin at Wageningen Lap (1956)
of the expetiments. If Kis 4, the four single facto prepared diagrams giving the variation of a resid-
rs
can be A, B,C, and D. The factor A could have two ual resistance coefficient with a speed-length ratio
different Values, a high value called A and a for ship forms with various prismatic coefficients
low
value called @. The other factors could likewise and with varying position of the center of
have two values (two levels) B and b, C and c,
and buovancy.
D and d. As shownin the following diag
ram the In the publications Ship Resistance by Guldham-
blocks of experiments can be subdivided into mer and Harvald (1965, 1974) attempts were made
16
parts each, and each part have
tobe allotted a par- to coordinate a great part of the published test data
ticular treatment at random. The basic design is withinthe area that is of importance in the design of
on
the following pattern:
merchant ships. In the following sections somefur-
ther comments on the different methods will be
A a given,
Dd Dd When constructing diagrams to be used for deter-
mination of the powerpreliminary designs, it is es-
B C ABCD ABCd aBCD aBCd sential that the right parameters are chosen. In
the paper “On the Presentation of Ship-Resis-
© ABcD ABed aBcD tance Data’’ Lackenby (1954) has stated that the
aBed
desirable characteristics of a suitable system for
P C AbCD AbCd abCD abCd the general presentation of resistance data appear
to be:
C AbeD Abcd abcD abcd
1. The resistance performance should be mea-
sured by the resistance per unit of displace-
The factor A, BC, and D can as an example be 8, ment, and, at a given speed, the resistance coef-
LN", BIT, and LCBifa series of towing tests have ficient should reflect variations in this quantity.
to be carned out. Sometimes only one block ofex-
2. The ship-size characteristics included in the re-
periments 1§ carried out, but then it is not possible
sistance and speed coefficients should be con-
to getinformation regarding the uncertainty on the
experiments,
fined to the primary variables commonlyused
in ship design.
The efficiency with which limited resources can
be applied is capable of relatively enormous in- 3. In order to reduce the number ofvariables as
creases by Careful planning of the experimental pro- much as possible the effect of absolute size
gram. Information about statistical methods in in- should be eliminated, that is, the coefficients of
dustri al Pesearch and especially about resistance and speed should be dimensionless.
factorial
designs can be found in standard works on practical 4. The presentation should bring into relief the ef-
statistics. fects of changes of proportions, fineness, and
/ other geometrical features.
5. For practical use the resistance and speed coef-
5.5. USE OF DIAGRAMS ficients should lend themselves to simple nu-
merical calculation.
5.5.1. Introduction
The Taylor diagrams (J933) are built on the results With the aid of the results of a large number of
from mode] experiments with a series of models model experiments that have been carried out by
whose lines all are based on the form of the lines of the Netherlands Ship Model Basin (NSMB) from
a British Cruiser (see Section 5.3). Contours of re- 1935 to 1955, an attempt was made to devise a
siduary resistance are given in pounds per ton of method to determine ship resistance without model
displacement for B/H(= B/T) equal to 2.25 and 3.75 experiments (Lap, 1956). Another object of this at-
for different values of the speed length coefficient tempt wasto find out in howfar Taylor’s standard
V/V L (V in knots and L in feet). The abscissa is a series method was valid for the ship forms of the
scale for longitudinal coefficient / (= ¢) and the or- 1950s.
