Scaling of RV Athena’s Appendage Drag Using CFD

  • Iwan Mustaffa KamalEmail author
  • Muhammad Safwan Rasahidan
  • Yaseen Adenan Ahmed
Conference paper
Part of the Lecture Notes in Mechanical Engineering book series (LNME)


The drag or the resistance contribution of appendages such as brackets, skegs, shafts, rudders and fin stabilizers fitted to R/V Athena were investigated. The issue in estimating the appendage drag is that laminar flows occurred at lower Reynolds number typically in ship model used for ship hydrodynamic testing in a towing tank. In full-scale ship, the flow is usually turbulent. Uncertainties when scaling the model result to full-scale may arise as the flow regime in both cases are not similar, hence the full-scale estimate will be inaccurate. One method to resolve this issue is to scale the appendage drag using a fixed fraction which is known as the ‘Beta’ approach. The aim of this investigation was to determine the value of beta. R/V Athena was chosen as the case study in this investigation. The results obtained from SHIPFLOW 6.3 shows that the drag in model scale increased at 14% when fully appended. The drag in full-scale increased at 11% when fully appended. It was observed that the skeg contributed to the highest percentage of drag at about 7–8% of the total drag. Finally, the value of beta was estimated to be in between 0.38 and 0.39.


Reynolds scale effect Appendage drag CFD Beta approach 


  1. 1.
    Molland AF, Turnock SR, Hudson AD (2011) Ship resistance and propulsion: practical estimation of propulsive power. Cambridge University Press, EnglandCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Allan JF (1950) Some results of scale effect experiments on a twin-screw hull series. Trans Inst Eng Shipbuild Scotl 93:353–381Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Lackenby H (1955) BSRA resistance experiments on the Lucy Ashton. Part III. The ship model correlation for the shaft appendage conditions. Trans R Inst Nav Arch 97:109–166Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    van Manen JD, Oossanen PV (1988) Principles of naval architecture volume II. The Society of Naval Architects and Marine Engineers, New Jersey, USAGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    ITTC (2014) ITTC—Recommended Procedures and Guidelines–1978 ITTC Performance Prediction Method, ed. International Towing Tank ConferenceGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Lasky MP (1980) An investigation of appendage drag. David W Taylor Naval Ship Research and Development Center Bethesda MD, Ship Performance DeptGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Peck RW (1976) The determination of appendage resistance of surface ships. AEW Technical Memorandum 76020Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Kirkman KL, Kloetzli JW (1980) Scaling problem of model appendages. ATTC, University of Michigan, Ann ArborGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Mustaffa Kamal I (2016) The powering performances of large waterjet and propeller driven catamarans at medium-speed, Ph.D., Australian Maritime College, University of Tasmania, Launceston, TasmaniaGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Oliva Remolà A, Pérez Rojas L, Pérez Arribas FL (2013) A contribution to appendage drag extrapolation using computational toolsGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Heffner JA (1989) The athena research ship system—a decade plus of service. David W Taylor Naval Ship Research and Development Center Bethesda, M.D., Ship Hydromechanics DeptGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Jenkins DS (1984) Resistance characteristics of the high speed transcom stern ship R/V athena in the bare hull condition, represented by DTNSRDC model 5365. David W Taylor Naval ship research and development center bethesda MDGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Gadd G, Russell MJ (1981) Measurements of the components of resistance of a model of RV. National Maritime Institute, AthenaGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Nature Singapore Pte Ltd. 2020

Authors and Affiliations

  • Iwan Mustaffa Kamal
    • 1
    Email author
  • Muhammad Safwan Rasahidan
    • 1
  • Yaseen Adenan Ahmed
    • 1
  1. 1.Universiti Kuala Lumpur Malaysian Institute of Marine Engineering TechnologyLumutMalaysia

Personalised recommendations