Scale Effects On Propellers

SCALE EFFECTS ON PROPELLERS AND ON PROPULSION FACTORS Committee Members. Dr, Me. Dr. Mr. Mr. Mr. 1H, Estrand (Chairman), J. Hadler (Secretary). F. Gutsche. Kerivtzoff. S. Bindel. RN. Newton, Prof. E, V. Telfer. Mr. Mr. D. Moor. K. Taniguchi. COMMITTEE REPORT Ixropuction ‘The Decisions and Recommendations of the Eighth Conference on the above subject (formerly named Subjects 1 and 5. Scale Effects on Propellers and on Self-Propulsion Factors) were as follows 1. The Conference is of the opinion that considerable progress has been made since the last Con- ference in the better appreciation of selpropulsion problems. 2 To further our knowledge the Conference recommends that (@) It is desirable to reduce the number of proce- 0,35a value of ky ~ 1.00 has been found appropriate (8) Theoretical analyses of scale-ffeets on thrust deduction and wake fraction are in progres. Tray Istituto Nazionale per Studi ed Esperienze di Archi- fettura Navale, Roma, reports the following ship- ‘model correlation based on ITTC-1957 line: ‘Tankers 36.000 tons div. L-= 200m 3 ships Displ = 47500 tons | V ~ 14—18knots AC, Disph = 20.500t0n8 VS I8knots AC rien 2 Tankers 35400t0ns dv. L= 200m 7 ships Disp = 48.200t0ns | V—14-58kn08 AC Disp = 30500t0n V~I7Sknot ACrucn 3. Passenger ince L= 161m 1 ship Displ = 23000t0n5 = 18-21 knots AGp 4. Passenger ship L= 96m 3 ships Disp. = 4.200tons -18.5knots ACy = 0.0003 5. Trawer L=36m I ship Disp —430t0rs Ve T3knots Cp = 0.0002 ‘The ships (1), (2) and (5) are all welded, (3) and (4) are partly welded. ‘The measured dhp values have been corrected by 5% for air resistance and shaft frictions. A propeller geosim series (D = 18,27, 36 and 45 em) is started. TAPAN Transportation Technical Research Institute, Tokyo, reports open water tests with 4 propellers (D = 20 and 25 em, P/D = 0.80, A,JA, = 0.55 and 0.70). ‘Tripwires (diam. about 0.12 mm) are attached on both blade surfaces, 8 % chord length aft from the leading edge. The 41 Research Commitice of the Shipbuilding Research Association of Japan is investigating the propulsive performance of super tankers. In total 20 models are tested in the TRI and in the Nagasaki Tank. ‘NETHERLANDS Nederlandsch Scheepsbouwkundig Proefstation, COMMITTEE REPORT Wageningen. The investigations of the NSMB into scale effect on the propulsive components have been carried out on the Victory geosims. The results of the resistance and thrust measurements and the wake distributions have been published in TINA 1955 and 1958. ‘The most important conclusions, drawn ftom these investigations are : 1. ‘The Victory geosims have given results in resis. ‘tance, corresponding to the shape of the ITTC-model- ship correlation line. 2. The wake factor can be extrapolated analo- gously to ship resistance on the basis of Reynolds umber. ‘The reference line for extrapolation was in this case the nominal wake factor calculated over the serew dise when placed behind a plate having a length of 25 times the screw diameter. The third NSMB-publication concerning these tests with Victory geosim will deat with the analysis of the propulsive components. ‘An important conclusion could be drawn about the behaviour of thrust deduction made dimensionless in the same way as ship resistance TR pve dimensionless thrust deduction factor seems to be independent of the Reynolds number. Since the variation of the screw efficiency 7, with Reynolds number can be determined with the formula 1-260, % Co/G. TK (oe Lerbs" publication “On the Effects of Scale and Roughness on Free Running propellers.” Journal of the ASNE-1951), and the relative rotative efficiency may be assumed independent of Reynolds number it is now possible to make the normal full scale predictions from results of self propulsion model tests at progressive speeds, allowing for all direct Reynolds number effects. ‘The secondary scale effects, caused by the increased relative frictional resistance at lower Reynolds nombers lead to a higher propeller load. Its effects can be determined by an overload test, from which both the variation in thrust deduction ‘with propeller load and the variation of relative rotative 217SCALE EFFECTS ON PROPELLERS AND ON PROPULSION FACTORS efficiency x open water propeller efficiency can be determined. ‘The NSMB would therefore strongly recommend a standard self-propulsion test procedure, consisting of: 1, a self-propulsion test at progressive speeds without skin friction correction. 2. an overload test at the service speed. ‘The advantage of a similar standard method will be, that the direct experimental results can be used in ‘combination with any extrapolation method and remain therefore valid if the extrapolation method might be modified. A second advantage of such a standard method is ‘of course the much easier comparableness of test results from different tanks. With respect to dynamic torque and thrust measurements we refer to the paper “Dynamic Measurements on Propeller Models” by van Manen and Wereldsma, presented at the Zagreb Symposium, The “periodic sampling” technique, mentioned on page 18 of ¢! paper has been applied very successfully on dynamic measurements of bending moments in the propeller shaft and on torque and thrust. Norway ‘TH Institute for Shipbuilding, Trondheim. Prof. Telfer draws attention to his April 1960 NEC Institu- tion Symposium paper on “The Reconciliation of Model Data, Measured Mile Results and Service Performance of Ships” and particularly to § 4 dealing with propulsion scale-ffects. In this he shows how partial air-jet propulsion can be used to obtain a resistance/thrust differential from which the ship resistance can be determined. His paper also gives correlated ship specific frictional resistance values for clean hulls of various structural roughness and for any length of ship. These values are to be added to the model residuary specific resistances to obtain the ship total specific resistance. The approach is recom- ‘mended in preference to the use of the (I + x) factor (or the French Z factor) which obviously rapidly reduces with increasing Froude number. PoLANo Professor L. Kobylinski, Gdansk, reports that work is performed in a small towing tank and with large model-boats concerning scale effects on the propulsion factors. as COMMITTEE REPORT Some theoretical work is now progressing on the problem of unsteady flow conditions on thrust deduction. Sween The Swedish State Shipbuilding Experimental Tank, Goteborg, has investigated the differences between the full seale resistance values deduced from model tests, using the Froude friction coefficients and the ITTC 1957 friction formal, sec Fig. 14. ‘The correlation between ship power and revolutions and the corresponding model test results has been treated in another investigation. The work has primarily been performed to study different methods for analysing the results of measurements on ship trials and comparing with the corresponding model test results. The methods have been applied to a number of ships of different types and further work with more statistical material is in progress. In this connection, the problems conceming scale effects regard to the propulsive factors have been studied and preliminary methods for determining wake and thrust deduction scale effects have been developed. (Contribution to the Discussion of the Committee Report by Hans Lindgren and C. A. Johnsson). Experiments are being carried out to investigate ‘the influence of propeller blade section shape on the propeller characteristics at different Reynolds numbers. Theoretical propeller design methods, proposed by different authorities are being analysed and compared experiments being carried out to verity different hypotheses. Unrrep Kinapom All the British tanks have co-operated in preparing a standard procedure for routine tank tests. As mentioned above a paper on the procedure agreed for use in all published and commercial contract work was given fo the Zagreb Symposium in Septem- ber 1959 and issued as the NPL Report SH R10/59, Admiralty Experiment Works, Haslar, are carrying out tests as opportunity offers in the new large cavita- tion tunnel on a series of propeller models ranging in diameter from 9 inches to 21 inches. ‘A wake survey just forward of one propeller of a twin screw ship has been carried out at sea, and repeated in the tank oma 1/18th scale model. It was found that there was very little difference betweenSCALE EFFECTS ON PROPELLERS AND ON PROPULSION FACTORS the two results, which is probably due to the fact that the frictional component of the wake is relatively low in ships of fine form in which the propellers are well away from the hull. Considerable diffe rence was observed in wake speeds as measured on ship and model at points within the boundary layer, ‘e.g. at 28.5 in, from the hull the speed of flow measured ‘on the ship was 19.9 knots, while that on the model corresponded to 18.5 knots, ata ship speed of 21 knots. If these were mean velocities over the propeller disc, they would be equivalent to Taylor wake fractions of § per cent for ship and 12 per cent for model Further, as the hull was approached, the difference in ship and model resuits became greater, ¢.g. at a point 1.8 in. from the bull at ship speed of 21 knots, the measured wake speeds were 14.2 knots for ship and 11.6 knots for model. This confirms that there is considerable wake scale effect within the boundary Jayer, particularly in regions of relatively high wake near the hull. For this reason, scale effect on wake will generally be more important in single screw ships than in twin screw ships. National Physical Laboratory, Ship Division, Ted- dington, has done some work on propeller boundary layer and scale effect and a report of this work is shortly to be published. Further work, particularly the investigation of altemative methods of turbulence stimulation using studs and high frequency excitation, is underway. Methods of carrying out wake traverses and analys- {ng data have been developed at the NPL and a report will be rendered in due course, It is intended to apply the methods to carry out systematic investigations of wake patterns for ship models as soon as possible. UNITED STATES OF AMERICA David Taylor Model Basin, Washington D. C, 4s conducting tests on a 0.80 block coefficient Series Mirror modet to determine the minimum Reynolds ‘number to which propulsion tests can be conducted without stimulators on the propeller blade, All good fullscale trials conducted by DTMB are being analysed to establish correlation factors for prediction. Studies are underway on the time dependent pressure forces generated by the propeller, the mechanical forces transmitted by the shaft from the propeller, COMMITTEE REPORT and the alternating thrust forces. An alternating thrust dynamometer has been developed and used to ‘measure fluctuating forces on a propeller behind a strut in a variable pressure water tunnel. The alternating thrust forces have been measured ‘on full scale ships and the results have been compared with model test predictions. ‘A model technique for measuring the vertical, horizontal and torsional vibratory forces induced by the propeller has been developed. At present ‘these forces are measured on a 0.70 block, Series 60 with various stern and propeller variations. ‘The alternating pressure forees in the vicinity of ‘8 propeller operating in a variable pressure water tunnel have been measured. These forces have been ‘measured on a ship and on a model and the results have been compared. Complementary theoretical work has boon performed at the Davidson Laboratory where the time dependent pressure forces in the vicinity of propellers have becn derived. At preseat the alternating thrust forces are being studied. At Massachusetts Institute of Teclnology, Dep. of Naval Architecture and Marine Engineering, Cam bridge, Professor Lewis is measuring the vibratory forces on a strut ahead of the propeller. The forces being measured are pressure forces induced by the propeller. At DTMB the pressure is boing measured at many points on a propeller operating ina variable pressure ‘water tunnel. The results correlated well with those obtained from theory. Frequency effects upon the open water performance ‘ofa propeller operating in a variable flow field are being studied. Open water tests of a propeller in waves were conducted. Tests will be performed of 4 propeller heaving in stil water Experimental work is being conducted at DTMB fon the propulsive performance of counterrotating propellers using the theory developed by Letts. Experimental propulsion work is being done on supercavitating and ventitated propellers. Theoretical work is being done to derive an appropriate lifting surface correction for the moderately loaded propeler. Hans Eastrand, Chairman, Scale Effects on Propellers ‘and on Propulsion Factors. 219ae oe ae See og Pw etme oe Tp ia a 3 ymcms a, (hy ER Frome * Na nr 7 amines nate tor | 647 | 4) teres artnet | ts ernie ede prea ‘ fy ned (60) PET Se wtf (2), sat zuier rrr |) sae i iced fk I eaetuars soretion fre grmetion 38 ay comate of poate | 226 23 Bemeese | las 7 seer | fn «ct Si Ve |Fatee | | ota ak prpasr | 38 esa to Om ornate, |e on fh Sine mate’ aber (eines) | 36 (48) conten send smi 1 [eens and mae for est | oer anya tor ance | et so tng “aur. |“ cereuion of gametes | 15 fy Rae Nenretioe ace stint, esas SisReribad in oe au Sorsatte pee Pesto to he fags pepntany cm abet 13he Fie. 1.—- @ iggp wees |) ieee ‘el praaee for le rte td to 647 | co sige seme crate |) an agian cas |) weer shurnas | 0 pamnts SRE Joo Pe oo w se tn ne [eo mee 1, uae ne eae ot (S Save. bE ih, BE eee iy | sect SORTER | a ems io _ . Ine _ - Pace mats: || moans | ae a jw sate em 8 Me i Pmnsigim ane. |e | ans | awa, z+ 20a maa _ or emeseder fo + ae a = ects msi vos | ASO | | wos wen BY weave to Op Jes ave ome ere | Ln) cottne (0) cman © eae (aston) | 36 Laon = co ‘aimee coo eeeee ce |e ” sama quarne agit ait —| 4 | ea a tre nt ggrmtins o¢gmmncter | 05 | stn ponte, mtv | coerton eptet J stn seartin st tn soeny Yh soma sh ans are aol the anes pcre esas Hee SETS DEMIS App nee Earn geen Sept Oe Fo. 2ao = a See ae Eee YO ey a a Popeiar # [a (te (44) te csr | 643 Bees |e 2) Sakis eh chr | rat a) Gy bape re |e, tee — 2 Sh Bh Bette [SP | Bae ee Na Reece OG ae ES ieee Bs Een ons efteos corratton ot | 17 |e sorations io corrections ‘Torque cormeation applied eee ee ses mare ‘ jo sata ne we ae atin ate |e | airs men. SS careating tctrs sgpind | coemnt for mutica, le tcp or wag os uamterat'asuel pemetee | 32 |g te, Stas 15 tee arte. oom (8) pate | ae (0) coostant Bate eye’ sae (asntons) | 3% = |e etree ous = ote Petotplen for ate 1 | rary od trae reortet Joseas mapunl sepamteny, ‘wopeiiere Dame. conse wommpatateenst.g | fmm serae |e-aee ae come soept opm Ince dees eran coroner | 9 | egtermtt emete |e san ome |e ts ie ESC. |ESER. esos. yi Pewee migns | can tan of sane neg Fo, 3.12.2.0, manus comes ane FRE | eon ne one me, an oes mir Tae eae iv | aa lm Tyan se |G) Bae See se 7 as rs sicce, § | 647 hy sisi on he trate ae | pe (Ey | Rh HERE Ts some i) net Bes ‘Protein ames Saperee afore ” 3) sented up uw any ) roe 8) tee Gb aaa ee ae a i ree rgatine mie foto |e ut 3 somipe pe igor [427 | mnt some No omen | eile to tts tases ce asia prpeier | 32 | 7.9 4, eo 1.2 See ok done to 7.9 See 58 ta 4013.8 i. (4) comtant 2, (1) coma 8 (0) cwemae Bt. seme cane ction) | | asco or sees mae | a rr— ee oeag re | Sa _ wo feenge vag 1k ore ft v Eta Een segenctommens | 8 leo pete ge [yee 0) me ib Rat (aay) sete Sh Gropetfar | ca) ante poplar | aun SOREN pleas Fa. 4.Ln urges comers a on Fate, Wate 3 ee 2 te os eeatahn tees eee (0 Sitter Satiogs, | eedtertn t= i Eas to Ee | re Fae om tb Pa SL? coma (8) Bake or it Sect saya’ amor (8008) areata ueretes of aynnnat i Bae s fh Beste Ei dare (cuecusy aes ove carmeste Wy vintage fester rie BE tree Steels anes t Restate ay Sites ner th, eric et roan (0) costae 2 1 maton sf 0x1 cay ene geeecioa ++ lee a (0) eae ane sity (431) SE Ppeiber Tine et i (ty cottae rte 05-08See ee oe Sa S| be (11) kode propelter tad tee sams, (© mtn wae |e sae ne | 2 me PEs oo Seam foo Roe ee, Le ee te ve |e, pam 2, i, tee [BP | whe 2, BS f Seca. th, Se ES ih, Bee bh i jpeg tm | aun nt ma mene Saag cet ermattn o¢ | 17 bry conten of prouiton | 225 25 oe fy Seay ee ih he ‘Sataisee sompesttvany ato lye see ee |e or (48) Spee o remit ae cn | 26 fa ce ae 7 - Es ES” |S mete steres. | = ree te gti | ot nt ae ieee tothe = Taae SPs otek a of Stat eevee rove scermmmner | 15 | comms samt. | marti tte | cue geri ares: me Ini Sheiis iy | Sggeraiae(L1.0.oruston onan em co as v3. ans oy 7 [Siesta Tg) Rie ae (dpe ie ao oes PSS B.S Gh x fo » |aggoiene as tor | 647 | C8) a spear crt re ees 2) kis tr wo Se Srna » , sales | © YARD tate ranoe | a' |) Bites, oamatnmny | Bective Rh) Eta i, Rare aoe thy ase i ah , moausasietng na | ratt-eaatting (mt) | trate or Smtr a ‘segment Eos sei aiin” | Moses Sims for tesla tot 2 |p omits or pppaatn jo Sb dares co jth + [onl aee | da ee Joes ennt ae : © fo cmmmnrne — fy cman — fe aman x | maynetdat suater (minions) | % | og 4.0. Jote to 0.3 = O15, asm cuaras | | [rang | |p at man coro |r tae pane [are ven te i mrss ke | rd oe saps Pont en waa sy tt 1 Bb infos gras sa to eae in ae |emmen oc cammer | |oemetine am eterno myn [ort ated i Rs Ft Fo. 7.LE, moreno Toe Rapper (esa oe he » Jrgpetars eet for | 647 |) ater an tan tenis | (8) ttn, ten mae, | (8) tat we tn sate ENS te fh Pt seems |G 2 oo ae © fine trettn aee | Pe? | te, aes tenes tne, Fearon [A | Ss Seen fh, Beste fb, Beane ih mn Eh Hinse hy sana aynie nutes (sttns) reese of aytonter 2 * » (8), J pe aseen ah) et giv (1) cinta 5. ot ee ier wt roe a corentens are eptied Ren Sie & s somata BF 0-0.2, moran cores = = “BH === 2) ESS Fela Beh a he Jegemcetenee, | 67 |g spent |, nama cm | raed [ih armrest. |i arsine | TS EOE on © ne te not ha, ame 2 et se, mee te tate [2a |e Ba ih Bie Oh Bin i Bceaes. |" |b BR Er | ee cece samosas Simian | x aggre wn ee | a7 fo ermine | cea oe 1 Pate in| jum YB Same 5 ss fo ce vee noes BAEHE Stee Sa'tage oe 4 | Diameter af aoded propetier | 32 17,07 40, TBP 7.87 An to 9.87 Ane 1 Jone | 0 ee 0) comnts vor (44) Spee {* D — bed x | rwynotae® usber (xittions) | 3 | o.08 = cet oe Jor = os [emigre | [oe ™ ” foam | a | ate an ont | nt tt | Pitot dedutibeP . a ate | + Jemma se ameer | 68 os tn sate tin | ten tnt ce seat sa2g. mat coms esau sone he ats LE, BARK SS Psa e a se » frames gee, | 647 | 4 a mms. |) mata reais, 07 | ahammar ae a ae esa i Been | | Be 1s Be = » long nt | ee mete . set cormwotion of | 17 | pone | ene |e Raa he «lruegince aig |e |memptrram gray | eine mir ap eee ad jee to conate| 1) a «foe mertsimt | 3 |areas oS Beery | a 2 etotpieg for mite ” a | ao eel © exons et omomter | 9 | 5) rps cote | one ecstrain fh at (9) prmenee E Fro. 10.“Nap eas 0 Soe Fepemee = oe iors tae eae ae 1) rroate oF Taylor 6 2 mama | Harte | a, ewes, serectom, Coc oe feta { . es * ree | ey ‘ieee oe oe as oar rn Cy sae tein, SES Bp Ene | state et ano ampaaae | wer | ear | ope . cree | wvor | oro | at Ree aaa 1 | rami or aasepsion rte a oes fore) he crac seeing pe a fe tal of he ern Fo. 1h,sans 2 | 1 | ar | at oowva | vost | , 1 | oo | on we | oocor| ot | ate | vet | sos fer) 1 | oo | on | oouvo | user Feo) seo oc | oe 099) exo wors0F9 | $e0 % 06 ve | 06 | oouvo | eect wee |uee |r | we |e [oowo| en songs cos esse] 1 | see | 901 | ovo | sett sue} sso | cosa} onrt | 0 Eis0) 660 |8uH | S80 | 980 ov | ser | erent | oouyo | spor Lagu} | lana mi z aa | BA | aouw 14 | sory aa | AE | aaa Jsontvawasao| co WIONaT SNOLLOTONS SIONVISISTU aaaas INS 40 SoUSTYELOVAVHD —: SRIVd Id SANTUVD SAd SIVSSa.d NISSVa trodes ayy us pauyap ave “Hp pur OK MED mg og og HAN OEE + INSWHSITaV.iSa © SNOLLVAYASAO SNOSIUVdWOO dIHs/TadOW 21wart} zor z | ue want Iawnva| «ize 1 | ex'eeo | ve'sor jaaany) est ont sus coe | s'96t av rwog | ssn juss] ___1___ \gowa] 0 gaat [EQN2 "aT oor soem ae IsNoxtvawasao| HIDNaT SNOMLATOASH SIONVASISTE aaaas IHS 30 sOUIsTWELOVAVHO vvodor ein ur pauyep axe p paw "Ep ME My 7 Ny OI + SNOLLVAWASHO SRIVd Id SANFAVD SAC SIVSSH.C NISSVa + INWHSITSV1sa SNOSTUVdWOO dIHS/1ad0W‘sonejnmIey WORDT QLLY M9 Pue apnosg ogi Sun sso) yopour tou pauleygo Janod dys aanoaye Uae UONMNL nonSCALE EFFECTS ON PROPELLERS AND ON PROPULSION FACTORS COMMITTEE REPORT RECOMMENDATIONS BY PROPULSION COMMITTEE 1957 : CONFERENCE RECOMMENDATION 2a : Tt is desirable to reduce the number of procedures at present in use in carrying out and analysing propulsion experiments, To this end all tank establishments should prepare and submit to the Committee detailed statements of their present methods, These statements should be used to formulate a minimum number of standard methods which can be recommended for general international use.” ‘The Committee recommends that propulsion cxperi- ments with ship models should be carried out and analysed generally in accordance with the methods described in “A Procedure for Resistance and Propul- sion Experiments with Ship Models” by Dl. Moor and A. Silverleaf, Zagreb September 1959, and NPL Report SH RI0/59._ It is clearly necessery that standard procedures for propulsion experiments should bbe associated with standard procedures for resistance experiments, and the Committee recommends that resistance experiments should also be carried out by the methods described in the same paper. Where alternative dotail methods are possible within the general procedure, the Committee recom- ends the adoption of one or other of the following standards Appendages Method Appendages fited during Appendages fitted ding ‘Resistance Experiments | Propulsion Expriments A, All appendages All appendages A; Allappendages except All appendages rudder if in propeller race ‘Ag All appendages except All appendages except rudder if in propeller bilge keels. race and bilge keels Resistance B, Two sets of resistance experiments are carried out with the model fitted with its appendages, The first, at a different time from the propulsion experiments, is used for calculating appended effective power. The second, for control purposes at the same time as the propulsion experiments, is used only in the propulsion analysis. 