See

discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.net/publication/285819636

Small-craft power prediction

Article · January 1976

CITATIONS READS

23 31

2 authors, including:

Donald Blount
Donald L. Blount and Associates, Inc.
9 PUBLICATIONS 83 CITATIONS

SEE PROFILE

Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects:

Influence of planing hull bow shape on response to operating at high speed in irregular head sea
waves View project

All content following this page was uploaded by Donald Blount on 27 July 2016.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

Marine Tech~ology,VOI. 13. No. 1 . Jan. 1976. pp. 14-45

Small-Craft Power Prediction

Donald L. Blountl and David L. Fox1

A valid performance prediction technique for small craft is an invaluable tool not only for the naval archi-
tect, but also for the operators and builders. This presentation describes the methodology for making
speed-power predictions for hard-chine craft of the types found in the offshore. military. and recreational
applications. The distinct advantage of this method is that existing technical data have been organized into
a logical approach. and areas of limited data have been overcome by the presentation of engineering fac-
tors based on model tests and full-scale trials of specific hull forms. This speed-power prediction method
accounts for hull proportions, loading, appendage configuration. propeller characteristics (including cavita-
tion). and resistance augmentation due to rough water.

Introduction power requirements of a craft have not all been documented

as to their relative importance. The predominant prediction
THESPEED-POWER RELATIONSHIP of a craft is of prime method used within the small-craft technical community has
interest to all parties from the design agent to the ownerloper- been that developed by Savitsky [5]. For the case where all
ator. The initial cost of installed power is followed by corre- forces are assumed to pass through the center of gravity, dis-
sponding maintenance and operating expenses, particularly placement, chine beam, deadrise angle, and longitudinal ten-
fuel, directly related to horsepower. Many technical papers on ter of gravity are required geometric data. The Savitsky meth-
small-craft design (with references [I], [2], and [3]"eing no- od is based on prismatic hull form, that is, on craft having
table exceptions) have been related to just determining the ef- constant beam and deadrise. In as much as few craft have
fects of variation of hull form. Savitsky, Roper, and Benen [4! these prismatic shapes, designers have used various geometric
presented an outstanding paper on the design philosophy of features of their designs to represent an "effective" beam and
effective hydrodynamic tradeoff studies for smooth and deadrise to use the Savitsky equations. Hadler and Hubble,
rough-water operations. In addition, useful data have been using the extensive model test data from Series 62 and Series
published giving propeller characteristics under cavitating 65 [6-81, used a statistical approach in reference [9] as one
conditions, appendage drag, ar,d propulsive data. The object method of establishing "effective" proportions for use with
of this effort is to present the development of a small-craft this analytical prediction method.
power prediction method which allows the designer to apply In an effort to improve the predictive process without intro-
these existing data to select, with improve confidence, hull ducing a new analytical approach, it was decided that "modi-
proportions, engine power, reduction gears, and propellers. A fying" the Savitsky method might produce improved accuracy
less obvious, but important use of this prediction method is in the hump-speed range while retaining the experience and
that it serves as a baseline for determining that a craft has at- use of existing computer programs. This process consisted of
tained its technically achievable performance during trials first making Savitsky resistance predictions for a select num-
and in service. ber of hull forms for which model test data existed. T h e pur-
pose was to isolate the effective chine beam which would pro-
Resistance prediction for the hull duce the best analytical prediction. Figure 1 shows a typical
There has been almost no correlation of model and full- sample of the results for a Series 62 hull. T h e comparisons
scale trial data for hard-chine craft, but consistent experience made indicated that the maximum chine beam produced the
has indicated that model tests for specific designs are the best best high-speed predictions for craft with constant afterbody
source of resistance prediction data. This experience also indi- deadrise. In the hump-speed range, which is normally outside
cates that zero correlation allowance produces the best full- of the valid range of the Savitsky method, the resistance of the
scale extrapolation of these model data when using the hull was always underpredicted no matter what chine beam
Schoenherr friction formulation. Another source of resistance was used.
prediction data can be obtained from published test data from Likewise. a similar approach was attempted to isolate a n ef-
geometrically varied hull forms. Notable examples of these fective deadrise for craft having nonconstant afterbody dead-
type data for hard-chine craft are Series 62 and Series 65. In rise. This effort was much less rewarding, as indicated in Fig.
addition to these, mathematical techniques such as that re- 2, which shows a typical comparison of model test data with
ported by Savitsky [ 5 ] are widely used. predicted results for a hull having longitudinally varying
The significant dimensions of the hull which affect the deadrise. The center of pressure for dynamic lift in the limit-
ing case is approximately & of the mean wetted length forward
Naval Ship Engineering Center. Norfolk Division, Combatant of the transom. The longitudinal dynamic pressures which
Craft Engineering Department. Norfolk. Virginia.
Numbers in brackets designate References a t end of Paper. were measured and reported in reference 110) show this distri-
Presented a t the February 14. 1975 meeting of the Gulf Section bution. In practice. the mean wetted length of a commercial or
West of T H ESOCIETY OF NAVALARCHITECTS M A R I M ESGI- military craft is seldom less than one half the chine length. In
SEERS.
T h e views expressed herein are the personal opinions of the authors effect, the latter statement. and the fact that the high-speed
and d o not necessariiy r e f l e c ~ he official views of t h e Department of dynamic center of pressure approaches .Y4 of the mean wetted
Defense. length forward of the transom, virtually eliminates the after
\

