Documente Academic
Documente Profesional
Documente Cultură
Ocean Engineering
journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/oceaneng
Korea Research Institute of Ships & Ocean Engineering, KIOST, 171 Jang-dong, Yuseong 305-343, Daejeon, Republic of Korea
Ship and Ocean Plant Engineering, Korea University of Science & Technology(UST), Republic of Korea
c
Daewoo Shipbuilding & Marine Engineering Co. Ltd., Republic of Korea
b
art ic l e i nf o
a b s t r a c t
Article history:
Received 11 March 2014
Accepted 4 April 2015
The at plate coated with silicone-type Tinfree self-polishing co-polymer (SPC) or the conventional
metal-type Tin-free SPC is prepared to investigate the drag performance of the anti-fouling SPC. The
local skin friction of anti-fouling paints is evaluated by a at plate model test method in the cavitation
tunnel. The properties of the boundary layer and the drag performance are investigated by ow and
force measurement techniques. The silicone-type SPC paint shows better drag performance than the
metal-type paint in the high speed regime. The silicone-type SPC paints also show decreasing roughness
function (U ) with the increase of displacement thickness Reynolds number (Ren) and roughness
Reynolds number (ks ). Even in the same silicone-type SPC paints with similar roughness function, drag
performance appears differently. The different drag performance in the silicone-type SPC painted
surfaces is considered to be affected by different turbulent vortical structures caused by the surface
roughness. Y-directional peak position of streamwise turbulence intensity is utilized to estimate the
existence of vortical structure. To investigate the reason of the different drag performance in the
silicone-type SPC painted surfaces, the POD analysis, extracting the most energetic ow elds, is adopted
to nd the effects of cross-ow velocity component caused by the turbulent vortical structure.
& 2015 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
Keywords:
Anti-fouling paint
Local skin friction
Turbulent boundary layer
Proper Orthogonal Decomposition (POD)
Laser Doppler Velocimetry (LDV)
Particle Image Velocimetry(PIV)
1. Introduction
Reducing the energy consumption of marine vehicles without
losing speed has been attracting much attention because reduction
of hydrodynamic drag is essential in obtaining higher speed and
lower energy consumption in marine vehicles. The paint used to
coat the hull of seagoing marine vehicles generally must have anticorrosion and anti-fouling properties to provide protection against
seawater and marine organisms. Anti-fouling paints are crucial in
preventing marine fouling by slime, algae and barnacles, which
attach to the outside of the hull and the mechanical components
of marine vehicles (Atlar, 2008). This fouling not only detracts
from the beauty of the view in a ship but also increases the surface
roughness at macro-scale and augments the resistance of the
marine vehicle in the sea. The conventional anti-fouling paint used
to contain a toxic organ Tin compound and is now strictly
prohibited by International Maritime Organization (IMO), because
it causes genetic mutations in aquatic organisms when it is
released into seawater (Omae, 2006). On the other hand, antifouling paint (metal-type Tin-free SPC) with antifoulant Cu2O is
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.oceaneng.2015.04.026
0029-8018/& 2015 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
the turbulent boundary layer over at surfaces coated by nanostructured marine antifoulings, and showed nanostructured coatings provided good properties of local skin friction coefcients, roughness
functions and Reynolds stress.
The addition of a small amount of silicone-type (silyl-type)
material to SPC paint can reduce the surface energy and is known
to abrade the surface more evenly. It is necessary to validate the
performance of drag reduction in silicone-type Tin-free SPC paint,
comparing with metal-type Tin-free SPC paint. In the present
study, we conducted a dynamic similarity model test in a mediumsized cavitation tunnel with a ow speed of up to 9 m/s. Three
types of painted surface, one metal-type Tin-free SPC painted
surface and two silicone-type Tin-free SPC painted surfaces, were
assessed to give reliable experimental data for the paint researchers. The difference of two silicone-type SPC surfaces was only
caused by paint spraying skill of painters, and the ingredients of
paint and the stacking methods were similar to each other. The
painted at plates were deposited in the static seawater for one
month to give enough surface roughness after releasing antifoulant from the resin surface of SPC.