24 B, Only one set of resistance experiments is carried out with the model fitted with its appendages, atthe same time as the propulsion experiments, and is used both for calculating appended effective power and in the propulsion analysis. By Only one set of resistance experiments is carried out with the model fitted with its appendages, at a different time from the propulsion experiments, and is used both for calculating appended effective power and in the propulsion analysis. Analysis ©, Calculation of quasi-propulsive coefficient and its application to effective power as described by Moor and Silverleaf. Cy Direct scaling up of measured torque and rate of rotation, ‘The Committee considers that there is at present insufficient data available to determine universally correct values for the appendage scale factor 8, and for the time being recommends that a value of 1,000 be used, In all cases sufficient experiments should be made, at at least the designed service and trial speeds, to enable the analysis to be made at (a) Model Self-Propulsion at which the model is propelted at the required speed without any external tow foree, and also at one or both of the following loadings: (8) Standard ITTC Loading Overload fraction x 7 0, with (C)yg of Cin computed using the ITTC 1957 model-ship correlation line (©) Overloaded 177C Loading Overload fraction x + 0, with (Cha, oF Cun computed using the TTTC 1957 correlation line, and the value os x depending principally fon the basic shell roughness of the clean painted ship, any additional roughness due to fouling, the weather conditions and the ship length and type‘SCALE EFFECTS ON PROPELLERS AND ON PROPULSION FACTORS 1957 : CONFERENCE RFCOMMENDATION 2b: “Similar statements on present procedures for carrying out open water tests should also be prepared so that standard methods can be recommended by the Committee.’ ‘The Committee recommends that open water experi- ‘ments should be carried out and analysed in accordance with the methods described in “A Procedure for Resistance and Propulsion Experiments for Ship Models” by D.. Moor and A. Silverleaf, Zagreb September 1959, and NPL Report SH R10/59. 1957 : CONFERENCE RECOMMENDATION 2c: “Similar statements on present methods of estimating ship performance and on comparing ship trial results with model predictions should be prepared by each establishment and submitted to the Committee so that standard methods ean be recommended by the Committee’ 1. Prediction ‘The Committee recommends that ship performance estimates should be made generally as described in “A Procedure for Resistance and Propulsion Experi- ‘ments for Ship Models” by D.l. Moor and A. Silver- leaf, Zagreb September 1959, and NPL Report SH 10/59, that is by the relations: Propeller power Method C, pad tae where ao and 9, is the quasi-propulsive coefficient determined from the model experiments at the appropriate Over- load Fraction X= 8Cyl Crae Method C, 1 2 MgQQn (a) te wm ge (Eye where n, (Fp. 5) isthe rate of rotation ofthe model propeller and Q,, is the torque on the model propeller, oth determined from the model propulsion experi rents atthe appropriate Overload Fraction x; L, and 1, are the lengths of the model and ship respectively; and py, and p, are the mass densities of tank and sea water respectively. Py will be in British or Metric horsepower respectively, if Z is given the value 550 COMMITTEE REPORT when Q,, is expressed in British units (foot-pounds) or 75 when Q., is expressed in metric units (metres- kilograms), ‘Shaft power Pe © where rp is the transmission efficiency, taken to be 0.97 for ships with machinery amidships and 0.98 for ships with machinery aft. Propeller rate of rotation ‘At the power P, determined above, Ny == KyNoy (tp. m.) », whee Ny 60m, 4 /Es nig (. p. 8) is the rate of rotation of the model propeller at the appropriate Overload Fraction x, and Ly aad L, are the lengths of the model and the ship respectively, Seale factors ‘The Committee considers that there are at present insufficient data available to determine universally ccorrect values for the scale factors k; and ky, but for the time being recommends that a value of 1,000 be used for both. ‘The Committee also considers that there are at present insufficient data available to recommend values for the overload fraction x. 2. Analysis of Ship Trial Results “The Committee recommends that ship trial results should be compared with inodst propulsion results by ‘a method consistent with the analysis and prediction methods described above, in order to deduce the values of (1+) and fey actually obtained, From the model propulsion experiment, values of Py and Nz should be determined as described above, for a number of values of load factor (I + x), taking 8 land ky 1. These values of pand N,, should be Plotted on a base of (I -+ x). The measured ship trial Py should be multiplied by the transmission eff- ciency given above, to obtain Py, and the plotted curves entered at tis value to obtain the correspond ing values of (I 4+ x) and Ny. NN, (eneasured on trial) Na iments and analysis carried out by the above procedures should be deseribed as having Then ky = 2sSCALE EFFECIS ON PROPELLERS AND ON PROPULSION FACTORS been carried out by he ITTC 1960 Method Ag, Ba, C, (ete.), and the values of 8 vis ky, ky and x should be clearly and prominently stated, together with the description of the conditions to which they are assumed to apply. It should also be clearly stated whether the results are presented in British or Metric units. 236 COMMITTEE, REPORT ‘The symbols used in these recommendations have been chosen as far as possible in accordance with the tentative standard adopted by the Sixth International Conference of Ship Tank Superintendents. (See p.13: “Sith International Conference of Ship Tank Super- intendents.” SNAME, New York, 1953.)SCALE EFFECTS ON PROPELLERS AND ON PROPULSION FACTORS FORMAL DISCUSSION FORMAL DISCUSSION STANDARD PROCEDURE FOR RESISTANCE AND PROPULSION EXPERIMENTS WITH SHIP MODELS issued on behalf of the British Towing Tank Panel (N.PLL. Report S.ELR. 10/59 revised) IntRopuctio ‘thas Tong been recognized that there are differences in the procedures used in individual towing tanks in ‘carrying out and analysing resistence and propulsion experiments with ship models, and that these often ‘cause confusion when comparing results from different establishments, The British Towing Tank Panel, the members of which ate the Superintendents of the principal towing tanks in Britain and the Naval Arch tect of British Shipbuilding Research Association, ‘commissioned the preparation of a suggested uniform procedure, This suggested procedure was first presented ata symposium held in September 1959(*); with nor amendments (now incorporated) it has now teen adopted by the Panel as the standard procedure {or use in all published and commercial contract work carried out in British towing tanks, ‘The procedure is divided into the following main parts: 1. The model: its manufacture, preparation for use and condition at time of testing. IL, The experiments: methods of carrying out and range of tests. JIL The plotting and analysis of results, This procedure is intended to have a logical and scientific basis, to be generally understood by and acceptable to naval architects, and to be expressed in consistent and readily interchangcable systems of units, preferably using non-dimensional coefficients (C) DL Moorand A, Seria: A Procedure for Restanceand Propulsion Expevnets with Ship Modes: Srmposiu on Towing ‘Tank acl, Lestrumentavon and Metro Technique, Zagreb, Sepcember 198, and parameters, Further, it is designed so that factors subject to personal judgement and choice can be readily inserted without changing the method in principle, and so that their nature and magnitude are clearly specified. It is assumed throughout that the water is smooth and still before the start of each experiment This effect may best be achieved in a towing tank by the use of side and end beaches to destroy waves, and of antisdrift curtains raised between the runs to reduce or eliminate currents caused by model and air mover ment, ‘The symbols and nomenclature used are defined in the text or in Appendix I. Where numerical values ot dimensions are quoted, they refer to models with lengths 16 to 20 ft (5 to 6 m.. I. Taw Monee 1, Model manufacture. The basic requirement is that the model should be as nearly as possible geometrically similar to the ship wherever itis in contact with the water. This is not possible in all respects owing to different systemas and ‘materials of construction on model scale ang full size, and it is desirable that any departures from similarity should be known and understood. (a) Modet hull. {In the United Kingdom most model hulls aro made of wax. While the composition of the wax used in ‘each of the major British tanks is slightly different, it consists basically of at least 95 % paraffin wax in all ‘eases. The remainder consists of miscellaneous waxes primarily intended to facilitate casting without bubbles or air-holes, of to harden the composition, Although 27SCALE EFFECTS ON PROPELLERS AND ON PROPULSION FACTORS the surface appearance and feel of models is different in cach of the major tanks, itis usual to assume that the effect on hydrodynamic measurements will be negl- ible, It would be difficult for all tanks to change to a standard composition at present, Nevertheless, every endeavour should be made to ensare that the finish is uniform within each individual establishment. Care should be taken to avoid inducing an electrostatic charge during the final polishing. Some models are made of wood or of plastic (such as fibreglass). Their general surface finish should be as uniformly smooth as that of a good wax model, but the surface should not be polished with a wax ot silicone composition. Models are normally eut from a lines plan redrawn at the tank from the ship plan. The model lines should be exactly similar to the ship lines, including theendings of the water lines. Ship lines are normally drawn to moulded dimensions, and model hulls should then also be made to moulded dimensions. It should be noted that when the results for a moulded model are applied directly to a ship with plating, 2 small, though generally insignificant, error may be introduced. It is not considered possible to specify tolerances for the manufacture of the model hull, beyond the normal abilities of first-class craftsmen. However, when the ‘model is first completed it should be possible to achieve tolerances of = 0.15 in. (4 mm) on model length and of -: 0.04 in, (1 mm) on all other measured dimensions. It is particularly desirable that the aperture clearances should be as accurate as possible. With tolerances of 0.04 in. (I mm) and a maximum propeller movernent of, 0.06 in, (1.5 mm) (see Part II — The Experiments), it is unlikely that the propeller clearances will be more than 1% diameter in error. It should be noted that the dimensions of paraffin wax models change appreciably with changes in temperature; a change of 10 °F may alter the length of a mode! by 0.15% (0.25 in. for a 16 ft model). (©) Appendages. All appendages should be made accurately to their designed shape to moulded dimensions. Where this causes significant differences in overall dimensions (such as propeller-bossing clearances) which may have significant hydrodynamic effects, the moulded lines ‘should be faired into the correct full or extreme outline. ‘The surface finish should be the same as the model hull if the appendage is made of wax, and consistently smooth without any attempt to achieve a high polish 28 FORMAL DISCUSSION if made of wood or metal. Care should be taken to ‘ensure sulicient rigidity especially of shaft supports which might cause stiffness in bearings if distorted, (©) Propeller shafis. ‘The propeller shafts should be aligned with the same horizontal and vertical rakes as on the ship. Open shafts should be made with the propeller shaft itself revolving in the water or inside a fixed tube just 15 on the ship. (@) Propelter. Propellers for ordinaty propulsion experiments are almost invariably made of a lead-tin, low melting- point casting alloy commonly known as white bronze, containing 72 % tin, 13 % lead, 8 % antimony, 6 % copper, 1% bismuth. The final surface should have ‘an unpolished dull matt finish. The gap between the aft side of the model bossing and the fore side of the propeller boss should be the minimum required to allow sufficient forward movement of the propeller ‘when calibrating the thrust dynamometer but should rot exceed 0.15 in. (4 mm) with the propeller in its design position. Rope guards across the gap should not be reproduced on model scale. Propellers having diameters from 6 in. to 12 in. (5 to 30 cm) should be finished to the following tole- ances: Diameter 40.003 in. (40.075 mm) Mean pitch at each radius g % of design value ‘Thickness 40.005 in. (0.125 mm) Blade width £0,008 in, (40.2 mm) 2. Turbulence stimulators. (@) Hull. ‘The model hull should be fitted with a recognized turbulence stimulator which should be clearly described in the report om the experiments. (©) Appendages. Although turbulence stimulation may be desirable fon some appendage surfaces, no standard method suitable for general use can be recommended yet. (© Propeller. There is evidence that turbulence stimulation is necessary on model propellers, but no standard method suitable for general use can be recommended yet. 3. Preparation of model for testing. (@) Soaking and cleaning. Before running, wax models should be left fully sunk in the water, preferably for 36 hours, and cer~ tainly for not Jess than 12 hours. On resfoating, theSCALE EFFECTS ON PROPELLERS AND ON PROPULSION FACTORS entire surface should be clea 1 sponge or soft brush, particular care being taken to remove all air bubbles and slime from the surface. If the model has been in the water for some weeks and hhas become encrusted with a erystalline deposit it should be re-scraped and re-soaked, not merely sponged. Wooden models do not need to be soaked before running. ied in the tank water with (b) Ballasting and trimming. The model should be run at the correct calculated displacement to the nearest 1 1b (0.5 kg). The trim of the model should be such that the errors in draught, if any, fcom the design figure are the same at the forward and after perpendicutar. The model should FORMAL. DISCUSSION always be upright, Although it is considered undesi- rable to quote tolerances, the mean of the four draughts, fore perpendicular, after perpendicular, port side amidships, and starboard side amidships, should be within 0.01 ft(3 mm) of the designed figure. Itis advisable to correct any hog of sag greater then 0.01 ft (3 mm). 4. Condition of the model for experiments. (@) Type of experiments. In general, four types of resistance and propulsion experiments are made with the model hull; in addition, experiments are made with the propeller alone. (@ Naked resistance of the model without any appendages, to determine the resistance coefficients (of the basic form. le le ,——] 1. : L418 | ls Ly 800 CONDITION: _ 100% LOAD DRAUGHT MODEL Nt: tooo HULL = sTUOS PROPELLER : A100 (Twin) STIMULATOR {PROPELLER — NONE. APPENDAGES: BOSSNGS & € RUODER APPENOAGES = NONE A] bs 600-0 fe exer oes | bs 18-00 |e. W725 é tm _1e-c0f _ reas 9.2768 | Dy 0-480 | Uae e728 _ i PROPULSION DATE, =. _ts52e°F | Det 0.2304 #4] 4" Woon? 03708 u] ts 600-0 f aes 0:1633 | Os 18-00 fe] Sm 44-69 A] bm 16-00 ft pease V/s 0-2758 | Dm 0-480 fe] OF 0-230 ff PROPULSION DATES -ctsou.. te= See [Vs 1-354 XI Tied S/o SE-B oot FROUDE _ COEFFICIENT: c FICIENTS ally Chnois) [22-05 |v (mots) [22-05 [22-08 ze-0s Bi]2 [ue rseao/™%X, x CD Geisec) | 6-08! |Veresee/ Xe xr) | (Fr/sec)| G08t] G-osI] GOB Bs |Wee 5.200 Renese 6888) x hnCOnie 0s | Fee] 786 I4 [Loapine swioare LOADING ravoancfoverionn|vooen sa 5 ]ac (QVERLOAD FRACTION) | © — [2c (OVERLOAD FRACTION) 9 [+0180 |+0-723| 6 |Ssa Jo7980]cesa x 10% 2604] 2-604] 2-604] a7 |8Osn = On © | Scesa= = Cesnx 10% © jroset|+ 1-862 BB | Osn + ACsa= (142) ©sq [0-700 Cesar A Ceea)x 10% (142) Creat] 2604] 2998] 4487 12 | mats 11728 [Crmate x 102 4-482| +482] 4-482) Ho | Ores (149 @5A-Oraaes 03778 (Cre) xio* t+) Cran-Crmara) X10" | -1-886]- 1-487] 0 » fho4z | 3p 10776 |i-0480| 08809] kre Jo-a743 | kre 0344803717 |0-4514 PS, AL) i 2 2 | ae 10.0780| Ror 07445] 0.0786| 0-0808| s9f14] qe 429Ot4 28 4rGw4/ipooot{O-82041 he = (I**) CtsA Je" Sm/2p,# | 02032103172] 0-892 e]t5| "ane 8 2/eenee lo-6716| n= 2RJ6/emtkap. 06754 0-6712|0-6833] O|16 [mae Y/te Dm (rev/secyi2-16 [rms Yap Om —_ Crev/seo)| 11-76 [12-12 [13-34 zh7] or [08138 | Jor ‘0-D4a@] 0-9160 0" 201 Els re} AT ABOVE Bre (10.0768) Roo | AT ABOVE frp. 0-0720| 0.7648) 0-0892 z 9 (0-708: | "er 07183] 0-708 0.6671 [20] Wir = 1- 3% 5e lo-seae| ter = t- St/3 04232] 0-1294]0-1283 BRE Lee JO-1446| t= 1- RR/nee 0-1489] 0-1466|0-1309 Bleed he 2 CO G-u) lo-o7se| Mar = C-P%C- a) 0:8707] 08734 0-297 Faia Tre + ™°/ Ree |0:9728] ry = %0°/fege 09674 Sredo seed ll check « “bee Tex __|O-6718) "7m crtex = "hr Ter Tar _ | O-@7S4] 0.6712) 0.6553} [| Joe o-B585| Jee ‘oBe82| OSdid]O-CI60) ls| fro} AT ABOVE Ros }O-3879] kro FAT ABOVE Rap 10-3893] 0:3851}0-4616 | "oa. lo-7019] Noa (0:7197 | 0-7029| 0.6608 Zlesl ane « - 29/36 lo-1378| Wye = 1 - 28/3 0-177 0.1374] 0-141 Gielesvouce 22919) ha = C9/4- wee) 0.8870 086d -0119 Be re = P/ ter IOS649 eqs PP Rte 09889 0.9652] 0.9775] |e CHECK + Toe ha Tre [06718] CHEK * Yoo Tha Yra _ |0-6754| 0.6712) 0.6533, fs ooo] ky i000 [1-000 1-000 83] Te = hm jO-6718]%5 = ky Me 10.6754} 0.6712] 0.6583 FEB) ene ye [7830 ehp 1S280 | 1528016280 $P5| dnp « (een, [26540) dnp ++ % enP/ ny. 22620] 26180) 40300) Fa [0-970] 9. 0.270 | 0970] 0-270 8p [27360] snp = abe / ny 123320] 26220 41550 a 0 Mm {PDs (evil: 1 [Nm «60 mm/P/o_ (rev/min) [115-2 [1187 [130-7 2 Be 1-028] ke {025} 1-025) 1-028} ho Grevfron}22- 1. |e = Re Nm Crev/miny lus [12-7 [184-9 Basic data ~ Curve ot Omres Gr CimAts) on base of Wis Cor Raw) i and, for each Speed, inves OF Wem, Rap, tnd Gre (Or Cr-n) On base of Jp, Also curves of hm. fgoand Ny, on tase oF JeSCALE EFFECTS ON PROPELLERS AND ON PROPULSION FACTORS FORMAL DISCUSSION. Gil) Overload Ship Condition: (x # 0) Iedesired, the analysis may also be made for an overloaded ship condition in which the value of x (x # 0) is decided by personal judgement and choice. Any such value of x, and the correlation coefficients with which it is associated, are to be clearly stated. (iii) Model Self-Propulsion: (Ry — Ty ‘The model self-propulsion condition is that in which the model is propelled at speed v without any external tow force. ‘Then Ry — Ty = O and therefore +2) ©n= Oa or (ily Ben The Analysis Condition is convenicntly expressed in terms of a coefiicient for the corresponding value of the net tow force Ry — Ty, or thrust exeess Tp — Ry, by the relation. ©n-2=~ ©r-2 = ©am,—U9) On = Ou - (Our + sO) 020) or Cain — Can Crean (1 $329 = Ciagn — Can F 8Cy) (122) where ©hsre Of Cras isthe resistance coefficient for the model in the propulsion condition at the temperature (°F at which the propulsion experiments are made. Part 2 of Table 2 provides for these calculations, Stage 3. — Model Propulsive Coefficient and Pro- peller Rate of Rotation: (a) Atthe value of © -z of Cqa for the An Iysis Condition, note: the values of Jp and Kp from Fig 5. (8) Compute the resistance function ky, given by naw fz +9) Ouse _ a 000 ~ + 9) GaSb I «ay (©) Determine the model quasi-propulsive coeti- cient from 22 a (@ Determine the model propeller rate of rotation from = ED, (5) Part 3 of Table 2 provides for these calculations. Stage 4. — Components of Proputsive Efficiency: ‘The components of propulsive efficiency should be determined by thrust and by torque identity, and both sets of values should be stated, (@ Wake Fraction: (a) Note the values of Kye and Kap at Jp from Fig. 5 (®) From the propeller open water results (Fig. 4) note Jog and Kao at which kyo = kzp, and. also Jog And kyo at which Kao = Koy (©) Determine the Taylor wake fraction from ‘(Thrust identity) (16) and 1— 422 (Torque identity) (166) 5 Alternatively, the Froude wake fraction may be determined from ie and Wig (yy Toa (i) Propeller Open Efficiency: Determine the propeller open efficiency from = lerke FE te cor read from propeller open water curves (Fig. 4) at Joy and Joge ii) Thrust Deduction Fract Determine the thrust deduction fraction from = (9) Alternatively, the resistance augmentation fraction may be determined: this is given by ay — hy _ en tnt ea (20)‘SCALE EFFECTS ON PROPELLERS AND ON PROPULSION FACTORS: () Hull Efficiency: Determine the hull efficiency from en (¥) Relative Rotative Efficiency: Determine the relative rotative efficiency from (vi) Check on Model Propulsive Coefficient The model quasi-propulsive coellicent (7) directly ‘obtained in stage 2 should be checked by the relations Ym = Horteter = too™rare — (23) Part 4 of Table 2 provides for these calculations. 5. Ship performance estimates. The results derived from the analysis of the model experiments may be used to estimate the performance of the ship under specified weather and sea conditions: estimates are made of the shaft horse-power shp, or delivered horse-power dhp, and propeller rate of rotation N, at ship speeds V. The ship powers are defined by GD ehp ™h hp es and shp = SP where (1 + 2) the Load Factor, cp isthe standard effective horse-power for the ship (including the appendage allowance) as defined in (26), », is the estimated quasi-propulsive coefficient for the ship, and 7p is the transmission efficiency. (@ Load Factor (1 + x): this depends principally on the basi shell roughness of the clean painted ship, any additional roughness due to fouling, the weather conditions, and on the ship length and type. For any particular ship estimate itis necessary to select a load factor which to some extent must depend on personal judgement. For this reason the Load Factor (1+ 2 or the Overload Fraction x, and the ship condition (tral, service, ete.) for which it i taken t0 apply, should be clearly and prominently stated Whatever load factor is used to estimate the performance of the ship under specified weather and sea conditions, a standard power estimate should always be made and stated; this Standard Powers to be based @5) FORMAL DISCUSSION on a Load Factor (I + x) = 1 (i.e. x = 0) and an appendage scale-eflect factor B = 1. (®) Effective Horse-Power (ehp): this is given by 26a) (266) or chp = where A, is the moulded ship displacement in tons in'S. Wor Vis ship speed in knot, 8, i the ship skin in og, and p the masg doesity of va wate, i taken 251988 see), Cry oF Caste ship resistance covfliient as previously defined and determined, and enor tho ehp given hers faces the appendage allowance bul not te overload. (©) Ship Quasi-Propulsive Coefficient (7): the true quasi-propulsive coefficient for the ship probably differs in a complex manner from that derived directly from the model (7) at the equivalent load factor (1 + 3). However, for the present the simple relation y= kita en should be assumed for ship performance estimates, and the standard power should be based on ky == 1 Any other value ky # 1 also used for a performance estimate should be clearly stated. (@ Ship Propeller Rate of Rotation (N,): the model propeller rate of rotation (14) derived directly from the propulsion analysis may be converted to ship scale by the relation Nu = 60m y/ Be 28) where nq is in revjsec and Ny in rev/min, with Dy and D, the diameters of the mode! and ship propellers, respectively. The true ship value N, may differ from this; for the present the relation N, = keNuw 29) should be used for ship performance estimates, and a Standard R. P. M. should be estimated taking ky = 1 Any other value ky # 1 also used should be clearly stated. (C) Corresponding to 32,19 fysce% and density 35 fe%/ton. 253SCALE EFFECTS ON PROPELLERS AND ON PROPULSION FACTORS FORMAL DISCUSSION (©) Transmission Efficiency np: to avoid difficulties due to slight differences in assumed values of 7p (generally 0.97 to 0.99), it is recommended that dhp should be stated rather than shp. However, if sbp is given, np should be taken as 0.97 for ships with machinery amidships, and 0.98 for ships with machinery aft. Here shp is taken to be the power output of the machinery Part $ of Table 2 provides for these calculations. 