MARINE TECHNOLOGY
 Fig. 1 Effect of chine beam
on resistance prediction

,I I I I
If
I I I I

Fig. 2 Effect of deadrise angle

on resistance prediction

JANUARY 1976
portion o f the hull as the location o f the effective deadrise the mixing o f dimensionless coefficientst o minimize the effort
angle. required to develop an improvement in prediction in the
Like the beam, the effective deadrise angle varies as speed hump-speed range.
increases from zero. T h e maximum chine beam, however, was T h e primary goal which led to the development o f equation
identified as the representative value for best prediction at ( 1 )was to improve hump-speed resistance prediction for hard-
high speeds. T h e "effective" deadrise angle was arbitrarily chine craft. Any unfamiliar method is normally received with
taken as that angle at mid-chine length, as this location ap- some skepticism (and rightfully so) until individual confi-
proached the practical aftmost high-speed longitudinal center dence is obtained by trying or testing the method on known
o f pressure. designs. T o initiate interest in the proposed method, Fig. 5 is
Nonconstant afterbody deadrise (warp or twist) has been offered to show a comparison o f model test data [not used for
considered b y some to result in a higher resistance when com- the development o f equation (I)] and the modified prediction
pared with a constant-deadrise hull. This concept may not be method reported herein. T h e speed-resistance prediction is re-
adequately supported by experimental data when compari- spectable and slightly conservative. Note that the selection o f
sons with constant and warped afterbody hulls are made for model data used to develop the M factor favored relatively
the case where both have equal deadrise angles at the center heavy craft ( A ~ / v in ~ /the
~ range o f 6.0 to 6.5) and the com-
o f prsssure. For this case there is little difference in relative parison in Fig. 5 improves as the displacement approaches
hull resistance, but there is some difference in dynamic trim. normal commercial and military loading. T h e simplified Sav-
Thus, warping is considered t o be a designer's tool to control itsky prediction is also shown on that figure (computed using
dynamic trim in the same fashion that bottom plate exten- the effectivebeam and deadrise as defined in this report).
sions are built into craft and bent down to change dynamic This modifying factor is not a panacea, for the unknowns
trim i f desired after builder's trials. can h u n t anyone attempting performance predictions. T h e
T h c establishment o f the "effective" beam as the maximum known limitations for application should be judiciously fol-
chine beam, and the "effective" deadrise as the deadrise lowed. These limitations interact with those previously re-
angle at mid-chine length, allows the development o f an "en- ported by Savitsky and actually extend the usefulness to lower
gineering" factor that can be used to modify the existing Sav- speeds. T h e limitations for application o f this prediction
itsky prediction method. T h e modifying factor reported here method that alter those reported in reference 151 are:
was established in a rather simple manner. Resistance predic-
tions were made for a number o f hull designs for which model
test data existed. For each o f these conditions, the ratio o f
model test data to predicted resistance was computed and an-
alyzed for sensitivity to hull form and loading parameters.
Like many designers who have confidently used the Sav-
itsky prediction method for hull resistance predictions, it was
no surprise to the authors to find that the model and predict- Resistance prediction for appendages
ed results were essentially equivalent at planing speeds. As For hard-chine craft the detail design o f appendages may
mentioned previously, however, the hump-speed resistance well result in significant performance differencesbetween two
was underpredicted, resulting in a correction ratio generally apparently equivalent craft. Thus, this subject needs the at-
greater than one. T h e collective results o f obtaining these data tention that has been reported by Hadler [I], which describes
for various hull forms have been reduced to an analytical form the calculation o f drag for skegs, propeller shaft, strut boss,
through a curve fitting proccss. T h e resulting expression is
rudders, struts, struts palms, and appendage interference
drag..These equations, in part, are repeated in Appendix 2 for
convenience.
In addition t o these appendages, other items such as seawa-
ter strainers and depth spunder tmnsducers-which extend be-
yond the hull should be taken into account when determining
appendage drag. Hoerner [ll] notes that drag coefficients in
This expression was not developed with a theoretical model as
the range o f 0.07 to 1.20 should be used based on frontal area
a guide, and one should not expect to rationalize equation ( 1 )
and degree o f fairing. A value o f Coo = 0.65 is suggested for
with hydrodynamic logic.
appendages o f this type extending more than 20 percent o f the
T h e M factor, from equation ( I ) ,was established so that it
turbulent boundary-layer thickness from hull. This is based
would be a multiplying factor to the resistance predicted by
on full-scale trials conducted on craft with and without pro-
the simplified Savitsky method. (NOTE: T h e Savitsky equa-
tions are givcn in Appendix l for convenience.) Figure 3 repre- truding strainers. Numerically this would account for 90 shp
for each square foot o f frontal area o f strainers on a 20-knot
senting equation ( 1 ) and Fig. 4 for Fc-speed relationship will
craft operating with 0.5 propulsive coefficient.
reduce the effort required t o apply this modifying factor dur-
Data reported recently [12, 131 offer the best experimental
ing manual computations.
information for rudder drag in free stream and in the propel-
Purists may take exception to the mixing o f several dimen-
ler slip stream for a range o f craft speeds approaching 40
sionless coefficientsystems, that is, Fc and C, as speed coef-
knots. These references give results for rudders having airfoil,
ficients:
parabolic, flat plate, and wedge sections. W i t h the availability
o f these data, proper allowance of strainers, and the data re-
ported by Hadler, a very detailed appendage drag allowance
can be made for the final design o f any hard-chine craft.
While these appendage drag calculations are laborious, they
are not difficult and are essential when considering the condi-
This.mixing resulted from practical rather than technical rea- tions for which thc final propeller is selected. These detail ap-
sons. Retaining the existing Savitsky prediction method pendage drag calculations, however, are not completely justi-
(which uses C,) was a guiding philosophy, and the majority o f fied for preliminary design studies where various craft sizes
model test data available to the authors (used Fc) suggested and arrangements are being considered. For such preliminary

