Advertisement

Optimization of marine vessels on the basis of tests on model series

  • Lawrence J. DoctorsEmail author
Original article
  • 11 Downloads

Abstract

The towing-tank resistance data for 20 series of ship models have been collated and processed in a unified manner. These data are presented here in a summarized manner showing the influence of the principal geometric parameters. The most significant parameter is the slenderness ratio which generally should be as large as possible in order to minimize the total resistance at full scale. It is demonstrated that the well-known DTMB Series 64 hulls possess the most promising geometry for the purpose of resistance minimization. It is further shown that the displacement of the prototype plays only a minor rôle. Thus, the general conclusions apply to any practical size of ship.

Keywords

Hull optimization Ship-model extrapolation Resistance reduction 

List of symbols

\(A_\mathrm{T}\)

Transom area

\(A_\mathrm{X}\)

Maximum-section area

B

Beam

C

Coefficient

\(C_\mathrm{A}\)

Correlation allowance

\(C_\mathrm{B}\)

Block coefficient

\(C_\mathrm{P}\)

Prismatic coefficient

\(C_\mathrm{VP}\)

Vertical prismatic coefficient

\(F_{\nabla }\)

Volumetric Froude number

L

Length

\(L_\mathrm{C}\)

Wetted chine length

\(L_\mathrm{K}\)

Wetted keel length

\(L_\mathrm{M}\)

Mean wetted length

\(L/\nabla ^{1/3}\)

Slenderness ratio

\(M_1\)

Specific resistance at one speed

\(M_2\)

Specific resistance averaged

N

Number of test cases

\(N_\mathrm{B}\)

Number of test cases in a quantile or grouping

\(R_\mathrm{A}\)

Correlation resistance

\(R_\mathrm{F}\)

Frictional resistance

\(R_{\mathrm{F0}}\)

Flat-plate frictional resistance

\(R_\mathrm{H}\)

Hydrostatic resistance

\(R_\mathrm{R}\)

Residuary resistance

\(R_\mathrm{T}\)

Total resistance

\(R_\mathrm{V}\)

Viscous resistance

\(R_\mathrm{W}\)

Wave resistance

\(R_\mathrm{a}\)

Aerodynamic resistance

\(\mathrm {Re}\)

Reynolds number

S

Wetted-surface area

T

Draft

U

Ship velocity

W

Displacement weight

d

Depth of water

g

Acceleration due to gravity

k

Frictional-resistance increment factor

w

Towing-tank or canal width

\(\Delta\)

Displacement mass

\(\Delta_\mathrm{P}\)

Prototype displacement mass

\(\beta\)

Bow-down trim angle

\(\nu\)

Kinematic viscosity of water

\(\rho\)

Density of water

\(\nabla\)

Displacement volume

\(^*\)

Modification to original model series

Abbreviations

AHSMS

Australian High-Speed-Monohull Series

DL

Davidson Laboratory

DTMB

David Taylor Model Basin

DTNSRDC

David W. Taylor Naval Ship Research and Development Center

HSVA

Hamburg Ship Model Basin

ITTC

International Towing-Tank Conference

MARIN

Maritime Research Institute Netherlands

NPL

National Physical Laboratory

NSRDC

Naval Ship Research and Development Center

NSWC

Naval Surface Warfare Center

NTUA

National Technical University of Athens

SIT

Stevens Institute of Technology

SSPA

Statens skeppsprovningsanstalt (Swedish State Shipbuilding Experimental Tank)

TMB

Taylor Model Basin

USCG

United States Coast Guard

Notes

Acknowledgements

I would like to thank Professor Fabio De Luca of the Università degli Studi di Napoli Federico II for his provision of the original and very accurate experimental data for the Naples Warped Hard-Chine-Hull Systematic Series. I am also grateful to Professor Gregory Grigoropoulos of the National Technical University of Athens for his provision of towing-tank data for further models in the NTUA Double-Chine High-Speed Series. Finally, I would like to thank Mr. Martin Grimm in the Department of Defence, Australia, for assisting me with sourcing the material on the MARIN Fast Displacement Ships.

