Effects of Propeller Design-Point Definition On The Performance

SNAME Transactions, Vol. 91, 1983, pp.
195-224
Effects of Propeller Design-Point Definition on the Performance of

a Propeller/Diesel Engine System with Regard to In-Service
Roughness and Weather Conditions
Miro Kresic, 1 Member, and Bruce Haskell, 2 Associate Member
The objective of this paper is to investigate the performance of a fixed-pitch propeller/diesel engine
system on trials and in service as a function of various propeller design-point definitions and time.
The influence of hull roughness, propeller smoothness, and environmental factors is taken into con-
sideration in analyzing propeller absorption. The increase of resistance in service over a period
of years as a function of hull roughness and fouling is analyzed and calculated. Estimations for the
loss of open-water efficiency of the propeller in service, as a result of blade surface deterioration
and fouling, are reviewed and used in the calculations. Also, changes in propulsion components
in service as a function of roughness and environmental factors are discussed and effective wake
changes are taken into consideration in the calculations. Finally, several propeller design-point def-
initions are compared with regard to in-service performance of the propeller/diesel engine system.
Introduction these design points doing the job? Often ships must undergo,
at some point in their life, some correction to the propeller, such
ONE OF THE many factors responsible for the good perfor-
as diameter reduction, repitching, or retrofit of a completely
mance of a ship is the correct selection of the design point of the new propeller. Therefore, it is obvious that these design points
propeller. Depending upon the type of vessel, service route
do not always provide the necessary margins.
and hull maintenance procedures, there is only one fixedrpitch
In recent years, however, there has been much research done
propeller which will provide the proper performance for a
to quantify the effects of roughness and fouling on resistance
particular service. Failure to find a correct propeller design
and propeller performance, so that a more accurate prediction
point will usually result in overloading of the diesel engine
of the loads on an engine may be made. Unfortunately, most
under various operational conditions. The consequences of this
of this work has focused only upon one aspect of the roughness
overloading will be complaints, such as high maintenance cost
effect, without investigating the effects on the ship as a whole.
from the ship's owner, excessive engine wear and tear from the
It is the intent of this paper, using those theories already
main engine manufacturer, and low engine revolutions and
available in the literature, to see the cumulative effects of ser-
ship's speed loss from the crew during the service period of the
vice on the diesel' engine/propeller system and how the design
vessel. point affects performance later in service. This is done through
Why do some diesel engine installations become overloaded
the analysis of two ships and comparing each ship's perfor-
during years of service? As is well known, the effects of service,
mance at four different events (on trials, six months before its
wind and waves all have an impact upon a ship's performance.
fourth dry-docking, just before its fourth dry-docking, and six
The ship's hull becomes rougher as a result of corrosion,
months before its seventh dry-docking), using seven different
painting, fouling, etc., which lead to increases in the resistance.
propeller design-point definitions. The resistance, propulsive
The propeller also suffers from these effects, which decreases
factors and propeller characteristics are calculated for each of
its efficiency. These changes all lead to increased loads for the
these events. The performance and speed-keeping qualities
diesel engine. If the engine does not have enough power to
of seven common design-point definitions are then analyzed
overcome the increased load, the engine becomes over-
at each event, providing an insight into the qualities of each
loaded.
Through the years, many definitions for the selection of the definition.
Assumptions and examples are given to illustrate the ana-
propeller design point have arisen. The intent of these defi-
lytical procedures developed in the paper. The assumptions
nitions is to provide the proper margins to account for the in-
are believed to represent average operating conditions. For
creased loads of service without overloading the engine and still
hull and propeller maintenance, other than shown in the paper,
permit the full capability of the engine to be used. But, are
the roughening assumptions should be reconsidered for the
particular case being investigated.
1 Director, Basic Design and Naval Architecture, John J. McMullen
Associates, Inc., New York, N. Y.
2 Naval architect, John J. McMullen Associates, Inc., New York, E s t i m a t i o n o f a n i n c r e a s e o f r e s i s t a n c e in s e r v i c e
N.Y. An estimate of the increase in hull resistance during a ship's
Presented at the Annual Meeting, New York, N.Y., November 9-12,
1983, of THE SOCIETYOF NAVALARCHITECTSAND MARINEEN- service is necessary so that the propeller absorption can be an-
GINEERS. alyzed for various stages in service. Of the components making
195
up a ship's resistance, the frictional resistance for the majority mean apparent amplitude (MAA) measured over a 50-mm
of commercial ships represents the largest part of the ship's total sampling length, is about 150 microns. This represents an
resistance. The frictional resistance for a slow-speed ship can average new hull roughness at the beginning of service, which
be about 80 percent of the total resistance and as much as 50 was adopted by ITTC-1978 [3] as the standard roughness for
percent for high-speed ships [1], a Therefore, predicting fric- a new ship for use in full-scale predictions. The change in MAA
tional resistance for various service events is of great impor- in service as a result of plating deterioration from corrosion,
tance. mechanical damages caused by berthing, cable chafing,
There is a long history of research devoted to the prediction grounding, operation in ice, etc. was assumed to increase an
of the largest single resistance components based on experi- average of 2.8/am per month [4].
mental and theoretical work. Recently, this work has branched Also affecting the hull roughness is the hull treatment a ship
out to include the effects of hull roughness on frictional resis- will receive in dry-clocking and the interval of dry-docking or
tance and the change in hull roughness in service. the ship's "hull maintenance program." Depending on the
There are two basic components which, in service, cause an procedures used in dry dock and the workmanship employed,
increase of ship's resistance after trials have been completed: the roughness of the hull may either become less or, as is usually
hull roughness and environmental factors. The hull roughness the case, may actually increase. Townsin et al [4] found that
contributes to increased resistance by increasing friction be- 68 percent of the ships they measured increased in roughness
tween the hull and sea, while environmental factors contribute in dry-docking and that ships with relatively smooth hulls had
in the form of wind and waves. the largest increases during docking, while relatively rough hulls
showed small declines in roughness.
Hull roughness For this study the ships are assumed to be dry-docked at in-
The hull roughness is constantly changing during a ship's tervals of two years, as required by the classification societies
service period. The causes of hull roughness can be divided for recertification. Possible extensions of six months, as well
into several groups [2]: plate roughness, paint/coating type, as in s i t u cleanings, were not taken into consideration for this
corrosion and fouling. The plate roughness of a newly com- analysis. When in dry dock the ship is assumed to get the
pleted ship is dependent upon the production quality of the steel treatment as shown in Table 1. The increase in the average hull
plates, as well as on the sophistication of the methods used by roughness as a result of these dry-dock cleaning procedures is
the shipyard in building the ship. The roughness from paints anticipated to be 14 g m per docking. The amount of change
and coatings is influenced by the type of material used and the in hull roughness per docking is based on published data [4] and
methods of application, and can vary significantly. Corrosion interpretation of the simulation of in-service conditions.
on steel plates, which results in permanent damage of the sur- The final component of hull roughness to be considered is
face, varies as a function of many environmental factors, as well fouling. The average roughness from the accumulation of
as its location on the hull. Fouling roughness is influenced by marine fouling on a ship's hull is estimated and expressed in an
the type of antifouling paint, method of application, location equivalent MAA-value as proposed by Malone et al [2]:
on the hull, environmental factors and, most of all, time in
MAAfouling (sides) -~ (HRF)(PT)(CEFF)
port.
For the analysis herein, it has been assumed that the steel MAAfouling (bottom) = 0.75(HRF)(PT)(CEFF)
plating used to construct the ship was properly pretreated with where
shop primer and that good workmanship was emFloyed in
construction. The hull was painted with two coats of anticor- H R F = hull roughness factor, # m per port days (see Table
rosive paint and before trials with two coats of conventional 2)
antifouling paint. The estimate for the total surface roughness PT = port time, days
of a new ship when beginning service, expressed in terms of a 0.75 = factor applied to bottom fouling rate because
fouling does not grow as fast on bottom as it does
3 Numbers in brackets designate References at end of paper. on sides
Nomenclature
AL = lateral projected area KT = propeller thrust coefficient SS = length of perimeter of lateral projec-
AT = transverse projected area KO = propeller torque coefficient tion of vessel excluding waterline
B = beam zXKro = change in thrust coefficient due to a and slender bodies such as masts
BMEP -- brake mean effective pressure change in drag coefficient and ventilators
c = chord length of propeller blade 2xKTt, = change in thrust coefficient due to a T = draft
C = distance from bow of centroid of lat- change in lift coefficient t = thrust deduction and propeller blade
eral projected area AKoo = change in torque coefficient due to a thickness
CO = blade drag coefficient change in drag coefficient t/c = thickness-chord ratio
CEFF = antifouling coating effectiveness 2XKQL= change in torque coefficient due to a V = speed of ship
factor change in lift coefficient Vw = wind speed
CF = frictional coefficient Lse = length between perpendiculars " Wh = wave height
ACI¢ = roughness allowance coefficient Lo^ = length overall wm= mean nominal wake fraction
CL = blade lift coefficient LWL = length on waterline WS = wetted surface
Cs = service roughness coefficient M = number of distinct groups of masts or wr = Taylor effective wake fraction
D = diameter kingposts seen in lateral projec- Z = ratio of the accumulated time, since
hMAA= equivalent mean apparent amplitude tion application of antifouling paint was
based on 50-mm apparent wave MAA = mean apparent amplitude based on made, to effective life of antifouling
length for propeller 50-mm apparent wave length paint; number of propeller blades
HRF = hull roughness fouling factor PE = effective horsepower r/R = relative rotative efficiency
J = propeller advanced coefficient P/D = pitch-diameter ratio r/0 = open-water efficiency
k = form factor PT = port time p = density of fluid
196 Effects of Propeller Design-Point Definition