6. Multiserew models. For multi-screw models in which the rates of rotation, thrusts, and torques of the individual propellers are not equal, separate plots should be madc of ker, kay and ©p_-z (Of Cex) on a base of Jp for cach screw. Each set of curves should then be entered separately at the Analysis Condition to obtain Jn, gp and kop. The rate of rotation nq for each screw is then derived from equation (15). " The quasi- propulsive coefficient 1, is then derived from the total power delivered by all the serews, in the form _O+9ny, hy Qe If desired, the open efficiency n,, wake fraction w and relative rotative efficiency x, may be derived for each screw from equations (18), (16) and (22) respectively Tn such cases, no significant meaning ean be attached to theust deduction fraction ¢ (or resistance augmentation fraction a), and hull efficiency 7, In the special ease of twin-screw models with nomi pally identical propellers rotating at nominally identical rates, the mean values of Jp, kay, and kp may be used directly throughout the analysis. Te (14a) APPENDIX I SYMBOLS. AND NOMENCLATURE a Resistance augmentation fraction. © aa Circle resistance constant, non-dimensional if in consistent units. ® Ce ee eee nee ee a. Circle resistance constant for model in propulsion condition at 59°F derived from Inclusive Resistance experiments. 1000744, a(R 1000 ray Bn (KP Ou. 1000, Te 1000(R — Ts) rw “1000r, aK? —On-: “PPP OPP P Togo (R, — 2° Circle resistance constant for model in propulsion condition as measured at temperature £,9F in Incl Circle resistance constant for model in propulsion condition as measured at temperature £,°F in Associated Resistance experiments. Circle resistance constant for naked model at 59°F derived from Naked Resistance experiments, Circle resistance constant for naked model as measured at temperature ,9F in Naked Resistance experiments. Resistance experiments, Circle constant for external tow force in propulsion test. Circle resistance constant for ship in propulsion condition at S9°F. Circle resistance constant for naked ship at 59°F. Circle constant for thrust excess in propulsion test. 0.075 Correlation coeficient at Reynolds number R, from 1957 ITTC model-ship correlation line, cee Correlation coefficient for model in tank water at temperature @F. 254‘SCALE EFFECTS ON PROPELLERS AND ON PROPULSION FACTORS — FORMAL DISCUSSION ep a fie 001s + 292) fa = hit, 10257 @ = 1 o Vilm [BRITISH TOWING TANK PANEL, Correlation coefficient for model in tank water at temperature AF. Correlation coefficient for ship in sea water at temperature 59°F, Coefficient for external tow force in propulsion test. Coeflicient for thrust excess propulsion test, Resistance coefficient, non-dimensional if in consistent units. Appendage resistance coefficient for ship at 59°F, Resistance coefficient for model in propulsion condition at S9°F, derived from Inclusive Resistance experiments, Resistance coeflicent for naked model at 59°F, derived from Naked Resis- tance experiments. Resistance coefficient for model in propulsion condition at in Inclusive Resistance experiments, Resistance cosficient for model in propulsion condition at QF as measured in Associated Resistance experiments. Resistance coefficient for naked model at temperature fF as measured. in Naked Resistance experiments. Resistance coeflicent for ship in propulsion condition at $9°F. Resistance coefficient for naked ship at 59°F, Diameter of propeller. Diameter of mode! propeller. Diameter of ship propeller. Delivered horse power for ship. Effective horse power for ship. R. E, Froude friction coefficient. RE. Froude fiction coefficient for sea water (L in fet RE, Froude friction coefcient for fresh water (Lin feet). Circle friction resistance constant of R. E. Froude. Froude number, non-dimensional if in consistent wi Gravitational acceleration, here taken to be 32.19 f/seet, 255SCALE EFFECTS ON PROPELLERS AND ON PROPULSION FACTORS — FORMAL DISCUSSION Te 14.165 howe Advance coefficient for model in propulsion test, ‘Advance coefficient of propeller in open water test. Speed-displacement constant, non-dimensional if in consistent units Correlation coefficient for quasi-propulsive coefficient. Correlation coefficient for propeller rate of rotation. Propeller torque coefficient, non-dimensional if in consistent units. Propeller torque coefficient in open water test, Propeller torque coefficient in propulsion test, Resistance function for model in propulsion analysis. Propeller thrust coefficient, non-dimensional if in consistent units. Propeller thrust coefficient in open water test. Propeller thrust coefficient in propulsion test. Speed-length constant, non-dimensional if in consistent units y 1.0552 >, where v is in knots and L in feet). vi Length of model or ship. Length of model. Length of ship. ‘Model propelice rate of rotation, in general. Model propelier rate of rotation at analysis condition. ‘Model propeller rate of rotation in open-water test. ‘Model propeller rate of rotation in propulsion test. Ship propeller sate of rotation equivalent to 1. Ship propeller rate of rotation in performance estimate. R. E, Froude friction coefficient, R. E, Froude friction coefficient for model of length Log in tank water, (Ly in feet, g = 32.19 fysec* and density = 35.9 f/t0n). R. E. Froude fiction coefficient for ship of length L, in sea water. (Lyin eet; g = 32:19 fysec* and density = 35/100)SCALE EFFECTS ON PROPELLERS AND ON PROPULSION FACTORS FORMAL DISCUSSION 1 psvne 2 Onde®? +8 vL ve __ eso VL, Ym [BRITISH TOWING TANK PANEL Model propeller torque in open-water test. Model propeller torque in propulsion text Resistance, in general Resistance of naked model at temperature #F. Resistance of model in propulsion condition at temperatare &F. Resistance of model in propulsion condition at temperature AF. RE. Froude tition resistance in pounds, Sin’, vin knots). Resistance of model corresponding to ship resistance coefficient (C),, oF Cua Augmented resistance of model in propulsion test, External tow force in propulsion test. Reynolds number, non-dimensional if in consistent units. tank water. Reynolds mumber, for model at temperature 1?F Reynolds momber, for ship at temperature 59°F in sea water. Wetted surface of naked form, Wetted surface of naked model (moulded). Wetted surface of naked ship (moulded), Wetted surface constant, non-dimensional if in consistent units, Shaft horse power. ‘Thrust deduction fraction, ‘Temperature of water in degrees Fahrenheit. ‘Temperature of water during Naked Resistance experiments. ‘Temperature of water during Inclusive Resistance experiments. ‘Temperature of water during Associated Resistance and Propulsion experiments. Model propeller thrust in propulsion test ‘Thrust excess in propulsion tes. Model propeller thrust in open water test. ‘Model speed in resistance and propulsion experiments Speed of advance of propeller in open water test. Ship speed (generally in knots). Wake fraction Wake fraction (Froude) by thrust and torque identity, respectively Wake faction (Taylor) by thrust and torque identity, respectively. Overload fraction, 237SCALE EFFECTS ON PROPELLERS AND ON PROPULSION FACTORS FORMAL DISCUSSION Ppp a ea Appendage scale-ffect factor. Displacement of naked form. Displacement of naked model (moulded). Displacement of naked ship (moulded). Resistance coefficient for addition to measuted model resistance coefficient, Hall efficiency by thrust and torque identity, respectively. ‘Quasi-propulsive cosfiicient of modet at analysis condition. “Model propeller open efficiency. Model propeller open efficiency by thrust and torque identity, respectively. Relative rotative efficiency. Relative rotative efficiency by thrust and torque identity, respectively. Quasi-propulsive coeficient of ship. ‘Transmission eficency. Kinematic viscosity of water. Kinematic viscosity of tank water at temperature °F, fF, respectively Kinematic viscosity of sea water at 59°F. Mass density of water. Mass density of tank water at temperature of model test. Mass density of sea water at SOP. ‘Volume of displacement of naked form (moulded). ‘Volume of displacement of naked model (moulded).SCALE EFFECTS ON PROPELLERS AND ON PROPULSION FACTORS FORMAL DISCUSSION xewron R, N, Newton, At the concluding sessions of the 8th Conference in Madrid the Conference came to the decision that present methods of determining wake factors are not entirely satisfactory and need closer examination and further that experimental and theoretical work on thrust deduction should be vigorously pursued. Some attention has been given at A.E.W. to the amore precise determination of these propulsion factors (hull eficiency elements, with particular reference to their variation with Froude number. The writer emphasized at the 8th Conference that this could assume appreciable magnitude and as example showed how the q.p.. factor for fine forms followed an oscillatory trend with speed which appeared to be linked to the variation in wave resistance due to viscosity effect which Mr. Wigley propounded in his contribution, ‘The following notes summarise a more detailed investigation which arose from these preliminary observations. Until recently it has been the practice to run model propalsion experiments at only a few speeds, concen+ trating usually at high and eruising specds, and in the case of wake the values obtained at different speeds have exhibited some irregularity. ‘The practice has been to pass a mean curve through the spots obtained and when predicting speed the value of the wake at any given corresponding speed is obtained from this ‘mean curve, Obviously if it could be shown that the wake followed a definite trend a more precise curve through the values obtained could be drawn and a more accurate value of wake used when predicting ship speed. Carve D in Fig. 1 shows the wave wake, due to the surface wave, obtained by measuring the surface profile of the wave at the propeller position at different speeds during a propulsion experiment and calcalating the orbital velocity of the particles at the centre of the propeller. This figure also shows dotted curves representing the total volumetric mean wake in two conditions, viz: with and without screws, curves E and B respectively, obtained by integrating pitometer measurements of the velocity distribution over the propeller disc, It will be seem that these curves oscillate with a fuirly heavy amplitude—which is to be expected since they apply to a destroyer in which the wavemaking resistance is quite high. Their trend is closely similar to the curve D for wave wake. Data to enable the frictional and potential wake to be plotted was not obtained but it will be scen that by subtracting the wave wake (D) from the total nominal wake without screws (B) a curve C is obtained for the aggregate of frictional and potential wake which follows the usual trend assumed for frictional wake. The curve C has been faired through the spots which actually oscillate slightly with speed. The few spots obtained for the thrust identity wake from the model experiments are shown and a reasonable curve can be drawn through them which follows the trend of the calculated curves. From this preliminary enquiry therefore one would expect that the thrust identity wake obtained from propulsion experiments would possess this oscillatory Zz @ = 3 g = Fie. Desiroyer-characteristic wake curves, Curves A. Measured thrust identity wake. Caleulatea wave wale BoNR> ‘Total nominal wake without serews (Pitot). Frictional + Potential wake derved from B and D. Total aominal wake with srews (Pitod.SCALE EFFECTS ON PROPELLERS AND ON PROPULSION FACTORS trend due to wave wake. Accordingly the opportunity was taken when carrying out some later propulsion experiments to prove this hypothesis by running the model at a large number of speeds and the results are presented in Fig. 2. It will be seen that not only the wake curve but also the thrust deduction curve ‘oscillates. In fact there is a peak in the wake curve when the combination of bow and stern wave systems is a crest at the propeller position whilst the thrust deduction curve then exhibits a hollow, i.e. the interaction between propeller and hull is less when there is ‘a wave crest at the propeller position and greater when there is a wave hollow at the propeller position. From these two curves the hull efficiency curve is FORMAL DISCUSSION obtained and this naturally also has an oscillatory nature. The curves for relative rotative efficiency ae also given in Fig. 2. Thus it has been clearly established that when obtaining propulsion factors from model experiments with high speed fine forms itis very important to do so for a large number of speeds so as to determine the {rue nature of the variation with speed, as otherwise appreciable errors in the value of hull efficiency ace liable to arise. The question is not so important with slow speed merchant ships for which the mean wake and thrust deduction are very high compared with fine high speed forms, but it is of course applicable to high speed passenger liners, ws — g. 55 Zo 35 Leet vela | > ze E's }- 3 Nt 2 0 Se Ft 5S Lao 2 ay > 10 8 a LIN YN 2 — loss 3 | 2 RELATIVE ROTATIVE. EFFICIENCY, 3 9 oF og i Fio, 2,—~ Hull Eiciency Elements, Fine Warship Form,SCALE EFFECTS ON PROPELLERS AND ON PROPULSION FACTORS FORMAL DISCUSSION ‘SHEPHEARD Sir Victor G. Shepheard. There is no doubt that the different procedures, both experimental and analytical, which have been developed in various establishments over the years in regard to ship model testing have led to considerable difficulties at times. Among these may be mentioned effects which the different procedures may have on the prediction of ship power and also the confusion which has arisen when comparing the results of model tests carried out under different conditions. The development of standard procedures and techniques is therefore an obvious requirement and, indeed, it hhas always been understood that this was one of the major functions of this Conference. Detailed recommendations on these matters given in the Committee Report are therefore most welcome. It is considered that the standard procedures put, forward are generally sound and reasonable, but is is hoped that the Conference will see its way to reducing if possible the number of alternatives. The following remarks are made with this in mind @ Im regard to the fitting of appendages to models, method A3 which does not involve the fiting of bilge keels would appear to be preferable. In view of scale effect on these relatively small excrescences on models it seems doubtful whether the parasitic resistance would have any useful meaning 8 far as the full scale ship was concerned. (i) IF we could be sure of the consistency of ‘model results over a period of time it would not matter, of course, which of the three resistance procedures was adopted, that is, BI,B2orB3. It would always seem prudent, however, to check the resistance at the time of the propulsion experiments to confirm that no inadvertent change had taken place in the condition of the model, as for example its geometrical shape or the state of its surface. Methods Bl and B2 both conform to this requirement and either would appear to be acceptable. Whether one or the other were used would appear to be a matter of convenience of testing in a given instance, For the reasons stated, however, Method B3 ‘would not appear to be acceptable. Gi) As regards method of analysis, cither CL or C2 should, of course, give the same answer provided the same propeller loading is taken and there is no change in model resistance between the resistance and propulsion experiments. Method C1 would appear tobe appropriate where resistance method BL is used. Gv) The recommendation regarding propeller loading for propulsion experiments appears very commendable. After all, loading (a) that is, the model self-propulsion point, is the only one which involves no assumption regarding the slope of the correlation line or any other factors. It is also suggested that tests be carried out at both of the LT-T.C. loadings (b) and (c). The only regret is that the overload factor x corresponding to condition (c) should remain such an unknown quantity at this time. In the circumstances, itis for consideration whether some nomial loading between (a) and (6) might be chosen as an interim measure. For special investigations there is no doubt that an even more comprehensive range of serew loading may be required. As regards the factors k, and ky and 8, that is, the scale effect factors on quasi propulsive coefficient, shaft revolutions and appendage resistance, it would seem only reasonable to take these as unity as an interim measure in the present circumstances, In regard to appendage resistance, however, it is to be pointed out that as far as “A” brackets and open shafts are concerned some useful data is already available. Reference is being made here to work by Froude [1] and Baker (2] involving tank tests on large scale components of such appendages which received some corroboration from measurements of appendage resistance made in the course of the “Lucy Ashton” investigations [3]. These investigations showed that the resistance of such appendages would be exaggerated on the model scale and that a value of B = %4 would be more realistic than unity in making ship predictions. Formalae have also been published by Gawn [1] for estimating directly the 261SCALE EFFECTS ON PROPELLERS AND ON PROPULSION FACTORS full scale resistance of such appendages based on Froude's work [1] which have also been corroborated by the “Lucy Ashton’ investigation. For bossings, however, the position is more doubtful as discussed below. In regatd to fundamental work associated with seale offects on propellers and propulsion factors, the Committee's view that this is at present best left to individual research organisations is endorsed. In this connection, the comprehensive review given in the Committee Report of work being carried out by various establishments underlines the importance which is now attached to this factor in ship-model work. Jn particular, the Wageningen data for the family of eometrcally similar models of “Victory” ships has shown the possibility of appreciable scale effect in wake and trust deduction and consequently in hull eficiency. In the circumstances, the publication of the third report on this work by the Wageningen tank sealing with the analysis of the propulsive components will be awaited with considerable interest. This question of propulsion scale effest has been very carefully considered by B.S.R.A. and to theow ‘more light on the subject it has been decided to carry out tests on a series of geometrically similar models of a single screw tanker of about 18,000 tons d.w. This work is to be carried out in conjunction with NPL. and will involve a comprehensive series of models ranging in length from 10 to 40 ft which will be tested in the now tank at Feltham. Depending ‘onthe degree of scale effect shown by the model tess, consideration might then be given to confirming the ‘end by trials on an actual ship including the measurement of her full sale resistance. This, of course, would be a major undortaking and, alternatively, tests might be carried out on a specially built “model ship” about 100 ft long. If it is decided to carry ‘out such full scale trials there is little doubt that, as regards resistance measurements, propulsion by means of aircraft jet engines, as succesfully used on the “Lucy Ashton”, would be used Another related matter is scale effet on propeller shaft appendages which has been referred to earlier. Experience has suggested on one or two occasions that differences in performance of similar ships might be ascribed to different forms and angles of twin serew Dossings. This might well be related to the scale effect problem as there are still divergent views on how the extrapolation of such parasitic resistance. should 262 FORMAL DISCUSSION be cartied out. This matter also received attention during the “Lucy Ashton” investigations where, for the first time, resistance due to shaft appendages was measured on the full scale [3]. In this instance, the bossing webs were aligned across the undisturbed streamfow and there was appreciable scale effect at certain speeds in passing though the various model sizes to the ship. For bossings aligned in the streamflow, however, some previous work confined to the model scale (5] showed no perceptible scale ‘effect with increase in size. It may be that a different scaling law applies to the two types of bossing but the evidence is scanty and further work is clearly required. Here again, it is considered that tests with a series of geometrically similar models will throw light on the problem and B.S.R.A. is arranging for such tests to be carried out using a twin screw form with different bossing arrangements, work is also to be cartied out in conjunction with NPL. and the models will again be run in the new tank at Feltham. ‘Also concerned with propulsion scale effect is the research sponsored by BS.R.A. at Messrs. John Brown's tank at Clydebank on 24 in, diameter pro pellers in open water. This has involved testing propellers with and without trip wires on the leading ‘edges of the blades and flow visualisation tests to ascertain the extent of laminar flow. It was found that with certain types of propeller having aerofoil Dlade sections with rounded leading edges the trip wires tended to increase the torque and reduce the trust slightly resulting in an average reduction in efficiency of about 4 per cent. Little or no effect was found, however, when trip wires were fitted to a propeller with circular backed sections, The flow Visualisation tests using the dye ejection technique confirmed that changes in thrust and torque of the aerofoil section propellers were associated with reduction in the area of laminar flow when trip wires, were fitted, It is noted that the Committee Report refers to a somewhat similac investigation carried out at the Hamburg Experiment Tank. [REFERENCES [1) Historical Notes on Investigations at the Admiralty Experiment Works, Torquay. Gawn, R. W. L. Lond., 83 (1941), p. 80.SCALE EFFECTS ON PROPELLERS AND ON PROPULSION FACTORS 1 Notes on Model Experiments, Baker, G. S. 32 (1915-16), p. 41. (BIBS. RA. Resistance Experiments on the “Lucy Ashton”. Part Hi—The ship model correlation for the shafi-appendage condition a Lackensy, H. Trans. Instn, Nav. Archit. Lond, 97 (1955), p. 108, FORMAL DISCUSSION | suerseano [4] Some Results of Seale Eifect—Experiments on a Twin Serew Hull Serie, ALLAN, J. F. Trans. Instn, Enges, Shipb. Scot. 93 (1949-50), p. 353, Dr. E, Castagneto. 