Flow measurement techniques of Laser Doppler Velocimetry
(LDV) were employed to investigate the properties of the turbulent
boundary layer over the painted surfaces. In each boundary layer,
the turbulence intensity distribution was measured to make sure
the existence of the coherent turbulent vortical structure on the
surfaces. For drag performance assessment, the roughness function was calculated in terms of local skin friction coefcient and
was investigated according to the displacement thickness and the
roughness Reynolds numbers. The conventional force measurement technique was also employed to assess the drag performance
globally. From these investigations, we were trying to conrm that
the silicone-type SPC paint has less local skin friction than metaltype SPC paint. Although the silicone-type SPC paints showed
similar roughness function each other with the ow speed
increase, the drag performance in the point of drag-increase
appeared differently. To gure out the reason of the different drag
performance in the high speed regime, the POD analysis was also
employed to nd the effects of cross-ow velocity component in
the turbulent boundary layer.
In Section 2, there are three sub-sections of 2-D at plate model
and paints, surface roughness and force measurements, and ow
velocity measurements of turbulent boundary layer. The following
Section 3 will present ve sub-sections such as the properties of
turbulent boundary layers, turbulence intensity in the boundary
layer, drag performance assessments using roughness function,
force measurements and POD method.
265
Table 1
The experimental conditions.
Plate type and number
Painted plate: 3
Polyamide plate: 1
Reynolds number
LDV/PIV measurement speed
Drag measurement speed
Roughness measurement number
Static pressure in test section
Density of water
266
Leading
edge
Trailing
Space for painting
edge
to measure the surface roughness. The measuring ranges in horizontal and vertical directions were 17.5 mm and 360 m, respectively. The cut-off length of a Gaussian lter was 2.5 mm. It has
stylus features of displaying sectional calculation results. Although
we tried to assess proles with a resolution of 0.02 m, the probe
volume of the roughness measurement device might be larger than
the actual measurement resolution of it. Fig. 4 shows the roughness
measurements of the lm surface at the micro-scale.
A 6-component balance was used to measure the drag, as
shown in Fig. 5. The strut and model holding jig were rmly
connected to the top of the tunnel test section and the
6-component balance. The X-axis ran along the tunnel centerline,
pointing downstream, and the Z-axis was set horizontally toward
the port (left) direction looking from downstream. The Y-axis was
arranged along the Y-directionally upward. The origin was positioned at the leading edge of the at plate, and distances in the X-,
Y-, and Z-axes were normalized by the plate length. The capacity of
the force balance was 7500 N in the X- and Z-directions, and
7800 N in the Y-direction. The total uncertainty in the force
measurements was 0.3% in each direction. The systematic and the
random errors were 0.125% and 0.275%, respectively.
2.3. Flow velocity measurements of turbulent boundary layer
To measure the boundary layer over the surface of the paint, 1-D
LDV (FlowExplorer 300, Dantec Dynamics) was employed and a 3-D
auto traverse was used to move the probe, which had a resolution of
10 m. Titanium dioxide (TiO2) seeding particles with a mean
diameter of 3 m moved through the measurement volume. The
mean velocity was obtained from sampling of 20,000 Doppler signals
at each spatial position. Fig. 6 shows the LDV for the ow velocity
measurements.
The uncertainty analysis of the calibration for LDV was performed
by a ywheel method. The measurement uncertainty on the ywheel
velocity reference was 0.018%. There were several sources of uncertainties such as linearity and error weight sensitivity. All uncertainties
added together and reached a value of 0.056%. For the uncertainty
analysis of turbulence statistics, the 95% condence limits for the mean
and RMS values were computed, based on the following expressions
(Benedict and Gould, 1996).
s
2
U
Mean :
1:96
N
RMS :
s
2
U
1:96
2N
267
Table 3
Properties of the boundary layer.
U (m/s)
Re (x L/2)
item
AF 1
AF 2
AF 3
Polyamide
1.43 106
(mm)
n(mm)
(mm)
H
Re
10.652
1.712
1.213
1.411
3639
9.635
1.662
1.175
1.414
3525
10.438
1.715
1.208
1.419
3624
8.701
1.488
1.072
1.388
3216
2.39 106
(mm)
n(mm)
(mm)
H
Re
8.831
1.511
1.096
1.391
5430
9.025
1.575
1.136
1.386
5680
9.082
1.506
1.077
1.398
5385
7.799
1.272
0.926
1.373
4630
3.35 106
(mm)
n(mm)
(mm)
H
Re
8.687
1.492
1.076
1.361
7672
8.864
1.462
1.083
1.349
7581
8.843
1.495
1.083
1.380
7581
7.591
1.191
0.879
1.355
6153
Flow
Laser
1M CCD camera
Table 2
Measurement uncertainties of displacement vectors measured by the PIV system.