CEFF = antifouling coating effectiveness factor Table 1 Dry-dock treatment
= 1.0 - [2.72/e z - 0.240(Z - 1.0) °.263]
Z --=ratio of accumulated time, since application of Procedures Treatment/Location
antifouling paint was made, to effective life of
1 Pressure water underwater hull and propeller shall be
antifouling paint wash washed with high-pressure seawater
In the calculations of MAA it was assumed that the hull 2 Spot after survey of the hull, spot sandblasting
sandblasting of damaged areas only shall be
roughness factor corresponds to moderate to severe fouling, performed
HRF = 0.5755 (Table 2). The number of days in port (PT) is 3 Hand scraping hand scraping of marine growth not
an important variable, since the majority of marine growth removed by high-pressure water wash
occurs when the speed of the vessel is less than about 3 knots. shall be performed
This variable is a function of trade route and type of operation 4 Sand wash sand wash or sand sweep to remove final
and should be selected for each vessel for which analyses are film of marine growth and to rough
conducted. For the sake of calculations made in the present surface to allow for better adhesion of
. new paint shall be made
paper, the time in port (PT) has been assumed to be 80 days per 5 , Freshwater freshwater wash to remove all salt water
year. The antifouling coating effectiveness factor (CEFF) will wash and sand residue shall be performed
be equal to zero during the effective life of the coating, usually 6 Local primer primer coat on spot sand-blasted area shall
one year for conventional painting systems. After the effective coat be made
life of the antifouling paint has been exceeded, the CEFF factor 7 Anticorrosive one full coat of anticorrosive paint shall be
increases exponentially toward a maximum of 1.0, which paint applied by airless spray
implies that the coating no longer inhibits fouling growth. 8 Antifouling two coats of conventional antifouling paint
Having expressed each component of hull roughness by an paint shall be applied
9 Propeller wash propeller to be cleaned by high-pressure
equivalent MAA, the total hull roughness may be calculated for wash, hand scraped, hand polished by
any particular time in the ship's life by accumulating the effect wire brush machine. One coat of grease,
of each component. for protection of ship's hull painting
Based on the .preceding assumptions, the mean apparent procedure, shall be applied
amplitude of hull roughness was calculated for all four events
that will later be used in the propeller analysis. The first event
is taken to be the trial test; the second is 6 months before the p = density of water, kg sec2/m 4
fourth dry-docking or 7 years and 6 months after trials; the third WS = wetted surface of hull, m 2
event is one day before dry-docking or 8 years after trials; and Vs = ship speed, knots
the fourth event is 6 months before the seventh dry-docking or
13 years and 6 months after trials. These events have been Environmental factors
arbitrarily selected just for the purpose of the propeller analyses;
however, they provide practical check points for the evaluation Environmental factors such as wind, waves and currents
of the propeller absorption as it relates to the selection of a de- should be taken into consideration for a propeller absorption
sign-point definition for a particular ship. The hull roughness analysis. The literature contains many methods for the cal-
for each event is given in Table 3 and in a time-history diagram culation or estimation of an increase in resistance of the ship as
of dry-docking intervals as shown in Fig. 1. a result of these environmental factors. Herein, the wind re-
To estimate the effects of hull roughness on the ship's resis- sistance is estimated by a method developed by Isherwood [5].
tance, the following equation may be used: This method predicts forces and moments acting on a ship as
a result of winds acting at particular angles. For the purpose
of these studies an average wind speed of 16 knots (Beaufort 4)
was assumed. Also, it was assumed that the vector of wind
speed could act from 0 to 360 deg and then an average increase
where
in effective horsepower was calculated, taking into consider-
ACF = roughness allowance coefficient ation the speed of the ship. In other words, it has been assumed
MAA = total hull roughness, m (meters) that the ship will not always sail into the wind, but that it will
LwL = length on waterline, m encounter the winds from all angles. Because there is an equal
chance that the wind can come from any direction for each
This formula is the ITTC-1978 recommendation [4] to ac- vessel's speed, the wind resistance was calculated for all angles
count for hull surface roughness between a model and ship for of wind in 10-deg increments and the average of these resis-
full-scale trial predictions. To predict the increased resistance tances was used to account for the increases in PE due to
after trials a service roughness resistance coefficient (Cs) may wind,
be estimated as For resistance due to wave action, the following equation has
Cs = ACF service -- ACF trial
where Table 2 Hull roughness fouling factor [2]

ACF service = roughness allowance coefficient in service
ACE trial = roughness allowance coefficient on trials Qualitative Fouling
Severity Scale Fouling Severity HRF, #m/Day
(MAA = 150 ~zm)
0.0 clean 0.0
It is now possible to calculate the increase in effective 2.0 trace 5.334 X 10-4
horsepower due to roughness by 4.0 trace to light 7.849 X 1 0 - 3
6.0 light 3.828 x 10-2
~(ws)(c~)(0.5144 v,) 3 8.0 light to moderate 0.1178
PE r o u g h n e s s = 150 10.0 moderate 0.2822
12.0 moderate to severe 0.5755
where 14.0 severe 1.052
Effects of Propeller Design-Point Definition 197