1, The recommendations of the Committee on Propulsion concern three subjects: Ist)—Provedure for resistance, propulsion, and open water experiments with ship model; 2nd)—ship performance prediction; 3rd}—analysis of ‘ship trials. ‘As to point Ist) [ agree with the Committee recommendations; nevertheless the duty of propulsion tests at three different loadings is rather heavy, especially in routine works for customers, if they are carried out according to the Continental Method. It would be better to choose a typical comparative loading (for instance x = 0,002); in fact, this would allow to reach the desired aim of easy comparison and standardization, which is the first object of this Conference. ‘As to ship performance estimates and sea trials analysis, onc ean deal with the overload factor (I -+ x) or with the coefficient &,, or both as equalizing factors, Pending question of a standard overloading (1 ++ x) 1 would suggest to leave the matter unsolved. In my Country ship predictions are generally left to the ship-yards* responsibility, and experience. 2. The methods of computing the components of propulsive efficiency ate conventional, being based on the hypothesis of the same working conditions of a screw propeller in open water and behind a ship hull, Generally the thrust identity method is used, (which should be better named thrust-evolutions identity method) but with twin-screw models having contra-guide shaft brackets or bossings results are Uunacceplable. This may be realized comparing the wake fraction with outward and inward rotation. ‘As an example the different values and coefficients for a fast twin-screw model are given below. Symbols used are those listed in appendix F of the report " Provedure for Resistance and Propulsion Experiments with Ship Models", by D.1, Moor and A. S, Silverleaf. Index’ refers to outward rotation, index ” to inward rotation. 1st)—Outward rotation: v= 334 mjsec. r= 1282kg T= 69 x Ike = 0.78 Win = 0,182 wae = 0977 far 0,718 w= eo har 929 x 1,223 x 0,647 x 0,977 2nd)-—Inward rotation y= 334m) 1, = 1282kg iy = 2653/1" Ty = 69 x 2k Qi = 0215 x 2kam 1h, = 0,6025 1 = 0971 Wig = — 00231 or = 0,685 ‘thn = 0,969 ‘tg = 0.6025 = bee iw = 0929 x 0.9769 x 0,685 x 0969 Itis to be pointed out the thrust equality, in outward and inward rotation and, on the contrary, the large difference in wake fraction. 263SCALE EFFECTS ON PROPELLERS AND ON PROPULSION FACTORS Some other different methods of computing components of propulsive efficiency for twin-serew ship ‘models of this kind have been proved (thrust-torque identity, thrust-power identity, etc). The best results were obtained with the thrustmean revolutions identity, that is to say computing wake factor not through the model propeller rate of rotation nm, or 1, but through the mean value n= Bp With this last procedut, for the example previously cited, we have: 1st)—Outward rotation te = O18 ¢= 0071 Weg = 04082 Yo = 0,669 ‘nie = 1,003 2 w= 1,06 ca FORMAL DISCUSSION 2nd)—Inward rotation My = 0.6025 t= 007 Weg = 0,082 ox = 0,669 te 0,987 The propulsion efficiency equation includes, with this analysing method, a new factor “P or 7? and becomes oud 1-1 i Te Yo" ae The term 2 could be better represent a “relative rotative efficiency, and ny an equalizing factor due to a distorted flow.SCALE EFFECTS ON PROPELLERS AND ON PROPULSION FACTORS FORMAL DISCUSSION _ castacnero Koichi Yokoo and Hiromitsu Kitagawa. SOME SCALE EFFECT EXPERIMENTS ON PROPELLER presented by Shiro Kan, 1. IntRopuctION Recently, a great deal of works concerning ship= model correlation have been published by various authors. Form factor [1} of ship's resistance and scale effect on thrust deduction [2] are great discoveries 1 this field of research, Successively many analyses hhave been done on the results of ships and models, but still ACF shows a considerable amount of scatters. AS one of the reasons for this scatter of ACF, neglect Of scale effect on the propeller will be considered. Although many results of scale effect experiments 08 wn 30k ish —a—— Outline of the Blade of MP, N° 1163, Reynolds Number mins. cvonD _LeNerH Tesiding Eee voi 008 cram wire rovvesre tbsiy — Fro, 2 Profle of Propeller Blade Section ‘with Trip Wires and its Devas. on propellers were published, satisfactory conclusions hhave not yet been obtained. The authors conducted scale effect experiments on two series of propellers in ‘open water with and without trip wires on back and face, and behind tests are added on the one of the propellers. 2. MODEL PROPELLERS EMPLOYED AND TEST. CONDITIONS Four propellers, whose characteristics are shown in Table 1, were used for the experiments. Fig. 1 is the outline of the blade of M.P. No, 1163. As be seen in Table 1, M.P. 1326 and M. dia, of 0.200 m are geometricallySCALE EFFECTS ON PROPELLERS AND ON PROPULSION FACTORS FORMAL DISCUSSION Tants 1, Model Propeller Characreristics. Madel People No. 126 a) ns Diameter, D (mm) 0200 | 0250 shy em) 0160 0.20 Puch, Ratio (Const), A} 0800 = Boss Ratio, dD ass Expanded Arca Ravi, og 0700 0350 0.709 0580 Max. Blade Width Ratio, /D os 0s oaiz 024s "Mean Blade Width Ratio, — 0270 0212 0270 022 ‘Local Blade Width Ratio at O75 Radius Bryg/D 027 0233 027 | om Blade Thickness Ratio, 4D 00500 ~ Blade Thickness Ratio at Tip, ¢/D 00030 Blade Thickness Ratio at Root, #0 0171 Local Blade Thickness Ratio at 075 Radius, tny/D aise Number of Bias, Z 5 Rake Angle, (Degree) 1122 and M.P. 1163 with the dia, of 0.250 m, respee- tively. All the model propellers were tested at three kinds of revolutions of 6, 12 and 18 rps. In Fig, 2 is shown the fitted position of trip wires which are determined by referring to the reports of L.W. Bryant & H.C, Garner[3], J.H. Preston [4] and LP, Allan{5]. Although studs are considered to be better than a trip wire for turbulence stimulation, we could not help giving up the studs owing to the difficulty of their fitting and also to avoid giving the deterioration on the blade surface, 3. RESULTS OF THE TEST ‘The results of the open water tests with and without tip wires are shown in Figs. 3 and 4, in a form of Kq-Kp curves, for the narrower and wider blades, espectively. Kg for the smaller dia. of the propeller ‘without trip wires at 6 rvp.s. is lower than the others which suggests that there will be laminar flow around the blades in this range of low Reynolds number. 266 On the other hand, in a case of with trip wires the results at 6 rps. give the highest Ko, showing that trip wires stimulated turbulence. For M.P. 1326, behind tests were added, the results of which are shown in Fig. 4. Trend of the Ky_Ky curves of behind tests is different from that of open wwatertests, Ifthesametrend ofthe two Ko Ky curves in open water tests with and without trip wires was taken into consideration, the different trend of the K,-Krcurves of the behind tests must be based on the non-uniformity of the flow, not on the problem ‘of laminar or turbulent flow. Good agreement fof the results between 12 and 18 rps. without trip wires looks to express that there is n0 scale effet on propeller, but this agreement might be based ‘upon the special state of the flow in the transition between laminar and turbulence. If it is so, taking into consideration that the flow around the actual propeller is completely turbulent, we can not ease ‘our mind by this apparent agreement in open water tests of the model propeller. Spots in these figures express constant advance coefficients,OPEN WATER TESTS oem Forint nr) as 22a | Sacco 7242 laren eeu | 8, are 22i00 ot nage eure | x 4an 217 |4bo © 3 eer = Toere » ; aires S A b8e tps go g a3~ of. 5 ae BH ae et ete esl 8 & s ¥ ote at eC . _ a ’ ° 7 2 3 4 Kr = t/earet Fw. 3 K, Cures EAR. = 055) 267es * y x g ce] i a 24 4 3 a % a § Ss sk gk vee a a & | 8s & or woth oor ~ OPEN WATER TESTS aes fr wot 4722 | 2700 |e,250 2 Fas] | [ewer pa . 7326 | 0,700 |m200| © wrmcu7| elo fe wine ra BEHIND TESTS. wirn a srrenr une ruo0er eR Soe wie crs ONE nerd 43 ¢ |wrrnecrls srs usr. 22% 6 |ent7.a| | wirw peeetts| «Ls REMARKS: 4 bit 816 rps 428 @ rps ° a 2 3 kr Temes Bre. 4 7 Curves EAR. = 0.70)SCALE EFFECTS ON PROPELLERS AND ON PROPULSION FACTORS FORMAL DISCUSSION Even if the Kg. Ky curves show a good agreement between two kinds of revolutions, if the points of constant advance coeficient are different, efficiency of the propeller will be different between the two kinds of revolutions. Efficiency of the four model propellers is shown in Figs. 5, 6, 7 and 8, on a base ‘of Reynolds number. The efficiency curve at 6 rps. ‘of the smaller model propeller without trip wie too high showing the effect of laminar flow. The contour curves of the efficiency at constant advance coefficient in Figs. 6 and 8 are nearly straight, and ficiency increases gradually with the increase of Reynolds number. Fra. 5 Eicency Curves of the Propellers without Trip Wires (EAR. = 0.55) ar feta] Pet Efficiency Curves of the Propellers without Trip Wires (E.A.R. = 0:7), 'YOKOO AND KITAGAWA Fro, 6 Efcancy Curves of the Propellers with Trp Wires EAR, = 0.55). Fo, 8 Efficiency Curves of the Propellers With Trip Wires (EAR, = 0.70). 4. LIFT AND DRAG COEFFICIENTS In order to clear the effect of Reynolds number upon the propeller characteristics, lift and. drag ‘cocficents of the model propellers were calculated from the results above-mentioned, on the method of ‘equivalent profile according to Lerbs [6], [7]. Circu- lation factor for this particular boss diameter of the propellers was obtained by extrapolation and approximate calculations, referring to A. J. Techmindji and A. B. Milam. (8). [9] ‘An example for C;, and Cy curves plotted on a base of atlack angle is shown in Fig.9. Slopes of the lift curves are nearly constant for all the conditions, independent of model size, expanded area ratio and rps. of the model propellers. Attack angle a for Cy = minimum is smaller by about one degree with trip wires than without trip ‘wires, the reason for which has not yet been clear. 269SCALE EFFECTS ON PROPELLERS AND ON PROPULSION FACTORS Fe ee Fe INGLE OF ATTACK, woes. io, 9, Lift and Drag Coefficients of M.P, NO, 1326. G, and Cp ate shown on a base of Reynolds number in Figs. 10, 11, 12 and 13. Variation of C, due to Reynolds number is so slight that we can neglect the scale effect of C,, without a great error. G,curves on a base of Reynolds number of the model propellers with smaller expanded area ratio, however, show slight disagreements between the two similar models. These disagreements are considered to be jn relation with the aspect ratio of the propeller blades. At Jow Reynolds number Crmie without trip wires has a lower value than plate friction in turbu- ent flow, showing the existence of laminar flow. Even ‘at high Reynolds number in this test range it is probable that laminar flow exists locally without trip ‘wires. The flow must be turbulent with trip wires, but there may be a doubt of overstimulation. Cyn for 6 rps. of the smaller model propeller in Fig. 13 is too low. This was deduced from too low K, values in the experiments. Since the measured values at this small revolution were very scattered, Cp for 6 r.ps. must contain a considerable amount of error. 270 FORMAS. DISCUSSION 5. Concuustons ‘There is left a problem concerning the size and position of trip wires, but some conclusions will be obtained. 1. The ratio of Ky to Ky at a certain Kpis nearly constant over a certain Reynolds number, but propeller efficiency increases gradually with the increase of Reynolds number. 2. Lift coefficient has litle scale effect and scale ‘effect of the propeller is mainly based upon the variation of drag coefficient C,, and therefore K, due to Reynolds number. 3. The tests with trip wires gave less scatters of experiment points than those without trip wires. 4. Some device to stimulate turbulence looks. nceessary for the model propelier as well as for the model ship. Further researches will be carried out to obtain the right C, of the blade by eliminating the resistance of trip wires, and to make clear the characteristics of the propeller behind the ship model. [REFERENCES (1) G. Hugues, Friction and form resistance in turbulent “Flow a proposed formulation for use in model and ship ‘correlation, TIN.A., Vol. 96, 1954. 12] W. P. A. VAN Lannenen, Scale effect experiments om “Yictory” ships and models, TLN.A., Vol. 96, 1954. 13] LW, Bryant & Gann, Control testing in wind ‘urmels, R.& M, 2881, [4] SH. Prestow, The minimum Reynolds number for a turbulent boundary layer and the selection ofa transition device, 3. Fluid Mech., Vol. 3, Part 4, 1958. (5) LE. Anan, Seventt international conférence on ship Iydrodynamies, 1954. [6] HAW. Lenus, On the effect of seule and roughness on JFreerinning propellers, LASNF., Vol. 63, 1951. (7) FLW. Lenus, Moderately loaded propellers with a {faste number of blades and an arbitrary distribution of circulation, Trans, SNAME,, 1952, [8] AJ. Tacmnanon & AB. Maw, The calewlation of Goldstein factors for three, four, five and six blade! propeller, D.T.M.B. Repoti No. 1034, March 1956. [9] AJ. Tacunon & AB. Mutant, The calewation of ‘the circulation dlstibution for propellers with finite Ib having three, four, five and six blades, USP. Vol. 4, No. 37, September 1937.a LUT CObreICIEN? , SCALE EFFECTS ON PROPELLERS AND ON PROPULSION FACTORS — FORMAL DISCUSSION & 2 4 é 8 Het08 2 4 e ‘8 tke? not Nery = E(B (BEE Fie. 10, Variation of Lift Coeffcionts due to Reynolds Number (EAR, ~ 0.35) orSCALE EFFECTS ON PROPELLERS AND ON PROPULSION FACTORS — FORMAL DISCUSSION LET COBFFIENT , Oe ns m | 220 apts py 18 z ar ar eo Ee aise Rese = 32 L spa eR Froth ‘Variation of Lift Coofficonts due to Reynolds Number (EA.R. = 0.70).‘YOKOO AND KITAGAWA, “qUMR sou oF ap HOPED BEL Jo HONEA mma che) +t Nee, ate Cae oa wee 6 ’ , « z soe [| Perum —| twee eee) Ss De = SN ‘SS alee olelelole ls [ele [are oy] wed ae | acre SE wr Tr Tor] Slee vis lle tey w 23 y © ew spistion stad “D “INIDLIIOD TNL IES“soquiny spousey ot aap swateqjo03 HaIcl JO HORELEA ‘ert alate) + * akg) 0 fa = Mtry z “ woe ea 7 # ‘ z a, Pete tna po ait = somegned Fay Ee Dre ve a ares [we [> [oles ae | 9 tar ma) hain canoatin tines | ae wast 100seete Bower from the ndiesior cards ‘Bagh i and propel diesioa in apreemen with model ets SE EDGe dared oot wnt prs wat ods wi Cap (22) Comeced for (04) No corrections made. the Froude friction formulation was adopted. For various reasons, the ITTC 1957 formula was adopted for the analysis methods described below (except Me- thod 5). In this connection the assumption had to be made that the influence of propeller load on the propulsive factors can be distegarded when changing from the Froude to the ITTC friction formulation. Frequent (ests have shown that the errors introduced thereby are negligible. The most simple hypothesis is to assume that there are no scale effects on the propeller characteristics or propulsive factors, ie. that all the differences between the ship and model test results (converted to ship Reynolds number) can be referred to resistance scale effects. This scale effect can be expressed a3 AC, if ACy = Cr — Cou, o 216 For all sigs moan values from two runs in opposie directions were used. pi (sancti) where Ry = (otal resistance, p == water density S = wetted surface, v = speed (index $ refers to ship and M to model), The value of AC; can be obtained in two different ways namely: Method 1 A. Starting fom ng (ship number of revolutions) and Vq (ship speed ~ V, in knots ot vq in msec) and introducing the model wake factor Woy (based on theust-identty), the advance number Ye (1 = Hy) DatsSCALE. EFFECTS ON PROPELLERS AND ON PROPULSION FACTORS FORMAL DISCUSSION can_be calculated and the corresponding thrust cocfcient on Kors = 5D, read in the open water diagram for the propeller model. Thus the ship thrust T, is simply obtained. Introducing the model thrust deduction factor ty, the ship resistance is calculated from R= Tan) @ and thus Czy and AC, can simply be caleulated. Method 1 B Staxting from Prs (ship sha? power at propeller) and V, and introducing the model propulsive cocficient, my — FEM (effective power/shaft power), the resistance R, is obtained from: the formula R, = 75 Pee ° and thus Cry and ACy can simply be calculated. This method is very similar to the method used by Clements for instance [2]. The AC, - values deduced according to the Methods 1 A and 1 B are given in Table 2 and Fig. 1 (black and open spots respectively). Tn case all the assumptions were correct and the test results completely reliable the Methods 1 A and 1B should give the same result. From Fig. 1 can be ‘concluded firstly that there is a considerable dispersion betwoen the different spots and socondly that there is a {rend that the ACy - values obtained from ‘Method 1 A are higher than the corresponding values from Method 1 B, especially in the range of high Rey- nolds numbers, indicating scale effects in the propulsive factors. In most cases the ACz- curves obtained with Methods {A and 1B are rather parallel for each ship, see for instance ships Nos. 3, 8, and 12, Furs thermore, for these three ships the variations in AC with speed (i.e. R,) is quite different, These points of view seem to indicate that the dispersion between ACy values in several cases is due to inaccuracies in the speed values probably because of ircegular currents on the measured mile or inaccurate velocity ‘measurements. A further step is to assume that the differences between the results from the model tcsts and the ship trial trips are due to scale effects with regard to resistance as well a8 wake fraction, If the wake scale effect is introduced as Avg = Was — Wout o the values AC» and Awa can be deduced according to: ‘vate . Se Reaced wit tod a Tram) 0. beawcee wn ed 18 (re | ESS) seer apts Cee Toe?) | Te snip sos reer 10 Tae 1 oa Ny ences tam 0p rete t [cx eesicee om mace! et rent converted te abip ‘Regnstes rater wo I77C 196? thon tree) i Fo... Cy values deduced with Methods 1 and 1B.SCALE EFFECTS ON PROPELLERS AND ON PROPULSION FACTORS Method 2. Starting from Py and ny the ship torque coefficient Kos = = ee = SDE can be obtained and the corsesponding vad — we Jes = oe be read from the open water diagram for the model propelter, assuming no scale effects on the Ke-J- curve, Thus the wake scale effect is Went 6 ee : To simplify the calculations, it is assumed that Jog = Igy (ie. ship relative rotative efficiency ye = 1.00). Then Ky can be read from the model ‘open water diagram and Ty and thus Rs = Ta(l—ty) and AC ean be calculated. ‘ace00 FORMAL DISCUSSION For further discussions regarding the relative rotative efficiency, see Method 4 B, Section 5. In Fig. 2, the ACy-and Aw values according to Method 2 are plotted. All the results are also siven in Table 2. ‘A comparison between Figs. 1 and 2 shows that the introduction of a wake scale effect lowers all the ACe-values. All the Aw - values are negative. The AC, ~and Av, - values shown in Fig. 2 have been deduced under the assumption that there are no seale effects on the other propulsion factors To continue in analysing the test results, it is ‘necessary to introduce theoretically or empirically ‘based methods for converting the different propulsive factors and elements to ship scale. As the most important clements the authors have chosen to consider the propeller characteristics and the wake and thrust deduction factors. They will be discussed in the Sections 3-5. Furthermore the application of ‘a three-dimensional formulation for the. ftiction resistance will be discussed in Section 6. i So natant | re sap now eter 10 rae eauced to ship tial ens i 1 TE, Sem? tr mete ra nerd to tip Peyoses mumber ite IVC 1257 chen fa) nie ete i ae SSR 2INEE:: mr 1 Wy, | — #,f 1 I | i a eed fee FF | = : ie Fro, 2 ACp- and Ay = values deduced with Method 2.FORMAL DISCUSSION {LINDGREN AND JOHANSSON SCALE EFFECTS ON PROPELLERS AND ON PROPULSION FACTORS so + sigo + zs + Gent + veo + sect + oxo + wot f01 + 36F0-+ sero + mot | aero + Saco + | ar0+ 0c | 2080 — 1050 = | evo —_ | stort uso | e6r0+ Tiso-t | 0990+ re0+ | TOT + wero | Lis + scot | stro + toro + osro + | 96v0 + cl si aot | 180+ seo + seco | uvo+ soo 0900 + | 98r0-+ a scot soro-+ | 6evo-+ stot weco+t | esvo+ " 5100 + wzro— | ono + wero + bun + | 9e9'0 F or sso + vaca + | coro + sro + 480+ | ons0-+ sico+ iseo+ | eevo+ ‘ oro + evo + | zaro+ sero + oseo+ | esro+ soro+ sic'0 soro + | suo 8 foro + 00+ eco | op 0— sero+ 00+ aro | (9e0~ L 00 — f000 + @z0+ | oo woot carat woro+ | cev0+ sro+ strat E04 | loro+ ° auzo— 9500 — eoro— | oro + 3500— vero suvo— | veo + s 900+ oot cava ~ | sos0+ wsto+ oso + wigo= | soc0~ * zero + sano + socot | ce0 + oro + ee'0-+ eo+ | aot € ero sco sro | Soro oo sero— soo | uot «oo soro— scoo— | eco = z too — aro s100— | oo + sco0-+ s900— w0— | revo + eoo— wero sooo | esto + q wrx dy arxiorforxoy 7 | Jay boreoy) tar faretoy) tay for xdoylarxselorx ou) as Jisonl 5 or | gr ¥ © z ug | ds Poataye | Powe | pomen pony oma poston onan “y Taw 19SCALE EFFECTS ON PROPELLERS AND ON PROPULSION FACTORS FORMAL DISCUSSION 3. SCALE EFFECTS ON THE PROPELLER ‘CHARACTERISTICS Different methods for calculating scale effects on the propeller characteristics, i.e, the coefficients Ky and Ka, have been developed and published, see for instance [3-5]. ‘The general trend can be illustrated with the so called “equivalent profite” method, as developed by Lerbs {5}. and by stadying the results of tests with profiles at different Reynolds numbers. Profil tests have indicated that at Reynolds number outside the region of laminar separation, ie. at R,>3 x 10° for normal propeller profiles, the influence of Reynolds number on the lift coefficient, Gy, can be disregarded. For propellers working in the irregular flow field behind a ship model, the limit presumably is somewhat lower. For propellers R, is defined as L VALE OTSEDaF where 1 = length of profile at 0.75 D/2 v= kinematic viscosity ve = v—»). The seale effects on the propeller characteristics therefore primarily are due to the fact that the profile resistance and thus the drag coefficient C,, depends on Reynolds mumber. Fig. 3 illustrates the situation. R, 2020 ade ptr ts (oats) inane cet g a a Below Ry = 3 x 10%, the drag increases because of Jaminar ‘separation, which has been shown with Profite tests as well as with propeller tests. With increasing Reynolds number, the flow gradually becomes more and more turbolent and somewhere in the region | — 5 x 10° the flow is completely ‘turbulent, The shape of the transition curve differs with the type and thickness of the profile Assuming completely turbulent flow in the ship region, the minimum profile drag can be calculated by adding the form resistance to the fretion resistance. Lines representing smooth profiles with thickness ratios t/1 = 0.05 and 0.10 have been plotted in Fig. 3. The form addition has been caleulated in accordance with Lerbs [5] Spots representing the propellers of the ships and ship models used for the comparisons in the present paper have been plotted in Fig. 3. The model propeller spots are calculated from the open water tests using the equivalent profile method and the ship ‘propeller spots have been calculated for the equivalent profiles (at 0.75 D/2) in turbulent flow using Lerbs” form addition. In the model region, the spots are spread around the mean value, Ciygin = 0.008. In the ship region the level is rather similar, because the decrease in drag with increasing Reynolds num- ‘bers, that normally can be expected, is more or less balanced against a decrease in drag for the model propellers, which is due to laminar flow. There is he spots rete te propery used fer ‘ne Camprsans i the poset pop Tete! ‘Mioimum drag values for propellers ard profiles. 