X-direction
Z-direction
Velocity (%)
7 1.34
7 1.25
7 1.28
7 1.16
XZ measurement plane. The coordinate system and the XZ measurement plane used in this study are shown in Fig. 7. The eld of view was
1.7 1.7 cm2 and the measurement plane was located at y E100. The
CCD camera has a resolution of 1024 1024 pixels, and it was located
outside the bottom wall of the tunnel to capture pairs of particle
images separated by short time intervals using the frame-straddling
method. TiO2 particles were also used as PIV tracers. The velocity elds
were extracted using the PIV algorithm of the cross-correlation method
based on the fast Fourier transformation (FFT). In this experiment,
interrogation windows of 32 32 pixels, overlapped by 50%, were used
to obtain 800 instantaneous velocity elds.
The analysis of measurement uncertainty was carried out for
actual particle images for which the ow eld was known in
advance. The quiescent ow was tested for the uncertainty
evaluation of the present PIV system following the procedure
recommended by Raffel et al. (1998) to estimate the measurement
errors of PIV systems under the same condition as explained in the
experimental apparatus and method. The standard errors encountered in measuring the displacement vector were calculated and
the results are summarized in Table 2. The size of the seeding
particles in the ow images must exceed a certain minimum size
for correct velocity vectors to be extracted. In the present work,
the average particle diameter was over 3 pixels, and hence the
measurement uncertainty with respect to the particle diameter
was sufciently small to prevent the peak-locking effect.
1
0
1
U
dy
U0
1
U0
U0
0
The ratio of displacement thickness to momentum thickness is
called the shape factor, which is used to determine the nature of
the boundary layer ow.
H
U0
YU n
268
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
2
polyamide(7m/s)
AF 1(7m/s)
AF 2(7m/s)
AF 3(7m/s)
1.5
(Y+)/
1.5
0.5
0.5
0
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
U/U0
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
1
0.3
0.3
(Y+)/
polyamide(7m/s)
AF 1(7m/s)
AF 2(7m/s)
AF 3(7m/s)
0.2
0.2
0.1
0.1
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
U/U0
Fig. 8. Velocity proles of boundary layer measured at U0 7 m/s, (a) wide view
and (b) narrow view.
ln Y B
U
n
U
0:5U 20
10
0.1
0.05
0.1
polyamide(3m/s)
AF 1(3m/s)
AF 2(3m/s)
AF 3(3m/s)
0.09
0.08
101
0.2
0.1
102
103
30
30
25
25
20
20
15
15
0.09
0.08
0.07
0.06
0.06
0.05
0.05
0.04
0.04
0.03
0.03
0.02
0.02
0.01
0.01
0.07
(Y+)/
0.15
269
viscous sublayer
logarithmic form
polyamide(3m/s)
AF 1(3m/s)
AF 2(3m/s)
AF 3(3m/s)
10
0
-0.01
0.05
0.1
0.15
-0.01
0.2
10
u'/U 0
10
(y+)
0.1
0.05
0.1
polyamide(7m/s)
AF 1(7m/s)
AF 2(7m/s)
AF 3(7m/s)
0.09
0.08
(Y+)/
0.15
0.2
0.1
10
10
Fig. 10. Velocity proles of polyamide and AF surfaces using the tting method.
0.09
0.08
Table 4
Local skin friction coefcients ( 103).
0.07
0.07
0.06
0.06
Type
3 m/s
5 m/s
7 m/s
0.05
0.05
0.04
0.04
Smooth
Polyamide
2.990
3.362
2.827
3.042
2.592
2.780
0.03
0.03
0.02
0.02
0.01
0.01
-0.01
0
0.05
0.1
0.15
-0.01
0.2
u'/U 0
Fig. 9. Comparison of turbulence intensity distributions in turbulent boundary
layers, (a) 3 m/s case (b) 7 m/s case.
local skin friction was 12.3 7 0.5%, compared to the smooth plate.