Table 3' Hull roughness thrust deduction fraction (t), and relative rotative efficiency
(~R).
MAA,/~m Event 1 Event 2 Event 3 Event 4 Changes in the effective wake fraction are a function of the
changes in flow conditions on the propeller blades behind the
Initial roughness 150 150 150 150 ship. The deterioration of the hull surface and fouling are
Hull roughness from service 0 252 268 454
Hull roughness from dockings 0 42 42 84 constantly altering the flow conditions around the propeller.
Fouling equivalent roughness 0 72 142 72 Environmental factors such as wind and waves, as well as
steering, are also changing the resistance characteristics of the
Total roughness 150 516 602 760 vessel, which ultimately results in reducing ship speed. All
these factors have a significant influence on the wake and wake
distribution pattern from trials to in-service conditions.
Unfortunately, to the best of our knowledge, no full-scale tests
been applied [2] with a wave height of 1.4 m, which corresponds have been performed to study the difference in effective wake
to the Beaufort 4 wind speed: fraction between two dry-docking intervals. But full-scale tests
performed with a 20-m-long vessel in Japan [6] give a very clear
P~ waves = 6.25(B)(A)(2.0 X Wh + O.152)2/(T)(LBp 2) indication in the behavior of nominal wake as a function of time
where between two dry-dockings. The results of these tests show that
the mean nominal wake fraction (Win) grew almost linearly
B = ship beam, m from the first day after repainting the hull, a value of 0.8, up
A = ship displacement, long tons to the value of 0.56 after 450 days of fouling. The almost linear
Wh = wave height, m increment of the nominal wake fraction as a function of number
T = ship draft, m of days of fouling is an indication that a similar trend can be
LBe = length between perpendiculars, m expected with the effective wake fraction.
In order to estimate the changes in effective wake fraction
No provision was made for the influence of current, but, for
between two dry-docking periods we have applied a modified
specific cases, this should not be ignored.
version of the ITTC-1978 formula for full-scale wake prediction
E f f e c t of hull r o u g h n e s s on p r o p u l s i o n factors [3]. The original formula is
The next step in modeling in-service conditions is to estimate 0.04)(1 + k)CFs + ACF
changes in the propulsion factors: effective wake fraction (WT), W T S = (t + 0 . 0 4 ) -I- ( W T M -- t -- (l -'1- k ) C F M
A
ii
800
750
700
/I I
650
4
II .
/II
600
I I
,50q
II II
450
..-.400
t-
O
/ ,
.g~.550
,,~ 3 0 0 /i /J
~" 2 5 0
200
150
I00
50
2 3 4 5 6 ? 8 9 I0 II 12 13 14
•0 = DRY-DOE KING/YEARS
Fig. 1 Hull roughness, time history

where E f f e c t of propeller r o u g h n e s s on o p e n - w a t e r
efficiency
WTS = full scale wake fraction
WTM = model wake fraction
The loss of propeller efficiency in service can occur very
t = thrust deduction for model and ship, assumed to rapidly and is a function of sailing time, time in port, propeller
be independent of scale loading and environmental conditions such as seawater tem-
0.04 = coefficient to take account of rudder _effect perature and salinity. Maintaining the original efficiency of
k = form factor the new propeller by means of a regular servicing and main-
tenance program is possible in the majority cases, if a consistent
CFS = frictional coefficient of ship, ITTC-1957 line
effort for propeller maintenance is made. There are three
CFM = frictional coefficient of model, ITTC-1957 line
ACF = roughness allowance coefficient main factors affecting the efficiency of an existing propeller
in operation: blade roughness, blade fouling, and blade
Since we are no longer dealing with the scale effect, but with damage.
change due to roughness in service, the full-scale wake fraction The effects of propeller roughness have been investigated
(Wrs) is now taken to represent the wake fraction in service and periodically on an experimental or a theoretical basis [8-10],
the model wake fraction (WTM) the wake fraction on trial. It but very few data for full-scale correlation are available.
is also assumed that the ship's frictional coefficient does not However, the subject of propeller blade roughness and its effect
change in service and, therefore, is always equal to the frictional on location in reference to diameter and method of measure-
coefficient on trials. The roughness allowance (ACF) now ments has been widely addressed [6,8-15].'
represents the difference in roughness between trial and in- The effects of propeller fouling are even more difficult to
service conditions. The coefficient of 0.04, which in the quantify since there is a lack of theoretical and experimental
original formula took into consideration the rudder effect on work on the subject. Based on experiments by Kan et al [6], it
trials when compared with the model, can now be eliminated can be seen that these effects in terms of power requirement
since it is assumed that the rudder effect for both trials and are considerable and much greater than those of surface
service is identical. The form factor (k) is also assumed to be roughness. Since propellers have no antifouling paint, they
the same for trial and service conditions. suffer readily from fouling. Even though marine growths are
After these modifications, the formula will read removed in larger amounts from the tips of the blades, because
of rotation, the influence of the smaller amounts left cannot b e
ignored. This is because the portion near the tips has more
wr .... ice = t + (wr trial -- t) 1 + (1 + k)CF trials influence on the torque, by virtue of its longer lever arm, than
where that near the hub.
The effects of propeller damage will greatly differ depending
WT service = wake fraction in service on location and type of damage. Trailing-edge damage will
wr trial = wake fraction on trials affect the power absorption characteristics if there is any sig-
t = thrust deduction nificant bending which will change the local pitch. Lead-
C S = ACF service - - ACF triad ing-edge damage will usually affect the cavitation performance
while erosion and corrosion will affect the propeller perfor-
A C F t r i a l = [ l O 5 ( 1 5 0 X-L~'lw-OL- 6 1 1"]/ : 3 - O ' 6 4 ] mance since the increased roughness of the blades created by
their actions is generally concentrated at the propeller tips.
The magnitude of the loss of open-water efficiency as a result
of the foregoing three factors is of great importance for the
rv'ce-- complete performance assessment of the propeller/diesel en-
gine system. It is our intention to establish a procedure of
C F trials = frictional coefficient on trials from ITTC-1957 taking into account propeller roughness and fouling by calcu-
line lating the loss of open-water propeller efficiency for the selected
k = form factor propeller and under selected service conditions. The loss of
MAAs = mean apparent amplitude in service, m efficiency as a result of damage will not be taken in consider-
ation for propeller design since it is assumed that any damage
For convenience, the form factor (k) is calculated for our to the propeller blades will be rectified at the first possible op-
studies from the work of Holtrop and Mennen, rather than from portunity.
the Prohaske method, as recommended by the ITTC-1978
Performance Committee, and we refer to reference [7] for Loss in propeller efficiency
details of the calculation of the form factor. Surface roughness influences propeller efficiency in two
The thrust deduction fraction for trial and in-service con- ways. When compared with the smooth propeller, the drag
ditions is assumed to be equal. There is a relation between of the blades of the rough propeller increases torque coefficient
wake fraction and thrust deduction fraction, but tests conducted while decreasing the circulation, which affects the lift coeffi-
on model and full-scale ships [6] have shown that the thrust cient and thus the thrust coefficient for the same angle-of-flow
deduction fraction remains nearly constant for every condition incidence. The change in torque and thrust coefficients of the
of roughness, in spite of the increase of the wake fraction due propeller from a trial to an in-service condition, as a function
to roughness. of average propeller blade roughness, may be estimated by
The relative rotative efficiency (~TR),as estimated for trial KT2 = KT1 -- AKTD -- AKTL
conditions, is also assumed to remain unchanged in service.
Therefore, the ratio of the propeller efficiency in the behind K02 = K01 - A K Q D - - AKoL
and open-water conditions is considered to be equal for the w h e r e
smooth and rough propeller. The validity of such an as-
sumption could be checked by measuring torque in the behind KT2, K02, KTb
and open-water conditions for both smooth and rough propel- K01 = thrust and torque constants in service and
lers, which has not been done as far as we are aware. on trials, respectively