dinate is a scale for displacement length ratio A/(L/ The residuary resistances Rpg of the models in-
100) where A is the displacement in tons and L is vestigated were taken as the total resistance Ry mi-
the length in feet. Gertler (1954) reanalyzed the nus the frictional resistance Rycalculated using the
results of the experiments (see Section 5.3) and Schoenherr expression for the frictional resistance
gave curves of the residual resistance coefficient Cr coefficient. A residuary resistance coefficient was
versus speed—length ratio V/V and Froude num- then defined as:
ber F,, for standard series vessels having beam—
draft ratios B/T of 2.25, 3.00, and 3.75 and having Rr
© = aA (5.5.1)
longitudinal prismatic coefficient Cp (= ¢) of 0.48,
0.49, ... , 0.85, and 0.86. Furthermore, Gertler
gave tables of the Schoenherr frictional resistance here A, was the area of the maximum transverse
coefficients Ce versus Reynolds numbersR,, and ta- section. This coefficient was given in a set ofdia-
bles of density p and kinematic viscosity of water v. grams as function of a special speed—length ratio
In order to get an idea of the accuracy of the ViVeL, where Vis in m/s and Lis in m. The results
diagrams, the Netherlands Ship Model Basin took from the experiments were subdivided into five
115 randomly selected single-screw models all groups called A, B, C, D, and E, all the models of
tested in the towing tank in Wageningen and com- each group satisfying a certain relation between the
pared the ship resistances at the service speed de- position of the longitudinal center of buoyancy
rived from the model tests with the ship resistance (LCB) and the prismatic coefficient ¢. The effects
calculated from the diagrams (Lap, 1956). The per- of L/V'°, 8, and w were not considered. The average
centage differences were determined, and the distr- value of B/T was 2.40. All the results were cross-
bution is given in Fig. 5.5.1. The diagram gives an faired and the results for the single-screw ships
insight into the accuracy that may be expected from were given in five diagrams of which one (for group
this and other similar methods (see also Fig. 5.5.3), C)is reproducedin Fig. 5.5.2. The resistance of the
smooth ship in the tank condition can then be calcu-
lated by
20
NUMBER OF
MODELS
R= (C+ ©) Gov2s) 6.5.2)
154
where S§is the wetted area. In the case of the rough
ship underideal conditions, an allowancefor rough-
ness has to be made. In addition, corrections for
sleering resistance, air resistance, and bilge keel re-
haa
are stated:
40 :
0 oof, 3S fos
30 a V7, -
20 EZ 7
=a
[ee
10
-10
}
-5
UH
| | i
0
i | J
a
[ [
16
In Section 5.5.2 it was mentioned that for 115 sin-
PERCENTAGE DIFFERNCES
gle-screw models the ship resistance at the service
Figure 5.5.3. Frequency distribution of errors in the NSMB
speed derived from the model tests was compared method of approximating the resistance.
116 DETERMINATION OF SHIP RESISTANCE
. 8 [
a C7 Tt
7 \ \\ V +ITTC-57: c, =
(log,ews
Rn- 2)
yes t+}
(NCS ro
6 \ X03 FRESHWATER 15°C
i ii Xo '
Wess
5 \ Se |
1 _ |
So tS = —— T ~0s +| iV
SSS
4 N KS SSS =~ SSeee _C i _ 1s
—
he SEEt-
an Soa
Sa
oo
CC
=
:
ES
3-1. _
2 | _ i | i | . ttt
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 m_ 10 pou
Figure 5.8.4. (Che frictional resistance coefficient Cp taccording to PPE 1957) as a function ol ship-model length and speed V.
USE OF DIAGRAMS 117
3. The results have been arranged in groups ac- or can be taken from Fig. 5.5.14 where contours
cording to length-displacementratio L/V" and
of Cy are given from different values of V. The
the prismatic coefficient ¢ of the model. Here
V abscissa is the length 1. of the ship. The diagram
is the volumetric displacement and
corresponds tov = 1.188 x 10°°ms7!, p = 1.025
tim?, and ¢ = 15°C. The diagram maytherefore be
_ Vv used at other conditions, that is, other densities
¢ ~ LBTB (5.5.10) and temperatures, only if the length is altered
before entering the diagram to:
where B is breadth, is draught, and £ is mid-
ship section area coefficient. 1.188
Ly = Tox & (5.5.15)
6. The main diagrams have been drawn giving the
mean curves of Cg for the breadth-draughtratio
C, = incremental resistance coefficient, whichis
BIT = 2.5. The diagrams are shown in Figs.
a coefficient correcting for roughness of the sur-
5.5.5-5.5.13.
face and scale effect on the results from the
model experiments. In this way C4 will depend
In some places in the diagram the curves are dotted
on the way in which Cp and Cr are fixed.
in order to indicate that they have been based either
on veryfewtest results or determined byextrapola- If the ship has to tow, R must be replaced by R + F,
tion. The uncertainty is therefore comparatively where Fis the two-rope pull.
great in these areas. Furthermore, it should
be As ships are generally different from the stan-
noted that the uncertainty is also great in and near dard to a greater or lesser extent, the following cor-
the areas where the curves have pronounced rections should be taken into account, when the
humps, especially where the slope becomes nega- ship resistance of the ship and the environments
tive. Small alterations in the hull form in these areas
had to be taken into account.
can considerablyinfluence the Cp value.