References

  1. 1.
    Froude W (1874) On experiments with H.M.S. ‘Greyhound’. Trans Inst Naval Archit 15:36–59 + 11 plates, Discussion: 59–73Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Froude W (1875) Admiralty Experiments upon Forms of Ships and upon Rocket Floats. Naval Sci 4:37–51 + 1 plate, Discussion: 262–264Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Froude RE (1888) On the ‘Constant’ system of notation of results of experiments on models used at the admiralty experimental works. Trans Inst Naval Archit 29:304–313 + 2 plates, Discussion: 313–318Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Nordström HF (1951) Some tests with models of small vessels. Swedish State Shipbuilding Experimental Tank, Göteborg, Report 19, 44 ppGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    van Oossanen P (1980) Resistance prediction of small high-speed displacement vessels: state of the art. Int Shipbuild Progress 27(313):212–224 SeptemberCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Clement EP, Kimon PM (1957) Comparative resistance data for four planing boats. David Taylor Model Basin Rep 1113:20+iii pp, JanuaryGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Clement EP (1963) Resistance tests of a model of the German E-Boat. David Taylor Model Basin, Hydromechanics Laboratory, Report 1703, 25+ii ppGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Clement EP, Blount DL (1963) Resistance tests of a systematic series of planing hull forms. Trans Soc Naval Archit Mar Eng 71:491–561 Discussion: 562–579Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Hubble EN (1974) Resistance of Hard-Chine, stepless planing craft with systematic variation of hull form, longitudinal center of gravity, and loading. Naval Ship Research and Development Center, Ship Performance Department, Report 4307, 346+v ppGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Hadler JB, Hubble EN (1971) Prediction of the power performance of the series 62 planing hull forms. Trans Soc Naval Archit Mar Eng 79:366–394 Discussion: 395–404Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Beys PM (1963) Series 63 round bottom boats. Stevens Institute of Technology, Davidson Laboratory, Report SIT-DL-63-9-949, 45+ivGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Yeh HYH (1965) Series 64 resistance experiments on high-speed displacement forms. Mar Technol 2(3):248–272 JulyGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Clement EP (1965) merit comparisons of the series 64 high-speed displacement hull forms. David Taylor Model Basin, Hydromechanics Laboratory, Report 2129, 35+ivGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Wellicome JF, Molland AF, Cic J, Taunton DJ (1999) Resistance experiments on a high speed displacement catamaran of series 64 form. University of Southampton, Department of Ship Science, Report 106, 19+iGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Karafiath G, Carrico T (2003) Series 64 parent hull: displacement and static trim variation. In: Proceedings of 7th international conference on fast sea transportation (FAST ’03), Ischia, Vol. 1, pp A1.27–A1.30Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    Fung SC, Karafiath G, Toby AS (2005) The effects of bulbous bows, stern flaps and a wave-piercing bow on the resistance of a series 64 hull form. In: Proceedings of 8th International Conference on Fast Sea Transportation (FAST ’05), Saint Petersburg, Russia, pp 8Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    Lazauskas L (2014) Predictions of the resistance and squat of 27 series 64 model Hulls. Cyberiad, Adelaide, Australia, pp 9Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    MacPherson D (2015) A critical re-analysis of the series 64 performance data. In: Proceedings of 13th international conference on fast sea transportation (FAST ’15), Washington, DC, pp 8Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    Moore WL, Hawkins F (1969) Planing Boat Scale Effects on Trim and Drag (TMB Series 56). Naval Ship Research and Development Center, Hydromechanics Laboratory, Technical Note 128, 37+iiiGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Doctors LJ (2018) Hydrodynamics of high-performance marine vessels. Printed by CreateSpace, an Amazon.com Company, Charleston, South Carolina, Second Edition, Vol. 2, pp 423–885+iiGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Lindgren H, Williams Å (1968) Systematic tests with small, fast displacement vessels, including a study of the influence of spray strips. In: Proceedings of Diamond Jubilee International Meeting, society of naval architects and marine engineers, New York, NY, pp 21Google Scholar