.04
"--- 1300
d3
I-
.8
z
30 ./,
7
O
C~
0
. . . . . C A LCU LATED
o - - I~ODEL TEST
/•//f
/ \
.5
\
tl.
X tt~
1 ,¢
I.I
..J
..J
.3 W
O.
0
I.- og
o.
z
z
0
t~
"r
0 JO
o I 2 5 4 5 6 7 8 g
ADVANCE CONSTANT J
Fig. 2 Comparison of calculated and test [6] K T, K O and r/0
AKTo,AKgD = change in thrust and torque constants, as

a result of increased drag Co = 2 1 + 2 1.89 + 1.62 mg k--~eJ
AKTL,AKgt+ = change in thrust and torque constants, as
a result of reduced circulation; that is, where
reduced value of lift coefficient t = maximum blade thickness at 0.75R
,SKTo, '~<gD, ~ T t ` and ~ 9 L for full-size propellers can be c = chord length at 0.75R
estimated as follows, from equations recommended by the kp = average propeller blade roughness amplitude (hMAA)
ITTC-1978 Performance Committee [3] and based on work of
Lindgren and Bj~irne [16], Aucher [17], and Lerbs [18]: The relationship between the effects of roughness on lift and
drag coefficients was assumed to be ACE = -1.1ACo as pro-
AKTD =-- A CO0.8 ~P cZ
-~ posed by ITTC-78 [8].
The loss of open-water efficiency and the decrease in thrust
coefficient as well as the increase in torque coefficient have
AKQD = ACD0.25 c__ZZ been calculated using these formulas for several roughness
D amplitudes in order to simulate the model test results given in
0.788 + 0.132 j2 {c / [6] to verify the formulas's accuracy. The results of the cal-
AKTL = V/1 + O.180(P/D) 2 Z ~tz/o.75ACt` culation, presented in Fig. 2, show that this method models the
tested results reasonably accurately.
0"117 + 0'021JZ (el A Figure 2 also clearly depicts the tendency of a rapid loss of
AKQt` = +v/1+ O,180(P/D) 2 Z -~ o175 CL
propeller efficiency when only a small amount of initial
where roughness is present. An increase in roughness amplitude of
P/D = pitch/diameter ratio 27/zm for a new propeller of Class S will reduce propeller
,c = chord length open-water efficiency by about 5.5 percent. This corresponds
Z= number of blades to a loss of 0.219 percent in efficiency per 1/~m of roughness
D = diameter amplitude. When heavy roughness, fouling, or both are
J = advance coefficient present, say hMAa = 650/zm, and deterioration continues up
ACo,ACt, = differences between drag (Co) and lift (Ct`) to hMaa = 1800 #m, then the loss of propeller efficiency for the
coefficients from trial and service condi- change of 650 #m is 9.9 percent. This corresponds to a loss of
tion, respectively only 0.0158 percent in efficiency per 1 #m of roughness am-
plitude. Thus, the rate of loss of efficiency is about 14.8 times
The Co coefficient can be estimated for trial or service less for the heavily fouled propeller than for the new propeller.
conditions as a function of propeller blade roughness from This illustrates the importance of keeping the propeller clean
[3] and of good and regular propeller maintenance. Conversely,
once the roughness becomes quite heavy, minor maintenance become available, better recommendations could be made;
will produce only small benefits. however, it is our opinion that the numbers given here are
The problem is how to determine an average roughness of conservative and underestimate blade roughness effects.
the propeller blades for various stages while in service. There
is little known about the way propeller blade surfaces change
with time in operation, particularly when fouling is considered. Fixed-pitch propeller design-point definition
Only by systematic measurements during long service periods The "design point" of a propeller is that point where an av-
for many vessels will it be possible to provide reliable data. As erage pitch of the propeller is selected as a function of the
was noted before, there are two basically different roughnesses: propeller revolution, absorbed power, effective wake and speed
surface roughness and an equivalent fouling roughness. Sur- of the ship. There is only one optimum pitch for a given ship
face roughness can be easily measured before and after docking speed, power and propeller revolution. In other words, the
in a manner similar to that used for measuring the hull rough- fixed-pitch propeller can be considered as a dynamometer
ness. This will result in an average roughness amplitude (hMAA) which has no means of adjustment.
for the propeller blades. If the ship's resistance and propeller thrust did not change
Fouling can be expressed in an equivalent roughness am- in service, then it would be an easy task to select the proper
plitude also expressed in microns. Even though there are very propeller pitch so as to produce enough thrust to propel the ship
few reliable data on the amount of fouling that takes place on at a certain speed with the prime mover operating at full power
a propeller blade, we believe that it would be a mistake to ignore and rpm. But, as has been already discussed, the ship's resis-
the effects of fouling for further calculation. Therefore, hMAA tance actually increases in service and the propeller thrust de-
has been estimated to the best of our knowledge and, Until better creases. Therefore, the load on the prime mover will increase
information becomes available, we believe the estimates to be and it must have sufficient power reserves to accept the in-
reasonable. creased load so that the ship will continue to operate efficiently
Therefore, a blade roughness of30 #m is proposed for a new and effectively.
propeller in trial conditions as recommended by ITTC-1978 This is particularly a problem'if the prime mover is a diesel
[3]. The hMaa for a new propeller can be, based on an Inter- engine. The horsepower a diesel engine may produce is di-
national Organization for Standardization (lOS) standard for rectly proportional to its rpm for any throttle setting, or torque.
the appropriate class of propeller, between 3 and 10 #m, de- The torque produced by the engine is limited by the maximum
pending on production quality. However, it is known from pressure (BMEP) that may be developed in each cylinder.
practice that wear of the propeller blades during outfitting of Therefore, when the engine is producing its maximum torque,
a ship can be significant and in some cases paint dripping on it may produceonly its maximum power at maximum rpm as
an uncovered propeller is the cause of deterioration in the initial opposed to a steam turbine, which may produce its maximum
stage of propeller life. As was noted by Brocrsma and Tasseron power .over a range of rpm's because it is not limited by the
[12]: "In many cases, a short stay in an industrial region with maximum torque it may produce. In service, if the load on the
strongly polluted waters affects the surface more than a number diesel engine requires more than the engine's rated torque, the
of ocean voyages." With this and other deteriorations the engine will become overloaded. The engine will continue to
propeller encounters before trial, a roughness of 20 #m for operate if overloaded--however, may. be operated in this
initial roughness plus an equivalent roughness amplitude of 10 condition only for a limited number of hours before its per-
/zm for deterioration seems appropriate, resulting in 30 #m on formance will begin to deteriorate and increased maintenance
trial. will be required. Depending on the type of engine, over-
In service, the rise in blades roughness with time varies from loading will cause problems such as high loading on bearings,
propeller to propeller [12] and 200 #m of roughness after seven poor air supply to the engine, and consequently uneconomical
years of service can easily be achieved depending on the combustion, surging of the turbocharger, high exhaust tem-
maintenance procedures used in dry-docking. peratures, or faster deterioration of cylinder valves. Therefore,
It has been assumed that the propeller blade roughness de- it is of particular importance that sufficient power margins be
terioration will be 20 #m per year. If at the fourth docking (8 provided so that the engine will not become overloaded during
years) after trials major repair and polishing of the propeller service.
are done, the blade surface is assumed to be restored to an av- It is the job of the propeller designer to match the propeller
erage hMAA of 40 #m. Otherwise, if major repairs are not and engine so that both may work effectively. The designer
performed, deterioration is assumed to continue at the rate of must select the propeller pitch so that later, in the life of the
20 #m per year. vessel, the engine does not become overloaded or never pro-
During the docking treatment, as outlined in Table 1, a duces its full capabilities. To accomplish this, the designer
correction of smoothness of 10 #m per docking is assumed. The applies service margins which he feels will take into account
rate of fouling, expressed in an equivalent roughness amplitude, the increased loads the engine will encounter.
is assumed to be one third of the average blade roughness ex- In principle, there are three types of service margins: on
cluding fouling before docking. The fouling process is taken propeller revolution, on the resistance of the ship, or on installed
to progress linearly from zero (after docking) to 1/3 hMAA(just power. If no margin is provided, the propeller pitch would be
before next docking). selected so that full power, atthe rated rpm, would be absorbed
Based on the preceding assumptions, the blade roughness has on trials; however, the engine would quickly overload.
been calculated for each of the four events to be used in the Therefore, the margin moves the design point so as to decrease
propeller analysis, Table 4. A blade roughness time-history the chances of overloading.
diagram is given in Fig. 3 showing blade roughness for the cases The first type of margin is one applied to rpm. In this case,
of the propeller receiving and not receiving a major overhaul the pitch is selected to absorb 100 percent maximum continuous
at the fourth dry-docking. rating (MCR) at some rpm greater than 100 percent rated rpm
It should be kept in mind that the numbers given herein are on trials--usually 103 percent or 105 percent of rated rpm..
based only on a limited amount of data. It is our intention to With this type of margin, the engine will operate at less than
provide an analytical method for the evaluation of propeller full power on trials at 100 percent rated rpm, providing a
performance based on blade roughness. When more data margin in power. Also, this has the advantage that the engine
Table 4 Propeller roughness
hMAA,pm Event I Event 2 Event 3 Event 4 Event 4