It must also be mentioned that the resistance
curves correspond to vessels with a standard BIT
form,
that is, a standard position of the center of buoy- As the diagrams have been prepared for a breadth—
ancy, Standard B/T, normally shaped sections, mod-
draught ratio corresponding to
erate cruiser stern, and raked stem.
The resistance R and the effective power P- fora
BIT = 2.5 (5.5.16)
new ship can then be calculated by
a correction must be made if Cx is desired for a ship
R= Cr@pV’S) (N) (5.5.11) with a larger or smaller breadth-draught ratio.
Examination of the present test material has
Pe = RV (kW) (5.5.12) shownthat the following correcting formula can be
recommended:
where the total ship resistance coefficientis
10Cp = 10°Crrpire2.5) + 0.16 (B/T _ 2.5) (5.517)
Cr = Ce + Cr+ Cy (5.5.13)
The correction may be positive as well as negative.
where
Cr = residual resistance coefficient, which for LCB
the ‘‘standard”’ ship form can be taken from the
diagrams (Figs. 5.5.5—5.5.13) The Cr curves are intended to correspond to ves-
Cr = frictional resistance coefficient, which can sels with a longitudinal position of center of buoy-
ancy (I.CB) near to what is today considered the
be calculated by
best possible position. The optimum LCB isa quan-
c= 2.075 osu: tity that is in some doubt, and the available litera-
ture shows differences of opinion that make the pic-
* GognR, - 22 (5.5.14) ture rather confused. The dependence of ship
2
10°C,
7
f
\ int 5
ee
4
; 15 0,20 30 3 0 Fn=ge
-
Fy=-. 045
7
028 03 035 O40
aoe 1 1 — 77
ass O6 TT
oF Un
08 !
os rm
1,0 :T 3M
Fe 14
= 15
[knots
Wi ie
Figure 5.5.5. Residuary resistance coefficient versus speed lenuth ratio for different values of longitudinal prismatic coefficient.
LIV? = 4.0),
11k
Pia
ee
Eas:
ja?
ee.se—i_naemtemner,
A,
ene,
em
0 Wit
O15 0,20 0,25 030 035 040 Fn= 45
a
as 06 07 a8 as Lo i 12 BY 1K [sexe 1S
WL ft
Figure 5.5.6. Residuary resistance coefficient versus speed-length ratio for different values
of longitudinal prismatic coefficient.
LAB = 45,
119
0
Qs 020 025 030 Q35 Q40 Fr=- % o45
Vogl
F TE a T T T
Os 06 a7 O18 a3
T
10
T
u
T T T T T T a a
12 13 oY te [sets 1S
¥L Vit
Figure §.5.7, Residuary resistance coefficient versus speed-leneth
LY ~ 5.9 ratio for different values of longitudinal prismatic
coefficient
120
10
0 | jy
0,15 Q20 025 Q30 035 040 Fn= 7 0.45
i T T : T : T : T Y T 7 T 7 T : Tr dl
as 06 07 as ag 10 i 12 13 i7 1 I"cnot
ng a 18¢
Figure 5.5.8. Residuary resistance coefficient versus speed—length ratio for different values
of longitudinal prismatic coefficient.
LAM = 55.
ors 0,20
: Q 25 03
130 Q35 eat=
040 Fr=—_ 045
rr 7 T r T : T r T T
a5 O06 a7 08 ag 10 7
T T
2
T
3
T 7
oO
T 7T
og ca 1s
VL Vi
Figure 5.5.9, Residuary resistance coefficient versus speed-length ratio for different
values of longitudinal prismatic coefficient
LIVE! = 6.0.
a
10°C,
3 - -
so
0
“| - .
Qis 020 Q25 030 035 Q40 Fyr=—-— 045
7 T T
Vou
T T - 1 ; T T T | r
05 06 a7 o8 og 1,0
T y T ienote)
i 12 13 Ve 14 [*s2] 15
Vigure 5.5.13, Residuary resistance coefficient versus spced-length ratio
for different values of longitudinal prismatic coefficient.