The drag increase in the polyamide coated plate was meaningful
because of providing reference value in drag performance to other
surfaces. The local skin friction coefcients of smooth and
polyamide plates are displayed in Table 4 for reference. The
tting method was not easy to use at the velocity range higher
than 3 m/s because of the contraction of the boundary layer and
the augmentation of the turbulent uctuating velocity
components.
The roughness function U (Hama, 1954) is related to the
increase of the local skin friction and the function of local skin
friction coefcient Cf for smooth and coated surface at the same
displacement thickness Reynolds number Ren.
s!
s!
2
2
U
11
cf
cf
Smooth
Rough
270
7
Polyamide
AF 1
AF 2
AF 3
1.8
1.6
1.2
4
+
1.4
Polyamide
AF 1
AF 2
AF 3
Colebrook (1939)
0.8
0.6
0.4
1
0.2
4000
5000
6000
7000
8000
9000
10000
11000
Re *
0 -1
10
10 0
10 1
+
ks
Fig. 11. Roughness functions with the displacement thickness Reynolds number
(uncertainty in U : 72.3%).
Fig. 12. Roughness functions with the roughness Reynolds number (uncertainty in
U : 72.3%).
Table 5
Roughness measurement results of four coatings.
Polyamide
AF 1
AF 2
AF 3
before
after
before
after
before
after
before
after
Ra (m)
Rq (m)
Rt (m)
Rsk
3.57
3.57
2.88
2.94
1.76
1.85
3.05
3.32
4.25
4.25
3.31
3.39
2.05
2.06
3.57
3.72
16.20
16.20
33.13
35.84
15.28
19.28
14.42
14.66
0.02
0.02
0.11
0.12
0.25
0.25
0.10
0.11
12
This correlation has been known to work well for sand grain and
packed spheres covered with grit. In addition, Eq. (12) was not
validated clearly for the coating with negative skewness of the
surface elevation. Thus, the Rt was measured at six positions
several hundred times and averaged to estimate the roughness
height(Schultz, 2000) in this study. The roughness Reynolds
number was given by ksUn/. The variation of the roughness
function according to ks is shown in Fig. 12, which includes the
correlation curve of the well-known formula (Colebrook, 1939).
The silicone-type surfaces showed highly decreasing trend with
increasing ks , which was the opposite of the tendency in the
correlation curve. This is also similar to the results reported by
nal et al. (2012). The metal-type and polyamide surfaces showed
rather slowly decreasing trend with roughness Reynolds number.
The noticeable thing is that AF 1 and AF 2 have similar U values
at different ks . In other words, the different surface structures
existed in the silicone-type SPC surfaces even with similar Cf.
10
Polyamide
AF 1
AF 2
AF 3
0.020
0.020
0.018
0.018
0.015
0.015
0.013
0.013
CD
type
10
Velocity(m/s)
Fig. 13. Drag measurement results on four at plates.
D
1
2
AU 0 2
13
R%
C D_paint C D_poly
C f _poly
14
x100
Table 6
Measurement uncertainties in drag coefcient CD (99.7% of the readings lie within
7 3 of mean value, is the standard deviation).
Item
A(%)
U0 (%)
D (%)
Overall (%)
3 m/s
5 m/s
7 m/s
9 m/s
7 0.5
7 0.5
7 0.5
7 0.5
7 0.65
7 0.54
7 0.66
7 0.73
7 0.23
7 0.25
7 0.29
7 0.35
1.215
1.164
1.233
1.287
271
N
X
aj j x;
15
j1
D Sij x; x0 j x0 dx0 i x
n
17
n
i
Table 7
Results of skin friction reduction rate.
U0
3 m/s
type
AF 1
AF 2
AF 3
AF 1
AF 2
AF 3
AF 1
AF 2
AF 3
AF 1
AF 2
AF 3
CD ( 10 2)
R (%)
1.586
0.66
1.588
0.22
1.603
3.08
1.423
0.95
1.442
3.32
1.461
6.24
1.351
0.34
1.360
1.69
1.398
7.22
1.325
2.50
1.340
4.31
1.362
9.50
5 m/s
7 m/s
9 m/s
272
Fig. 14. Results of standard deviation in Z-direction, (a) AF 1, 3 m/s, (b) AF 2, 3 m/s, (c) AF 1, 7 m/s and (d) AF 2, 7 m/s.
