Modern Tug Design with Particular

Emphasis on Propeller Design,

Maneuverability, and Endurance
BY DOROS A. ARGYRIADIS, 1 ASSOCIATE M E M B E R

T u g b o a t design, although of utmost im- weight and trim calculation is emphasized.

portance, has been disregarded by the
naval architect to a great extent and only
a limited amount of information is avail-
able to the designer in the form of technical
papers. In this study, an attempt is made
to correct this lack by presenting some of
the important features peculiar to tugboat
design. Hull form and lines are treated
briefly. Some design formulas are pre-
sented and a c o m p a r i s o n is made between
British and American designs. T h e sta-
bility of tugs is presented at some length
and the lines o f some m o d e r n boats as
well as the particulars of several others are
given. Arrangements and accommodations
usually are based upon the wishes of the
tug o w n e r and are treated very briefly.
T h e importance of a g o o d preliminary
Several different types of main p r o p u l s i o n
machinery p o w e r plants are discussed and
the merits of each one are presented. Pro-
peller design is discussed at some length.
Preliminary desig n formulas are given for
both the bollard pull and the t o w i n g thrust.
Comparisons between the different types
of propellers are made and a m e t h o d for
calculating the performance of the pro-
peller at any speed of the boat is presented.
Maneuverability is also discussed and
covers both r u d d e r design and engine
controls. Formulas are given for the rud-
der area and the relative merits of some
of the several types of tugboat rudders
are analyzed. Finally, endurance and
engine performance at reduced speeds are
discussed.

INTRODUCTION of an old steam tug helping a sailing vessel dock or

und0ck was fairly common in the major ports of
Tugboat design is a subject that has been dis-
the world around the middle of the past century.
regarded by most naval architects, with the nota- Without these handy vessels in and around our
ble exceptions of Roach (24) 2 and Caldwell (8), harbors, a major portion of the world's shipping
despite the obvious usefulness of these boats. In could not operate successfully and efficiently, and
searching the libraries for appropriate literature, the docking, undocking, salvage and the carriage
the author has been amazed b y the lack of written of cargoes in barges would have beeh impossible.
material on the subject. This inadequacy is
Tugs can be subdivided into three main cate-
difficult to understand, especially if one remem- gories or classes; namely, (a) small harbor and
bers that the design of tugboats dates back to the utility tugs, (b) large harbor and coastwise tugs,
earliest days of steam-driven boats and the sight
and (c) ocean-going and salvage tugs. The small
I N a v a l Architect, J o h n J. M c M u l l e n Associates, Hoboken, N. J.
harbor tug represents the workhorse of the har-
2 N u m b e r s in parentheses refer to the B i b l i o g r a p h y a t t h e end of
t h e paper.
bor, and its services would include the perform-
Presented a t t h e A n n u a l M e e t i n g , New York, N. Y., No- ance of a number of rather small towing jobs and
v e m b e r 14-15, 1957, of T I ~ SOCIETY OF NAVAL ARCHITECTS AND
MARINB ENGINEERS, the docking of small vessels. The utility tug may
362
 MODERN TUG DESIGN
range from 40 to 65 ft in length, while the large
harbor and coastwise tug usually has a length of
from 70 to 120 ft. The services of this second
class would include the docking of large vessels
and the towing of barge and lighter fleets within
the harbor or along the coast. Finally, the sal-
vage tug is mainly concerned with long ocean
towing services and, as its name implies, salvage
jobs. The length of this tug is usually over 125
ft ancl its freeboard is normally more t h a n the
freeboard found in its smaller counterparts, in
order to allow a safe and dry ocean crossing.
The three types mentioned can actually be dealt
with simultaneously, since, a p a r t from physical
dimensions, there are few fundamental differences
between them. In general, the tug designer is
limited in his choice of principal dimensions b y the
specifications of the owner relative to power,
m a x i m u m allowable draft, and free running speed,
while he also has to take into account such practi-
cal aspects as stability, limited length in connec-
tion with maneuverability, engine room size,
propeller dimensions, hull form, and so on. Off
hand, it might seem peculiar to the uninitiated
t h a t length and speed are treated so nonchalantly
and assigned specific values for different classes of
tugboats without a thorough investigation of the
effects of length on speed and power. This sub-
ject has been treated b y L. A. Baler in references
(3) and (4) in which he shows t h a t in m a n y cases
it is advantageous to increase the length of the
boat to obtain the best resistance characteristics.
However, the design of a tugboat does not allow
the selection of the most efficient length for the
power available because of other, more important,
considerations. A tugboat is essentially a floating
powerhouse and its p r i m a r y mission is to help
other vessels to maneuver in restricted quarters or
to tow them to their destinations. AcCordingly,
most of its power is absorbed on the towline and
only a small percentage is used for the propulsion
of the boat itself.
With the exception of ocean-going salvage tugs
and some coastwise tugs, one can safely say t h a t
the resistance of the tug itself, while towing, is
only a small percentage of the over-all towrope
pull exerted, with the result t h a t hull-form char-
acteristics can have little influence on the towing
speed. However, since the speed/length ratio
of these boats will.be high in the free running con-
dition owing to the large available power, and since
normally the owner will specify some particular
speed to be attained while running free, the de-
signer should give careful consideration to the se-
lected prismatic COefficient, longitudinal center of
buoyancy and fineness of b o d y fore and aft in
order to obtain the best hull form possible. Free-
363
board forward, which frequently limits the free
running speed, m u s t also be considered.
The trend of t o d a y seems to be to increase the
available power over older tugs without a n y
change in the over-all length of the boat. One
reason for this is the better and more powerful
engines, such as the supercharged Diesel, avail-
able on the m a r k e t today. Again, the length of
the ship-handling tug cannot be increased con-
siderably o v e r 100 ft, since any size above t h a t
length would tend .to m a k e the b o a t awkward in
maneuvering in and out of tight spots. I t fol-
lows, then, that the main problem of the designer,
after the preliminary form characteristics have
been established, would be to fit a propeller which
would give m a x i m u m possible towrope pull at
some o p t i m u m towing speed and which, at the
same time, would allow the b o a t to attain the de-
sired free running speed.
Finally, careful consideration should be given to
the main propulsion machinery control, since the
maneuverability and hence quite a bit of the suc-
cess of the tugboat, be it large or small, will de-
pend largely on the response of the propulsion
plant to the orders given to it from the bridge.
In addition to the pilothouse control station, an
additional control station on the deck aft of the
pilothouse is recommended for harbor work.
HULL-FORM CHARACTERISTICS
I t has been mentioned before t h a t the effective
horsepower of a tug at normal towing speeds will
be very small as compared to the total towrope
pull exerted. However, the designer should give
careful consideration to the hull form, so as to ob-
tain the m a x i m u m possible thrust available for
towing and at the same time meet the owner's re-
quirements regarding free route speed. F r o m
purely theoretical considerations, the prismatic
coefficient should be somewhere between 0.57 and
0.67, since most tugs will have a free route speed/
length ratio of about 1.10 to 1.40 and a towing
speed/length ratio of from 0.60 to 0.70. I t would
appear, off hand, t h a t a greater prismatic could be
used if the hull were to be designed for towing
speeds, b u t an investigation of the resistance of a
h e a v y displacement hull (say displacement/length
ratio equal to 400) with a prismatic of 0.70 at a
speed/length ratio of 1.15 shows a twofold increase
in total resistance per ton of displacement over the
same hull having a prismatic of 0.60, while the re-
duction in resistance of the lower prismatic hull
over the:~0.70 prismatic hull at a speed/length
ratio around 0.60 amounts to less than 10 per cent
of the total resistance at t h a t speed. On the other
hand, if the speed/length ratio of the tug when
running free is over 1.25, as is often the case in
1600__ /
./ vjU
/
150o__ / ./
Comparison of Tugboat Particulars
l&OO__ British versus American Practice

13oo 115~I 1 /
/ /
/
12oo /
(
/
/ /
11oo / / /
/

ioo_o I i /
/
_/
/

/
/
I
/ 0
9~ /
/
J
/
I "/
/ /
,,,..
/
--/ //---
/ / ic eme nt~
700 i /
/-'
/ / / 0
/ J
/
f

,-~6(
f /
/ O~
0
3 / KEY
ID
Le igth \ /
0 /
~
v
/ ..... British Praotioe
rt
/ American P r a c t i c e
/
C~

/
I00
f
I

0 I I
0 200 &O0 600 800 i000 1200 I~00 1600 1800 2000 2200
Shaft Horsepower
FIo. 1
 MODERN TUG DESIGN
a modern tugboat, the resistance of the low pris-
matic coefficient hull at these high speed/length
ratios becomes prohibitive. C o n t r a r y to the be-
lief and practice of m a n y tugboat designers, it
would appear t h a t the most suitable prismatic for
a vessel of this type would be the one correspond-
ing to a speed/length ratio of a b o u t 1.10, or a pris-
matic of between 0.57 and 0.60. This would tend
to reduce the abnormally high resistance t h a t most
boats of this type show when running free, and at
the same t i m e give a reasonably low resistance
over the whole range of operation.
Residual resistance contours of tugboat forms
are presented in Appendix 3. These contours are
derived from the same d a t a as the ones appearing
in C.D. Roach's paper on " M o d e r n Tug Design"
(24), with the difference t h a t resistance-coefficient
curves have been plotted for different prismatic
coefficients against the more commonly used
speed/length ratio. Several curves for displace-
m e n t / l e n g t h ratios of from 200 to 450 in incre-
ments of 50 are shown and it is hoped t h a t this
type of presentation m a y facilitate interpolation
between different speed/length ratios, displace-
m e n t / l e n g t h ratios and prismatic coefficients.
T h e block coefficient of a tugboat is usually
much lower than the prismatic coefficient, and is
sometimes as low as 0.45 or 0.46. This is mainly
due to the fact t h a t the bilges have to be as slack
as practicable to allow an easy fairing of the lines
into the fine fore-and-aft body. Average values
of block coefficients range from 0.45 to 0.55 and
corresponding values for the midship-section coef-
ficient v a r y from 0.75 to 0.85, with the most com-
monly used value being very close to 0.80.
The foreb0dy lines should be as fine as possible
and the half-angle of entrance of the load water-
line ranges from 15 to 30 deg with the median
around 20 deg. The waterlines sometimes have a
slight reverse to allow the fairing of the curve into
the half-beam at or near amidships. The load
waterline aft should be as full as possible to allow
for m a x i m u m coverage and protection for the pro-
peller. T h e afterbody lines below the load water-
line should be fair and fine in order to give the
propeller the m a x i m u m possible amount of solid
water, and reverse curvature of these lines is prac-
tically a necessity. The fineness of the afterbody
lines below the waterline cannot be overempha-
sized, since in m a n y tugboats the propeller does not
seem to receive the required amount of solid water,
tending to pull down air from above, and in this
way m a y cause serious and objectionable vibra-
tions. Reference (5) gives a good analysis of the
reasons of stern vibrations on single-screw vessels.
Although t h a t reference deals mainly with G r e a t
Lakes ore carriers, the findings can be applied to
365
tugboats as well. In particular, the authors state
t h a t it seems to be apparent t h a t wide variations in
wake distribution have far greater effect on hull
vibrations than do close clearances between the
propeller and the hull. An interesting sidelight of
the vibration problem of tugboats is t h a t boats
fitted with K o r t nozzles show much less hull vibra-
tions than boats with open p r o p e l l e r s . I t might
be added here t h a t in order to avoid the sucking of
air b y the propeller, a case t h a t m a y happen if the
wheel does not receive sufficient solid water from
ahead, some of the late river towboats have the
b o t t o m shell plating extending somewhat past the
side-shell plating in the vicinity of the propeller,
thus using in effect the same technique t h a t L. A.
Baler and J. Ormondroyd used to reduce the fan-
tail vibrations of G r e a t Lakes ore carriers.
T h e longitudinal center of buoyancy location is
also quite important. T h e fine form of the after
body will tend to force the center of buoyancy
amidships or even forward of amidships. Some
designers seem to be satisfied with this condition
and even recommend such a location. However,
the author believes t h a t the best location of the
longitudinal center of buoyancy for the proposed
design speed/length ratio is from 2 to 2.5 per cent
aft of amidships, a value t h a t cannot always be
obtained. A compromise is here necessary, and a
longitudinal center of buoyancy of approximately
0.01 L (or 1.0 per cent) aft of amidships seems to
be the best one can hope for. I t m a y be found
advisable, at times, to lengthen the vessel b y a few
feet to obtain a reasonable location for the longi-
tudinal center of buoyancy, since in most designs
it seems to fall forward of amidships if the design
is based strictly on arrangements and accommoda-
tions.
Several authors give preliminary design formu-
las a n d / o r proportion figures which m a y prove
helpful to the tugboat designer at the preliminary
stages of the work. Most of these are derived for
British tugboats which differ from the usual Amer-
ican design in t h a t they have shorter deckhouses
and are somewhat underpowered according to
modern American practice, with the result t h a t
the figures presented should be used with care.
Table 1 gives some of the most i m p o r t a n t and
widely used figures in Britain in comparison with
some representative values for similar United
States built tugs. Some more comparisons be-
tween contemporary British and American de-
signs are shown in Figs. 1 and 2.
Additional information and proportions of
several types of British tugs m a y be found in W.
Pollock's "Small Vessels," (22).
A. R. T a y l o r (28) gives the following formula for
the preliminary estimate of the block coefficient
 C~

20 Comparison of T ~ b o a t Particulars '13

British versus American Practice
19 12

"-~ ~--" z Ii
18

17 io

16
O
15 . . . .

..f
= l&' ~0
0
m 13

.~ 11 OO

lO -/__ ,- 3
@ /
./" / 2
9
J /
/

I KEY I

7 ..... British Practice 0

6f / /
--American Practice

5 / I I
~o 50 60 70 80 90 I00" Ii0 120 130 i~0 150
Length Between Perpendiculars, Feet
FIO. 2
\ M O D E R N TUG D E S I G N 367

TABLE i PROPORTIONS OF TUGBOATS--BRITISH VERSUS AMERICAN PRACTICE

Class ~ 1-ocean . . . . 2-coastwise - - - - - . ~ 3-harbor - - - ~ 4-rive~
Item a b c a b c a b c a b
Vk/%/L (free) 1.04 -- 1.20 1.04 -- -1.25 1.20 -- 1.30 1.15
L/B 4.75 5.75 4.10 4.25 4.50 3.70 3.75 4.50 3.30 4.00 3.80
KG/D ~ 0.85 0.85 0.89 0.90 0.82 0.91 0.80 0.78 0.88 0.85 0.87
Cb 0.56 0.475 0.52 0.55 0.53 0.48 0.52 0. 464 0.50 0.47 0.46
C~I 0.85 -- 0.80 0.85 - -0.80 0.85 - -0.78 0.90
Cp 0.66 -- 0.65 0.65 -- 0.66 0.61 -- 0.64 0.52
Cwp 0.7.0 0.70 0.74 0.75 0.75 0.75 0.71 0.702 0.74 0.70 0.695
m'~ 0.09 0.089 0.091 0.09 0.091 0.091 0.09 0.091 0.092 0.095 0.094
LID 9.5 9.0 8.4 8.5 8.0 7.2 8.0 8.0 7.8 7.5 7.8
Sheer fwci (% of L) 5.75 c - - 2.5 5.75 - -3.9 5.75 - -3.6 5.0
Sheer aft (% of L) 1.5 -- 1.2 1.35 -- 1.2 1.25 -- 1.1 1.0
GIrl, light -- 1.0 1.70 -- 1.75 3.30 -- 1.75 2.0 -- 2.0
B/H 2.5 2.5 2.2 2.5 2.5 2.2 2.5 2.5 2.9 2.5 2.5
A/(0.01L) 3 250 250 320 380 300 400 310 380 400 320 310
SHP (approx) 1000 -- 1500 600 -- 1200 300 -- 300 abt
& to to to to to 30O
up 3000 1000 1800 600 900
" BM coefficient for use with Simpson's formula for beam.
b No representative American design listed, since most of the river craft in the United States are towboats. Actually,
our own small harbor tugs are similar to the river tugs listed.
Based on the addition of forecastle.
NOTI~S: Figures under "a" represent values recommended by A. Caldwell, reference (8).
Figures under "b" represent values recommended by A. R. Taylor, reference (28).
Figures under "c" represent modern American practice.

This f o r m u l a has b e e n t e s t e d in accordance with Block coefficient from 0.48 to 0.55-

m o d e r n A m e r i c a n practice a n d gave c o n s i s t e n t l y M i d s h i p section coefficient a b o u t 0.75
good results D r a g of keel from 0.04L to 0.05L
M i n i m u m freeboard a b o u t 10 per c e n t of m a x i m u m
v, "beam
cb = 1.0s 2v/L M e t a c e n t r i c h e i g h t : a m i n i m u m o f ' a b o u t 2.5 ft
in loaded condition.
Cb = block coefficient
Vk = m a x i m u m s u s t a i n e d sea speed, free r u n n i n g I n a d d i t i o n to these figures, Mr. S i m p s o n states
L = length between perpendiculars t h a t the deck line should be full, especially aft, in
order to protect a n d provide coverage for the
A. CaldweU (8) gives t h e l i m i t for economical propeller, a n d should show c u r v a t u r e all along its
" speed for t u g b o a t s as equal to l e n g t h to facilitate control alongside other ships.
V y J, T h e i n f o r i n a t i o n a p p e a r i n g in the foregoing
= 1.55 (L - references a n d in n u m e r o u s other articles to be
.
Vk = l i m i t of e c o n o m i c a l speed (free r u n n i n g ) f o u n d in m a r i n e magazines from t i m e to t i m e has
L = l e n g t h b e t w e e n p e r p e n d i c u l a r s , ft been consolidated into one plot. I t is h o p e d t h a t
V = v o l u m e of d i s p l a c e m e n t , c u f t these sets of curves, as a p p e a r i n g here in Fig. 3,
A~ = area of m i d s h i p section, sq ft m a y help t h e t u g designer in t h e p r e l i m i n a r y
stages of the design. F i n a l l y , Fig. 4 m a y aid t h e
T h i s f o r m u l a seems to give low results for A m e r -
designer in establishing a p r e l i m i n a r y sectional-
ican practice, a n d the a u t h o r wishes to propose the
following modification of Caldwell's f o r m u l a to area c u r v e for a c o n v e n t i o n a l boat.
So far t h e d i s c u s s i o n h a s b e e n l i m i t e d to c o n v e n -
b r i n g i t in a g r e e m e n t with m o s t m o d e r n designs
tional t y p e s of t u g b o a t s : However, r e c e n t l y some
v n o v e l types of b o a t s h a v e b e e n a p p e a r i n g in t h e
v, = 1.85 L -- A--~] for Vk m a x i m u m
E u r o p e a n h a r b o r s a n d their designers h a v e b e e n
and claiming i n v a r i a b l y t h a t t h e y are b e t t e r t h a n a n y
V \1/, other t u g b o a t afloat. F o r this reason, a brief dis-
v, = 1.70 L -- A--~) for e e o n o m y or e n d u r a n c e cussion of these b o a t s m i g h t p e r h a p s be necessary.
E. C. B. C o r l e t t (9) discusses two of these new
A m o n g the A m e r i c a n authors, D. S. S i m p s o n t y p e s of t u g b o a t s ; t h e "Voith W a t e r T r a c t o r " a n d
(27) gives the following p r e l i m i n a r y p r o p o r t i o n s a t u g with a " h y d r o c o n i c " t y p e hull. Figs. 5 a n d 6
for t u g b o a t s : show t h e profile a n d m i d s h i p section of the latter.
B / H f r o m 3.75 to 4.75 T h e s e b o a t s h a v e n o t as y e t a p p e a r e d in U n i t e d
M e a n d r a f t a b o u t 10 per c e n t of waterline l e n g t h S t a t e s harbors, a n d the i n t e r e s t e d reader is re-
 O~
Oh
Oo
9_

13_
t 0._6.. _~

3~

3.~

7_ 3O_03 Od%~ _~ 32

6 11_ 2 5 @ i0

<3

i0

~2.G U3

1.8
'0
3_ i ~K _2 16

2 2_ ~0(' %

1
1 12

1.fl
d"
~ ~ -- Modern
American Practice

70 80 90 i00 Ii0 120 130 I~0 150 160

Length Between Perpendiculars, Feet
FIG. 3
 NOTE: F o r e a c h , l ~ o f L e n g t h t h a t LCF i s a f t o f
Su~ct~t0.O22 t o o b t a i n Forward P r i s m a t i c & Add 0.022 t o o b t a i n Aft
Prismatic
0.'

.'
/ /

Z
///J " /

0.65
Statior
1

~o.6c
8

~o.55

P-,
0.

O.&5
I/ / /l---

00

o.~,~ 0.I0 0.20 0.30 O.t~O 0.50 0.60 0.70 0.80 0.90 1.00
Percent of Maximum Sectional Area
(Station i0)
FIG. 4 APPROXIMATE TUGBOAT SECTIONAL AREA CURVES IN PER CENT OF MAXIMUM SECTIONAL AREA (STATION I0)
Lg
Oh
~D
370 MODERN TUG DESIGN

. ,-. II,

- - WL
~ - ---- t = = ~ ~ ' ', ' "~ , - ^ ~0 '
~-I . . . . ~ ~ r---~ , / , I . . . . i'- . . . . . -~,1 ,

I ,, , , , i ; ,

L~? ~ ' ' ' '-"~"

FIG. 5 A EUROPEAN-TYpI~ TUG WITH HYDROCONIC-TYPE HULL

ferred to the foregoing article for further particu- to give a specific metacentric height (GM). This
lars. One obvious a d v a n t a g e of the "hydroconic" formula follows
hull m a y be mentioned here: the saving in man-
hours required to build the hull b y the use of al- Beam = -

most straight plates. This should be particularly

a p p a r e n t in small boats, and Dr. Corlett claims
that in the particular b o a t he investigated these
savings a m o u n t e d to over 35 per cent in man-
hours, a figure t h a t m a y be hard to believe. He
also claims t h a t the bollard pull of the vessel was
almost equal to the open water thrust of the pro-
peller and t h a t the thrust deduction was no more
than 2 per cent due to the solid water supplied to
the propeller. Unfortunately, no direct com-
parisons are m a d e between a hydroconic type hull
and a conventional hull and thus no direct con-
clusions can be drawn from Dr. Corlett's article.
No one can say quite enough a b o u t the stability
of a tugboat. M a n y good tugs have been tripped
on towlines while pushing or pulling ships out of
the docks, or driven under while running free at
full speed, when the reduction of pressure amid-
ships uncovers a large portion of the hull and
creates freak stability problems. Both the U. S.
Coast Guard and the U. S. N a v y have their own
statical and dynamical stability criteria, b u t in all
cases these criteria are based upon larger vessels
which are not called upon to perform the types of
work a tug is. For this reason, these criteria
should be used with great care and as a check only,
b u t never as a design condition for a tugboat.
Caldwell proposes the use of Admiral Simpson's
formula for an approximation of the b e a m required
/Jm
K M = height of m e t a c e n t e r above base
H = mean draft
C~p = waterplane coefficient
C~= block coefficient
m = B M coefficient, roughly 0.09 for types
of boats under consideration (See
also Table 1 and Fig. 7).
While this formula will serve well as a first ap-
proximation for the required beam, it should be
used with care, keeping in mind t h a t it was de-
veloped for European-type tugs which have
shorter deckhouses and usually less power than
their American counterparts.
Capt. C. P. Murphy, U. S. Coast Guard, pro-
poses to use the revised Coast G u a r d formula for
the required G M for tugboats. This formula
follows
G M = ( S H P X D)'/,Sh
38~ -f
S H P --- shaft horsepower
h = vertical distance from the center of
effort to top of the towing bitts, ft.
S = effective decimal fraction of the pro-
peller slip stream deflected b y the
rudder
z~ = displacement in long tons, salt water
2fiB -- least tangent of heel to deck edge ,
f = m i n i m u m freeboard, ft
 MODERN TU G DESIGN 371

EN@INF- G.ASING

I E~ULWA21~-

_L." ~.

ENGt ~4E B E D ss
i : Tgm,

FIG. 6 SECTION THROUGH ENGINE ROOM OF HYDROCONIC-TYPE T U G

B = waterline beam, ft SHP X h

D = propeller diameter, ft
Without going into the particulars of this for-
mula, it can be stated t h a t it does not give suffi-
cient GIVi for modern tugboats.
T h e best formula for the required G M of a tug-
boat is the one proposed b y C. D. Roach (24). 3
However, the author believes t h a t even this for-
mula underestimates somewhat the GN[ necessary
for a tug and wishes to propose the modification of
Roach's formula to read as follows
= Roach's formula is:
B H P X 15 h
GM = A fiB
B H ~ = displacemetlt, lb
= brake horsepower; remaining symbols have the same
meaning as above.
GM-
100a -f
B
S H P = shaft horsepower
h = vertical distance from center of effort
to top of towing bitts, ft
A = displacement in long tons, salt water
B -- waterline beam, extreme, ft
f = m i n i m u m freeboard, ft
I t is realized t h a t this formula a t t e m p t s to
measure a dynamical force b y statical methods,
b u t it is believed t h a t it will give satisfactory re-
sults for the types of power eml~loyed today.
The B H P of Roach's formula has been changed to
572 MODERN
S H P to allow for differences in transmission effi-
cieneies of the different systems of propulsion em-
ployed. One of the best sources of information
available on the differences between purchased
power and actual power delivered to the propeller
is Prof. L. A. Baier's paper on propellers and pro-
pulsion (6). The following efficieneies are given
as representative of modern trends:
BHP/IHP varying with IHP and attached auxiliaries
runs from 75 to 85 to 9 5 %
S k i n n e r s i m p l e engines 93 to 94% decreasing
Steeple c o m p o u n d engines 91% with RPM
Single r e d u c t i o n gears 98.5%
D o u b l e r e d u c t i o n gears 97%
Stool b e a r i n g s 99.5% each
Stern tube bearings 98.5 to 99%
Thrust bearings 98 to 99%
Electric couplings 98.8 to 99.4%
Electric d r i v e S H P / B H P 85 to 89%
d e p e n d i n g on ac or dc a n d power range.
In addition to the foregoing figures, the follow-
ing are typical values for the transmission effi-
ciencies ( S H P / B H P ) of some of the most com-
monly used systems of propulsion in tugboats of
modern design:
(a) Diesel-electric drive. A v e r a g e efficiency a r o u n d 85
to 87 per cent.
(b) D i r e c t l y c o n n e c t e d Diesel. Efficiencies f r o m 94 to
97 per c e n t w i t h t h e a v e r a g e a r o u n d 95 p e r cent.
(c) Diesel engine in c o n j u n c t i o n w i t h a r e v e r s e r e d u c t i o n
gear. Efficiencies a r o u n d 94 per cent.
(d) Diesel engine in c o n j u n c t i o n w i t h a reverse reduc-
tion gear a n d a h y d r a u l i c or electric slip coupling.
Effieiencies a r o u n d 90 per cent.
(e) Diesel engine in c o n j u n c t i o n w i t h a t o r q u e c o n v e r t e r
a n d a c o n v e n t i o n a l r e d u c t i o n gear. Efficiencies
a r o u n d 93 per c e n t for single r e d u c t i o n gears a n d 91.5
per c e n t for d o u b l e r e d u c t i o n gears.
Before disposing of the stability problem, one
more thing should be mentioned; namely, range
of stability. This is largely a m a t t e r of freeboard
and some differences in the a m o u n t of freeboard
in the three classes of tugs can be expected. In
general, the freeboard of the small harbor tug
should be approximately 2 ft, while the freeboard
of the large harbor or coastal tug will be in the
vicinity of 3 ft and the one required for the ocean-
going or salvage tug ranges from 4 to 5 or even
6 It, depending largely on size. In a n y case, the
freeboard should not be less than 10 per cent of tile
waterline beam, and the range of stability should
be at least 65 to 70 deg and in no case below 65
deg under a n y but the light ship conditions. It
should be mentioned here, t h a t in order to obtain
this range of stability, all deck openings m u s t be
watertight, doors must have a rather high coaming
or be of the " D u t c h " type, and there m u s t be suf-
ficient freeing ports, strategically located in the
bulwarks, to allow quick emptying of any green
seas on deck. Finally, all vents m u s t be carried
well upwards to avoid the shipping of green seas
through them.
TUG DESIGN
Another helpful indication of freeboard and
stability is the angle at which the deck edge sub-
merges. This angle, with the vessel fully loaded,
m u s t be a b o u t 7 to 9 deg. If it is below the criti-
cal value of 7 deg, the freeboard must be increased.
Table 2 gives the design characteristics of some
modern tugs which are believed to be typical of
recent trends. Figs. 8, 9, and 10 give an idea of
the lines of three representative tugs of recent
years. Fig. 8 represents Model no. 4087 of the
David Taylor Model Basin, a tug designed b y
C o m m a n d e r Richards T. Miller of the United
States N a v y and believed to be very successful.
Fig. 9 is Model no. 4093 of the David T a y l o r
Model Basin, a typical European-type tug. Fig.
10 is the new V T B design of the United States
Navy, designed for the U. S. N a v y by M. Rosen-
blatt and Son of New York City.
A R R A N G E M E N T S AND ACCOMMODATIONS
A tug is essentially a floating powerhouse and
hence m o s t of the available space in the hull is
occupied b y the main propulsion machinery and
the required auxiliaries. N o t much choice is left to
the designer as to the location of the machinery
room, and he often finds t h a t 40 or even 50 per
cent of the total length of the tug is taken up b y
the engine room. The usual practice is to provide
a forecastle bunk room for the crew members.
Messing facilities, galley space, a head and wash-
room and as m a n y staterooms as space will allow
for the licensed crew are usually provided for in
the deckhouse, while, if room permits, the skip-
per's accommodation is to be found on a higher
level, directly below and abaft the Wheelhouse.
The pilothouse should be r o o m y and should afford
clear visibility both forward and aft. Blind spots
should be eliminated and the stack should be of
narrow configuration to allow clear view aft.
Recently, there has been a tendency to increase
the over-all length of the deckhouse with the re-
sult t h a t the towing bitt must be located in a most
unfortunate position. This m a y affect consider-
ably the maneuverability of the boat while towing
and the towing bitt should be located as close to
the center of pivot of the b o a t as possible. Exact
information a n d / o r tests on the best location of the
towing bitt or towing engine, unfortunately, are
lacking. Several authorities recommend locat-
ing the towing bitt as far forward as practicable,
a recommendation t h a t is all too soon forgotten b y
the designer who strains for space in order to give
the crew the best possible accommodations in the
deckhouse. The result is t h a t the towing bitt is
pushed farther aft and a larger rudder area is re-
quired to obtain the same degree of maneuver-
ability while towing, until the point of diminishing
 Simpso~s Formula for Beam:

1.0
BEAM - H x -
6 Owp m
KM = Height of Metacenter above base, fe~t
.90 J H = Draft in Feet ~ , Molded
gC~i Waterplane Coefficient

l
q)

0
ib Block Coefficient
.,-4 m x 0b I
)
.80 0 0
~.~

cO
j-(
.70
1. i

.60
:Z

.5O

.... L ..... i__L i ._ I I I I I

0,020 0.025 0.030 0.035 0.o~o 0.o~5 0.050 0.055 0.060 O. 065 o. 070 0.075 O. 0 8 0
i Coefficient
FIG. 7 RELATION B E T W E E N Cwp AND i COEFFICIENTS FOR SIMPSON'S B E A M F O R M U L A

O~
O~
374 MODERN TUG DESIGN

Table 2 Characteristics
143-ft sea Ed. J. Y T B~ Lack. Grace Helen L.
rescue Moran design RR Moran Tracy
LOA . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 143-0 121-10 108-3 105-4 105-0 105-0
LBP .............................. 126-8 108-4 101-0 93-4 93-4 93-4
Beam (molded) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 33-0 29-6 28-6 26-0 27-0 27-0
Depth at side ~ . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17-2 16-0 15-5 14-5 14-9 14-0
Draft forward . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11-6 12-5 9-6 10-3 10-0 10-0
Draft aft . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14-0 14-1 13-6 12-3 13-0 13-0
Draft mean . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12-9 13-3 11-6 11-3 11-6 11-6
Drag of keel . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2-6 1-8 4-0 2-0 3-0 3-0
A bare hull. LTSW . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 755.98 605.14 405 401.07 399.58 395.00
a total, L T S W . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 762.93 611.36 412 407.2 405.9 400.32
CB aft ~ . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3.78 3.42 0.50 3.31 4.08 3.76
CB below LWL . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4.78 4.96 4.65 4.30 4.21 4.14
Freeboard, least . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4-0 2-9 3-0 2-2 2-10 2-4
Block coefficient . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0. 515 0. 523 0.448 0. 492 0.494 0. 488
Prismatic" coefficient . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0. 652 0. 644 0. 564 0. 650 , 0. 660 0.653
coefficient .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0. 792 0. 813 0. 795 0. 758 0. 750 0.745
Waterplane coefficient . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0. 742 0. 757 0. 701 0. 783 0. 768 0. 765
CF aft ~ . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7.12 7.08 2.71 5.11 3.60 --5.22
L,'B . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4.08 3.91 3.53 3.85 3.70 3.59
B/H ......................... 2.59 2.14 2.19 2.31 2.35 2.35
A/(0.01L) ~. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 324 398 400 403 406 400
Vk/~C/L, (free running) . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1.23 1.30 1.27 1.30 1.35 1.22
Tons per inch . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7.82 6.25 4.80 4.72 4.74 4.78
M o m e n t to trim 1 in . . . . . . . . . . . . 50.20 36.85 24.80 25.25 24.11 24.31
Transverse B M . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8.47 6.67 6.90 6.24 6.87 7.02
GM, light . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1.67 1.10 3.20 2.40 3.50 2.42
GM, loaded . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3.08 3.05 3.60 2.86 3.75 3.30
Wetted surface (total) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4910 4302 3620 3452 3387 3212
Fuel, gal . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 57732 50333 15804 24900 33984 26300
Fresh water, gal . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1389~ 6460 4035 1314 1196 2863
Speed, full, knots . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14.30 13.99 12.75 13 (?) 13.5 12.20
Endurance, full power (miles) . . . . . . . 7365 6380 2050 3250 4450 3830
SHP .............................. 1500 1500 1500 1350 1500 1350
RPM ............................. 160/200 165/200 137/168 144/180 160/200 180/
Propeller diameter . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9-9 10-0 10-9 10-0 10-0 10-0
Propeller pitch . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7-4 9-0 8-2 7-8 6-8 7-8
Rudder area, sq ft . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 77.16 69.9 71.5 70.0 70.7 69.0
Lateral plane area . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1520 1330 1124 1071 1048 1048
Per cent rudder to lat. plane . . . . . . . . . 5.08 5.24 68.0 6.55 6.74 6.66
Per cent balance of rudder . . . . . . . . . . 23.69 27.2 20.0 23.0 23.71 26.05
Design WL a b v base line . . . . . . . . . . . . 14-0 14-0 13-0 12-3 13-0 13-0
Type of drive . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . D-E D-E D-E D-E D-E D-E
Bollard pull, lb . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 42000 45,650 @ 1590 shp 46300 -- -- --

