An Algorithm for the Generation of Biofouled Surfaces for Applications in Marine Hydrodynamics

  • Sotirios SarakinosEmail author
  • Angela Busse
Part of the Springer Tracts in Mechanical Engineering book series (STME)


The adverse effects of marine biofouling on marine renewable energy devices are well established. In recent fundamental investigations on fluid flow over this type of surface roughness, marine biofouling has mainly been realized as ordered arrangements of roughness elements. These surfaces cannot be compared to realistic biofouled surfaces which show an irregular distribution of roughness features. In this work, a geometric algorithm for generating realistic surface roughness due to barnacle settlement is presented. The algorithm mimics the settlement behaviour of barnacles and allows the generation of a range of fouling states from very sparse rough surfaces to surfaces that are fully covered by barnacle colonies. The generated surfaces can be used in various applications, e.g. in CFD simulations to establish the fluid dynamic roughness effect of different fouling states or as 3D printed surface tiles for use in wind-tunnel and towing tank experiments.


Roughness Marine biofouling Turbulence DNS Barnacles Frictional resistance 



This work was supported by the Engineering and Physical Sciences Research Council (EPSRC) [grant number EP/P009875/1].


  1. 1.
    Schultz MP, Bendick JA, Holm HR, Hertel WM (2011) Economic impact of barnacle fouling on a naval surface ship. Biofouling 27(1):87–89CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Schultz MP (2007) Effects of coating roughness and biofouling on ship resistance and powering. Biofouling 23(5):331–341CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Loxton J, Macleod AK, Nall CR, McCollin T, Machado I, Simas T, Vance T, Kenny C, Want A, Miller RG (2017) Setting an agenda for biofouling research for the marine renewable energy industry. Int J Mar Energy 19:292–303CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Woods hole oceanographic institution (1952) Marine biofouling and its prevention. US Naval Institute, Annapolis, MarylandGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Salta M, Chambers L, Wharton J, Wood R, Briand JF, Blache Y, Stokes KR (2009) Marine fouling organisms and their use in antifouling bioassays. In: Proceedings of the European corrosion congress (EUROCORR)Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Schultz MP (2004) Frictional resistance of antifouling coating systems. J Fluids Eng 126:1039–1047CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Vance TR, Fileman T (2014) ETI MA1001 - Reliable data acquisition platform for Tidal (ReDAPT) project: ME8.5 Final Report. Energy Technologies Institute, UKGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Berntsson KM, Jonsson PR (2003) Temporal and spatial patterns in recruitment and succession of a temperate marine fouling assemblage: a comparison of static panels and boat hulls during the boating season. Biofouling 19(3):187–195CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    de Messano LVR, Sathler L, Reznik LY, Coutinho R (2009) The effect of biofouling on localized corrosion of the stainless steels N08904 and UNS S32760. Int Biodeterior Biodegrad 63:607–614CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Andrewartha J, Perkins K, Sagrison J, Osborn J, Walker G, Henderson A, Hallegraeff G (2010) Drag forces and surface roughness measurments on freshwater biofouled surfaces. Biofouling 26(4):487–496CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Lindholdt A, Dam-Johansen K, Olsen SM, Yebra DM, Kiil S (2015) Effects of biofouling development on drag forces of hull coatings for ocean-going ships: a review. J Coat Technol Res 12(3):415–444CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Barros JM, Murphy EA, Schultz MP (2016) Particle image velocimetry measurements of the flow over barnacles in a turbulent boundary layer. In: Proceedings of the 18th international symposium on the application of laser and imaging techniques to fluid mechanicsGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Sadique J, Yang XI, Meneveau C, Mittal R (2015) Simulation of boundary layer flows over biofouled surfaces. In: Proceedings of the 22nd AIAA computational fluid dynamics conference (AIAA 2015-2616)Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Orme JAC, Masters I, Griffiths RT (2001) Investigation of the effect of biofouling on the efficiency of marine current turbines. In: French C (ed) Proceedings of the MAREC 2001, pp 91–99Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    Demirel YK, Uzun D, Zhang Y, Fang H-C, Day AH, Turan O (2017) Effect of barnacle fouling on ship resistance and powering. Biofouling 33(10):819–834CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Rainbow PS (1984) An introduction to the biology of British littoral barnacles. Field Stud 6:1–51Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    Crisp DJ (1955) The behaviour of barnacle cyprids in relation to water movement over a surface. J Exp Biol 32(3):569–590Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    Mullineaux LS, Butman CA (1991) Initial contact, exploration and attachment of barnacle (Balanus amphitrite) cyprids settling in flow. Mar Biol 110:93–103CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Crisp DJ (1961) Territorial behaviour in barnacle settlement. J Exp Biol 38:429–446Google Scholar
  20. 20.
    Knight-Jones EW, Crisp DJ (1953) Gregariousness in barnacles in relation to the fouling of ships and to anti-fouling research. Nature 171:1109–1110CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Sadique J (2016) Turbulent flows over macro-scale roughness elements - from biofouling barnacles to urban canopies. John Hopkins University, BaltimoreGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Busse A, Lützner M, Sandham ND (2015) Direct numerical simulation of turbulent flow over a rough surface based on a surface scan. Comput Fluids 116:129–147CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Nikuradse J (1933) Strömungsgesetze in rauhen Rohren. VDI Forschungsheft 361Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.University of GlasgowGlasgowUK

Personalised recommendations