280SCALE EFFECTS ON PROPELLERS AND ON PROPULSION FACTORS. a trend however that with increasing ship dimensions, the drag becomes lower for the ship propellers than for the model propellers resulting in slightly higher ‘efficiencies for the ship propellers. Thereby it is assumed that the ship propellers can be considered smooth. Similar calculations for rough ship propellers can be performed by using equivalent sand roughness, ky. The difficulty is to define a suitable value on ky. Some guidance on this problem is aiven in [5]. ‘The propeller efficiency ean be written Yo = Mate © where 1, ~ ideal efficiency +4, = viscous efficiency Only the last part (r,) is influenced by the drag. 110 [5], ne can be expressed o where and thus the influence of the drag on the propeller efficiency becomes rola (Comin = 0.008) = = Gu~2Cy', 3G + 0.016 og) 3C,3, + 2, tr, Assuming that for normal ship propellers the follow= ing approximative relations are valid o (10) where AD/AO = propeller blade area ratio P/D = propeller pitch ratio the diagram given in Fig. 4 can be derived. ‘The diagram has been calculated for P/D = 0.75, ie. % = 0.24 but the influence of pitch ratio is of secondary importance. ‘The method outlined above can be used for convert ing the propeller efficiencies from model to full scale on the presumption that the drag of the full scale propeller is known. This is, however, a questionable point and worth further investigations. Furthermore the drag values for the model propellers correspond FORMAL DISCUSSION to open water conditions. The influence of irregular flow in the “behind” condition is not satisfactorily known. The authors have in the preseat paper primarily tied to solve the problem in another way. Caleula- tions using the equivalent profile method indicate that for normal ship propellers in the supercritical region (without laminar separation), the influence of reasonable drag variations on’ the propeller thrust coeficients Ky, is negligible and that the scale effects are concentrated to the torque coefficient. This trend has also been verified experimentally, see for instance Ref. (6) Se Fro. 4 Thence of drag oo propeller efficiency Abeoretca Starting from measured, full scale speed and rpm. values, together with hypotheses with regard to the wake and thrust deduction factors it is sufficient to know the full scale K, - J - curve for calculating the scale effect elements of importance. This will bbe done in Sections 4-6 (Methods 3, 4 and 5). The above-mentioned method for calculating propeller efficiency scale effects is used in Method 4 B, Section 5. 4, SCALE EFFECTS ON THE WAKE FRACTION Definitions of the wake fraction. The “nominal wake fraction” wis gencrally defined as the mean value over the propeller dise of the axial ‘wake components in the propeller plane, as measured for instance with pitot tubes. As mean value the volumetric mean is generally used flaewerde ay wy = RA) 28SCALE EFFEC where wee [made boss radius D Lees As “effective wake fraction” is generally used the value integrated by the propeller itself. Dependent on the method of calculation, vy (thrust identity), wg (torque identity) or the mean value 1/2 (w+ w4) is used. i owen oe ON PROPELLERS AND ON PROPULSION FACTORS. FORMAL DISCUSSION dent on the presence of a rudder and the rudder type. In the diagram in Fig. 5 the black spots indicate single-serew ships with Simplex-rudder. A single straight mean Tine ean with rather good accuracy be drawn through the spots although they represent ships of very different types and forms, Two of the ‘spots, for instance, represent a cargo ship model, tested with and without artifical roughness (the ronghness was obtained by putting nets flush along. the model’s sides and bottom). [Relation between effective and nominal wake (from experiments). There are several reasons why the numerical values of the above-mentioned wake fractions should not coincide. So are for instance the pitot tube measure- iments, necessary for calculating the nominal wake fraction, performed with the propeller absent. When a propeller is placed in the wake, changes in the value Wy ean be expected, For the determination of the effective wake fraction, the propeller characteristics, obtained from open water tests are used. The flow behind a ship on the other hand is characterized by irregular, oblique velocity components which can be expected to cause changes in the propeller characteristics. Fortunately it seems to be possible to determine fan approximate, Iinear relation between the nominal and effective wake fraction, which is primarily depen- 282 A provisional method of calculating the wake seale Gfect. ‘The efforts to calculate the wake scale effect have hitherto almost entirely been focused on the nominal wake fraction. The general procedure has been to divide the wake fraction into components and to study the components separately. In the end the frictional wake component Ww, has in some way been put in relation to the skin friction resistance coefficient Cy. See for instance Ref. (7] and [11]. The potential wake factor w, and the wave wake factor my have been supposed to be independent of the scale. Dickmann has, however, presented an approximate formula (8} giving the change of the potential ‘wake factor corresponding to a change inthe frictional wake factor. The formula gives the tendency thatSCALE EFFECTS ON PROPELLERS AND ON PROPULSION FACTORS when the frictional wake factor decreases, the potential wake factor increases. If this is the case it is an important conclusion, as ean be understood from the following discussion, From momentum theory it is generally derived that for a certain ship is (tw) Wy proportional to Cp (12) where Cy = RF. frictional resistance coeficient 58 for instance according to the ITTC formula. For a deeply submerged, two dimensional body, however, boundary layer theory gives the following ‘momentum relation: a3) where Cy sistance coefficient Log pelo (hietional resistance including form influence) =f 08) fa = momen sens ata 2 Stance had the bay wr body apend of advance 2 Fins boosters ayer ata dinsnce yhon he oss (13) pies that no separation of he boundary tet ate ie, When the momentum equation is sed for the cation of te Taitans of sender bodies tnd frolic ane cupiteal ramion ee a7 (4) is often used, where the suffix 1 denotes the value at the rear end of the body. Transformations give 2" fs ke 5 2a aug f 1 — wy) dy (15) A similar equation can be obtained for a three- dimensional body [9]. For a surface ship, the coefficient C, most closely corresponds to Cy. FORMAL DISCUSSION Eq, (15) shows that the relation between the frie- tional wake and resistance for a body is influenced by the potential wake, This seems to be the primary reason why van Manen and Lap got too low valnes when they tried to calculate the wake for the Victo ships from momentum retations for a plate [11]. Eq. (13) also indicates that Eq, (12) s only valid ifthe potential wake componeat is independent of the seale, From the reasons mentioned above itis the authors’ opinion that our theoretical background and experimental knowledge is not suficient to support enough successful calculations of the wake scale effect by treating the different wake components separately. To be able to approximately calculate the scale ‘effect in the wake the authors decided to try to deduce an empirical relation between the total wake and the frictional resistance for single screw ships. When working out the form of the formula it proved to be suitable to start from an expression of the same type 2s Eq. (12) with the frictional wake factor w, replaced by the total wake fraction, ‘As there seems to be a general relation between the total nominal wake fraction ws, and the effective wake fraction wy (see Fig. 5) it is possible to use the latter in an equation of the type outlined. Unfortunately the experimental material available was not sufficient to form the basis for a definite formula. Model tests with systematically varied ship forms are gencrally performed within a small range of Reynolds number. With regard to investigations with sufficiently great variations in the skin friction resistance the only results available were the results of the NSMB tests with Victory models The complete results from these tests are however not yet available, So are for instance the wy - values still’ missing. By using the values of wy given in Ref. UI and the linear relation between wy and w, from Fig. 5 the relation w; (1—,) = F(Cy) shown in Fig. 6 was established for the Vietory models. In the diagram the open spots represent values obtained when caleulat- ing Cy according to the ITTC 1957 formula for all the models. The black spots represent values obtained when using the ITTC formula for the 1/18 scale model and deducing the Cy - values for the other models from the assumption of constant specific residual resistance. The distance between the to groups of spots is not very great. From the diagram is seen that a straight line fits the spots with good accuracy. 283SCALE EFFECTS ON PROPELLERS AND ON ons ono ons ? ? an 20s eae oes Relation between wake feacton ‘The other values given in Fig. 6 were obtained from the tests with the aforementioned SSPA cargo ship model tested with and without artifical roughness. It was assumed that linear relations of the type shown in Fig. 6 for the Vietory models hold for different types of single screw ships. Thus for a certain ‘body-propeller combination q(t — ws) = AC + B a6) Ifa straight line is drawn through the spots from the SSSPA tess the same value on the constant Bis obtained ‘as for the Victory model, namely B ~ 0.18. While ‘waiting for further experimental result it was assumed as a reasonable approximation to adopt this value as applicable to normal single serew cargo ships. Thus for working out the scale effect in the wake factor the equation wel) = ACp +018 (17) was used. ‘The constant A for a certain ship ean simply be biained from the corresponding model test results 284 spas “aoe, “arctional revistace coethcent 6 PROPULSION FACTORS FORMAL DISCUSSION wet ——aees0 Fre. 6 tz and frctionnal resistance coefieat Cy Method 3 is a modification of Method 1 A in the respect that the wake scale effect is calculated according to Eq. (17). Using the trial values m, and vg Igy = V2 (LW) De ‘can be calculated. Assuming no scale effect in the Ky-T-curve, the corresponding thrust coefficient Ky, can be read in the open water diagram. Putting t, = ty the ship resistance Ry and thereby Cy and AC, can be calculated. For each value assumed on i one value Cy is obtained by using Eq. (17) and one value Cyp by using the Ke-J-curve. The crosspoint betwoen the two curves thus obtained gives the final value of Cyp and rng. The ACy-and Avy values deduced according to this method are given in Table 2. The results are rather similar to the corresponding results obtained according t9 Metod 4 A, the principle difference being the introduction of the thrust deduetion scale effect hypothesis in Section 5.SCALE EFFECTS ON PROPELLERS AND ON PROPULSION FACTORS — FORMAL DISCUSSTON 5. SCALE EFFECTS ON THR THRUST The scale effect on the thrust deduction factor # has generally been supposed to be negligible, primarily because this conclusion can be drawn from the methods of calculating the thrust deduction factor which have boon developed by different scientists [8, 12, 13) Recent data derived from Dutch and American experiments [10, 14] give however tendencies which indicate an appreciable increase of the thrust deduc- Gon factor in full scale relative to the model case. In [10] the results are summarized in the following approximate formula applicable to the Vietory ships and models Ac ~0.1510 ++ 0.0542 IogR, (18) To get an idea of the reasons for the contradiction between the theoretical and experimental results, a short summary of the principles, underlying the theoretical methods of calculating the thrust deduction factor, will be given. Methods of calculating the thrust deduction factor t. The three methods, referred to above, are all based on the following principles: 1. The thrust deduction factor can be separated {nto three components, the potential component ‘yy the frictional component ¢, and the wave component ty. 2. The methods deal only with the potential component 1, 3. The propeller is supposed to work behind a body of revolution, ic. the thrust ofthe propeller is independent of the angular position of the blades. 4. The body (or preferably the body with the displacement-thickness of the boundary layer ‘added) is represented by a group of sources and sinks and the propeller by one or several sinks. ‘The interaction between the propeller and the body and therewith the thrust deduction factor is defined by the interaction between the two ‘groups of singularities ‘As result of his investigations Dickmann [8] gives the following formula: 2m, - vee a where w, = potential wake component (effective wake) 8T © Sppeegqr a wt — loading coffiient w= total wake (effective wake) T= propeller thrust Korvin-Kroukovsky’s [12} inthe following formula A 20) d—watvie where w <= total wake (effective wake) K = acconstant, characteristic for the body- propeller combination ‘An attempt to extend the theoretical calculations of the potential component of the thrust deduction factor to cover the non-syinmetrical case has been made by Tsakonas (15] He deduces the formula 1, aT. —1 5 AT, oS ‘maximum amplitude of the fluctuating Tonding coefficient about its mean values 1 function, characteristic for each propeller-body combination, deduced by representing the afterbody of the ship by a sink distribution and the propeller by two superimposed singu- larity systems. A provisional method for calculating the scale effect ‘on the thrust deduction factor t. Of the formulas given above only Eq, (20) is directly applicable for scale effect calculations. Such calcula~ tions can however only be performed if it is assumed that the factor k is independent of scale and that tty With the differences in the propeller loading coefficient T,, that can be expected between the model and the full’ scale ship, such calculations in most cases give somewhat smaller values of f for the ship, which is in contradiction to the aforementioned experimental results Fig. 7 shows the relation between the thrust deduetion factor ¢, the loading coefficient T, and the effective wake factor w,, according to Eq. (20) for the Dutch and Swedish Victory models, and the SSPA cargo ship model, tested with and without artificial roughness. At least for the Victory models the 285‘SCALE EFFECTS ON PROPELLERS AND ON PROPULSION FACTORS ‘experimental tendency is far from the one of Eq. (20), which should correspond to horizontal lines in the diagram. tert a bate Hig Hts “ 3 Revi rom Seen ery tts ~ NS caine opess ? on = oe ete hocion Fro. 7, Investigation of the constant in Bg, (20), In order to get a provisional solution which better fits the experimental results a new formula was composed. When working out the form of the formu- 1a, Eq, (21) was chosen as starting point. If in this ‘equation ¢, is replaced by rand w, by wy the expression has to be Completed with a term dependent of scale. ‘The latter might be mainly a function of w,, a function that can be expected to be rather independent of ship form, at least for ordinary single screw cargo ships, If it is assumed that the function F and the factor containing AT, in Eq. (21) are independent of scale, it is suitable to investigate the expression vi FORMAL DISCUSSION as function of ;—— or wy. This has been done for ie the Swedish and Dutch Victory models (the latter only for Vq = 15 knots) and the SSPA cargo ship model, tested with and without artificial roughness, see Fig. 8 Other alternatives were also tried. As the complete results of the Dutch Victory tests have rot yet been published, the calculations are approxi- mateand have been performed with theaid of the nominal wake values wy in Ref[11 and the diagram in Fig. , ‘The diageam in Fig. 8 indicates a linear dependence of the above mentioned expression with the wake. ‘The slope of the line is rather similar for the different ships. For calculating the scale effect in the thrust deduction factor it was therefore decided to use the formala ‘ 2m VIET “4 2M VIET! ky — 0 2D) =m Te The value k= — 1.5 was regarded to be a fairly representative mean, see Fig. 8. ‘The influence of the scale on the thrust deduction factors calculated according to Eq. (18) (20) and (22) is illustrated in Fig. 9. The calculations have been performed for the Victory ships and models under the assumptions that ¢ = 0.233 for the 1/18 scale model and that the ITTC-ine gives correct frictional resistance. Two different A-values have been used in Eq. (22) to illustrate the importance of this factor, ‘The value k = 2.0 is an upper limit that can be used Fo. 8. Investigation of the constant in Eq. (2) 286SCALE EFFECTS ON PROPELLERS AND ON PROPULSION FACTORS. for representing the Victory test spots in Fig. 8. As such a great value depends to a large extent on one single spot (scale 1/6) it was decided to use the lower value & = 1.5, until further information becomes available about these measurements (which were performed with other instruments than the rest of the models in the series). The influence of k on the tvalues indicated in Fig. 9 is rather small when transformed into per cent of resistance. as Tarot eecucion teeter ¢ g ve ae w ‘Mosel sete ricer wi) Fo. 9. Scale effec on the thrust deduction factor ealeulated according to diferent hypotheses. The curve obtained by using Eq. (20) (Korvin- Kroukovsky) shows a small increase of ¢ in full scale in contrast to corresponding calculations for most normal cargo ships. This seems to be due to the unusually small diameter of the Dutch Victory ship propeller, which eauses great values of T, and makes the formula more sensitive to changes in load The American experiments referred to earlier (14), which also indicated a considerable increase of ¢ in full scale, were performed with a submarine. Unfortu- nately lack of information regarding the ship made it impossible to check how this trend fits different formulas. To get an impression of how much the scale effect on the thrust deduction factor 1 influences the total scale effect, Eq. (22) has been used to calculate the full scale thrust deduction factors for the ships investigated, Method 4A In principle the method is very similar to Method 3, The only difference is that FORMAL DISCUSSION instead of putting t = ty, ty is calculated according to Eq. (22). The A Cy -, Aw, = and Ar - values deduced according to this method are given in Table 2 and as black spots in Figs. 10 and 11, The results obtained by using Method 4 A do not differ appreciably from ‘those obtained when using Method 3, indicating that the influence of the scale effect in the thrust deduction factor is not of primary importance. The At-values (At = fj — ty) are as a rule close to zero, Method 4 B. Method A-4 only implies the knowledge of ship speed and number of revolutions. To get a check on the A Cy-values obtained with this method and to got an impression of the scale effects in the propeller efficiency 1, and the relative rotative efficiency ‘a ACyr values were deduced from the ship speed power and nuraber of revolutions using the formula R, = Sham _ BPerteI =) gy Va ve Was) Where yy = the propulsive efficiency for the full scale ship calculated in the way outlined below. The wake factor way was deduced from Way bY using Eq. (17) and the thrust deduction factor fy was deduced from fy by using Eq. (22) When calculating the propeller efficiency 7,5 one value was readin the curve from the open water tests at the J-value oblained by using my and Ty from trial and Wyg according to Eq. (17). The valuo thus obtained was corrected for the change in Cp between model and full scale propeller shown in Fig. 3. The magnitude of the correction was read in the diagram in Fig. 4 The ship relative rotative efficiency was assumed “arg = 1.00, see further point b below. The ACy - values are given in Table 2. The Avvig-and Af- values are common for Method 4A. and 4B. A comparison between the A Cy-values ‘obtained with Methods 4 A and 4 B indicates that there is a trend that the values in gencral become higher if Method 4 B is used. As mentioned in Section 3, the 7, - correction is prablematic for two reasons, Firstly the model Cpa ~ values corres- Pond to open condition and are not necessarily the same in behind condition. Secondly the full seale Cyne can be influenced by for instance propeller blade roughness, 287SCALE EFFECTS ON PROPELLERS AND ON PROPULSION FACTORS FORMAL DISCUSSION ‘The omitting of the 7p ~ correction, gather in general the ACy values. “Method 4 C is identical with Method 4 B with the exception that no ~ correction has been applied. The A Cy - values) obtained cording to this method have been plotted in Fig. 10. ‘A.comparison with the corresponding values obtained with Method 4 A shows that the latter values at least for high Reynolds numbers, in general still are somewhat lower although the difference is much smaller than between Methods 1 A and I B, sec Fig. 1. Possible reasons for this result are (@) The ship propeller drag values are higher ‘and thus the efficiencies are lower than the corresponding model values. This implies influence of roughness on the ship propeilers, which is supported by roughness measure- ‘ments referred to in Ref. [35] (©) The ship 79 is lower than 1.00 (on contrary to the model ‘jy, that usually is slightly higher than 1.00). (© Errors with regard to the wake and thrust deduction factor hypotheses. Is interesting to note that the AC, - values tend to become negative at high R, values (R,> 10). ‘This should indicate that the ITTC friction line is 00 high in this region. Furthermore the trend of the ACp- spots is remarkable, At Ry ~ 3.10° the values" are of the magnitude + 0.0005 while in the region R, ~ 1.5.10° they have lowered to about—0,0003. It ought to be mentioned that most of the ship trial results in the region R, = 25— 5.10" are somewhat questionable, see also the notes in Table 1. [fee Geena wih tio (ram 5) SS, tesuces win Meta 4 (rom) S$] anv spo Cave TeX 2) “a range! nt ond wit eppendepes = Lacy tain wns opentoes eos { wen eppentoges ene | ial opens, 4 ie | Sos | te snipe ceter to roe sauces tom ip ti reas (craved ron adel ea eu cnserte to ship Regacice manor vin FTE 1957 fen met) cee z ar Fo w ae es 1. ipo ae ee 7 a i] oo y pe) nice =r Fie, 10, A. Cp — ws, ~ At = values deduood with Methods 4 A and 4 €.FORMAL DISCUSSION SCALE EFFECTS ON PROPELLERS AND ON PROPULSION FACTORS <4, FR tron ra) 53, becuced wth eee $ ram 9? dinesnana ten exapaeted SS bess tpt ae) ‘angel ait ent nt opecaes, IFC Wt fr ooo 5 Seon, Sinesine! Inchon enapstor Lacy btn bat epenaoges 70 Whom Ime ‘acy tater, > emensena!erope $ Ie amp eter Ze} $ jy meet ton tp resree cove sect rm ea rated tes ~~~} : Sree ase ee ere | i [ACy + vals deduced with Methods 4 A and 5 Tame 3 Mothoa | Messed Ship [Assuined noSeal Further Seale | Faction Extra | Sea Btees | musitd| yoy Vaticr Used |" 'ecete on [Esfct Hypothess] polation Line | Obiained | Inf. No. TA | Yams ee THC WaT) | AC 7 1B | Ya Pe » rire 9510) | AG, 1 2 Vast Pr Ke FO) | wes me | C1957) | ACe Ome 2 BI rO,« | t= tity a [tam Ke Ont | wetassontingso | TETC 1957) | AG, Ea) Siw (oypothsi) aa [tne FO) | wea 1) | TETCISTO) | AG Pita eh a Tpstese) 3 KF) | weary [tere ws7e | acy Snooth ship reea'2>) Bint, At 8g propellers aed Giypoenest) Be 0D | 40 | Kany Pa hy = FU) As 4B except | ITTC 1957 (*) a) RC FD | ai nypotheas 3 Fi) | Asa \"3-Dimersional n arrerosr ine Sls percentage Eadiion) » ea Ons O C= eRe 289SCALE EFFECTS ON PROPELLERS AND ON PROPULSION FACTORS Regarding the nature of the AC, values it must be kept in mind that they are not only due to roughness additions but also errors in the friction line used, ‘eventual influence of air-and wind resistance irregular currents, wall effects at the model tests etc. For comparison the A Cy - values obtained at the “yuey astTON” [16} and “WRANGEL" [17] resistance tests are plotted in Fig. 10, ‘The “Lucy astiron” tests were performed with the shipin four different shell conditions. In the diagram the results from the two extreme conditions (faired seams, aluminium paint resp. sharp seams, red oxide paint) are plotted to illustrate the influence of rough- rness on tho magnitude of the AC, - values. The “WRANOEL” was a destroyer of old type with riveted shell plating and joggied seams. ‘The results from the “LUCY ASHTON” and the “WRANGEL” tests were corrected for wind and air resistance and for the influence of current on the ship speed. 