All figures for this boat are estimates since it has not been built as yet.

r e t u r n s is r e a c h e d . I t is d i f f i c u l t t o s a y w h e n t o tions for the crew, it appears that the best towing-

s t o p i n c r e a s i n g t h e l e n g t h of t h e d e c k h o u s e , es-
p e c i a l l y s i n c e t h e a u t h o r k n o w s of n o c o m p r e h e n -
sive tests showing the loss or gain in manefiver-
ability obtained by moving the towing bitt. I t is
no secret, however, that European tugs with short
deckhouses and towing hooks located very near
t h e c e n t e r of p i v o t of t h e v e s s e l a r e m u c h e a s i e r
to handle when towing and more responsive to
helm. One recommendation c o m e s f r o m L . C.
N o r g a a r d (21) w h o s t a t e s t h a t t u g s w i t h t o w i n g
b i t t s l o c a t e d a b o u t 65 p e r c e n t of t h e l e n g t h a f t
of t h e b o w , i n c o n j u n c t i o n w i t h f i n e s t e r n s a n d
cutaway forefoots, have been performing and
m a n e u v e r i n g v e r y well. A. C a l d w e U (8) r e c o m -
m e n d s t h a t t h e t o w i n g p o i n t b e l o c a t e d 52 p e r
c e n t a f t of t h e b o w , o r a s n e a r t o t h a t a s p o s s i b l e .
I n v i e w of t h e n e c e s s i t y of a d e q u a t e a c c o m m o d a -
b i t t l o c a t i o n t h e d e s i g n e r c a n h o p e f o r is s o m e -
w h e r e n e a r 60 p e r c e n t of t h e l e n g t h a f t of t h e b o w ,
a n d e v e n t h a t m a y n e c e s s i t a t e t h e c u t - b a c k of t h e
h o u s e a n d t h e f o r m a t i o n of a n o v e r h u n g d e c k -
house top.
Since a tug often comes in contact with barges
a n d v e s s e l s of all t y p e s , a t l e a s t o n e h e a v y g u a r d
s h o u l d b e c a r r i e d all a r o u n d t h e b o a t a n d a d d i -
t i o n a l p r o t e c t i o n , i n t h e f o r m of a n o t h e r , p a r t i a l ,
guard should be provided for in the forward one-
t h i r d l e n g t h .of t h e t u g . Practically all tugboats
are equipped with at least one heavy guard, but
r e c e n t l y o n s o m e of t h e S a n F r a n c i s c o b o a t s t h e s e
side fenders have been replaced with a heavy
s/~ t o 1-in. s h e e r s t r a k e e x t e n d i n g t h e f u l l l e n g t h
of t h e v e s s e l a n d a r o u n d t h e s t e r n . In conjunc-
tion with this novel construction, the conven-
 MODERN TUG DESIGN 375

of Modern Tugboats
Nancy 100 ft 100 ft Paterson Win. and T Mike 85-ft J. W. 56- f l
Moran Tams Drake tug Moran Moran tug Coppage tug
105-0 101-6 100-6 100-10 94-41/~ 93-0 85-0 64-10 56-0
93-4 90-0 89-10 88-4 84-2 82-6 74-2 56-8 48-9
26-0 25-11/~ 24-0 24-1 25-0 23-0 23-0 19-0 16-6
13-6 12-10 12-7~ 13-5 12-1 11.1 10-61/~ 8-4 7-4 ~/~
9-7 8-6 9-0 9-0 7-8 8-1 7-6 5-9 4-2
12-0 11-0 9-0 11-0 9-6 9-0 8-6 6-9 6-0
10-91/~ 9-9 9-0 10-0 8-7 8-51~ 8-0 6-3 5-1
2-5 2-6 0 2-0 1-10 0-11 1-0 1-0 1-10
365.17 295.80 269.6 304.7 263.5 249.03 203.3 90.99 58.2
370.67 300.31 274.0 309.4 266.7 252.6 205.9 92.05 59.04
3.66 3.08 0.80 2.88 3.08 2.84 2.62 2.01 1.88
3.75 3.57 3.47 3.70 3.43 3.42 3.10 2.33 1.96
2-5 2-8a/~ 3-51/~ 3-1 3-7~ 2-11/~ 2-5~ 2-0 1-8~
0. 506 0. 485 0. 490 0. 515 0. 527 0. 527 0. 538 0. 496 0. 478
0. 658 0. 654 0. 650 0. 664 0. 602 0. 660 0. 649 0. 639 0. 617
0. 771 0. 742 0. 747 0. 775 0,862 0. 799 0. 830 0. 777 0. 774
0. 803 0. 748 0. 742 0. 777 0. 708 0. 782 0. 747 0. 738 0. 737
4.64 4.75 2.4 4.84 3.00 1 3.14 2.88 2.33 3.58
3.84 3.83 3.99 3.95 3.61 t 3.82 3.48 3.25 3.21
2.40 2.58 2.67 2.41 2.89 2.70 2.88 3.04 3.55
371 328 314 362 364 371 400 392 396
1.28 1.32 1.34 1.28 1.32 1.43
4.54 4.14 3.81 4.11 3.50 3.52 3.15 1.89 1.49
23.30 20.00 19.34 20.36 14.70 15.1 12.91 5.72 3.57
6.68 6.71 6.21 6.20 6.16 5.91 6.30 5.79 5.14
2.90 2.52 2.78 2.32 2.73 2.40 2.28 2.07 2.20
3.46 3.19 3.04 2.58 4.52 2.95 2.89 2.21 2.44
3138 2891 2615 2947 2612 2508 2135 1267 1028
25820 22808 24000 13920 25880 16581 10965 4768 3340
3122 2555 2167 600 2400 2139 1000 1374 1242
12.76 12.75 13.10 12.50 12.50 11.25
4568 4030 4360 2350 5035 1610
1000 1000 1200 1000 1000 750 800 500 330
160/200 200 120/150 185/225 160/200 321 370
8-10 8-10 8-10 9-4 8-6 8-3 5-7 5-0
7-0 7-0 7-0 9-4 6-4 6-4 3-4 3-4
62.7 52.4 55.5 56.6 65.28 46.1 42.24 22.4 16.4
968.4 853 798 866 704.6 717 553.4 340 263.4
6.38 6.14 6.96 6.53 9.28 6.43 7.64 6.59 6.24
24.64 22.70 23.89 23.60 22.50 24.55 21.60 22.50 22.20
12-0 11-0 9-0 11-0 9-6 9-6 8-6 6-9 6-0
D-E D-E D D-E D-E D-E D D D
. . . . 32800

tional g u n w a l e b a r h a s b e e n r e p l a c e d w i t h a h e a v y a n d s t r u c t u r e of all t u g b o a t s should be h e a v i e r

half-pipe section w e l d e d all a r o u n d t o t h e s h eer
s t r a k e a n d t h e d e c k a t side. T h e o b v i o u s ad-
v a n t a g e of this c o m b i n a t i o n of h e a v y sheer s t r a k e
a n d pipe is t h a t it p r e s e n t s a s m o o t h surface an d
p r e v e n t s a n y " h a n g i n g - u p " of t h e t o w a n d / o r
o t h e r obstructions. A t t h e s a m e time, such a
c o m b i n a t i o n m a k e s it m u c h easier on h a w s e r a n d
t o wl i n e w e a r f r o m chafing on t h e side. F u r t h e r -
more, L. C. N o r g a a r d (21) in discussing this t y p e
of co n s t r u ct i o n , s t a t e s t h a t it has l o w e r e d r e p a i r
costs c o n s i d e r a b l y b y t h e e l i m i n a t i o n of f e n d e r s
a n d g u ard s .
Again, since t h e t u g i n v a r i a b l y will c o m e in con-
t a c t w i t h o t h e r vessels, all d e c k h o u s e s should be
placed well i n b o a r d a n d t h e hull s h o u l d be g i v e n
s o m e tumblehome~ a t l e a s t a f t of t h e f o r w a r d one-
t h i r d length. F o l l o w i n g t h e s a m e reasoning, t h e
b u l w a r k s should be r a k e d inboard, or s t e p p e d
s o m e w h a t i n b o a r d of t h e shell. T h e scantlings
t h a n t h e A m e r i c a n B u r e a u of S h i p p i n g R u l e s
require, k e e p i n g in m i n d t h a t a t u g will be ex-
p e c t e d to r e c e i v e a n d w i t h s t a n d c o n s i d e r a b l e pun-
i s h m e n t d u r i n g its useful life. A b a r keel should be
i n st al l ed w h e n e v e r possible, t o m i n i m i z e t h e dan-
g e r t o t h e hull f r o m a c c i d e n t a l g r o u n d i n g .
As t o t h e q u a n t i t a t i v e v a l u e s of scantlings,
s e v e r a l a u t h o r s , a n d in p a r t i c u l a r A. C a l d w e l l (8)
r e c o m m e n d t h e following sizes for t u g s of m o d -
e r a t e size:
F r a m e s should be a b o u t 1/~ in. d e e p e r t h a n rule
siz'es. T h e f r a m e spacing should b e r e d u c e d b y
a p p r o x i m a t e l y 3 in. f r o m t h e f o r w a r d m a c h i n e r y
b u l k h e a d t o t h e st em .
I t is r e c o m m e n d e d t h a t a n i n t e r c o s t a l side
s t r i n g e r be l o c a t e d f r o m t h e f o r w a r d m a c h i n e r y
b u l k h e a d t o t h e bow.
D e c k b e a m s can be of rule size.
B e a m b r a c k e t s t o f r a m e s should be a b o u t 3
 Z::> LWI,..
~ - l - - h ,~ --. --..~

--.___ /
S
l e
2~
Fro. 8 M O D E R N T U G L I N E s - - D T M B M O D A L No, 4087
j;

r.3
)

Y,./
!
- - - 7/
' \ / /
/
~LWL

>f
o ~ 6
/
. , 74.-~- a,'~

FIG. 9 A EUROPEAN-TYPE T u G - - D T M B MODAL NO. 4093

 MODERN TUG DESIGN 377

the after machinery bulkhead to the stem should

be at least 1~ in. thick. T h e sheer strake should
be at least ~/~ in. thick. The remainder of the
plating can be of rule size.
0 The gunwale angle should be a t least a 31/~ in.
)4 31~ in. X ~ in. angle. Preferably it should
be fitted below the deck to allow the stepping-in
\
\ of the bulwarks.
\\
Deck plating. The stringer plate should be at
i "'\ least 0.35 in. thick all the w a y . The remainder
", ~/ of the plating c a n b e of rule size.
Bulwarks should be approximately 1/~ in. thick
and should be fitted about 6 in. inboard of the
\ \ shell whenever possible. Their height should be
\i a b o u t 36 in. for larger tugs, but as low as safety
permits for small harbor tugs. T h e sheer of the
bulwarks forward should be a b o u t 6 to 12 in.
more than t h e corresponding deck sheer, while it
can be a b o u t 3 in. less than the corresponding deck
/ /=---.. ~-\ \\ sheer aft.
T h e floors in the engine room should be at least
1~ in. thick.
= The guards should consist of at least a 4 in.
0 half:round section for the main guard and propor-
i
~,~
tionately less for the secondary guards. This
G 0 o
requirement depends mainly upon the type of serv-
i c e the tug will be required to perform and can
v a r y widely. "
ffle~
The installation of bilge keels is recommended
Zo
for a t least the midship one-third length of the
boat.
More and more tugs today are equipped with
~2 formidable fire-fighting equipment:. T h e usual
location of the fire monitors is on the top of the
pilothouse and either directly forward or abaft
the pilothouse.
One last word about accommodations and ar-
rangements. I t is obviously i m p o r t a n t to keep
the tug trimmed under all loading conditions in
such a way as to have the propeller submerged at
all times. T h i s means t h a t the designer m u s t give
careful consideration to the location of fuel tanks
and ballast tanks and m u s t make good prelimi-
o nary trim calculations to ensure t h a t the propeller
does not come out of the water under any loading
or.trimconditions. A trim calculation cannot be
i "n~t made, of course, without a good weight estimate.
In the preliminary stages of the design, the figures
given below m a y prove of use to the designer.
D. S. Simpson (27) gives the following average
weights for preliminary c_alculations for moderate
sized tugs:
times the depth of the b e a m and deep knees should (a) Steel hull weight . . . . . . . . . . . . L B D X 0.003
be fitted on every third frame forward and aft of (b) Deckhouse weight . . . . . . . . . . . lbd X 0.001
the machinery space. (c) Gear and equipment weight . . . . . . L )< 0.35
T h e shell plating of a tug of moderate size from (d) Joiner and carpenter work . . . . L B D X 0.001
- t o p OF HOt~F..
UPPE~ DECK

'
 MODERN TUG DESIGN 379

T h e foregoing figures are in long tons a n d the

s y m b o l s h a v e the' following m e a n i n g :
B = b e a m inside guards, m a x i m u m , ft
L = l e n g t h on t h e waterline, ft
D = d e p t h a m i d s h i p s (or a t m a x i m u m b e a m
section), ft
l l e n g t h of deckhouse, ft
b = a v e r a g e b r e a d t h of deckhouse, ft
d = average d e p t h of deckhouse, f t
/
Mr. S i m p s o n also states t h a t the r e m a i n d e r of
the weights d e p e n d s to a great e x t e n t u p o n t h e
o w n e r ' s r e q u i r e m e n t s a n d c a n n o t be e s t i m a t e d
w i t h o u t some knowledge of w h a t t h e m a n n i n g a n d
a c c o m m o d a t i o n s are to be, how m u c h a n d w h a t
t y p e of power is to be installed, a n d w h a t t h e r a n g e
of the b o a t is expected to be.
I n c o n j u n c t i o n with weight, space a n d range re-
q u i r e m e n t s , the d a t a given i n T a b l e 3, e x t r a c t e d
from the U n i t e d S t a t e s N a v y r e q u i r e m e n t s for
t u g b o a t s , m i g h t prove useful in the p r e l i m i n a r y
stages of the design.
r~
O TABLE 3 S T O R E S FOR T U G B O A T
item Lb/man/day Cu ft/ton
0
m
Dry provisions. . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3.25 77
O Refrigerated provisions:
Freeze . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1.16 107
Chill.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2.37 92
2 Dairy . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0.26 120
|
Z Total refrigerated . . . . . . . . . . 3.79 98.5
Clothing and small stores . . . . . 0. 146 267
Ship's store and ship's serv-
ice store . . . . . . . . . . . . . . :... 0. 965 169
f Special clothing . . . . . . . . . . . . . 38.0" 3.25 b
&N Potable water . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 25.0 c
Z a Pounds per man.
b Cubic feet per-man.
e G a l l o n s p e r m a n p e r d a y for t o t a l t i m e for r a n g e .

F i n a l l y , A. Caldwell (8) gives some relative

weight d a t a for hull outfitting, etc., for t u g b o a t s .
T h e s e d a t a are shown i n T a b l e 4. A n y o n e u s i n g
this t a b l e should r e m e m b e r t h a t t h e y refer to
British designs which differ from c o n t e m p o r a r y
A m e r i c a n designs. Therefore, the c o m m e n t s re-
g a r d i n g T a b l e 1 a p p l y to this t a b l e as well.
Fig. 11 shows the general a r r a n g e m e n t a n d o u t -

!
b o a r d profile of a m o d e r n tug. W h i l e this t y p e of
a r r a n g e m e n t is c o m m o n , it is b y no m e a n s t y p i c a l
a n d m a n y v a r i a t i o n s of the same t h e m e can be
obtained.

TABLE 4 APPROXIMATEHULL AND OUTFITWEIGHTS

IN PER CENT
Castings Equipment
and and
Item ~ Steel Wood forgings outfit
Classes
1-Ocean . . . . . 70 10 . 10 10
2-Coastwise.. 70 10 10 10
3-Harbor . . . . 75 8 10 7
4-River . . . . . 80 7 8 5
580 MODERN TUG DESIGN
MAIN PROPULSION MACHINERY
In years gone by, m a n y successful tugs have had
steam reciprocating machinery as their main
power of propulsion. The main advantages of
such an installation are, of course, rather obvious.
With the slow turning steam engine a propeller
with a large diameter can be used, the pitch-to-
diameter ratio can be close to unity and the fuel
burned is generally much cheaper than Diesel oil.
One also can control the propeller revolutions from
practically zero to full power revolutions and in
this way obtain a great degree of maneuverability.
However, m a n y disadvantages have forced the
steam engine out of the picture and most boats of
today are equipped with Diesel engines. Several
authors have commented on the relative advan-
tages of steam and Diesel drives, such as E. F.
Moran, Jr. (18), C. D. Roach (24), and P. G.
Tomalin (30). All of them come out in favor of
the Diesel engine and the trend of t o d a y justifies
them completely. Some of the disadvantages of
the steam engine as compared to the modern
Diesel drive are: The space taken up b y the
boilers; the large crew required to operate the
steam power plant; the cost of stand-by opera-
tion; the time necessary to bring up the steam to
the prescribed temperature and pressure; and
last, b u t not least, the high specific fuel consump-
tion of the steam power plant.
Diesel engines, with some method of connection
between the engine and the propeller, are almost
universally employed as main propulsion units in
American tugboats. Four different ways of con-
necting the engine to the propeller .~e listed here
as representative of modern trends :
(a) Directly connected, reversible Diesel.
(b) Nonreversible Diesel with reverse reduc-
tion gear drive or torque converter.
(c) Diesel-electric drive (nonreversible Diesel).
(d) Nonreversible Diesel with conventional
reduction gear and controllable-pitch propeller.
The direct-connected, reversible Diesel is clearly
an a t t e m p t to incorporate all the advantages of
the steam reciprocating engine into a power plant
t h a t would not have the inherent disadvantages of
steam. These are slow, h e a v y - d u t y engines and
starting is normally done b y air. In a harbor tug
power plant, where maneuvering is a prime
requirement, a large capacity of air must be pres-
ent at all times, resulting in large and cumbersome
air tanks and compressors. An accidental loss of
air will mean loss of maneuverability and might
prove disastrous. Accordingly, the United States
Coast Guard regulations state that sufficient air
m u s t be available for twelve starts, with the com-
pressor capable of recharging the air tanks in 60
rain. This is hardly sufficient today, when most
controls of a tugboat are on the bridge and the
master, under adverse circumstances, m a y use up
all, or very nearly all of the air before realizing
that the engines have reached sufficient revolu-
tions for starting. To overcome this difficulty,
m a n y tug owners specify larger air tanks than this
with a capacity of as m a n y as 40 starts.
Another serious disadvantage of the direct-con-
nected Diesel engine is its weight, since this slow-
turning engine weighs much more than the con-
ventional moderate to high-speed Diesel.
Finally, some of the directly connected Diesels
have a high enough starting r p m so as to start the
boat with a jerk, an action which often results in
broken lines and hawsers.
To avoid all the disadvantages of the slow-run-
ning Diesel, clutch-operated, nonreversible Diesel
drives have been developed. These systems in-
elude, in addition to the regular Diesel engine,
some kind of mechanical clutch and reversing
mechanism plus a conventional reduction gear, or
a clutch without a reversing mechanism and a
reduction gear incorporating a reversing feature.
Several types of clutches with or without reversing
features have been developed, the most i m p o r t a n t
of which are the Falk Airflex type, the Maybaeh,
the American Blower, the Westinghouse, and the
Elliot clutches. T h e last two are electric, the
American Blower is hydraulic, the M a y b a c h is
mechanical, and the Falk is operated b y air.
Some companies also have developed reverse-re-
duction gears which, as the name implies, incor-
porate a reversing feature. De-Laval Steam
Turbine C o m p a n y has developed the so-called
H i n d m a r c h - D e L a v a l reverse reduction gear and
Western Gear Works has developed a similar unit.
Several other companies have prototype reverse re-
duction gears in the making, b u t only the DeLaval
and Western Gear units have been actually in-
stalled on boats. One of the most serious dis-
advantages of this type of propulsion with any of
the systems mentioned is t h a t the propeller is not
able to absorb all the power developed b y the en-
gine at all times and t h a t a corresponding reduc-
tion in engine revolutions would be necessary as
the ship's speed is changed from the design speed
to any other lower speed. Again, if the design
speed is some towing speed, the revolutions will
have to be kept constant from there to free route
speed to avoid overspeeding the engine, with a re-
sultant serious loss in total thrust available.
To overcome this serious disadvantage, Na-
tional Supply C o m p a n y has developed a torque
converter, similar to its industrial type A 342-100
converter, but with the addition of a second sta-
tor, pump, and turbine unit to incorporate a re-
 MODERN TUG DESIGN 381

versing feature. While this unit is still in the ex- ciency of the generator and motor would be ap-
perimental and testing stages, it promises to in- proximately 92.5 per cent each so t h a t the total
corporate all the advantages of the Diesel-electric transmission efficiency would be a b o u t 83.7 per
drive without the h e a v y transmissioli-losses asso- cent allowing 2.2 per cent for Voltage drops, in-
ciated with it. cidental electrical losses, and so forth. Thus the
T h e Diesel-electric drive uses the Diesel engine shaft horsepower developed would be 1256, a loss
as a generator to produce electric power and a pro- of 244 horsepower from B H P to SHP. On the
pulsion m o t o r to convert the electric power thus other hand, if a torque converter were used in
generated back into mechanical power. I t is cus- conjunction with a conventional reduction gear,
t o m a r y to use a conventional reduction gear in the slippage losses in the torque converter would
conjunction with this t y p e of drive, so as to avoid amount to 3 or 4 per cent and the total transmis-
an unusually large and bulky electric motor. T h e sion efficiency would be approximately 95 per cent,
propulsion m o t o r can be either of the single or giving an S H P of 1425 for the same 1500-bhp
double-armature type and b y weakening or engine, a net gain of 169 hp, or 11.3 per cent of the
strengthening the field of the motor, full power ab- total power developed.
sorption at all speeds of the vessel can be realized. A system employing a controllable-pitch pro-
This advantage, plus the fact t h a t maneuver- peller consists of a nonreversible high or medium-
ability and control of the system is excellent under speed Diesel engine, a conventional reduction gear
all conditions, have made the Diesel-electric drive and, of course, a controllable-pitch propeller.
one of the most popular ones in modern tugboats~ i Several such propellers are in the m a r k e t today,
Reversing is obtained b y reversing the field of the such as the K A - M E - W A , the Liaaen-Wegner and
motor, and reversing times of from 2 to 3 sec have the Baldwin-Lima-Hamilton, to mention just a
been quoted. few of a still expanding field. T h e advantages of
Several other advantages of the Diesel-electric the controllable-pitch propeller are fairly obvious
drive over the conventional direct-connected Die- and would include the significant reduction in
sel are listed, see also references (10, 18, 24 and weight over the Diesel-electric or reverse-reduc-
3 0 ) ; the abilil~y of the power p l a n t t o obtain tion-gear drives and the ability to m a t c h the
about 80 per cent of the Free or towing speeds with wheel, to some extent at least, to the main engines
only one of two prime movers; the free selection of at all speeds. However, this, like every other sys-
propeller and engine speeds, thus avoiding as tem, has some disadvantages t h a t m u s t be con-
much as possible "compromise" designs; the sidered and evaluated before a decision as to the
constant rotation of the engine in one direction; method of propulsion for a particular tugboat can
the ability ,of the power plant to furnish large be reached. Some of the disadvantages are strictly
quantities of electricity to other boats and shore hydrodynamic in nature and will be discussed
installations; the use of electric auxiliaries to later on, b u t one serious disadvantage should be
start the engine, to operate the steering engine mentioned here; namely, complication of control
and 'the possibility of having an automatic towing and increased maintenance expenses. I t is true
machine. T h e advantages of the latter are dis~ t h a t controllable-pitch propellers have not been
cussed at some length in reference (18) b y E. F. on the m a r k e t long enough to say one way or
Moran, Jr. T h e author states t h a t in long-dis- another if their complicated control system will re-
tance towing the automatic electric towing ma- quire more extensive and expensive maintenance
chine has been found to p l a y a most important work than, say, the Diesel-electric system, b u t all
part through its inherent ability to select and indications so far-point towards t h a t conclusion.
maintain line tensions and keep the towline length Be this as it may, the advantages of the control-
at the desired scope without constant supervision. lable-pitch propeller are such t h a t it merits very
These primary advantages, the writer continues, serious consideration in every design. One also
have come to attention m a n y times, particularly should keep in mind t h a t several controllable-
under adverse weather conditions. Through the pitch propellers are available t o d a y and t h a t
ability of the machine to p a y out in time of exces- one particular wheel m a y be far superior from
sive pull and to reeve in when too little pull pro- both the mechanical and h y d r o d y n a m i c points of
duces an excessive bite, the wear and tear of the view to another propeller, similar in all appear-
towing cable has been reduced substantially and ances. In short, it is the beliefof the author t h a t
the life of the cable has been prolonged. the whole field of controllable-pitch propellers
T h e main disadvantages of the Diesel-electric should be investigated carefully before such a
drive is the transmission loss of the system. For method of propulsion is discarded in favor of the
example, in a conventional installation with the more conventional fixed-pitch wheel.
main engine developing, say, 1500 hp, the effi- Lately, several novel systems of propulsion
382 MODERN
have been discussed in the trade magazines.
M o s t of these systems are not directly applicable
to the field of tugboats, b u t one merits perhaps
somewhat more attention; namely, the application
of a free-piston gas generator to a tugboat. The
free-piston gas generator has been discussed at
some length in several recent technical papers and
~~
v k (towing)
F~G. 12 RELATION BI~TWEEN TOW RESISTANC~ AND TUG H P AVA'ILABLE
FOR TOWING
is beyond the scope of this study, b u t the possi-
bility of the installation of such a unit in a tugboat
might be worth discussing, especially since such
a system was actually sketched out b y N. L.
H a w k s (11). The particular advantages of this
system would be the low weight-to-horsepower
ratio in comparison with any Diesel or steam
system (Mr. H a w k s states t h a t this ratio for the
free-piston gas generator is only 60 per cent of the
corresponding figure for a directly connected Die-
sel engine) and the possibility of having a smaller
engine room. Reference (11) shows a sizable re-
duction in machinery-space requirements for this
system as comPared to the direct-connected Diesel
power plant. Aside from the inherent disadvan-
tages this system would have, its main, and per-
haps prohibitive, disadvantage is t h a t it exists
only on paper and t h a t it has never been tried,
even in a remotely similar application.
Sooner or later, every tug designer faces the
problem of a one-engine installation versus a two-
engine installation. The answer to this problem
m a y not be as obvious as it appears, when one
takes into consideration endurance and speed and
fuel consumption at reduced power. A one-en-
gine installation has t h e . a d v a n t a g e of simplicity,
be it of the reversible or nonreversible type, and
in addition a saving in weight and space m a y be
realized. On the other hand, a twin-engine in-
stallation provides reliability in the form of a
stand-by unit in case of trouble, since even a tug
TUG DESIGN
with one half of its total power is better than a tug
with no power at all. Add to this the savings in
fuel costs t h a t a two engine installation will m a k e
possible when the b o a t has to operate under re-
duced power and the pendulum seems to swing
towards the two-engine installation. The author
believes t h a t a twin-engine installation should be
/ i ~
Tow resistance
Tug HP a v a i - l a b l e
I
given first consideration for coastwise and ocean
tugs at least, unless specific reasons and design
considerations force a single engine power plant
adoption.
PROPELLERS AND PROPELLER D E S I G N
The main reason for the existence of a t u g b o a t is
the pulling and pushing of large vessels. I t fol-
lows, then, t h a t one of the most i m p o r t a n t parts,
if indeed not the most i m p o r t a n t part, of a tug-
boat, is its propeller. C. D. Roach (24) says:
" T h e cost of present-day harbor tugs is in the or-
der of $15 to $17 per pound of bollard pull. The
difference between a well-designed wheel and a
wheel-designed for. other than o p t i m u m towing
conditions, m a y well result in differences of 20 to
30 per cent in bollard pull . . . . " F r o m these
figures alone one can see clearly how i m p o r t a n t
the propeller design can be in a tugboat" and it is
doubtful t h a t there would be a n y b o d y with even
an outsider's knowledge of tugboats t h a t will argue
the point t h a t a proper wheel is the most impor-
t a n t factor in the success of a tugboat. Although
this fact seems to be common knowledge, very few
designers p a y particular attention to the propeller
design, and most propellers are designed for maxi-
m u m efficiency at free running speed, with practi-
cally complete disregard of the performance of
such a wheel at towing speeds. T h e reason for
this attitude is not very clear, unless, perhaps, it
 MODERN
is because it is much easier t o base the design of
the propeller on the free route speed and forget
a b o u t its performance at any other condition.
Some designers figure out a propeller based on the
free running speed of the vessel and then cut the.
speed-to-diameter ratio down from 5 to 15 per
bent to obtain a wheel suitable for towing. This
........... is ~/-ratfidr a r b i t r a r y vcay of designing a propeller,
to say the least, and as such does not merit .any
serious consideration.
I t is the firm belief of the author that, in general,
tugboat propellers m u s t be designed for reason-
able towing speeds of from 4 to 8 knots. This
statement, perhaps, requires some clarification.
To begin with, it is not m e a n t to apply in any con-
dition without any further investigation. M a n y
times, for example, a tug m a y be designed with a
particular tow or run in mind and the owner m a y
even specify the particular speed of the tow t h a t he
wants. In t h a t particular case, the propeller-de-
sign problem is clear and the tugboat horsepower
available for towing m u s t be matched to the re-
sistance of the tow. Fig. 12 gives a typical
graphical representation of the problem and its
solution.
Again, in some other cases, and especially in the
case of a tug t h a t is designed specifically for the
handling of large vessels during docking and un-
docking maneuvers, it m a y be wise to design the
propeller for m a x i m u m pull at practically zero
speed of advance of the boat. However, if a tug
is to be occupied fully in a large harbor, quick dis-
patch m a y be just as important as delivering
m a x i m u m possible thrust at bollard pull. I t can
be shown t h a t this condition would become criti-
cal if the tugboat is equipped with a reverse-
reduction-gear-drive or a directly connected
Diesel engine. In a Diesel-electric drive on the
other hand, a propeller designed for some towing
speed other than zero will lose only a very small
percentage in bollard-pull thrust in comparison
with a wheel specifically designed for m a x i m u m
possible thrust at the bollard. Particular calcula-
tions for such a eomparlson have been carried out
for the case of a 1500-shp tugboat. One propeller
was designed for towing at 7 knots and showed a
bollard pull of 46,300 lb and another was de-
signed for m a x i m u m efficiency at bollard pull.
Both wheels were of the same diameter and the
latter developed a bollard pull of 47,500 lb, or an
increase of about 2.5 per cent. Consequently, it
appears t h a t the loss in bollard pull in the Diesel-
electric drive for a propeller designed for some
towing speed other than zero can be disregarded "
in most cases.
The problems mentioned are only two of the
cases where the propeller of the tugboat might be
TUG DESIGN 383
designed with a particular goal in mind. How-
ever, most of the time a tug is designed for general
work in and around the harbor and rigid require-
ments cannot be quoted, except t h a t the b o a t
should have a certain free running speed and t h a t
it should show a specific minimum bollard pull.
For preliminary design purposes, a well-designed
wheel should-develop a b o u t 30 lb of thrust a t
bollard pull per shaft horsepower installed, al-
though this figure m a y v a r y slightly from design
to design. L . C . Norgaaxd (21-) estimates the ex-
pected boUard pull at 33.6 lb (0.015 tons) per de-
livered horsepower, a difficult figure to reach at
times. E . F . Moran, Jr. (18) states t h a t the ex-
pected bollard pull should be from 28.5 to 30 lb per
SHP, irrespective of type and size of machinery
installation. A . R . Taylor (28) gives the towing
effort in tons as equal to the estimated I H P times
0.01125 irrespective of towing s p e e d - - a rather
novel idea. D . S . Simpson (27) points out t h a t
when the speed of the tow is specifically stated, the
resistance and hence the required power is difficult
to predict since it involves investigation of the re-
sistance of the tow as well as of the tugboat, tide
and current conditions, and, if total time is an ob-
ject, the examination of the terminal handling.
He further states t h a t when the towrope pull and
speed are known, the required delivered horse-
power can be approximated b y the following for-
mula
where D H P = VP/IO0
V = speed, knots
P =: towrope pull, Ib
i
To this result, the power required for the tug
must be added. Finally, the brake horsepower
can be estimated by
B H P = k X (total from above)
k = 1.10 for direct drive or geared Diesel
k = 1.25 for Diesel-electric drive
Mr. Simpson also states t h a t the bollard pull
will be equal or close to 22.4 lb (0.01 tons) per
S H P irrespective of size or type of machinery.
Some propeller-sizing charts for three and four-
bladed propellers for both the towing and free
running conditions are given in reference (39).
Unfortunately, the charts do not extend above a
Bp value of 60, thus rendering them of slight prac-
tical use for modern tugboat propeller design.
For preliminary design, purposes, the same refer-
ence gives the bollard pull in pounds as equal to
5250 X B H P X T~
Bollard pull in pounds = RPM X D
where
384 MODERN TUG DESIGN

0.i0
Bollard -
~Uu~1, ibs = 5250 x BHP x To
RPMx D
R - 2700 x BHP '
Bollard PM 60 ~ RPM x, DSx T r !
12 BHP = Brake horsepower
RPM . Revs/min at Design Conditions 0.09
D = Propeller Diameter in Feet
Tn = Thrust/Torque Constant (from c u r v e ,
Tr = Torque Constant (from curvi' ~

11 0.08

o
v ' l& Blede~ 'que Con 5tent E~
0.07
t / ' r o r q u,
w stent ~ 3 Bled ~s =
o
0 o
o
o
o
=9 0.06
%
~3 Bled(
o , L BIa~ o

Io

~8 0.05

/
J
7 O.O&

/ if
i l
0.03

O. 02
5
0.6 0.7 0.8 0.9 1.0 i.i 1.2 1.3 l.&
Pitch/Diameter RB tic
F x o . 13 TUGBOAT PROPELLER PERFORMANCE AND BOLLARD PULL
 MODERN TUG DESIGN 385

2h
22 in Ibs is:

20 ~ effic
Vk x0.3065
available
horsepower
: speed in
16
@

o 12
e~
@
io

h
2

0
0 IO 20 30 ~o 50 60
Percent of Maximum Wheel Efficiency

FIG. 14 APPROXIMATE TOWING THRUST IN POUNDS

~6o

~ U p p e r Limit
IQ

~ 3o
Lo~ e r ~ t m i l ) ~ ~ ~ ~
~ 2o

o o 8 I0 12 lh 16 18 20 22 2h
SHP/Disk Area of Wheel

FIG. 15 APPROXIMATE BOLLARD THRUST IN POUNDS

B H P = brake horsepower for which propeller
was designed
R P M = propeller revolutions per minute at
design conditions
D = propeller diameter, ft
Tc = t h r u s t / t o r q u e constant, from Fig. 13
T h e revolutions per minute at bollard pull can
be found from the following equation
( 2700 B H P
R P M at bollard = 60 \ R P M - X ~D~ X
where T, -- torque constant, from Fig. 13, and
remaining symbols have the same meaning as
before.
NOTE : T h e foregoing figures and values are for
a disk-area ratio of 0.50 and for airfoil-type blade
sections at the roots only, sweeping out to the con-
ventional circular back sections from 0.50 radius
to the tips.
Finally, A. Caldwell (8) gives some empirical
formulas and curves for both the towing thrust and
the bollard pull of tugboats. These plots have
been reproduced in Figs. 14 and 15, modified some-
what to agree with modern American practice.
~'J' In the case of the bollard-puU curve, an envelope
Tr] rather than a single curve is given to allow for dif-
ferences in propeller types and design speeds.
I n the general case of a tugboat with no particu-
lar route or tow in mind, the propeller should be
designed for a reasonable towing speed of from 4
to 8 knots. T h e exact speed is a m a t t e r of judg-
386 MODERN
m e n t and up to the individual designer in conjunc-
tion with the owner, who must take into considera-
tion the particular service of the boat.
There are three methods of propeller design
commonly in use t o d a y a n d all three are discussed
at some length in reference (6). In brief, these
methods are:
(a) The statistical method developed from the
'early m o m e n t u m theory to the present vortex
theory.
(b) The self-propelled model test plus the open'
water test of the propeller.
(c) The propeller-series chart method.
In tugboat propeller design, the third method is
the one most commonly used and will be discussed
at some length. There are, in general, two types
of chart coefficients in use t o d a y (see also reference
6). The first one uses the following symbols
J = Va/nD
Kt = T/P,2D 4
K,, = T / P V~,2D 2 (eliminating revolutions)
Kq = Q/P,~2D5
eo = KtJ/2Kq
These are nondimensional coefficients and es-
pecially useful when the slip is high and J ap-
proaches zero. The second type uses D H P , Vk
and E H P instead of Q and T. The usual coeffi-
cients are
B Uo = Uol/'N/ Va 2.~
BP = P ' / ' N / V a 2.5
S = ND/I~5
KU = D V a l . 5 / U o V'
KP = D V a l . 5 / P '/'
The last two coefficients, which have been de-
veloped b y Professor Baier, do not contain N
and normally can be used to determine directly
the propeller characteristics with m a x i m u m effi-
ciency.
Either one of the two systems mentioned can be
used to determine and select the most efficient
wheel at a particular design speed other than bol-
lard pull. However, when one tries to determine
the propeller conditions at 100 per cent slip (bol-
lard pull) both systems fail, since they include
either the speed of advance of the boat (which at
bollard is clearly zero), or else an unknown quan-
t i t y in the face of the revolutions, which normally
will change as the speed of the vessel changes.
F. W. Benson (7) was the first one, to the
author's knowledge, to develop a system of coef-
ficients eliminating both the revolutions and the
speed of advance, thus enabling the designer to
proceed in the design of propellers of very high
slip and at low speeds of advance. Unfortu-
nately, his work is based completely on the metric
system and is not directly applicable to common
TUG DESIGN
American practice. C o m m a n d e r Richards T.
Miller (16) has modified the Benson system and
made it applicable to our pound-foot-second sys-
tem. The method shown in Appendix 1 is based
on both the original Benson system and Com-
mander Miller's modifications. Actually nothing
new has been added, except perhaps t h a t some of
the coefficients proposed b y Benson and Miller
have been manipulated to arrive at the desired
results.
Aside from the mathematics of the design, a few
other considerations m u s t be taken into account.
T o begin with, the type of propeller most suitable
for the boat in question m u s t be determined.
This is a rather i m p o r t a n t decision, since differ-
ent types of propellers are available, each having
its own characteristics and the designer m a y find
it difficult to choose between them. The two
most common types are the Troost and the T a y l o r
wheels. Under riormal operating conditions, the
Troost propeller (airfoil-type sections) is slightly
more efficient than the Taylor wheel, b u t if the
boat in question has to do some serious work while
backing, a Taylor propeller with symmetrical
(ogival type) sections m a y be a wiser choice.
A. J. C. Robertson (25) estimates t h a t a sym-
metrical propeller m a y be as much as 50 per cent
more efficient in the astern condition than a pro-
peller with rounded back blades. While an air-
foil wheel is not exactly a propeller with rounded
back blades and although this estimate is unusu-
ally high for airfoil-type wheels, empirical results
seem to indicate t h a t a Taylor propeller m a y be as
much as 10 per cent more efficient while backing
than a similar Troost wheel, while in normal ahead
conditions the Taylor propeller m a y b~. expected
to be only 2 per cent less efficient than the equiva-
lent Troost wheel. I t should be mentioned here
t h a t exact data on propellers operating in the as-
tern condition are not exactly a b u n d a n t and very
few tests comparing the efficiencies of different
types of wheels in both the ahead and astern con-
ditions have been carried out. The choice of the
type of wheel is then again left up to the designer,
but it is believed that, as most tugboats will re-
quire good backing qualities, a T a y l o r wheel m a y
be the final choice, although each ease should be
treated individually and without prejudice.
Finally, another question t h a t has to be an-
swered is how the turning m o m e n t is applied,
t h a t is to say one has to know if the turning mo-
ment is constant or if constant power is being de-
veloped. T h e answer to this question is fairly
simple if the type of machinery has been decided
upon definitely. However, a word of caution
m a y be necessary here. While a Diesel-electric
installation m a y provide constant power for all
 MODERN
h
/ /
Q /
@
1
0
O
. @
3
r..~N
"/
/
ID
10o 105
Shafthorsepower
Fio. 16 VARIATION IN SHAFTHORSEPOWER AND REVOLUTIONS PER MINUTE WITH
PROPELLER-TIP CLEARANCE FROM NOZZLE
operating ranges and give great flexibility to the
design, the transmission losses m a y be such as to
render some other type of power plant a more suit-
able one, especially if the towing speed at which
the propeller is being designed is rather high, say
above 60 per cent of the free route speed.
T h e discussion on propellers has been limited so
far to conventional, or fixed-pitch propellers.
Various ~ types of controllable-pitch propellers
have appeared in the m a r k e t over the past decade
a n d some manufacturers promise reliability and
"effieiencies equal to those of the fixed-pitch wheels.
In connection with the relative efficiencies of con-
trollable and fixed-pitch propellers, reference (1)
indicates t h a t well-designed controllable-pitch
propellers come v e r y close to the efficieneies of
Troost propellers. I t is true t h a t this reference
has compared only one of the m a n y controllable-
pitch propellers to the Troost wheels; n'amely,
the Lips-Schelde propeller, b u t the results of
these tests can be taken as a general trend in con-
trollable-pitch-propeller design, which has come a
long way since the first wheels of this type ap-
peared on the m a r k e t a few years ago.
While the relative efficiencies of the controllable
versus the fixed-p!tch propellers m a y be argued
one way or another, t h e simple fact t h a t more
complicated controls are added would tend to in-
dicate t h a t the probability of a breakdown is
higher in the case of the controllable-pitch wheel.
With the exception of one or two models, all the
control mechanisms of the controllable-pitch pro-
peUer are within the hub, so t h a t access to them
while the tugboat is on the high seas is impossible.
However, servomechanisms and controls have i m -
TUG DESIGN 387
/
p
/ ./
" C
- 110 115
and RI~
proved so much in the past few years, t h a t an an-
nual inspection of the hub, propeller and controls
should suffice to ensure proper function of the
system. Aside, then, from a slight loss in effi-
ciency due to the large hub involved and perhaps
a rather high original investment, the most serious
disadvantage of the controllable-pitch propeller
as compared to the fixed-pitch wheel is, strange as
it m a y sound, its poor ability to deliver astern
thrust. This will v a r y with the t y p e of wheel in
question. T h e author has had access to very
limited test results; the figures seem to indicate
that a controllable-pitch propeller can deliver only
about 80 to 85 per cent of the astern thrust as
compared to a well-designed T a y l o r wheel.
Reference (2) shows t h a t the results of a series of
tests conducted with comparable Troost and
Lips-Schelde propellers indicate t h a t the Troost
wheels were able to deliver about 20 per cent more
thrust in the astern condition than the controll-
able-pitch wheels, provided the Troost wheel was
designed for the bollard and not the free running
condition. F r o m other tests (references 20 and
25) it appears as if a Taylor wheel' should be able
to deliver even more thrust in the astern condition
than a comparable Troost propeller and even if the
Taylor wheel is designed for some other rhasonable
towing speed and not strictly for bollard pull, it is
expected t h a t it will deliver about 20 per cent
more thrust in the astern bollard condition than a
comparable controllable-pitch propeller.
T h e inability, so t o speak, to deliver astern
thrust, might, of course, be a very serious objec-
tion to the installation of a controllable-pitch pro-
peller in a tugboat, especially if the vessel is a hat-
 388
22
D
4.$
2O
12
o
l0
o
J
J
0 0.I
Recomnended
bor tug and is expected to dock and undock large
ships. As far as design goes, the controllable-
pitch propeller is usually designed b y the manu-
facturer and not the naval architect. This being
the case, very little can be said about design con-
siderat!ons, except t h a t from past performance
data and purely theoretical considerations it is
known that the uniform pitch should be set for
some low p i t c h - t o - d i a m e t e r r a t i o and an allowance
should be made for the blades to turn to their
higher-than-normal pitch ratio at high speeds or
free running conditions. This undoubtedly will
raise the efficiency of the wheel at towing speeds,
while it will not seriously hamper the efficiency at
free running speed.
An interesting exception to the normal proce-
dure of having the manufacturer supply the de-
sign of the ccmtrollable-pitch propeller is a paper
recently presented b y Prof. Laurence Troost (32)
in which a simplified method of designing a con-
trollable-pitch propeller for a tugboat is presented.
In this paper,' Professor Troost discusses at some
length his proposed method and shows various
ways in which revolutions, thrust and efficiency
can be obtained for two different types of propel-
lers, type A and type B. T y p e A propellers are
designed for m a x i m u m possible diameter and effi-
ciency at an o p t i m u m number of revolutions b y
the proper selection of gear ratio between pro-
peller and engine. T y p e B wheels are designed
for the m a x i m u m possible efficiency at o p t i m u m
diameter and given revolutions and are mainly
used for directly connected Diesels. M o s t tug-
MODERN TUG DESIGN
/
/
//
/ Relation Betweer
Propeller Diameter and
Tip Clearance in ~c
Nozzles
0.2 0.3 C.h O.
Clearance in inches (Blade Tip to Nozzle}
FIG. 17
boat propellers, Professor Troost says, will be of
the A type and he carries out some calculations
for a B4-55 controllable-pitch wheel for m a x i m u m
thrust and efficiency at the free route and bollard
pull conditions. Unfortunately, the formulas de-
veloped are geared to the Troost-type propellers
only, since they are based on ~-g charts t h a t are to
be found in reference (33), but not in reference
(29) or (37). I t is true t h a t ~ and ~ are related
to Kt and Kq, 4 but if only Kt and Kq charts are
available, the calculation for the determination
for ~ and ~ and the subsequent application of the
Troost method becomes somewhat laborious, if
not difficult to follow.
Since the tugboat propeller is usually rather"
heavily loaded, the application of a K o r t nozzle
might merit serious consideration. The improve-
m e n t of propulsive efficiency obtained with the
nozzle is mainly due to the contraction of the race
behind the propeller and is most pronounced at
high slips. If the draft of the tugboat is restricted
for some reason and an o p t i m u m diameter wheel
Cannot be fitted, several authors claim (12, 23, 26)
t h a t a K o r t nozzle m a y improve the efficiency of a
conventional, small diameter wheel b y as much as
30 or 40 per cent. If the tugboat is expected to
work with long tows up and down along the coast-
line, and if the foregoing figures can be trusted as
representing true conditions outside the test basin,
a K o r t nozzle can save a lot of m o n e y for its owner.
4 T h e r e l a t i o n b e t w e e n ~, , Kc a n d Kq is
# = 1/(Kq)l/l
Ki
" = ;)~ Kq
 MODERN TUG DESIGN
But if the tug is expected to do aU kinds of work
in and around the harbor, then a K o r t nozzle m a y
not be worth considering, since the already bad
astern characteristics of the propeller will be made
even worse with the addition of the' nozzle.: Of
course, one m a y argue t h a t the shape of the nozzle
m a y be modified to allow for reasonable astern
thrust, in which case, though, the ahead improve-
m e n t in efficiency m u s t be sacrificed.
Theoretically at least, there are m a n y argu-
ments in favor of a Kort-nozzle application. Dr.
J. D. van M a n e n (14) e,cen mentions t h a t in cer-
tain cases the K o r t nozzle m a y prove advanta-
geous at relatively low propeller loadings. In
particular, he states t h a t systematic experiments
conducted at the Wageningen naval t a n k have
proven t h a t if the length of the nozzle is kept to no
more than 30 per cent of the propeller diameter
and the blade-tip clearance has a certain value as
recommended b y the writer, an increase in effi-
ciency can be realized b y the addition of the nozzle
even at very low propeller loadings of the order of
Bp = 13. T h e writer gives what he considers to
be the best tip clearances and the figures given in
reference (14) are reproduced here as Figs. 16
and 17. Fig. 16 gives the variation in shaft horse-
power and revolutions per minute with propeller-
tip clearance from the nozzle and Fig. 17 gives the
tip clearances recommended b y Dr. van Manen.
In both cases the values given have been converted
to the equivalent English system of measurements
to make them directly applicable to propeller and
nozzle design in the United States.
F r o m these two figures it can be seen clearly
t h a t the advantage gained b y the addition of the
nozzle m a y be nullified b y increasing the tip clear-
ance. I t also can be seen t h a t very small clear-
ances are recommended, so small as to make them
impractical in actual applications. From Fig. 17
one can see t h a t a tip clearance of approximately
0.3 in. is recommended for a 13-ft-diam wheel, and
from Fig. 16 it is seen t h a t about 10 per cent more
horsepower is-needed in the bollard condition to
deliver the same thrust if the tip clearance is in-
creased to a more attainable, but still rather small,
value of 1.00 in. Nevertheless, it appears that,
from a hydrodynamic point of view, the use of the
K o r t nozzle need not be restricted to heavily
loaded screws, provided the structural and opera-
tional difficulties of a nozzle with very small tip
clearances and practically no connecting supports
between the nozzle and the hull can be overcome.
The-main disadvantage of a Kort-nozzle appli-
cation lies in just t h a t fact: In theory, the nozzle
is more efficient than the open propeller; in prac-
tice, the small tip clearances recommended and
the need for an absolute minimum of structural
589
members between the hull and the nozzle are
practically impossible t o achieve, not to mention
the difficulties in the construction of the normal
nozzle in itself. I t also might be mentioned here
t h a t several towboat skippers operating on the in-
land waterways, and notably on the Mississippi
river run, have been complaining t h a t a Kort-
nozzle application has been resulting in bad steer-
ing qualities of their boats at towing speeds. I t
is entirely conceivable, though, t h a t in the near
future most of the problems associated with the
K o r t nozzle of t o d a y will be solved b y the most ad-
vanced engineering of tomorrow and thus, what
appears to be impractical in most applications at
present, m a y become entirely sound practice in the
future.
The K o r t system of propulsion has both its
followers and its detractors. Both consist of
large groups of naval architects or h y d r o d y n a m i -
cists and each group claims to be correct. T h e
author has listened to both sides of the argument
and it appears t h a t both groups are right, at least
partially. T h e pro group has a sound theoretical
basis and can easily prove b y tests or m a t h e m a t i -
cal arguments t h a t the K o r t nozzle is definitely, at
least in most cases, an efficient shrouding for al-
most any propeller. The con group can argue,
with the same effectiveness, t h a t although the
theory is right, the practice proves the nozzle im-
practical in all b u t a very few, extreme cases.
When all is said and done, however, it might still
be to the advantage of the tugboat designer, even
for plain educational purposes, to look into the
Kort-nozzle system of propulsion and the possi-
bility of its application to any one design.
MANEUVERABILITY
The rudder design and consequent influence on
maneuverability of a tugboat is perhaps nearly as
i m p o r t a n t as the selection of the proper engines
and the propeller design. The ability to turn
quickly, though, is .not entirely a function of the
size or design of the rudder. Even the best pos-
sible rudder will not be sufficient, unless the shape
of the hull is proper and such factors as keel drag
have been taken into consideration.
Keel drag is not very seriously looked upon in
this country as aiding in the steering ability of the
boat. T h e author agrees here with C. D. Roach
(24) who, commenting upon tugboat keel drag in
this country, says t h a t more drag to the keel m a y
very well improve tugboats as far as response to
the helm is concerned. T h e reason for this is
quite clear when one remembers t h a t adding drag
to the keel also moves the center of lateral resist-
ance aft, thus improving the response of the boat
to the helm. Fig. 18 is what the author believes
390 MODERN
\\
3
Rot c h ' s iMean
l.if e
o
M
i
0 20 40
FIG. 18 TUGBOAT KEEL DRAG IN PER CENT OF L B P
to be a good drag to L B P ratio, plotted against
length between perpendiculars. Thirty-four dif-
ferent points have been plotted, representing
thirty-four modern tugboats, and one can see
easily from the figure t h a t hardly a n y of the points
falls above the recommended curve. C. D.
Roach's mean line, as appearing in reference (24),
has been added to this figure to show the difference
between the actual and the recommended amount
of keel drag found in most modern designs. As
Roach observecl, the tugs above the mean line,
and hence closest to the recommended line, have
the reputation of being very maneuverable and as
having exceptionally quick response to the helm.
A tugboat, unlike other vessels, is called upon to
perform freak operations, such as turning a tow
m a n y times its length and displacement efficiently
and in the minimum possible radius under adverse
wind and weather conditions. As a result of
these peculiar requirements, m a n y different and
peculiar rudder types for tugboats have been de-
veloped and in an effort to increase maneuvera-
bility as much as possible, the ratio of rudder area
to the lateral plane area for tugs is unusually high.
This ratio is, of course, quite important. Numer-
ous formulas for its determination have been
given at one time or another b y m a n y authors.
These normally help the designer in determining
the rudder area required, but in most cases the
area thus determined is on the low side for tug-
boats. The following formulas are quoted here as
giving good results and as being the most appro-
priate ones in tugboat rudder design:
(a) A. Caldwell (8) states t h a t the minimum
rudder area should be equal to
"At m i n i m u m = 0.0275A~
TUG DESIGN
Re, : o m m e ,ded ,ine
,
60 80 100 120 140 160 ]80
LBP, Feet
where
Ar = rudder area
A ~ = midship section area
(b) L . C . Norgaard (21) states t h a t a rudder
area of 6.3 per cent of the lateral plane area in a
harbor tug of moderate size has given good maneu-
vering characteristics.
(c) D . S . Simpson (27) gives the minimum per-
centage of the rudder area to the lateral plane area
as approximately equal to 5 per cent (a somewhat
low figure) and states t h a t this figure would de-
crease with increasing size.
(d) A . R . Taylor (28) gives the recommended
rudder area as equal to 1/45 of the area of the im-
mersed waterplane.
No hard and fast rule can be applied in this case,
since one vessel that is very maneuverable as far
as one skipper and d u t y is concerned, is slow in
response for another and vice versa. In very
general terms it can be stated, though, t h a t 6 to
6.5 per cent ratio of rudder area to lateral plane
area will give a maneuverable harbor tug. For
ocean-going and salvage tugs, a somewhat smaller
ratio can safely be used.
Once the rudder area has been determined, the
shape and type of the rudder m u s t be decided
upon. I t is a very common misconception and
belief t h a t an airfoil-type section will give maxi-
m u m lift. The actual fact is t h a t a symmetrical,
aerodynamic section will give m a x i m u m lift to
drag ratio, or, in other words, have minimum re-
sistance, b u t t h a t does not indicate b y any means
t h a t a section of t h a t type has m a x i m u m lift
characteristics. Lift, of course, is directly pro-
 MODERN TUG DESIGN
~Rudder axis
- sFishtaill
J L.E. A - A
(a) Flat Plate Rudder
Rudder axis
c
FlapC~
T'EL_L.__ - .E.
( c ) S y , n , n e t r i c ' , l Rud,ler w i t h A d j a a t a b l e
FIG. 19
pdrtional to turning force, and maximum turning
force is what the tugboat skipper is after. In gen-
eral, we can distinguish three different types of tug
rudders, namely:
(a) The conventional fiat plate rudder with or
without "fishtails" at the trailing edge.
(b) The symmetrical, aerodynamic section
rudder, with or without "fishtails" at the trailing
edge and
(c) A symmetrical, aerodynamic section type
rudder with an adjustable flap.
Fig. 19 gives a general idea of what the three
different types of rudders mentioned might look
like. All types are shown as balanced, a fairly
common procedure in American design, and, for
simplicity reasons, the assumption of balance is
retained in the discussion that follows as well as
in Appendix 2, where an analysis of the relative
merits of the three types is presented.
The most common tugboat rudders of today are
of the conventional type (type a in Fig. 19) with
wedge flaps or fishtails. This type of rudder
gives high lift when the vessel is going ahead and
consequently is excellent for maneuvering in that
particular condition. The drag, or resistance, of
this type of rudder is rather high, but can be ac-
cepted as the penalty one has to pay for high
ahead maneuverability. On the other hand,
backing with it is unsatisfactory because of the
perpendicular rectangle presented to the water in
this condition, and a tug equipped with this type
of rudder does not steer as well in the astern con-
391
Rudder axis
T. I..E. B- B
(b) Symmetrical Rudder
C -C
fflap
TYPES OF TUG RUDDERS
dition as one equipped with a streamlined (air-
foil-type) rudder.
The symmetrical, airfoil-type rudder (type b)
without fishtails, gives maximum lift to drag
ratio but less lift than type a. In this way it pro-
vides less steering ability when going ahead, but is
superior to the flat-plate rudder when going
astern. If this rudder is fitted with fishtails at the
trailing edge, it becomes in effect a type a rudder
and the discussion on that type of rudder applies
in general terms here as well.
The symmetrical rudder with adjustable flap
(type c) possesses all the advantages of both types
a and b rudders. The flapped rudder will provide
for high lift for ahead maneuverability and, since
the rudder is of symmetrical airfoil sections, it will
have minimum resistance or drag when on t h e
centerline. Control of the adjustable flap can be
by means of a mechanical linkage that would
adjust the flap automatically to the proper angle
as the main rudder is operated.
Some will argue correctly that the flapped rud-
der will be more vulnerable than either the flat-
plate or the airfoil rudder and t h a t for the sake of
reliability this type of rudder should not be used.
The point of maintenance and repair bills for such
a rudder also has been raised, and there is no
doubt that the repair bills on a symmetrical rud-
der with adjustable flap will be much higher than
the practically nonexisting repair bills of the more
conventional flat-plate or airfoil-type rudders.
Both arguments are well taken. Consequently,
392 MODERN TUG DESIGN
the discussion presented in Appendix 2 is by no
means intended to convince all tugboat designers
and owners that they should use a flapped rudder,
but is shown in order to indicate clearly the rela-
tive advantages this type of rudder m a y have, if
ever perfected, over the more conventional ones.
The linkage system of this rudder is by no means
foolproof and a slight shock to the flap m a y result
in jamming it in a most unfortunate position, thus
rendering the tugboat virtually helpless. I t is
hoped, though, that some ingenious designer will
come up with a safety device which will cause the
flai~ to return to the centerline when damaged,
so that even a damaged rudder of this type will
never be worse than a corresponding symmetrical
one. As for the repair bills to the linkage mecha-
nism, o n e may argue that servomechanisms are
becoming more reliable every day and that in the
forseeable future they may become as reliable as
the relatively simple steering engines of today.
However, until such a day when both the jam-
ming and the expected high repair bills of this
rudder are overcome, the tugboat designer will do
well to stick to the reliable flat-plate or symmetri-
cal airfoil rudders, despite the hydrodynamic ad-
vantages a symmetrical rudder with an adjustable
flap m a y possess over them.
Before closing the rudder section, several other
more novel types of rudders should be discussed
briefly. The most common of these is perhaps the
flanking rudder which is used mainly on tow-
boats, but could very well be adapted for use of
tugboats as well. These rudders, usually installed
in pairs forward of the conventional rudder loca-
tion and on the side of the hull so as not to inter-
fere with the stream of water delivered to the pro-
peller have been fairly successful, although they
did not come up to expectations in all cases. It is
believed that such rudders could be helpful in
steering a tugboat, especially when the boat is
going astern, but lack of experimentation in this
field makes it impossible to reach a definite con-
clusion one way or another.
Centerboard-type rudders that lift into the hull
when not in use also have been tried on barges
and towboats, but the results were disheartening.
The rudders worked fine the first few times, but
an interference in the form of some floating object,
such as a log, would jam them into place, thus
raising havoc with the tow.
Finally, C. D. Roach suggested some time back
that a reversed symmetrical airfoil-type section
rudder m a y prove to possess all the advantages of
both the flat-plate and the conventional airfoil
types. This rudder would have the leading and
trailing edges of the airfoil reversed, thus eliminat-
ing to a considerable extent the need for fishtails
at the trailing edge and at the same time would re-
tain all the advantages of the airfoil rudder when
backing. To the author's knowledge, this type of
rudder has not been tried as yet. I t is hoped
that some day comparative tests between Roach's
rudder and the more conventional ones will be
carried out and it will be interesting to see the re-
sults of these experiments.
The second factor that must be taken into con-
sideration as far as maneuverability is concerned
is engine controls. A good rudder and good and
reliabl e engine controls work together to make the
tugboat maneuverable and successful. Complete
pilothouse control of the engines is practically a
necessity and an engineer answering bells in the
engine room is as out of date as stiff collars and
silk hats. The advantages of having the instant
control of the movement of the vessel under one
person are too numerous to list and most of them
are readily apparent. No one familiar with tug-
boat operations will argue that in the delicate op-
eration of approaching a large vessel at sea in
rough weather for passing a towline, the maneu-
vering can be accomplished much more quickly
and safely if the boat is under a one-man control,
thus reducing the danger of contact with the
other vessel and serious damage. Again, when the .
tug has to maneuver in close quarters with or
without a tow, a one-man control of the boat in-
creases the confidence of the pilot and enables
him to perform the work safer and quicker. E . F .
Moran, Jr. (18) states that in passing through the
New York State Barge Canal locks, pilothouse
control has reduced the time for locking through
to about 50 per cent of that formerly required.
Pilothouse control also can be used to advantage in
most cases to reduce the rope breakage to a mini-
m u m by its ability to take up the strain slowly, and
in several cases has reduced the engine-room per-
sonnel by eliminating an engineer answering bells.
In most modern tugboats, two interconnected
engine control levers operating from the same con-
sole are provided in the pilothouse, one port, one
starboard, on either side of the steering wheel.
It is also customary to provide a control station
on top of the deckhouse, abaft and to the star-
board side of the stack, complete with steering
wheel and engine controls. Several tugboat
pilots have indicated that this additional control
is extremely important when the boat is maneuver-
ing in very close quarters and has been a life saver
several times. Anyone who has ever tried to turn
a boat around in slightly more than its own length
can appreciate the absolute necessity for such an
additional control station. Consequently, all
harbor and coastwise tugs at least should have
this additional control station.
 MODERN
I00
90
80
7o
60
4a
5o
3o
_ _ _
/<
0 I0 20 30
FIG. 20 RECOMMENDED OPERATING LIMITS OF DIESEL ENGINES
A one-lever control of the~ engines is highly rec-
ommended. Such a control usually can be supplied
either as an electrical or compressed-air unit.
Either system has certain advantages over the
other, but an analysis of each system and relative
comparisons with the other are beyond the scope
of this paper. The choice, then, of one particular
system over another is left up to the individuM de-
signer, the owner and the prospective master of
the tugboat.
Finally, the location of the towing b i t t will affect
the maneuverability of the tugboat while towing.
I t has been mentioned before t h a t no exact d a t a for
the best location of the towing point are available
in the form of test results, but the opinions of
several writers on the subject have been given. I t
is repeated here that, in the opinion of the author,
the best location of the towing point, taking into
consideration the necessity for decent arrange-
ments and accommodations in the deckhouse, is
about 60 per cent of the length of the boat aft of
the bow.
ENDURANCE
Endurance is generally disregarded in tugboat
design, since most tugs, under normal operating
conditions, are close enough to their base where
plenty of fuel is available. This is true up to a
point only. Another factor t h a t would come un-
der endurance is the prolonged operation under
some reduced speed a n d / o r power of the power
plant and it is well known t h a t t h e continuous
operation of a Diesel engine under other t h a n rec-
ommended brake mean effective pressure ( B M E P )
TUG DESIGN 393
X'"
// _e
/
!
&O 50 60 70 80 9O i00
Peroont RPM
values m a y very well result in serious carbon de-
posits 'and unnecessary wear and tear of the engine.
In a multiengine installation this can be avoided to
some extent b y operating under a reduced number
of engines, b u t in a single-engine install/ttion not -
much can be done except to operate the engine at
some acceptable B M E P value. I t would then be
helpful to the skipper and operator to know w h a t
his b o a t can do under reduced power and how far
it will go with the available fuel.
N o t much can be said as far as endurance is con-
cerned for the steam reciprocating engine, except
t h a t the fuel consumption is approximately di-
rectly proportional to the power developed. If
one then knows the power required to propel the
ship at a certain speed, the calculation of the en-
durance a t t h a t particular speed becomes elemen-
tary. F o r this reason, and since most tugboats of
t o d a y are equipped with Diesel engines, the dis-
eussion t h a t follows will be mainly concerned with
the Diesel engine.
Very little has been published concerning the
selection of engines and the methods of calculating
endurance for Diesel power plants. Mr. J. J.
T u r n e r (33) has treated this subject in a recent
paper, and although his work is mainly concerned
with naval vessels and their particular problems,
most of the findings can be applied successfully to
a n y Diesel machinery installation.
As Mr. Turner points out, certain calculations
and assumptions have to be made before one can
select the proper power plant for the design in
question and before the fuel requirements for a
specific eruis!ng radius can be estimated. Some
 394 MODERN
of the items necessary for calculating endurance
or selecting the proper engines are listed in order to
give a general idea of. what is required before one
can commence with the actual calculations:
(a) Full power shaft horsepower.
(b) Full power speed.
(c) Full power propeller revolutions.
(d) Cruising speed and endurance required.
(e) Cruising propeller revolutions.
(f) Total brake horsepower required.
(g) Speed-power curve for the boat.
The actual methods for calculating the fore-
going items should be fairly straightforward if the
necessary data for the calculation of each item can
be collected. At' times, however, data are not
readily available and in such a case Mr. T u r n e r ' s
paper (33) gives some assumptions t h a t are valid
and can be used in most cases.
I t might be mentioned here t h a t several engine
manufacturers have been very reluctant in the
past to supply information to the designer as to the
actual performance of their engines. In endur-
ance and fuel-consumption calculations the follow-
ing data are absolutely necessary before the de-
signer can reach a conclusion as to what the en-
gines actually can deliver and at what speed they
. can be operated safely:
(a) B H P and engine R P M versus BYIEP.
(b) B H P and engine R P M versus fuel con-
sumption.
These curves can be supplied in one plot and
should be made available b y all engine manufac-
turers to the designers upon request. The reluc-
tance of some manufacturers to supply the naval
architect with all necessary information for the
evaluation of a specific power plant is hard to un-
derstand and every effort should be made b y all
parties concerned to correct this unhealthy situa-
tion. To do justice to all, though, it m u s t be
mentioned here t h a t several engine manufacturers
have been co-operating with the designers in every
respect and t h a t the author has found the United
States N a v y ' s machinery section of the Bureau
of Ships very co-operative in supplying engine
d a t a t h a t otherwise were impossible to get.
The Diesel engine, like any other internal-com-
bustion engine, is essentially a constant-torque
engine and as such has certain limitations as far
as torque and B M E P are concerned. The rated
values for both of the above items cannot be ex-
ceeded without harmful effects to the engine, un-
less, of course, overload provisions have been
made. Mr. Turner in his paper on Diesel en-
gines (33) gives certain recommendations on limi-
tations imposed to protect the engine. Fig. 20
presented herein is very similar to Mr. Turner's
Fig. 2. I t has been included here for the sole pur-
TUG DESIGN
pose of emphasizing the i m p o r t a n t limitations
and the limited operating range of Diesel engines,
since the author has found t h a t several tugboat
owners and skippers have no exact idea on the
limitations of these engines, except the indefinite
one t h a t the engine should not operate below 50
per cent rated R P M . As can be seen from Fig.
20, the recommended operating area for Diesel en-
gines has been restricted to ranges above the 50
per cent B M E P values rather than above the 25
per cent B M E P value shown in reference (33),
because the author believes t h a t even between 25
and 50 per cent B M E P , and at certain low R P M
for the engine, some carbon deposits are formed,
resulting in unnecessary wear and tear of the en-
gine. At the same time, it is felt t h a t if the engi-
neer is given some rather strict limitations on the
operation of the power plant, he will be more re-
luctant in exceeding them. The truth of the m a t -
ter is, t h a t undoubtedly in most cases these limi-
tations will be disregarded to some extent and it is
felt t h a t the tendency will be to disregard them at
the low side, or below the 50 per cent B M E P
values. For these reasons, the area between the
25 and 50 per cent BY[EP lines is marked as
emergency operation only and the explanation of
the term emergency is left up to the discretion of
the engineer.
Tugboats have usually a relatively high speed/-
length ratio at free route speed. A twin-engine
installation would probably prove best for a tug-
boat, whereby one engine could be used for cruis-
ing or endurance and the full horsepower of the
power plant could be used for towing and full free
running speed. Naturally, the cruising or en-
durance conditions should fall within the desired
operating area of the engines. After a satisfactory
engine combination has been selected, and if suf-
ficient data are available, the fuel-consumption
curves for the particular engines being considered
should be plotted on the speed-power curves of
the vessel t h a t have been established previously.
I t is not considered necessary to present the exact
procedure in this study, especially since Mr.
Turner (33) has covered it very well in his recent
work on Diesel engines. Consequently, the in-
terested reader is referred to this reference for a
complete analysis of the subject, including curves
and examples, and it is believed t h a t with the aid
of that reference, an easy computation of the en-
durance requirements for any Diesel-powered
boat can be accomplished quickly and efficiently.
When the fuel-consumption curves for the en-
gines in question have been plotted on the speed-
power curves of the boat, a complete picture of the
performance characteristics of the main propulsion
power plant will be available, as Mr. Turner points