MARINE TECHNOLOGY
 Ag = expanded area of propeller blades
(ft2) . --- T
= EAR(.4o)
A. = disk area of propeller (ft2)
= 7iD2/4
Ap = projected area of propeller bladcs
(ft2)
.= A~(1.067 0.229 P/D) -
BPX = maximum chine beam excluding
external spray rail (ft)
BT = transom chine beam (ft)
Coo = dra:! coefficient for seawater
strainers
C O P= drag coefficient for strut palm
Con = drag coefficient for rudder
CF = fiiction drag coefficient
CLJ = deadrise surface lift coefficient
CLO= zero deadrise lift coefficient
c p = distance of center of pressure (hy -
drodynamic force) measured
along keel forward of transom
C , = speed coefficient
-
-. -C
.:Bps
\ ehp~~/~hp
C A = load coefficient
D = propeller diameter (ft)
Dh = skeg drag (Ib)
Do = drag of seawater strainers (lb)
Dp = drag of strut palm (Ib)
D H= drag of nonvented rudder (Ib)
D, = drag of nonvented struts (!b)
DsH = drag of inclined shaft or strut bar-
rel (15)
d = diameter of shaft or strut barrel
(ft)
e = 2.718?8
EAR = expanded area ratio = AE/Ao
ehp = total effective horsepower (hp)
- -RT V
325.9
ehp,,,, = effective horsepower, bare hull
fr = volume Froude number
g = acceleration due to gravity ( f t l
sec2)
= 32.15 ft/sec2
H I i 3 = significant wave height (ft)
h = depth of propeller q below water
surface a t rest (ft)
hp = strut palm thickness ( f t )
TI.(,.I.,~~,
J,l = apparent advance coefficient =
b/nD
JT = thrust advance coefficient
- c (1 - WT)
- struts
nU
Jy = torque advance coefficient -
- u (1 \+'(,)
-
-
nU
JANUARY 1976
KT = thrust coefficient u = velocity of boat (fps)
n2D'
square of resultant velocity of
~ 0 . 7 ~='
p water a t 0.7 radius of propeller
KO = toraue coefficient (fps)=
w = weight density of water (Ib/ft3)
LCG = longitudinal center of gravity
measured from transom (ft) W' = displacement (Ib)
LOA = length overall (ft) X p = distance from stagnation line to
Lp = projected chine length (ft) appendage ( f t )
1 = wet length of shaft or strut barrel Y = width of strut palm (ft)
(ft) (1- t ) = thrust deduction factor = RT/
TTOTAI.
M = multiplying factor [equation ( I ) ] (1 - WB)= torque wake factor = , I Q / J A
n = propeller rotational speed. rps (1- WT) = thrust wake factor = JT/JA
= N/60 fl = deadrise angle (deg)
t = angle of shaft relative to buttock
(deg)
N = propeller rotational speed, rpm p = mass density of water (Ib-sec2/
ft4)
= 1.9905 for 59°F salt water
N P R= number of propellers v = kinematic viscosity of water (ft2/
OPC = overall propulsive coefficient = sec)
= 1.2817 X for 59 OF salt water
P = propeller pitch (ft) X = mean wetted length-beam ratio
o . ~= appendage drag factor
P / D = pitch ratio
PA = atmospheric pressure (Ib/ft2) =
2116 (Ib/ft2) for 14.7 psi
qo = propeller open-water efficiency
PH= static water pressure (Ib/ft2) =
pgh
PC= vapor pressure of water (Ib/ft2)
7 0 = propulsive coefficient
Q =.propeller torque (lb-ft)
- shp (5252)
N
OH = hull efficiency
R.4 = added resistance in waves (0 for OR = relative rotative efficiency
calm water) (Ib) P = volume of displacement (ft3)
R ~ p p= appendage resistance (Ib)
RHH= bare hull resistance (Ib)
Re = Reynolds number
RT = total resistance (Ib) = + 4 = displacement (long tons) = T/
RAPP+ RA 35
rpm = propeller rotational speed = N 6 = boundary-layer thickness (ft)
shp = shaft horsepower (hp) ACA = correlation allowance
-- . 2xQ"J = CP AD = interference drag (Ib)
33,000 00 a = cavitation number based on boat
velocity
S = transverse projected area of rud-
der or strut (ft2)
So= fiontal projected area of seawater
inlets (ft2)
~0.711= cavitation number based on re-
SK= transverse projected area of skeg
sultant water velocitv a t 0.7
(ft2)
radius of propellers
T = thrust of each propeller (Ib)
- R -
-
( 1 I ) lV,W
= total craft thrust (Ib)
T(. = thrust load coefficient
- - Rr
(1 - I )
t = strut rhickncss (ft)
7 = trim angle relative to mean but-
t/c = thickness to chord for rudders or
tock (deg)
V = velocity of boat (knots)
c , = mean velocity over planing sur-
1 knot = 1.6378 fps
face (fps) \
studies the following approximation for appendage drag factor This expression is slightly more conservative than the append-
has proven to be useful: age factor data reported in reference [2]. Numerical values for
1
L
equation (4) are given in the following table:
'?A = (4)
0.005 Fr' + 1.05 F A / / 1.01 1
1.5 2.0 1
2.5 3.01 /
3.5 4.0 1 1
4.5 / 5.0
This equation is based on a collection of data from twin-screw 'I~11~.948~0.94210.934l0.925i0.91310.90010.885/0.869l0.851/
hard-chine model tests made with and without appendages.
T h e magnitude of appendage resistance is then represented

Added resistance in waves

Craft performance in a sea is best predicted by model tests
conducted in a representative random sea in which the craft is
expected to operate. These tests give added resistance in
waves as well as motions and accelerations needed to design
hull structure and to estimate crew/equipment limitations.
These types of tests are of great technical value and return the
dollars invested when only a few craft of,given design are pro-
cured. For design studies or a "one & construction project,
Fridsma [!4, 151 offers an excellent source of rough-water per-
formance technology for hard-chine craft presented ili a for-
mat for use by designers.
The calculation procedure for added resistance in waves
from reference (151 is reproduced in Appendix 3 of this report.
I
I 1 Propulsive data
After identifying a means of predicting the speed-resistance
relationship for a craft, it follows that the interrelation of the
hull-propeller must be described in order to properly include
propeller characteristics. The propulsive data are the transfer

