Marine Technology, Vol. 13, No. 1, Jan. 1976, pp.

14-45

Small-Craft Power Prediction

Donald L. Blount ~ and David L. Fox ~

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 c:avita-
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
THE SPEED-POWER RELATIONSHIP o f a craft is of prime method used within the small-craft technical community has
interest to all parties from the design agent to the owner/oper- 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 cen-
fuel, directly related to horsepower. Many technical papers on ter of gravity are required geometric data. The Savitsky meth-
small-craft design (with references [1], [2], and [3] 2 being no- od is based on prismatic hull form, tlhat 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 [6-8], used a statistical approach !m reference [9] as one
conditions, appendage drag, and 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 predictiw~ 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 tying" 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. The 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. The 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 an 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
1Naval Ship Engineering Center, Norfolk Division, Combatant of the transom. The longitudinal dynamic pressures which
Craft Engineering Department, Nnrff)lk, Virginia.
Numbers in brackets designate References at end of Paper. were measured and reported in reference [10] show this distri-
Presented at the February 14, 1975 meeting of the Gulf Section bution. In practice, the mean wetted length of a commercial or
West uf THE SOCIETY OF NAVAL ARCHITECTS AND MARINE EN(;I- military craft is seldom less than one half the chine length. In
NEERS.
The views expressed herein are the personal opinions of the authors effect, the latter statement, and the fact that the high-speed
and do not necessarily reflect the official views of the Department of dynamic center of pressure approaches :Y~of the mean wetted
Defense. length forward of the transom, virtually eliminates the after

14 MARINE T E C H N O L O G Y
 I I I 1 :IIII
EFFE(
kll ! I~,,rl S,x /////// .

,~e~l D~J,~ Fig. 1 Effect of chine beam

Tes~ /2 - ~l~e l <~ { ~ / on resistance prediction
:5 e r l ~ l 5 (02

1
/
/

+ /+ ~/
-- Moael 4,~(DC,, LP/BPx : ~,.o(o --

/ m

i-

÷
÷
|
<:) I111 I I I I /o I I I /~" I I I I -/ol I 1 I z
5

• I 1 J I . I I I 1 I I I I

+ E~perll ,en4-o.I b=.%,.

~1¢1 3S9' -I 4- +
PT- 8 Fig. 2 Effect of deadrise angle
=o.~ ///-,___~.~..~. onres,stanoepred,ct,o0

I 0 ~ N

-,o: ..¢ ,. :4
/
0 I I I I ~ I 1 I I
0 I0 Zo 30 ~o ~0 ~0 ?0 80 clO I~0
~4,,-¢~n~ oF C M , , ~ Len,)~:6--

o
0 /o ,'~; 2o Z~"

JANUARY 1976 15
portion of the hull as the location of the effective deadrise the mixing of dimensionless coefficients to 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. The maximum chine beam, however, was The primary goal which led to the development of equation
identified as the representative value for best prediction at (1) was to improve hump-speed resistance prediction for hard-
high speeds. The "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
of pressure. designs. To initiate interest in the proposed method, Fig. 5 is
Nonconstant afterbody deadrise (warp or twist) has been offered to show a comparison of model test data [not used for
considered by some to result in a higher resistance when com- the development of equation (1)] and the modified prediction
pared with a constant-deadrise hull. This concept may not be method reported herein. The speed-resistance prediction is re-
adequately supported by experimental data when compari- spectable and slightly conservative. Nol~e t h a t the selection of
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 (Ap/V 2/a in the range of 6.0 to 6.5) and the com-
of pressure. 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. The simplified Sav-
Thus, warping is considered to 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 effective beam 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 if desired after builder's trials. can haunt anyone attempting performance predictions. The
The establishment of the "effective" beam as the m a x i m u m 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 of an "en- ported by Savitsky and actually extend the usefulness to lower
gineering" factor that can be used to modify the existing Sav- speeds. The limitations for application of this prediction
itsky prediction method. The modifying factor reported here method that alter those reported in reference [5] are:
was established in a rather simple manner. Resistance predic-
Fv >- 1.0
tions were made for a number of hull designs for which model
test data existed. For each of these conditions, the ratio of LCG
-- < 0.46
model test data to predicted resistance was computed and an- Lp
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 of appendages may
mentioned previously, however, the hump-speed resistance well result in significant performance differences between two
was underpredicted, resulting in a correction ratio generally apparently equivalent craft. Thus, this subject needs the at-
greater than one. The collective results of obtaining these data tention that has been reported by Hadler [1], which describes
for various hull forms have been reduced to an analytical form the calculation of drag for skegs, propeller shaft, strut boss,
through a curve fitting process. The resulting expression is rudders, struts, struts palms, and appendage interference
M = 0.98 + 2 / L C G ~ 1.45 e -~(Fr-°'sS) drag. These equations, in part, are repeated in Appendix 2 for
\ Bpx / convenience.
In addition to these appendages, other items such as seawa-
/ L C G ' ] eL:~(,~.v_osT,) (1) ter strainers and depth sounder transducers which extend be-
- 3 \Bpx/ yond the hull should be taken into account when determining
appendage drag. Hoerner [11] notes that drag coefficients in
This expression was not developed with a theoretical model as the range of 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 of fairing. A value of CD0 = 0.65 is suggested for
with hydrodynamic logic. appendages of this type extending more than 20 percent of the
The M factor, from equation (1), was established so t h a t it turbulent boundary-layer thickness fl'om 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: The Savitsky equa- truding strainers. Numerically this would account for 90 shp
tions are given in Appendix 1 for convenience.) Figure 3 repre- for each square foot of frontal area of strainers on a 20-knot
senting equation (1) and Fig. 4 for F v - s p e e d relationship will
craft operating with 0.5 propulsive coefficient.
reduce the effort required to apply this modifying factor dur- Data reported recently [12, 13] 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 of several dimen- ler slip stream for a range of craft speeds approaching 40
sionless coefficient systems, that is, F v and C~,, as speed coef- knots. These references give results for rudders having airfoil,
ficients: parabolic, flat plate, and wedge sections. With the availability
U of these data, proper allowance of strainers, and the data re-
Fr v~l/:~ (2) ported by Hadler, a very detailed ~ppendage drag allowance
U
can be made for the final design of t,~} hard-chine craft.
c,. - (a) While these appendage drag calc~'! tions are laborious, they
V~gB~,x are not difficult and are essential wLen considering the condi-
This mixing resulted from practical rather than technical rea- tions for which the final propeller is selected. These detail ap-
sons. Retaining the existing gavitsky prediction method pendage drag calculations, however, are not completely justi-
(which uses Cv) was a guiding philosophy, and the majority of fled for preliminary design studies where various craft sizes
model test data available to the authors (used Fv) suggested and arrangements are being considered. For such preliminary