Initial roughness 20 20 20 20 40
Roughness from service ... 150 160 270 110
Roughness from docking .... -30 -30 -60 -20
Fouling equivalent roughness 10 38 50 60 35
Total roughness 30 178 200 290 165
will be able to demonstrate the capability of producing its service resistance and effective wake fraction data. The re-
nominal power on trials. quired input consists of resistance on trial, hull roughness on trial
The second type of margin is one applied to resistance. In and in service, wake fraction on trial, average wind speed, and
this case, the pitch is selected to absorb 100 percent MCR at 100 average wave height in service. Employing the service resis-
percent rated rpm with a higher ship's resistance than on tance and wake fraction data and entering the propeller de-
trials--usually an increase of 25 to 35 percent of trial effective sign-point definition data--power and r p m - - t h e program will
horsepower. This method models what physically happens in optimize the propeller characteristics and design the final
service by trying to predict the increased loads rather than propeller. By entering propeller roughness, the program will
downrating the engine. generate propeller absorption curves for any service events.
The third type of margin is one applied to the power of the The Wageningen B-propeller series was employed to optimize
engine. In this case, the pitch is selected to absorb less than full propeller characteristics as well as to generate absorption curves
power at 100 percent rated rpm on trials--usually 75 to 90 for trial and service conditions.
percent of MCR. This type of margin permits the engine to
develop 1()0 percent of rpm in service and still provide a reserve
of power to handle increasing loads. This type of margin is Performance comparison of various propeller
recommended by most diesel engine manufacturers. design-point definitions
For the numerous propeller absorption analyses conducted The task of creating a propeller design-point definition,
for the foregoing study, a computer program was developed which is to be included in the contract specifications, is con-
to calculate propeller absorption curves for various service sidered a simple task and is done, in the majority of cases,
events. The program generates, for a selected service event, without a complete analysis and on the basis of experience with
320
300
280
It
260
/~ ill
I I
240"
4 I t I
/i I II
22~0- /t /
200
/
180 / I
160 i
o /141III I
E
140 /A //i.)
,,,.,
/ ',//iI I 'lll/Xi
120
|00
/I
/I ,J!
80
60
40 J i
20
EVENT I (TRIALS
i! i
i
O=DRY-DOC KI NG/Y EARS

Fig. 3 Propeller roughness, time history

similar vessels or on the basis of recommendations of the diesel Table 5 Main particulars of example ships
engine manufacturer. Analyzing the examples presented in
this paper should help to provide a better understanding of the RO/RO OBO
design problems and lead to valuable conclusions.
Applying the methods for estimating an increase in effective Length between perpendiculars, m 167.000 271.320
Beam, m 27.430 28.960
horsepower, and loss of the propeller efficiency in service, as Draft, m 9.125 17.374
previously described, the results of the propeller absorption for Displacement, LT 29 753.00 158 092.00
a 167-m roll-on/roll-off (RO/RO) ship and a 271.32-m oil- Brake horsepower {metric) 15 960.00 18 000.00
bulk-ore (OBO) ship~ whose characteristic are given in Table Propeller revolutions 112.00 80.00
Propeller diameter, m 6.30 7.62
5, are analyzed. Components for the increase in resistance and
effective wake fraction for all four events are given in Tables
6 through 11 and in Figs. 4 and 5. Estimated full-scale loss of the lowest commercially available. The upper speed limitation
open-water efficiency and changes in KT and K P for the four for normal operation is taken to be 10:3 percent of rated rpm,
events, as a function of the propeller deterioration scheme in- which is typical among engines. Because we are not concerned
dicated in Fig. 3 and Table 4, are shown in Fig. 6 for the with the ship's performance when overloading the engine, the
RO/RO ship and in Fig. 7 for the OBO ships. areas of restricted operations have not been shown.
The results of the analyses are presented in Figs. 8 through Since each type and model of diesel engine has different
15 by superimposing the propeller absorption curves for seven limitations, the load diagram shown here is used for demon-
propellers designed by seven different design-point definitions stration purposes only. The specific limitations and advantages
onto the load diagram of a diesel engine. The allowable of particular engines must be considered for each project.
working range is indicated by the gray area and bounded by The seven propeller design-point definitions used for analysis
the heavy lines. The highest ship speed achievable within the and listed in the following, are the most commonly used in
working range of the engine is shown in the table above each practice and are, therefore, worthwhile for consideration. The
diagram. Alsoshown in the diagrams are contours of constant definitions define the propeller design point by specifying a
speed. power level and propeller revolution at some specified resis-
It is important to mention that the diesel engine load diagram tance. Usually, this resistance is specified on trial at the design
shown in these figures does not represent one particular man- draft, with clean hull in fine weather (wind not exceeding
ufacturer's diesel engine, but a fictional engine incorporating Beaufort 2) or at some increased resistance.
features common to most types of marine diesel engines. The
range over which the engine is allowed to run at 100 percent Definition I: Propeller pitch is designed to absorb 100
BMEP and the maximum continuous power allowed at lesser percent MCR at 100 percent of nominal propeller revolutions
mean effective pressures has been arbitrarily selected. The on trial.
engine is assumed to be able to continue running at 100 percent Definition Ii: Propeller pitch is designed to absorb 100
BMEP to a minimum of 85 percent of rated rpm, which is about (text continued on page 212)
Table 6 RO/RO resistance and wake fraction--Event 2

['VENT 2
I'I)'FAL tlLII.[. ROLIOttNESS= 5 1 6 . rnicr.or,~

(,ItANI3E i t , Cs :: .0005107
LOA= 182.25 ,, D I S F ' =2?753. LT AL= 5053.6 sq. m

L WL= 172.50 ,, WS = 6034. sq. ,~ AT= 901.3 sq, ,,
LBP= 167.00 ,, 14k = 1.1810 SS= 406.0
l~= 27.43 ,, V~ = 16•0 k r,ots C = 97.250 u,
T= 9.12., Wh = 1.40 ~ H = 11
V T R I AL ~:0L1rj H[ t~]i t~G WAVES WI NIi SERVI CE V