6. THE USE OF A “THREE-DIMENSIONAL” FRICTION. EXTRAPOLATOR In the Methods 1 - 4 the ITTC 1957 friction formula vwas assumed to represent the viscous resistance of the ship. An alternative, proposed for instance by “Hughes [18] is to assume that the total viscous resistance of the three-dimensional ship hull és built up by the plate resistance and a percentage form addition. Ifthe ITTC 1957 formula still is used this gives C, = Cyt ney a4 Where Cy = frictional resistance coefcent according to the ITTC formula; ‘n= multiplication factor (given for instance by Lap (19). ‘This alternative was studied in Method 5 which is quite similar to Method 4 A with the exception that the ITC friction formula was replaced by Eq. (24) ‘when calculating the viscous resistance of ships and the corresponding models. ‘The A Cy values dedueed according to Method 5 aro given in Fig. 11 (open spots) together with the ‘corresponding spots from Method 4A. Jn the present investigation the introduction of the factor n, Eq. (24), did not in principle change the 290 FORMAL DISCUSSION trend in the A Cy diagram. All the values became 0.0001 - 0.0002 higher than with Method 4 A, but they are still negative at high Reynolds numbers and the slope is not significantly altered. One reason for this is however that the ships used ia the investigation do not vary appreciably with regard to dimensions and fellness-coefficients that influence the factor n. (he smallest and greatest values of n were 0.09 and 0.15 respectively). ‘The “Lucy AsHT0N” and “WRANGEL” are however very different in type and fullness, The “wRaNoet.” ‘was a destroyer with a fine hull, giving a value n = 0.02 while the “Lucy asu7oN” is a fuller ship giving n= 0.11. From the diagram in Fig. 11 can be seen that the introduction of the factor m reduces the dispersion between the spots representing the results from the "LUCY ASHTON” tests and those representing the results from the “WRANGEL” (ests, but the discre= ppancies are still considerable, presumably primasily due to differences in surface roughness. 7. ConcLusions. ‘The analysis methods and hypotheses discussed in the preceding Sections have been summarized in Table 3. In the Table reference is made to the di ‘grams illustrating the analysis results. Tis well known that for different reasons the acca racy of results from standard trial trips with commercial ships are not as good as desirable. How much ff the cispersion apparent in the diagram that is due to this inaccuracy and how much that is due to weakness in the hypotheses adopted is dificult to jjudge. The application of the methods to a larger statistical matzral will presumably give more distinct indications. The following conclusions may, however, be drawn: 1, There is no clear trend that the dispersion is worse if the analysis is based on power measurements than on measurements of the number of revolutions. See for instance Fig. 1. This is astonishing, especially because in most cases the power was obtained from the indicator cards, see Table 1. It seems, however, as if the velocities reported in several cases are somewhat doubtful, presumably due to irregular currents on the measured mile.SCALE EFFECTS ON PROPELLERS AND ON PROPULSION FACTORS — FORMAL DISCUSSION 2, Ascould be expected, there is no doubt that scale effects on the wake fraction are of great importance, ‘The analysis methods 1 A and 1 B therefore are unsuit- able. ‘The introduction of the wake-hypothesis developed in Section 4 gives Aw-values that do not differ considerably from those obtained with Method 2, compare Figs. 2 and 10. 3. Based on partly empirical and partly theoretical considerations the thrust deduction factor hypothesis in Section 5 has been developed. ‘The hypothesis is very rough and further work is urgently needed. ‘There are, however, indications that the alarming ‘rend with regard to scale effects on the thrust deduction factor, intimated with the Vietory geosim tests is more or less accidental and that the thrust deduction scale effects are of less importance. Soe also Fig. 10, 4, The introduction of the schematic scale effect ‘hypothesis for the propeller efficiency mentioned in Section 3, assuming smooth ship propellers (Method 4 B) was not successful, because it resulted in higher propeller efficiencies for the ship than for the model propellers. The analysis results indicated that on the contrary the ship propeller efficiencies seem to be lower than the model propeller efficiencies, presumably due to influence of propeller rough- 5. The “three-dimensional” hull friction extrapo- Jation system gave in this case no significant trend. Primarily this is due to the fact that, as mentioned above, only ships of rather similar type were used for the comparisons and only if ships of very different type are compared, one can expect to get significant influence of the friction extrapolation system used. ‘A comparison between the A Cy~ values obtained from the “LUCY ASHTON” and “WRANGEL” resistance experimental results is, however, in favour of the three-dimensional_ system, 6. The AC,~ values obtained, independent of analysis method, tend to become negative at Reynolds numbers above 10° indicating that the friction lines used are too high in this region, At lower Reynolds aumbers the AC, values are, however, distinctly positive, [REFERENCES 1] Attan, JAF, and Canuau, HIS.: Ship Trial Perfor- ‘mance and the Model Prediction, ‘Trans. INA, Vol. 96, London, 1954, 12) Cummnrs, RE: An Analysis of Ship-Model Corre- lation Data Using the 19ST LT-T.CLine, ‘Trans. INA, London, May 1959. 1B] Kewre, G.: Further Model Tests on Immersion of Propellers, Effect of Wake and Viscosity, Trans. NECI, Vol. LIV, Newcastle, 1938, 14] Baker, G.S.:- Scale Effect of a Screw Propeller, ‘Trans. ANA, Vol. 94, London, 1952, (5] Lena, H.: On the Effects of Seale and Rouglness on Free Rumning Propellers, Jouroal ASNE, Vol. 63, No. 1, New York, 1951. [6] Noosred, HLF, Eostaanp, H., Linoaaen, On Propeller Seale Effects, Publ, No. 28 of the Swedish State Ship. Exp. Tank (SSPA), Gote- borg, 1954, [7] Honn, F.: Subjects 1 and $—Scale Effects on Pro- ppellers and on Self-Propulsion Factors. Formal Discussion, Eighth ITC, Madrid, 1957. [8] Dickwany, HE,: Wechselwirkioig Zwischen Propeller und Schiff unter besonderer Bericksichigung des Welleneinfuses, Jahrbuch STG, 40. Band, Bestin, 1938, (] Scuotz, N.: Uber eine rotionelie Berecinung des ‘Strémungsviderstandes schlanker Kérper mit belie- big. rauher Oberfldche, Jabuboch STG, 45. Band, Bedlin, 1951 0] VAN Laxeusnen, W.P.A., VAN Manin, J-D. and Lar, JWe: Seale Effect Experiments on Victory Ships ‘and Models. Part I—Analysis of the Resistance— ‘and Thrust—-Measwrememts on a Model Family and ‘on the Model Boat D.C. Endert Jr., Trans. INA, Vol. 97, London, 1955, [11] van Mans, JD. and Lar, J.W.: Soale Effect Expe- riments on Vietory Ships and Models. Part t= Analysis of the Wake Measurements on a Model Family and the Model Boat D.C. Endert Jr, Trans. INA Vol. 100, London, 1958. [12] Konviv-Krouxovsky, BY. Stern Propeller Inrerae- tion with a Streamline Body of Revolution, Inter, Shipb. Progr,, Vol. 3, Rotterdam, Jan, 1956. 13] Drecer, W.: Ein Verfahren zur Berechnung des Potentialsogs, Schifstechuik, Band 6, Hamburg, Nov. 1959, 291SCALE EFFECTS ON PROPELLERS AND ON PROPULSION FACTORS FORMAL DISCUSSION [14] Haoten, J.B: Subjects 1 and $—Seale Effects on Propellers andl on Self-Propulsion Factors. Contr bution 10 the Committee Report, Bighth ITC, Madrid, 1957, [1S] Tsaxonas, S.: Analytical Expressions for Thrust Deduction and Wake Fraction for Potential Flow, Journal of Ship Research, Vol. 2, New York, Sune 1958. [16] Conn, J.C, Lackensy, H, WaugR, WP: BS.RA. Resistance Experiments on The Lucy Ashton. Part I—The Ship—Model Correlation For the Naked Hull Conditions, Trans. INA, Vol. 95, London, 1953) 292 (071 Nonpsradi, HLF. : Fell Scale Tests with the“ Wrangel” ‘and Comparative Model Tess, Publ. No. 21 of Swedish State Shipb. Exp. Tank (SSPA), Gote- borg, 1953, 18] Howes, G.: Friction and Form Resistance ih Turbuc Tent Flow, and a proposed Formulation for use in ‘Model and Ship Correlarion, Trans. INA, Vol. 96, London, 1954. 19] Lar, AJW.: Some Applications of the Three-Dimen- sional Extrapolation of Ship Frictional Resistance, ‘Trans. Inst. Eng. Shipb. in Scotland, Vol. 101, Glasgow, 1958.SCALE EFFECI (ON PROPELLERS AND ON PROPU ION FACTORS FORMAL DISCUSSION _rsaxowas ACOBS AND BRESLIN S, Tsakonas, W. Jacobs and J. Breslin. WAKE FRACTION AND THRUST DEDUCTION SCALE EFFECTS Intuoucnion ‘Thrust deduction and wake fraction are characte Histic properties of the propelle-hull interaction field, knowledge of which is essential to the naval architect and marine engineer who wishes to design wake- adapted propellers so that the most economical conditions will be attained for self-propelled vessels. For information on these properties, in the present state of the science, the designer is heavily dependent fon model tests and on predictions of full-seale conditions from such experiments. Unfortunately, conditions which prevail in the model state are not inal respects like those conditions in Which the prototype operates, and the problem of scale effect is complicated by several intangible factors. Recently, increased interest has been shown in the proper etermination of propulsion scale effects, but, in of experimental work aimed at illuminating this problem, predictions of full-scale conditions are not always as reliable as might be desired. ‘The question of wake fraction scale effect is relatively simple; the fictional wake fraction is determined by the velocity distribution in the boundary layer, the physics of which is well established once the boundary layer growth is evaluated. The thrust deduction scale efect is inherently more complicated because this factor depends on the ratio of two quan tities, each of which is subject to scale effect. It therefore comes about that the downward trend of wake fraction with increasing Reynolds number from model fo prototype is an established fact, commonly observed, whereas the scale effect on thrust deduction in uncertain. Experiments at David Taylor Model Basin [!] and Netherlands Ship Model Basin [2] have shown a decided upward trend of thrust deduction fraction in passing from model to fullsize ship, whereas the work at Swedish State Shipbuilding Experimental Tank (3] with the Victory ship series Indicates the opposite tend. This uncertainty, together with the disturbing thought that, if thrust deduction increases with increasing Reynolds number, the overall efficiency will diminish provided that there isno compensating propeller scale effects, calls for greater concentration of effort to solve the problem. ‘Tun THEORETICAL, APPROACH. The study of wake fraction and thrust deduction scale effects is based on the analysis presented in Ref. 4, In that work, for the sake of mathematical simplicity, an ellipsoid of revolution is assumed, very similar to the US. Airship “AKRON”, upon which much experimentation has been done, and with the same slendemess ratio, semi-axes, position of maximum radius, the same nose radius but larger tail radius. Expressions are then developed for the wake fraction and thrust deduction due to the potential fiow and to boundary layer effects in the fully submer- zed state. The functional dependence of wake frac tion and thrust deduction on axial propeller clearance, body slendemess, afterbody geometry and Reynolds number is exhibited. ‘Closed-form expressions are derived forthe potential flow case by representing the body by a line source- sink distribution and the propeller action by a sink disc. The boundary layer effect is determined by Lighthil’s [5] method of equivalent sources distri- buted on the surface having a strength proportional to the displacement thickness and its derivative, In addition to these surface sources, a sink is placed on the longitudinal axis, of strength such as to satisty the closure condition, and its position near the stern is determined on the basis of the velocity distribution in the wake, Although the propeller is usually visua- lized as being fully submerged in the viscous wake Of the hull, yet, this wake is virtually replaced by a eylinder whose’ diameter (equal to twice the displacement thickness at the stern) has been computed to be no greater than the hub diameter, and thus, in effect, the propeller operates in a potential field, This consideration is fundamental to the construction of 293SCALE EFFECTS ON PROPELLERS AND ON PROPULSION FACTORS this mathematical model. Although it is only one of a number of possible analytical models, it has the advantage that it is mathematically simple and that it preserves many of the main features of the field about the propeller-hull configuration such as boundary layer geometry, closure condition and the existing velocity at the propeller plane. In the computational work the boundary layer growth was evaluated by three different theoretical methods having various degrees of accuracy, viz. Granville's [6] elaborate method, Millikan’s [7] method, and Hickling’s [8] semi-empirical method. The results obtained by these three methods were in close agreement with one another and with the experimental measurements on the AKRON [9]. Celeu- lations of the viscous thrust deduction and wake fraction based on these boundary layer evaluations were almost insensitive to the differences in the three methods. Jn the theory presented in Ref. 4, the potential part of thrust deduction, fis related to the potential part of the mean wake fraction, w, and the fictional part of thrust deduction, tq t0 the frictional part of mean wake fraction, Wy. bY = 14 ViFE Yn, wo a wt T= PU" (mt nie tat nig coefficient, U = uniform axial velocity, R = propeller radius. Once the boundary layer growth along the body and the frictional and potential parts of the wake fraction have been evaluated, T, is determined from the consideration that the total thrust supplied to the shaft should be equal to the drag and drag augmentation (thrust deduction). From this fundamental principle the following equation was derived for the evaluation of T.: Th + Mw —2Cy — 409) T, + HIG 48] = 0, @ where Cy is the coeficient of resistance, nondimensionalized by dividing by PU: R*/2, and w is the total fraction. FORMAL DISCUSSION RESULTS OF THEORETICAL ANALYSIS Calculations of the frictional drag from the boundary layer thickness agree well with the experi- ‘mentally measured drag on the completely submerged airship models. Figure 1 shows the computed resistance coefficient, C,, and thrust coefficient, Ty, plotted versus the logarithm of the Reynolds number for the case of propeller axial clearance ¢ = 0.01 length = 0.125 propeller diameter) and also the Schoenhert ‘mean friction Tine. All coefficients in this figure are nondimensionalized by dividing by dynamic pressure, eU%2, and wetted surface, S, rather than by the pro- eller disc area xR’. Computed values of frictional and total mean wake fraction and thrust deduction for the same case are plotted in Fig. 2 and 3 versus Reynolds number fon & loglog scale. These also are compared with the Schoeaherr fiction eoefcents, It is seen that both , and 4, decrease with increasing Reynolds number and that the frictional and potential parts are equally important contributors to the ‘whole. Figure 2 confirms Horn’s[10] contention that the frictional wake fraction variation with Reynolds number parallels that of friction resistance. For the mathematial model used, the mean wake faction attributed to boundary layer effects was found to be : 2 (R/V, " ws) (U) - where 3, = boundary layer thickness at the stern, n= exponent of the power law of the vel distcibution at the stern determined according to the various boundary layer theories, R = propeller radius, V,= velocity outside the boundary layer at the stern, U = uniform axial velocity. Since 8, does uo follow the Froude law of siilitude but rather becomes comparatively smalier as the geometrically similar models inerease in size, must ccrease with Reyoolds number. It should be noted that inthe potential theory @ stagnation point exits at the tailing edge ofan ellipsoid so that V/U would tezero. This isa distortion of reality whieh is respon-SCALE EFFECTS ON PROPELLERS AND ON PROPULSION FACTORS sible for the asymptotic behavior of the theoretical boundary layer growth determined by most methods (for example, Millikan's and Granville’s). Actually the fluid flows smoothly outside the boundary layer with a finite velocity. FORMAL DISCUSSION In Ref. 4, on the basis of empirical considerations, V/U was set at 0.9. This impored a modification to the afterbody geometry ‘of the subject model. JUSING MILLIKAN BOUNDARY LAYER [USING GRANVILLE BOUNDARY LAYER JUSING HICKLING BOUNDARY LAYER oor 906 005 04 003 02 oor lschoennenr oy, hae oe * 7 Bat Computed resistence cvelicint C, and thrust cosicient T vs, Log (Reynolds No), ‘compared with Schoeahec? mean fition ine. (Modified Akron with proper axial elarance, 0 1L) 5 0.3 | seconde 6 0ST a eae, aa i Sh rnicrional sy 2 = Jencrowat | Fe eu aaa ene 08 ‘oF ao each ao) tee? erie? ot Fro. 2 Fro. 3. CCalcuted mean wake fraction, vs. Reynolds no, for propeller axial clearance, © — 01 L, Calealarod thrust dedction, 1, ve, Reynolds no. for propeller axial clearance, ¢~ 01 L. ps‘SCALE EFFECTS ON PROPELLERS AND ON PROPULSION FACTORS FORMAL DISCUSSION It can be said on the basis of the findings of Ref. 4 and Fig. 2 that Be Se, Ge @ where the subscript s ao to the full-scale ship thd the subi m to the mel” C, fs tetonal fesstance eoueens The ao of he llae Cisco tha edution tothe ode ea De woiten fy _ FO Quy FT, Sy i a FO arm FT dam S where a LayiEr a It_was found from Eq. 2 that the ratio — 1 + V1+ T/T, remained practically constant over the sange of Reynolds numbers considered, and that this ratio would increase with Reynolds ‘number at much smaller rate than the rate of decrease of the wake fraction. Thus, according to the calculations, thrust deduction also decreases with increasing size. ‘This trend is contrary to the prevailing notion today. From Fig. | it ean be seen that a downward trend of thrust deduction means that the thrust coefficient will eerease more rapidly with Reynolds number than will the resistance coefficient. Figure I also shows ‘that the difference between thrust and resistance does not remain constant as has been indicated by Van Lam- meren, et. al [2]. In support of the results of Ref. 4, it may be pointed out that Edstrand in Fig. 11 of Ref. 3 gives results of self-propulsion tests on Victory ship models at the Swedish State Shipbuilding Experi- mental Tank which indicate that thrust deduction, as well as wake fraction, tends to decrease with increasing model dimensions. In these tests of four geosims, 1/28 to 1/17 ship size, greater care was given, to quote Edstrand, “to (the) accuracy of (the) model propeller construction as well as (to the) experimental jique” than in earlier reported tests. total thrust deduction values, 4, are replotted in Fig, 4 against Reynolds number (on a log-log scale) for four speed-length ratios. Also plotted, as dashed lines, is the equation oad 0) where sm denotes the smallest model. Equation 6 is, 296 derived from Eq. 5 under two assumptions: 1. that F(T) does not change in that small range of Reynolds number, which is practically so, and 2. that the total fis frictional. ‘This would show the maximum decrement on the basis of what has been said before. It is expected, however, that the following relation should hold for total thrust deduction in passing from model to protoype tnele): ® where a and b are constants depending on the hull and propeller characteistis, geometric scale ratio and Reynolds number. These constants can be determined from experiments or from calculations similar to those presented in Ref. 4, Using the results of the latter reference it is found that te 2 (Sa\h Ee ( é @) is a good approximation. If this held for Victory models, the expected decrement on a log-log scale would be one-third of that shown by the dash lines on Fig, 4. LI S=eatal™ T wana] ATU Po. 4 ‘Torast deduction, 1, vs. Reynolds Number for various VT, taken from He. 3, Pg 11 Sold sare epeinetal ones, sh tne epee ¢ = ty En where Gis Schoener ton coefficients and sm denotcs smallest model, shaded area ‘shows maximum decrement expected.SCALE EFFECTS ON PROPELLERS AND ON PROPULSION FACTORS Discussion OF EXPERIMENTAL FINDINGS Two points should be stressed in judging experi= mental data, The validity of the experimental results depends on the accuracy attained not only in constructing the model propellers but also in measuring the thrust, In Hadlers’ [1] empirical model-ship comparisons, which are at present considered reliable, thrust is derived by measuring pressure distributions along towed and self-propelled hulls up to within 0.06 of the length from the stern, (0.04 L from the propeller plane). In Table TV of Ref. 4 it is shown that half the frictional thrust deduction is obtained from the aftermost tenth of the body and 22 percent from the last five percent of length. Experimenters are thus missing and dismissing an effective section of the hull afterbody. The importance of the accuracy in measuring the thrust to the evaluation of the thrust deduction fraction can be easily deduced from the definition of thrust deduction fraction o whore T is thrust and R is resistance, The fact that T stands alone in the denominator, but is one term of a difference in the numerator, increases the probability of error in f. It will be shown here that ‘4 small error in thrust and/or resistance measurements, fon the model and prototype may result in changing a downward trend in the thrust deduction, 1 to an upward trend in passing from the model to the prototype. Let e be the relative error in R/T and 8 the relative error in f= 1— R/T. The value of ¢ derived from inaccurately measured resistance and thrust will be a+aent ao char ay ‘Therefore be (ay Since # <1, the relative error in + is always greater in magnitude than the relative error in R/T. Now let it be assumed that is computed at 0.20 for the model and 0.22 for the prototype, ie, a ten percent increase due to scale, but that actually the FORMAL DISCUSSION thrust deduction is 0.22 for the model and 0.20 for the prototype, anine percent decrease. For the model, the relative error is 3) 025. (14) for the prototype. te a0 LB +0 as) and 20 = 2 (10) ms — 025. 