I00
. 90
80
70
60
50
o J,0
30 //~ ~/~ZU'h~U///
20
lo p / / ~ _ ~
0 I
0 10 20 30
FIG~ 21 PERFORMANCE CHARACTERISTICSOF A DIESEL MAIN PROPULSIONPOWER
PLANT
out. An imaginary plot of t h a t sort, similar to
Mr. Turner's Fig. 3, is shown here as Fig. 21.
After the fuel requirements of the main power
plant have been established, the requirements of
the auxiliaries m u s t be taken into account. These
auxiliaries would include, but are not necessarily
limited to, the following:
(a) Ship's service generators.
(b) Auxiliary boilers, galley, laundry and hot
water loads.
(c) Steering engine.
(d) Engine controls.
(e) Any separate generators for electronic
equipment normally in operation.
(f) Towing engine.
(g) Any p u m p t h a t m a y normally be working,
such as fire pumps.
T h e loads used for the foregoing auxiliaries in
estimating the fuel consumption of each should be
the average loads for 24 hr cruising conditions
times the total number in days for endurance, as
determined from the original endurance require-
ments. In addition to the fuel consumption thus
calculated, a n y haxboi load on the auxiliaries
normally present should be added, provided such
a harbor load can be thought of as being a part of
the normal workday of the boat, as the case will
be for a harbor tug.
The addition of the auxiliary and main engine
fuel requirements will give the total amount of
fuel required for consumption for endurance. An
additional 10 per cent of this total Should be added
for any emergency t h a t m a y arise. This new total
will then give the total weight of fuel required.
The t a n k capacity of the boat should then be fig-
ured on the basis that the tanks will be able to
carry that total when 95 per dent full.
Aside from fuel-oil requirements, potable water,
ship's stores and ship's service stores and con-
sumable goods and foodstuffs enter into the ca]=
MODERN TUG DESIGN 395
~I00~ of engines
~ /~/ operating
J ~ //'~50~ of enginesope-
~ 0 . 2 ~ / / ~--~' rat ing or towing
/ ~rates in Ibs/BHP-hr
. . . . imaginary and does
~ _ I I I I mot correspond to
~0 50 6 0 7 0 80 90 1 0 0 a n y a c t u a ~ p o w e r
P e r c e n t R~.q plant.
culations for endurance. I t would be indeed futile
to have sufficient fuel capacity for a specific cruis-
ing radius and lack in consumable goods or water
for the same radius. Accordingly, these items
should be figured out carefully, and it is hoped
t h a t Table 3, presented previously in this study,
m a y help the designer in arriving at reasonable
values for the items mentioned.
A final item t h a t m u s t be taken into account is
the lube-oil consumption of the engines. This
can be taken as equal to a b o u t 0.0025 or 0.0026
l b / h p h r for most modern Diesel engines. Hence,
knowing the total horsepower of the engines and
the total time required for endurance, one can
easily calculate the a m o u n t of lube oil needed for
it. T o this, a reasonable amount m u s t be added
for a n y emergency t h a t m a y arise. T h i s a m o u n t
will mainly depend on the total horsepower avail-
able and in no case should be less than 10 per cent
of the consumable lube oil figured previously.
Again, the lube-oil t a n k capacity should be figured
on the basis t h a t the tanks will be able to carry
the total mentioned when 9,5 per cent full.
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
The author wishes to express sincere thanks to
the following individuals a n d / o r organizations,
without whose kind help and advice this paper
would not have been possible.
Prof. L. A. Baler, University of Michigan.
Prof. H a r r y Benford, University' of Michigan.
C o m m a n d e r Richards T. Miller, USN (Bureau
of Ships).
Mr. Ulysses A. Pournaras, naval architect. "
Mr. Lester Rosenblatt of IV[. Rosenblatt & Son.
Mr. James J. Turner of the Bureau of Ships.
Codes 420, 430, 440 and 554 of the Bureau of
Ships.
T h e Small Boat Section of the David Taylor
Model Basin.
396 M O D E R N TUG DESIGN
The Marine Terminal Division of the Trans-
portation Research and Engineering Command of
the United States Army, Ft. Eustis, Va.
In addition to that, several towing companies
have been very obliging in supplying data and in-
formation for several boats. Some of these com-
panies have asked to remain anonymous and in re-
spect to their wishes, no names shall be men-
tioned. However, the author wishes to extend a
sincere "thanks" to all those who contributed to
the data presented in this paper.
BIBLIOGRAPHY
1 "Comparison between the Open water
Efficiency and Thrust of the 'Lips-Schelde' Con-
trollable Pitch Propeller and Those of the Troost
Series Propellers," by J. A. van Aken and K.
Tasseron, International Shipbuilding Progress, vol.
2, no. 5, January, 1955.
2 "Results of Propeller Tests in the Astern
Condition for Comparing the Open Water Ef-
ficiency and the Thrust of the 'Lips-Schelde' Con-
trollable Pitch Propeller and the Troost Series
Propellers," by J. A. van Aken and K. Tasseron,
International Shipbuilding Progress, vol. 3, no. 26,
October, 1956.
3 "The Efficient Length for a Given Form
and Speed," by L. A. Baler, Trans. SNAME, vol.
42, 1934.
4 . "Power-Length-Speed," by L. A. Baler,
Motorship, May, 1948.
5 "Vibration at the Stern of Single Screw
Vessels," by L. A. Baler and J. Ormondroyd,
Trans. SNAME, voL 60, 1952, pp. 10-25, 35-39.
6 "Propellers and Propulsion," by L. A.
Baler, SNAME Great Lakes Section Meeting,
February 3, 1956.
7 "Propellers for Tugs and Trawlers," by
F. W. Benson, Transactions of NEC Institution
for Engineers and Shipbuilders, vol. 54, 1937-
1938.
8 "Screw Tug Design," by A. Caldwell,
Hutchinson's Scientific and Technical Press,
London, England, 1946.
9 "Trends in Tug Design," by E. C. B. Cor-
lett, The Shipping World, January 12, 1955.
10 "Diesel-Electric Drive for Tugs," by L. M.
Goldsmith, SNAME Philadelphia Section Meet-
ing, October 17, 1947.
11 "Free Piston Gas Generators for Marine
Pr6pulsion," by N. L. Hawks, SNAME Bulletin,
October, 1952.
12 "Beitrage znr Theorie ummantelter schiffs-
schrauben," by F. Horn, Jahrbuch der Sehif-
bautechnischen Gesellschaft, 1940.
13 "Some Problems Involved in the Design
of Small Harbor and Coastal Vessels," by Eads
Johnson, SNAME New York Metropolitan Sec-
tion Meeting, October 24, 1947.
14 "Recent Research of Propellers in Noz-
zles," by J. D. van Manen, SNAME New York
Metropolitan Section Meeting, October 19, 1956.
15 "Small Craft Types," by J. A. Mavor, The
Association of Engineering and Shipbuilding
Draughtsmen, 1937-1938.
16 Discussion of reference (27), by R. 2-.
Miller, Trans. SNAME, vol. 59, 1951, pp. 605-
606.
17 "Theory of Flight," by Richard.von Mises,
Brown University Press, Providence, R. I., 1942.
18 "Long Distance Towing and Tug Design,"
by E. F. Moran, Jr., SNANIE New York Metro-
politan Section Meeting, September 21, 1950.
19 "Resistance and Trim of Heavy Displace-
ment Standard Series Ships," by A. B. Murray
and S. A. Barklie, Stevens Institute of Technology
Experimental Towing Tank Report No. 279,
January, 1945.
20 "Screw Propeller Characteristics," by H. F.
Nordstr6m, Paper No. 9 of Swedish State Ship-
building Experimental Tank.
21 "The Design of Tugs for the San Fx:ancisco
Bay Area," by L. C. Norgaard, SNAME Northern
California Section, April 12, 1956.
22 "Small Vessels," 'by W. Pollock, Tunbridge
Wells, Kent, England, 1946.
23 "The Theory and Practice of the Kort
System of Propulsion," by A. M. Riddel, Trans.
INA, vol. 84, 1942.
24 "Tugboat Design," by C. D. Roach, Trans.
SNAME, vol. 62, 1954, pp. 593-626, 641-642.
25 "Propeller Backing Power in Tugboats,"
by A. J. C. Robertson, Trans. SNAME, vol. 36,
1928.
26 "Wirtschaftliche und wissenschaftliche be-
deutung ummantelter Schiffsschrauben," by E. K.
Roscher, Jahrbuch tier Schiffbautechnischen Gesell-
schaft, 1939.
27 "Small Craft, Construction and Design,"
by D. S. Simpson, Trans. SNAME, vol. 59, 1951,
pp. 554-582.
28 "A Note on Tug Design," by A. R. Taylor,
Trans. INA, vol. 84, 1942.
29 "The Speed and Power of Ships," by D. W.
Taylor, U. S. Government Printing Office, 1943.
30 "Marine Engineering as Applied to Small
Vessels," by P. G. Tomalin, Trans. SNAME, vol.
61, 1953, pp. 590-634.
31 "Open Water Test Series with Modern
Propeller Forms," by L. Troost, Transactions
N.E.C. Inst. of Engineers and Shipbuilders, vol.
67, 1950.
32 "A Simplified Method for Preliminary
Powering of Single Screw Merchant Ships," by
 MODERN TUG DESIGN 397

L. Troost, S N A M E New England Section Meet-
ing, October, 1955.
33 "Selection of Diesel Propulsion Plants for
N a v a l Vessels," b y J. J. Turner, Journal of the
American Society of Naval Engineers, vol. 69, no. 3,
August, 1956.
34 "Series-versus Parallel-Conneeted Genera-
tors for Multi-Engine D-C Diesel-Electric Ship-
Propulsion Systems," b y J. A. Wasmund, Trans.
A I E E , 1954, Paper No. 54-144.
35 U.S. Coast Guard Stability Regulation and
Rules .and Regulations for Cargo and Miscellane-
ous Vessels, 1955.
36 "Principles of N a v a l Architecture," edited
by H. E. Rossell and L. B. Chapman, published b y
THE SOCIETY OF NAVAL ARCHITECTS AND MARINE
ENGINEERS, New York, N. Y., vol. I, 1939.
37 "Principles of N a v a l Architecture," edited
by H. E. Rossell and L. B. Chapman, published
b y THE SOCIETY OF NAVAL ARCHITECTS AND
MARINE ENGINEERS, New y o r k , N. Y., vol. II,
1939.
38 "Small Sea Going Craft and Vessels for
Inland Navigation," b y A. Roorda, et al, (Dutch
edition), N.V. de Technische Uitgeverij, H. Stare-
Haarlem, Holland, 1955.
39 " T h e Pulling Power of Tugs," Yachts and
Yachting, M a y 13, 1955.
40 " C o n t e m p o r a r y T u g Propulsion," b y A. C.
Hardy, The Shipping World, June, 1954.
41 " H i g h Spots in Small Boat Design~" by
Eads Johnson, Marine Engineering, November,
1938.
42 " T h e Pitch Distribution of Wake-Adapted
M~rine Propellers," b y L. Troost, Trans. S N A M E ,
vol. 64, 1956, pp. 357-367.
43 "Model Resistance D a t a S h e e t s Nos. 18,
70, 71, 72, 73, 74,. 75, 76, 80, 83, 86, 93, 94," pub-
lished b y The Society of N a v a l Architects and
Marine Engineers.
44 "Hydroeonic Construction Progress," The
Shipbuilder and Marine Engine Builder, vol. 64,
no. 586, February, 1957.

Appendix 1

A procedure for the design of a tugboat propeller Vk = speed, knots

for any one of several design conditions is pre- Va = speed of advance, knots, = Vk(1 --
sented in this Appendix. T h e design follows the wt)
propeller-series chart method and is based upon D = propeller diameter, ft
H = propeller pitch, ft
the Benson-Miller method with some additions N = propeller revolution per minute
and manipulations of the coefficients to arrive at n = propeller revolutions per second
the desired results. T = thrust (total), pounds
To facilitate matters and avoid confusion, the D H P 550 e
following nomenclature is used throughout this Va
Appendix :' Tp = thrust to propulsion
B H P = brake horsepower ( = S H P / e m , e., = Ta = thrust available for towing
D H P X 550
mechanical efficiency) Q = torque, ft-lb, = 27rn
S H P = shaft horsepower, aft of gears and
thrust block T T
Ct = thrusteoefficient, = n2H2D2 = n2a~D4
D H P = delivered horsepower ( = S H P ) < es,
where e. represents losses in the Kt = thrust coefficient, = Cte~2/p
stern tube and bearings) C~ = torque coefficient
T R H P = tow-rope horsepower, = hull re- Q Q 1 --sCt
sistance - n2H3D 2 n2a"D 5 2rr e
UHP = useful horsepower, = D H P )< e Kq = torque coefficient, = C~a3/o
e = open water efficiency of propeller p = density of water
1--t 7)a
EHP = effective horsepower, = U H P -1 --72)
- J = coefficient of advance = n-D
l--t = a(1 -- s)
hull efficiency
I --w 550e T n D
thrust deduction F = relation coefficient = - -
t = J - I)HP
wt = T a y l o r ' s wake fraction DHP 27rCqol 3
V = speed, fps G -- power coefficient -
Va speed of advance, fps, = v(1 - wt) n3D ~ 550
398 MODERN TUG DESIGN
2O
18
16
12
10
~6
~4 -
~ 2
0 tll 1~
14 16
FIG. 2 2 FREQUENCY DISTRIBUTION OF THE W A K E S OF
N ( B H P ) 1/,
Va2. 5
- Taylor's basic propeller
power coefficient
N ( U H P ) 1,
Bu = - Taylor's basic propeller
coefficient
a = pitch ratio, = H I D
= ND/I~
s = slip
101.33 X Va
=1 -1
TIN
To select a suitable wheel, the following proce-
dure can be used :
Assume a reasonable towing speed, and conse-
quently propeller design speed, say between 4 and
8 knots. Determine Va by estimating the wake
fraction wt. Values for wt can be found in the
appropriate literature, such as references (24, 29,
37, 38), and so on. Normally the wake of a single-
screw tugboat will range from 15 to 30 per cent,
with 23 or 24 per cent being good median values.
Fig. 22 is a histogram of wake percentages of 47
tugboats. All wakes have been taken at the tow-
ing speed, which in turn was taken at one half the
free route speed. No separation of the wake per-
centage b y length or any other parameter has been
attempted, since the amount of wake depends on
a combination of factors. However, this figure
should give a general idea of the average w a k e
variation in tugboats.
After the value of V~ has been established, the
designer must decide upon the type of wheel he
wants, be it Taylor's, Troost's, Schaffran's, or of
any other type. Now, since normally the largest
diameter will give the maximum efficiency and
thrust, one must look at the lines and establish
the maximum propeller diameter that can be used;
while doing this, one must keep in mind that tip
clearances are quite important and cannot be be-
low certain values if one wants to obtain a b o a t
reasonably free of propeller vibrations. At first
18 20 2
Wake p e r c e n t a g e
47 TU6BOA'rS
this statement m a y appear to be at odds with the
previously quoted belief of several authorities in
the field of ship vibrations (5) who state that poor
distribution of the wake along the disk of the pro-
peller appears to have much more effect on hull
vibrations than close clearances between the tips
of the wheel and the hull. However, one must
101.33 remember that no matter how fine the lines of a
tugboat are made, the form of the boat is such as to
~a
practically insure poor wake distribution in the
vicinity of the hull at the after end. Thus, by in-
creasing the tip clearance between the propeller
and the hull, one actually reduces the poor wake
distribution along the disk of the propeller and
hence reduces the danger 9f vibrations. The tip
clearance at the top of the wheel should have a
minimum value of 7 per cent of the diameter of
the screw and preferably be in the order of 10 to
15 per cent of the diameter, while the bottom clear-
ance need be only one half of the top clearance.
Next one must establish the number of blades
for the proposed propeller. I t might be mentioned
here that in so far as vibrations are concerned the
designer m a y be better off by adopting a four-
bladed wheel. If a three-bladed wheel with a
certain thrust loading is replaced by a four-bladed
one with the same loading, the vector sums of the
vibration exciting forces will remain for all prac-
tical purposes the same. The four blader will
begin to excite hull vibrations at a somewhat
lower speed thala-the three-bladed propeller, but
at full power the results will be about the same.
However, if the diameter is the same, the loading
on the three-bladed Wheel will be higher than the
corresponding one on the four blader and conse-
quently the forces will be lower for the four-bladed
screw. On the' other hand, if the loading is the
same the diameter of the four blader can be re-
duced with the result that it will excite less ampli-
tude in stern vibrations than the three-bladed
 MODERN TUG DESIGN 399

120
A
115
A
&
II0 A A
a
O 105 A A a
A A X /.Mi,anA L:
I00
~A
0
a~ a Z
0 95
/
/,
~4 90
0
m
A
85
a a

80 &
I

75
0 I0 20 30 40
J
50 60 70 80 90 i00
Speed in % of free route

FIG. 2 3 VARIATION OF W A K E WITH SPEED OF" BOAT

screw, because the blade tips will not reach so far
up into the poor wake distribution close to the
hull of the boat.
Normally, aside from vibration considerations,
there will be very little choice between a three and
a four-bladed wheel, b u t nevertheless, after the
decision is made as to the most suitable number
of blades and the design is completed, a similar
screw but with a different number of blades should
be tried to ensure that the propeller chosen is the
most efficient one. The design actually should be
based on maximum absorption of thrust at the
design speed. However, since
Tv
2rrQn
designing for maximum efficiency automatically
will give maximum thrust absorption, since v is set
and the product Qn is equal to the power avail-
able. T h a t being the case, the design procedure is
as follows:
Pick out at reasonable R P M and calculate the
Bp and ~max values; 6max will be based upon the
maximum propeller diameter that can be used as
established previously from the lines drawing.
From the applicable propeller charts, determine
the values of e and a. Repeat this procedure for
four or five more R P M values, until a definite
trend has been established. P16t propeller RP1V[
versus a and e and determine the revolutions that
will give maximiam efficiency. The a-value
corresponding to the best R P M can be read
directly from the curve. The same procedure can
be followed for a wheel with a different number of
blades than the one first decided upon and a final
decision can be reached as to the most efficient
propeller. A loading check must now be made to
ensure that the propeller does not have an ab-
normally high load (even 15 psi is acceptable for a
tugboat propeller) and finally a cavitation check
must be made. Several cavitation criteria can be
found in the appropriate literature (29, 37). One
particular formula is mentioned here; not because
it is the best or most appropriate one for tugboat
propeller design, but simply because the author
has not been able to find it anywhere else. This
formula is used by the United States N a v y to de-
termine the R P M at which cavitation is most
likely to start with a given propeller and is as
follows:
(Nor)2 = 37,500(11iD-- s)2s h MWRBT~
where
N~r = R P M at which cavitation is most likely
to start
h = absolute hydrostatic head to hub, ft
M W R = mean width ratio
B T F = blade-thickness fraction
and the remaining symbols are explained else-
where.
Another cavitation formula that might be men-
400 MODERN
tioned here is the one proposed b y P. G. Tomalin
(30). This is actually a modification of the
original Bower's formula, as the author points
out, and has given consistently good results in
relatively small vessels where most of the other
cavitation formulas seem to fail
(N,)2 = 52,000 (0.86 -- s) h M W R
liD BTF
where
h = total head of water in feet at the _ of shaft
s = true slip
and the remaining symbols have the same mean-
ing as before.
After selecting the most appropriate propeller,
the thrust, efficiency, slip, and revolutions at any
other speed can 13e determined. Here a differen-
tiation m u s t be made between' the two different
ways in which the turning m o m e n t can be applied;
namely, if there is constant power developed (as in
the case of a Diesel-electric drive or a Diesel drive
with a torque converter), or if the turning m o m e n t
is constant, as in the case of a Diesel engine in con-
junction with a reverse reduction gear drive, or a
reciprocating steam engine, or a direct-connected
Diesel.
(a) In the case where constant power is being
developed, different values of J can be assumed,
from J = 0 to J = m a x i m u m at or near free route
speed. F r o m the J-values thus assumed, the K ,
and Kq (or Ct and Cq) values of the propeller in
question can be determined from propeller-charac-
teristic curves, such as the ones in references (29),
(31), (37). Now, we have t h a t
Ct 550
F _ _
Cq 2 r a
b y definition and t h a t
DHP
T - -- - - f
nO
We also have, though, t h a t
T engine to avoid overspeeding, is the case of speeds
Ct = n2H2D2
or t h a t
T = C~n'H2D 2
and b y subtracting the two equations for T the
value of n can be determined. Thus we have
n = \CtH2D3]
Then, b y substituting n into any of the foregoing
formulas for T the thrust can be found and, since
TUG DESIGN
e=~
the efficiency can be determined. Finally, know-
ing t h a t Va = 0.592 J n D , we can get Va, from
which Vk can be determined easily. Here a word
of caution m a y be necessary. For most tugboat
hull forms, the wake is fairly constant over the
whole range of speeds of the boat, b u t some hulls
do show some unusual variations in the wake.
Fig. 23 shows wake figures in per cent of towing
wake (towing speed being in all cases equal to one
half of the free route speed). Points for twenty
different hulls have been plotted and the average
wake curve shows very little variation from full to
zero speeds of the boat. Finally, if the astern
thrust of the propeller is required, the same proce-
dure just outlined can be followed. Reference
(20) will give Ct and Cq-values for propellers
operating in reverse. This, together with ref-
erence (2) to some extent, are the only publica-
tions, to the knowledge of the author which have
any model test information on propeller charac-
teristics in reverse operation. However, since the
wheels tested in both references are of one par-
ticular t y p e only, judgment m u s t be used in in-
terpreting the results of the tests relative to the
design in question.
(b) In the case where constant turning m o m e n t
is being developed, we know t h a t b y definition
D H P o / n o will be c o n s t a n t
where
DHP0 = power at design speed (maximum
power)
no = revolutions per second at design speed
From elementary considerations, it also "can be
shown easily t h a t the following relation will hold
true
n = ~ \ noD -
Again we have two distinctive cases. T h e first
one, assuming t h a t a governor is supplied with the
higher than the design speed. In this case N will
be constant. The second case is the one of all
speeds below the design speed. Each case is
actually independent of the other and is treated as
such in the analysis t h a t follows. Calling the de-
sign speed Va, we have
1 Vk larger or equa! to Vd.
In this case, Va and ~ can be determined, since
N is known and constant. F r o m the propeller
characteristic charts Bp and e-values can be de-
termined at the calculated 8 and a-values, from
which all the desired characteristics of the p r o -
 MODERN TUG DESIGN
peller (T, s and BHP) can be determined easily.
2 V, smaller than Va.
Here again a set of J-values from J = 0 to a
value of J such as to make V, nearly equal to V~
can be selected and the slip can be calculated.
From either the J or the slip values and the ap-
propriate propeller characteristics chart, Ct and
Cq or Kt and Kq-values can be found and G can be
calculated. Knowing G, one can determine n from
the foregoing formula and hence D H P , since
DHP0
DHP = - - n
no
Knowing n one can calculate V~ ( = J n D )< 0.592)
and Vk. Finally, to find the thrust we can set
DHP
T=--F
nD
where
Appendix 2
A hydrodynamic analysis of the relative ad-
vantages of a cambered section over the more
common airfoil-type section is presented in this
Appendix. S o m e simplifying assumptions have
b e e n made, which, in the opinion of the author, do
not affect the interpretation of the results. Rud-
der groups a, b, and c refer to Fig. 19 of the text.
In general terms it can be stated that essential
differences exist only between the a and b groups
on the one hand and the c group on the other.
Differences among types a and b are only the
effective results of different drag characteristics.
This will be clear if one recalls that part of the
rudder-stock torque is due to drag. The drag con-
tribution to the turning moment in general will
depend upon the value of
cp~ sin 7T
where
cps = distance of center of pressure from rud-
der stock _
7T = rudder angle
Now, if we set 7~ = 7, (where 7 , = angle of rela-
tive flow) b y neglecting small angles of relative
flow, we can say that the rudder-stock torque and
turning moment are equal and that they can be
represented by
(Drag) cps sin 7r
for the drag component of the turning moment.
401
F = C~ 550.
Cq 21ra
The efficiency can be easily found, knowing that
e=~
I t is suggested that after the propeller charac-
teristics have been determined by the methods
just discussed, a plot be prepared with Vk as the
abscissa and the following ordinates:
1 Thrust (total).
2 Revolutions per minute.
3 Efficiency.
4 Slip.
5 Thrust to propulsion.
6 Thrust available for towing.
This way, a complete picture of the character-
istics of the boat at any speed can be had at a
glance.
If we assume then that the difference in drag is the
only difference in the turning moment between
type a and type b rudders, we can return to our
original assumption that essential differences exist
only between groups a and b and group c.
If we assume for reasons of simplicity that the
drag of the groups under consideration is the
same, then the value of the maximum turning
moment will depend on the maximum lift coeffi-
cient of the rudder in question, CL m~x. The value
of C~ mo~ for cambered sections is higher than the
corresponding value of symmetrical airfoil-type
sections. However, cambered sections are charac-
terized by their "irreversibility;" i.e.
ICL at a, = a[ # ICL at at = --al
where CL is the lift coefficient, and a, -- angle of
attack of the rudder.
This characteristic, plus the fact that cambered
sections show an objectionable profile drag at a
--- 0, makes any fixed camber section unusable in
boat design. However, the advantages of the
higher CL ms, of the cambered section can be
utilized with a trailing-edge flap added to a sym-
metrical section, resulting in a rudder similar to
the c-group, of Fig. 19.... The~_:fotlowing analysis
indicates the degree of advantage one m a y expect
from such a section.
The slope of the lift curve (CL versus a) for both
the cambered and the symmetrical sections will be
 402 MODERN TUG DESIGN

Lift ~ T~---G - -
FLOW

Center~ ~ /

Turning Moment = L i f t x L + Drag x d

FIG. 24 LIFT-DRAGRELATIONSHIPTO THE TURNINGMOMENT

Lift c u r v e f o r cambered
C [ ~ ~/dCL section i s f o r NACA 6 3 2 0 1 5

[ ~ / ~%~ r / ~ L i f t curve for symmetrical

[ / _.~0~/~dCL section is f o r NACA 0015

^C~o~ -~ 0 +~
@ ~L=0 ~ . i _ ~

FIG. 25 LIFT CURVESFOR SYMMETRICALAND CAMBEREDSECTIONS

dCL
d~.= 5.7 for aspect ratio (AR) equal to infinity
3 5 ~ ---g
or
dCL 5.7 a~ = 36 + s0 = 43 ---- 0.80 radians
d--~ = 1 + 2 / A R for any aspect ratio
so that
From the foregoing and with the help of Fig. 25 we
(CL) flapped.= 3.16 X 0.80 = 2.53
obtain
Then the per cent increase due to the flap will be
5.7a
(CL) . . . . . trical = 1 + 2 / A R 2.53 -- 1.98
- 0.28 or 28 per cent
1.98
5.7(~ + Is0[)
(CL)oa~borod =
1 + 2/AR I t should be noted here that, in order to simplify
matters, no corrections have been made for sub-
where s0 is the angle of attack at CL = 0. mergence and Reynolds number. However, the
Or, we can generalize by saying that order of magnitude of the advantage of the flapped
5.7a~ versus the unflapped rudder will be reasonably
CL= close to the one shown in the foregoing after the
1 + 2/AR
corrections mentioned have been made. This can
where a, is the angle of attack referred to s0. be proven as follows: The corrections will result
If we select an N A C A 0015 (t/w = 0.15) sym- in a change of slope of the lift-coefficient angle of
metrical section for the rudder, we will have attack curve for both the symmetrical and the
5.7a~ flapped sections. Since the change of the slope
(eL) ..... Irlcal = 1 + 2/2.5 = 3.16~, curve will be practically the same for both sec-
tions, the corrections for Reynolds number and
for aspect ratio (AR) = 2.5; and at ~ = 36 = submergence will not seriously affect the relative
0.628 radians increase of the lift determined previously.
The d y n a m i c turning response for both the
(CL).ym~o,r,,~ = 3.16 X 0.628 = 1.98
symmetrical and the cambered sections also will
Now, assuming that the flap has a flap angle of be the same. This follows from the fact that the
35 deg and that the flap area is equal to 1/5 of the lift-curve slope is the same in both cases. In
rudder area, we have mathematical form, it would mean that
 MODERN
CL
/ I
S
/ . I
(-) 0 (+) <omx
FIG. 26 CHANGE IN THE SLOPE OF THE L I F T CURVE
D U E TO MOVABLE F L A P
will be equal for both sections. However, by de-
signing the flap-control linkage so t h a t the effec-
tive camber changes as the rudder-angle changes,
the slope of the lift curve can be increased, result-
ing in greater dynamic response. This will mean
faster steadying into the turn and faster exit on
course. The reason for this can be seen b y study-
ing Fig. 26. From Fig. 26, we have that for the
Appendix 3
Residual-resistance contours for t u g b o a t forms
are presented in this Appendix. These are
derived from the same data as the curves presented
in C. D. Roach's paper on tugboat design (24).
However, the data h a v e been plotted on the more
commonly used speed/length ratio versus residual-
resistance coefficient for different displacement/
length ratios and prismatic coefficients. I t is
hoped t h a t in this way the designer will be able
to interpolate between the curves more quickly
and t h a t the changes in resistance between dif-
ferent prismatic coefficients and speed/length
ratios will be more apparent. T h e original tests
TUG DESIGN 403
lift-curve slope of a fixed camber a n d / o r sym-
metrical rudder
dCL 5.7
-- = = 3.16 for A R =2.5
da 1 + 2/AR
The lift curve for the flapped rudder will be
dCL = 3.16 a0 + 3.16 am.x ---- 3.16 + 3.16 a0
do~ O~max ~max
so t h a t the advantage of the movable flap will
amount to
3.16 ao
(:Tmax
The discussion so fax has been limited to the ease
where the tug is going ahead. For the astern
situation very little can be said, since the author
knows of no published results for the characteris-
tics of airfoils or cambered sections for angles of
attack gr6ater than 90 deg. I t is doubtful that the
flap will facilitate maneuvering while backing and,
unless proven otherwise, it might b e best to lock
the flap on the centerline when backing to obtain
the well-known advantages of the airfoil section"
in t h a t particular position.
were conducted b y the David Taylor Model Basin
and the author has found t h a t for prismatics less
than 0.56 the resistance was very close to t h a t
obtained b y the extension of the D a v i d Taylor
Standard Series to h e a v y displacement/length
ratios as presented in reference (19). However, it
also has been observed t h a t above the prismatic
of 0.56 the tugboat form resistance departs con-
siderably from the one predicted b y the extension
of the David Taylor Standard Series. Conse-
quently, it is felt t h a t reference (19) should be
used only for low prismatic coefficients and Ap-
pendix 3 for prismatics of from 0.,56 to 0.68.
 404 MODERN TUG DESIGN

TUGBOAT FOm~S
CONTOURS OF~
cr ~ v k / v ~
for
Different Prismatic Coefficients
snd
A/10.Olnl3 . 2OO

14

Jgl
,.1
o

t~
f,

co
,4

a~

,o
,,4
co

. . . . . . . J l !
0.6 0.7 0.8 0.9 i.o I.I 1.2 1.3
Spe~d/Length Ratio
F~. 57
 MODERN TUG DESIGN 405

TUGBOAT FORMS
CONTOURS OF I0.O
cr vs Vk/'l(L'
. for
Different Prismatic Coefficients
and
n/(0.01L)3 . 250 r.t
N

8.C
J

0.68/
/ 0
6.o
0

0
0
=
171
O'I
ID

5.o ~

0.60

3.o

2.0

11..0

I I I I
0.6 0.7 0.8 0.9 1.0 I.I 1.2 1.3 i.~ 1.5
Speed/Length Ratio

FIG. 28
406 MODERN TUG DESIGN

'TUGBOAT FORMS

C O N T O U R S OF~
C r vs Vk/V'L
fOX'
Different Prismatic Coefficients
and
A/~0.01L)3 = 300 10.D__

8.ot~
,-4
M
t.-,

7.0
--4
O
.,.-

6.0
0

5.0 4~

3.0

2.0

1,0.9_

O,
I
o.7 of.8 I
0.9 i .Io l .11 1.3 1.5
Speed/Length Rat io

F I G . 29
 MODERN TUG DESIGN 407

TUGBOAT FORMS

CONTOURS OF
cr ~e
for
vk/~
Different
Prismatic Coefficie
and
~/(0.01L)3 . 350

q)
o

0
0

4~

q)

i I I
o
l
0.7
I
o.8 0.9 1.0 i.I
Speed/Length Ratio
i[3 I

FTG. SO
408 MODERN TUG DESIGN

TUGBOAT FORMS

CONTOURS OF
c r v, v k / ~
for
Different
Prismatio i0.0
Coeffiolents
and
~110.01L13 - ~00

~.u o

7.0

6,.c ""
o

o
o

o
_ ~

I I I I I
1.0 I.i
I1.2
I I
1.3
I
l.&
0.6 , 0.7 0.8 0.9
Speed/Length Ratio
FIG. 31
 MODERN TUG DESIGN 409

TUGBOAT FORMS

CONTOURS .oF_,
C r vs Vk/~/L
for
Different
Prismatic Coefficients
and
A/{O.OIL)3 = h50