16 MARINE TECHNOLOGY
 Nomenclature
AE e x p a n d e d a r e a of p r o p e l l e r b l a d e s
= KT = thrust coefficient v = v e l o c i t y of b o a t (fps)
(ft 2) T vo.vn 2 = s q u a r e of r e s u l t a n t v e l o c i t y of
= EAR(Ao) - p n2D 4 w a t e r a t 0.7 r a d i u s of p r o p e l l e r
Ao = d i s k a r e a of p r o p e l l e r (ft 2) KQ = t o m u e c o e f f i c i e n t (fps) 2
= 7rD2/4 Q
=(: JT2+4'84) U2
A p = p r o j e c t e d a r e a of p r o p e l l e r b l a d e s - p n2D 5
JT" 2
(ft 2) w = w e i g h t d e n s i t y of w a t e r ( l b / f t a)
= AF.(1.067 -- 0.229 P / D ) L C G = l o n g i t u d i n a l c e n t e r of g r a v i t y
m e a s u r e d from t r a n s o m (ft) W = d i s p l a c e m e n t (lb)
Bpx = maximum chine beam excluding L O A = l e n g t h o v e r a l l (ft) X p = d i s t a n c e from s t a g n a t i o n line to
e x t e r n a l s p r a y rail (f~) Lp = p r o j e c t e d c h i n e l e n g t h (ft) a p p e n d a g e (ft)
BT = t r a n s o m c h i n e b e a m (it) Y = w i d t h of s t r u t p a l m (ft)
l = w e t l e n g t h of s h a f t or s t r u t b a r r e l
(1 - t) = t h r u s t d e d u c t i o n f a c t o r = R T /
Coo =d r a g c o e f f i c i e n t for s e a w a t e r (ft)
TTOTAI,
strainers
M = m u l t i p l y i n g f a c t o r [ e q u a t i o n (1)] (1 - 147o)= t o r q u e w a k e f a c t o r = J(~/JA
C I ) P = d r a g c o e f f i c i e n t for s t r u t p a l m
n = p r o p e l l e r r o t a t i o n a l speed, rps (1 -- WT) = thrust wake factor = JT/JA
C D R = d r a g c o e f f i c i e n t for r u d d e r
CF = friction drag coefficient = N/60 = d e a d r i s e a n g l e (deg)
= a n g l e of s h a f t r e l a t i v e to b u t t o c k
C L~ = d e a d r i s e s u r f a c e l i l t c o e f f i c i e n t
CLO = zero d e a d r i s e lift c o e f f i c i e n t (deg)
N = propeller rotational speed, rpm p = m a s s d e n s i t y of w a t e r ( l b - s e c 2 /
= d i s t a n c e of c e n t e r of p r e s s u r e (hy-
_ V(1
- WT) (101.3) ft 4 )
d r o d y n a m i c force) m e a s u r e d JT' D = 1.9905 for 59°F s a l t w a t e r
a l o n g keel f o r w a r d of t r a n s o m NpR = n u m b e r of p r o p e l l e r s
u = k i n e m a t i c v i s c o s i t y of w a t e r (ft2/
Cc = s p e e d c o e f f i c i e n t
U see)
=
OPC = overall propulsive coefficient =
~ gBpx = 1.2817 × 10 -5 for 59 ° F s a l t w a t e r
ehpml/shp
X = mean wetted length-beam ratio
C.x = load c o e f f i c i e n t P = p r o p e l l e r p i t c h (ft)
rb~ = a p p e n d a g e d r a g f a c t o r
= W / ( w B v x a) P/D = pitch ratio 1
PA = a t m o s p h e r i c p r e s s u r e ( l b / f t 2) = 0.005 F v ~ + 1.05
D= p r o p e l l e r d i a m e t e r (ft) 2116 ( l b / f t 2) for 14.7 psi
D# = s k e g d r a g (lb) 770 = p r o p e l l e r o p e n - w a t e r e f f i c i e n c y
PH = s t a t i c w a t e r p r e s s u r e ( l b / f t 2) =
Do = d r a g of s e a w a t e r s t r a i n e r s (lb) KT- J..
pgh
Dp = d r a g of s t r u t p a l m (lb) P~. = v a p o r p r e s s u r e of w a t e r ( l b / f t 2)
DI~ = d r a g of n o n v e n t e d r u d d e r (lb) n~) = p r o p u l s i v e coefficient
D s = d r a g of n o n v e n t e d s t r u t s (lb) Q = p r o p e l l e r t o r q u e (lb-ft)
ehp
D s H = d r a g of i n c l i n e d s h a f t or s t r u t bar- = s h p (5252) - - ~O?'IH~I,;
- shp
rel (lb) N
d = d i a m e t e r of s h a f t or s t r u t b a r r e l ~. = hull efficiency
RA = a d d e d r e s i s t a n c e in w a v e s (0 for we = r e l a t i v e r o t a t i v e e f f i c i e n c y
(f~)
c a l m w a t e r ) (lb) V = v o l u m e of d i s p l a c e m e n t (ft a)
e = 2.71828
R,we = a p p e n d a g e r e s i s t a n c e (lb)
E A R = e x p a n d e d a r e a r a t i o = A~,:/Ao R ~ I = b a r e h u l l r e s i s t a n c e (lb) 2, 12240)
e h p = t o t a l e f f e c t i v e h o r s e p o w e r (hp) Re = Reynolds number pg
R-r V RT = t o t a l r e s i s t a n c e (lb) = Rmt + A = d i s p l a c e m e n t (long t o n s ) = T /
325.9 R.wp + Ra 35
ehp,~l, = effective h o r s e p o w e r , b a r e h u l l rpm = propeller rotational speed = N = b o u n d a r y - l a y e r t h i c k n e s s fit)
R,~H V s h p = s h a f t h o r s e p o w e r (hp) ACA = correlation allowance
325.9 = 27rQN _ e h p AD = i n t e r f e r e n c e d r a g (lb)
33,000 r/l) = c a v i t a t i o n n u m b e r b a s e d on b o a t
volume Froude number
U S = t r a n s v e r s e p r o j e c t e d a r e a of' rud- velocity
\ g~-I a der or s t r u t (ft 2) Pa a- p ~ _ p,
g = a c c e l e r a t i o n d u e to g r a v i t y ( f t / So = f r o n t a l p r o j e c t e d a r e a of s e a w a t e r (1/2) p U 2
s e c 2) i n l e t s (ft 2)
~o.vH = c a v i t a t i o n n u m b e r b a s e d on re-
= 32.15 f't/sec 2 S~- = t r a n s v e r s e p r o j e c t e d a r e a o f s k e g
s u l t a n t w a t e r v e l o c i t y a t 0.7
(ft 2)
r a d i u s of p r o p e l l e r s
Hi/3 = s i g n i f i c a n t w a v e h e i g h t (R)
h = d e p t h of p r o p e l l e r ¢ below w a t e r T = t h r u s t of e a c h p r o p e l l e r (lb)
Ry,
s u r f a c e a t r e s t (it) = ~ -Lr2 + 4.64
(1 - t ) N:,f~
h p = s t r u t p a l m t h i c k n e s s (ft)
T~'()'~-aL = t o t a l c r a f t t h r u s t (lb) rc = t h r u s t load coefficient
J a = a p p a r e n t a d v a n c e coefficient = 7'
=
v/nD - (1 - t)
(~2) p At, vo.v/e ~
J T = t h r u s t a d v a n c e coefficient t = s t r u t t h i c k n e s s fit)
r = t r i m a n g l e r e l a t i v e to m e a n b u t -
t i c = t h i c k n e s s to c h o r d for r u d d e r s or
c' (1 - W-r) t o c k (deg)
struts
nD
shp_ K~pD 2
Jo = t o r q u e a d v a n c e coefficient V = v e l o c i t y of b o a t ( k n o t s ) Va j ~ a (0.05493) (1 - W~) a
v (1 - Wc~) v , , = m e a n v e l o c i t y over p l a n i n g sur-
nD face (fps) 1 k n o t = 1.6878 fps

JANUARY 1976 17
studies the following approximation for appendage drag factor This expression {s slightly more conservative than the append-
has proven to be useful: age factor data reported in reference [2]. Numerical values for
1 equation (4) are given in the following table:
~A = (4)
0.005 Fv 2 + 1.05 FAIl.0 1.5 I .o p2.5 p3.0 I 14.0 p4. I
This equation is based on a collection of data from twin-screw r~A 0.948 0.942 0.934 0.925 0.913 0.900 0.885 0.869 0.851
hard-chine model tests made with and without appendages.
The magnitude of appendage resistance is then represented
by

RAPp = (RBH) ~A- 1 (5)

Added resistance in waves

I
Craft performance in a sea is best predicted by model tests
conducted in a representative random ,;ea 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 of"' construction project,
Fridsma [14, 15] offers an excellent source of rough-water per-
formance technology for hard-chine craft presented in a for-
I I mat for use by designers.
The calculation procedure for added resistance in waves
from reference [15] is reproduced in Appendix 3 of this report.

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

I I I I I
zo 2.o 3.0 4.o
• Fig. 3 Variation of modifying factor with volume Froude number
- Kv- and L C G / BPx

/ - to~ooo
/
//
i:
/-
/
5 S / - 2o~ooo
- 3 o, ooo
40,00o
- 5o~ ooo

-/00~OOD Fig.4 Variation of volume

Froude number with speed
-20@000
and displacement
-300,000
-4OO, o a o
W-La

, j

o io 2o 30 ~o
SPEED -I~7-

18 MARINE TECHNOLOGY
¢.
).
z
E
=
~lu~l- Po/~,°oRTIOrJ5

~/~V ITStrY l~Gr#Eb {t~LL F)~CES

ZSx E~,,~r,o,s /
O I0 ~ Jo 4zO SO BB ~D 80 qD 1oo
E.ttlMI;=- L E / J # - r I ~ -~"~aLp

y,

,/
13 :i:+/<:>. Z ,/

,?
• ,~ ~/w ~', = ~ . ~ 9

W '-~ 2 3. o L ~ W'=£ l,, ~ . ~ W=_~C./LB

F, F~
i
i

Cv ; c. z } ; 4
i i
i J i l I I l
; ,0 ,j
9 ~ /o /i
V-k'T V - t'rT Y - HT

Fig. 5 Comparison of predicted resistance with model test data

 ~ uF,e EIR ~,NO

oF

~5 /,0
I

0.?
~ A ~ VALU~
OF
E #. P E R IIv~-NT~J,_
/./,- ....

0.?

L~
" "J 4
1
/.0

0.?

/.o
. . . . I . . . .

III
I,!

l
~ o. c] ,

0.8

J I .... II I
I
. . . . I
I
I
I
, /
-I
I.O /.5 ~.a ,~.E 3.0 ~ ¢--.o
,% D S/DF /'1%5
Fig. 6 Twin-screw propulsive data

functions that describe this interrelation and, unfortunately, when towed in the shaft line) to total shaft line thrust (when
this area of hard-chine technology has the least published in- propelled at full-scale self-propulsion point). Thus, this modi-
formation. fied definition of (1 - t) includes the effects of the classical
Hadler and Hubble [2] presented a very complete synthesis definition as well as that for the angle difference between the
of the planing craft propulsion problem for single, twin, and resistance and thrust vectors, the trimming effects, and result-
quadruple-screw configurations. This work reports computed ing hull resistance change, due to the propeller pressure field
values of (1 - W) and (1 - t) for various shaft angles and acting on the hull, and similar trimming effects for propeller
speeds. Reference [16] reports experimental propulsive data lift resulting from operation in inclined flow.
obtained from full-scale trials of a twin-screw craft. In addi-
tion to these sources, other model and full-scale experimental
Propeller characteristics
data for twin-screw craft have been collected and found to
consistently fall within reasonable bounds with some variation Since most working craft operate at fairly high speed and
with speed. The range of shaft angles for these craft was from propeller loading, their propellers more than likely operate
10 deg to 16 deg measured from the buttocks and may be par- with some degree of cavitation. Cavitation adds a new dimen-
tially responsible for the bandwidth of data. These data col- sion to propeller characteristics. Operationally, this variable is
lected for twin-screw craft are reported in Fig. 6 with the most often reflected in a nonlinear speed-rpm relationship
mean values and observed variations. Limited propulsive data near top speed. It is generally detected as a "gravel-passing-
for a single-screw small craft with a skeg have been reported in through-the-propeller" sound which may be heard in the la-
reference [17]. zarette above the propellers, and as erosion of propeller blade
One significant difference in definition used in this paper material.
must be clearly understood so that the thrust deduction factor Relative to the predictive process, cavitation must be ac-
(1 - t) reported in Fig. 6 is properly applied. Using (1 - t) in counted for as a change of propeller characteristics as reported
the classical sense, [o describe a resistance augmentation in reference [18] and seen in Fig. 7. Systematic variations for
where the propeller pressure field changes hull flow patterns several types of propellers have been reported giving the ef-
for hard-chine craft performance prediction, requires iterative fects of cavitation on characteristics. Of these sources, Gawn-
computations to resolve equilibrium conditions of the various Burrill [18] represents fiat-face propeller sections similar to
forces and morhents of the hull, appendage, and propulsion most commercial propellers made for small craft. A compari-
systems. The thrust deduction factor (1 - t) reported here shn of cavitation data for a four-bladed commercial propeller
was experimentally obt~iined and computed as the ratio of ap- with the equivalent blade area for a three-bladed Gawn-Bur-
pendaged resistance (horizontal component of resistance h)rce rill propeller was made in reference [16]. To quote this refer-

20 MARINE TECHNOLOGY
 i

--- ~ I ~ O S P HERIC.

