RESISTANCE AND PROPULSION

COURSE WORK, PARTS I, II AND

III.
DAVID A. LINES
STUDENT NO. 072139578

Summary
Part I

• The use of experimental data from a model to plot the total and viscous
resistance coefficients over the ship Reynolds number range.
• The comparison of CT, CF, CV and CW over Rn relative to a VLCC at a
series of speeds.
• The discussion of the CV/CT ratio for both ships.

Part II

• Calculations for powering required of a new ship design. Resistance is

calculated using Mumford indices; this involves scaling the ship to a
standard length, using the BSRA block coefficient tables (provided in the
appendix) and determining PE.
• Powering calculated for the same ship at the highest Froude number using
the series 60 Mumford indices.

Part III

• Lucy Ashton ITTC Form Factor Analysis

– Total model resistance curve (CT over Rn)
– ITTC ship model correlation curve over Rn (on the same
graph)
– The use of Prohaska’s method to estimate the form factor

Acknowledgments: Dr. Martin Downie (for explanations and advice during

lectures)

1
TABLE OF CONTENTS
TITLE PAGE 1

TABLE OF CONTENTS 2

PART I 3–4

PART II 5–6

PART III 7

BIBLIOGRAPHY 8

APPENDIX 8-13

2
PART I

Residuary resistance is the second part of total ship resistance and scales with
Froude number; this means that results from tests on a specific model moving
with a given Froude number can be used to find the resistance of a full scale ship
moving at the same Froude number. Since total ship resistance is predicted
theoretically this is an important value to find when considering the first part of
total ship resistance (frictional) can also be calculated for full scale.

1. Model tests for a product carrier give the following values of residuary
resistance coefficients;

Ship Speed
8 10 12 14 16 18
(knots)

1.09
10³ Cw 1.105 1.130 1.251 1.490 2.284
1

Using this data and the given ship particulars (Table 1.1) in an excel worksheet,
the residuary resistance can be deduced as shown in Table 1.2 of the appendix.

Where:

V = Velocity (m/s) = Speed (knots)*0.514 Re = Reynolds number = V*

L / Visc.

Cf = skin friction coefficient = 0.075/(LOG(Re)-2)² Cv = Viscous

Coefficient = (1+k)*Cf

k = Watanabe form factor = -0.095+25.6*(Cbl/(L/B)²*√B/) Cbl = Block coefficient

Cw = Wave-making Coefficient = 1.091*10¯³ CT = Total resistance coefficient =

Cv+Cw

The table shows a clear increase in resistance for each increasing value of speed.
To show the total and viscous resistance coefficients they have been plotted
against the ships Reynolds number range in chart 1.1 of the appendix.

2. The following table gives a total resistance coefficient CT to speed relation

for a VLCC of length 344.4m.

Speed
8 10 12 14 16
(knots)

10³ CT 1.861 1.870 1.876 1.886 1.923

3
Using similar calculations to (1.) the coefficients of friction, viscosity, wave and
total resistance can be deduced for the ships Reynolds number range (as shown
in Table 1.3). A form factor of 1+k = 1.223 has been used. Using this table, a
chart can be plotted to show the ship and model results of the separate
resistance coefficients (Chart 1.2), since it is more advantageous to have this
correlation as one line the ITCC 1957 Ship-Model Correlation line is also plotted,
given by Cf = 0.075/(LOG(Re)-2)². Based on a 2-D flow corrected for edges, this
line gives an accurate curve similar to Hughes line.

3. The resistance of the ship from (1.) known on Chart 1.3 of the appendix
as ‘Ship 1’ is calculated using the 2-D extrapolation procedure, where
frictional resistance is obtained through the ITTC SMC line and subtracted
from total resistance to give the residuary resistance. The resistance of
the VLCC in (2.) known as ‘Ship 2’ on the same chart is calculated by the
3-D extrapolation procedure where a form factor of 1+k= 1.223 is used
with the skin friction coefficient to obtain a residuary resistance.