%
,-4

)4

4~
a)
.4
0

q)
0
0
a)
0
a~

O~

.m
0.56

I I I I I I
0.6 0.7 0.8 0.9 1.0 I.i 1.2 1.3 l.& 1.5
Speed/Length l~atio
Fro. 32
( S k e t c h A)
410
MR. PAUL G. TOMALIN, Member: The author
has presented an interesting summation of avail-
able data relative to tugboat design. I n doing
this, numerous sources have been investigated and
numerous methods of approximation presented.
Unfortunately some of the information from
quoted sources can be rather contradictory, and
they require evaluation. Some information pre-
sented has not been confirmed in m y own ex-
perience.
In m y paper on bridge-controlled turboelectric
255-ft Coast Guard cutters, presented before the
Chesapeake Section in October 1947, and Fig. 12
of reference (30) of the paper, I described some
full-size experiments made with propellers to .de-
termine the effect of tip clearance. These experi-
ments would indicate t h a t tip clearances, t h a t is
the clearance from the periphery of the propeller
to the hull of the vessel, are not a major factor in
the vibration of the hull of a vessel. I t was found
t h a t the amplitude of vibration correlated with
the power input into the propeller, and was to a
large degree, independent of the tip clearance.
This leads to the conclusion t h a t hull vibration is
primarily related to the natural frequency of the
hull, and can be excited by relatively low-ampli-
tude forces, provided they are at the proper fre-
quency. If, on the other hand, the exciting-force
frequency differs appreciably from the hull fre-
quency, the vibration problem does not exist.
Reference also is made to m y discussion of Cap-
tain Phannemiller's 1954 paper before this So-
ciety .5
The author indicates that electric clutches made
by Elliot and Westinghouse are applicable to non-
reversing diesel engines. I t is believed t h a t the
author intends to bring out the fact t h a t electric
couplings are available; however, they are not un-
fortunately, of such characteristics as being able
to reverse the direction of the rotation of the shift.
In addition to the transmissions listed, there is a
wide variety of rugged reversing transmissions
available, operated by wet clutches as indicated in
reference (30).
In the diesel-electric drives, insufficient atten-
tion has been given to automatic torque control
in spite of the fact t h a t it has a long history of
operation showing its reliability. Such a torque
control is described in a paper b y Admiral John-
son, e and in Curry's and Fink's paper. 7
s " M o d e r n Design and C o n s t r u c t i o n M e t h o d s as A p p l i e d to 95-
F o o t P a t r o l B o a t s , " by G. M. Phannemiller, Trans. S N A M E , vol. 62,
1954, pp. 677.
MODERN TUG DESIGN
Discussion
One of the main disadvantages not mentioned
in the, paper that applies to diesel-electric propul-
sion systems, unfortunately is t h a t of cost, which
is a very pertinent factor in t o d a y ' s competitive
market.
The implication is drawn t h a t controllable-pitch
propellers have not been studied exhaustively, and
not too much is known a b o u t them. R u p p s giyes
an over-all s u m m a r y of controllable-pitch propel-
lers, which is extensive and complete. H e inti-
mates t h a t a large hub on the propeller necessarily
will be of low efficiency. The author is referred to
R u p p ' s paper and particularly the writer's com-
ments on t h a t paper.
An inference is drawn in the paper t h a t the usual
design of the propeller is of an extremely crude na-
ture. I ' m afraid I cannot agree with this, as I
have usually found people in responsible design
positions who would seldom, if ever, adopt the
arbitrary method which is introduced, and then
rejected. I believe t h a t some clarification is
needed on the calculations of the 1500-shp tug-
boat. I believe some confusion exists between the
total thrust generated b y the propeller and the
bollard pull.
Robertson's paper, reference (25) contained
some interesting information o n symmetrical sec-
tion propellers, but the data presented b y Robert-
son, in particular at high slips and slips of more
than 100 per cent, have been found to be errone-
ous. A systematic series of symmetrical section
propellers was run at the Taylor Model Basin for
the writer some years ago, and a number of sym-
metrical section propellers were used, particularly
on Western River boats. T h e y can have ef-
ficiencies higher than Taylor sections, particularly
under the high slip conditions and, of course, are
appreciably better under the backing condition.
I do not believe t h a t the data relative to the pro-
pellers have been presented to t h e Society, how-
ever, I know they are available in the files of the
U. S. Coast Guard.
Confirming previous noted information, a num-
ber of Western River boats for Coast G u a r d serv-
ice were designed with a very low tip clearance in
the tunnel. I t was the practice to avoid tip
clearances greater than 1 ~ in., and in a number of
6 ,' D e v e l o p m e n t of Ice-Breaking Vessels for the U. S. Coast G u a r d , "
by H . ' F . Johnson, Trans. S N A M E , vol. 54, 1946, pp. 112-144.
7 " T e s t of T r a n s i e n t C o n d i t i o n s in M a n e u v e r i n g a C o a s t G u a r d
H a r b o r C u t t e r , " by I-I. It. C u r r y and J. C. F i n k , Trans. S N A M E ,
vol.49, 1941, pp. 300-320.
s "Controllable-Pitch P r o p e l l e r s , " b y L. A. R u p p , Trans. S N A M t ~ ,
vol. 56, 1948, pp. 272-315.
 MODERN TUG DESIGN
instances, tip clearances of a fraction of an inch,
were used. These installations were very success-
ful from a standpoint of efficiency as well as vibra-
tion.
The paper is not complete in the description of
rudders used on towboats, .in t h a t it does not de-
scribe the characteristics and advantages of a
fixed stern post with an airfoil rudder. This is
used extensively, and makes a very satisfactory
installation. The paper Would be enhanced b y a
description of this rudder section.
The author outlines the advantages of bridge
control. H o w e v e r , m a n y bridge controls are in-
stalled which are not in the true sense a bridge
control, but merely an extension of the engine con-
trols. A true bridge control should be such t h a t
the operator can control the speed of the vessel b y
a single lever without damage or thought of en-
gine operation. This can and has been done up to
and including steam, turboeleetric synchronous
drives, as described in m y paper before the Chesa-
peak e Section of the Society in 1947 and as de-
scribed in Johnson's paper, 6 for diesel-electric
drives. In addition, m a n y clutch transmissions
for direct reversible installations have b e e n m a d e
with controls having these characteristics.
A recommended operating limit of diesel-engines
information is proposed b y the author. Taking
the usual cubic curve of propeller characteristics
unfortunately one would leave the recommended
area of operation at 70 per cent of R P M . This is
not a practical criteria. I t is recommended t h a t a
method of rating diesel-engine horsepower, as
given in the main propulsion section of reference
(30) to be given consideration relative to proper
BMEP.
I have found Fig. 9 of reference (30) very useful
in calculating wake fractions rather t h a n taking
an arbitrary numerical wake as recommended in
the Appendix. Also I have found t h a t Fig. 1 of
reference (30) is useful in preliminary estimates of
propeller thrust.
I t should be noted t h a t the cavitation formula
used b y the N a v y , as noted in the paper, is the
Bowers' formula and m y modification of t h a t on
the following page gives a close approximation
between limits of 20 and 80 per cent true slip.
I t is considered healthy t h a t in recent years a
number of papers in the small boat and specialized
vessel field, have been pi'esented to the Society,
and I would like to express the hope and en-
couragement t h a t more papers in this area be pre-
sented. There are a great m a n y areas of empirical
formula which are extremely useful for preliminary
estimates of designs of this type. T h e y are not
exact and must be tempered with judgment i n
their use; however, engineering economics dic-
411
tates their use for the modern commercial design.
Let me again compliment the author o n his in-
teresting paper.
MR. JOHN E. FLIPSE, Member: A compilation of
tug-design data is a valuable addition to the
literature of our Society if it is complete and ac-
curate. The following remarks are tendered to
clarify the author's statements on flapped rud-
ders.
Fully flapped hydrofoils have been in use for
m a n y years. The diving planes of some sub-
marines and most, activated-fin-type stabilizers
are examples of heavily loaded, rugged, trouble-
free, adjustable-flap hydro.foils. The Sperry
Gyroscope C o m p a n y fin stabilizer embodies a
simple pivoted bar of monel driving a micarta-
lined block secured to the flap. The flap shaft and
bushings are of the same materials. Adjustment
of the pivot point of the slipper bar provides a
wide range of flap angle to fin angle ratios. This
equipment has been repair free during its service
life and is inherently jam proof. I t is certaintly
not a servomechanism!
This writer must take exception to the numer-
ology of Appendix 2; The author is referred to
N A C A report 823, and others, where lift and drag
curves for the cited foils are presented. T h e angles
of attack mentioned are totally impractical; the
NACA a 0015 simple foil reaches a m a x i m u m lift
coefficient of approximately 1.5 at 18 deg while
N A C A 632015 foil peaks at a 2.4 lift coefficient at
about 11 deg. Based on these values, the per cent
increases due to the flap will be 60 per cent instead
of the 28 per cent mentioned. Unfortunately,
these values also lack realism.
Usable lift coe2~cients for hydrofoils with full
flaps approach 1.6 for low wake velocities a n J
must be reduced for high wake Velocities. The
basis for these figures.can be found in this writer's
1957 Spring Meeting paper on stabilizer per-
formance, on pag e 94 of this volume of Trans-
actions.
A fully flapped hydrofoil rudder is far more
practical than the author suggests in his p a p e r - -
except, perhaps, for the psychological damage the
tug captain would stiffer when he discovered his
rudder would swing only plus and minus 18 deg!
MR. ROBERT TAGGART, A/Iember: There cer-
tainly can be no disagreement with the author
when he states t h a t tugboat design is a subject
which has been neglected b y most naval archi-
tects, at least to judge b y published information.
I t appears, however, t h a t all he has done is to
assemble what information has already,been pub-
lished with few additions of a n y value.
412 MODERN TUG DESIGN

For example, the resistance contours which are I t can be seen from the reduced , formula that the
given in Appendix 3 were interpolated from speed-length ratio is dependent only upon the
Roach's 1954 paper on the same subject. Had the prismatic coefficient.
author bothered to leaf through the discussions The author has suggested the use of 1.70 and
given on that paper, he would have found the 1.85 as constants in this formula in place of the
original contours printed in exactly the same form 1.55 used by Caldwell. These values of recom-
in which he has presented them, with the slight mended speed-length ratios can thus be plotted on
exception that they were given in even values of ,the tug-resistance contours given in Appendix 3.
volumetric coefficient rather than displacement- Fig. 33 of this discussion shows a typical plot of
/ength ratio. A brief check also would indicate this type. I t can be seen that such a generalized
that the values have altered somewhat in the criterion, regardless of the constant term em-
double conversion. ployed, certainly does not represent a reliable
This same discussion explai'ned how the con- estimate of either an economical or maximum
tours were derived. Had he read this, the author free-route speed. Obviously, other factors such as
would not have been.surprised that some of the the displacement-length ratio must be taken into
values approximated the Stevens' extension of the account.
Taylor Standard Series, since this extension was a The author seems to have an affinity for the
part of the contour derivation. adoption of long and complicated formulas. The
Als0 included in the same discussion was a state- one given for a .criterion of waterline beam falls
ment that these contours should be used with ex- into this category; i.e.
treme caution since they were derived from very
meager data. This was further emphasized in a
\ 6Cwp ]J m . . [11
discussion 9 presented on a paper by Professor
Ridgely-Nevitt. I t was shown that the contours Making substitutions for the block coefficient and
were unduly influenced by the Taylor Series ex- the waterplane coefficient as follows
tension, which forms had fuller afterbodies than
those of good tugs. CB - V Cwp- Aw Ca _ V
Since 'these contours were prepared, in 1950, LBH' LB ' Cw~ HA w
R. F. P. Desel and J. T. Collins have made a we get
more comprehensive survey of model tests of fat
forms in an M. I. T. Thesis in 1952. Their results B = (KM--5~+ 3Aw]mj .. [2]
are given on pages 303-305 of the second volume
of "Hydrodynamics in Ship Design." Unfor- A part of this expression looks suspiciously like one
tunately, the speed range extends only to a speed- given by Mr. S. W. F. Morrish in a paper pre-
length ratio of 1.007. I t is suggested that within sented to the Institution of Naval Architects in
this speed range the Desel-Collins' contours would 1892, where he gave as an approximation of the
be of more value to the tug designer than those distance of the center of buoyancy below the
given in this paper. However, there is still a waterline
great need for more information to be obtained on
this subject.
The author gives a formula for the economical
free route speed of a tug as Converting this to the height of the center of
buoyancy above the keel it becomes
VK 1.55(L- V "~'/'
\ 5H V
KB=
6 3Aw
Since
Substituting this in Equation [2] we get
V - LC.
A~ B = - m _~-a . . . . . . . [31
This reduces to
or

-- 1.55(1 -- Ce) '/'

VL

9 " T h e R e s i s t a n c e of T r a w l e r H u l l F o r m s of 0.65 P r i s m a t i c Co- Or since B M = I r / V and m is given as 0.09 this

efficient," by Cedric R i d g e l y - N e v i t t , Trans. S N A M E , vol. 64, 1956,
pp. 433-453; discussion b y R o b e r t T a g g a r t , pp. 454-457. can be expressed as
 15.0

12.0 II
I
I1.0

I0.0
'IF ,/
L

I
I
I
I
9.0
0
X 0.6B I
jI... 1
1
4-- 8.0
IZ
e;

hT-
'4,-
el
0
{.3 "7.0
(-
(O

U)

6.0
o
I1', ")'
11~;, ,y'K=,.o5

r,-Q;
5.0 ' ' i

,o / "A / ~
',i (/| .'I 0 ; o i

2.0 ~ _,,,,,,,,,""5.56, : ' i

1.0
0.7 0.8 0.9 1.0 I.I I;2 1.3 IA 1.5
S p e e d / L e n g i ' h Rcc'do

Fzo. 33
414 MODERN TUG DESIGN
B= 3\V / ............ [5]
It would appear that this resulting equation
would be much simpler to use than that given in
the paper.
Of tbe tugs listed in Table 2 of the paper and
those shown in Figs. 8 and 9, there are some which
are identical with those appearing in the Roach
1954 paper. The 143-ft sea rescue tug appears to
be the same as TX-8 which was an Army 143-ft
diesel-electric tug run under slightly different draft
conditions. Roach's T X 2 was the ha~-bor tug
designe:l by Commander ~{iller, D T M B Model
4087, and was by far the best of the group tested.
T X 4 was the European type tug shown in Fig. 9,
which incidentally had a waterline length of 74 ft 4
in. rather than the 101 ft shown by the author.
The original design of this latter tug was brought
back by the U. S. Technical Mission in Europe;
it had an interesting series of lattice-work open-
ings in the skeg which may be one of the factors in
the good maneuvering qualities with which these
vessels are credited.
The author has reemphasized the desirability of
increasing the after waterplane area to prevent
the sucking of air into the propeller when operat-
ing at high slips. This is also a necessity in these
fat forms to prevent the squatting which tends to
increase resista~lce at speeds where the bow and
stern waves superimpose to give a deep hollow at
the stern. A low vertical prismatic coefficient of
the afterbody is essential then from both the re-
sistance and propulsion standpoints.
Referring again to the Roach paper, it can be
noted that the Miller tug, T X 2, had by far the
lowest value of afterbody prismatic coefficient.
This may have contributed to its remarkable per-
formance both towed and self-propelled. It
might also be noted that T X 11, which was the
worst of that group of tugs, had the highest value
of this coefficient.
This argues somewhat against the author's con-
tention that t h e ' L C B should be from 2 to 2.5 per
cent of the waterline length abaft amidships. To
achieve a low afterbody prismatic with reasonably
fair lines, it is almost essential that the LCB move
further forward. In the Miller tug, for ex-
ample, it was located 3.7 per cent forward of the
midship section without any noticeable detriment
to the performance of the ship.
The author can be congratulated for demonstrat-
ing so vividly to this Society the heterogeneous as-
sortment of uncorrelated information with which
the tug designer must attempt to do his job. I t is
hoped that this paper will serve to encourage
others to fill in the gaps of knowledge and tie to-
gether the sketchy information which is available.
MR. WESLEY D. WHEELER, Associate Member:
It has been my pleasure to be a colleague of the
author, during which tim(/ I. developed a great
admiration for his penchant for hard work and
ability to collect, collate and record published and
raw data. His large amount of background ma-
terial tempered by wide and varied experience in
the design of small commercial vessels provides
the naval architect and marine engineer with
more of the information he requires for a tech-
nical approach to tug design. The small boat de-
sign field in this country seems to be plagued by
blindness to information of this sort a n d / o r un-
willingness to share such data with which progress
is achieved.
M y own file on small boats yields the following
information which I hope will be of value to the
designer:
In a recent paper, Professor Telfer I of tbe
N. T. H., Trondheim, Norway, attempted to
evaluate screw tug steel weight data by assigning
the proper values to the influences of length, beam,
depth, and block coefficient. For the designer's
benefit, Fig. 34 is given which includes a plot of
the weight differentials of beam and depth plotted
against length, which Telfer derived from Alexan-
der Karl's 11 screw tug weight data. As we have
recently seen in the "Series 60" paper, 12 LCB lo-
cation is indeed a variable item influenced by
speed-length, block and prismatic coefficients and
the effect of hull form. While t do not guarantee
the accuracy of the following empirical equation,
I find that the value of LCB thus derived seems
consistent with contemporary good small boat
forms. This equation was given in a recent ar-
ticle 13 by K. Kafali dealing with E H P estimates
for small vessels. It was apparently misprinted
and the following formula is my interpretation of
"optimum" LCB location
p = ~(0.825 - V/,,/L)'/.
P = LCB location in per cent L from midship ( +
is forward, - is aft).
The hydroconic-type tug seems to hold great
promise in this country where the price of labor is
very high in relation to material costs in shipbuild-
a0 " T h e S t r u c t u r a l W e i g h t S i m i l a r i t y of S h i p s , " by E. V. Telfer,
Transactions, N o r t h E a s t C o a s t I n s t i t u t i o n of Engineers and Ship-
builders, December 9, 195,5.
tl " D e s i g n and Cost E s t i m a t i n g of all T y p e s of M e r c h a n t and
Passenger S h i p s , " Alexander Karl, F i f t h Edition, 1948.
le "Series 6 O - - T h e Effect upon Resistance and Power of V a r i a t i o n
in L C B P o s i t i o n , " F. H. T o d d a n d P: C. Pien, Trans. S N A M E , vol.
64, 1956, !dO. 4-48.
13 " E . H. P. C a l c u l a t i o n s , " b y K. Kafali, Ship and Boat Builder,
August, 1953.
 MODERN TUG DESIGN 415

W = OLH + bL B Bo W =flush deck net sfeel weigher

a L = 6W/O H of one-deck ~full-sc(xntling

8o=
bc= OW/b B6 o
(136)/4
l u g s b u i l t t o L.R. I00 AI class
For s i m i l a r t u g s o o ~ h e r s e r v i c e
B = block coefflclenJr reduce W by +he f o l l o w i n g percenfo(~jes;
B = beam molded 8% f o r near coas~incj t r a d e
//
_D44
H=dep~h molded 12% f o r r o a d s t e a d and estuary' w o r k
30% f o r r~ver tugs unc|assed J
-0 J J
~3 J
J J
f

_ J J J
~0L J
v
O,L

1
40 50 60 70 80 go I00 II0 120 ISO 140
Leng'l'h BP-Fee~

FIG. 3 4 N E T STEEL V~EIGHT OF TUGS

(Karl n Table 5, from Telfer) )

ing. I had the opportunity recently to view the
lines plan and construction photographs of a 75-ft
" A k u " fisherman designed by Mr. A r t h u r Low
while he was in Honolulu. The vessel's bottom
and sides were entirely developable and an in-
genious method was devised where trunnions were
fitted at the bow and stern of the vessel and the
vessel inverted so that all shell plating was laid
on and welded downhand. One of the original
articles on the method-of constructingdevelopable
or hydroconic lines was published before the last
war by C. P. Burgess TM and should familiarize the
designer with the principles involved.
The designer !s indeed indebted to the author
for publishing this paper and hopes that he will see
fit to publish his recent treatise on the subject of
fishing trawlers for the benefit of all.
MR. JAMES A. WASMUND, Member: The author
is to be congratulated on the scope, contents and
wealth of informative material contained in his
paper on modern tug design.
The comments in this discussion will be limited
to that portion of the paper dealing with main
propulsion machinery, and particularly to electric
drive. The statement, " I t is customary to use a
conventional reduction, gear in conjunction with
electric drive~ so as to avoid an unusually large and
bulky electric motor," is probably well justified.
However, there are many such drives in operation
wherein a thorough consideration of all relative
factors resulted in the use of a slow-speed motor
14 "Developable Surfaces for Plywood B o a t s , " by C. P. Burgess,
The Rudder, February, 1940.
connected directly to the propeller shaft; for ex-
ample, a large number of fleet tugs built for the
N a v y during World War II.
Over the years, the writer has had occasion to
compare a considerable number of geared versus
direct-connected motor drives. In almost every
ease the geared drive proved to be lighter in
weight by a figure somewhere between 25 and 40
per cent, depending somewhat on the selected pro-
peller sp_eed. This saving in weight, however, is
ustlally accompanied by an increase in "blocked
space" occupied, which may, in some cases, be as
much as 60 per cent. Maintenance-wise also
there is much to recommend a slow-speed d-e mo-
tor versus a number of high-speed motors provid-
ing the same horsepower.
In most eases transmission efficiency can be im-
proved by the use of .a direct-connected motor
since the gear losses can then be eliminated.
First-cost comparisons are very difficult to pre-
dict and studies must be made in each individuM
ease. In general, however, the two drives are
competitive in price.
One point o n which the writer disagrees with
the author is the statement, "Reversing is ob-
tained by reversing the field of the motor." Cer-
tainly American standard practice is to use vari-
able-voltage control wherein the generator field is
varied in both magnitude and polarity by means of
a potentiometer rheostat. The setting of the
generator field rheostat, from a neutral position,
determines the direction of rotation of the motor
as well as its actual speed. The motor field is
: only changed to compensate for different hull or
416 MODERN TUG DESIGN
towing conditions in order to be able to absorb full
available engine horsepower under different con-
ditions of propeller speed. The motor field is not
reversed. T h e r e is a constant-current series
system in use in Europe wherein reversal of the
motor field is used to reverse rotation; however,
to the best of the writer's knowledge, no such in-
stallation has been made in this country.
CAPT. J. ANDRI~W BROWN, USN, Member: This
paper is a significant contribution to the literature
of the naval architect. I feel that the author has
done an excellent job of bringing together all the
information required to design a modern tug.
M u c h of the data is presented in charts and graphs
which can be put to immediate use by the de-
signer.
There are several points of interest in this pa-
per which I think require clarification, and are
worthy, therefore, of some discussion. As to the
U. S. N a v y criteria of stability it is true that we
have statical and dynamical stability criteria,
but we try to keep these flexible. Generally, we
analyze the stability of a design in both the intact
and the damaged condition. Since a harbor tug
is not even a one-compartment ship throughout,
intact stability is the only condition worth in-
vestigation. The intact stability of a tug should
be sufficient to prevent capsizing under the in-
fluence of beam winds or atwartships bollard pull
from its own towline. In other words we are in-
terested in the tug's ability to resist a dynamic
force tending to capsize it. Therefore, to deter-
mine the adequacy of the stability of a tug we must
plot the cross curves of stability and draw the
curve of righting arms for critical conditions of
loading. From the righting-arm curve we can de-
termine theinitial stability or metacentric height.
But more important we can determine the maxi-
m u m righting arm, the angle at which it occurs,
and the range of stability. These, together with
the area under the righting-arm curve, enable the
naval architect to evaluate properly the dynamic
stability; something no formula can do which
merely gives an approximation of initial stability.
Such approximate formulas are extremely helpful
devices for establishing principal dimensions in
the preliminary design stage. T h e y are not ade-
quate, however, for the evaluation of stability of
a completed design. About 40 man-hours are re-
quired to produce a set 'of cross c u r v e s . This is a
small price to pay to determine the adequacy of
the stability of a t u g worth $500,000 to $600,000
not considering the value of the tow and the crew.
For a complete discussion of this stability of
tugs and trawlers I have found no finer treatment
of this subject than that given by the Finnish
naval architect Jaakka Rahola in his book "The
Judging of the Stability of Ships." I recommend
this to anyone concerned with the design of small
craft. This work analyzes the stability of several
tugs and trawlers which were lost due to lack of
stability. A current discussion of towing casual-
ties is given in the Proceedings of the Merchant
Marine Council of the U. S. Coast Guard for June
1956.
I would like to point out the great pains taken in
the T B design, Fig. 10, to reduce propeller-
excited vibration: (a) The propeller aperture is
increased markedly above and below the propeller
hub to give increased tip cleai-ance. (b) The
waterlines aft are narrowed down as much as
possible up to the level of top of the propeller
disk to ensure an even wake distribution in the
flow into the propeller, and to reduce vibration
from interaction of propeller pressure field with
structure forward. This is shown clearly by
looking at the trace of station 9 of this YTB. Com-
pare this with station 9 on the tug shown in Fig. 8.
The author recommends a bar keel wherever
possible to minimize danger to the hull in ground-
ing. This is one issue on which the author and I
disagree absolutely. First, I feel that the bar keel
is an anachronism held over from the days of
wooden ships which results in a structure well
suited to wooden ships, and to a lesser degree to
riveted ships. I can see no reason for it, however,
on a welded tug. I have seen many harbor tugs
with bar .keels and without, and I have seen no
great amount of damage done to either by ground-
ing. Furthermore, the landing craft which are
designed to land on all types of beaches all have
flat bottoms except for skegs aft to protect the
rudders and propellers. I do not believe they
would have suffered any less damage if they had
had bar keels, and I am sure they would be more
difficult to build and retract from a beach.
But my real objection to a bar keel is the terrible
havoc a tug can wreck on a set of cap blocks in a
drydock. In the N a v y it is customary to use
hardwood or concrete blocks with soft fir caps.
These cap blocks can be used over and over again
in normal docking procedure: However, the dock-
ing of a small tug with a bar keel will render the
majority of a set of soft cap blocks completely
unusable after one docking. The cost of a nev set
of cap blocks, the time for an additional pumping
down of the dock and t h e labor of replacing the
blocks is a high price to pay for a bar keel even if
we could prove some advantage in the rare case of
grounding.
While I was on duty at the Ship Repair Facility
in SUBIC, we had this problem whenever we
docked one of the bar-keel tugs. We fabricated a
 MODERN
set of cap blocks with steel angle irons set in
edges of the blocks. These steel angles took the
h e a v y load of the bar keels, and saved the wood.
These iron-bound cap blocks soon paid for them-
selves since they could be used over and over as
well as providing a better support to the tug when
on the blocks. Incidentally, I first saw these
blocks used at the Boston N a v a l Shipyard, and we
used their plans in the fabrication of our blocks.
In discussing the diesel-electric propulsion
system the author fails to mention the disad-
vantages of high cost. According to our analyses
the diesel-electric system has the highest initial
cost, and the highest maintenance cost. Further-
more, the electric motors and generators are a real
m a i n t e n a n c e problem in tropical humid areas
where the N a v y frequently finds itself forced to
operate. There is every reason to believe t h a t
costs for initial installation and maintenance of a
controllable-pitch propeller installation would be
less than for a diesel electric. The vertical-axis
propeller is another installation which is being
used on some small tugs being built in Germany.
This gives the ultimate in maneuverability and
remote control. As the mechanical problems of
this system are brought under control and we gain
confidence in the reliability of this type of mecha-
nism, I feel t h a t it will be used more and more in
tugs.
Towboats with K o r t nozzles appear to have
been highly successful when operating on our inland
waterways. With multiple screws and flanking
rudders, the craft can be maneuvered with ease.
The use of K o r t nozzles on single-screw harbor
tugs, however, appears questionable. In addi-
tion to reduced backing power the large nozzle for
the single screw will seriously reduce maneuvera-
bility. A ship-handling tug with a K o r t nozzle
would be of little use in warping a large ship in a
congested harbor. We checked one tug fitted
with a K o r t nozzle, and the skipper reported, half
in jest, t h a t he had to request assistance of another
tug every time he tried to come alongside a pier.
In closing I would like to point out t h a t while I
have taken issue with the author on several points
these are b y no means even an appreciable per-
centage of the points the author makes. I would
also like to reiterate t h a t I consider this paper to be
an extremely valuable contribution to our pro-
fession, and it is the kind of paper I feel our So-
ciety should encourage.
MR. ABRAHAM TAPLIN, Associate Member: The
author's discussion of types of rudders is quite in-
teresting. Some clarification would be appreci-
ated on the following points:
(a) If the flat-plate rudder develops more lift
TUG DESIGN 417
than the streamlined rudder for ahead operation,
why should the streamlined rudder be superior
when going astern?
(b) Is there any ship test evidence that fishtails
are useful on tug rudders?
(c) W h a t m a x i m u m rudder angles are con-
sidered worth while?
In connection with the discussion of flapped
rudders, it should be noted t h a t they will probably
result in poor astern controllability. This follows
from the mechanical linkage which provides the
variable camber. T h e camber which is desired
for ahead operation is opposite from the camber
desired for astern operation.
In the discussion of flanking rudders with K o r t
nozzles, it should be pointed out t h a t the action is
somewhat unusual. For astern operation, one
flanking rudder comes up against the inside of the
nozzle somewhat like a partial butterfly valve and
diverts the flow. The other flanking rudder at
that nozzle acts like a guide vane or lifting surface.
The important point is t h a t the flanking rudders
should go to hardover to be useful--intermediate
angles are not generally effective.
The suggestion b y C. D. Roach for reversing sym-
metrical sections of rudders is extremely question-
able. Some unpublished wind-tunnel tests on a
spade rudder of N A C A 4-digit symmetrical series
section, effective aspect ratio 2.0, at a Reynolds
number of 3,000,000 show t h a t for normal opera-
tion the m a x i m u m lift coefficient increases in
about a straight line to a value of 1.25 at 29 deg
angle of attack, after which there is flow breakdown.
The same rudder in astern operation shows a lift
curve which begins falling below the linear range
at 12 deg attack angle and reaches a m a x i m u m
lift coefficient of only 0.63 at 18 deg attack angle.
The author is to be "commended for bringing
into the open some of the m a n y and varied prac-
tices used in rudder design. Through such presen-
tation and discussion we can expect to advance
in this field of knowledge.
DR. E. C. B. CORLETT, Foreign Affiliate Associ-
ate Member: The author is entirely correct in t h a t
the published information on the subject of tug
design is remarkable mainly for its paucity. This
type of vessel evolved in the early days of steam
with little reference to systematic design and al-
though highly efficient tugs are constructed in
m a n y parts of the world, design knowledge has
tended to be isolated in pockets. The author has
done the Society distinct service in presenting this
paper embodying so m u c h useful comparative in-
formation.
The writer has been associated over the past few
years with the development in the United King-
 418 MODERN TUG DESIGN

15o 1300
I0J__
130 _

I
/. @ IOO
oo

. iI ./
o~ , 2 0 _ ,~/ ~ _ 000
I-
O II0 Lengfh of Normal S.S. J , e,o~ "*~
"5
.o -- Hvdroconic Tuns ,I.$ ~ _ __ 900
Ioo_ \ ./.~;" /~-f _ cO

I-
oe'~" ~ I H,droconicA1' : 800
- Lencjfh of Normal T . S . . / 6-~'J~,~ ~ / ~ / 0/
g 80 __ Hydroconlc Tdgs. / ~ /"- / _ 600 E
g
/- 500

._./.>-'...>'....-"
_

a'~ ~q
. o _ / /._/ /_ /. ~.~. . _
_ 4oo k5
g so_ / " / / ../ // " ./ . / / .... ,. _.00
_

Ke
-- ~ ~ B r [ f i s h Pracf~ce _ 200

0 200 400 600 800 I000 1200 1400 IgO0 lBO0 2000 2_200
Shai:f Horsepower

FIG. 35 C O M P A R I S O N OF H Y D R O C O N I C T U G W I T H A M E R I C A N AND B R I T I S H D E S I G N P R A C T I C E

dom of a distinct design philosophy which may, if author's Fig. 1 replotted with the length and
desired, be applied to tugs and is based upon the displacement of normal single and twin-screw
use of simple.developable surfaces. This approach Hydroconic tugs on a basis of shaft horsepower.
uses the trade name "Hydroconic," although if the I t will be seen that the length of these on a basis of
author had not mentioned it, I would feel averse shaft horsepower is intermediate between t h a t of
t o using a trade name with which I am connected British and American tugs, but the curve is similar
a t a-professional conference~ M a n y tugs have in character to t h a t of American practice. On the
been..built to this system and, mistakenly, are other hand, the displacements, while conforming
,often thought of as simple straight-line forms such closely to the values obtained in American prac-
as, for. instance, the British Tid tugs .built during tice up to 1000 shp, follow the general characteris-
the last war. This is entirely incorrect and in fact tics of the curve of displacement for British tugs.
m a n y of .the principles of design used m a y be ap- The remaining dimensions, such as depth and
.plied to chine tugs or to tugs of conventional bilge draft, also v a r y from both these practices, Fig. 36.
shape. The draft is generally in excess of normal British
Initially we intended to design tugboats of in- practice and, for instance, is between British and
herently lower first cost, but of average per- American practice up to 100 ft and in excess of
formance. Development of the design approach either above that. The depth generally conforms
Soon allowed the production of tugs of outstand- closely to the curve shown for British vessels,
ing performance, seaworthiness and strength, all while the percentage drag of keel is much less
much above average and cost saving is now variable with length than those shown.
merely a bonus. At the m o m e n t there is a group The design approach used in these tugs is quite
-of round-bilge tugs building embodying most of different from t h a t outlined in the paper, for ex-
the Hydroeonic design features. I would like, ample, no variation of block coefficient with speed
therefore, in this discussion, to supplement the in- is permitted, neither is any such variation made
:formation given b y the author, as the design ap- with respect to LCB position. This will be ex-
.proach in these tugs and the resulting propor- plained.
tions and performance are so different from The design is centered on the propeller, and the
British-or American practice t h a t they certainly towing performance of a screw behind a normal
cannot be considered by the plots in the figures tug hull is necessarily lower than in open-water
given in the paper. conditions whether it is to be on the bollard, or at
For example, Fig. 35 herewith shows, the towing speeds, or running free. We provide
 MODERN TUG DESIGN 419

20 13
19_ . _ 12

17_ _0
IG_ _ 9
15_ _ 8
a.~.
oJ
13 - ........
o
,ZO , , _

-- / Key 2

-- - - Arnericon Procfice -- I

G '

5 I I I I I I I I I I
40 50 00 -/0 80 go I00 II0 120 130 1q-0 150 IGO
Lengfh Befween Perpendlculors-Feef

FIG. 36 COMPARISON OF LENGTH B P VERSUS DEPTH AND DRAFT OF HYDROCONIC T U G WITH AMERICAN AND BRITISH
DESIGN PRACTICE

operating conditions as good as are possible and boundary layer separate from that of the skeg
therefore keep the center of buoyancy well for- This allows the clearance from the hull to be re-
ward, giving a long easy run to the hull. The duced to the absolute minimum. For example,
sections are made extremely wide in way of the with a 10-ft 8-in. screw transmitting 1350 shp, we
propeller and all buttock lines are kept straight have used clearances from the hull of as little as 8
for at least 20 per cent of the length of the vessel in. with entirely satisfactory results and no sign of
from t h e transom, or alternatively, are hooked blade-excited vibration.
over the propeller. In this manner, with the LCB By careful design, this type_of form can be made
at o r slightly forward of amidships, the tendency of inherently low resistance. For example, a
of the hull to squat at speed-length ratios in the given trig'will always plot favorably against a tug
region of 1-1.4 is entirely avoided as has been from the S N A M E test sheets where the two have
shown by measurement during model testing and similar coefficients. We do not strive for fine
by observations on trials. The resulting sections waterline entrances and, in fact, the type of stern
give complete coverage to the propeller and do not being by definition one of flow along buttock lines,
allow air drawing even under severe provocation. it is advantageous to avoid imparting a markedly
Owing to the shape of the foregoing sections in waterline characteristic to the flow. in the fore-
way Of and forward of the propeller, we can make body.
this rather large. As the pull of the tug of given From this will be seen that the Hydroconic form
power is, to the first order, linearly proportional to is a distinct one and the basic design premises dif-
the propeller diameter, the revolutions are ad- fer from those a d o p t e d in normal British or
justed by choice of gearbox ratio to suit the charac- American tugs. The block coefficient has been. in-
teristics of the hull and the propeller. While this vestigated in extensive tank and full-scale testing
large propeller assists in obtaining a good pull the and it has been found that to give optimum re-
question of clearances arises. By designing the sults, it should be kept between 0.45 and 0.48.
hull as a discrete body and adding thereto an ap- By suitable adjustment of the dimensions, it is
pendage in the form of a skeg fairing into the possible to design so that any tug function m a y be
hull well forward of the propeller, a relatively uni- performed keeping within this range of block co-
form wake distribution is' obtained with the hull efficients a n d one must emphasize that this point
 420 MODERN TUG DESIGN

Fore Peak
iV. B a l l \

I T-
Crew IiAccommolldai- on
I I

I
iii
IIII
%%
I ~
i
i I W,~I
k . . . . .