~o/'>
I.~I % .Zo

,/0

o.F
o

.5 .4 .7 ./~ .7 .8 .9 lO II zZ I~ 1.4 /.8 /.~ Z..o Z./ Z.F

P/D: 1.2

/.O

.9
.8
.7
~o ~ P ~E R,IC
.(o

5
,t.°-/~ %
.4
o
3
I.~ ~ .-----~
2

/
X",,
~ E D
.Z .3 .4 -F .(~ .7 .g r~ ZO Z/ [' Z Z~ z4 /~ /.(,, /.7 I.,~ t9 2.0 ~1 zz

Fig. 7 Effectof cavitationon propellercharacteristics

ence, "A comparison of these two sets of d a t a indicates t h a t for by the long-term savings in preparing performance predic-
the Gawn-Burrill data can be used to make engineering esti- tions and optimizing propulsion systems.
mations of this type of commercial propeller performance
when operating in a cavitating condition." This, in fact, has Power prediction method
been consistent with other experiences where speed, power,
and rpm were measured on new craft, with the important ex- The material presented up to this point have noted d a t a
ception that Gawn-Burrill data are very optimistic where sources and logic leading to assumptions necessary to estab-
propeller sections were thick and the leading edge was blunt lish the data base for making a power prediction for craft.
with a poor-quality finish. Now is the time to put it all together.
The Gawn-Burrill propeller characteristics are in the form It is important to keep one thought in mind when working
of KT, K~¢, ~/0,versus JT for various pitch ratios, blade area ra- with propellers. Propellers produce thrust. While engine
tios, and cavitation numbers (a). This familiar format, how- power is converted to thrust horsepower by the propeller, se-
ever, can be replaced with another which reduces the effort re- lecting a propeller to absorb power at a particular rpm and
quired to optimize the propeller, select the reduction ratio, speed does not necessarily yield the m a x i m u m speed poten-
and make the speed-power-rpm predictions. This format is tial of a craft. The following procedure describes the method
that of 70 and JT versus K T / J T 2 for various P/D, EAR, and a. to effect a speed-power prediction, beginning with speed resis-
The entire Gawn-Burrill propeller series has been redone in tance and then establishing the thrust requirements.
this format and is presented in Appendix 4. The effort re- The development of K T / J T 2 as the common variable be-
quired to recompute and redraw these curves is compensated tween hull thrust requirements and the propeller characteris-

JANUARY 1976 21
tics has the distinct advantag e of eliminating propeller rpm RBHV
from the early prediction calculations. ehpBH -- (14)
325.9
For each propeller
is used to compute bare hull or overall propulsive coefficient
T v(1 - W7) as follows:
KT- and J7 -
pn2D 4 nD
OPC -- ehpBH (15)
Therefore shp
T The difference between equations (10) and (15) for smooth-
KT/JT 2 (6)
pD2v2(1 - WT)2 water conditions (zero sea state) is mostly a result of the ap-
For the hull pendage drag factor (qn) with minor effect due to the tenden-
cy of propeller efficiency to reduce with increasing thrust
RT loading. This latter factor becomes very important as the pro-
TTOTAL -- - -
(I - t ) peller begins to cavitate. Thus, for moderate speeds and thrust
Assuming that each propeller produces equal thrust for a mul- loading in smooth water
tiscrew craft, the thrust required by each propeller would be OPC
,D ~ - - (16)
RT qA
T = (7)
(1 - - t)NpR The speed-power calculation procedure, applying the ap-
Equating the thrust requirements t h a t each propeller must proach briefly discussed, is best demonstrated by following
produce to t h a t required to satisfy the hull resistance leads to through a data calculation form. The sample form with col-
umn-by-column calculation procedures as given in Table 1
KT/JT2 _ RT (8) will show, in practice, the interrelationships of hull resistance,
pD2v2(1 - W7)2(1 - t)(NpR) propulsive data, and propeller characteristics. The numerical
Once the number of propellers has been established for a craft example depicts a 50-it craft operating in rough water, and is
design, the only significant variable t h a t can influence K T / J T '2 provided with the results presented in Fig. 8.
is the propeller diameter D. This relationship ]equation (8)] is It is important to note t h a t engine characteristics play no
the basis for the format change in propeller characteristics as part in the speed-power requirements (other than impact of
presented in Appendix 4. This format can be used for any type machinery and fuel weight on total displacement) once hull
of propeller such as the Troost series, Newton-Rader series, or loading, size, appendages, and propeller geometry are fixed.
supercavitating CRP series. An engine and reduction ratio must be, selected with charac-
Once the thrust loading (KT/JT 2) has been established, the teristics compatible with predicted speed-power-propeller
equilibrium condition between hull requirements and propel- rpm needs for fixed-pitch propellers since the propeller con-
ler capability leads, in general, to a unique value of open-water trols the engine power output at a given rpm up to the maxi-
propeller efficiency (~0) and advance coefficient (JT) for that mum power capability of the engine.
craft speed (and corresponding cavitation number ~):
Applications
PA + PH -- P,
- (9)
(ll~)pv2 Any rational power prediction method has many uses be-
yond t h a t of just determining the speed-power-rpm relation-
The appendaged propulsive coefficient is computed as
ship for specific hull and propeller combinations. Ingenuous
,D = nO,H,R (10) designers find analysis of full-scale craft performance relative
to predictive techniques often leads to improved performance.
where Additional uses of this speed-power synthesis are discussed in
(l-t) the following paragraphs, and it is hoped t h a t these will stim-
ulate other applications.
qH -- (1 -- WT)
The total shaft horsepower (shp) is computed from total ehp: Hull proportions for smooth-water minimum ehp
RTV Whenever new requirements arise for craft operations it
ehp - (11)
325.9 may not be unusual for a new-size supply craft, crew boat, or
by the following equation patrol craft to be developed around existing engines to satisfy
these requirements. The best economic resolution of craft size
ehp relative to requirements (such as payh)ad, speed, range, sea-
shp - (12) keeping, maneuverability, and crew size) should lead to a de-
r/D
sign study to establish the technical and financial impact of
The corresponding value of J v defines the propeller rpm each requirement.
(N) as In tlhe context of design studies, the modified Savitsky pre-
V ( 1 - WT) diction method, discussed here under the topic of hull resis-
N = (101.3) (13) tance, offers a reasonable means to establish craft proportions
JTD for minimum bare-hull ehp in smooth water. As stated pre-
Most designers of small craft are familiar with bare-hull viously, displacement, chine beam, deaclrise, and longitudinal
propulsive coefficient or the term overall propulsive coeffi- center of gravity are the significant factors affecting speed-
cient (OPC). The magnitude of 0.5 for OPC has been used for power when all forces are assumed to pass through the center
years for preliminary power estimates. For current design of gravity. Considering minimum smooth-water ehpBH to be
practice a value of OPC = 0.55 is readily attainable for twin- the desired goal, an iterative series of calculations was made
screw craft. This is mentioned to emphasize that the propul- for a wide range of these significant hull factors for speeds
sive coefficient (~I~), in equation (10), and OPC are not the from 15 to 45 knots and for displacements from 10,000 to
same. Bare-hull ehp 400,000 lb. Also, these calculations were made for 59°F seawa-