1 I I I
5h do 4 Fig. 3 Variation of modifying factor with volume Froude number
and LCGIBpx

Fig. 4 Variation of volume

Froude number with speed
and displacement

0 30
20 SPEED - K T

18 MARINE TECHNOLOGY
JANUARY 1976
functions that describe this interrelation and, unfortunately,
this area of hard-chine technology has the least published in-
forma tion.
Hadler and Hubble 121 presented a very complete synthesis
of the planing craft propulsion problem for single, twin, and
quadruple-screw configurations. This work reports computed
values of (1 - W) and (1 - t ) for various shaft angles and
speeds. Reference [16] reports experimental propulsive data
obtained from full-scale trials of a twin-screw craft. In addi-
tion to these sources, other model and full-scale experimental
data for twin-screw craft have been collected and found to
consistently fall within reasonable bounds with some variation
with speed. The range of shaft angles for these craft was from
10 deg to 16 deg measured from the buttocks and may be par-
tially responsible for the bandwidth of data. These data col-
lected for twin-screw craft are reported in Fig. 6 with the
mean values and observed variations. Limited propulsive data
for a single-screw small craft with a skeg have been reported in
reference [17j.
One significant difference in definition used in this paper
must be clearly understood so that the thrust deduction factor
(1 - t ) reported in Fig. 6 is properly applied. 1Jsing (1 - t ) in
the classical sense, to describe a resistance augmentation
where the propeller pressure field changes hull flow patterns
for hard-chine craft performance prediction, requires iterative
computations to resolve equilibrium conditions of the various
forces and moments of the hull, appendage, and propulsion
systems. The thrust deduction factor (1 - t ) reported here
was experimentally obtained and computed as the-ratio of ap-
pendaged resistance (horizontal component of resistance force
20
when towed in the shaft line) to total shaft line thrust (when
propelled a t full-scale self-propulsion point). Thus, this modi-
fied definition of (1 - t ) includes the effects of the classical
definition as well as that for the angle difference between the
resistance and thrust vectors, the trimming effects, and result-
ing hull resistance change, due to the propeller pressure field
acting on the hull, and similar trimming effects for propeller
lift resulting from operation in inclined flow.
Propeller characteristics
Since most working craft operate a t fairly high speed and
propeller loading, their propellers more than likely operate
with some degree of cavitation. Cavitation adds a new dimen-
sion to propeller characteristics. Operationally, this variable is
most often reflected in a nonlinear speed-rpm relationship
near top speed. I1 is generally detccted as a "gravel-passing-
through-the-propeller" sound which may be heard in the la-
zarette above the propellers, and as erosion of propeller blade
material.
Relative to the predictive process, cavitation must be ac-
counted for as a change of propeller characteristics as reported
in reference [18] and seen in Fig. 7. Systematic variations for
several types of propellers have been reported giving the ef-
fects of cavitation on characteristics. Of these sources, Gawn-
Burrill [IS] represents flat-face propeller sections similar to
most commercial propellers made for small craft. A cornpari-
son of cavitation data for a four-bladed commercial propeller
with the equivalent blade area for a three-bladcd Gawn-Bur-
rill propeller was made in reference (161. To.,quote this refer-
MARINE TECHNOLOGY
 Fig. 7 Effect of cavitation on propeller characteristics
ence, "A comparison of these two s e t s of d a t a indicates t h a t
t h e Gawn-Burrill d a t a can be used t o make engineering esti-
mations of this t q p e of commercial propeller performance
when operating in a cavitating condition." T h i s , in fact, h a s
been consistent with other experiences where speed, power,
and r p m were measured on new craft, with the imporlunl ex-
ception that Cawn-Rurrill data arc v e q n optimistic where
propeller sections were [hick and the leading edge was blunt
with a poor-quality finish.
T h e Cawn-Burrill propeller characteristics a r e in t h e form
of KT.Ky,70, versus JT for r~ariouspitch ratios, blade area ra-
tios, a n d cavitation numbers (a). T h i s familiar format. how-
ever, can'be replaced with another which reduces t h e effort re-
quired t o optimize t h e propeller, select the reduction ratio,
and make the speed-power-rpm predictions. T h i s format is
t h a t of qo a n d JT versus K7.lCJT2for various P/D, E A R , a n d a.
T h e entire Gawn-Burrill propeller series has been redone in
this format and is presented in Appendix 4. T h e effort re-
quired t o recompute a n d redraw these curves is compensated
JANUARY 1976
for by t h e long-term savings i n preparing performance predic-
tions a n d optimizing propulsion systems.
Power prediction method
T h e niaterial presented u p t o this point have noted d a t a
sources a n d logic leading to assumptions necessary to estab-
lish t h e d a t a base for making a power prediction for craft.
Now is t h e time t o p u t it all together.
I t is important t o keep one thought in mind when working
with propellers. Propellers produce thrust. While engine
power is converted t o t h r u s t horsepower by t h e propeller, se-
lecting a propeller t o nhsorb power a t a particular r p m a n d
speed does not necessarily y ~ e l dthe maximum speed poten-
tial of a'craft. T h e following procedure describes t h e method
to effect a speed-power prediction, beginning with speed resis-
tance and then establishing t h e thrust requirements.
T h e development of K.r/JT' a s t h e common variable be-
tween hull t h r u s t requirements a n d t h e propeller characteris-
\
tics has the distinct aduantage of eliminating propeller rpm
from the early prediction calculations.
For each propeller
T u ( l - WT)
KT = - and JT=
pn2D4 nD
Therefore
For the hull
Assuming that each propeller produces equal thrust for a mul-
tiscrew craft, the thrust required by each propeller would be
Equating the thrust requirements that each propeller must
prodrlce to that required to satisfy the hull resistance leads to
Once the number of propellers has been established for a craft
design, the only significant variable that can influence KT/JT'
is the propeller diameter D. This relationship [equation (8)] is
the basis for the format change in propeller characteristics as
presented in .4ppendix 4. This format can bc used for any type
of propeller such as the Troost series, Newton-Rader scries, or
supercavitating CRP series.
Once the thrust loading (Kr/JT2) has been established, the
equilibrium condition between hull requirements and propel-
ler capability leads, in gencral, to a unique value of open-water
propeller efficiency (so) and advance coefficient ( J T ) for that
craft speed (and corresponding cavitation number a):
The appendaged propulsive coefficient is computed as
where
T h e total shaft horsepower (shp) is computed from total ehp:
by the following equation
shp = ehp
- keeping, maneuverability, and crew size) should lead to a de.
7)D
The corresponding value of J r defines the propeller rpm
( N )as
Most designers of small craft are familiar with bare-hull
propulsive coefficient or the term overall propulsive coeffi-
cient (OPC). The magnitude of 0.5 for OPC has been used for
years for preliminary power estimates. For current design
practice a value of OPC = 0.55 is readily attainable for twin-
screw craft. This is mentioned to emphasize that the propul-
sive coefficient ( r l n ) ,in equation (101, and OPC are not the
same. Bare-hull ehp
(1 4
is used to compute bare hull or overall propulsive coefficien
as follows:
~ ~ P R H
OPC = -
shp
T h e difference between equations (10) and (15) for smooth^
water conditions (zero sea state) is mostly a result of the a p
pendage drag factor ( r l A ) with minor effect, due to the tender.-
cy of propeller efficiency to reduce with increasing thrus-
loading. This latter factor becomes very important as the pro
peller begins to cavitate. Thus, for moderate speeds and thrus:
loading in smooth water
OPC
7)D -
t)A
The speed-power calculation procedure, applying the ap-
proach briefly discussed, is best demonstrated by following
through a data calculation form. The sample form with col-
umn-by-column calculation procedures as given in Table
will show, in practice, the interrelationships of hull resistance
propulsive data, and propeller characteristics. T h e numerics.
example depicts a 50-ft craft operating in rough water, and I:
provided with the results presented in Fig. 8.
I t is important to note that engine characteristics play nc
part in the speed-power requirements (other than impact o
machinery and fuel weight on total displacement) once hul
loading, size, appendages, and propeller geometry are fixed
An engine and reduction ratio must he selected with charac
teristics compatible with predicted speed-power-propelle:
rpm needs for fixed-pitch propellers since the propeller cor;
trols the engine power output a t a given rpm u p to the masi
mum power capability of the engine.
Applications
Any rational power prediction method has many uses be
yond that of just determining the speed-power-rpm relation
ship for specific hull and propeller combinations. Ingenuou:
designers find analysis of full-scale craft performance relative
to predictive techniques often leads to improved performance
Additional uses of this speed-power synthesis are discussed ir
the following paragraphs, and it is hoped that these will stim
ulate other applications.
Hull proportions for smooth-water minimum ehp
Whenever new requirements arise for craft operations it
may not be unusual for a new-size supply craft, crew boat, 01
patrol craft to be developed around existing engines to sntisf?
these requirements. The best economic resolution of craft s i n
relative to requirements (such as payload, speed, range, sea-
sign study to establish the technical and financial impact o~
each requirement.
In the context of design studies. the modified Savitsky pre-
diction method, discussed here under the topic of hull resis-
tance, offers a reasonable means to establish craft proportion:
for minimum bare-hull ehp in smooth water. As stated pre.
viously, displacement, chine beam, deadrise, and longitudina
center of gravity are the significant factors affecting speed
power when all forces are assumed to pass through the centel
of gravity. Considering minimum smooth-water ehpRH to bc
the desired goal, an iterative series of calculations was madc
for a wide range of these significant hull factors for speed:
from 15 to 45 knots and for displacements from 10,000 tc
400,000 lb. Also, these calculations were made for 5g°F seana.
\
MARINE TECHNOLOG'
ter and zero correlation allowance. T h e iteration was effected
by making incremental increases in chine beam until mini-
m u m ehplllc was obtaiiled while LCGIBpx, deadrise, displace-
ment, and speed were held constant. T h u s , both LCG a n d Bp,y
increased a t a constant rate during t h e search for minimum
ehp~m.
T h i s optimization process is illustrated graphically in Fig. 9
for one condition of displacement, deadrise, a n d speed. T h e
results of these cnlculations a r e presented in Appendix 5 a s
contours of LCGIRrs a n d displacement ( W ) relating mini-
m u m e h p r t Ha n d maximum chine beam (BP,y). Each figure of
Appendix 5 is for a constant speed (assumed design speed)
and gives results for deadrise angles of 10 deg, 16 deg, a n d 22
de:.
T h e s e conditions for minimum ehpnH in smooth water per-
mit i n t e r ~ s t i n gspeculation if one does not introduce extrane-
ous thoughts. ( T h e authors are well aware t h a t o t h e r factors,
such a s constructed weight, seakeeping, payload, cost, longitu-
dinal and traverse stability, affect craft proportions. T h i s a p -
plication (Ilppendix 5 ) , however, is limited t o smooth-water
speed-po\ver.) Most designers know, a n d these d a t a show, t h a t
"real" hard-chine craft a r e too heavy relative t o their size.
Since t h e ratio of LCG forward of transom t o length overall
(LCGILOA) is usually in t h e range of 0.37 t o 0.40, it might
take a zero payload condition for a craft t o operate a t a hydro-
dynamic condition for minimum power. (Example: At 30
knots, 3 = 16 deg, a n d a displacement of 100,000 lb, a n overall
craft length of 90 t o 95 f t would result in e h p of~ 1000 ~ on a
craft with 16-ft chine beam.) T h u s , a 90 t o 95 f t craft could a t -
tain 30 knots with approximately 1820 s h p ( O P C = 0.55) a t a
displacement of 100,000 Ib. But, could a craft of these propor-
tions and power be constructed with adequate allowance for
fuel and useful payload?
I t is interesting t o note t h a t for speeds of 30 knots a n d
above, designers can relegate chine beam (BP,y) t o a position
of minor consideration relative to powering requirements (see
Appendix 5). T h u s Bpx can be selected for other important
reasons such a s seakeeping, internal volume, deck area, or
transverse stability a s discussed in reference [[I].
Many tradeoff relationships can be extracted from Appen-
dix 5. Figure LO shows the effect of design speed o n the sclcc-
tion of chine beam for minimurn ehpBHin smooth water. Like-
wise. other tradeoff relationships, such a s deadrise effects o n
ehprtti as shown in Fig. 10, may be extracted a s user needs
arise.
Selecting best propeller and reduction ratio
T h e "best propeller" for a craft is t h a t which satisfies t h e
craft thrust requirements within geometric, financial, a n d
power limitations. If there were no design constraints, a n "op-
timum propeller" could be designed for maximum efficiency.
With this slight distinction of t.erminology, optimum propeller
a n d hest propeller a r e not considered t o be equivalent a n d t h e
term "best propeller" will be used here.
T h e geometric constraints to be considered may well pre-
clude the selection of a n operationally suitable propeller.
T h u s , it is important t o establish t h e maximum propeller d i -
mensions allowable for the shaft angle, tip clearance, a n d
draft limitations. Most craft have shaft angles in t h e range of
LO t o 16 deg measured relative t o buttocks, a n d propeller tip
clearance of 15 to '35 percent of diameter. Smallest shaft a n -
gles a r e generally employed on craft with highest design
speeds, and tip clearances are controlled to a large extent by
propeller-induced vibration, which is often traced t o extensive
cavitation.
T h c key to selecting a hest propeller t o satisfy t h e craft pro-
pulsion needs rests with equating required craft ihrusr with
JANUARY 1976
propeller thrust. Equation (8) defines t h e thrust-speed-pro-
peller diameter relation a s required for equilibrium condi-
tions, a n d t h e speed-power calculation form should be fol-
lowed. First, assume three or more values for propeller diame-
ter, not exceeding geometric constraints, a n d assume three
values of cavitation numbers corresponding t o speeds above
a n d below t h e design speed. Perform t h e calculations from
Column 1 t o Column 11 according t o t h e procedure described
in T a b l e 1 for each combination of speed and diameter. Rec-
ord in Column 20 t h e propeller diameter used in each line of
t h e calculations.
Based on previous experience a designer will usually have
a n estimate of t h e expanded area ratio of propellers o n similar
craft. If so, t h e closest value of EAR available in t h e Gawn-
Burrill series (Appendix 4) should be used with the propeller
characteristics for the remaining calculations. (Some guides
for approximate values of EAR are a s follows: Three-bladed
conventional stock propellers, use EAR = 0.51; three-
bladed wide-blade stock propellers, use EAR = 0.665; four-
bladed conventionaj stock propellers, use EAR = 0.665).
For each line, use t h e values of K r l J r 2 ar,d a from Columns
10 and 1 1 t o enter t h e appropriate propeller characteristics
curves in Appendix 4, a n d locate t h e maximum value of effi-
ciency (70) f o r - t h a t t h r u s t loading. Record t h e maximum 70
a n d corresponding ( J T ) a n d (PID) in Columns 12, 13, a n d 21
respectively. T h e calculation form is then completed through
Column 18. Compute pitch a n d record in Colunln 23.
These d a t a are plotted a s shp, r p m , a n d pitch versus speed
for curves of constant propeller diameter. Construct a hori-
zontal line a t t h e installed power level t h a t intersects t h e pre-
dicted speed-power curves. c o n s t r u c t vertical lines passing
through each speed-power intersection point u p t o t h e speed-
r p m and speed-pitch curves for t h e corresponding propeller
diameter. T h e s e intersecting points a r e t h e n plotted on a base
of propeller diameter, t h a t is, (i) speed versus diameter a t de-
sign power; (ii) rpm versus diameter a t predicted speed for de-
sign power; a n d (iii) pitch versus diameter a t predicted speed
for design power. T h i s process is illustrated in Fig. 11 with in-
tersection points identified in both graphs. T h e ratio of pro-
peller r p m t o engine r p m yields t h e desired reduction ratio.
Slight adjustments in propeller pitch a r e usually required t o
match stock gear ratios. 4 numerical example of this propeller
selection procedure is presented in T a b l e 2 a n d Fig. 11.
While this procedure establishes t h e best propeller diame-
ter and pitch for t h e assumed EAR, it does not establish t h a t
t h e blade area is adequate relative t o c;ivitation effects other
t h a n from a performance point of view. I m p o r t a n t factors af-
fecting both t h e hull structural design in t h e vicinity of t h e
propeller a n d t h e blade cavitation damage must be consid-
ered. Blade rate-induced hull pressures on t h e order of 4 to 5
psi can be generated by a badly cavitating propeller, a n d can
fatigue (crack) hull plating after short periods of operation.
Likewise, these blade cavities can be destructive t o t h e propel-
ler, eroding blade material t o t h e point of requiring frequent
propeller replacement.
T h e s e effects can be minimized by carefully selecting E.41:
such t h a t TC ( a thrust loading coefficicncy related t o pressure)
does not exceed the LO percent back cavitation relationship
defined by Gawn-Burrill [18]. T h u s , if
(an approximation of t h e Gswn-Burrill 10 percent hack cavi-
tation criterion), one can be confident t h a t t h e propeller has
adequate blade area. r c a n d ao ;R t a k e i n t o account t h e resul-
t a n t of both rotational a n d axial velocities a n d ;ire computed
a s follows:
( t e x t continued o n page 26)
\
 Table 1 Propeller selection and speed-power calculation procedure