~.= i',' ~ - ~
,, ~-',~ /,, ,,,~--!-
I I I [ I
15 GO FR
:YE zJ"_rzo_"!~Szo_~i2_g&La"f_~_~_sp~__~2s

Principal Dimonsions
LencJf h, 0veroll, fl- i n . - - I I 4 - 111f~
Length B P~f { - i n . - . . . . 105-0
Searchlig~
Beam molded, f t - i n . - - - 2 9 - 3 ~
Depth molded, f f - i n . - - - - 13-136
Ora{f molded aft, ff-ln.-- 13-0
Rakeof keel~ff-ln.- . . . . 5-0
~ ~. . . . . ~ '~ Dn- l~Dle Telemoi-o C o m b e r 7 % i n . in 2 9 t f ~in.
sfrcli~h f llne WHEEL HOUSE TOP

BRIDGE DECK

FIG. 37 HYDROCONICTUG, SYDNEY COVE

is i m p o r t a n t , as vahies in excess of 0.50 have been sorption a t speeds r a n g i n g b e t w e e n 0 a n d 6 knots,

f o u n d to raise the t h r u s t d e d u c t i o n a p p r e c i a b l y
e v e n i n bollard conditions.
T h e a u t h o r m a k e s reference to a n u m b e r of
articles b y the writer o n these tugs, l e a v i n g the
q u e s t i o n of p e r f o r m a n c e r a t h e r in the air. Firstly,
I should like to s t a t e it is a fact observed is con-
s t r u c t i o n t h a t , in tugs a b o v e 50 ft length, m a n -
h o u r savings of over 30 per cent in the steel labor
of t h e hull are o b t a i n e d c o n s i s t e n t l y . T h i s is
p a r t l y due to the s i m p l i c i t y of c o n s t r u c t i o n a n d
p a r t l y due to a novel form of p r e f a b r i c a t i o n t h a t is
pos.sible w i t h this t y p e of hull a n d which has been
f o u n d so successful in practice t h a t the afore-
m e n t i o n e d savings can, in fact, be realized con:
s i s t e n t l y in specialist yards. N a t u r a l ! y , this
saving m a y be utilized either to produce a
cheaper vessel or to increase t h e b u i l d i n g profit
a n d m a y n o t be reflected fully in a bid.
N o r m a l l y , we design tugs to give full power ab-
F o r example, the m o t o r t u g Sydney Cove, Fig. 37.
has the following p a r t i c u l a r s :
Length overall, ft-in . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 115-0
Length between perpendiculars, ft-in . . . . . . . . . 105-0
Breadth molded, ft-in . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 29-2
Depth at side, ft . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
Draft aft, ft . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
Draft forward, ft . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
Drag of keel, ft . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
Freeboard, ft . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3.4
Block coefficient . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0. 475
V~ V L free running . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1.25
Shaft horsepower:
Normal . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1200
Maximum . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1350
RPM, Maximum . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 160
Propeller diameter, ft in . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10-8
Type of rudder . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Bulb
Bollard pull :
Long tons at 1200 shp . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20.0
Long tons at 1350 shp . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21.8
T h i s vessel was designed w i t h a screw i n t e n d e d
for the a b s o r p t i o n of 1350 shp a t zero forward
 MODERN TuG DESIGN 421

4__ 25 20

3_
I

'?-0 ._
~ 1015 SHP
13gO SHP
1460 SHP
18.0Tons 1.77 Ton/lO0SlipI
21.6 Tons 1.60 TonllO0SHP
P_2.aTon,s 1.56 Ton/lO0SHP
Observed Pull

Tons/lO0 SHE
s
J I.GTon ]
f

"r"
CO
2_
--"
t5__
/
/
S

,7>--..i
~,~ugm
, ~
enl" "-I,.
0~
(.9

fM

I. I
I
I
I
I
I-
I
I
~1_ io_ Calculaed Pull f o r
_1
I I I
I
st
Open Wa%r
I
I .:_1
I -~I
I
I
I
O_ 5 I_ I _ 0
I ml
I I I
1 I I
I I I
I I I
-I _ 01~ iI I
I
i -5
0 200 400 G00 800 , I000 1200 1400 1600
SHP (Torsion m e ~ e r)

FIG. 38 OBSERVED AND CALCULATED P U L L - - M T SYDNEY C o v e BOLLARD T R I A L S

speed. I t was found t h a t a Troost-type section was therefore, is considerable. Subject of course to an
suitable and the propeller was four bladed with a owner allowing choice of propeller revolutions and
40 per cent disk-area ratio. The contract pull on o t h e r parameters, it is then possible for the de-
the bollard was 18 tons and this was obtained with signer to guarantee a pull figure of 1.6 to 1.7 tons
1015 shp measured on a Siemens torsion meter. against penalty. The obtainable speeds are less
The contract horsepower of 1350, in fact, pro- nondimensional, of course, as the installed horse-
duced 21.8 tons. power/ton displacement tends to drop in the
Fig. 38 shows a s u m m a r y of the bollard trial larger ships.
results of this vessel and it will be seen t h a t the ob- I t should be remarked t h a t Fig. 5 in the paper
served pulls are well in excess of the calculated shows a 92-ft tug in very outline arrangement,
o p e n - w a t e r thrusts of the screw. The shape of while Fig. 6 shows the midship section of a small
these tugs is so arranged that, while no measur- 42-ft launch/tug.
able thrust deduction takes place on the bollard, On the subject of stability and freeboard, the
With the type of rudder fitted which incorporates tug Sydney Cove has an operating metacentric
a h e a v y streamlin e bulb rudder post with a flat- height with full free surface correction in the deep-
p l a t e trailing edge, actual thrust augments are load condition of about.5 ft. I t has been found in
obtainable. This rudder operates as a contra-sys- practice t h a t this does not affect in a n y way the
tern capable of accepting, high incidence of flow seakindliness of the vessel which was found on de-
producing an augment varying between 5 and 15 livery to Australia to be .outstanding, b u t has
per cent of the total open-water thrust of the most desirable results in ability to handle tows in
screw, depending upon the level of the disk difficult conditions and at close quarters. Where
loading. I t m a y be felt t h a t speeds in the region of possible rolling chocks should be fitted, of course.
V/x/L = 1 . 2 5 - - 1.35 in association with Generally speaking, we arrange t h a t Hydroconic
bollard pulls of between 1.6 and 1.9 tons/100 shp, tugs have high metacentric heights ranging from
are so high as to be questionable, but nearly 40 3 to 5 ft after correction for free surface, dependent
tugs of this t y p e have been constructed in the past upon type. I n association with this, we feel t h a t
5 years ranging from 160-1400 shp, m a n y of which adequate freeboard is most i m p o r t a n t and we
achieve these figures. The practical background, would generally rather increase the freeboard for
422 MODERN TUG DESIGN
some of tile vessels given in Table 2, although so~e
have freeboards which are entirely adequate; for
example, the William and Y. AIoran.
At this point, it is as well to mention that an
attractive alternative to the diesel-electric installa-
tion is to fit a multispeed gearbox, as in s~me
European vessels, or to allow an overspeed at
light load when running free. As an example of
Continental practice, the very interesting French
salvage tug Jean Bart of 2500 shp is fitted with. a
three-speed gearbox allowing the screw to absorb
full power either running free, or at 100 per cent
slip, or running astern.
M a n y diesel-engine manufacturers will permit,
with absolute confidence, an increase of approxi-
mately 10 per cent in the operating revolutions of
their machinery running free, providing the
torque does not exceed a figure of, say, 75 per cent
of the continuous rated maximum. If this is done,
it will be found that many of the characteristics of
the diesel-electric installation can then be Gb-
tained with a single-ratio geared diesel tug, the
propeller being designed for full-power absorption
at normal revolutions at perhaps 2 knots forward
speed. This was not the case with the Sydney
Cove. Where this has been possible, a 56-ft
Thames tug has produced a bollard pull of 5.5
tons at 324 shp while registering a speed on the
measured mile of 10.78 knots, a rather remarkable
figure. Here, approximately 10 per cent over-
speed of the machinery allowed absorption of
about 85 per cent of the rated power.
The cost per pound of bollard pull on the
average high-efficiency Hydroconic tug designed
without limitations on revolutions or draft and
built in Britain, is of the order of $7 per lb pull.
Tile cost given in the paper, compares favorably
with this, bearing in mind the difference in ship-
building costs between the two countries. The
pull per S H P of these tugs is taken, for normal
purposes, as ranging from 35-40 lb per delivered
horsepower; good figures approaching 40.
There are other points upon which one would
like to touch. No detailed mention is made in the
paper of twin-screw tugs. Recently a series of
four Hydroeonic twin-screw tugs was built for
the Manchester Ship Canal Company; 88 ft in
length, these 1200-shp vessels were fitted with
three different sets of screws in order to assess
their suitability for canal working from an opera-
tional point of view. The first set consisted of
two 7 ft 3 in. diameter screws of ogival or "Taylor"
sections. These cast-iron screws gave an ahead pull
of just over 17 tons and an astern pull of just under
10 tons. The second set was of aerofoil section to
about the 0.5 radius and lentieular from thereon.
These screws gave a bollard pull ahead of 15.5
tons and a bollard pull astern of 13.5 tons. The
third set of screws is of Tr~ost aerofoil type and
wbile performance figures are not yet to hand, it is
anticipated that the bollarcl pull ahead will be
approximately 16 tons and the bollard pull astern
approximately 12 tons.
The writer cannot agree that the ogival screw
will give a relatively high astern pull, for the
reason that the mean effective pitch astern is lower
in relation to the pitch ahead than ill the case of
the aerofoil screw. We have observed this in
practice on carefully measured trials and, at any
rate in our context, it is a fact. I t is interesting
to note that where propellers are designed for full
power absorption at low speeds (0-2 knots), each
power has an associated optimum diameter and
hence an associated pitch and revolutions, to
give the maximum pull per 100 h.p. We know,
before entering standard series charts, what pitch-
diameter ratio will give these optimum results in a
tug, that is to say, what the diameter should be
for a given power and what tile gear ratio should
be. Calculations largely serve to check chosen
characteristics.
Tug-propeller design is a fascinating subject and
doing a considerable amount of tug design, we find
it profitable to do our own detailed work and, in
fact, to introduce original variations in design.
On occasion, it has been found possible to pro-
duce as much as 4 per cent increase in thrust over,
for instance, the standard Troost-type screws
without any increase in power by 'varying the
blade outline.
All single-screw tugs of this type are fitted with
a patent rudder which, as mentioned earlier, gives
an increase in thrust, due to a contrarotation in-
fluence on the screw race. This rudder has sub-
sidiary advantages as it is cheap, enormously
strong, and gives a high lift coefficient at small
angles of incidence. I t consists of a streamline
bulb rudder post of high thickness ratio, the stock
being as near tile tail of the bulb as possible and
the fiat trailing rudder being used mainly to
stimulate circulation, the lift when going ahead
coming almost entirely from the bulb. This rud-
der has the great advantage t h a t its rotational
energy recovery capabilities are high at high
values at slip and therefore large angles of intake
incidence. We have found that the normal Hy-
droconic tug fitted with a bulb rudder is capable of
equalling or bettering the towing abilities of
similar vessels fitted with a Kort-nozzle rudder in
tile context of given free-running characteristics,
but naturally the maneuverability astern is not
nearly as good. Where a fixed nozzle is fitted, we
consider that a "drooped leading edge" to the
bottom section of the nozzle may be necessary in
 MODERN
a hull with strong buttock flow characteristics, as
the inflow incidence of the lowermost section is
apt to be unduly high, possibly leading to some
incipient breakdown of flow.
Regarding the area of rudders, I agree with the
author t h a t 6-61/~ per cent profile ratio gives a
maneuverable harbor tug. We prefer to be cau-
tious in reducing this figure, even for seagoing
tugs, but the fixed post m a y be included, where a
bulb rudder is fitted.
In the case of twin-screw vessels, we always use
twin rudders and we place these inboard of the
screws. We fit large tip plates to the rudders
which are usually of a symmetrical NACA type
section.
By careful attention to the afterbody, and to all
appendages, we.have found-itpossible to produce
twin-screw tugs of quite outstanding maneuver-
ability, which, for instance, can steer against the
thrust of one screw with 5-10 deg of helm only.
This type of tug has a definite place in the picture
considering the diffficult maneuvers normally m e t
with in handling big ships in canals and n a r r o w
rivers.
In conclusion, I should like to thank the author
f o r the amount of work he has put into this ex-
cellent paper and for his interest in what I. feel to
be a fascinating, rewarding, and neglected field of
naval architecture. M y differences of opinion
outlined in the foregoing do not constitute a dis-
agreement with any part of the paper, they merely
detail a design approach to the tugboat problem
rather, different from either European or American
practice.
DR. J. F. LEATHARD, Foreign Affiliate Associate
Member: The paper has been read with a great
deal of interest, and the following comments are
concerned primarily with the approach to propel-
ler design for tugs. I t has been found t h a t the
use of the ~ -= a charts represents the simplest
and most direct approach to the problem of the
design of bollard or towing propellers while the
KT -- KQ charts areuseful for estimating the free-
running speed of the vessel. By mathematical
analysis of systematic series data for a particular
propeller type, for example, the Dutch T a n k
B.4.40, it is possible to find the pitch ratio which
will give the m a x i m u m ahead pull for any given
values of diameter and engine torque. There is,
therefore, a corresponding o p t i m u m value for
revolutions. By this means, it should be possible
to eliminate some of the arithmetical work pro-
posed in Appendix 1 of the paper. I t is interesting
to note t h a t some considerable deviation from the
o p t i m u m pitch ratio does not produce an appreci-
able difference i n t h e bollard pull.
TUG DESIGN 423
In a similar manner it is also possible to ap-
proximate to the o p t i m u m pitch ratio for a given
screw series to ensure t h a t the free-running speed
of the tug will be the highest in association with a
given minimum bollard pull.
I t cannot be emphasized sufficiently that a pro-
peller m a y be designed for only one forward speed
at which m a x i m u m power will be absorbed at the
designed revolutions. Once this forward speed is
departed f r o m , either the propeller will be re-
quired to absorb higher torque at the given maxi-
m u m revolutions, or for normal m a x i m u m torque,
the revolutions will have t o be increased. The
majority of modern tugs in the United Kingdom
are diesel propelled and the problem of obtaining
both satisfactory bollard pull and ahead speed
m a y be approached in one of three ways:
(a) The use of a multispeed gearbox between
engine and propeller.
(b) The fitting of a controllable-pitch propeller.
(c) The use of acceptable ratings for the engine
different from the continuous rating.
Condition (c) is undoubtedly the simplest ap-
proach. Consider a propeller designed for a given
forward speed, say, 4 knots. If revolutions are
maintained constant on the bollard, the torque
will have to rise and it will be found t h a t it will!
correspond very closely to the value for the 1 2 - h r
(10 per cent overload) ratingof,the engine. " On the
other hand, when the tug is free running, unless
revolutions are allowed, to increase, the power ab-
sorbed will be relatively small with the torque
considerably below t h a t corresponding to the con-
tinuous rating of the engine. Several engine
builders, however, p e r m i t - a certain percentage
overspeed when free running provided the ab-
sorbed power is within certain limits. By these
means, it is possible to design a propeller which
will give both. high bollard pull and reasonable
free-running speed.
The question of section shape in relation to the
astern pull is of importance and the writer c a n n o t
agree with the suggestion t h a t segmental sections
are better than aerofoil sections in this respect. I t
is usually found t h a t the no-lift angle of a seg-
mental section having given thickness ratio is:
higher than the corresponding no-lift angle for a
normal aerofoil section. I t m a y be argued t h a t
the associated difference in eenterline camber
ratios should be reflected when going astern in a
reduction of the effective astern pitch for a seg-
mental section as compared with a corresponding
aerofoil section. I t would therefore be anticipated
t h a t f o r g i v e n revolutions, the astern pull for the:
segmental screw would be less than for the aero-
foil screw. The use of symmetrical sections is, of
course, the best proposition and it is s u b m i t t e d
424 MODERN TUG DESIGN
that the performance would decrease in ac-
cordance with the following order--symmetrical,
aerofoil, segmental.
The question of blade thickness and propeller
material is also of considerable importance, and
frGm analysis of certain trial data, it has been
found that the influence of thickness is consider-
ably less on the bollard than free running, while
the use of cast iron in place of manganese bronze,
for instance, produces a considerable loss in ef-
ficiency while free running.
The author puts forward a plea that further in-
formation should be given by diesel-engine
builders concerning the performance of their
products. The writer would like to emphasize
that the provision of such data is of considerable
importance, especially where trial analysis is being
attempted. For instance, in m a n y cases torsion-
meters are not fitted to the shafting and an indi-
cation of power m a y be obtained from engine-
temperature readings--provided test-bed data for
given percentage maximum torques at given per-
centage maximum R P M are provided b y the en-
gine builder.
Finally, some comments should be made con-
cerning the average principal particulars given in
Figs. 1 and 2. The writer has analysed details of
over 30 European tugs, most of them built in the
United Kingdom, and some differences are noted
as compared with the author's diagrams. For in-
stance, the curve of length against shaft horsepower
is found to lie somewhere between the lines cor-
responding to British and American practice and
is approximately parallel to the latter line. The
graph for cubic number against shaft horsepower
is practically coincident with that corresponding
to American practice up to a shaft horsepower of
about 1000. L/B ratios agree exactly with
American practice over the full range of lengths
shown in the chart, while L/D ratios correspond
closely to the American figures up to L B P = 80 ft
and then begin to follow the British line up to
L B P = 150 ft. I t must be stressed, however, that
it is extremely difficult to draw mean lines
through the data available since there is consider-
able scatter of the spots, and only a very ap-
proximate indication m a y be obtained of normal
trends.
MR. DWIGHT S. SIMPSON, Member: I t is a
pleasure to study such a paper as this. The
author has assembled and well organized more in-
formation on tugboat design than can be found
in any other compendium. I t is with hestitation
that these few additional remarks are offered.
We have heard more or less of the Hydroconic
hull for several years now. This appears to be a
trade name for a well-designed double-chine hull
form which has been used for m a n y years. M y
own first major design of this type was built in
1938-39. While an extremely good hull of the
double-chine type can be developed, I doubt if it
can be made better than an equally well-designed
molded form. The economics of the design depend
largely on the yard in which it is built.
There are m a n y small yards unequipped to
bend frames or to roll and furnace plates, de-
pending largely on burning and welding equip-
ment. As such a yard will have a very small over-
head it is reasonable to expect a considerable
saving on a "straight frame" hull built in such a
y a r d - - w h i c h cannot build any other kind.
A few years back two designs were prepared for
the same ship, one molded hull and one double-
chine hull. Size, arrangement, and equipment
were exactly alike. The time element threw the
contract in a well-equipped yard and on a two ship
contract of over half a million dollars the difference
in cost of the two hull constructions was $10,000
--less than 2 per cent. As the hulls in this case
amounted to about a quarter of the contract there
would have been a saving of only about 8 per cent
in hull costs.
The use of the straight-frame form does give a
greater choice of builders and in busy times might
save time in delivery and, in a small yard, probably
10 per cent in cost.
The Power Problem. The writer is aware of the
fact that tugs, today, are bought and their serv-
ices sold on the basis of horsepower. I t is, how-
ever, a question as to how many of these over-
powered monsters are making full use of their
horsepower and if the owner is getting his m o n e y ' s
worth in performance achieved.
The author suggests that one look at the lines
in order to establish the largest propeller t h a t m a y
be used. I t is here respectfully offered that one
first look at the propeller to establish the largest
diameter that should be used; then finish the
lines.
In many cases the actual draft of the tug is of
slight importance and when it is there is a possibil-
ity that a smaller engine properly applied will de-
liver all the thrust that the limited propeller can
absorb.
A recent investigation produced the following
figures for an engine of 700 bhp with reduction
gear and for a towing speed of 4.5 knots:
Develop
Propeller Propeller thrust, Per cent
diam rpm tons increase
6 ft 10 in. 230 8.6
8 ft 0 in. 176 9.35 "8".'7
9 ft 10 in. 130 10.6 23.1
 MODERN
TABLE 5 COMPARISON OF D R I V E SYSTEMS
C o n d i t i o n No. I II
Prop. d i a m 6 ft 5 in.
SHP Thrust, tons
Free ( I L K ) . . . . . . . . . 700 4.9
Towing 3.5K ....... 595 5.8
Bollard . . . . . . . . . . . . 545 6.6
Further, if we were limited to the 8-ft propeller
and installed a 1200-bhp engine, we would use
about 184 r p m and develop a thrust of 11 tons.
This gain of about 19 per cent in thrust seems
scarcely worth the 60 per cent additional invest-
m e n t in the power plant and its accompanying fuel
and maintenance bills.
The controllable-pitch propeller improves the
over-all performance considerably, providing more
suitable pitch for varying conditions. True, it
m a y not be the most efficient design for any given
condition b u t it has a higher average efficiency
than the fixed-blade propeller which can be de-
signed for only one condition. With it our 700-
bhp engine again more nearly equals the 1200 bhp
not so equipped.
However the C P propeller adds considerably to
the cost of the propulsion plant and therefore the
following addition to the author's list of propulsion
systems is suggested.
The multispeed gear as developed b y Mr. F.
Suberkrub and the G e r m a n firm of Renk has
m a n y installations in European tugs, trawlers and
icebreakers but has received practically no at-
tention in this country. This gear is designed to
t r a n s m i t engine power to the propeller through a
choice of speed reductions, permitting the engine
to develop its full R P M , power, and torque under
the differing conditions of towing and free route.
Usually two speeds are provided and sometimes
three, especially when two engines are connected
through the gear to one shaft.
T h e propeller is solid, and since most modern
engines are fitted with a reduction gear, with or
without a reverse mechanism the additional cost
of the multispeed gear is a relatively small sum.
L e t us see what it accomplishes.
I n considering recently the modernization of a
trawler, in which the diameter of the propeller was
very definitely limited to 6 ft 5 in. the figures in
T a b l e 5 were obtained for a 700-bhp engine. In
the table Condition I considers the engine with a
standard reduction gear. Condition I I involves a
two-speed gear. I t will be seen t h a t the two-speed
gear gives an increase of about 12 per cent in tow-
ing and 13.5 in bollard pull.
TUG DESIGN 425
III
6 ft 5 in. 6 ft 0 in.
SHP Thrust, tons SHP Thrust, tons
700 4.9 700 4.9
700 6.5 652 7.5
660 7.5 630 9.3
Condition I I I indicates the results to be ex-
pected with the same engine and its standard
single-reduction gear and having the propeller
fitted with a K o r t nozzle. Here the predicted in-
crease over Condition I (the same engine and gear
with open propellers) is 29.5 per cent at towing
speed and 41 per cent more bollard pull. These
are the customary predictions as the author men-
tions. I believe these percentages were closely
achieved on the Mississippi River towboats where
the K o r t nozzle is practically standard equipment.
During the past few years the K o r t nozzle has
been extensively used as a rudder in addition to
its customary functibn and is said to greatly
improve maneuvering ability both ahead and
astern.
In its fixed form it is an inexpensive means of
greatly increasing propeller thrust. As a rudder
considerable alteration to an existing hull is re-
quired but in a new design the additional expense
is very small.
In the opinion of the writer neither the multi-
speed gear nor the K o r t nozzle should be over-
looked b y progressive owners in search of top per-
formance.
In closing let me again express thanks to the
author for bringing to the tugboat the attention
it deserves.
MR. PETER M. K I M O N , Associate Member: The
author has presented a comprehensive paper on the
over-all design of tugboats. This paper has a_
wealth of information heretofore not available to
the tugboat designer. I t is of great value to the
student because it covers all the fundamental
phases of the design and presents t h e m in a
methodical and analytical way usually found in a
textbook.
M y comments are directed to the author's dis-
cussion of propeller design with particular e m -
phasis on bollard pull.
Considering first the case of constant power and_
adopting the author's symbols of Appendix 1
pn2D 4 = T Q
KT KQD
 zt26 M O D E R N .TUG D E S I G N

3.1
J I
Taylor - 5choen herr
~-------~..~~. 4 Blades-MWR=0.20
3.0 /

2.g

2.8
--1
0

ea 2.7
\
. Maximum Pifch Ra~io ~or Less \ "% ~ J
fhan 2 Per Cenf Loss in Maximum ~ ~ x "%%"
0bfainable Bollard Pull: H
\
(4 BL- MWR=O.PO
~oy.lor'-Schoenherr, .~4 BL- MW R= 0.25 0.775
0.81
"

%
13 BL- MWR =0.40 O.G9
f B a r = o.5o
Gown 3 Blades ~Bar = 0.05
0.GG5
0.-/8
-%
2.4 , l B a r = O.BO 0.-/5

Z.3
0.3 0.4 0.5 O.G 0.7 O.B o.g I.O I.I 12- 1.3 1.4 1.5
Pifch Rafio H
0
. FIG. 39 VARIATIONOF IT/I'~'02/~ AT ZEROJ WITHPITCHRATIo

or Since D H P is constant, after the diameter has

r- O K~ I61 been d e c i d e d u p o n , only Kr/KQ~/3 needs t o . b e
D K~ . . . . . . . . . . . . . evaluated. The writer has prelSarea two plots of
K r / K o '/3 at zero J versus pitch ratio, Figs. 39
substituting 550 DHP/(27rn) for Q and eliminat-
and 40, of this discussion, of the Taylor, Troost
ing n we have
and Gawn propeller series. Values for the Gawn
T = p'/~ (550~ ~/~Dv' DHPV, K r propeller series were obtained from reference ~ and
for the Taylor and Troost series from the author's
references (31) and (37). It might be pointed cut
iSimpii.fying and substituting p = 1.9905 we ob-
that a certain amount of fairing was necessary to
tain arrive at these curves. I t is realized that in the
" : T = 24 80DV~ D H P 2/~ K ~K' / ~r" ...... [7 ] preliminary estimates of the design the pitch ratio
m i g h t not be known. However, for a well-designed
:From similar considerations propeller the. pitch ratio should be only slightly
larger .than the one corresponding to maximum
n \,)~p~p KoD5 _ ......... [8J bollard pull and therefore to maximum K r / K Q 2/~
.Acecrdingly a K r / K Q 2/~ value could be assumed,
Similar formulas based on the u -- a system of say 2 per cent less than maximum.
propeller cceffic[ents have been developed in the It is also believed that these same K r / K o 2/~
author's reference (32). As explained in the same curves might prove to be of some additional help to
reference because of the remaining thrust-deduc- the designer as a check on the preliminary selection
tion.factor 1 -- t ~ 0.965, the dcck-trial b~llard of propeller type and pitch. He might, for ex-
pull'will be ample, decide to reconsider his design towing
Thou,~rd " = 23.9DV~ D H P '/~ KK r
j/. .... [9] i~ " E f f e c t of Pitc h a n d B l a d e W i d t h on P r o p e l l e r P e r f o r m a n c e , " by
R. W. L. G a w n , T r a n s I N A , - v o l . 95, 1953.
 MODERN TUG DESIGN 427

3.1

B- 3,50 ~ ~
3.0

2.9 B-4.70 ....___ ~ ~

B -3.65
2.8
o
e)
I-4
~.~
TroosfB SeriesPropellers ~
Maximum PifchRofio ~or Less
" Y 2.G__ +i~an2 PerCenf Loss~nMaximum w_
. ",.Q
Obfa~nable Bollard Pull: ~

2.5__
B-4.70 O.'f9 ~ ~ B-4.55
B-3.50 0.305 , B- 4.-/0
2.4 B-3.G5 0.'1"15 B-3.50
B-3.G5

2.3
0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.3 0.8 0.9 LO 13 I.Z 1.3 1.4 1.5
Pii'ch Rai'i% H
FIG. 40 VARIATION OF KT/~Q 2/~ AT ZERO J W I T H P I T C H R A T I O

speed for m a x i m u m efficiency, if the corresponding
Kr/KQ V' is considerably lower t h a n m a x i m u m .
Considering now the case of c o n s t a n t torque,
and b y looking at E q u a t i o n [6] of this discussion,
we see t h a t similar curves could be developed of
Kr/KQ at zero J versus pitch ratio, since torque
and diameter are the constants in this case. How-
ever, i t appears t h a t the a u t h o r has presented in
Fig. 13 just these curves in a s o m e w h a t different
form. If we substitute in E q u a t i o n [6]
formula is .useful only to the propeller design with
constant torque, since the B H P - N relationship
m a y not be known at other torque values. Inas-
m u c h as I have not been able to obtain the a u t h o r ' s
reference (39) I hope t h a t the a u t h o r will clarify
this point.
T h e a u t h o r enumerates the opinions of several
authorities as to the desired bollard pall per S H P .
Examining the case of c o n s t a n t S H P and returning
to F o r m u l a [9] and r e a r r a n g i n g

60 X 550 D H P Tbo,~ra = 23.9D2/~.K~,

Q = 2~rN DHP /WJ DHP'/~

and assuming 0.955 D H P = B H P we have I t can readily be seen t h a t the Tbo,~rJDHP ratio
is dependent on D H P and if we assume a c o n s t a n t
5250 B H P 60Kr diameter
T =
DN 207rKQ
Tbollard 1
P r e s u m a b l y then the second term (60Kr/2OIrKQ) D H P ~ D H P V3 . . . . . . . . . . [10]
corresponds to the T~ value of F i g . 13. Or it could I t would appear then t h a t the higher the S H P the
be t h a t (60Kr)/(20rrKo) has been multiplied b y a lower the bollard pull per S H P t h a t can be ob-
t h r u s t deduction factor and in t h a t case tained. This reduction in bollard pull per S H P
will become even greater because of c a v i t a t i o n
T~ = ( 1 ~ - t) 60Kr
207rKQ considerations. An increase of blade area for
examPle will cause" a reduction in Kr/Ko 2/~
F r o m the foregoing it would also appear t h a t this value.
428 MODERN TUG DESIGN
In concluding I may suggest that Equations
[6], [7] and [8] could be used in place of the
corresponding formulas of the author in Appendix
1, since they are based on Kr, Ko, J rather than
Ct, Cq systems and are more directly applicable
to the available propeller series charts.
MR. ULYSSES A. POURNARAS, Associate fem-
her: This paper on tugboat design is distinguished
by the general approach to the subject employed
by the author. The result of the simultaneous
treatment of the three major classes of tugboats is
that the operating requirements of each are
masked. For example, it would appear that the
speed-power consideration in selecting the hull
form of a harbor tug is perhaps overemphasized.
Should the designer concentrate on propeller-hull
interaction effects at the lower speed range, the
cost per pound of thrust available may be re-
duced to everyone's advantage. On the other
hand, the free-running performance of the harbor
tug appears to occupy a much more prominent
position than it possibly deserves. Reduced costs,
from the ship operator's point of view, depend
on quickness of dispatch as well as on the tug's
ability and efficiency in handling the job. In
m a n y cases, a more powerful tug could very well
do the job of two less powered tugs. Considering
the maximum speed allowed by regulatory bodies
in restricted harbor waters, it may be said that in-
creased performance, depending to some extent on
thrust available, is a better answer to modern har-
bor requirements. One also should keep in mind
that the size of vessels requiring tug services in-
creases as does their number. More powerful tugs
eventually will be required.
A very important design area mentioned in the
paper is the arrangement of the towing facilities.
Perhaps the ship operator is asking too much
when, in some heavy-weather towing operations,
he gets weary watching cables and lines snap and
part. Perhaps, again, tug designers could improve
this irritating situation, to say the least.
In the performance analysis of propeller-driven
aircraft, aeronautical engineers employ some
techniques worthy of our consideration. The
aeronautical take-off problem, when considered
statically, resembles very much the towing opera-
tion of a tug. The techniques essentially consist
of the solution, graphical in most cases, of the
power available versus power required and thrust
available versus thrust required energy-balance
equations. A similar investigation could be car-
ried for the tugboat at various rotational and ad-
vance propeller speeds. M a n y not-so-apparent
over-all performance features of various propeller
designs could be brought to light in this manner by
comparative analyses.
In regard to the various rudder configurations
discussed by the author, it is noted that the
flapped rudder possesses a certain advantage be-
cause of its higher lift coefficient at the same rud-
der angle in the prestalling range, as compared
with the other more conventional configurations.
This advantage, however, may not be maintained
at the higher rudder angles. Increased flap angles
will in general reduce the positive angle stall-free
range, while Reynolds number and roughness
conditions also will affect both the magnitude of
the obtainable lift coefficients and the extent of
the stall-free range. It may be said, however,
that the flapped-rudder configuration may offer the
advantage of obtaining a given rudder force at a
smaller angle of attack, or a larger rudder force at
a given rudder area and angle. The expected in-
creased maneuverability because of the transi-
tional operation of the flap will be due to the higher
rates of change of the rudder force, this because of
the higher lift-curve slope, and therefore be limited
to dynamic applications as it is correctly noted by
the author. Steady-state conditions can improve
only to the extent of the effect of the increased
rudder force--if such is attainable--because of
the camber effect of the flap.
The writer wishes to express his sincere con-
gratulations to the author for the able presenta-
tion of this paper.
CDR. O. A. TEMPLETON, USN, Member: The
author emphasizes in his introduction that the
present trend in tugs is to increase the power with-
out change in the over-all length of the boat. This
is certainly justified in large harbor tugs handling
the much larger ships being built today and where
length cannot be appreciably increased without
sacrificing utility in tight spots. It is not an un-
common event in Hampton Roads to see as many
as a dozen tugs of the 800 to 1200-SHP variety
assisting in docking the new N a v y carriers, USS
Forrestal and Saratoga.
The additional power is being added in modern
tugs to obtain additional towrope pull, not for
additional free-running speed. If the temptation
to employ all this added horsepower free running is
resisted, much of the difficulty with hull form
caused by high speed-length ratio can be avoided.
Also the danger of freak stability problems run-
ning free at full speed can be reduced. I t is recom-
mended that large harbor tugs be designed for a
speed-length ratio not exceeding 1.25. The only
reason that higher speed-length ratios are en-
countered in new high-powered tugs is that the
owner or designer has m~/de the economic mistake
of calling for use of full installed horsepower in the
free-running condition.
 MODERN TUG DESIGN 429