22 MARINE TECHNOLOGY
 ~r and zero correlation allowance. The iteration was effected propeller thrust. Equation (8) defines the thrust-speed-pro-
by making incremental increases in chine beam until mini- peller diameter relation as required for equilibrium condi-
m u m ehpBn was obtained while LCG/Bpx, deadrise, displace- tions, and the speed-power calculation form should be fol-
ment, and speed were held constant. Thus, both LCG and B p x lowed. First, assume three or more values for propeller diame-
increased at a constant rate during the search for m i n i m u m ter, not exceeding geometric constraints, and assume three
ehpBH. values of cavitation numbers corresponding to speeds above
This optimization process is illustrated graphically in Fig. 9 and below the design speed. Perform the calculations from
for one condition of displacement, deadrise, and speed. The Column 1 to Column 11 according to the procedure described
results of these calculations are presented in Appendix 5 as in Table 1 for each combination of speed and diameter. Rec-
contours of L C G / B p x and displacement (W) relating mini- ord in Column 20 the propeller diameter used in each line of
m u m ehpBH and maximum chine beam (Bpx). Each figure of the calculations.
Appendix 5 is for a constant speed (assumed design speed) Based on previous experience a designer will usually have
and gives results for deadrise angles of 10 deg, 16 deg, and 22 an estimate of the expanded area ratio of propellers on similar
deg. craft. If so, the closest value of E A R available in the Gawn-
These conditions for m i n i m u m ehpBH in smooth water per- Burrill series (Appendix 4) should be used with the propeller
mit interesting speculation it' one does not introduce extrane- characteristics for the remaining calculations. (Some guides
ous thoughts. (The authors are well aware that other factors, for approximate values of EAR are as follows: Three-bladed
such as constructed weight, seakeeping, payload, cost, longitu- conventional stock propellers, use EA[~ = 0.51; three-
dinal and traverse stability, affect craft proportions. This ap- bladed wide-blade stock propellers, use EAR = 0.665; four-
plication (Appendix 5), however, is limited to smooth-water bladed conventional stock propellers, use EAR = 0.665).
speed-power.) Most designers know, and these data show, that For each line, use the values of K T / J T 2 and a from Columns
"real" hard-chine craft are too heavy relative to their size. 10 and 11 to enter the appropriate propeller characteristics
Since the ratio of LCG forward of transom to length overall curves in Appendix 4, and locate the maximum value of effi-
(LCG/LOA) is usually in the range of 0.37 to 0.40, it might ciency (~o) for that thrust loading. Record the maximum ~0
take a zero payload condition for a craft to operate at a hydro- and corresponding (JT) and (P/D) in Columns 12, 13, and 21
dynamic condition for m i n i m u m power. (Example: At 30 respectively. The calculation form is then completed through
knots, ~ = 16 deg, and a displacement of 100,000 lb, an overall Column 18. Compute pitch and record in Column 23.
craft length of 90 to 95 ft would result in ehpBn of 1000 on a These data are plotted as shp, rpm, and pitch versus speed
craft with 16-it chine beam.) Thus, a 90 to 95 ft craft could at- fbr curves of constant propeller diameter. Construct a hori-
tain 30 knots with approximately 1820 shp (OPC = 0.55) at a zontal line at the installed power level that intersects the pre-
displacement of 100,000 lb. But, could a craft of these propor- dicted speed-power curves. Construct vertical lines passing
tions and power be constructed with adequate allowance for through each speed-power intersection point up to the speed-
fuel and useful payload? rpm and speed-pitch curves for the corresponding propeller
It is interesting to note that for speeds of 30 knots and diameter. These intersecting points are then plotted on a base
above, designers can relegate chine beam (Bpx) to a position of propeller diameter, that is, (i) speed versus diameter at de-
of minor consideration relative to powering requirements (see sign power; (ii) rpm versus diameter at predicted speed for de-
Appendix 5). Thus B p x can be selected for other important sign power; and (iii) pitch versus diameter at predicted speed
reasons such as seakeeping, internal volume, deck area, or for design power. This process is illustrated in Fig. 11 with in-
transverse stability as discussed in reference [4]. tersection points identified in both graphs. The ratio of pro-
Many tradeoff relationships can be extracted from Appen- peller rpm to engine rpm yields the desired reduction ratio.
dix 5. Figure 10 shows the effect of design speed on the selec- Slight adjustments in propeller pitch are usually required to
tion of chine beam for m i n i m u m ehpBu in smooth water. Like- match stock gear ratios. A numerical example of this propeller
wise, other tradeoff relationships, such as deadrise effects on selection procedure is presented in Table 2 and Fig. 11,
ehpBH as shown in Fig. 10, may be extracted as user needs While this procedure establishes the best propeller diame-
arise. ter and pitch for the assumed EAR, it does not establish that
the blade area is adequate relative to cavitation effects other
than from a performance point of view. Important factors af-
Selecting best propeller and reduction ratio fecting both the hull structural design in the vicinity of the
The "best propeller" for a craft is that which satisfies the propeller and the blade cavitation damage must be consid-
ered. Blade rate-induced hull pressures on the order of 4 to 5
craft thrust requirements within geometric, financial, and
psi can be generated by a badly cavitating propeller, and can
power limitations. If there were no design constraints, an "op-
timum propeller" could be designed for maximum efficiency. fatigue (crack} hull plating after short periods of operation.
Likewise, these blade cavities can be destructive to the propel-
With this slight distinction of terminology, optimum propeller
ler, eroding blade material to the point of requiring frequent
and best propeller are not considered to be equivalent and the
term "best propeller" will be used here. propeller replacement.
These effects can be minimized by carefully selecting E A R
The geometric constraints to be considered may well pre-
such that Tc (a thrust loading coefficiency related to pressure)
clude the selection of an operationally suitable propeller.
Thus, it is important to establish the maximum propeller di- does not exceed the 10 percent back cavitation relationship
defined by Gawn-Burrill [18]. Thus, if
mensions allowable for the shaft angle, tip clearance, and
draft limitations. Most craft have shaft angles in the range of Tc -< 0.494(~0.vt~)°ss (17)
10 to 16 deg measured relative to buttocks, and propeller tip
clearance of 15 to 25 percent of diameter. Smallest shaft an- (an approximation of the Gawn-Burrill 10 percent back cavi-
gles are generally employed on craft with highest design tation criterion), one can be confident that the propeller has
speeds, and tip clearances are controlled to a large extent by adequate blade area. Tc and aovH take into account the resul-
propeller-induced vibration, which is often traced to extensive tant of both rotational and axial velocities and are computed
cavitation. as follows:
The key to selecting a best propeller to satisfy the craft pro-
pulsion needs rests with equating required craft thrust with (text continued on page 26)

JANUARY 1976 23
 Table 1 Propeller selection and speed-power calculation procedure

CI~.~FT ~-O''v/PC Day&- 1"14"7~ C.QZCUZ.,OT.~O By,, ~,.w.

,O, spZ.oc~:.M~:/,J7- (Ca) ?ofooo LCG(f7-) 18.7"5"' ~, ( f ; r ) 14.0' Frpt;e;) I(#"
/. q~05 ~ 1.2617 ~ I0 "y" &C~¢ 0 S~'.~ 5 r a r e Z ,~('~S/FT a) ~ D~PTH~ o F & o P E d - £ / ~ ( F T) Z. ~ 3 '

P~op,-='z.Z-E/¢ Par~. Z:~.V.) Z7"= p(FT-/'~Z.Z5' ~(~J.)49,Z' P(m') 4 1 ' P/D /,BZ EATI~,o.~(~" 1~.6LRDE" E 3 P/o. StCaF7"~ , 3
/ ~- 3 4" ~ (o 7 ,~ 9 I0 /I /Z I~ /4 /.~ /(~ /7 /,~ /c~ Zo Z/ 2Z Z3 24 Z% Z.G

!4
f

!7
?
/o
~aPP ~ ,~r FV / - t~ /-wr 7"/~: ¢r/ff~,= =,,,,-, 72o 3; r/=. EH P 5N/c' RPM Ckr 7~c,¢t E H ~ OPt

iu 7¢
i

CTmO~ Z5
JlZ 10. o Z287 ~zs S43 Z75S Ja98 .~ ~ 161 44l /O.o 3.71 70 .4to
13 IZ.~; 4 7 8 F Z73 217 577~; 1.23 /.a-C5 .45~ .~?0 .97 ~l 221 433 ~,lZ IZ, 5 4.15 /83 .4Z
3(DB 9/~ 737Z 1.47 1,04.0 ,38Z (~Zo I.oZ ,54 339
439 /ol3 821o /Tz ZOlO ,~3z. ~4o I.o~ ,~g d41 7/~o 7~;1 /7.~" ~./& 362 .46
4 g ~ 1o4~ ~%Zl I.~'4 o,?~5 .?.7(~ ~'.oo .(o(~- 1,14 ,61 51~. 649 77? 17.82 ~..4# 4,Z4 .5o
/7 Zz.g? ~.8 ~9 ~'/7 Io3o ~4/¢o 2Z4 o,c/7~ .'Zl3 LEO ,7oo I,'Zf ,(~ 591 g?5 83o zz.g? K ~ / 4BZ .54
18 28,o4 r~f~,, ~76 ~ ' ~ ~lZg 2.75 0.?70 ,l~(} /,00 ,74q 1.3~ ,7l (o99 984 907 Zg.e~ ~.o3 5"g~l .57
I~ ] 3Z,37 (,,~42 /~3d ~5/ 79z7 3,17 o.9~o .oq¢{ o.7~; ,7~f L4z .&~' 757 It d ¢> lOP *~ 3~...~7 d 4 5 ~Zc/ .*~9
go[ 3~,~5 ~43/ 811 ?~q ~Zo(o 3.89 o.72~ .0¢o9 o.~o .~,,7o 1.42 .(~ '~?~ 1584 / 2 Z ~ 3~.65 3./~/ 782 .A9