Chart 1.3 where; Cw = residuary resistance made up only of wave resistance

components

Table 1.4 shows the Cv/CT ratio for both ships at a range of speeds suitable to
the ships service speeds.

Using this table and previous tables (1.2 + 1.3) it is reasonable to state that the
percentage of resistance due to viscous resistance decreases as the ships move
faster through the water, this is because wave-making resistance increases
exponentially. For ship 1 this means the percentage of viscous resistance drops
10% over a speed increase of 8knots, if the speed increase were to continue
then the percentage would drop by larger and larger amounts as the gradient
becomes steeper in a negative fashion. Ship 2 has a steadier gradient and so
would take a higher speed to increase the percentage drop.

This could partly be due to the ship being much larger thus the wave-making
resistance has less effect (considering the ratio of wave length to ship length =
Lw/Ls = 2π*V²/gLs). Another reason the ships differ in this ratio gradient is that
the wave pattern each ship generates could be very different, depending on their
geometry, the patterns could be constructive (less resistance) or destructive
(more resistance). Geometry that would change this can be considered as; the
bow, forward shoulder, aft shoulder and stern wave systems. From general
knowledge about ship geometry and looking at chart 1.3, it is reasonable to
assume that Ship 1 has a less destructive wave pattern than Ship 2.

Part I Conclusion
Viscous resistance and wave resistance obey Reynolds and Froudes scaling
respectively, unfortunately these scales are non-compatible. For this reason it is
desirable to split ship resistance into two parts; frictional resistance coefficients
(which scale with Reynolds number at full ship scale) and residuary resistance
coefficients (relative to the same Froude number of the full scale ship as the
4
model). The use of ITTC ship-model correlation line allows for the ratio of Cv/CT
to be shown clearly for varying speeds, this is important when considering the
effect of wave resistance for a vessel at a higher speed.

PART II

Part II uses Mumford indices series 60 and BSRA (British Ship Research
Association) data tables to calculate the influence that hull form has on
evaluating required power for a new ship design.

1. The calculation of powering (PE) for a new ship design can be estimated
using results gained from a similar form ship in methodical series tests,
this ship is known as the ‘basis ship’ (denoted as B). A scale design of the
same length as the basis ship is then used, where the scaled design (D*)
and the new design (D) are geometrically similar, to calculate the total
resistance coefficient (©).

The particulars for the new design, basis ship and scaled design can be
found in Table 2.1 of the appendix. Where;

LD* = (LD)*0.86 BD* = (BD)*0.86 TD* = (TD)*0.86 Cb

= block coefficient

⅓
Vol. = volume = Cb*L*B*T CM = Mass Coefficient = L/Vol. = constant

CS = Wetted Surface Coefficient = 3.4+CM/2.06 mu = Kinematic

Viscosity = 1.211x10¯⁶

With these values the Mumford indices can be applied to determine the
resistance for the new design by calculating resistance for the scaled design.
Following Table 2.2:

©B can be found for a range of Froude numbers and are used to find;

©D* = (©B)*(BD/BB)x-⅔ * (TD*/TB)Y-⅔ since ‘X’ and ‘Y’ vary with Froude number
when L and CM are constant, they are read from the BSRA data sheets. For the
aid of calculations they have been included in Table 2.2. To simplify the
equations, X-⅔ and Y-⅔ are pre-calculated in the same table.
5
To achieve the resistance for the original length (new design) a length correction
must be made, this is known as Froudes friction correction. The terms needed
for this (Table 2.1 and Table 2.2) are explained below:

CO = Circular O (Length dependant constant determined from tables) = 0.0741

CL = Circular L = Fn*2√π CS = as above CM = as above

©D = ©D* - (COD* - COD)*CS*CL-0.175 this gives the total resistance

coefficient for the new design ship at the original dimensions.

With the total resistance coefficient it is possible to deduce RT (total resistance

against ship) which hence enables the calculation of the effective power (PE).