NOTE: Lines 1 t o 1 0 may be used for propeller selection or

speed-power calculations.
Data Source
Speed
Rows 1 t o 1 0 Assumed values
Data Description Rows 11 t o 1 5 Assumed values for V S 20
Craft Craft identification Rows 1 6 t o 20 Computed for u o f Col. 11
Date Date of computation Bare-hull resistance Model tests o r predictions
Calculated by Person making computations Appendage resistance Computed s u m of shafts, struts,
Displacement Displacement of craft ( l b ) rudders, etc. o r estimated f r o m
LC G LCG of craft measured from Eqs. ( 4 ) and ( 5 )
aftmost point of planing Added resistance in waves Model tests o r Ref. [ I 5 ]
bottom (ft) (0for calm water)
Maximum chine beam exclu- ~otal'resistance Sum of Cols. 2, 3, and 4
ding external spray rail ( f t ) Volumn Froude No. Computed from Eq. ( 2 ) o r Fig. 4
Deadrise a t mid-chine length Thrust deduction factor Model tests o r Fig. 6
(deg) Thrust wake factor Model tests or Fig. 6
Mass density of water Relative rotative efficiency Model tests o r Fig. 6 .
(Ib sec2/ft4) Thrust loading Computed from Eq. (8)
Kincmatic viscosity of water Cavitation No. Computed from Eq. ( 9 )
( ftz/sec) Propeller efficiency Obtained from propeller charac-
nc,1 Correlation allowance Advance cocfficient based teristics for Cavitation No. a n d
Sea state Nominal sea state o n thrust KT/JT' at proper P / D and
P" Vapor pressure of water EAR (Appendix 4 of this re-
(Ib/ft2) port for Gawn-Burrill props.)
Depth :of Depth t o r of propeller h u b Appendaged propulsive co- Computed f r o m Eq. ( 1 0 )
propeller measured from water sur- efficient
face with craft a t rest ( f t ) Total ehp Computed from Eq. ( 1 1 )
D (in.) Propeller diameter (in.) Shaft horsepower Computed from Eq. ( 1 2 )
D (ft) Propeller diameter ( f t ) Propeller r p m Computed f r o m Eq. (13)
P (in.) Propeller pitch (in.) Speed Repeat o f Col. 1
P (ft) Propeller pitch ( f t ) Trim relative t o mean Model tests o r prediction
P/D Propeller pitch ratio buttock
EAR Propeller expanded area ratio Propeller diameter* o r extra Assumed values
No. of blades Number of propeller blades Optimum P/D* or extra F r o m Appendix 4 for q, opti-
No. of shafts Number of propeller shafts mum
EAR* o r extra Assumed values
Propeller picch* o r extra Computed frorn Cols. 20 and 21
Bare-hull e h p Computed from Eq. (11)
Overall propulsive cocfficient Computed from Eq. ( 1 5 )
Extra
* Data used for propeller selection.

MARINE TECHNOLOGY
 Flg. 8 Predicted shp. rprn. and trim
versus speed for calculated

N / 5 /G I7 I0 I9 20 Z/ If

5r.i

Fig. 9 Graphical representation of process for establishing minimum ehpen

JANUARY 1976

The data for these criteria are presented in Fig. 12. The pro-
peller selected in the example shown in Fig. 11should have a n
EAR = 0.82 to satisfy the 10 percent cavitation criterion a t
maximum speed. Since this value of EAR is greater than that
used for the propeller selection calculations, it should be re-
peated for EAR = 0.82 to be certain the best propeller has
been obtained.
Should the value of EAR exceed 0.72 to 0.75, then it is un-
likely that a stock propeller can be purchased. If this occurs,
the designer has the choice of preparing a custom propeller
design or obtaining relief from geometric constraints to permit
use of a larger-diameter propeller to reduce TC to a n accept-
able levei.
Full-scale performance analysis
Builder's acceptance trials are the true test of the craft de-
sign effort as interpreted by the designer. The detail with
Fig. 10 Effect of design speed on Bpx and
minimum ehpaHvariation with deadrise
which the builder reproduces the design detail is reflected in
overall craft performance. In order to rationally interpret trial
results i t is necessary to document the size and location of all
underwater appendages, measure the propeller pitch and di-
ameter, note the leading edge detail of the propeller, meusure
craft displacement and LCG.
In order of experience with problems related to low trial
speeds, the authors have found the No. 1 cause to be stock
propellers with blunt or thick leading edges, or both, or nomi-
nal pitch no better than f1 in. T h e second most frequent of-
fender is overweight construction relative to preliminary ac-
cepted weight estimates. (Either better weight estimates or
better weight control during construction are required to
avoid this problem.) In third place is the incorrect allowance
for drag during performance predictions. Also, craft that have
been in service for some time are often inflicted with a heavy
coat of marine growth which results in speed loss. Docu-
menting and solving craft performance problems is in itself an
interesting career not unrelated to that of a detective. (Propel-
ler vibration and local blade erosion problems d o not come
within the context of this report.)
Data acquired from most limited trials will consist of visual
inspection of underwater portions of craft, some estimate of
displacement and LCG, and speed versus rpm up to dead rack
MARINE TECHNOLOGY
 Fig. 11 Plot of calculation example for propeller selection