5) In other words, an error of only 2.5 percent one way in the model R/T measurement and an error of 25 percent the other way in the prototype R/T measurement will change the picture considerably in regard to thrust deduction by changing a nine percent decrease to a ten percent increase in passing from model to prototype. This suggests that the inherent uncertainty in the thrust deduction fraction ‘may be removed by redefining it, perhaps by nondimensionalizing (T—R) in the usual hydrodynamic fashion by dividing by pL*A/2, Susmany (On the basis of the analysis presented in Ref. 4 and the foregoing discussion it has been found that: I, The viscous components of thrust deduction and wake fraction are vital contributors to the total, 2. Both wake fraction and thrust deduction are diminished in passing from model to prototype. 3. The frictional wake fraction variation with Reynolds number parallels that of the frictional resistance coefficient and hence full-size characteristics will be obtained by For all practical purposes, this applies to frictional thrust deduction variation as well so that fe) tmot 'n‘SCALE EFFECTS ON PROPELLERS AND ON PROPULSION FACTORS — FORMAL DISCUSSION Furthermore, it is expected that the following relation should hold for the total thrust deduction: where a and b are constants depending on the hnull and propeller characteristics, the geometric seale ratio and the Reynolds number, all of which are determined from experiments or from calculations similar to those presented in Ref. 4, 4. The accuracy of thrust measurement (and resistance measurement) is of great importance in the evaluation of thrust deduction, since a small error can change the picture considerably by reversing the actual trend of thrust deduetion with hull size, Its suggested that thrust deduction be redefined by nondimensionalizing in accordance with the usual hydrodynamic procedures. 5. Almost 50 percent of the frictional thrust deduction is obtained from the aftermost ten percent of the hull and 22 percent from the last five percent of the length. Therefore the aftermost part of the body is of great importance in measuring thrust. This should be kept in mind in all ‘experimental studies of scale effects, In closing it should be said that the authors are fally aware of certain shortcomings and deviations from physical reality in the mathematical model upon which the conclusions have been based. However, it is encouraging to find that experimental observations, which have been made on fully submerged ellipsoids of revolution with excessive (ail radius, are in close agreement in many instances with the calculated results derived for this mathematical model, It is hoped that the new approach has shed some light on the complicated phenomenon of the interaction field, and has pointed out the dangers and diff- ies in the experimental approach. A more systematic analytical stady must be undertaken on a series of families of mathematical models to test the results ‘obtained in the present study and to further knowledge of thrust deduction scale effets in the case of surface ships, 298 RemRences [1] Hater, J.: Propulsion Seale Effects, Proceedings ‘of Eighth International Towing Tank Conference, ‘Madeid, Spain, September, 1957. ] Vas Lanoaenes,W.P., VawManen, J.D, and Lap,A.J. ‘Seale Effect Experiments on Victory Ship and ‘Models, Trans, Institute of Naval Architects, 1955, DB] Eostaano, HL: Propulsion Scale Effects, Proceeding of Eighth International Tawing Tank Conference, Madtid, Spain, September, 1957. [4] Tsarowas, $., and Jacoss, W.R.: Potential and Viscous Paris of Thrust’ Deduction and Wake Fraction for an Eliptoid of Revolution, DL Note 594, {to be published in the Journal of Ship Research, ‘Vol. 4, No. 2, September, 1960. (5} Lectern, MJ.: On Displacement Thickness, Journal ‘of Fluid Mechanics, Vol. 4, Part 4, 1958. [6] Granvinte, PS.: The Calculations of the Viscous Drag of Bodies of Revolution, DTMB Report 849, July 1953, [7] Mactaxaw, C.B.: The Boundary Layer and Skin Friction for a Figure of Revolution, Trans. American ‘Society of Mechanical Engineers, APM-S4-3, 1932. (8) Hicxuina, R.: Propellers in the Wake of an Axisymme- ‘tric Body, Trans, Institute of Naval Architects, April, 1957. [9] FRenan, HB. (@) Measurements of Flow in the Boundary Layer of a WA0-seale Model of the US. Airship ‘Akron’ National Advisory Committee for Aeronautics Report 430, 1932, (0) Force Measurements on a 1(40 -seale Model of ‘the US. Airship ‘Akron’, National Advisory ‘Committee for Aeronautics Report 432, 1932, (©) Pressure Distribution Measurements onthe Hall and Fins of a 1/40-scale Model of the U.S. Airship ‘Akron’, National Advisory Commit for Aeronautics Report 443, 1932. [10] Hoan, F.: Introductory Remarks, Proceeding of Eighth International ‘Towing Tank Conference, ‘Madrid, Spain, September, 1957,SCALE EFFECTS ON PROPELLERS AND ON PROPULSION FACTORS EV. FORMAL DISCUSSION * TTEWiS AND KOWALSEE Lowis and T, Kowalski. BOUNDARY LAYER CONTROL IN PROPULSION RESEARCH Inrropuction For many years ship model experimenters have been concerned about problems of scale effects in resistance tests, since viscous effects, which depend on Reynolds umber, influence model resistance. However, many more serious scale effects are known to be present in self-propelled model tests. One of these is the resistance scale effect which is customarily allowed for in standard self-propelled tests, but mo account is ordinarily taken of the effect of the relatively thicker boundary layer of the mode! on the action of propellers and appendages. In the case of large, full ships with relatively small propellers, the model propeller may be completely immersed in the boundary layer, whereas the ship propeller extends well out oft. Furthermore, there are propeller scale effects which may in turn be affected by unrealistic model wake conditions. Some valuable studies of scale effect have been carried out in recent years, particularily at the Nether- lands Ship Model Basin, However, it is felt that another more drastic approach may be needed. Accordingly it is proposed that steps be taken to develop a practical technique for realizing a more neatly ideal model test condition, i. e., a fully deve- oped turbulent boundary layer corresponding to a full-scale boundary layer. The model could then be tested with a boundary layer of correct thickness, and ‘the separation point (if present) would be located at the point corresponding to a ship’s separation point. The required control of the boundary layer can be accomplished by suction of the fluid from the model’s boundary layer. In addition, as a refinement of this ‘method, boundary layers of appendages (e. ¢, rudders, ‘A’ brackets) could also be controlled by suction (ee fig. 18 of Abkowite 1). ‘An exploratory study was carried out at the David- son Laboratory for the simplified case of a flat-bottom barge, and this work will be described below. (Onsect OF INVESTIGATION ‘The investigation of a method to create realistic boundary layer thickness on ship models was divided into two stages: 1. the development of boundary suction techniques, and 2. the identification of parameters affecting boundary layer thickness reduction due to suction. The boundary layer investigated was associated with an approximate two-dimensional flow along a flat plate having a zero pressure gradient. A future extension of this work would be to make similar measurements of the boundary layer on a ship modet with and without suction, INSTRUMENTATION AND PROCEDURES ‘The exploration of the boundary layer with suction was performed using a model of a flat-bottom barge. Suction was applied through a perforated aluminum plate set in the bottom of the barge forward of amidship and through the se ofa solid aluminum plate mounted fon wedges 50 as to form a scoop at its forward edge, Velocity profiles were obtained to determine the thickness of the boundary layer. The model was set up as shown in Fig. 1. The principal dimensions of the model were LOA, inches 89-1/4 LWL, inches 88 Draft, inches, 4 Beam, inches 161/84 A suetion box was located in the forward end of the ‘model. Its dimensions were Length, inches 18 ‘Width, inches (inside dimensions) 1341/2 Height, inches 3 The bottom-closing plate had a 2 x 15-inch strip of perforations running across the width of the box. The holes were 0.046 inch in diameter and spaced ten to the inch. The plate could be turned end for end to ‘two longitudinal positions for the application of suction, In its forward position the forward edge of the perforations was 34.5 inches abaft the leading edge 299SCALE EFFECTS ON PROPELLERS AND ON PROPULSION FACTORS FORMAL DISCUSSION i Beam 2625" L| Fa. Sketch showing experimental arrangements of barge model. measured along the bottom of the barge from the waterline) and in its aft position was 45 inches abaft the ieading edge. "To apply suction a seltpriming pump was used, The output of the pump was regulated by series of nozzles inserted in the discharge pipe. TInan efor to obtain a two-dimensional fow pattern along the bottom of the model, wo fences two inches wie by 45 inches tong extending from the forward end of the flat bottom to just aft of a pitot tube were uted. A trip wire of .04inch diameter was also fitted at the forward end of the Bat bottom, The ‘model was run at zero trim to assure a 2ero pressure fracint along the bottom Velocity profiles were oblained using a pitot tube traverse. A standard. Prandttype pitt tbe was used, having a 0.2188-inch ousice diameter, @0.038- inch’ diameter total head opening, and a 0.022-inch diameter stati head opening, The pitot tbe traverse ‘was located 50 inches aft of the leading edge for all tests. Measurements of the velocity” head were obiained by connecting the static and total head leads to-a differential pressure transducer. The transducer was coupled to un oscillograph, and readings were recorded on photographic pe. SUMMARY OF TEST RESULTS ‘The experiments were run primarily to determine the influence of the suction rate on the thickness of the boundary layer. Additional parameters including the size of the suction area, the longitudinal location of the suction area, and a scoop type of suction area ‘were investigated, 300 ‘The first set of runs was carried out using a one-inch ‘wide suction area located 35.5 inches aft of the leading edge. ‘The velocity profiles were determined by lowering the pitot tube by hand in O.L-inch steps, requiring one run for each velocity head reading. ‘Two runs were made at each pitot tube position, and ‘a mean value was used for plotting. Velocity profiles were determined for 0,287 and 373 pounds per minute suction rates. At the maximum suction rate, the boundary layer thickness (taken at 0.99 v/U, where vis the local velocity in the boundary layer and U is the velocity at infinity) was found to be reduced to 73 percent of its value without suction. Since the velocity of water passing through the suction holes at the maximum pumping capacity was considered too high, being approximately $.5 fps, the suction area was then doubled by using a two-inch wide suction strip. Figure 2 shows the velocity profiles for the tworinch suction strip located 34.5 inches ‘aft the lending edge. The suction rates were 0,43, 138 and 353 pounds per minute, with the maximum suction rate reducing the boundary layer thickness to ‘52 percent. A second set of trials was run with the two-inch ‘wide suction area located 45 inches aft of the leading edge, The suction rates used were 0,138, 193, 284 and 383 pounds per minute, with the last rate reducing, the thickness of the boundary layer to 67 percent. Both sets of trials with the two-inch strip were conducted using a remotely controlled indexing arrangement which moved the pitot tube vertically in 0.1-inch steps. During each run, velocity heads for five to seven different pitot tube positions were recorded. This9% Boundary layer ‘Dnisknese fo, ease ar) ie 6 abs no : aoe x sn os 0s 7 = Oy OF Fic, 2. — Measured velocity prales at 2 fisec — 2 in. suction stip 34.5 in. abaft leading cde @, Volune of flow in houndary layer without suction, 1te/ain, 1 & strip 35,5" abatt leading Edge v & strip 315" abett Leading Edgo X 2" Strip lS" Abaft Leading Edge © 0,3 Slot 3l" Abatt Leading Edge Q 2 0,3 0.8 ame Te 200 mo 00 Suction Rate Q1bs/min Sage Thickness of Rgundary Layer T Fra, 3. — Boundary Layer thickness ve, Suetion Rate 301SCALE EFFECTS ON PROPELLERS AND ON PROPULSION FACTORS — FORMAL DISCUSSION was possible since pressure transducer readings became steady in a matter of seconds after each move. A third set of trials was run using a solid aluminum plate mounted on wedges s0 as to form a scoop at its forward edge. The edge protruded 0.3 inch below the bottom, producing a suction arca of 4.5 square inches compared to 5.0 square inches for the two-inch suction strip. The suction rates tested were 0,143 and 255 pounds per minute. The boundary layer thickness was reduced to 68 percent when the maxi- ‘mum suction rate was employed. When extrapolated to the maximum rate of suction used in the perforated tests, the thickness was reduced to 60 percent of the original width, DiscUSSION OF RESULTS Figure 3 shows a plot of the percentage thickness of the boundary layer versus suction rate for the different conditions tested. The graph indicates that the reduction of the boundary layer thickness can be accomplished more efficiently by 1. increasing the suction area (constant suction rate), and 2. moving the suction area closer to the leading edge (constant suction rate). ‘The results described above are in general agreement with suction experiments in the aerodynamic field by Quinn {2} and Head 3}. Itwas found that there is no appreciable difference between employing a suction scoop and a perforated suction arca as a means of reducing the boundary layer thickness. The signi- ficance of moving the suction area closer to the leading ‘edge (Item 2, above) is not entirely clear, However, it appears likely that the thicker the boundary layer, the greater should be the fore and aft distribution of the suction holes. ‘Turbulent boundary layer thickness for zero suction was calculated from the usual formula, i, 3 = 038xR ,- (See Saunders (4]) Taking x = 50 inches and v = 2 fps, 3 = 1.29 inches. This compares favorably with § = 1.25 inches obtained in the experiment, The velocity profiles obtained follow closely 1 power law profile v/V = (9/8)%, where n = 1/7 for the no-suction profile Areas of velocity profiles were integrated to compare the quantities of water removed from the boundary layer with the rates of suction. Table I shows the 302 Tame 1. INTEGRATED VERSUS PUMPED RATES (OF FLOW FOR 2INCH SUCTION AREA ‘Suction Area 345 Tnches Abaft Leading Eage (Rate of Flow, Q, in Ibs Removed From Popped a ‘BoundacyLayer 8 oss 7 | oon 138 orm 133 O16 353 0437 368 0455 Volum tow i boandary ver without ucion - = 809 Ibs/min ‘Suction Area 45 Inches Abaft Leading Edge ‘ate of Flow, Q, in losin) results of these calculations. It appears that the forward location of suction ares is more advanta- geous. In addition, the table scems to indicate that ‘there is an optimum rate of suction or velocity through the perforations which would give the desired thickness reduction and above which only little additional reduction in thickness can be made. CONCLUDING REMARKS Results obtained for the simple case of a flat-bottom ‘barge encourage the idea of applying suction techniques to the control of scale effect in selftpropelied model tests. The reduction in boundary layer thickness is of about the correct order of magnitude for a 20-foot model of a 500-F00t ship (scale: 1/25). Howe fever, in order to control the thickness at the stern of ‘the ship model, additional suction probably would be required near the stern. Furthermore, for a larger ship or smaller model, relatively greater rates of suction would be required, perhaps in two or more positions along the length of the model.‘SCALE EFFECTS ON PROPELLERS AND ON PROPULSION FACTORS No mention has been made here of propeller scale effect, but this problem of course also requires attention if realistic self-propelled tests are to be obtained Turbulence stimulation on the propeller blades has been suggested, and will undoubtedly be a necessary feature. In the long run, it is hoped that the techniques discussed herein may result in more reliable setf- propelled model tests. Furthermore, it is hoped that accurate predictions of full-scale performance can be ‘made with smaller than normal models—pethaps ton to 12 fect in length for a typical merchant ship. in this connection, it should be noted that a 20foot model of a 900-foot single-screw supertanker is a “small” model, In addition to further experimental work on models with three dimensional flow, there is an urgent need for parallel measurements of boundary thickness on full-size ships. Full-scale measurements are essential so that model tanks will know to what extent the FORMAL DISCUSSION doundary layer must be modified to attain realistic conditions. It is suggested, therefore, that action toward obtaining full-scale data be taken by all concerned with this problem. [REPERENCES In] Ancowrrz, MA: The Efeet of Anipitching Fins on “Ship Motions, Trans, SNAME, Vol. 67, 1959. P] Quinn, THT: Tess of the NACA 653.018 Airfott ‘Section with Boundary Layer Control by Suction, National” Advisory “Committee for Aeronautics Report LAI10, October, 1944 [3] Hap, MR. The Boundary Layer with Disribwed Suction, Aeronautical Research Council, Technical Report Rand M No. 2783, Apat 1951, published 1938. ($] Savvomns, HE: Hydrodynamics in Skip Desien, Volume II, Chapter 45, Society of Naval Architects and Marine Engineers, 1957 303SCALE, EFFECTS ON PROPELLERS AND ON PROPULSION FACTORS FORMAL DISCUSSION Krivtzoff. Recommendations on the necessary development of the standard procedure for carrying out resistance and propulsion experiments with ship models which have been adopted at the previous VIII-th International Towing Tank Conference, are very timely. The availability of a great many procedures and analyses of resistance and propulsion experiments in individual towing tanks involve difficulties when comparing test results and also when combining mutual efforts aiming at achieving perfection in experimental pro- ‘cedures. ‘The paper “A Procedure for Resistance and Propel sion Experiments with Ship Models” by D. 1. Moor and A, Silverleaf is a valuable contribution in the matter of settling the existing practice of resistance and propulsion experiments. Due to W. Froude, Britain and her towing tans have historically had the greatest ‘experience in carrying out model experiments and this expericnce as presented by Messrs. Moor and Silverleaf—collaborators of British towing tanks—in ‘2 uniform procedure for resistance and propulsion experiments may be of great use for working out designs of international standards. However, there is considerable diversity in require- ‘ments for the towing tank data in different countries. Difference in specification requirements for the experimental procedure and in opinions concerning the latter question on one side, as well as the tendeney to adhere to traditions in British practice of ship modet experiments on the other, make it necessary to find fan agreement and some exact definitions (revisions) for « number of items in the procedure presented by ‘Messrs, Moor and Silverleaf. Ina letter addressed to Mr. Edstrand, Chairman of the Committee, wo have already mentioned some protiminary aspects in connection with Messrs. “Moor’s and Silverleaf"s paper. Nevertheless, in dis- cussing the procedure it is advisible to consider its separate items in Full details. First we should like to make some general remarks. ‘An introduction should precede the description of methods of measuring and devices when developing the proposed standard procedure, This introduction should include the following exactly formulated stems: — the purpose of the experiment, and its extent, 04 — the general principles of the experiments, — the basic assumptions and predictions of the procedure. ‘Those items should reflect the tevel of our current knowledge and the elements of conditionality and engineering solutions which are to be adopted at the present time. ‘When settling technical matters, it would be helpful to come to an agreement concerning an uniform teche nical terminology, i. e. a physical system of units and a system of symbols. The M. K. S. system (meter-kilogram-second) ‘would be justified for estimations, as itis adopted in most countries. The system of symbols presented in the paper by Messrs. Moor and Silverleaf is too complicated and should be greatly simplified