RT = ©D * CKD2 *ρ*Vol.D *g/1000 Where;

CK = Circular K = CL*√CM, ρ = rho = 1000, g = gravity =

9.81

Multiplying RT with the velocity of the new design gives the final values for PE at
varied Froude numbers. It is desirable to have these for velocity so V (m/s) = Fn
*√(L*g), is given in the table (2.2).

2. The total resistance and thus effective power can also be found using the
series 60 Mumford indices instead of the BSRA ones. The BSRA values are
simply a more recent methodical series for merchant ships while the
series 60 values were derived in 1948 with the aid of SNAME (Society of
Naval Architects and Marine Engineers) and ATTC.

Table 2.3 is a repeated calculation of (1.) for the highest Froude number (for
maximum aft. position of optimum LCB) using the Mumford series 60 (these
values can be found on the same table as BSRA values). This is important
because position of LBC can have a significant effect on the resistance of a ship.
The total resistance against the ship (RT) is greater by 9371.847 leading to a
greater power requirement (PE) of 5074730.6 (a difference of 83240.052).

Since the values of PE are used in further model testing and are themselves an
estimate, it is reasonable to assume that the larger of the two would be used e.g.
series 60 PE values.

3. The method used in (1.) and (2.) calculates resistance coefficients for both
the ship and the model but do so without taking into account the form
factor when transferring from model to ship. In 1978 the ITTC Performance
Committee showed that including this form factor can dramatically
improve the accuracy of the ship to model correlation.

With this knowledge the effective power can be re-calculated to give a better
result as shown in Table 2.4 (using series 60 X and Y values). Where use of the
ITTC 1957 ship-model correlation line leads to the following changes in formula;

CKD* = CL*√CMD* RTD* = ©D* *CKD*2 *ρ*Vol.D**(g/1000) = total resistance for

scaled design

ReD* = ((Fn*√(LD**g))*LD*)/mu = Reynolds number for scaled design

6
ReD = (V*LD)/mu = Reynolds number for new designwhen; mu =
kinematic viscosity

CfD* = 0.075/(log(ReD*)-2)² CfD = 0.075/(log(ReD)-2)²

ITTC Correction: Some derivation of terms is required to achieve CTD since; CTD
= (1+k)*(CfD+CfWD) and CTD* = (1+k)*(CfD*+CfWD*) substituting terms gives CTD =
CTD* + ((1+k)*(CfD - CfD*)) and since ©D* = 1000/8π*CS*CTD* rearranged to
give CTD*= ©D* *(8π/(1000*CS)), the addition of the total resistance coefficient to
the skin friction coefficients multiplied by the form factor can give a new CTD with
the form factor accounted for;

CTD = 0.0036306 where k = 0.135

This value gives an adjusted ©D = CTD*CS*1000/8π where CS = 6.09617

Ultimately changing RTD = ©D* CKD2 *ρ*Vol.D*(g/1000) = 568475.3723,

multiplying with velocity (V) to give a new PE = 5049156.235 which is a
difference of 25574.33841, showing that this more accurate method can reduce
the risk of over estimating effective power and the need for a larger propulsion
system than is required.

Part II Conclusion
The use of Mumford indices is particularly useful in calculating an estimate for
effective power. The introduction of scaled ship designs and similar form ships
with various data sheets can be used to accurately and theoretically determine
resistance on a new ship design. The inclusion of form factors when transferring
from model to ship can greatly influence the required power and so proves a
very important step in these calculations.

PART III – Lucy Ashton ITTC Form Factor Analysis

Table 3.1 contains the model ship particulars of a ‘Lucy Ashton’ form. The
model is used to deduce the resistance coefficient Cv (for the model). This is
achieved from evaluating CFo (k*2-D frictional resistance) at the Reynolds
number relevant to the ‘run in point’, the form factor is assumed to be
independent of Reynolds number. This holds true for the ITTC ship-model
correlation curve where the form factor, k, is independent. CT is plotted in Chart
3.1 with the ITTC correlation line over Reynolds number.