LVS = eg
126
SR ame cer Sige Nem teemee? me
.
2 Fore Verfeat,
As the standard position of LCBis, as mentioned
carlicr, assumed togive the smallest possible resis-
tance, all other positions must in principle give re-
sistances that are larger. The increase in resistance
LCB
is to be found by multiplying the deviation of LCB
from standard
|
LU han 2
}
L.
rr
S
S
Ke
So
Faz You
for the case where LCB is forward of LCB gandard:
04 05 O6 a7 os og FF When LCB is aft of the LCBetandara, the Sources are
Figure 5.5.15. Standard LCB. The longitudinal position ofthe very contradictory, and as the tendencies are very
center of buoyancythat is considered the best possible.
slight, no serious error will be introduced by ne-
glecting the correction in such cases.
resistance on LCB is, however, evident at higher The corrected residual resistance coefficient for
speeds. In an attempt to make someorder out of the a ship with LCB forward of standard is conse-
confusion, the available information has been col- quently determined by:
lected and condensedin the Fig. 5.5.15, which must
be regarded as the standard LCB of the method.
10°C, = 10? Cristandard) + at |ALCB] (5.5.19)
The standard LCB has in this way been defined
as a linear function on the Froude number F,.
AS no
safe dependency on other parameters have been re- The hull form dealt with in Ship Resistance is the
corded, the standard LCB is represented in the dia- hull form that was commonfor merchant ship types
gram by a single line, and the shaded area around around 1960, that is, up to the time of publication of
this lineillustrates the spread of the examined mate- Guldhammer and Harvald (1974). This hull form has
rial. the aft perpendicularly placedin the axis of the rud-
der stock and the fore perpendicular in the fore end
a10°Ce point of the design waterline. Since 1960 the hull
ace { | J forms have been developed further, and they have
|
05 oA also become more varied, for instance, various bul-
/ 080 ; bous bows have become widely used. The formulas
07s J)
given here for resistance calculation can be used for
7
A r co yo
r
VEZ a 7
the modern and more varied bulb forms as well as
for the traditional forms, provided the following
/| more suitable definitions of L and LCB are used.
TA
A J a . ss
The calculation length L is defined as the length
between the fore and aft limits of the displacement,
»
od /
vaAtt
Pf
that is, the ultimate length of the submerged part of
: the hull, Los according to ITTC standard. For ships
of traditional form with no bulb this length is exactly
oxo 020 Fr = Fat
030 0 the waterline length.
Tt a
O4 Qs Os 07
LCB defines the longitudinal position of the cen-
O86 Oo se 10
Figure 5.5.16. ‘The correction of the residua ter of buoyancyas the distance from this point to
l resistance coeffi-
cient for LCB 19%forward of standard. the midship section, positive aft of this section. The
The correction is thus
(H1OCe/dLCBALCBI, where ALCRis the longitu
dinal distance
midship section is defined as the section at a dis-
between actual and standard LCB in percen tance of 48.5% of L from the fore limit of the dis-
t of /.. There is no
correction for LCB aft of standard. The
correction is alwiuys placement. L is the calculation length described
positive
above. The midship section thus defined is there-
USE OF DIAGRAMS 129
APPLNDAGES APPENDAGES
Rudders No correction. The The correction of Cr for appendages is made by
standard form is in- simply increasing Cr proportionally to the wetted
tended to include a surfaces of the appendages. Thus
rudder.
Bilge keel No correction. (6-5,22) Fiscal 5] ce
Bossings For full ships add 3-5% BAS
to Cp.
Shaft brackets Forfine ships add 5-8% where § is the wetted surface of the hull and 5; is
and shafts to Cp. the wetted surface of the hull and appendages.