in the proposed procedure. ‘The above mentioned procedure involves two sys tems of symbols: one adopts the Froude coefficients, the other an extrapolator of the type = (Re), ‘The participants of the previous Conference agreed fon the need to adopt the extrapolator of the type % = ARe) in towing tank practice and the majority including the participants of the British towing tanks) were against further application of the Froude feoeffcients. Therefore the proposed specified sym bols including the Froude coefcients are not suitable ‘n our opinion for the design ofthis procedure. For sections of the procedure taken separately, the following remarks and additions may be made. L. Tae Monet (@ In formulating the requirements concerning the object of the experiment—the model-attention should be devoted to the basic considerations of choosing model dimensions. Naturally, models of uniform dimensions cannot be tested idual towing tanks, However, a unification of model dimensions for large towing tanks would greatly simplify the comparison of results. (®) Tolerated deviations in principal dimensions and body lines should differ for models of different dimensions, Recommended tolerances in principal dimensions may be taken for anodel length of 3 to‘SCALE EFFECTS ON PROPELLERS AND ON PROPULSION FACTORS 6 m. A variation in displacement, however, would then (considering also the errors in model trimming) exceed L Ib. In p. Ta the tolerated extent of surface roughness of a model and the tolerated degree of its surface “waviness” should bementioned. Theerror of 1,2 mm for all the dimensions” as specified in the procedure, is too high from the point of view of surface waviness. ‘The choice of material for a model hull is not of particular importance (at least we have no available data which would make us pay serious attention to it), The material used may be paraffin wax with some additions, wood with subsequent painting of sueface and any other material, The final criterion for the selection would be—the provision of strength and of the required condition of a model surface. As to technology, it is necessary to specify only the nal operation of model surface finish, which may to some extent affect the method of preparing the model for running. (©) Using wood for appendages is not desirable, because wooden appendages are often strained during experiments (d) Resistance experiments should be carried out with models fitted with all appendages, except bilge keels. But this docs not exclude special experiments (if necessary), for determining the optimum position of bilge keels (©) As was mentioned above, we consider that a line of studs turbulence stimulator is less effective than trip wire. In our practice of experiments with 5 to 6 m model length, we use a 1.5 mm diameter trip wire located, as a rule, on 0.05 L excepting models with specific bow lincs when the position of a stimelator should be changed. (P) We consider one propeller diameter below the undisturbed water surface (immersion to its axis) to et of cases when carrying out ‘model propeller experiments in open water. IT, Tue exerriMents ‘There are no remarks to be made in principle as to the method of carrying out experiments. However, some statements should be more precisely formulated or dealt with in fuller detail (a) This procedure has emphasized the need for determination of the model and the towing carriage speed through the water. This is true in principle but FORMAL DISCUSSION — xrivrzorr can not be realized practically with required accuracy ‘Therefore, as the procedure refleets the modern Level of experimental method, the conventional method of ‘measuring model speed by means of measuring carriage speed relative to a rail may be recommended ‘The problem of the residual current effect in towing tanks is decidedly of great importance, particularly within the range of low speeds during resistance expo- iments. This effect may be avoided by tests in corresponding experimental concitions or by applying artifical measures. If there are no established recor ‘mendations at present as to this problem, some tempo- rary measures should be mentioned which may be improved as the question is studied (6) Tewould also be desirable to specify the accuracy of water temperature measurements, In many towing tanks water temperature is measured in the morning before starting with experiments when the tank water isstill, “The temperature in the upper layers may vary due to the water being stirred during experiments, Hence, it is advisable to take temperature measure- ‘ments both before the start and the termination of (©) Modet dimensions for resistance experiments should be selected so as to prevent channel blockage effects (special experiments in shallow water are not taken into consideration in this case), In case it should be impossible to do so, the final quantitics of a model residuary resistance coefficient are to he cor= rected correspondingly and should be the only data supplied by the towing tank. Intermediate data may be of value only in research work and are not necessa- ly supplied for common experiments. Similar observation may be made in connection with propulsion experiments. “Indicated forces” are hardly of interest, as they may be dependent on conditions of experiments and equipment. Basic data should cover all the necessary corrections accounting for the exrors of the experiment, (d) Concerning the accuracy of one or the other value indicated in the presented procedure, it should be mentioned that the suggested tolerances must mean a very high degree of perfection of the British towing tank measuring technique. However, we are of opinion that such a degree of precision is not reached in the majority of towing tanks (at least ia propulsion experiments), and in the modern rather coarse methods of extrapolation and analysis of propulsion experiment data such precision is not required. Besides, 30sSCALE EFFECTS ON PROPELLERS AND ON PROPULSION FACTORS — FORMAL DISCUSSION the errors of a methodical nature during model experi- ‘ments certainly exceed the tolerances indicate (©) When carrying out model propeller experiments in open water and propulsion experiments the critical Reynolds number should be mentioned and its value must be ascertained at the coming Conference. If experiments are to be carried out below critical quantitics due to certain conditions, this must be specified in presented data. (f) in our opinion, the resistance of a propeller boss should be taken into account during propeller model experiments. It would be essential to come to an agreement as to the uniform methods of applying corrections when carrying out propulsion experiments, due to variation in the work of different towing tanks, (2) The presented procedure of propulsion experi rents does not seem to provide complete data, It may happen thet at the coming Conference we shall not be able to reach an agreement on an uniform procedure of propulsion experiments. Two or three methods might be accepted as an intermediate decision, bat it would be very useful to specify exactly the rules fon making experiments in case any procedure was applied. Then it would be quite easy to compare data, AML. Tub awatysis (@) The corrected results of experiments (including the necessary corrections to method and equipment errors) should be used as the basie data for the analysis A detailed list of corrections should be discussed at the coming Conference. (6) ‘The presented experimental results must approach strictly non-dimensional values, We think that the data expressed both as force-speed relation, tnd nominte en of ge Sn Yor 8 are not desirable, (© Since there is no established opinion at present on the influence of scale effect, it is not advisable to introduce specific coefficients including scale effect influence during the process of extrapolating experimental data to the full-size ship. Asis known, such corrections have been applied in some towing tanks, In case not all the tanks reject, the use of scale effect corrections (the available prac- 306 tice may not always be quickly varied), it would be advisable to introduce corrections in corresponding non-dimensional coefficients for a full-size ship before Proceeding to the calculations of forces and power. Nomenclature for these corrections should be discussed by the participants of the Conference. (d) We think the presented method of analysis in the paper, to be too complicated and it should be simplified. The adoption of a cumbersome system of symbols would be irrational (e. ., for determinating a residuary resistance coefficient for a naked hull and a hhull with appendages and also in other cases), For auxiliary values, we consider a system of additions as more convenient. Taking into account the Propulsion Committee's recommendations for the development of a number of standard methods to carry out resistance and propulsion experiments, we should like to draw the Com- rmittee’s attention to the basic features of resistance and propulsion procedures and, in particular to the ‘methods of analysis used in the USSR Towing Tanks, The main principles of this procedure are stated below. ‘The procedure for resistance and propulsion experi- ‘ments should provide perfect experimental data applied for the estimations of ship propulsion. It should also provide a possibility for accumulating and generalizing experimental data obtained in every day towing tank practice. The experimental data as needed for ship propulsion evaluations are derived from a series of model experiments: resistance experiments, propulsion experiments and propeller experiments in open water. Resistance and propulsion experiments are carried out at two displacement values: in full lad condition and in ballast. ‘The procedure for resistance experiments is based on Froude's method of total resistance division into its components and on the conventional assumptions concerning conditions of experiment and correlation. The relation of type = fRe) is applied as extrapolator. It is the aim of the resistance experiments to derive interaction characteristics. No corrections as to the influence of scale effect are ‘used during correlation of resistance and propulsion experiment results. The effect of hull surface rough-‘SCALE EFFECTS ON PROPELLERS AND ON PROPULSION FACTORS ness is evaluated by calculation according to a special procedure, 1. Object of Experiment. Models prepared for experiments should be as nearly as possible geometrically similar and meet the requirements of the experimental procedure, ‘Model of a ship hull. The length of a model hull for experiments in a towing tank is usually taken as equal to ~ 6.0m. Such models make it possible to obi reliable data in connection with the measurement of forces and provision of flow condition in a boundary layer, as well as to avoid the channel blockage effect. The following dimensions for a lines plan (for a ‘model length 6.0 m) are tolerated: length 2.0 mm, breadth and draught + 1 mm, Model surface roughness does not exceed 5 to 10 micron, and surface waviness & higher 4 < 1,0.10-8 Model hulls are usually made of wax on a wooden skeleton or they are all-wax. In some cases wooden ‘models with well filled, finely, ground and painted surfaces are used, Models of appendages are made both entirely of metal or wax on a metal skeleton, Besides the mentioned materials, models are sometimes made of plastics and of compositions consisting of wax and resin. ‘A propeller model is made of white metal. Gene- rally, propeller models have 200 to 250 mm diameters. Tolerances for the geometric characteristics of a propeller model (for D = 0.2 to 0.25 mm) ars: Ay cae st for diameter and blade width + 02 mm, for mean pitch + 05% for blade thickness. 0.05 mm. Models prepared for testing should be trimmed precisely within tolerances of + 1.5 to 2.0 mm (for ‘model length of 6.0 m), ‘When a model stays in water for a long period its surface should be examined and cleaned with a sponge before runing in order to remove slime. M1, Mode! Experiments. (a) Resistance experiments. Range and conditions of experiments. Resistance experiments cover those of a naked model FORMAL DISCUSSION — xrivzzore Irull, as well as a model hull with fixed appendages. ‘The purpose of naked model hull experiments is to etermine the relation r = fv) for subsequent estima- tion of the residuary resistance coefficient of a ship. Experiments with models having appendages are made to determine the increase in resistance due to appen- ages. ‘A naked hull model is tested at two displacement values: in fullload condition and in ballast. Model with its appendages is tested only at a draught corresponding to a displacement in fall-load condition. ‘A model must meet the requirements of section 1. For experiments with appendages a mode! must be fitted with all the appendages, except bilge Keel (*). In order to provide turbulent current conditions in the boundary layer of a model hull, an artificial turbulence stimulator in the form of a d == 1.5 mm diameter trip wire (for models of 5 to 6 m length) is applied. Teis usually located at a 0.05 L from the fore perpendicular. In certain cases this location may be altered jin accordance with the hull form, No turbulence stimulating in the boundary layer of appendages is required. Values t0 be measured and methods of their determination. During experiments measurements of a model resistance are made, its speed is determined and when necessary, wave pattem photographs are taken additionally, model trim in running condition is measured and flow lines for the selection of appendage location are determined. The model speed is assumed equivalent to the speed of the towing carriage relative to the tank rails. Esti- ‘mated speed is derived as a mean of the speed measured ‘throughout @ steady movement section of the towing carriage. The speed is measured to the precision within + 0.2 —03 % For measuring the resistance of surface displacement ships an experimental plant equipped with an electric dynamometer and a damper is used. The dynamometer sensitivity is within the range of 5 to 10 gr/mm due to conditions of experiments. The measurement precision is about + 0.5 %, A towing roller transmitting the sesistance force is placed at midship-scetion of a model and approximately at its half draught in the height. ©) IF nveessary, some specific experiments for determining the accuracy of bilge Kel location are carted out 307SCALE EFFECTS ON PROPELLERS AND ON PROPULSION FACTORS — FORMAL DISCUSSION Carrying out experiments. The water depth temperature corresponding to a model draught is measured before the start and the end of each experiment, The water temperature is ‘measured to the precision of 0.2 °C. ‘The experiments are usually preceded by 2 to 3 test runs (false runs). ‘The start of steady movement of the towing carriage is determined by an experimentator with the aid of a special indicator mounted on the carriage, ‘The measurements begin from the moment of steady movement attainment, The mean of the measured values is derived from results of the second part of the test run, throughout which measurements have bbcen made. During the full sesics of resistance experiments 15 10 20 experimental points are obtained, covering a speed range from a minimum speed (at which it is still possible to reach acceptable results), to @ speed with a 10% excess of service speed. The interval between runs js selected according to condition of the lowest effect of residual currents in the towing tank. During experiments with the towing carriage non- dimensional coefficients for checking the experiment are plotted, (b) Propeller experiments in open water. Range and condition of experiments. The purpose ofthese experiments s to provide curves of a model propeller performance in uniform flow, needed for analysis of self-propelled experimental results, Experiments are made at constant rate of propeller rotation in the range of an advance ratio covering conditions from mooring to zero thrust. Propeller immersion relative to the surface of open water is taken as equivalent to H = 2D (to propeller axis) in order to avoid the effect of water surface. For providing reliable results rotational rates are assumed as high as possible. In practice we consider that reliable results are obtained when the Reynolds, number approaches: SnDt A 7 a Rye 10% Tn some cases (due to allowable load) the experiments at low propeller advance ratio are made at Re= 308 constant propeller rotation rate which is slightly Jower than that in the basic range. Measured quantities and methods of their determi- ration. While carrying out experiments the following measurements are made: propeller thrust and torque, propeller revolution number and its speed of advance. ‘A special plant witha streamtine body is adopted for the experiments, inside which a propeller. dynamo- ‘meter of electric type is installed, The design of the plant practically eliminates the effect of the streamline body on propeller performance, Measurements of thrust and torque are made to the following precision: 05 %, and + 1 ¥, of maximam value respectively. Propeller number of revolutions is measured to the precision ++ 0.3 % Up to 20 measurements are made during the experiment. In the final results a correction to the boss and propeller shaft resistance is made. This correc tion is determined during the experiments when the propeller is substituted by a false boss. To check the results of tests made with the towing carriage during experiments non-dimensional coefficients of thrust and torque expressed in the function of advance ratio are plotted in curves. Measures for providing artifical turbulence of a model propeller are not used in general practice, (©) Propulsion experiments. Range and conditions of experiments ‘The purpose of these experiments is to derive performance of a propeller in interaction with a hull: thrust deduction, wake and effect of velocity field irregularities. The experiments are made at two draughts—in full load condition and in ballast, and cover preliminary resistance experiments and self-propulsion experi ‘ments. Propulsion experiments in general are made fon the same model hulls as resistance experiments. In some cases for providing sufficiently reliable results it is allowed to increase model hall i ‘comparison with models used for resistance runs. AS the purpose of the experiments is to determine interaction coefficients, stock propellers may also be applied. ‘The analysis of propulsion experiments is based on the results of propeller experiments in open water, and in some cases in a water tunnel (our results of propellerSCALE EFFECTS ON PROPELLERS AND ON PROPULSION FACTORS FORMAL DISCUSSION experiments in a towing tank coincide with those in a water tunnet within a wide range of propelier advance ratio). Models for propulsion experiments are fitted with all appendages except bilge keels. ‘Measures for providing artificial turbulence are the same as af resistance experiments. feasured quantities and methods for their deter. The measurements of thrust, model propeller torque, rate of rotation and speed of advance, as well as addi. tional load applied to the model are made during propulsion experiments. Electric dynamometers are used for measuring thrust and torque. Accuracy of the thrust measurement is to within = 0.5 %, and the torgue + 1.0%. For the other measurements the same devices are used as with resistance experiments, Tite rate of rotation is measured by electronic impulse counters and electric contact counters. Pro- peller revolution numbers ase determined to the precision + 0.3 %. Experiment procedure. Propulsion experiments are proceeded by model towing runs, The method of carrying out those experiments was described in § a, section IT. In addition, forces affecting a boss and a propeller model shafl are measured. ‘The method of carrying out a proper sclt-propulsion experiment depends on ship service conditions and her purpose, Usually scifpropulsion experiments include: a free selfpropulsion experiment and an experiment at constant speed valve. No additionat loads are imposed on a mode! during. free selfpropulsion. The condition for this expeti- ‘ment may be expressed as: P=R+AP, During the experiment a model is connected with a floating beam of a plant. The period at which the measurement should be made is defined according 10 the position of a dynamometer pen. Such a method offers potentialities to control and, if necessary, 10 correct the experimental results, Jn addition to free sclf-propulsion an experiment at constant speed corresponding to ships service is made. In this case the model running is affected not only by the propeller thrust, but also by the additional effort of a towing cartiage, This effort may be tractive as well as braking. Its value is measured by x dynamometer. In some cases when interaction characteristics are desirable in a wide range of loadings, a model experi- ‘ment is carried out at a constant revolution number, Daring experiments with models equipped with nozzles, a force resulting from the nozzle is measured additionally by an electric dynamometer. During towing carriage experiments non-dimensional characteristics for checking the experiments are estimated, Results of experiments are corrected to shaft and boss resistance, and corrections to devices are included. UL. Presentation and Correlation of Results Resistance Results of resistance experiments are presented as a record covering values of measured quantities, and relation plots, In the plot ¢, = /(Fr) a scale for Re is additionally included. The results in the records take into account, if necessary, corrections to method and devices. The presented data are expressed in the M. K. S. system, The wetted surface of a naked hull expressed as a square of linear dimension is adopted for calculating ‘non-dimensional coeflicients, Frictional resistance of an equivalent plate is determined by the Prandtl Schlichting formula: et = igRe® Residuary resistance of a mode! naked hull 1, — is assumed equivalent to residuary resis tance of a Tullsize ship at Froude number equal values. Augmented resistance of appendages Aba = Cre — is also taken as equivalent for a model and ship. Total resistance coefficient of a ship is represented as the sum of aT HAL + AY + AG, where: —- model residuary resistance coefficient, 2; — frictional resistance coefficient for the Re number ship values, AC, —~ augmented appendage resistance, AG; — allowance for actual effect of hull Toughness, 309

Scale Effects On Propellers

Enviado por

Dados do documento

Título original

Direitos autorais

Formatos disponíveis

Compartilhar este documento

Compartilhar ou incorporar documento

Opções de compartilhamento

Você considera este documento útil?

Este conteúdo é inapropriado?

Direitos autorais:

Formatos disponíveis

Scale Effects On Propellers

Enviado por

Direitos autorais:

Formatos disponíveis

Você também pode gostar