2000 the diesel-propulsion systems without any extra

equipment or installation expense. In a diesel
1800 reverse-reduction-gear installation for this tug,
with a propeller designed for full-power towing at
7 knots, the propeller will not absorb more than
1600 about 70 per cent of the installed power running
free. Thus, we have automatically limited free-
1400 running power. With a reverse-reduction-gear
installation the propeller should be designed for
the highest towing speed required (say 7 to 8
~200
knots). A design for 4 knots, the lower end of the
4 to 8-knot range' recommended by the author,
~: I000 should not be used with a reverse-reduction-gear
,.o
diesel installation since towrope pull above that
800 speed will be limited and the m a x i m u m possible
free route speed would be one corresponding to a
speed-length ratio of about 1.0.
6OO
The m a x i m u m free route power with a geared
diesel C R P propeller installation can be limited
4O0 b y the selection of the m a x i m u m propeller pitch.
With this installation full power and 100 per cent
200 / at bollard pull might correspond to a pitch ratio of
0.70; whereas, the necessary pitch ratio for full
power free route would be about 1.10. The pitch
ratio corresponding to 75 per cent at 100 per cent
o 2 4. G 8 tO I~ 14
Vk KnoUts R P M free route would be less, say 1.00. The
propeller could be designed for a m a x i m u m pitch
FIG. 41 POWERVERSUSSPEED ratio of 1.00, thus limiting the free route power
without any limit on towing capability.
Free route power with a diesel-electric installa-
Fig. 41, herewith, shows a curve of S H P versus tion can be similarly limited b y providing less field
speed in knots free running for the new N a v y weakening on the propulsion motor t h a n t h a t cor-
Y T B design, column 3 of t h e author's Table 2. responding to 100 per cent power free route.
This tug will now have installed 1800 shp with a Machinery Selection. T h e author appears to
C R P propeller. I t can be seen t h a t at 1350 shp a favor a diesel-electricpropulsion system, and has
speed of 12.5 knots is attained whereas at 1800 shp shown almost exclusively diesel-electric tugs in his
speed has only increased to 12.8 knots. Thus, for Table 2. I t is suggested t h a t at least one modern
every mile traveled at 1800 shp the fuel cost is C R P and reverse-reduction-gear tug be added to
about 30 per cent higher the table. Dalzell's new C R P tug, Dalzell III, de-
veloped over 50,000 lb bollard .pull on t r i a l s - -
180012"51) 100
1~ X 12.~ -- higher than t h a t of any of the tugs listed.
T h e diesel-electric tug is extensively used to-
since the specific fuel consumption at 1350 and day because until recently there was no equal in
1800 shp would be approximately the same in maneuverability, reliability, and ability to de-
lb/hp-hr. On a 10-mile run at 12.5 knots the tug liver m a x i m u m thrust at all speeds. However, for
will arrive just a little more than 1 rain later than a number of reasons diesel-electric propulsion will
when traveling at 12.8 knots. Maintenance will be used less frequently on future tugs just as it is
be greatly reduced when free-running power is rarely used on other ships today. Additional pro-
limited to 75 per cent (1350 shp) of the installed pulsion plants are available t o d a y which have all
SHP. In this 1800 hp tug the propeller or the the advantages the author lists for diesel electric,
controls, depending on the type of propulsion, except the availability of propulsion generator
should be designed to limit the power available power for auxiliary uses, and are much lower in
free running to about 75 per cent of the installed cost. Diesel-electric propulsion for an 1800-shp
power, since the operator will most likely use all the tug would cost approximately $150,000 more than
power available and we would like to avoid this diesel with reverse reduction gear or C R P pro-
uneconomical practice. peller. Maintenance cost of the diesel-electric
Free-running power can be limited in any of tug is certainly higher than for the diesel reverse-
450 MODERN TUG DESIGN

reduction-gear tug and is also higher than for the is increased at 100 per cent R P M until maximum
C R P tug where a reliable, proven design o f , C R P B M E P or maximum pitch is reached whichever
propeller is used. Owners who are using C R P pro- occurs first. (In the free-route condition maxi-
pellers of a design already "debugged" after years mum pitch would be reached first.) In moving
of service in earlier applications, have mainte- the control lever astern, the same control sequence
nance ccsts approaching those of geared diesel is followed. The hydraulic controls of the pro-
tugs. peller itself and the remote controls are considered
The author indicates that the main disad- rugged and reliable.
vantage of the controllable-pitch propeller is its As the author has stated the torque converter
poor ability to deliver astern thrust. Here the with a reversing element in conjunction with a
difficulty is the same as exists with fixed-pitch reduction gear can be used in lieu of the reverse
wheels. T h a t is "off the shelf" C R P propellers reduction gear. However, the ahead efficiency of
designed for free-running are used. This causes a this torque converter is about 92 per cent s~ that
large sacrifice in bollard pull both ahead and an over-all transmission efficiency of 90 per cent is
astern. C R P propeller blades, including blade all that can be expected. Thus, the main ad-
sections, for a harbor tug should always be de- vantage over diesel electric would be in first cost
signed for dead pull ahead with minimum sacrifice and maintenance rather than efficiency. General
of astern thrust. This can result in about 20 per Motors has developed a Witchita reversing clutch
cent improvement in dead pull astern thrust and which has been evaluated on a Great Lakes Tow-
10 per cent increase in dead pull ahead thrust with ing Company tug at Cleveland. This clutch with
very little loss in free route efficiency. a conventional reduction gear can be used in lieu
Considering that the diesel-electric propulsion of a reverse reduction gear.
system has approximately 10 per cent lower trans- So long as the control features of a diesel-elec-
mission efficiency, with the same installed engines tric tug are provided, a cheaper tug in both initial
the reverse-reduction-geared or C R P propeller tug and operating cost is available which will meet all
should give a thrust equal to the diesel-electric the requirements of the owner and operator.
tug. Diesel-electric propulsion m a y show an ad-
Complete control from a single bridge lever has vantage in special cases Where it is desired to have
been available only on diesel-electric tugs in the large quantities of auxiliary power such as for an
past. Now a single-lever bridge control, with electric towing machine. In any event several
additional control stations as desired, can be propulsion systems should always be investigated
provided on the diesel reverse-reduction-gear or with cost a major factor.
diesel geared C R P tug. There is no difficulty in
obtaining a reliable control system. A pneumatic MR. JAMES B. ROBERTSON, JR., Member: The
system is usually cheapest and has the greatest author very rightly emphasizes the importance of
flexibility in providing the desired control of all providing adequate stability and freeboard, water-
variables. tight integrity of hull erections, and adequate
A recommended control system for the C R P freeing-port area in the bulwarks.
tug will be described since it is slightly more com- I t is presumed that his statement concerning
plex than for the reverse-reduction-gear drive. a revised Coast Guard formula for the required
From the vertical or neutral position to 25 per G M for tugboats, proposed by Capt. C. P.
cent travel of the control lever ahead, propeller M u r p h y refers to Capt. M u r p h y ' s remarks in dis-
pitch is increased from zero to the pitch corre- cussion of reference (24) at the J a n u a r y 1954 New
sponding to the recommended fuel-rack setting England Section meeting and published in the
with the engine idling. From 25 to 75 per cent "1954 Transactions. His rather summary inter-
travel of the control lever ahead the engine speed pretation of these remarks is somewhat inac-
is increased from idle to full speed. Propeller curate. The formula referred to was not and is
pitch is automatically positioned at each R P M to not the Coast Guard stability standard for tug-
maintain the fuel-rack setting constant at that boats. I t is a means of approximating the GM to
R P M regardless of whether towing or running limit heel to the deck edge under steady full power
free route. Thus, a recommended line of B M E P at very slow speed of advance with towline leading
versus R P M for the particular engine used can be athwartship. As indicated in the discussion in
followed. In going from free route to a towing 1954, it had been tentatively used as a supple-
condition without changing the control-lever set- mental consideration to the wind-heel criterion
ting (constant R P M ) the pitch will automatically used by the Coast Guard. I t is now agreed that it
decrease to maintain the same fuel-rack setting. does not give sufficient GM.
Above 75 per cent travel of the control lever, pitch The problem of tug stability is a complex one.
 MODERN TUG DESIGN
While there h a v e been altogether too m a n y tug
casualties indicating insufficient stability a n d / o r
watertight integrity, it appears that a good m a n y
of the older tugs m a y have been operating for
years with less freeboard and associated G M than
we now consider necessary. The skill of operating
personnel h a s evidently been an important factor.
In addition to the forces of wind, current, and
wave and the heeling m o m e n t developed by rud-
der-towline interaction, tugs m a y be bodily dragged
broadside b y the m o m e n t u m of heavy mass
tows. The June 1956 Proceedings of the Merchant
Marine Council describes a number of tugboat
casualties a n d discusses their operational aspects
in some detail.
As that article indicates, diesel tugs are not re-
quired to be inspected b y the Coast Guard unless
they are seagoing and o f over 300 gross tons.
Modernization of former.steam tugs by dieselizing
thus takes them out of inspection. Frequently the
power is also substantially increased. Such a
power increase, other things remaining equal,
definitely increases the risk of capsizing. I t is
recommended that any o w n e r considering such
modernization have an inclining experiment per-
formed as a basis for the assessment of stability
after conversion.
Because of the complex relationship of the as-
sociated elements, it is unlikely that any single
simple formulation such as t h a t proposed b y the
author can be a generally satisfactory tug stability
index. However, such a simple formulation can
certainly be very useful for preliminary assess-
ment. The following comments relate to it so
used. Since diesel-electric drive permits more
effective power utilization at low speeds of ad-
vance, from the viewpoint of t h r u s t w h e n towing,
it m a y be considered on a par with other forms of
drive. If this is done, B H P m a y be used in lieu
of SHP. M i n i m u m freeboard is frequently well
abaft amidships ~nd not associated with full
breadth. In extreme cases it m a y be a very poor
index of righting-moment characteristics. I t is
suggested t h a t a mean between the freeboard amid-
ships and. the minimum freeboard is a better ap-
proximate index. If t h e foregoing substitutions
are made, G M values given b y the author's for-
m u l a appear to approximate minimum values
found satisfactory f o r ocean service but to gener-
ally overestimate the minimum allowable values
for operation on protected waters. This remark
is intended to in no way deprecate.the use of a
conservative standard for design purposes. In
small vessels such as tugs it is all too easy for top-
side additions to reduce significantly the available
G M and freeboard. The provision of a liberal de-
sign margin is good sense.
431
PROF. LAURENS TROOST, ~ I e m b e r : This paper
is an important addition to the scant literature on
the subject of tugboat design and will find exten-
sive use b y naval architects interested in this
subject.
The following remarks are made in an en-
deavor to enhance the value of the paper:
1 Under the heading, "Main Propulsion
Machinery," the author states t h a t with the slow
turning steam engines the propeller pitch/diameter
ratio can b e close to unity. I t should be made
clear t h a t such a pitch ratio would be highly effec-
tive for top free-running speed, but detrimental to
boUard pull. From this poin t of view a m a x i m u m
pitch ratio of 0.75 for a wheel of 0150 disk area
ratio seems advisable (see reference 32).
2 Under the same heading, several novel sys-
tems of propulsion are discussed. I should like to
add one system t h a t is becoming increasingly
popular in G e r m a n y and Belgium for trawlers and
towboats; viz., multiple-gear couplings, through
which one or two fast-running diesel engines
operate one propeller Shaft with fixed-blade pro-
peller. In a Sl~cial case, two 500-shp engines at
500 r p m are geared down to the propeller shaft as
follows 96
(a) To 145 r p m for free-running speed at full
power.
(b) To 115 rpm for towing at. 31/~ knots at. full
power and free running at 1 X 500 SHP.
(c) To 93 r p m for towing at 3 knots at 1 X 500
S H P and for backing.
This Sfiberkrfib system claims high flexibility
and propulsive efficiency at a price considerably
lower than diesel-electric and adjustable-pitch
propeller systems.
3 Under the heading, "Propellers and Propel-
ler Design," there is some discussion on the
relative merits of Taylor (ogival sections),
Robertson (symmetrical seci:ions), and Troost
(aerofoil inner sections and ogival outer sections)
wheels. There is a reference to A. J. C. Robert-
son's (25) and H. F. N0rdstr6m's work (20) on the
reverse action Of propellers. (The Nordstr6m
propellers are almost identical to those of Troost.)
For a fair comparisgn of ahead and astern bgl-
lard thrust it should not be overlooked t h a t the
Robertson symmetrical section wheel makes 10
per cent more revolutions a{ equal D H P than the
corresponding ogival-section wheel of equal pitch
r a t i o = 0.75. For equality of R P M , the pitch
ratio of the former should be corrected to 0.85 and
the bollard-thrust values accordingly. Following
values for Kt/Ko --- T D / ~ are found in Table 6
for the bollard thrust condition.
t6 For particulars refer to Jahrbuch der Schiffbautechnischer
Gessellschaft, 1954, p. 233.
432
TABLE 6 K t / K q = T D / VALUES
Ahead
Ogival sections (OS) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9.21
Aerofoil sections (AS) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9.70
Symmetrical sections (SS) . . . . . . . . . . 8.13
From the table we see that with OS the astern
bollard thrust is 0.75 of the ahead thrust, with
AS 0.71; with SS they are equal, of course. AS
gives 5 per cent more ahead thrust than OS, and
13 per cent more than SS. As to the astern thrust,
the AS and OS are equal within 1 per cent. They
are inferior to the SS to the amount of 15 per cent.
Since even for harbor tugs the ahead thrust is to be
weighted heavier than the astern thrust, the corn-
bination of inner aerofoil sections with outer ogival
sections seems to be indicated. In Europe, the
great majority of modern tugs use this sort of
propeller. This is supported by work of Conn,17
and of Gebers. is At free running speeds, the AS
will also be 2 to 3 per cent more efficient than the
OS and SS propellers.
4 The most serious disadvantage of the con-
trollable-pitch propeller as compared to the fixed-
blade wheel, is quoted to be its po~)r ability to de-
liver astern thrust. By measures with respect to
the initial pitch distribution of the controllable-
pitch propeller as recommended in reference (42)
at the conclusion of the appendix, it is possible to
improve the astern thrust very considerably with-
out hampering the ahead performance. Careful
design should make it possible to restrict the loss
in kstern bollard thrust, compared to a fixed-blade
propeller designed for towing speed, to within 6
per cent.
5 W{th regard to the author's discussion of the
application of a Kort nozzle, mention should be
made of the use of this nozzle as a highly efficient
rudder in addition to its beneficial effect on tow-
ing-speed propulsive efficiency. There is a 70-ft
diesel tug operating in the harbor of Rotterdrm
with a turnable nozzle, the maneuverability of
which, ahead, as well as stern, is second to no other
tug in that region. 19 The tug has a MAN-Diesel
engine of 325 shp at 325 rpm, directly coupled to a
5-ft two-bladed adjustable-pitch propeller placed
within the Kort-nozzle rudder. The ahead bol-
lard pull registered at 310 shp and 325 rpm is
13,650 lb or 44 lb/shp.
MR. C. B. HORTON, JR., M e m b e r : The author
has presented a stimulating and much needed re-
view of the important aspects of tug design. I t is
very true that this whole subject has been neg-
17 " B a c k i n g of Propellers," Trans. I n s t i t u t i o n of Engineers and
S h i p b u i l d e r s in Scotland, 1934-35, p. 27.
18 S c h ~ r b a u , 1933, p. 235.
19 S c h i # e n IVerf, Dec. 5, 19,52, p. 560.
MODERN TUG DESIGN
lected in the literature. The highly competitive
Astern situation in both the design and construction
6.91 aspects of these vessels, and the empirical, attitudes
6.85
8.13 of most owners are main causes of this situation.
The author deserves congratulations for con-
tributing to a more scientific approach.
I t is not quite true as implied in this paper that
many aspects of tug design are so vaguely under-
stood by those actually designing and building
tugs. I should like to clear up some of the
doubts indicated concerning one subject, the Kort
nozzle, together with flanking rudders, which are
used for added maneuverability.
The Kort nozzle, having been a patented de-
vice until fairly recently, is not well understood by
those who have not been concerned with its de-
sign, testing and use. This is being remedied by
extensive model testing and study in most of the
major model basins of the world, in particular by
the publications of systematic tests conducted by
the Netherlands Ship Model Basin in Wagen!ngen
and reported by Dr. van Manen. Soon it should
be possible for any naval architect to use the in-
formation now being made available to evaluate,
a Kort nozzle for any suitable application, with
the same confidence as any propeller design.
An evaluation of our own extensive work in this
field, going back to 1936 and covering hundreds
of applications to both tugs and river towboats, as
well as other uses, shows without exception gains
in performance obtained economically and, for tug
type operation amounting to a saving of 20 to 40
per cent in horsepower.
Mistakes have been made over the years in this
work, leading to difficulties with maneuverability
and maintenance on Kort-nozzle boats, but these
mistakes have been recognized and corrected by
further experience. In addition, recent scientific
work and model testing have improved the per-
formance of K o r t nozzles, especially in the higher
speed region. This recent work has been proved
in practice on river towboats which are the most
powerful towing vessels ever constructed, 6000 hp
on twin screws on 8 ft 9 in. draft.
To summarize the present situation, on Kort
nozzles for tugs there should be no doubt concern-
ing the improvement in efficiency obtainable,
without fear of undesirable side effects. The mis-
givings expressed in the paper about attachment
of the nozzle to the hull are groundless. The Kort
nozzle as applied is much stronger than any nor-
mal stern frame or skeg, and provides great pro-
tection for the propeller. The statements about
reduced backing power, and lack of gain if modi-
fied nozzle profiles are used to increase backing
power are both incorrect.
Nozzle tugs consistently show improved back-
 MODERN
ing power, and Kort-nozzle river towboats, where
backing power is a prime consideration, are the
best backing screw boats we have been able to find.
We always "modify" our K o r t nozzles to improve
backing power because it does not involve appreci-
able loss in ahead performance. The suggestions
t h a t the performance of the K o r t nozzle depends
on close and impractical tip clearance is not borne
out by experience. We have experimented widely
with tip cl_~arance, and confirm the desirability of
small tip clearance, but most of our experience has
been with clearances t h a t are completely practical.
We have found t h a t very close tip clearances of the
order suggested by Dr. van Manen are practical
also if sufficient care is taken in construction, and
we are using them. An interesting point is t h a t
no harm is done if tile clearance is reduced in serv-
ice b y extreme bearing wear since the blade tips
are harmlessly worn away.
One error in past practice with K o r t nozzles on
single-screw tugs was the use of the fixed K o r t
nozzle without astern steering rudders. A tug so
built loses the bias which gives a poor but pre-
dictable astern control to tile normal tug, and the
erratic astern motion leads to an unhandy and
sometimes dangerous vessel'. For single-screw
tugs, either the movable or steering nozzle should
be used, especially for the small sizes, or for a
rugged and superior system the fixed nozzle with
three rudders is best. Both are equal in efficiency
despite appearances, due to the scientific study
given to designing the two astern steering rudders
ahead of the propeller as integral parts of the K o r t
nozzle and making them act as very effective guide
vanes. Such a tug offers a new kind of control,
steering astern as well as ahead, superior in effi-
ciency ahead a a d astern and offering the kind of
control t h a t is necessary to allow the adoption of
push towing on a large scale.
I t is perhaps unfortunate t h a t the develop-
ments I have described m u s t remain in the un-
published category deplored by the author.
Without some commercial incentive, however, the
extensive and expensive development t h a t has re-
sulted in the present successful K o r t nozzle would
rarely be performed. A tug is now being de-
veloped which will serve as a demonstration.
The general principles are available, considerable
technical detail is published with more coming
soon, and certainly no tug owner, designer, or
builder can longer ignore performance and maneu-
verability advantages which can demonstrably be
achieved b y the K o r t nozzle.
CDR. RICHARDS T. MILLER, USN, Member: As
a sometime naval architect it is always a pleasure
to read a paper on the m a n y facets peculiar to
TUG DESIGN 435
the design of a particular ship type. I t has been a
special pleasure to read this excellent paper on the
design of m y second love--tugs.
Some m a y wonder why m u c h design effort
should be expended on so prosaic a craft as a t u g - -
indeed m a n y of the tugs plying our water-ways
today show every evidence of having "growed like
T0psy." A careful analysis of their operating
ledgers by the owners should sfiow the economic
fallacy of the " T o p s y " approach. A review of
the Coast G u a r d ' s casualty reports will convince
anyone of the danger.
M a n y who will concede the wisdom of designing
before attempting to build a quarter to half million
dollar ship will question tile lack of standardized
designs. "A tug is a tug is it not?" The answer
to this of course is, " N o ! " There are ship-
handling tugs for New York h a r b o r - - a n d ship-
handling tugs for the N a v y with reduced super-
structure height to permit working under the
overhangs of our great modern aircraft carriers.
There are tugs handling coal barges t h a t have long
deckhouses for roomy accommodations because
they seldom tow over the stern; tugs handling car
floats t h a t have skyscraper wheel houses so the
master can see over the top of his cargo of freight
cars; and, tugs frequenting canals and inland
waterways t h a t have squat wheel houses for easy
passage under the m a n y bridges. There are
direct-reversing, controllable-pitch-propeller and
diesel-electric tugs. You, the architect or builder
propose a design, and tile owner would like some-
thing a little different. I vividly recall raising the
stack in at least four increments on the drawings of
the first tug design with which I was associated.
T h e owner held fond memories of the old steam
tugs of his first fleet, and I must admit there was
no mistaking the house letter mounted on the
stack of this early-modern diesel-electric deep sea
tug.
This is as it should be for variety lends spice to
life. A world of standardized cars, houses, sky-
scrapers, ships or even tugs would imply standard-
ized thinking b y a standardized people, no
progress, and a dreary existence. There are basic
principles, however, which apply to any good ship
design regardless of variations in arrangements or
details. In his very thorough discussions of de-
sign formulas and criteria for powering, stability
and maneuverability in tug design, tile author has
performed a fine service for our profession. With
your indulgence I shall add a few comments of m y
own.
As a proponent of low prismatic Coefficients for
tug hulls, I was much impressed with the contour
curves of residual-resistance coefficients for high
displacement-length ratios t h a t were appended.
 434 MODERN TUG DESIGN

The loss of superiority of a fine hull at the higher so attractive. There has been a movement to-~
speed/length ratios is much more apparent in ward the use of controllable-pitch propellers in
these curves than in. Taylor's curves. This is some recent tug designs. M a n y successful ap-
particularly significant in the design of a modern plications of this type of propulsion have been
high-powered tug whose owner is particularly in- made on European ships. Unfortunately m y per-
terested in high free route performance. I t is, of sonal contact with controllable-pitch propellers in.
course, of less significance under the reduced the Mine Force has not been happy. Altera-
speeds of towing conditions when a full, free run tions currently being made to the propeller pitch-
of water to the propeller is a primary concern and control systems of minesweepers are expected to
the finer form is preferable. The author's recom- improve the situation, but the reliability of the
mended compromise of a Cp of 0.57 to 0.60 is a propellers has yet to be proved. Tug operations
good one. with a controllable-pitch propeller that I have ob-
The problem of air-drawing by the propeller served failed to exploit all of the advantages of
is a very real one, particularly when backing down. these propellers. Pitch control was used simply
Loss of available backing power can be as high as as a backing device. Pitch and engine R P M were
90 per cent in severe cases. Tests in a circulating not adjusted for optimum engine performance at
water channel of a shallow-draft design with each condition of loading, nor was the necessary
which I was associated vividly illustrated the effect data for such adjustment in evidence in the pilot
as well as the air-bubble enshrouded propeller house. I might add that in the opinion of at
that was the cause. Modification of the lines to least one ship operator of m y acquaintenance a
give better cover of the propeller provided a cure. naval architect in each pilot house would be a
I cannot concur too strongly with the author on prerequisite of such an ideal operation.
the need for meeting the most stringent criteria of Regarding the use of flanking rudders on con-
s t a b i l i t y and reserve buoyance in tug designs. ventional tugs, I was associated with a qualitative
Coast Guard casualty reports cite numerous cases model test that tried such a scheme. No signif-
of lost equipment and lost lives from tug disasters. icant improvement 'in backing maneuverabihty
In nearly every instance it is the same story of a was shown. Although a straight course could be
tug-tripping tow, a heavy list, a foundered hulk. maintained for a slightly longer period of time be-
One has only to observe the decks-awash craft on fore the inevitable slump into a turn, once into the
the intra-coastal waterway to wonder that the in- turn no amount of rudder would straighten the
cidence of these accidents is not greater! course. The results should not b e construed to
To the discussion of hull structure and scant- depreciate the possibilities of a ship-handling or
lings it is of interest to add a note on the difference general-purpose harbor tug with an afterbody
in N a v y .and civilian practice in keel design. specifically designed t o incorporate both a Kort
N a v y ships will not ground. Also, the Navy, nozzle and flanking rudders in either a single or
being concerned with docking many of its ships, is twin/screw configuration. Based upon the out-
particularly cognizant o f the !ncompatability of standing maneuvering and powering characteris-
bar keels and long keel-block-cap life. Ergo tics of r i v e r towboats so fitted, such an arrange-
every N a v y designed tug I have studied has a ment should be investigated further.
flat-plate keel instead of the bar keel prevalent in The author is very kind to add m y name to Mr.
commercial craft. Benson's method of computing available propeller
In the matter of powering, several items are thrust up to 100 per cent slip. M y rearrangement
brought to mind by the author's general discus- of the m e t h o d to fit Taylor's notation and avail-
sion. Direct-connected air-reversing diesels are able propeller characteristic curves was done a
economical to install and relatively simple to number of years ago for m y first mentor, Mr.
maintain. Hence, they offer an attractive plant Richard Cook, in the gratification of professional
for the operator predominantly in the long haul (as distinguished from academic) naval architec-
towing business; but, their reversing response is ture. The method h a s been in continuous use by
much too slow for a ship-handling tug. The N a v y Mr. Cook since that time.
has employed such tugs in ship-handling of neces- In conclusion I Wish to thank the author for the
sity, and has not a few dented sides to show for it. time and effort that he put into this mgst interest-
To m y mind a diesel-electric plant offers the finest ing and valuable paper.
control and, with two prime movers, the most
flexible power arrangement available for tug opera- MR. JAMES J. TURNER, 2 Visitor: I t is a privi-
tion. Maintenance, however, does require ex- lege to comment on such a fine paper. The few
perienced mechanics. Therefore, operations away
20 Bureau of Ships, Code 436, D e p a r t m e n t of the N a v y , W a s h i n g -
from well-established ship repair facilities are not ton, D. C.
 MODERN TUG DESIGN 455

remarks which I have are limited to tbe machinery I3, 0.I3

portion of the paper.
The author states that the tarclue converter
shows promise of incorporating all the advantages ii ~To O. I I
o.f diesel-electric drive without the heavy transmis-
sion losses associated therewith. Later i~ the
paper the author gives an over-all transmission
efficiency of 95 per cent for a transmission system "~ 9 fO.50-- / 0,09 ~-
using a torque converter with a c~nventional gear. c 13 0.08
This is a significant gain over the diesel-electric
plant. If all the speed reduction was taken in 7 0.07
the torque converter itself the efficiency obtained
would approach that of the diesel-electric plant. # ~ . o.o~
This would indicate that the torque converter
could be used to its best advantage where it re-
placed a hydraulic or electric coupling (with a
maximum reduction ratio of about 1.2).
~4 ~ /// -
0.04

In the author's discussion of novel systems of 3 / 0.03

propulsion, he states that the particular advantage
of the free-piston gas generator would be its low
weight-to-horsepower ratio. I believe a more t 0.01
imp2rtant advantage of this system would be its 0.5 0.G 07l 0.8 0.9 . 1.0 I,I 1.2 1.3 1.4
Pifch / Diomeer Ra~tio
ability to give high thrust at low per cent of rated
R P M and still give rated H P at any propeller FIG. 42 TROOST 3 - B L A D E D B - S E R I E S P R O P E L L E R
PERFORMANCE AT BOLLARD P U L L
RPM. Its propeller-thrust capabilities are close
to that of a diesel-electric plant.
In tile author's discussion of controllable-pitch
propeller, he lists as a disadvantage its poor ability
{ D H P F ~ = D H P C~ X 550
to deliver astern thrust; however, from a crash-
T = \ nD / nDCq X 27ra =
stop-reach consideration the ability to get astern
thrust quicker may overcome its poor ability to 60 X 550 D H P K,
deliver astern thrust. 2 R P M D Kq 7r
I agree with the author that its poor ability to
deliver astern thrust could be a serious objection when Kt and Kq are at J = 0, this becomes the
to the installation of a controllable-pitch propeller equation for bollard pull
in a harbor tug but would like to point out that 5252 DHP0 Y. . . . . [11]
the U. S. N a v y specifies a controllable-pitch 15ro- Bollard pull = RPMoD
pellet for its latest harbor tug design. The speci-
fication requirements for propeller thrust indicate Likewise, the R P M at bollard pull when constant
that the limitation is fully recognized. M y per- torque is being developed can be derived from
sonal preference for a harbor tug would be a com- Appendix 1
bination of torque converter, reverse reduction 60 ( DI-II'oV'
gear and a fixed-pitch propeller. R P M = 60n = - D ~ \ u - ~ / =

MR. WILLIAM B. MORGAN, Associate Member: ( 33000 DHPo V'

The author has presented a very interesting paper
on the design and propulsion of tugs. The writer
has a few comments and questions about propel-
ler design as discussed in the paper.
Fig. 13 is used to estimate the propeller per-
formance at bollard pull. Are the results ob-
tained from this figure and the equations appli-
cable to both constant-power and constant-torque
installations? Assuming that T, -- K t / K q and
that Tr = Kq, where Kt and Kq are at J = O, an
equation for bollard pull can be derived from the
equations given in Appendix 1
60 \ 2 ~ R P - M ~ 0 ~ - K ~ ) "" [121
and when Kq is at J = 0
/2700 X D H P 0 ) ' / '
R P M (bollard) = 60~. K-P1V~ ~ ]
From these results it would seem that the equa-
tions given in Fig. 13 can be strictly applied only
to constant-torque installations. Also, it would
seem that B H P is assumed to be equal to D H P
unless there is a correction factor applied to Tc and
Tr. I t also would be interesting to know if Fig.
 436 MODERN TUG DESIGN

14 0.14 13 0. I3

13 0.13 12 0.1~

12 0.12.- II
\ 0.11
v
0.1l ~I0 0.I0
~ Expc~nded Expanded / / ,---
r-I0 AreaRa~ib 9 \ Area Raio # 0.09
0.45--...
c 9
2 o

to s o.os ~ ~ 7 o
L9
7 0.07 ~ ~ tr
F
G

t-
/-",/ o.o5 si ' o.o,
0.04 3 L 0.03

0.03 z f ~T~ 0.02

2i 0.02 I 0.01
0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8 0.9 1.0 1.1 1.2 1.3 1.4
Pitch / Diameer Ralqo
iI 0.01
0.S 0.6 0.'/ 0.8 0.9 1.0 1.1 1.2 1.3 1.4 FIG. 4 4 TROOST 5-BLADED B-SERIES PROPELLER
P{tch/Diaroe~er Ratio PERFORMANCE AT BOLLARD PULL
FIG. 43 TROOST 4-BLADED B-SERIES PROPELLER
PERFORMANCE AT BOLLARD PULL

mate the bollard pull a few per cent (up to 10 per

13 was derived from open-water tests of propellers
or from actual bollard pull tests. Results in ref-
erence (7) seem to indicate t h a t estimates of bol-
lard pull from open-water tests are up to 10 per
cent too high.
When constant power is being developed, the
bollard-pull equation remains the same except t h a t
the R P M is at the bollard-pull condition instead
of at the design condition. Using the equation in
Appendix 1, the bollard-pull R P M for constant
power is given b y
R P M (bollard) = 6 0 ( ~
- - ~ t t~ l - / J - - -/\
= 6o(55o
\ ~ p ~D
~ ]PoV, ..
Diagrams h a v e been prepared, similar to Fig.
13, for 3, 4 and 5-bladed Troost propellers with dif-
ferent expanded-area ratios, Figs. 42, 43 and 44 of
this discussion. When constant torque is avail-
able, Equations [11] and [12] are to be used and
when constant power is available Equations [11]
and [13]. For constant power the R P M for
Equation [11] must first be calculated from
Equation [13]. These diagrams are replots of
data given in reference (31) and since they" are
based on open-water tests, they tend to overesti-
cent).
T h e author gives a brief discussion on the astern
performance of different propellers. For ahead
efficiency a propeller should develop most of its
thrust from camber. When a propeller with
cambered sections is reversed in rotation to give
thrust in the astern condition, the camber of the
sections tends to decrease the astern thrust. To
overcome this effect of camber, the sections m u s t
be operated at very high angles of a t t a c k which
results in a poor backing performance. This is the
reason a Troost wheel gives less astern efficiency
'/~ than a propeller with symmetrical sections.
In the case of a controllable-pitch propeller, the
blades are turned through a certain angle to given
[13] astern thrust instead of the rotation being re-
versed. N o t only is the camber in the wrong di-
rection when the blades are turned but the radial
pitch distribution is radically c h a n g e d . For
example, a propeller blade w th a pitch ratio of
0.75 and constant radial pitch has an angle of
38.52 deg at the hub (0.3 radius), 18.83 deg at 0.7
radius, and 13.43 deg at the blade tip. When
this blade is turned through a n angle of - 3 7 . 6 6
deg, the pitch ratio at the 0.7 radius is 0.75 in the
astern direction and the angles of the blade are
0.86 deg at the hub, -- 18.83 deg at the 0.7 radius,
and .--24.23 deg at the tip. From these results it
 MODERN TUG DESIGN 437