Table 2 Propeller selection and speed-power calculation procedure

JANUARY 1976
(and maybe fuel rate) measured in deep water. Obtaining
power measurements during trials, however, is invaluable for
propulsion system analysis, with thrust measurements being
the most sought after but least often obtained data.
A common problem experienced during trials is failure of
the engine to reach rated rpm. The obvious solution is to re-
duce the propeller pitch until the proper engine speed is a t -
tained and then accept the resultant speed. This is an example
of selecting a ~ r o p e l l e rto absorb power rather than attempt-
ing to obtain best craft performance.
I t is very ~ o s s i b l efor the propeller to be too big in terms of
t itch or diameter or both. Trying to isolate the cause, how-
ever, could lead to a best resolution as to excessive hull resis-
tance or reduced propulsion efficiency. Using the resistance
prediction methods or experimental data sources available,
the hull contribution can be established reasonably well. Trial
speed, rpm, and propeller e o m e t r y can lead to a representa-
tive full-scale shp estimate as shown in the following table:
TRIAL
DATA
D - P/D- EAR- W- LCG -
As-
sumed,
/ Compute
from
Prop.
charact-
Corn-
puted
data Fig. 6 J, eristics
and
.(~-WQ) 1 sium on Naval Hydrodynamics, Aug. 1972.
An alternative method to determine shp for diesel engines is
to measure fuel rate and obtain shp from engine characteris-
tics. By computing the estimated OPC the designer can make
comparisons with that value used for preliminary speed-power
estimates. A low value of OPC implies low propeller efficiency
or high appendage resistance. Detailed Ealcilations of a;-
Dendaze resistance can be made from the information summa-
rized in Appendix 2 to verify or eliminate the appendages
from consideration as the source of the propeller overloading.
Assuming Jq = JT, the foregoing calculations can be carried
on to T C and U0.7R. If these con~putedvalues,esceed the KT
breakdown curve in Pig. 12, the full-scale propeller is operat-
ing at lower efficiency than technically attainable. Should low
propeller efficiency be the cause of engine overloading, the
best solution is changing to a refined propeiler design rather
than just reducing pitch to absorb rated engine power a t prop-
er rpm.
Power measurements during trials of newly designed craft
would be of great interest to builders and operators. This
would ~ r o v i d ea rational basis for establishing technical
achievement and refinement of stock designs. w i t h these
data, performance analysis (propulsion problcm solving) is re-
duced to a technical exercise rather than a speculative art.
Concluding remarks
We are in n period where data obtained in the past or data
spun off from other technology programs are being applied to
craft design processes.
This effort was directed toward organizing and applying
reference material that exists for the smail-craft designer in
the area of performance prediction. Others, however, have and
will perceive different uses of these data. Ry exposing this ef-
fort for inspection, the true value will be established by tile di-
alogue t h a t follows.
Acknowledgments
This work has been carried out as part of the Combatant
Craft Improvement Program sponsored by the Naval Sea Sys-
tems Command. T h e authors would like to express their
the various members the for
supporting this project.
&7ithout the contributions of other authors, this material
could not have been Ure are indebted to each of the
authors whose material was referenced and who influenced
this approach. Miss- E. N. Hubble and Mr. G. 0. Takahashi
deserve special attention for their respective efforts of compu-
htion and drafting to produce the propeller curves in A ~
dix 4. ~ l we wish
~ ~to thank
, M ~ ~ ~ .l waller
i for~ preparing
~
the manuscript.
The preparation of this paper took a considerable amount
of time from the normal family routine. We found the pa-
tience, understanding, and support of our families to be an es-
sential element to bring this effort to fruition.
References
1 Hadler, J. B., "The Prediction of Power Performance on Plan-
ing Craft," Trans. S N A M E , Vol. 74, 1966.
2 Hadler, J. B. and Hubbie, E. N., "Prediction of Power Perfor-
mance of the Series 62 Planing Hull Forms," Trans. S N A I I ~ EVol.
1971.
3 Du Cane, P., High-speed Small Craft, John d e Graff, Inc.,
Tuckahoe, New York.
, 59,
4 Savitsky, D., Roper, J.. and Benen, L.. "Hydrodynamic Devel-
opment of a High-speed Planing Hull for Rough K7ater," 9th Sympo-
5 Savitsky, D., "Hydrodynamic Design of Planing Hulls," MA-
RINE TECIINOLOGY, Vo1. 1. No. 1. Oct. 1964.
6 Clement. E. P. and 13louni, D. L., "Resistance Tests of a Sys-
tematic Series of Planing Hull Forms," Trans. S N A M E , Vol. 71,1963.
7 Hubble, E. N., "Resistance of Hard-Chine, Stepless Planing
Craft with Systematic Variation of Hull Form, Longitudinal Center of
Gravity, and Loading." NSRDC Report 4307, .4pril 1974.
8 Holling, H. D. and Hubble, E. N., "Model Resistance Data of
Series 6.5 Hull Forms Applicable t o Hydrofoils and Planing Craft,"
NSRDC Report 4121, May 1974.
9 Iiadler, J. B., Hubble. E. N., and Holling, H. D., "Resistance
Characteristics of a Systematic Series of Planing Hull Forms-Series
65," SNAME, Chesapeake Section, May 1974.
10 Kapryan, W. J. and Boyd, G. M., .Jr., "Hydrodynamic I'ressure
Distributions Obtained During a Planing Investigation of Five Relat-
ed l'rismatic Surfaces," NACA Technical Note 3477, Sept. 1956.
11 I-Ioerner, S. F.,Fluid Dynamic Dray, published by the author.
Midland Park, N. J., 1965.
12 Gregory, D. L. and Dobay, G. F., "The Performance of High-
Speed Rudders in a Cavitating Environment," SNAh,IE Spring . h,leet-
ing, April 1973.
-
13 Mathis, P. B. and Gregory, D. L., "Propeller Slipstream Perfor-
mance of Four High-speed Rudders Under Cavitating Conditions,"
NSRDC Report 4361, May 1974.
14 Fridsma. G.. "A Svstematic Studv Of T h e Rowh-fVater Per-
formance of Planing Boats," ~ a v i d s o n ~ ~ a h o r aR'kport
t o r ~ R-1275.
Nov. 1969.
15 Fridsnra, G., ".4 Systematic Study of the Rough-Water Perfor-
mance of Planing Boats (Irregular Waves-Part II)," Dnvidson Labo-
ratory Report K-1495. M:mh 1971.
16 Blount, D. L., Stuntz, G. R., Gregory, D. L.. and Frome. M. .I.,
"Correlation of Full-Scale Trials and Model Tests for a Small Planing
Boat," Trans. R I N A . 1968.
17 Blount, D. L.. "Resistance and Propulsion Characteristics of a
Round-Bottom Boat (Parent Form of T M B Series 63)," D T Y B Re.
port 3000, March 1965.
18 Gawn, R. W. L. and Burrill, I.. C., "Effect of Cavitation On the
Performance of a Series of 16-Inch Model Propellers." Trans. I N A .
Vol. 99. 1957.
Discusser
Eugene R. Miller
MARINE TECHNOLOGY
 Fig. 12 General trend of Gawn-Burrill propeller series cavitalion phenomena

Appendix 1 Solve for s

0.0055h~'~]
CLO =
Savitsky equations (Cd2
Eauations for resistance and e h c~o m ~ u t a t i o n bv
s Savitskv for
- 0.0065fl(0.012fi
method when all forces pass thro&h CG [5] ( ~ i v e n W,
BPX.P, P, v, ACa, u):
r LCG,
[
u m = u 1-
0.0126 7'-'

X COST
TI.')".
I 11.2

(25)
Computed from given data: Compute for Re:
C" = L
- GG Re =-urn ~RP.Y (26)
U

Computed from given data:

(Schoenherr friction formulation)

LCG Compute for R H H :