KNOTS F'E F'E F'E F'E F'E KN(]T5
16.00 5291. 1197. (22.637.) 175. ( 3.317.) 291. ( 5.507.) 6954. (31.447.) 16.00
16.50 5860. 1313. (22.417.) 175. (2.997.) 310. ( 5.2?7.) 7658. (30.6?X) 16.50
17.00 6565. 1436. (21.877.) 175. ( 2.677.) 330. ( 5.027.) 8506. ( 29.56X ) 17.00
17•50 7390. 1567. (21.207.) 175• ( 2.377.) 350. ( 4.737.) 9481• (28.307.) 17.50
18.00 8307. 1705. (20•52%) 175. ( 2.11X) 370. ( 4.467.) 10559. (27.08%) 18.00
18.50 ?274. 1851. (19.767.) 175. ( 1.897.) 391. ( 4.22X) 11691. (26.067.) 18.50
19.00 10325. 2005. (19.42X) 175. (1.70%) 413. (4.O07.) 12918. (25.117.) 19.00
19.50 11477. 2167. (18.887.) 175. ( 1.537.) 436. ( 3.80X) 14255. (24.21%) 19.50
20•00 12n44. 2338. (18.217.) 175. ( 1.36%) 459. ( 3.587.) 15817. (23.157.) 20•00
20.50 14811. 2518. (17.007.) 175. ( 1.187.) 484. ( 3.277.) 17988. (21.45%) 20.50
U TRIAL SERVICE
KNOTS WAKE WAKE
16.00 .3464 • 3830 ( 10.55X )

16.50 .3448 .3810 (10.51%)
17.00 .3433 .3792 ( 1 0 . 4 7 % ;
17.50 .3420 .3777 (10.437.)
18.00 .3420 . 3 7 7 8 "~. ( t 0 . 4 7 X )
18.50 .3396 .374B (10.37%)
19.00 .3386 .3736 ( 1 0 . 3 5 ~ )
19.50 .3377 • 3726 ( 1 0 . 3 3 X )
20.00 .3369 .3716 (10.317.)
20.50 .3362 .3708 (10.307.)

Table 7 RO/RO resistance and wake fraction~Event 3
EVEN] 3
I ' f | I ' A L t l I I L L ROU8tlNESS= 602. mtcr.or, s

CIIANGE i t , Cs = .000590'3
[OA= 182.25 m I}ISF'= 2 9 7 5 3 . LT At.:: 5053.6 sq. m

LWL= 1 7 2 . 5 0 m W,r; = 6034. sq- m AT= 901.3 sq. m
L I~F'= 1 6 7 . 0 0 m l l k . :: ) . 1 8 1 0 [~S= 406.0 tvl
B= 2 7 . 4 3 n, Vw = 16.0 kr,ots C = 97.250 n,
l= 9.12 ,, Wh = 1.40 m l'i = II
V I R I AL f,:D U [~H E-H ] N {.; WAVE .5 W I Nil SERV I I'.'E V

KN01S ' PE F:'E F'E F'E F:'E KNOIS
16.00 5291. 1384. (26.16Z) 175. ( 3.317.) 291. ( 5.50Z) 7141. (34.97%) 16.00
16.50 5[;~0. 1518. (25.917.) 175. (2.99%) 310. (5.297.) 7863. (34.19%) 16.~0
17•00 6565. 1660. (25.297.) 175. ( 2.677.) 330. ( 5.02Z) 8730. (32.9~]Z) 17.00
17.50 7390. IBll. (24.51Z) 175. ( 2.377.) 350. ( 4.737.) 9726. (31.617.) 17.50
18.00 8309. 1971• (23.727.) 175. ( 2.11~) 370. ( 4.46%) 10025• (30.297.) IS. 00
18.50 9274. 2140. ( 23.07Z ) 175. ( 1.897.) 391. ( 4.227.) 11980• (29.187.) 1 I]. 5 0
19•00 10325. 2318. (22.457.) 175. ( 1.70%) 41~. ( 4.00%) 13231. (28.157.) 19.04)
19.50 11477. 2506. (21.837.) 175. ( 1=537.) 436. ( 3.807.) 14594. (27.16%) 19.50
20.00 12844. 2704. (21.057.) 175. ( 1.367.) 459. ( 3.587.) 16182. (25.997.) 20.00
20.50 14011. 2911. (19.667.) 175. ( 1.18%) 4E14. ( 3.277.) 18382. ( 2 4 . 117. ) 20.50
V tRIAL SERVICE
KNOTS WAKE WAKE
16.00 .3464 .31il87 (12.207.)

16.50 .3448 .3S67 (12.157.)
17.00 .3433 .3848 (12.10Z)
17.50 .3420 .3832 (I?.067.)
I n. 0 0 .3420 .3834 (12.107.)
Ig.50 .3396 .3U03 ( 11.997.>
19. O0 .3386 .379I (11.967.)
19,,%0 .3377 .3780 (11.947.)
20.00 .3369 .3771 (11.927.)
20. "JO .3362 .3763 (11.917.)
Table 8 RO/RO resistance and wake fraction--Event 4

EVEr; r 4-
I(}[AI ItlJLL F,:IIt|GIINES..S= 760. mJcror=s

(;flANGE Jr, CS = .0007191
L OA= 1 8 2 . 2 5 m DISF'= 2 9 7 5 3 . LT At= 5053.6 sq. m

LWL= 1 7 2 . 5 0 m WS = 6034. s q . m At= 901.3 sq. m
L BF'= 1 6 7 . 0 0 m 14k = 1 . 1 8 1 0 SS= 406.0 m
B= 2 7 . 4 3 m Vw = J6.0 k r,ots C :: 97.250 n,
T= 9.12 m Wh = 1.40 m M = 11
V I RIAt I:OUGH[-tJ];NG WAVES WIND SERVICE V

KNOTS PE F'E F'E PE F'E KN(J1S
16.00 5291. 1686. (31.867.) 175. ( 3.317. ) 291. ( 5.507.) 7443. ( 40.67Z ) I 6.00
16.50 5060. 1849. (31.557.) 175• ( 2 • 997. ) 310. ( 5.297.) 8194. ( 39•837. ) 16.50
17•00 6565. 2022. (30.80Z) 175. ( 2.677. ) 330. ( 5.027. ) 9092. ( 3 t ] . 497. ) 17.00
1.7.50 7390. 2206. (29.85%) 175 • ( 2.377. ) 350. ( 4.73%) 10121. ( 36•957. ) 17.50
IS.O0 83O9. 2400. 428.897.) 175. (2.117.) 370. ( 4.467.) 11255. ( 3 5 • 45% ) 18.00
IS.50 9274. 2606. (28.107.) 175. ( 1.897. ) 391. ( 4.227.) 12447. ( 3 4 . 217. ) IU.50
19.00 10325. 2823. (27.347.) 175. ( 1 . 707. ) 413. ( 4.007.) 13736. ( 3 3 . 047. ) 19.00
19.50 11477. 3052. (26.59%) 175. ( 1.537. ) 436. ( 3.B0%) 15140. ( 31 •91% ) 19.50
20.00 12844• 3293. (25.647.) 175. ( 1.367. ) 459. ( 3.587. ) 16771. ( 30.587. ) 20.00
20.50 14811. 3546, (23.94Z) 175. ( 1.18% ) 484. ( 3.277. ) 19016. ( 2 8 . 397. ) 20.50
|
V TRIAL SERVICE
KNOIS WAKE WAKE
16.00 .3464 • 3979 i 14.86%)

16.50 .3448 .3958 ( 14. 807. )
17.00 •3433 • 3939 (14.747.)
17.50 .3420 .3922 (14•697.)
1.8.00 •3420 .3924 (14.74%)
18.50 .3396 .31192 ( 14.607. )
1.9.00 .3386 • 3S79 (14.577.)
19.50 .3377 .3Q68 (14.547.)
20.00 .3369 • 31)58 ( 14.52% )
20.50 .3362 .3[350 (14•517.)
I
Table 9 OBO resistance and wake fraction--Event 2
EVENT 2
TOTAL ttULL ROUGItNESS= 516. mtcl"ons

CHANGE i n Cs = .0004361
LOA= 283.92 am D I S P = 158092. LT AL= 3702.0 sq.