For many yearsit has been general practice to apply The air resistance may be determined by use of data
a correction to the Crs for the ship, in order to for the abovewater structure and the air. The mag-
include the effect of the roughness of the surface of nitude ofthe air resistance is, however, very often
the ship, which will never be ‘‘model-smooth”’ even of minor importance and the expenditureofeffort in
when brand-new and freshly painted. This incre- making an accurate calculation may not be justified.
mental resistance coefficient for model—ship corre- Therefore, in the absence of knowledge of the wind-
lation has very often been fixed at Cy = 0.0004. age of a ship design it is suggested that 10°Cp be
More recent experience has shown that this cannot corrected by
be true in all cases. Therefore, the following correc-
tion for roughness and scale effect is proposed for 10°Ca4 = 0.07 (5.5.26)
the trial condition:
The correctionfor steering resistunce may be about
lar
rately enough toarrive at a safe solution tothis vital
question.
where S is the wetted surface of the hull.
On the other hand, trying to attain greater accu-
Numerous methods for approximate determina-
racy than needed to solve this problem makes little
tion of S exist. Use of one of the following two
sense. The uncertainty of the factors involved is
methods is recommended:
considerable. and readers are warned against wast-
ing time in attempting to squeeze the last ounce of
1. The publications FORMDATAI-V (Guldham-
accuracy out of a calculation that can only be an
mer, 1962, 1963, 1967, 1969, 1973) contain hy-
estimation.
drostatic data for a comprehensive series of
In diesel-engined ships a change in the number of
systematically varied ship forms. The wetted
cylinders from, say, 6 to 7 or from I] to 12 means
surface of these forms are mapped (volumes
that the power is changing by about 17% or 8%,
III—¥) using the coefficient
respectively. By modifying the mean effective pres-
sure and number of revolutions it is possible to vary
cS)
the continuous output by about 10%.
“TB 25T 6.5.30) Turbine manufacturers have corresponding steps
between types.
If the actual form for the preliminary ship de-
On the basis of these considerations perhaps the
sign largely coincides with one of the FORM- required accuracyin the determination of P; for a
DATAforms, an error of less than 1% in the preliminary ship design can be fixed at 1 up to 5%.
determination of S will be obtained.
This accuracy will be easily obtained in many cases
2. FKornormal merchant ship forms the wetted sur- by using the diagrams and the calculation forms in
face can be obtained fromthe following formula this section.
(a version of Mumford’s formula): The diagrams and the formulas can also be used
in the following manner. Every time the naval archi-
S = 1.025Lpp(SppB + 1.77) (5.5.31) tect has a result fromhis or her own towing experi-
ments the results are pricked in on the diagrams.
The FORMDATA diagrams and the preceding Then when making an estimation of the resistance
formula correspond to ship forms having a vertical for a proposal for a new ship, the naval architect
stern and stem at the perpendiculars. Most ships uses his or her own data as basis material and uses
will have a watted surface corresponding to this as- the diagrams and the formulasin this section to cor-
sumption as the plus and minus areas will balance rect the data. Often the results will be very good
each other. For ships with a large underwater over- whenusing such a procedure.
a
132 ION OF SHIP RESISTANCE
Dimensions
Coefficients, etc,
Column ] 2 3 4 5 6 7
| a |
| 8 9 10 | tt | 12 13 14
|
10C, Corrections to 10°C, for
F
- LN!
“7 T
Vel Speed __. , Sections Append-
Vv V2 boSV? BIT LCB | lines Bow ages
Diagrams
Figs. Figs
Source 5.5.5- $.5.15-
(Formula) 5.5.13 (5.5.17) 3.5.16 (8.5.20) (8.9.21) (5.5.22)
N
Unit — mis {knots m/s? (or KN)| — — || — |f _ — eee
{ _ —_
1 L
Note! The figures in parentheses indicate formula numbers
in the text.
Columns 20~22 are intended to be used for supplementary
resistance calculations for air, steering, etc,
In a preliminary estimate the calculations in columns 9-14
and 20-22 may be wholly or partly omitted.
-
| 2 15 16 17 18 19 20 ; 21 22 23
i a
f 24 25 26
| Resul-
i
' lant IPC,
|
[oF 1U'CR 10R, ITTC57 10°C, 10°C, Cr R; P,
(849410
| +12 0, VE] Fig. 5.5.14 Si a7
Pt 13 4 14 Is + 18 +19 | _ 25]|
vy or (5.5.14) § (5.5.24) 20 + 21 + 22 | 10-45] x [23] {12} x (241
r_
&p
Powe
i i
| ! =
735.5 1
for force measured in |
0.7355 [kN