Energy fraction
0.16
50
100
150
200
0.16
0.15
0.15
0.14
0.14
0.13
0.13
0.12
0.12
0.11
0.11
0.1
0.1
0.09
0.09
0.08
0.08
0.07
0.07
0.06
0.06
0.05
0.05
0.04
0.04
0.03
0.03
0.02
0.02
0.01
0.01
0
-0.01
0
0
50
100
150
-0.01
200
Mode No.
Fig. 15. Typical modal energy distribution of ow eld over the painted plate.
4. Conclusions
The drag performance of Tin-free SPC paints was studied using
an experimental method. In addition to measuring the drag
273
Fig. 16. Distribution of Z-directional velocity in the rst eigen mode, (a) AF 1, 3 m/s, (b) AF 2, 3 m/s, (c) AF 1, 7 m/s and (d) AF 2, 7 m/s.
Acknowledgment
This research was sponsored by Project PES1810 and Project
PNS2260. We sincerely appreciate the supports for this research works.
References
Atlar, M., 2008. An update on marine antifoulings. 1420. 25th ITTC Group
Discussions 3 - Global Warming and Impact on ITTC Activities, Fukuoka, Japan,
pp. 563603.
Benedict, L.H., Gould, R.D., 1996. Towards better uncertainty estimates for turbulence statistics. Exp. Fluids 22, 129136.
Candries, M., Atlar, M., 2004. Experimental investigation of the turbulent boundary
layer of surfaces coated with marine antifoulings. J. Fluids Eng. 127 (2),
219232.
Clauser, F.H., 1956. The turbulent boundary layer. Adv. Appl. Mech. 4, 151.
Colebrook, C.F., 1939. Turbulent ows in pipes with particular reference to the
transition region between the smooth and rough pope ows. J. Inst. Civil Eng.
11, 133155.
David, B.D., Donald, R.W., John, K.E., 1999. The effect of Reynolds number on
boundary layer turbulence. Exp. Therm. Fluid Sci. 18, 341346.
Flack, K.A., Schultz, M.P., 2010. Review of hydraulic roughness scales in the fully
rough regime. J. Fluids Eng. 132, 041203.
Hama, F.R., 1954. Boundary-layer characteristics for smooth and rough surfaces.
Trans. SNAME 62, 333351.
Kendall, A., Koochesfahani, M., 2006. A method for estimating wall friction in
turbulent boundary layers. 25th AIAA Aerodynamic Measurement Technology
and Ground Testing Conference, 58 June, Sanfrancisco, California, USA.
Lee, S.J., Lee, S.H., 2001. Flow eld analysis of a turbulent boundary layer over a
riblet surface. Exp. Fluids vol. 30 (2), 153166.
Lumley, J.L., Holmes, P., Berkooz, G., 1996. Turbulence, coherent structures,
dynamical systems and symmetry. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.
Omae, I., 2006. Chemistry and fate of organotin antifouling biodices in the
environment. The Handbook of Environmental Chemistry vol. 5, 1750.
Paik, B.G., Lee, C.M., Lee, S.J., 2004. PIV analysis of ow around a container ship
model with a rotating propeller. Exp. Fluids vol. 36 (6), 833846.
Raffel, M., Willert, C., Kompenhans, J., 1998. Particle image velocimetry. Springer,
ISBN: 3-540-63683-8.
274
Sirovich, L., 1987. Turbulence and the dynamics of coherent structures Part 1:
Coherent structures. Q. Appl. Math. 45, 561572.
Smith, C.R., 1984. A synthesized model of the near-wall behavior in turbulent
boundary layers. In: Zakin J., Patterson G. (eds.). In: Proceedings of 8th
Symposium on Turbulence, University. Missouri-Rolla, Rolla, Missouri,
pp. 299325.
Schlichting, H., Gersten, K., 2000. Boundary layer theory. Springer, ISBN: 3-54066270-7, pp. 522524.
Schultz, M.P., 2000. Turbulent boundary layers on surfaces covered with laments
algae. J. Fluids Eng. vol. 122, 357363.
nal, U.O., nal, B., Atlar, M., 2012. Turbulent boundary layer measurements over
at surfaces coated by nanostructured marine antifoulings. Exp. Fluids vol. 52,
14311448.