CRLCUs_RT-/o,V$ KOI? p,'ZED/CT/ON S/./oi,q/v" //4 F/(; U[Z E - ~,m/o," 1~7:#

NOTE: Lines 1 to 10 m a y be used for propeller s e l e c t i o n or

s p e e d - p o w e r calculations.
Co l. Data Source
1, Speed
Rows 1 to i 0 Assumed values
Data Description Rows 11 to 15 Assumed values for V ~ 20
Craft Craft i d e n t i f i c a t i o n R o w s 1 6 t o 20 Computed for o of Col. 11
Date Date of c o m p u t a t i o n 2. Bare-hull resistance Model tests or predictions
Calculated by Person m a k i n g c o m p u t a t i o n s 3. A p p e n d a g e resistance Computed sum of shafts, struts,
Displacement D i s p l a c e m e n t of c r a f t ( l b ) rudders, etc. or e s t i m a t e d f r o m
LCG LCG o f c r a f t m e a s u r e d f r o m Eqs. (4) a n d (5)
a f t m o s t p o i n t of planing 4. A d d e d resistance in waves Model tests or Ref. [ 1 5 ]
b o t t o m (ft) (0 for calm w a t e r )
BP X M a x i m u m chine b e a m exclu- 5. Total resistance S u m of Cols. 2, 3, and 4
ding e x t e r n a l spray rail (ft) 6. V o l u m n F r o u d e No. C o m p u t e d f r o m Eq. (2) or Fig. 4
Deadrise at m i d - c h i n e l e n g t h 7. Thrust deduction factor Model tests or Fig. 6
(deg) 8. T h r u s t wake f a c t o r Model tests or Fig. 6
P Mass d e n s i t y of w a t e r 9. Relative r o t a t i v e efficiency Model tests or Fig. 6
(lb sec2/ft 4 ) 10. T h r u s t loading C o m p u t e d f r o m Eq. (8)
P K i n e m a t i c viscosity of w a t e r 11. Cavitation No. C o m p u t e d f r o m Eq. (9)
(ft2/sec) 12. Propeller efficiency O b t a i n e d f r o m propeller charac-
AC A Correlation allowance 13. A d v a n c e c o e f f i c i e n t based teristics for C a v i t a t i o n No. a n d
Sea state N o m i n a l sea state on thrust K T / J T 2 at p r o p e r P/D a n d
Pv V a p o r pressure of w a t e r E A R ( A p p e n d i x 4 of this re-
( l b / f t 2) p o r t for Gawn-Burrill props.)
Depth ¢ of D e p t h to ~ of propeller h u b 14. A p p e n d a g e d propulsive co- C o m p u t e d f r o m Eq. (10)
propeller m e a s u r e d f r o m w a t e r sur- efficient
face w i t h c r a f t at rest (ft) 15. Total e h p C o m p u t e d f r o m Eq. ( l l )
D (in.) Propeller d i a m e t e r (in.) 16. Shaft h o r s e p o w e r C o m p u t e d f r o m Eq. (12)
D (ft) Propeller d i a m e t e r (ft) 17. Propeller r p m C,o m p u t e d f r o m Eq. (13)
P (in.) Propeller p i t c h (in.) 18. Speed R e p e a t of Col. 1
P (ft) Propeller p i t c h (ft) 19. T r i m relative to m e a n Model tests or p r e d i c t i o n
P/D Propeller p i t c h r a t i o buttock
EAR Propeller e x p a n d e d area r a t i o 20. Propeller d i a m e t e r * or e x t r a A s s u m e d ~alues
No. of blades N u m b e r of propeller blades 21. O p t i m u m P / D * or e x t r a From Appendix 4 for T/0 opti-
No. of s h a f t s N u m b e r o f propeller shafts mum
22. E A R * or e x t r a A s s u m e d values
23. Propeller p i t c h * or e x t r a Computed from Cols. 20 a n d 21
24. Bare-hull e h p Computed from Eq. (14)
25. Overallpropulsive coefficient Computed from Eq. (15)
26. Extra
* Data used for propeller selection.

24 MARINE TECHNOLOGY
 190 o

1800
f
/
/

//
t "\ / "'i
Y vJ = ~ ' 0 0 0 C ,
L(G = 18. 7 ~
L~".
I='~"

" I~ ~

/
13o~ D= Z7"
P/D = I.~2

12oo ~tO. ~ L P D ~ S ¢ 3
~JO. ~ I R ~ T 5 = 3
ilOO ZB

Fig. 8 Predicted shp, rpm, and trim

versus speed for calculated example
yoo f
J
/
f
8oo

..iIJ"- J

300
f !

¢0 I~ ZO 30 3~; 4o 45
.SPEED (*r,O

V= 3 O r <
~t • I(D °

W =/O~,ooo Z8$.

,'4 J5 /6 17 /8 I? Zo ZI Z~'

-~p,~

Fig, 9 Graphical representation of process for establishing minimum ehpBH

JANUARY 1976 25
 . />

/ 800
Fig. 10 Effect of design speed o n Bpx and

,/ minimum ehpBH variation with deadrise

! I q~,o

/4

2o 2~ 3o 25 4o 4~

T which the builder reproduces the design detail is reflected in

(18) overall craft performance. In order to rationally interpret trial
r C - 1/2pApvo.7R2
results it is necessary to d o c u m e n t the size and location of all
[ JT 2 ] underwater appendages, measure the propeller p i t c h and di-
~o.7R = ~ LjT2-~:~.S4J (19) ameter, note the leading edge detail of the propeller, measure
craft d i s p l a c e m e n t and LCG.
The data for these criteria are presented in Fig. 12. The pro- In order of experience with problems related to low trial
peller selected in the example shown in Fig. 11 should have an speeds, the authors have found the No. 1 cause to be stock
E A R = 0.82 to satisfy the 10 percent cavitation criterion at propellers with blunt or thick leading edges, or both, or nomi-
maximum speed. Since this value of E A R is greater than t h a t nal pitch no better than +1 in. The second most frequent of-
used for the propeller selection calculations, it should be re- fender is overweight construction relative to preliminary ac-
peated for E A R = 0.82 to be certain the best propeller has cepted weight estimates. (Either better weight estimates or
been obtained. better weight control during construction are required to
Should the value of E A R exceed 0.72 to 0.75, then it is un- avoid this problem.) In third place is the incorrect allowance
likely that a stock propeller can be purchased. If this occurs, for drag during performance predictions. Also, craft that have
the designer has the choice of preparing a custom propeller been in service for some time are often inflicted with a heavy
design or obtaining relief from geometric constraints to permit coat of marine growth which results in speed loss. Docu-
use of a larger-diameter propeller to reduce r c to an accept- menting and solving craft performance problems is in itself an
able level. interesting career not unrelated to t h a t of a detective. (Propel-
ler vibration and local blade erosion problems do not come
Full-scale performance analysis within the context of this report.)
Data acquired from most limited trials will consist of visual
Builder's acceptance trials are the true test of the craft de- inspection of underwater portions of craft, some estimate of
sign effort as interpreted by the designer. The detail with displacement and LCG, and speed versus rpm up to dead rack

26 MARINE TECHNOLOGY
 ,Y

Prrc. (4.r)
I 4
/ il
4' I

] _
[
~ 3' _
/
/
-

"1 _--- /
\ /
• -----. ~.~=: L . I ~" \
,/"
i
\
Z' DO0
\ \ I
I
I
I
I
\1 I
I
I
#~'oo!I
/
J
J
\\ ~i\

.-I0
FePM
/ 0 I~sJ
ZOO0 ,00
M ~ p E F-C:~
.... ~ I ~

,,/"
I/~oo
/.

z.~

S~P = I~O0

- I I I I [ I I I I I I I 1 1 I I I
Z~ 3o .~5 40 4 F /.¢#_,, ,oo Z33
D/X3 ~z-.)

Fig. 11 Plot of calculation example for propeller selection

Table 2 Propeller selection and speed-power calculation procedure

C~,~FZ- 50' iv~P'c. D~7-£ /-/#:.7% C,eLCUL/~T-~D By ~.,.×

D/SP~-#CEt~E.~T (ZB) S o . o o o LCG('F'7~) /8.7~' J~p,(FT.~ 1.40' p (DE~) I~'°

/ 2 • 4 ~; ~ 7 il I ? /o // /Z 13 /4 /~ /(.. /7 /,l /~l Zo Zl Z2 Z3 Z4 ~" Z~

I I II; I 1 7'I~°I -" -I ...., ~.o

-~.37 ~34Z 63"4 9~1 79Z7 3t.17 0,<)8 .I~Z 0.'~5 .~0 .~'t- ,S@ 7~7 f~o'~ "~104 3Z.37 /(~6 1.4 Z,~Z

,c~#, .74 I.~5 (~(t 114 t 103(~ Z.$~ ~./~ 3.fib

I I 111 1 1 ,0~
.¢~lb.~
1 ,t~q 1.'4
./~2 1.6o
.G4
U4
1 I',,
I$~
i'70
Io45
I Z. . . . .
2~3
~
2.0
.,~,3Z
4.e~

E.VPm~, oPt I

! I
~.oo
/.~0 I

I o.~o l

PI~OP£LL£~ SELECTED FOR E R R = O(,.~,S

D - Z?" P " 4 9 . Z " P/~ = lel~
FOI~ EMGII~F.. CH~.RA.CTE!~t%T~CC~ OF 5 o O 5HP ~'T ZSOC~ ItPH

c~qZcu&.c~T/o.~/S F'O~ p~GDICT/OAJ SHOW/V l~J FI~MRG* /I

JANUARY 1976 27
 (and maybe fuel rate) measured in deep water. Obtaining Acknowledgments
power measurements during trials, however, is invaluable for
propulsion system analysis, with thrust measurements being This work has been carried out as part of the Combatant
the most sought after but least often obtained data. Craft Improvement Program sponsored by the Naval Sea Sys-
A common problem experienced during trials is failure of tems Command. The authors would like to express their
the engine to reach rated rpm. The obvious solution is to re- thanks to the various members of the Navy community for
duce the propeller pitch until the proper engine speed is at- supporting this project.
tained and then accept the resultant speed. This is an example Without the contributions of other authors, this material
of selecting a propeller to absorb power rather than attempt- could not have been compiled. We are indebted to each of the
ing to obtain best craft performance. authors whose material was referenced and who influenced
It is very possible for the propeller to be too big in terms of this approach. Miss E. N. Hubble and Mr. G. O. Takahashi
pitch or diameter or both. Trying to isolate the cause, how- deserve special attention for their respective efforts of compu-
ever, could lead to a best resolution as to excessive hull resis- tation and drafting to produce the prope]{ler curves in Appen-
tance or reduced propulsion efficiency. Using the resistance dix 4. Also, we wish to thank Mrs. Alice Waller for preparing
prediction methods or experimental data sources available, the manuscript.
the hull contribution can be established reasonably well. Trial
speed, rpm, and propeller geometry can lead to a representa- The preparation of this paper took a ,considerable amount
tive full-scale shp estimate as shown in the following table: of time from the normal family routine. We found the pa-
tience, understanding, and support of out' families to be an es-
TRIAL DATA sential element to bring this effort to fruition.
D _ _ P/D EAR__ W........ LCG

