Scaling of RV Athena’s Appendage Drag Using CFD
Abstract
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.
Keywords
Reynolds scale effect Appendage drag CFD Beta approachReferences
- 1.Molland AF, Turnock SR, Hudson AD (2011) Ship resistance and propulsion: practical estimation of propulsive power. Cambridge University Press, EnglandCrossRefGoogle Scholar
- 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.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.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.ITTC (2014) ITTC—Recommended Procedures and Guidelines–1978 ITTC Performance Prediction Method, ed. International Towing Tank ConferenceGoogle Scholar
- 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.Peck RW (1976) The determination of appendage resistance of surface ships. AEW Technical Memorandum 76020Google Scholar
- 8.Kirkman KL, Kloetzli JW (1980) Scaling problem of model appendages. ATTC, University of Michigan, Ann ArborGoogle Scholar
- 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.Oliva Remolà A, Pérez Rojas L, Pérez Arribas FL (2013) A contribution to appendage drag extrapolation using computational toolsGoogle Scholar
- 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.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.Gadd G, Russell MJ (1981) Measurements of the components of resistance of a model of RV. National Maritime Institute, AthenaGoogle Scholar