[
1
cp = - = 0.75 - (22)
Br>xA 5.21(C,)Z
+ 2.391
Compute for e h p e ~ :
Solve for CLo:
CL, = CL, - 0.0065 j3 CL,,"

JANUARY 1976
 Appendix 2 Appendix 3

Appendage resistance A d d e d r e s i s t a n c e in w a v e s
Inclined cylinder, that is, shaft and strut barrel: This work was extracted in part directly from reference 1151

:
DSH = ldu2(1.1 sin3r + rCF)
with permission of the Davidson Laboratory. The following is
reproduced here so that the user of this prediction method
might have one complete reference source containing material
Skeg: to account for all items to be considered. It is essential that
reference [15] be consulted for comp!ete understanding and
P
DK = 5 (2sh-)um2c~ application of this method of accounting for added resistance
in waves.
Strut palms: Different notation was used for equivalent data descriptions
between this report and reference 1151. These differences are:
D p= 0.75 C D ~
~ h ():
p
SMALLCRAFT
where Reference [ 1 4 ] power prediction
(Fridsma) (Blount-Fox)
Cnp -- 0.65
and
;0.016Xp
d.
Nonvented rudders and struts:
D e s i g n Charts
The ultimate goal for this study is to enable designers and
Interference drag: those interested in planing craft to use the information gath-
ered herein in a practical and meaningful way. Working
charts, with appropriate correction factors, were constructed
so that the results could be immediately applicable to the pre-
diction of full-scale performance of planing hulls. Some details
Nonflush seawater strainers; of the effects of individual parameters can be gleaned from
the charts and equations; but this is discussed in the next sec-
Do = C Sou,,,'Coo tion in a mcre generalized way. In this section the reader will
2
be shown how to use these charts, and what corrections are
where applicable, as well as a number of worked examples.
T o enter the charts and determine a prediction for a given
CD, = 0:65
boat, seven quantities must be known; namely, displacement,
overall length, average beam, average deadrise, speed, smooth-
water running trim, and the significant wavc hcight of the ir-
Experimental rudder drag coefficients in a propeller slipstream regular sca. Since realistic boats do not normally have a con-
Geometric aspect ratio = 1.5 stant beam or deadrise, it is suggested that these quantities be
averaged over the aft 80 percent of the boat. I t is understood
K T / J T 2= 0.20 that the designer has recourse to smooth-watcr prediction
Propeller 0.55 D ahead of rudder stock methods [S] which will enable an estimate to be made for the
resistance, trim, and rise of the center of gravity as a function
of forward speed.

IRud er 1
section t/c 0-4.0 ! 0 = 2 . 0 10-1.5 [0=1.0
The nondimensional parameters are calculated next, such
as CA, Llb, V I d L , and H l , ~ l b .
In using the charts, the designer should be careful not to
make gross extrapolations. The charts are accurate within the
NACA
001 5
0.15 0.0015 1 0.0015 1 0.0015 0.0008 ranges of test data. A reasonable amount of extrapolation has
been built into thc charts beyond the limits of the test data,
and the results continue to be reliable. It is when parameters
go far beyond the test ranges that one must be careful. The
Parabolic 0.11 0.0417 0.0427 0.0433 0.0425 following guide should be helpful in establishing the limits of
(blunt the use of the charts.
base)

~ l a plate
f 0.04 0.0278 /
I
0.0325 0.0371 0.0433

I
'6-deg
wedge
/ /
0.11
I
0.0495 1
I
0.0495 1 0.0495 10.0487
I
Added resistance in waves (Figs.13 and 14). The chart in
.
Fig. 13 is entered with a given trim and deadrise. (RAW/

MARINE TECHNOLOGY
 .. ..
,
_. .. .' ! . . .
., . ,
.
,.
, ,.. '

Fig. 13 Maximum added resistance and speed for Cl = 0.60 and U b = 5

Fig. 14 Generalized added resistance plot for Cl = 0.60 and L / b = 5

JANUARY 1976
 :tj,
wb3),,, and ( V I d L ) * , , , are read off for the three sea states. Added resistance corrections
An interpolation for the correct sea state can be made imme-
diately, or the added resistance can be obtained as a function qua./
of wave height. For a given V / d L or a series of speeds the
ratio VIV*,,, is calculated, and R A W I R A ~ , ,is, obtained from IV/,/L
- E tion I
Fig. 14. The added resistance is found by multiplying the re-
sistance ratio of Fig. 14 by the RAW/wb3),,, obtained from
Fig. 13. The result, however, is true for a CA = 0.6 and
Llb = 5, and must be corrected by means of the following
formulas: ,
. .
..
i i (nRaA~Iwb~)charts
( R ~ ~ / w b ~ )= ~
X E ( C , Llb, V I d L , H,/3/b)

. . - . -, For the particular values of Ca and Llb, calculate E and

(VIdL),,,, or VIV- is'associated with the speed at which plot as a function of V I d L . Read off E a t the V / d L of inter-
(RAw)~.. OCCUTS. .. est to correct the added resistance value.

. .
. . . . .
. ... .

.
... , - - ._-_:-. _-ri
.,., . .. .
. - - i.
i:. .
--- ..;....,.-. -. * .- . .-2: 2.. - . -. Appendix 4 .. i
. .. .. . - .:.- .- .
. . .. .
I.
"

. . . .-- - ~.
'

.
. . 2 '
. *.'
. .
. , . . .,_
. _ , -
, , _ - ..
. .I
.. . . .I . .
-.
.! .....
.

- . _.?..L. "L
I :

+
..
. ...;.. . _ :
. . . . : . . Gawn-Burrill propeller characteristics, - . . '

Fig. 15

(Appendix 4 charts, Figs. 15-31, continue through page 40. Appendix 5 charts, Figs. 3 2 4 0 , begin on page 41.)

32 MARINE TECHNOLOGY
. . Fig. 16 :,-
... .., ,
<.
. . . . _.. .

- .
 Kr/GZ .
Fig. 18

0d

07

0 b

7.
0.
I

04

03 2 0

-
<
.7

10

.6

0 0I 0 2 OI 0 4 05 0 6 0 0.1 02 03 0s
.-
O* 0 4 0 7

Xr/ 4'

Fig. 19 , .
\
JANUARY 1976 ' *.:
 ,-
Flg- 23 \

MARINE TECHNOLOGY
JANUARY 1976
 \

MARINE TECHNOLOGY
 Kr/.TZ
Fig. 28

JANUARY 1976 ,- t
MARINE TECHNOLOGY
 Appendix 5 . . . .. .

Conditions for minimum bare-huii ehp in smooth water computed from

simplified Savitsky method as modified by equation (1)
Calculations for zero correlation allowance, 5g0P
seawater

(Appendix 5 charts, Figs. 32-40, continue through page 45.)

JANUARY 1976 . .
MARINE TECHNOLOG
Fig. 35
MARINE TECHNOLOGY
JANUARY 1976 &'"

View publication stats