V N JA o F,, 1 - WQ JQ KQ shp References

1 Hadler, J. B., "The Prediction of Power Performance on Plan-
ing Craft," Trans. SNAME, Vol. 74, 1966.
2 Hadler, J. B. and Hubble, E. N., "Prediction of Power Perfor-
mance of the Series 62 Planing Hull Forms," Trans. SNAME, Vol. 79,
Computed As- Compute Prop. 1971.
from trial sumed, from charact- 3 Du Cane, P., High-Speed Small Crafz, John de Graft, Inc.,
Tuckahoe, New York.
data Fig. 6 JA eristics 4 Savitsky, D., Roper, J., and Benen, L., "Hydrodynamic Devel-
and opment of a High-Speed Planing Hull for Rough Water," 9th Sympo-
(1- we) sium on Naval Hydrodynamics, Aug. 1972.
5 Savitsky, D., "Hydrodynamic Design of Planing Hulls," MA-
RINE TECHNOI.OGY,Vo]. 1, No. 1, Oct. 1964.
An alternative method to determine shp for diesel engines is 6 Clement, E. P. and Blount, D. L., "Resistance Tests of a Sys-
to measure fuel rate and obtain shp from engine characteris- tematic Series of Planing Hull Forms," Trans. SNAME, Vot. 71, 1963.
7 Hubble, E. N., "Resistance of Hard-Chine, Stepless Planing
tics. By computing the estimated OPC the designer can make Craft with Systematic Variation of Hull Form, Longitudinal Center of
comparisons with that value used for preliminary speed-power Gravity, and Loading," NSRDC Report 4307, April 1974.
estimates. A low value of OPC implies low propeller efficiency 8 Holling, H. D. and Hubble, E. N., "Model Resistance Data of
or high appendage resistance. Detailed calculations of ap- Series 65 Hull Forms ApplicabLe to Hydrofoils and Planing Craft,"
NSRDC Report 4121, May 1974.
pendage resistance can be made from the information summa- 9 Hadler, J. B., Hubble, E. N., and Holling, H. D., "Resistance
rized in Appendix 2 to verify or eliminate the appendages Characteristics of a Systematic Series of Planing Hull Forms--Series
from consideration as the source of the propeller overloading. 65," SNAME, Chesapeake Section, May 1974.
Assuming JQ = JT, the foregoing calculations can be carried 10 Kapryan, W. J. and Boyd, G. M., Jr., "Hydrodynamic Pressure
Distributions Obtained During a Planing Investigation of Five Relat-
on to rc and aOTR. If these computed valuesexceed the KT ed Prismatic Surfaces," NACA Technical Note 3477, Sept. 1956.
breakdown curve in Fig. 12, the full-scale propeller is operat- 11 Hoerner, S. F., Fluid Dynamic Drag, published by the author,
ing at lower efficiency than technically attainable. Should low Midland Park, N. J., 1965.
propeller efficiency be the cause of engine overloading, the 12 Gregory, D. L. and Dobay, G. F., "The Performance of High-
Speed Rudders in a Cavitating Environment," SNAME Spring Meet-
best solution is changing to a refined propeller design rather ing, April 1973.
than just reducing pitch to absorb rated engine power at prop- 13 Mathis, P. B. and Gregory, D. L., "Propeller Slipstream Perfor-
er rpm. mance of Four High-Speed Rudders Under Cavitating Conditions,"
Power measurements during trials of newly designed craft NSRDC Report 4361, May 1974.
14 Fridsma, G., "A Systematic Study Of The Rough-Water Per-
would be of great interest to builders and operators. This formance of Planing Boats," Davidson Laboratory Report R-1275,
would provide a rational basis for establishing technical Nov. 1969.
achievement and refinement of stock designs. With these 15 Fridsma, G., "A Systematic Study of the Rough-Water Perfor-
data, performance analysis (propulsion problem solving) is re- mance of Planing Boats (Irregular Waves--Part II)," Davidson Labo-
ratory Report R-1495, March 1971.
duced to a technical exercise rather than a speculative art. 16 Blount, D. L., Stuntz, G. R., Gregory, D. L., and Frome, M. J.,
"Correlation of Full-Scale Trials and Model Tests for a Small Planing
Boat," Trans. RINA, 1968.
C o n c l u d i n g remarks 17 Blount, D. L., "Resistance and Propulsion Characteristics of a
Round-Bottom Boat (Parent Form of TMB Series 63)," DTMB Re-
We are in a period where data obtained in the past or data port 2000, March 1965.
spun off from other technology programs are being applied to 18 Gawn, R. W. L. and Burrill, L. C., "Effect of Cavitation On the
craft design processes. Performance of a Series of 16-Inch Model Propellers," Trans. INA,
This effort was directed toward organizing and applying Vol. 99, 1957.
reference material that exists for the small-craft designer in
the area of performance prediction. Others, however, have and
will perceive different uses of these data. By exposing this ef-
Discusser
fort for inspection, the true value will be established by the di-
alogue that follows. Eugene R. Miller

28 MARINE TECHNOLOGY
 ,70

.4o

.~o /
°#
/

r(o" ~ . ~ .
~ 0" I~,

/ ./1

.o7 ,I
11.,,./"
,O&

./0 •/ F .zo ,~o .4o ,fo ,(~o .7o ,90 ,9o /.o

LOCR/. cRV/TRT/OM NuMIBE.~ RT 0.70 ~RD/US = °~(o.7.)

Fig. 12 General trend of Gawn-Burrill propeller series cavitation phenomena

Appendix 1 Solve for 7-:

0.0055x5/2 ]
CLo = 7"1"1 0.012 V ~ + ~ j (24)
Savitsky equations
Equations for resistance and ehp computations by Savitsky Compute for Vm:
method when all forces pass through CG [5] (Given: W, LCG, [-1 0.012w/~ 7-1.1 __ 0.0065/3(0.012V/~ 7-1.1)0.6 ] I / 2
Vm ~ V
B p x , 13, p, u, ACA, V): [ X eosz J
(25)
Computed from given data: Compute for Re:
V
Cv - - - (20) Re = vmXBpx (26)
x/gBpx I)

Computed from given data: Solve for CF."

W 0.242
CLi~ (21) - loglo ( R e . CF) (27)
V(:F
- -

(1/2)pv2Bpx2

Solved for X:
LCG
Cp = - -
B p x ~.
- 0.75 -
5.21(Cv) 2
)k2
1] ~ 2.39
(22)
Compute for RBH:
(Schoenherr friction formulation)

RBH = W tanT- ÷
pOm2)~Bpx2(CF "1- A C A )
(28)
2(cos/3)(cosT-)
Compute for ehpBH:
Solve for CLo: RBHV
ehpBH -- (29)
CL~ = C L o -- 0.0065/3 CL,)°'6 (23) 325.9

JANUARY 1976 29
 Appendix 2 Appendix 3

Appendage resistance Added resistance in waves

Inclined cylinder, that is, shaft and strut barrel: This work was extracted in part directly from reference [15]
with permission of the Davidson Laboratory. The following is
P ldv2(1.1 sin~ + 7rCF)
Dsl-I = -~ (30) 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 t h a t
reference [15] be consulted for complete understanding and
DK = P (2SK)Vm2CF (31) application of this method of accounting for added resistance
in waves.
Strut palms: Different notation was used for equivalent d a t a descriptions
between this report and reference [15]. These differences are:
(32)
SMALL-CRAFT
where Reference [ 14] power prediction
(Fridsma) (Blount-Fox)
CDp "~ 0.65
b Bp X
and L Lp
8 -~ 0.016Xp RAW RA
A W
Nonvented rudders and struts:
Design Charts
DR/S =2sv22CF [ 1+2ct+60 (33)
The ultimate goal for this study is to enable designers and
those interested in planing craft to use the information gath-
Interference drag: ered herein in a practical and meaningful way. Working
. = P- (34) 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 = 2 Sov.~2CD o (35) tion in a more generalized way. In this section the reader will
be shown how to use these charts, and what corrections are
where applicable, as well as a number of worked examples.
To enter the charts and determine a prediction for a given
CDo ~ 0.65 boat, seven quantities must be known; namely, displacement,
overall length, average beam, average deadrise, speed, smooth-
water running trim, and the significant wave height of the ir-
Experimental rudder drag coefficients in a propeller slipstream regular sea. Since realistic boats do not normally have a con-
stant beam or deadrise, it is suggested that these quantities be
Geometric aspect ratio = 1.5
averaged over the aft 80 percent of the boat. It is understood
K T / J T 2 = 0.20 t h a t the designer has recourse to smooth-water prediction
Propeller 0.55 D ahead of rudder stock methods [5] 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.
CDR The nondimensional parameters are calculated next, such
Rudder as C~, L/b, V / x / L , and H1/3/b.
section t/c o=4.0 o=2.0 o=1.5 o=I.0 In using the charts, the designer should be careful not to
make gross extrapolations. The charts are accurate within the
NACA 0.15 0.0015 0.0015 0.0015 0.0008 ranges of test data. A reasonable amount of extrapolation has
0015 been built into the 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 t h a t 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)