I 2.00
.
.oo
/ I

VKTowing

FIo. 45

can be seen t h a t i n the astern condition, the angle T h o m a s D. Bowes has refined the run and counter
of attack of the blade at the root is negative rela- in his fireboats and tugs to the i m p r o v e m e n t of
tive to the flow while at the tip it is very high. T R H P and propeller efficiency, and I hope he will
This poor distribution of angle of attack causes an add to the discussion. The recent New York
increase in drag of the blade. For this reason the fireboat John D. McKean was relieved of serious
controllable-pitch propeller usually gives the stern vibration and the performance improved b y
poorest astern performance. However, the follow the addition of inexpensive vertical flow control
ing reference shows t h a t at bollard pull the con- fins designed b y the writer in 1955.
trollable-pitch propeller m a y perform better than Referring to Fig. 20, the author might add to
a fixed-pitch propeller 21 his bibliography a paper given b y Mr. F r a n k Vi-
In reference to the K o r t nozzle, a recent article 22 brans before the A S M E in Lotiisville, Ky., M a y
discussed the use of a rotating K o r t nozzle. This 19-25, 1957 which amplifies diesel-engine per-
system h a s m a x i m u m power available in any di- formance at other than rated R P M . Another
rection and might be worth considering for tug- interesting article worth listing is b y T. E. Han-
boat application. The powers available and rela- nan entitled " T h e Pulling Power of Tugs," which
tive cost of this device are not known. was published in the August issue of Ship and
The author states t h a t a 4-bladed propeller will Boat Builder 1957.
excite less hull vibration than a 3-bladed propeller
of equal diameter. The magnitude of the exciting PROF. HARRY BENFORD, 3/Iember: A year ago,
force is important, but more important is whether in commenting on Professor Ridgely-Nevitt's
the frequency of this force coincides with the na- trawler paper, Professor Owen pointed out
tural frequency of the system (or of some com- t h a t the author had done his graduate study
.ponent part). (some sixteen years before) under Society scholar-
ship. This was rightfully held up as a good ex-
PROF. L. A. BAmR,-Mernber: The author pre- ample of what m a y happen when we cast our
pared the groundwork for this paper while taking bread upon the waters.
his graduate work at the University of Michigan I should like to point out t h a t Mr. Argyriadis
and we are proud of his presentation before the also did his graduate study under Society schol-
Society. Obviously the writer's pertinent com- arship. In point of fact, he was one of last year's
ments have been discussed with the author prior recipients and wrote this informative and useful
to publication b u t one or two suggestions might paper while still at school. This surely sets a new
be added. record for rate of return on investment and offers
An alternate plot to Fig. 12 is added as Fig. 45 convincing proof of the Society's enlightened self-
since it proved useful in the past. interest in granting funds for educational pur-
T h e pounds pull per B H P for the tug can be esti- poses.
m a t e d b y the author's methods or approximated No biographical information on the author ap-
from the table for any tug power. pears among the footnotes, which is unfortunate
In connection with modern form design Mr. because t h a t in itself is an interesting story. Mr.
21 " C o n t r o l l a b l e - P i t c h Propellers," b y L. A. R u p p , Trans S N A M E , Argyriadis was born and raised in Greece. He
vol. 56, 1968, pp. 272-358.
22 Maritime Reporter, A u g u s t 15, 1957. came to Ann Arbor in 1948 to study naval archi-
438 MODERN TUG DESIGN

tecture. His p a t h was not easy. He was inex- the stern frame. The steering gear must be of
perienced in the English language, he had to take the quick-acting ram type operated b y releasing
on outside Work for financial support and his the exhaust and must give 45 deg on the rudder.
studies were interrupted to serve time in the Greek Some of the guards are of wood with faee irons;
N a v y . Despite these handicaps, when he gradu- others are channel bars integral with the h u l l - -
ated in 1952 he stood third in his class of 21 which fore and aft preferred. The top of the stem is
was an above average group and included two rounded by plate or casting to hold bow fenders.
other eventual winners of Society scholarships. Another type of New York Central tug is for
After about a year's employment in the field, Mr. handling large carfloats short distances across the
Argyriadis was required to serve in the U. S. river from New York to New Jersey. This type
Army. This proved a boon because he not only must be powerful enough to handle 366-ft ear-
found himself doing naval architecture for the floats--1000 tons light and 2000 tons l o a d e d - - a n d
Transportation Board at Fort Eustis b u t also to cut across tide to enter a slip and to back fast
was granted U. S. citizenship without further de- enough to avoid hitting the bridge for loading
lay. Upon completion of his milita~7 service a cars.
Society scholarship allowed him to enter graduate The characteristics of this type tug are: Length
school and the rest of the story is evidentl 92 ft overall, beam 23 ft, depth 12 ft 6 in. Engine
I am sure the other members of the Society are is noncondensing, 20 in. X 26 in. stroke, 400 ihp;
as gratified as I to have played a part in advancing propeller diameter 8 ft 6 in. b y 11 ft pitch; width
Mr. Argyriadis' formal training. We wish him of blade 33 in., weight 2950 Ib cast iron.
good luck and continued success. A bar keel is fitted to prevent sliding when
hauling floats from the bridge, assisted b y a hard-
MR. ANDREW J. BIRCH, Member: First it is over rudder at 45 deg to prevent the tow from
important to determine the type of work to be drifting with the tide before getting turned around
performed b y a tug. For New York Central so t h a t the toggle end of the carfloat will be facing
tugs there are three such types. toward the rack and bridge on the other side of the
In the first class is the shifting tug for moving river. Here again the pilot house m u s t be high
and placing barges for loading and unloading at the enough above the top of the platform on the car-
piers. The barge must be placed with doors op- float so t h a t the captain m a y have a clear view
posite the cuts in the piers for gang planks. This all around. The engine m u s t respond quickly
tug operates more going astern than ahead and from full ahead to full astern.,
m u s t act quickly to avoid damage to the barges The third New York Central type is designed
around the pier and bulkhead. This type has for the long tow from the West Shore on the New
characteristic measurements as follows: 80 ft Jersey side to Long Island and Staten Island.
overall, 21 ft beam, 10 ft 6 in. depth. Engine is This tug has the same d u t y of putting carfloats in
18 in. X 24 in. stroke, 250 hp, 130 rpm. Pro- the racks and bridges at both ends of its run.
peller diameter 7 ft 4 in., pitch 10 ft, hub 14 in. The principal characteristics are: Length 105
long b y 12 in. diam, width of blade 31 in., weight ft, beam 24 ft 6 in., depth 12 ft 6 in. Engine is
2650 lb. Bunkers 22 tons, water 12,600 gal, water compound, 20 in. X 40 in. X 26 in. stroke; steam
consumption 800 gph. The engine is H P and pressure 135 psi developing 500 ihp, 165' psi de-
exhausts to atmosphere. The reason for this is veloping 750 ihp at 130 rpm. Propeller 8 ft 9 in.
t h a t the engine works mostly in mud and silt. diam, 12 ft 3 in. pitch, hub 17t/2 in. diam, width
The pilot house has to be high to see over the of blade 38 in., weight 4175 lb, cast iron. Bunkers
tops of the barges, with the searchlight on top 31 tons, water tanks 16,000 gal, water consump-
operated from inside the house. The large bitt tion 1000 gph.
shown in Fig. 11 of the paper on the forward deck Pilot house high enough to see over carfloat
has proved to be dangerous. Tow ropes break platforms. This tug handles a carfloat on either
and the crew members get hurt. On New York side and must be strong enough to stand the
Central tugs side bitts are used to replace the strain without being crushed. For this condition
centerline bitt. 3 or 4 web frames with strong beams are fitted to
T h e rudder is made as large as possible with a the forward quarter.
slight balance resting on the shoe of the stern
frame. The pintle is as large as possible with a
AUTHOR'S CLOSURE
steel liner and a steel bushing in the s h o e - - b o t h
arranged for easy removal. The stern frame DOROS ARGYRIADIS: The response of the dis-
should be scarphed just below the boss so that a cussers to this paper is very gratifying and the
broken shoe can be replaced without dismantling author would like to thank all those who have
 MODERN
participated in it. C o n t r a r y to the limited infor-
mation available in the technical literature on tug-
boat design, the number of persons qualified to
discuss these unique boats is impressive and the
discussion, I am sure, adds a considerable amount
of very useful information for the interested de-
signer and broadens the scope of this study.
Several discussers have pointed out t h a t some
of the approximate methods presented in the
paper for the preliminary evaluation of the partic-
ulars a n d / o r performance of a tugboat can be
further refined. While there is no doubt in the
author's mind t h a t any one formula or any one
approximation can be refined, one also should
keep in mind t h a t most of the formulas and ap-
proximations presented in this paper are m e a n t to
apply to the preliminary design of a tugboat only
and should be used as such. I t i s realized t h a t
the final characteristics of the boat m a y v a r y
somewhat from the ones predicted in the begin-
ning, but the author believes t h a t if judgment and
-good sense are used in the preliminary stages of
the design the formulas and approximations pre-
sented in the paper will prove useful to the de-
signer.
T h e writer wishes to t h a n k Mr. Tomalin for his
lengthy and interesting discussion, but cannot
agree with him t h a t tip clearances between pro-
peller and hull are not i m p o r t a n t if one considers
t h a t the worst wake distribution, a major factor
in ship vibrations, is to be found close to the hull
of a tug. Perhaps this difference of opinion arises
from the fact t h a t Mr. Tomalin refers to experi-
ments conducted on some 255-ft Coast Guard
cutters. I t is entirely possible t h a t the wake dis-
tribution perpendicular to the plane of the pro-
peller on these cutters is such as to make tip
clearance unimportant, but, unfortunately, tug-
boat forms have nothing in common with Coast
Guard cutters. The wake distribution in tug-
boats is probably the worst to be found in any
commercial boat.
Those of us who have participated in the design
of the 95-ft U. S. Coast Guard patrol boats are
thoroughly familar with the careful and scientific
way in which propeller design is approached b y
the United States Coast Guard. Unfortunately,
this does not apply to the commercial small-boat
designer as well, and in m a n y cases the design of
propellers for small or medium-sized commercial
boats is rather crude. How else can one explain
the installation of stock propellers to m a n y fishing
or other small commercial craft, or the poor bol-
lard pull exhibited by some tugboats ?
Mr. Tomalin compares the propeller design of
tugboats, towboats and Coast Guard cutters.
This is unfortunate, since the three different types
TUG DESIGN 439
have very little in common, except size. While
towboats have been using successfully propeller
tunnels and K o r t nozzles due to their specific
utilization, single-screw tugs have such a hull
form as to make th~ experience gained with tow-
boats practically useless. On the other hand, cut-
ters are high-speed vessels in comparison with
tugs and their form is so different that, again, no
useful comparison between the two types can be
made.
Mr. Flipse's discussion revolves around a very
interesting s u g j e c t - - t h e use of hydrofoil sections
in rudder design. Unfortunately, the figures
presented in Mr. Flipse's discussion concern hy-
drofoils operating in low wake velocities and the
author is not sure t h a t a fully flapped hydrofoil
rudder operating in the high wake velocities often
found around tugboats is a practical answer to
the tugboat steering problem. The 60 per cent
figure as a per cent increase due to a fully flapped
hydrofoil sounds good, but, as Mr. Flipse sug-
gests, it is highly impractical. At the same time,
as the discusser also points out, it sould be un-
reasonable to have the fully flapped hydrofcil rud-
der operating only from 18 deg port to 18 deg
starboard. For these reasons it is believed that
an adjustable-flap hydrofoil might be more de-
sirable than the one suggested by Mr. Flipse.
Mr. T a g g a r t seems to prefer tug resistance plots
based on volumetric coefficient rather than dis-
.placement/length ratios. The use of different
coefficients in certain plots is a m a t t e r t h a t need
not be argued since different individuals prefer
different coefficients. VI'he writer believes t h a t
most n a v a l architects are far more familiar with
displacement/length ratios than with volumetric
coefficients, although s o m e hydrodynamicists
have been switching to volumetric coefficient in
the past few years. I t should be pointed out
t h a t certain curves of the plots appearing in Ap-
pendix 3 of the paper have been refaired from the
original David Taylor Model Basin data to m a k e
them agree more closely with other tugboat test
data, such as data received from Japan, the Neth-
erlands a n d the Teddington National Physical
L a b o r a t o r y in England. These changes appear
mostly in the lower speed/length-ratio values.
Mr. T a g g a r t suggests t h a t the formulas pre-
sented in this paper, such as the one for economic
speed, should be refined b y including additional
factors such as displacement/length ratio, and
so on. However, as mentioned previously, some
of the formulas presented in the paper are m e a n t
to apply for preliminary design only. As such,
it is believed t h a t the introduction of additional
factors would only complicate matters. On the
other hand, Mr. T a g g a r t is somewhat inconsist-
 440 MODERN TUG DESIGN
ent in his discussion. At one point he is willing
to refine one formula, and then he would like to
simplify Admiral Simpson's beam formula by in-
troducing approximations for the distance of the
center of buoyancy below the waterline. Clearly,
judgment should be used in all cases as to how far
the simplification can and should be carried out.
One of the assumptions that Mr. Taggart makes
in trying to simplify Admiral Simpson's beam for-
mula is that the m-coefficient used in the paper is
0.09 in all cases. This is not entirely correct,
since m is equal to i/Cb where the coefficient i
depends again on waterplane coefficient.
The author would like to thank Mr. Taggart
for his discussion and it is hoped that by co-
operation among interested designers, a standard
set of formulas and assumptions eventually will
be used for the design of tugboats to the benefit
of one and all concerned.
Mr. Wheeler presents in his discussion a plot of
steel weight parameters versus length for tugs.
I t is believed that this applies to the European
type of tugboat and the designer should be careful
and use judgment in applying these data to Ameri-
can designs for the reasons explained in the main
body of this paper. Mr. Wheeler also brings up
the point of optimum LCB location and introduces
a formula for its approximation. This formula
seems to be of the experimental type and the
author, having never used it, is not familiar with
its capabilities and limitations. Some recent ex-
periments performed at the University of Michi-
gan's Naval T a n k by the writer on the influence of
displacement and trim on resistance of conven-
tional merchant marine hulls have shown that the
LCB location has a decisive influence on the resist-
ance of a ship. Nevertheless, no method of plot-
ting could be found whereby the LCB location
influence could be reduced to a useful plot or to a
workable formula. The experiments were of a
limited nature to be true, and it is hoped that
eventually they will be expanded so that definite
results m a y be announced at a later date. Never-
theless, from the original meager data, it appears
, that the half angle of entrance of the waterline is
much easier to handle and, in conjunction with
other parameters, m a y result in a useful plot or
formula which will enable the naval architect to
predict the increase or decrease of resistance that
m a y be expected from a difference in displacement
or trim.
The author wishes to thank Mr. Wasmund for
his discussion on electric drives for tugboats as
well as for the correction of an obvious mistake
in the body of the paper, where it is stated erro-
neously that " . . . reversing is obtained by revers-
ing the field of the motor" a practice fairly corn-
mon in Europe, but not in this country. Obvi-
ously, this sentence should read " . . . reversing is
obtained by reversing the field of the generator."
Captain Brown points out that statical and
dynamical stability criteria should not be used
interchangeably. While no one will argue the
correctness of this point, the author believes that
at least in the preliminary stages of the design one
easy stability criterion should suffice to ensure the
safety and seaworthiness .of the boat. Cross
curves of stability are very useful, but a consider-
able amount of work is required to produce a set
of these curves and the necessity of them at the
early stages of the design is doubted. The author
would wholeheartedly agree with Captain Brown
that cross curves of stability are an absolute neces-
sity in tugboat design. The only question is as
to when these cross curves should be produced.
In the opinion of the author, it would be useless to
work on the cross curves of stability until the tug-
boat form has been finalized to the point where the
designer can be sure that major changes will not
occur. On the other hand, the formula given in
the paper m a y be used at the preliminary stages of
the design to compare three or four different tug-
boat hull types in order to make a decision as to
which one has the best stability characteristics.
To those of us who have had the opportunity to
work on the YTB design, Captain Brown's com-
ments are very gratifying. We believe we have
taken great pains in producing a good tugboat hull
form and I am sure that we are all anxiously
awaiting to hear what the actual performance of
this boat will be.
While the author agrees with Captain Brown
that a diesel-electric installation will normally
have a higher first cost than any other rrethod of
propulsion in a tugboat, it is felt that maintenance
costs of electric motors and associated equipment
is sometimes overemphasized. At the same time,
the perfect control obtainable with an electric
drive is, in the opinion of the author, superior to
anything else available in the field and m a y justify
a higher initial investment in m a n y cases.
In view of the strong objections that Captain
Brown and other N a v y personnel voice to the
recommendation of introducing a bar keel when-
ever possible to minimize danger to the hull from
grounding, the author would like to withdraw this
recommendation.
Mr. Taplin comments on several points of rud-
der design, and asks several questions of interest.
In reply to his questions, the following can be said:
(a) The reason for the inferiority in the astern
operation of a flat-plate rudder with fishtails as
compared to a streamlined rudder is the fact that
in this condition the former presents a perpen-
 MODERN TUG DESIGN
dicular rectangle to the water, thus disturbing the
flow and reducing lift.
(b) The evidence asked for t h a t fishtails are
useful on tug rudders is overwhelming. Several of
the tugboats operating in the New York H a r b o r
area, for example, are equipped with fishtails and
could not hope to do their work as well without
them.
(c) Practical and worth-while rudder angles de-
pend, of course, on the type of the rudder em-
ployed and the speed of advance of the vessel.
Angles from g5 to 40 deg are useful, provided con-
ventional types of rudders are used. If a type (c)
rudder with an adjustable flap is used, the maxi-
m u m rudder angle can be reduced to 20 or 25 deg,
without reducing the steering ability of the boat.
Mr. Taplin points out correctly t h a t a flapped
rudder will probably result in poor astern con-
trollability. For this reason, the author believes
t h a t it might be useful to provide an adjustable-
flap rudder with a lock of some type t h a t would
keep the flap on the centerline when the vessel is
backing. In this way, the full advantages of the
adjustable-flap rudder when going ahead can be
realized, while the known advantages of the sym-
metrical airfoil section also can be retained when
the vessel is operating in the astern condition.
T h e author is indebted to Dr. Corlett for his
excellent discussion of a novel form of tugboats
t h a t are apparently very successful abroad. I t is
perhaps high time t h a t we in the United States
start really designing small boats and try to o1~:
rain the best possible hull for the job in question.
I t is obvious t h a t Dr. Corlett and his associates
have put a lot of thought into the design of the
Hydroconic type of hull. Since this paper ,vas
written, the author has had a chance to become
more familiar with the Hydroconic concept and is
now convinced t h a t the .principles and methods
used in this type of design are such as to make H y -
droconic tugboats, in all probability, the best tugs
in the world.
Dr. Corlett's figures are v e r y interesting, espe-
cially the ones about the large reduction of labor
costs in the Hydroeonic type of construction.
Since the United States is indeed a high-labor-cost
country, this; design m a y prove very'successful on
this side e f the Atlantic as well. However, not
only is this type suited to economic construction,
but also through careful design, the chines them-
selves can actually produce appreciable hydro-
dynamic advantages through their potential ef-
fect on controlling the direction of water flow
around the hull. Because of the existence of this
influencing ability, it is possible, after some experi-
ence with the type, to obtain o p t i m u m flow pat-
terns within close limits, mainly b y positioning the
441
chines. The ultimate acceptance of Hydroconic
design principles, as applied to the design and
construction of small vessels, seems inevitable.
I t is only hoped t h a t a Hydroconic type of tug-
boat will soon be available on this side of the At-
lantic so t h a t exact comparisons between the H y -
droconic and the conventional hulls can be made.
The author must disagree with Dr. Corlett on
one item; the astern pull characteristics of the
Troost-type propeller as compared to the T a y l o r
wheel. Of course, the exact performance of the
different propellers will depend upon the design
speed and the difference will decrease with de-
creasing design speed. Perhaps the best possible
solution to the problem is the special design of a
screw with a combination of inner airfoil sections
and outer ogival sections.
Dr. Leathard's discussion concerning propeller
design methods is very interesting. There is no
doubt t h a t b y mathematical analysis of systematic
series data for a particular propeller type, a pitch
ratio will be found t h a t will give m a x i m u m ahead
pull for any given design speed. Unfortunately,
and in order to obtain a complete picture of the
situation, a lot of work needs to be done. Different
types of propellers m u s t be considered and their
characteristics for different design speeds must be
plotted and compared before a final answer can be
given.
Although the use of a multispeed gear box might
at first seem to complicate the design problem in-
volved, further investigation will show t h a t the
availability of at least two or perhaps three
different R P M simplifies the design considerably
by allowing not only a good bollard pull, b u t also a
reasonable free-running speed, especially if the en-
gine manufacturer permits a certain percentage of
overspeed when running free.
Dr. Leathard seems to disagree with some of the
ratios plotted in Figs. 1 and 2. I t should be em-
phasized t h a t these figures were obtained b y re-
ducing some 40 or 45 different Europe~/n tugboats
to single points, and then trying to place a mean
line through these points. I t might be t h a t the
data obtained were mostly older than the data
used b y Dr. Leathard, in which case it is very pos-
sible t h a t British practice differs much less t o d a y
from the American practice than it did a few years
back. On the other hand, the original points
were so widely scattered, t h a t the mean curve
could easily be pulled one way or another in ac-
cordance with the judgment of the person doing
the plotting.
Mr. Simpson's comments on the Hydroconic
hull design have been answered ably b y Dr. Cor-
lett. Mr. Simpson also suggests t h a t the design
of the boat should be centered around the pro-
 442 MODERN TUG DESIGN
peller and the author wholeheartedly agrees with
his comments. In fact, Mr. Simpson's c o m m e n t
that " . . . a smaller engine (at times) properly ap-
plied will deliver all the thrust t h a t the limited
propeller can absorb" should be underlined and
never forgotten by any tugboat designer.
Tile authors is also thankful to Mr. Simpson for
his discussion of the multispeed gear, a develop-
m e n t used extensively in Europe, but unknown on
this side of the Atlantic.
Mr. Kimon's discussion centers around propel-
ler design and bollard pull. I t is certainly true
t h a t the higher the shaft horsepower, the lower
the bollard pull per shaft horsepo~'er t h a t can be
obtained, a fact t h a t can be clearly seen from Fig.
15 of the paper. The discusser's formulas [6],
[7] and [8] can very well be used in place of the
corresponding ones presented in Appendix 1, but
the choice is a difficult one to make and will de-
pend entirely upon the propeller-series charts the
designer chooses to use.
There is no doubt t h a t formulas similar to the
ones presented in Appendix 1 of the paper for Ct
and C~ can be developed for other systems, and
Mr. Kimon's contribution to the value of the pa-
per is distinguished b y the fact t h a t he has given
us some valuable formulas for the determination
of bollard thrust and rpm b y using Kt and Kq co-
efficients.
To clarify the Tc coefficient used in Fig. 13 of the
paper, it should be stated t h a t it can be used only
when constant torque is being developed, unless
one is willing to use a trial-and-error method in es-
tablishing a B H P - n relationship. Furthermore,
the T c v a l u e corresponds to the 3 X KdTrKq
suggested b y Mr. Kimon and the curves have been
obtained by observing and plotting actual boat
data.
Mr. Pournaras suggests t h a t tugboat design is
not a scientific process and t h a t methods and
means used in other industries should and could
very well be employed in tug designs. His re-
marks are absolutely correct and the author would
be more than h a p p y to see some time and m o n e y
spent in this field of naval architecture for research
and experimentation. The only question t h a t
arises is the one of obtaining the necessary money
and it is v e r y doubtful t h a t any investor would be
willing to gamble his hard-earned cash on the
v e r y marginal tugboat operation.
Mr. Pournaras mentions t h a t the ship operator
m a y be asking too much when, in some heavy-
weather towing operations, he gets weary watching
cables and lines snap and part. An obvious solu-
tion to this problem would be the installation of a
constant-tension winch and the incorporation of
such a winch in the towing bit of the tugboat.
Again the question of first cost comes immediately
into mind. I t is well known t h a t constant-ten-
sion devices are rather expensive and it is doubt-
ful t h a t the expense of such a device would be jus-
tified for the few times a modern harbor tugboat
would have to assist a disabled ocean-going vessel
in heavy weather and tow her into port. On the
other hand, there is no question t h a t such a con-
stant-tension device m a y be very useful and in-
deed a necessity in an ocean-going or salvage tug.
The author believes t h a t C o m m a n d e r Temple-
ton is absoltttely correct in forecasting t h a t the
power of modern tugboats will increase without
any appreciable increase in the over-all length of
the boat. His recommendation that large harbor
tugs be designed for a speed-length ratio not to
exceed 1.25 is very well taken. However, even if
the designer calls for reduced power at free-run-
ning conditions, it is doubtful t h a t the skipper will
not call for full installed horsepower when running
free.
C o m m a n d e r Templeton recommends t h a t at
least some controllable-pitch-propeller tugboats
be included in Table 2 of this paper. He also
points out t h a t most of the tugs in Table 2 are die-
sel-electric tugs. This is true due to the fact that.
most of the modern tugboats, until recently at
least, have been of the diesel-electric type. As
the controllable-pitch-propeller tugboats enter
the field, they should certainly be included in the
table, and if the particulars of the Dalzell I[1 were
a~cailable at the time the table was written, it
would have been included in it. C o m m a n d e r
Templeton also points out t h a t Dalzell I I [ showed
a bollard pull of about 50,000 lb. However, in
the interest of justice, it should be pointed out
t h a t this boat is equipped with a higher horse-
power engine than the ones listed in Table 2. If,
instead, of the total bollard pull used in Com-
mander Templeton's discussion, the bollard pull
in pounds per shaft horsepower was indicated, one
would find out t h a t the Dalzell I I I showed about
29 to 30 lb of thrust per shaft horsepower which is
approximately equal to an average diesel-electric
boat.
The author is indebted to C o m m a n d e r Temple-
ton for his thorough discussion of bridge-control
systems. There is no d o u b t t h a t a good set of
engine controls at the bridge is almost as impor-
t a n t as a good propeller or a good rudder and con-
tributes greatly in making a tugboat efficient and
economical to operate.
The-writer also is indebted to Mr. Robertson
for his timely and extensive remarks on the sta-
bility of tugboats. His remarks on repowering of
tugs and the associated dangers should be printed
in italics and an inclining experiment, as suggested
 MODERN
b y the discusser, should follow every conversion.
As far as h-values for use with the G M formula
presented in the paper are concerned, some repre-
sentative figures for the boats in Table 2 are as
folio-cos :
Y T B Design . . . . . . . . . . . h = 13 ft
Grace Moran . . . . . . . . . . . . h = 13 ft
H e l e n L . Tracy . . . . . . . . . h = 12 ft
N a n c y Moran . . . . . . . . . . h = 12 ft
Mr. Robertson suggests t h a t a mean between
the freeboard, amidships and the minimum free-
board is a better approximate index for use with
the G M formula than the minimum freeboard in
itself. This is a good suggestion, and the author
will be more than h a p p y to comply with it. I t is
hoped t h a t other designers will also take up Mr.
Robertson's suggestion whenever they find it nec-
essary to use the G M formula supplied in this
paper.
Professor Troost has been kind enough to con-
tribute his unique propeller-design knowledge to
this paper. With regard to the astern thrust
characteristics of the controllable-pitch propeller,
the testimony of several tugboat skippers in the
New York H a r b o r area might be of interest.
Several of these men, well qualified to offer a quali-
tative opinion, having served on both fixed-pitch
and controllable-pitch tugboats, have been
shocked b y the poor astern thrust of controllable-
pitch propellers. Of course, it is very possible.
t h a t these propellers have been designed for free-
running speed rather than bollard pull or other
towing conditions. This would, of course, cause a
large sacrifice in bollard pull, both ahead and
astern. The trouble with controllable-pitch pro-
pellers is t h a t they are mostly designed b y the
manufacturers and there is no doubt t h a t a quali-
fied designer, such as Professor Troost, could im-
prove on the astern-thrust characteristics without
impairing the ahead efficiency. If, for example,
the controllable-pitch-propeller blades would be
designed for dead pull ahead with minimum sac-
rifice of astern thrust, then the astern thrust of
such a propeller might increase as much as 20 per
cent over the one designed for free-running speed.
Nevertheless, the author recalls t h a t some 2 years
ago one of the major controllable-pitch-propeller
manufacturers in this country would guarantee for
a certain propeller 22,400 lb (10 tons) of astern
thrust, while a conventional Taylor wheel of the
same specifications should deliver a b o u t 32,000 lb
(14.3 tons) in the astern condition.
In order to do justice to ail concerned, some
clarification of Professor Troost's figures of the
R o t t e r d a m tugboat with a turnable K o r t nozzle
should be made. I t is noted t h a t this tugboat has
TUG DESIGN 443
an engine rated at 325 shp at 325 rpm directly
coupled to an adjustable-pitch propeller placed
within a Kort-nozzle rudder. Professor Troost
further mentions t h a t the ahead bollard pull regis-
tered at 310 shp was 44 lb' per shp. This would
seem to be exceedingly high, and although there is
3 in.
no doubt t h a t the K o r t nozzle did improve some-
0 in.
what the thrust obtained, it should be kept in mind
11 in.
t h a t this boat is u n d e r p o w e r e d - i n - c o m p a r i s o n
9 in.
with the boats given in Table 2 of the paper.
Since now t h e pounds of bollard pull per shaft
horsepower will increase as the shaft/h'6rsepower
decreases, the 44 lb per shp pull exhibited b y this
tug should not be considered unusual. In point of
fact, I recall that Dr. Corlett mentioned to me t h a t
one of his Hydroconic tugs, the Sydney Cove, exhi-
bited more than 40 lb pull per shp while th~engine
was developing slightly over 1000 shp.
Mr. H o r t o n ' s remarks should help considerably
in convincing some doubtful naval architects that
a K o r t nozzle is worth while investigating in tug-
boat design. As Mr. Horton points out, it is un-
fortunate t h a t the developments he has described
m u s t remain, at least for the time being, in the
unpublished category.
' Mr. H o r t o n ' s remarks as to tip clearances be-
tween propeller and the K o r t nozzle do not seem to
agree with Dr. Van M a n e n ' s findings. In his
recent paper before the Society, Dr. Van Manen
indicated t h a t close tip clearances were quite im-
portant in obtaining m a x i m u m possible t h r u s t
addition from a K o r t nozzle.
C o m m a n d e r Miller's discussion presents vividly
the problems of the tug designer and illustrates
the difficulties arising when the owner wishes one
thing a n d the designer knows something else is
better. His remarks' are even more valuable since
he is very well. known in the tugboat design field
and has contributed greatly in designing bo/its of
exceptional performance.
Mr. Turner correctly points out t h a t a free-pi s-
ton gas generator would have the advantage of
being able to give high thrust at low per cent Of
rated R P M and still give rated horsepower at
a n y propeller R P M . However, one must not
disregard the fact t h a t a free-piston gas generator
has found a fairly new field of application in the
m a r i n e field. While the advantages of this sys-
tem are quite obvious and a thorough investiga-
tion of its capabilities should prove to be very in-.
teresting, it is believed t h a t further experimenta-
tion and tests will be necessary before a free-piston
gas generator can be applied successfully and
economically to a tugboat.
Mr. Turner points out t h a t his personal prefer-
ence for a h a r b o r t u g main propulsion system
would be a combination of a torque converter, a
444 MODERN TUG DESIGN
reverse reduction gear, and a fixed-pitch propeller.
This again involves the case of the unknown, if one
considers the torque converter as an unproven
piece of machinery, at least for the horsepo~-ers
under consideration. Torque converters of much
lower power have been used successfully for m a n y
years, but torque converters able to handle 1500
to 2000 or more shaft horsepower have not been
developed to the point where they can be used
without any fear of introducing an item that will
require serious maintenance. In addition to that,
it should be pointed out that the 95 per cent over-
all transmission efficiency quoted in the main body
of the paper for a transmission system employing
a torque converter was based on preliminary data
supplied to the author by one of the torque-con-
verter manufacturing concerns. I t now appears
that the manufacturers might have been somewhat
optimistic in evaluating the efficiency of their
equipment. In view of recent results, it is now
estimated that the over-all efficiency of a trans-
mission system using a torque converter would be
closer to 92 or 93 per cent.
Mr. Morgan asks if Fig. 13 can be used to esti-
mate bollard pull for both constant-power and
constant-torque installations. The answer to
that is, of course, no. Unfortunately, it was not
made clear at the time, but Fig. 13 should be used
only for the estimation of constant-torque installa-
tions. Furthermore, it should be stated that
Fig. 13 was derived from actual bollard-pull tests.
Mr. Morgan's comments are similar to the ones
that Mr. Kimon presented previously and the
reply to Mr. Kimon's discussion should apply to
Mr. Morgan's as well. We are, nevertheless, all
indebted to Mr. Morgan for his work in develop-
ing performance characteristics of the Troost 3, 4
and 5-blade propeller series at bollard pull.
These figures should add considerably to the value
of the paper and should prove very helpful to the
interested designer.
Professor Baler's comments are indeed welcome
and the author would be happy to substitute Pro-
fessor Baler's Fig. 45 for Fig. 12 of the paper.
Professor Baier's way of plotting barge resistance
in pounds of pull per brake horsepower versus
towing speed is valuable, since it indicates at a
glance how nmch of an advantage a more powerful
tug would have.
The author would like to thank Professor Ben-
ford for his kind words and to point out that with-
out his help and encouragement, the publication
of this paper would have been impossible.
Mr. Birch's comments on the types of tugs that
the New "York Central System is using are quite
interesting. His discussion goes to prove that it
is useless to talk about the best type of a tug avail-
able when one particular company has three dif-
ferent types operating, all of them designed for
specific tows or pulls. Mr. Birch's discussion
should make it clear that a thorough co-operation
between the owner and the naval architect is not
only desirable, but an absolute necessity in order
to come up with a successful tugboat design.
In closing, the author would like to thank once
more all those who contributed to the discussion of
this study. There is no doubt that the value of
the discussion surpasses that of the paper and it is
encouraging to see that so m a n y well-known
designers and naval architects are interested in
small boat design and see it fit to contribute their
knowledge and experience to this field.