LWL= 277.10 m WS = 17878. sq. m AT= 915.4 sq. m
LBP= 271.32 ¢~ 11k = 1.1360 SS= 362.5 m
B= 2 8 . 9 6 a~ Uu = 16.0 k n o t s C = 147.270 m
T= 17.37 ,, Wh = 1.40 ,, N = 3
U TRIAL F'£)U(;Ft E r,~]i HE~ WAVES WIND SERVICE 'V

KNOTS PE PE F'E PE PE KNOTS
11.00 5332. 984. ( 1 8 . 4 6 % ) 196. ( 3.67%) 214. ( 4.02%) 6726. (26.15%) 11.00
11.50 6070. 1125. (1B.53%) 196. (3.22X) 233. (3.85%) 7624. (25.59%) 11.50
12.00 6877. 1278. ( 1 1 ] . 5 8 % ) 196. ( 2.84%) 254• ( 3.69%) 8604. (25.11%) 12.00
12.50 7759. 1444. (18.61%) 196. ( 2.52%) 275. ( 3.55X) 9674. (24.68%) 12.50
13.00 8723. 1625. ( 1 8 . 6 2 % ) 196. ( 2.24%) 298. ( 3.42%) 10841. (24.28%) 13.00
13.50 9776. 1819..(18.61%) 196. (2.00%) 322, ( 3.30%) 12113. (23.91%) 13.50
14.00 10926. 2029. (11].57%) 196. ( 1.79%) 348. ( 3.19%) 13499. (23.55%) 14.00
14.50 121112. 2254. ( 1 8 . 5 1 % ) 196. ( 1.60%) 375. ( 3.08%) 15007. (23.19%) 14.50
15.00 13554. 2496. (11].41%) 196. ( 1.44X) 404. ( 2.98%) 16649. (22.84%) 15.00
15.50 15054. 2754. (11].29%) 196. (1.30%) 434. ( 2.89%) 18431]. (22.48%) 15.50
U TRIAL SERVICE
KNOTS WAKE WAKE
11.00 .3570 .31168 ( 8.36%)

11.50 .3560 .3857 ( 1].35%)
12.00 .3550 .3846 ( 8.35%)
12.50 .3530 .3023 ( D.29%)
13.00 .3520 .3811 ( 8.27X)
13.50 .3500 .3787 ( B.21Z)
14.00 .3490 .3776 ( 1].19%)
14.50 .3470 .3754 ( 0.20%)
15.00 .3450 .3730 ( 8.12X)
15.50 .3440 .3719 ~ ( B.10X)
Table 10 O B O resistance and wake fraction--Event 3

EVEN I ,,,3
TOTAL IltlLl_ RtIUOIINESS= l)02. micr.ons

CIIANGE in CS = .0005042
LOA= 283.92 m DISF'= 150092. LT AL = 3702.0 sq. m

LWL= 2 7 7 . 1 0 n, WS = 17878. sq. • AT= 915.4 sq. m
LOP= 271.32 m 11k -- 1.1360 SS= 362.5 m
B= 2 8 . 9 6 n, Vw = 16.0 k n o t s C = 147.270 m
T= 17.37 m Wh = 1.40 m N = 3
V TRIAL F,:OUC~HEIINllt~C) WAVES WIND SERVICE U

KNOTS F'E F'E F'E- FE PE KNOTS
1!.00 5332. 1138. (21.34%) 196. (3.67X) 214. ( 4.02%) 68110. ( 29.03Z ) 11.00
11.50 6070. 1300. (21.42X) 196. ( 3.22X) 233. ( 3.B5Z) 7799. ( 28.49% ) 11.50
12.00 6877. 1477. (21.48%) 196. ( 2.B4%) 254. ( 3.69X) 8804. (28.02X) 12.00
12.50 7759. 1670. (21.52%) 196. (2.52%) 275. ( 3.55X) 9900. (27.59%) 12.50
13.00 11723. 1878. (21.53%) 196. ( 2.24X) 291]. ( 3 . 4 2 % ) 11095. (27•19%) 13.00
13.50 9776. 2104. (21•52%) 196. ( 2.00%) 322. (.3.30X) 12397. (26.81%) 13.50
14.00 10926. 2346. (21.47%) 196• (1.79%) 341]. ( 3 . 1 9 % ) 13816. (26.45%) 14.00
14.50 12182. 2606. (21.40%) 196. (1•60%) 375. ( 3.0BX) 15359. ( 26.08% ) 14.50
15.00 13554. 2886. (21.291) 196. (1.44X) 4 0 4 . ( 2.911%) 17039. (25.71X) 15.00
15.50 15054. 3184. (21.151) 196. ( 1.30X) 434. ( 2.89X) 18868. ( 25.33% ) 15.50
,V TRIAL SERVICE
KNOTS WAKE WAKE
II.00 .3570 .3915 (9•66X)

11.50 .3560 .3904 ( 9•66%)
12.00 .3550 • 3893 ( 9.65%)
12.50 .3530 .3868 ( 9.58%)
13.00 .3520 • 31157 ( 9.57%)
13.50 .3500 • 3832 ( 9.49Z)
14.00 .3490 .31120 ( 9.47Z)
14.50 .3470 .3799 ( 9.48%)
15.00 .3450 .3774 ( 9.39X)
15.50 .3440 .3762 ( 9.36Z)

Table 11 OBO resistance and w a k e f r a c t i o n ~ E v e n t 4
FVENT tt
TgTAL IIULL ROUGIIHESB= 760, mlcronr;

('IIANOE i n Cs = .0006141
LOA= 2 8 3 . 9 2 m BISP= 158092. LT AL= 3702.0 sq. m

LWL= 277.10 m WS = 17878. sq. m AT= 9 1 5 . 4 sq. B
LBP= 2 7 1 . 3 2 m llk= 1.1360 SS= 362.5 m
~= 28.96 m Vw = 16.0 knots C = 147.270 m
T= 17.37 m Wh = 1.40 m H = 3
u TRIAL ~,:[)LH;~HLN]IHG WAVES WIND SERVICE P

KNOTS F'E PE FE PE PE KNOTS
5332. 1386. ( 2 5 , 9 9 ~ ) 196. ( 3.67%) 214. ( 4.02%) 7129. ( 33.6ez ) 11.00

11 . o o
1584. (26,09Z) 196. (3.22%) 233. ( 3.B5X) 8083. (33.167.) 11.50
11.50 6070.
6877. 1799. (26,16Z) 196. (2.84%) 254. ( 3.69%) 9126. (32.70%) 12.00
12.o0
2034. (26,21Z) 196. (2.52%) 275. ( 3.55%) 10263. (32.28%) 12.50
12.50 7759.
8723. 2288. ( 2 6 . 2 3 % ) 196. (2.24X) 298. (3.42Z) 11504. (31.88Z) 13.00
13.o0
2562. (26.21%) 196. (2.0o~) 322. ( 3.30z) 12B56. ( 3 1 . 5 0 X ) 13.50
13.50 9776.
10926. 2857. (26.15Z) 196. ( 1.79Z) 3 4 S . ( 3.19%) 14327. ( 31.137. ) 14.00
14.00
3174. (26.06X) 196. (1.60X) 375. ( 3 . 0 8 X ) 15927. ( 3 0 . 7 4 % ) 14.50
14.50 12182.
3514. (25.93~) 196. ( 1.44%) 404. ( 2.98Z) 17668. ( 30.35Z ) 15.00
15.00 13554.
3878. (25.76%) 196. ( 1.30Z) 4 3 4 . ( 2.89Z) 19562. ( 2 9 . 9 4 % ) 15.50
15.50 15054.
U TRIAL SERUICE
KNOTS WAKE WAKE
11.00 .3570 .3990 ( 1 1.77Z )