Flat plate 0.04 0.0278 0.0325 0.0371 0.0433 Para-

neter CA L/b C~/L/b -r __

6-deg 0.11 0.0495 0.0495 0.0495 0.0487 ~ange 0.3-0.9 3-6 0.06- 3-7 1 0 - 3 0 t to 0.8 I to 6 ~
wedge

p Added r e s i s t a n c e in w a v e s (Figs. 13 and 14). The chart in

DR = ~ sv2Ct)R
Fig. 13 is entered with a given trim and deadrise. (RAW/

30 MARINE TECHNOLOGY
 I' 0 ' 0 4 , . ; Hl/i/b = 0.2 : . ., . . ,

: '0.03 <

0.02 - !3 ~ - , ~ , 3 3
II "o.o, ~ ~ < ,~ 4

I / .... f

i- Ull3/b - u.~
i 0 05 10 ~ ~ ; I

o o41 _.--.~:-~<~J--_~--_-37 : ~ ,,
Sea 5taSes : ~:4 )(~

= o.o

: o.ol < , ¢ " ~ ~ / 4

2
~" 5 --.... 30 i
I~ ~ ~./~A,~ ,o ~-- ..... i
i
i i : ,

...... o.o,i, ~ _ ~ 7 i
,

,!
I;
! i
}] 7: 'o o 4 ~ ><-- ~. 14 : X :i i
• •
!
l
!/:io o~_1 ' -
!

Fig. 13 Maximum added resistance and speed for C A = 0.60 and Lib -- 5

; I. 0 ~ .

r
./I//S! "~ o.6
, III
I ///
o . ~t ///

oS
• ' "max

RAt'/ A~4
: ^ x E(V//L, C~, L/b, nl/3tbl
wb" ., twb3/~ x

Fig. 14 Generalized added resistance plot for C_x = 0.60 and Lib = 5

JANUARY 1976 31
wba)m~x and (V/x/L)*m~x 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 Equ~
of wave height. For a given V/n/L or a s e r i e s o f s p e e d s t h e V/~/L E tion
ratio V/V'max is calculated, and RAw/RAw .... is obtained from
Fig. 14. The added resistance is found by multiplying the re-
sistance ratio of Fig. 14 by the RAw/wba)max obtained from
Fig. 13. The result, however, is true for a Ca --- 0.6 and
2 r<
1 + L 25 1 ]/ [1+ 895(H,/~/b -- 0.06)] -(1)
Lib = 5, and must be corrected by means of the following
formulas: 4 1 + lOH,/Jb(Ca/L/b -- 0.12)

(RAw/Wb3)final = (RAw/Wb3)ch~rts 1 + 2H,/Jb[0.9(C~ -- (I.6) -- 0.7(C:, -- 0.6) ~] (3)

X E (C~, L/b, V/~/L, H1/:~/b)

For the particular values of' C_x and L/b, calculate E and
;(V/~/g)max or V/V .... is associated with the speed at which plot as a function of VIx/L. Read off E at the V/x/L of inter-
(RAW)max occurs. est to correct the added resistance value.

Appendix 4
Gawn-Burrill propeller characteristics,
To a n d JT v e r s u s K T / J T 2

~ 0 7S 1

, / \
/ \ ,, / \ ,
/ ,,
/
I,
/
\

"S-\
, \ {
f~
......
\ ,
/ i\\
b,

o5
j ',

Envebpe of
nmox ~ -
, Tangen? ~ J ,

\ \
1
"'~\ l \
I

J k

Fig. 15

(Appendix 4 charts, Figs. 15-31, continue through page 40. Appendix 5 charts, Figs. 32-40, begin on page 41.)

32 MARINE TECHNOLOGY
 0.8
• 2 BV~RIZ.~ I

f // '," 0 ~ 0 --¢f f ~_2C

i l",l"
ERR = O S I

I' I' iI ilt --~'.'--t

/ / '\ / // \\ \\ "
I/
/ ,, " .~,'\ ,
/ 1
"4i\.
"\. / \
/ \'-,
/
/

/ P/O SYMBOL
// /
i 0.6 . . . . . . .
r /
/ 08
\ / \ 10 . . . .
', / 1.2

\, \, 14
16
i 8

\ \ 20 . . . . .
Envelope of
nmax
T, , k ~ 0 e . , ~
z,
:... ~. \,
/o

-1 . . . . .

\
0 0.1 02 03 04 OlS 0 01 02 03 O~ OS 06 07

Fig. 16

w-', R r m o s G,~W'M-
BUPR/.~/.

E~'R, O.S/

! "1-. ~ L-~_- ______

• B~..gbE5

/
/
/
/
/
/

/ P/O SYMBOL
I
0.6 .......
0.8
L0
1.2
1.4
I.G

%, 2.0 . . . . .
Envelope of
'7 nmox
,j Tangent
\

0./ 0.2 O3 0.4 Q5 0.~ 07 0.8 a9 /0 /,I

~r/~. ~
Fig. 17

JANUARY 1976 33
 ~7 ;:~ o"~, / o G~w4-

/I ~ "~
°" ,,'J ,:L I,!/
'¢ j [il/ / ~
P/P
06
08
I0
SYMBOL

J' / I
it/ '"-..'\- ,ii i / \
L2
14
--7 ~"- \" [ /
~6 . . . . . . . .
I \ /
/ 20 . . . . .
Envelope of
\\ nmox ~
"\ Tongent
\ ",
X "\

. . . . . . . . 12
\,,

,,\\, - ~. "~
~ ~ 2 , , \~ ....

\ \
0 o/ o2 O~ o o/ 02 ~1 02 O~ 0
° ~<~/~ °

Fig. 18

/ "%
\, = ~'; \

!/ I
i
/
P/O SYMBOL
0 6 . . . . .
,\ i ¸,
\, 08
I0
\ 12
14
, ~ 16
20 ......
\ Envelope of

Tangent I

.... tli 4
. . . . I I I . . . . . ~ ::
.2

\
0 o/ 02 o~ 04 O 0,/ 02 03 04 OS O~ ~7

Fig. 19

34 MARINE TECHNOLOGY
 o--= ,~r.'~$ ,Pz.'//'.4"/ZZ

~ ~-~~---
~- "~-'-'-'-'-'-'-'-'-'~---~c,.----_.
--~-

i{
~]
,

I ~
/
./
/
=/O
0.6
0.8
I0
1.2
14
16
2 0

Envelope
SYMBOL
.......
------

. . . . .

of
/.8

-. Tangent--~ ~¢~

OI 0.2 O~ 04 OJ Ob 07 08 09 I0 /I /2
,/G ~

Fig. 20

O~
o~, / o 6,ew,,v
~}LZ

O~

/)i~
/ " \~,,, £~'R, o BZ

5 BZ,gD£S

f ~ \,.\

i
,/ /
i ~ I / , ~ , / \,
I / \ I / : SYMBOL

L/ ]O6 . . . . .

\,
p\ /
\

', '\ /
/
08
I0
h2
- - - - - -

• J
t :\
b6
:\
i '°
2 0
\ ,,\ ..
~ lope of
r~mox

0
k Ol 02 03 0
\
O/ OZ O3
Kr/z:
0
\
O/ O2 03

Fig. 21

JANUARY 1976 35
 0...,/5

<;?7 ,
_~~
% // /
!1/
// i/1/
iI
/i
\

P/O SYMBOL
06 . . . . . . . .
08
\ / IO . . . .
12
14
• \.
16

- , ,. ,
~ . 20 . . . . . . . .
... E--. o,
4

\
0 Ol 02 05 0~" OS 0 o./ oe 0.3 04 OS 06 o7 OB o9
,~,/zre
Fig. 22

Bz*~zs

/
/
/

Zo

18
P/D SYMBOL
0.6 . . . . . . . .
\,,. OB
~ ~ ] . -- -----
'°
12 T
dr

"~ ~ • -"~, --- --4 20 . . . . .

~ ' ~ ~-~ Envelope of
~- ~ I - ~ " ~ ~ I ~ - - ---- nmox - - T

\
0 Ol Oe 03 0 ~ OS 06 O? 08 09 Xo zl 12 15 z4

Fig. 23

36 I~IARINE TECHNOLOGY
 8M.~,q/LL

£a.R = / O0

3 BZ m~ES

/ f f ,
% /"

///
/
// ,,,,,
\.\ '/// I\ I //,/ /I
! \- ! ,.
\/ o.~
08 - - - - - -
,,. I0 . . . .

\
\ "., I\'..... \

",
14

1.6 . . . .

..~, ~ Envelope of
"-...~ "-...... \ ~ ,
,
nmox
Tangent ~P'f-
J2Q

\
0 Ol 02 03 o Ol 02 O5 O~ o 01 02 03 04 OS

Fig. 24

G,ew~v

£/~R = / o o

%
///~' / \ "~\

' I
/
P/D SYMBOL
0.6 . . . . . .
08
I0
1.2
14
1.6

_\ "
20 .....
Envelope of
nmQx
---7 Tangent 7

\
O

Fig. 25

JANUARY 1976 37
 £.@R: I.o~

3 ,~,eD*-s

N "N
\

P/D SYMBOL
0.15 . . . . . . .

0~8 - - - - - -
LO . . . .
,2,o
L2
L4
z8
1.6
20 . . . . .
Envelope of

\
o o. I o2 03 04 ~- 06 o. 7 08 0.9

Fig. 26

ER~" : • 0 0

; BZ,~DLS

---_~" - ~ ~---~ ~_~-__~: ~__~

/

P/D SYMBOL

0.B . . . . . . .