Prohaska’s Method: A suggested way of determining form factor, since it had

been proved that the inclusion of form factors significantly improved the
outcome of correlation. Using the link between wave making coefficient and
velocity it can be said that CT/CFO will give a straight trend line and intercept
(1+k) on the Y axis when plotted on an X axis of Fn4/C FO. This can be seen for the
Lucy Ashton form model in Chart 3.2 where the trend line gives an equation of Y
= 0.216x + 1.061 from which the interception can be mathematically proven.

The run in point is at low Froude numbers so for the sake of simplicity only a
small range has been selected for chart 3.2, there is a large amount of error in

7
measuring resistance at low Froude numbers making the run in point difficult to
determine by nature, the fuller form a ship then generally the higher Froude
numbers can be used.

Part III Conclusion

Prohaska’s method clearly works on a theoretical level and so it is up to the
practical experiment measurements side to improve for greater accuracy.
However this can be said for every theory + practice based method. With
technical innovations and improvements all the formula used here can be
improved. This being said, there is still a large amount of resources put into
compiling new tables, charts and data sheets ever improving the ease of
calculating for full scale ship resistance and other coefficients from early design
stages.

Bibliography
Martin Downie – Lecture Notes No. 1 – 3, 13 – 15, 17 – 18.

An introduction to Naval Architecture – 4th Ed, by E. C. Tupper

Appendix – Tables
Table 1.1

L Beam T Cbl visc k Knots

173.177 29.600 10.415 0.757 0.00000118 0.241 0.514

8
 8

Table 1.2

V Re Cf Cv Cw CT
4.115 599880463 0.00163 0.00203 0.00109 0.00312
5.144 749850579 0.00159 0.00197 0.00111 0.00307
6.173 899820695 0.00155 0.00192 0.00113 0.00305
7.202 1049790811 0.00152 0.00189 0.00125 0.00314
8.230 1199760927 0.00150 0.00186 0.00149 0.00335
9.259 1349731042 0.00148 0.00183 0.00228 0.00411

Table 1.3

Lp k
344.400 0.223

V Re Cf Cv Cw CT
4.115 1192992323 0.00150 0.00183 0.00002939 0.001861
5.144 1491240404 0.00146 0.00178 0.00008754 0.001870
6.173 1789488485 0.00143 0.00174 0.00013225 0.001876
7.202 2087736566 0.00140 0.00171 0.00017400 0.001886
8.230 2385984646 0.00138 0.00169 0.00023781 0.001923

Table 1.4

knots Ship 2 - Cv/Ct Ship 1 - Cv/Ct

8 0.984 0.650

10 0.953 0.641

12 0.930 0.630

14 0.908 0.601

16 0.876 0.555

Table 2.1

Basis Ship (B) Scaled Design (D*) New Design (D) Scale Factor 0.86
L 121.92 121.8878 141.73 Cb 0.706
B 16.764 17.03832 19.812 g 9.81
T 7.952 7.20852 8.382 ρ 1000
k 0.135

Vol. 10569.09539 16616.61142 mu 0.000001211

CM 5.554107728 5.554107728
CS 6.0961688 6.0961688

Table 2.2
9
Fn ©B X Y X - 2/3 Y - 2/3 ©D* COD* COD
0.148 0.32533 0.64657359
9 0.643 0.992 0.664 3 -0.00266667 8 0.0741 0.0729
0.178 0.29833 0.66932205
7 0.665 0.965 0.65 3 -0.01666667 6 0.0741 0.0729
0.208 0.35033 0.72306991
5 0.714 1.017 0.596 3 -0.07066667 4 0.0741 0.0729
0.238 0.22833 0.87810566
2 0.866 0.895 0.563 3 -0.10366667 3 0.0741 0.0729

Table 2.2 (continued)

CL ©D CKD RTD V PE
0.527836 0.6383927 1.243961 161032. 5.552135 894073.12
76 03 04 3 99 3
0.633475 0.6613982 1.492920 240296. 6.663308 1601170.9
01 19 34 7 94 8
0.739113 0.7153570 1.741879 353810. 7.774481 2750692.8
26 83 63 4 9 1
0.844397 0.8705705 1.990003 561982. 8.881926 4991490.5
01 02 49 9 08 2