  22. 22.
    Lindgren H, Williams Å (1969) Systematic tests with small, fast displacement vessels, including a study of the influence of spray strips. Statens Skeppsprovningsanstalt, Göteborg, Sweden, Report 65, pp 51Google Scholar
  23. 23.
    Bailey D (1976) The NPL high speed round bilge displacement hull series. Maritime Technology Monograph, Royal Institution of Naval Architects, No. 4, pp 90+iiGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Marwood WJ, Bailey D (1970) design data for high-speed displacement hulls of round-bilge form—model experiment data. National Physical Laboratory, Ship Division, Technical Memorandum 235, 22+iiGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Marwood WJ, Bailey D (1969) Design data for high-speed displacement hulls of round bilge form. National Physical Laboratory, Ship Division, Ship Report 99, 78+iGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Bailey D (1974) Performance prediction—fast craft. National Physical Laboratory, Ship Division, Report 181, 29+iGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Radojcic D, Rodic T, Kostic N (1997) Resistance and trim predictions for the NPL high speed round bilge displacement hull series. In: Proceedings of international symposium on power, performance and operability of small craft, Royal Institution of Naval Architects, Southampton, pp 10.1–10.14Google Scholar
  28. 28.
    Holling HD, Hubble EN (1974) Model resistance data of series 65 hull forms applicable to hydrofoils and planing craft. Naval Ship Research and Development Center, Report 4121, 431+vGoogle Scholar
  29. 29.
    Hadler JB, Hubble EN, Holling HD (1974) Resistance characteristics of a systematic series of planing hull forms—series 65. Presented to the Society of Naval Architects and Marine Engineers, Chesapeake Section, 53+iiiGoogle Scholar
  30. 30.
    Keuning JA, Gerritsma J (1982) Resistance tests of a series of planing hull forms with 25 degrees deadrise angle. Int Shipbuild Progress 29(337):222–249CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. 31.
    Keuning JA, Gerritsma J, van Terwisga PF (1993) Resistance tests of a series planing hull forms with \(30^\circ\) deadrise angle, and a calculation model based on this and similar systematic series. Int Shipbuild Progress 40(424):333–382 DecemberGoogle Scholar
  32. 32.
    Compton RH (1986) Resistance of a systematic series of semiplaning Transom–Stern hulls. Mar Technol 23(4):345–370 OctoberGoogle Scholar
  33. 33.
    Insel M, Molland AF (1992) An investigation into the resistance components of high speed displacement Catamarans. Trans R Inst Naval Architect 134:1–11 Discussion: 11–20Google Scholar
  34. 34.
    Molland AF, Wellicome JF, Couser PR (1994) Theoretical prediction of the wave resistance of slender hull forms in catamaran configurations. University of Southampton, Department of Ship Science, Report 72, 24+iGoogle Scholar
  35. 35.
    Molland AF, Wellicome JF, Couser PR (1994) Resistance experiments on a systematic series of high speed displacement catamaran forms: variation of length-displacement ratio and breadth-draught ratio. University of Southampton, Department of Ship Science, Report 71, 82+iGoogle Scholar
  36. 36.
    Molland AF, Wellicome JF, Couser PR (1996) Resistance Experiments on a systematic series of high speed displacement catamaran forms: variation of length-displacement ratio and Breadth-Draught ratio. Trans R Inst Naval Architect 138:55–68 Discussion: 69–71Google Scholar
  37. 37.
    van Oossanen P, Pieffers JBM (1988) MARIN-systematic series of high-speed displacement ship hull forms. Schip en Werf 55(9/10):197–206 MayGoogle Scholar
  38. 38.
    Doctors LJ (1999) Effective prediction of resistance for high-speed hullforms. In: Proceedings of 4th Japan-Korea Joint Workshop on Ship and Marine Hydrodynamics (JAKOM ’99), Fukuoka, Japan, pp 305–312Google Scholar
  39. 39.
    Doctors LJ (2018) Hydrodynamics of high-performance marine vessels, printed by createspace, an Amazon.com Company, Charleston, South Carolina, 2nd Edition, Vol 1, pp 1–421+liGoogle Scholar
  40. 40.
    Bojovic P (1995) AMECRC systematic series calm water testing results. Australian Maritime Engineering Cooperative Research Centre, Report AMECRC IR 95/5, 93+viGoogle Scholar
  41. 41.
    Bojovic P (1995) Presentation of the AMECRC systematic series calm water testing results—Project 1.1.2. Australian Maritime Engineering Cooperative Research Centre, Report AMECRC IR 95/10, 41+viiGoogle Scholar