/ 0,8
10
- - - - - -
. . . .
L;'

\ 14
LB
2.0 . . . . .
Envetope of

o.I 02 ~3 04 OS O~. o ~)<7/~2 08

Rg. 27

38 MARINE TECHNOLOGY
 ="'* / o 6~'w"Y
Du~t,~/zz

// //
////I

"/ :'/D SYMBOL

!
! 0,6 . . . . . . .

0.8 - - - - - -
10
- - ZB
/ ,.2
14
\ \. i.62
D . . . .

~.~~ ~°'°"
,~:,;:,7-
o, _ ~"~

\ \ \
o o./ o.~ 0.5 0 o / O2 o,3KM,j.', o ~/ 0.*° 03 04 OS

Fig. 28

38z~-s

/ /

/ P/D SYMBOL
0,6 . . . . . . .

/ 08
1.0
L2
14
1.6
20 . . . . .
-\ Envelope of
TonQent
t~nmex

&

\
o o/ oz os o~ e.¢ o614r/.~ a 0.7 ae ~9

Flg. 29

JANUARY 1976 39
 m,. 2.o GAWky
SU#RIL~

r B~,~',0£5

% i/,I/ / / -
/// / /"
P/O SYMBOL
0.6 . . . . . . .
08 ------
I0 . . . . . .
1.2
14
~B
1.6
2D
\ Envelope of
nmox
Tangent

o Ol 02 0,~ 04 o.S 0.6 0.7 08 o9 /.0 /./ /~' /3

Flg. 30

G,~,,vN

o7

/HI / P/D SYMBOL

0.6
0.8
LO

U L2
14
!8
1.6

\ 2.0
Envelope of
nmox--=W+--
. . . . .

Tangent /

0 Ol OZ O~ 04 05 Ob 07 Os 09 ~o

Fig. 31

40 MARINE TECHNOLOGY
 Appendix 5

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

simplified Savitsky method as modified by equation (1)
Calculations for zero correlation allowance, 59°F
seawater

~% "% %

- ~ % % \,'\ /

_ -~ _. ,-'~. ,\ . \ /)R /~_-

-o~ / - - ~ ~ ~ o ." - " ,.. : "~ i~/_..../"~ I" ~ ,z ~ ,

Oo ~ . ,~'~--~ ,~,~

~,o,,
~ - ~" e ' ~ - - ~ - - ~ ' ~ .... %---- -~'--"--X-~ -G--- " ~ - . - - ~ . - .... I _~__.~

I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I ~ I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I

Fig. 32

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

JANUARY 1976 41
 v. #'z~x

~:1o" __ P. /~" # , zz" ,~+_

,too <'~,/ )

~° / W ~ >" ~\1I

,, ! i /, ' : ~,' /;% / ,~

• ~4,-?_¢ .< .,~ ~.

-,~.o~ ~ , :~ - "~:~,..;'.L~. f---~

,-,-, - d ~ . . . . . . . "7 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . i . . . . . . . . .
/2 #4 #~* #11 Z~> ZZ z4 Z~. 28 /z J4 J~. /41 ~ zz ,#4 2~, zl /z 14 1~ /~i zo zz z4 l~. zil

Fig. 33

v, 2OR

_ ~.,<," ~>/ /',,/.- ~-,<~" /%." i/ I - >.., P'%]. /

+-~ i ~ +~% i' II %ii" / " ~ 7 Ill'

_ ,'it, i/ -

+< .M ,"~'Q.J / " +~'~," ,_

{ / /

-- "~ -?'----7-,/ "~.< , c_..___> ;

- °'/-' / '7--7- ?'SL-L~ ~ , ' '';

i "°<,. / j --/ ~-"
- ,<,oo / ,"--7<--7 ~ .... ,//r/--'--7/-j~-~,~ - / ,

- 1:4-tzt--/-i:.~/', °o~z_-->, / . l t,/,jl / ,, I

.~ - ~ _ , / . I . / I i ~_1 ,~ - ~.oogi ,, /i . / . ,o.o ~-----~
_ --~--~_j_~L__/__~ o.~
_ ~. .... / .. '/ / ...... ~ ." ." L--~ ~ ~ o i ~ , ~-/---7. .
~-~-- .--

_ i-...~ ~ i . ~ ... ~ i

#o ~1 ,~ #~ al zo tz 14 t~ ~R #z #4# #~. #li to lz z4 z~, zi #i #4 #~, #l zo zl a4 z~. ~m

Fig. 34

42 MARINE TECHNOLOGY
 I ] i I I i I I I i i i i 1 I I i I I i i I i i i i i I I I I i I I I I I i I i i i i i i

~',so* ~ , I~," ~ ¥, ~"

.l:~oo

~-m ,' / "<>:='r / i ---/ : >~ //i ? 0,/ - - - / - -

..~oo ' ,~g/ ,

,i.o<~,~_~_=~ - "7o~/:(,./ " ,--." . ~ "°~°° ~ /

.... .-//...zTL-,.0 ~ . . . . . .... ~ : ~--;>"
2" < >~ . _ ~ ~ ~io1"-<"
'°
---< .. ~'>

~ - ~>o~>. . . . . . . . . . ,'~, ,-~oo,0. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

#z #4 #~* #~l zo zZ z4 z~, Zll ,z 1,# I~, #l io zZ ~4 z~ II ~ #4 /~ ill zo lZ z4 iv, z8

Fig. 35

V'ZS~
i i i i i i i i i i I I i I i i i i i t i I I I i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i I i i i i i |

~,:,o- p . ~.- __ ~-~-

~. - _ -oo o

.% 11 ~ . _
°<,L / i 7'- II /

"k"-i-__L_ i 31 il , i I , / •

i . 1 7,1 / /
°<~°<~,.,/ / % 1 / i , , ~ L ~ -

- I ,.o.=~f, //, P'.._~is-- ~-/ - i'~'=~<>?~ ~ ~-

'~,° il I /"

/-,tooo
~ ~/+'~° 0 0 I I t I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I i I i 1
io #z ,4 I~, #8 zo zz z4 z~. z~ zz /~ #¢. #~ i'~ iZ z4 z~ ill IZ /4 /z. /~i ~o zz z4 z~ zl
B#'x ~,"x il~#

Fig. 36

JANUARY 1976 43
 V. 3o~

~- "// >I ,/ ii .... L+ j / i .... 7 - ~

~ _ .....l I I /IL~,
i I
j ~I I / ?'7

......~ , ~ - _ ' , r + r ' / . . ." ..'i

"" "~" -" " o" "" ~ "3---~ o o o

I I I I I i 1 i I i i 1 i I I J I I I I i I I I I I ! I I I I I I I I I I I
#o #z #4 #~, /el zo zz z4 z~ z8 #z #4 #~ /& lo ll z4 zl zli IZ #4 1~* #tl Z~ Zz z4 zl II

Fig. 37

v-35~
I r I I t I I I i I I I I I I i I I +1 i I i i i i i i\ I I I i i i I i I i i I i i j

~,/o ° .e-,~-" .e: zi>- .

~/
, // z,,~o

~o
,,,,>]<>ooj /-/- l~_~/<-

&:.:.-t ~ - - + I - / - I /
, .... 4"q, I ,I /
_ i~,o,~ o / ,
/ /

y
- ~ °'° I I ,1_ /
j~.<>~'?-. / /
I' / 1 : i_
i/
"~,>_oo i°,o111 / 1 I
- ;~/i,.// s
V/? I I, ..... '--r-/ l ly' ,

-_ , ',,~ ~,," _
@ *~'g;°
~ w'j/;/-7":, t :-~o
.../l.tml--.~>,ooo / / o~i l
5oo " I I i I ~/.¢ .I ,/j,/

) zq°oo

I i I I l I I I I I I i I I I - I I I I I I I I I I I I t t I - E i I I i i i I 1 I I I I I I I -
#Z #4 /~ #S Zo zZ ~ Z6 Z~ IZ 14 /~. /s zo ZZ Z4 z~. ~R IZ #4 /~. 14 zo zz z4' z~. 2"8
~Px 8 Px B I,x

Fig. 38

44 MARINE T E C H N O L O G Y
 V'4o~
' ' ' I ' ' ' , i, , , , i , , , i i , , i , ,, , , , I l l / I l l i l l I l l i~1 i i i

f
oi o /-I/ / I

~,/,/ / .°o ~" ~j , ~ . .... __ ~ / ~i, /

,.~o ~,~,o~ ~,, / , ,~'

I/~ °° 4' 4' Z/,

< _/.=.oool _///;.

. .

I t I I t I I I I I I I 1 1 I I I I t 1 I t I i 1 I I i i i i i i i i i i I i i I i i I

Zl ~ x 8px 411.X

Fig. 39

v.45.

•/ o ° ~.s~ o _ _ #.zz o

~yo6

- ~ - W - + -'~o~

....... I//~/i" °
...... Y,M,'I °'°°

~k~ ooo

7//i,' ,,'7- - I//,,, ,oo~

J ///4 / /
~??//// .~o ~///, / / X///,
~ ' /

I I I I I I ] 1 L I I I i I I I 1 I I L I I / I ] t I I I I I I I I I I i I I I I I I ; I
/2 #4 /~. /S zo 2Z Z4 Z~ Z8 /2 /4 /~. /m Zo ZZ Z4 Z6 ~ /Z /4 /6 /8 ZO lZ Z~ Z~. Za

Fig. 40

JANUARY 1976 45