Table 2.3

Fn ©B X Y X - 2/3 Y - 2/3 ©D* COD* COD CL

0.3133 0.8926 0.072 0.84439701
0.2382 0.866 0.980 0.410 3 -0.25667 2 0.0741 9 5

Table 2.3 (continued)

©D CKD RTD V PE PE Difference

0.88508848 1.9900035 571354.74 8.8819261 5074730.6 83240.05238

Table 2.4

Fn ©B X Y X - 2/3 Y - 2/3 ©D* CKD* RTD* Re D*

0.3133 0.8926 1.99000 829034254.
0.2382 0.866 0.980 0.410 3 -0.25667 2 3 366508 3

Table 2.4 (continued)

Re D Cf D* CfD CTD* ©D CTD RTD V

0.001566 0.001523 0.88062 0.003630 568475.372
1039500729 9 3 0.00368 8 6 3 8.88193

PE
5049156.23
5

10
Table 3.1

Wetted
L B.P. S. mu rho g
0.00000121
9.144 10.035 1 999.3 9.81

Table 3.2

Speed Resistance Re Fn CT Cf CT/Cf Fn^4/Cf

3.149 267.70 23777420.31 0.332483462 0.005384183 0.002594873 2.074931 4.709384
3.084 252.70 23286619.32 0.325620514 0.005298992 0.002603639 2.035225 4.317836
2.961 227.10 22357872.83 0.312633703 0.005166032 0.002620874 1.97111 3.644996
2.850 203.90 21519735.76 0.300913899 0.005006615 0.00263721 1.898452 3.109026
2.726 167.60 20583438.48 0.287821505 0.004498203 0.002656421 1.693332 2.583426
2.631 143.50 19866113.96 0.277791041 0.004134538 0.002671892 1.54742 2.228713
2.499 120.70 18869410.4 0.263853976 0.003854708 0.002694582 1.43054 1.798718
2.379 105.70 17963316.27 0.251183918 0.003724799 0.002716547 1.371152 1.465379
2.245 92.30 16951511.15 0.237035685 0.003652462 0.00274277 1.331669 1.150974
2.163 82.69 16332346.82 0.228377812 0.00352498 0.002759801 1.277259 0.985684
2.041 71.95 15411151.11 0.215496585 0.00344478 0.002786692 1.236154 0.773878
1.936 63.92 14618318.74 0.204410284 0.003401283 0.002811499 1.209776 0.620974
1.807 54.60 13644267.55 0.19078997 0.003334979 0.002844388 1.172477 0.465836
1.692 47.06 12775927.33 0.17864783 0.003278445 0.002876291 1.139817 0.354126
1.589 41.68 11998196.53 0.167772697 0.003292279 0.002907268 1.132431 0.272521
1.472 35.52 11114754.75 0.155419389 0.003269445 0.002945669 1.109916 0.198078
1.318 28.38 9951933.939 0.13915948 0.003258354 0.003002513 1.085209 0.124901
1.237 24.95 9340320.396 0.13060719 0.00325198 0.003035885 1.07118 0.095848
1.159 22.02 8751359.207 0.122371652 0.003269393 0.003070736 1.064694 0.073027
1.094 19.86 8260558.216 0.115508704 0.003309492 0.003102124 1.066847 0.057385
1.016 17.19 7671597.027 0.107273165 0.003321278 0.003143058 1.056703 0.042132
0.938 14.59 7082635.838 0.099037627 0.003307245 0.00318818 1.037346 0.030176
0.860 12.66 6493674.649 0.090802089 0.003413922 0.003238333 1.054222 0.020992
0.778 10.63 5874510.322 0.082144215 0.003502602 0.003297705 1.062133 0.013807

Appendix - Charts
Chart 1.1

11
Chart 1.2

Chart 1.3

Chart 3.1

Chart 3.2

12