  42. 42.
    Bojovic P (1996) Influence of displacement and LCG variation on calm water resistance. Australian Maritime Engineering Cooperative Research Centre, Report AMECRC IR 96/4, 60+viGoogle Scholar
  43. 43.
    Bojovic P, Goetz G (1996) Geometry of AMECRC systematic series. Australian Maritime Engineering Cooperative Research Centre, Report AMECRC IR 96/6, 53+vGoogle Scholar
  44. 44.
    Grigoropoulos GJ, Damala DP (2001) The effect of trim on the resistance of high-speed craft. In: Proceedings of 2nd international EuroConference on high-performance marine vehicles (HIPER ’01), Hamburg, pp 187–199Google Scholar
  45. 45.
    Radojcic D, Grigoropoulos GJ, Rodic T, Kuvelic T, Damala DP (2001) The resistance and trim of semi-displacement, double-chine, transom-stern hull series. In: Proceedings of 6th international conference on fast sea transportation (FAST ’01), Royal Institution of Naval Architects, Southampton, 3:187–195Google Scholar
  46. 46.
    Grigoropoulos GJ, Loukakis TA (2002) Resistance and seakeeping characteristics of a systematic series in the pre-planing condition (part 1). Trans Soc Naval Architect Mar Eng 110:77–113Google Scholar
  47. 47.
    Grigoropoulos G (2005) Recent advances in the hydrodynamic design of fast monohulls. Ship Technol Res Schiffstechnik 52(1):14–33 JanuaryCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. 48.
    Molland AF, Wilson PA, Taunton DJ (2003) Resistance experiments on a systematic series of high speed displacement Monohull and Catamaran forms in shallow water. University of Southampton, Department of Ship Science, Report 127, 47+iGoogle Scholar
  49. 49.
    Metcalf BJ, Faul L, Bumiller E, Slutsky J (2005) resistance tests of a systematic series of U.S. coast guard planing hulls. Naval Surface Warfare Center, Hydromechanics Department Technical Report NSWCCD-65-TR-2007/09, 59+viGoogle Scholar
  50. 50.
    Kowalyshyn D, Metcalf B (2006) A USCG systematic series of high speed planing hulls. Trans Soc Naval Architect Mar Eng 114:268–304 Discussion: 305–309Google Scholar
  51. 51.
    van Oossanen P, Pieffers JBM (1985) NSMB-systematic series of high-speed displacement ship hull forms. In: Proceedings of workshop on developments in hull form design, Maritime Research Institute Netherlands (MARIN), Wageningen, Netherlands, Publication 785, 1:VII.1–VII.16Google Scholar
  52. 52.
    Kapsenberg G (2012) The MARIN Systematic Series Fast Displacement Hulls, Proc. Twenty-Second International HISWA (Handel en Industrie op het Gebied van Scheepsbouw en Watersport) Symposium on Yacht Design and Yacht Construction, Amsterdam, pp 14Google Scholar
  53. 53.
    Kapsenberg GK, Aalbers AB, Koops A, Blok JJ (2015) Fast displacement ships: the MARIN systematic series, Maritime Research Institute Netherlands (MARIN). Wageningen, Amsterdam, p 291Google Scholar
  54. 54.
    De Luca F, Pensa C (2017) The Naples warped hard chine hulls systematic series. Ocean Eng 139:205–236 JulyCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  55. 55.
    Radojčić D, Kalajdžić M (2018) Resistance and trim modeling of the Naples Hard chine systematic series. Trans R Inst Naval Architect Part B1 160:B31–B41Google Scholar
  56. 56.
    Michell JH (1898) The wave resistance of a ship. Philosl Magz Ser 5 45(272):106–123 JanuaryCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  57. 57.
    Newman JN, Poole FAP (1962) The wave resistance of a moving pressure distribution in a canal. Schiffstechnik 9(45):21–26 JanuaryGoogle Scholar
  58. 58.
    Doctors LJ (2012) Near-field hydrodynamics of a surface-effect ship. J Ship Res 56(3):183–196CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  59. 59.
    Clements RE (1959) An analysis of ship-model correlation data using the 1957 I.T.T.C. Line. Trans R Inst Naval Architect vol 101, 373–385, Discussion: 386–402Google Scholar
  60. 60.
    Lewis EV (1988) Principles of naval architecture: volume II. Resistance, Propulsion and Vibration, Society of Naval Architects and Marine Engineers, Jersey City, New Jersey, pp 327+viGoogle Scholar
  61. 61.
    Gorski J (2011) Final report and recommendations of the resistance Committee. In: Proceedings of 26th international towing tank conference, Rio de Janeiro, Vol 1, pp 11–60Google Scholar

Copyright information

© The Japan Society of Naval Architects and Ocean Engineers (JASNAOE) 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.The University of New South WalesSydneyAustralia

Personalised recommendations