11.50 .3560 .3979 (11.76%)
12.00 .3550 .3967 (11.75X)
12.50 .3530 ,3942 ( 11.67Z )
13.00 .3520 .3930 (11.65Z)
13.50 .3500 .3904 ( 1 1.56X )
14.00 .3490 .3893 ( 1 1.53% )
14.50 .3470 .3870 (11.54X)
15.00 .3450 .3844 (11.43%)
15.50 .3440 .3832 (II.40%)
380 Z .380
.sso ~ ot
5 20000
.sso o
5
.s4o ~ 340
-i S,ooo i5.ooo
3~
i
N
r~
o
,H io,ooo
I I I I I i w I ~ t13 I I I ~'
16 17 18 19 20 21 V II z 14 15 ~6 V
SPEED IN KNOTS SPEED IN KNOTS
Fig 4 RO/RO resistance Fig. 5 OBO resistance
206 E f f e c t s of P r o p e l l e r D e s i g n - P o i 0 t D e f i n i t i o n
.05
.O4
.O3 .8
I--
~.0z .7
z
8
~DI .
0",
o
~O .sE-
b
z
.4
0
~.z .z
z
O
l.J
I--.I
a~
21c
~'-O 0
O I 2 3 4 5 6 7 9
ADVANCE CONSTANT J
Fig. 6 KT, KO, 710f o r RO/RO ship (Definition V)
.02
.O3
z
8
~.01 .6
o"
o
~0 .5~-
Z
.4
.3
..I
z
0
I.-.I
t/)
a~
z
~0 "10
0 t 2 3 4 .5 6 ? 9
ADVANCE CONSTANT J
Fig. 7 KT, Ko, ~7ofor OBO ship (Definition V)

Propeller SPEED OPERATNO POINT
Definition (Knots} %RPM %MCR
1- 19.7 100.0 100.0
II 19.7 103.0 i00.0
Wr 19.7 101.4 100.0
19.7 102.1 I00.0
19.4 103.0 93.6
19.i 103.0 88.0
%% 18.9 103.0 84.1
1~'
110
Kt
/
100 ,/"
// /
19.5 Kt
Fig. 8 RO/RO, Event 1, smooth

p r o p e l l e r (hMAA = 30 p,m)
60 " " '= " -

....... " ,i X " I'IIIIIIi'
5o //// l:
80 85 90 95 100 103 108

%RPM
Propeller SPEED OPERATNG POINT

Z 17.9 93.5 93.5
1Z 18.1 97.4 97.4
Tr¢ " 18.0 95.2 95.2
18.0 96.0 96.0
18.2 100.0 100.0
18.2 101.8 I00.0
% PB 18.2 103.0 100.0
IV
5 Kt
lOO
90 //" '/~/ /'/ Fig. 9 RO!RO, Event 2, roughened

propeller (hMAA = 173 #m)
70 /// /
60
~ 16Kt
50 r ;
80 85 90 95 100 103 108

%RPM

"r 17,7 92.8 92.8

n 17.9 96.7 96.7
Ill 17.8 94.5 94.5
17.8 95.4 95.4
Z 18.0 99,2 99.2
18.0 101.2 I00.0
~/oPB vrc 18.0 102.4 i00.0
100
90
Fig. 10 RO/RO, Event 3, roughened
propeller (hMAA= 200 #m)
80
70
60
80 85 90 95 100 103 IO8

%RPM

Definition (Knots1 %RPM %MCR
1" 17.4 91.5 91.5

II 17.6 95.3 95.3
"rrr 17.4 93.2 93.2
17.5 94.0 94.0
~" 17.6 97.7 97.7
17'7 100.1 100.0
% PB 17.7 101.4 I00.0
110 ]I ~ V193]_
100
/
90 /.~/~
Fig. 11 RO/RO,Event 4, roughened
propeller (hMAA= 290/zm)
60 ,
50 ~ i:
80 85 90 95 100 103 108

%RPM .

Propelter SPEED OPERATNG P'DttJT
Delinition [Knots} %RPM j ~"C~
I 14.0 i00.0 30.0
14.1 103.0 30.']
Trr 14,1 131.5 90.0
~- 14.1 131.9 90.0
13.8 i]3.0 93.0
13.5 DI3.0 ;~7.4
%% 13.3 103.0 83.5
/// / / /
~~~
100
J .14 Kt
/ /- .
90 / > Fig. 12 OBO, Event 1, smooth
~°'~~ Kt propeller (hMA A = 30/~m)
80 /~ouS>~/.
,~'13 Kt
70 / / '~'-
.o o Kt .
11.5 Kt
so ~
80 85 90 95 100 103 108

%RPM
Detinition [Knots) %RPM %MCR
I 12.4 95.1 95.1
~I 12.6 98.3 98.3
m" 12.5 97.1 97.1
12.5 97.5 97.5
~" 12.6 101.8 100.0
:Z 12.6 103.0 98.1
%% Xrn- 12.4 103.0 94.0
110
,oo
/~ :t
Fig. 13 OBO, Event 2, roughened
propeller (hMAA = 173 #m)
80 "~&-~
///
// / / "----/--J~/ 1 ~ 1 IKt
50 ~:. . . .
80 85 90 95 100 103 108

%RPM

Definition (Knots) %RPM %MCR
Z 12.2 94.6 94,6

IZ 1Z,4 98,8 98,8
12,3 96.6 96.6
12,3 97.0 97.0
12,5 101,4 i00,0
12,5 103,0 99.2
12.3 103,0 95.1
110
100 Kt
//'/
/ Y.Y
/
Fig. 14 OBO, Event 3, roughened 90
propeller (hMA A -- 200/~m)
80
,,;4
....:
=
70
60.
50
80 85 90 95 100 103 !os

_ %epM
Propeller SPEED OPERATNG POfNT
Definition (Knots) %RPM Y~MCR
"r 11,9 " 93,6 93,6
12,1 97.7 97,7
"m- 12,0 95,6 95.6
"rv- 12.0 96.0 96,0
3t 12.2 100,6 100.0
"or I?..2 102,5 100,0
"o'rr 12,1 103,0 97,4
%PB
T~.
12.5 Kt
lOO
/
/ /
../ / " . . . . . . • /
Fig. 15 OBO, Event 4, roughened 9O
,~ i / /
propeller (hMAA= 290 ~¢m)
,o
~0
80 85 90 95 100 103 108

%RPM

percent MCR at 103 percent of nominal propeller revolutions In the case of the RO/RO vessel, operating in service after
on trial. 7 years and 6 months (Event 2), Fig. 9, only Propellers V, VI
Definition III: Propeller pitch is designed to absorb 100 and VII will be able to maintain 100 percent rpm without
percent MCR at 100 percent of nominal propeller revolutions overloading the diesel engine and to provide ample excess air
by adding 25 percent of the trial effective horsepower. in the cylinders for proper combustions. Propellers VI and VII
Definition IV: Propeller pitch is designed to absorb 100 will also provide additional power margin in case weather
percent MCR at 100 percent of nominal propeller revolutions conditions become worse than Beaufort 4. The actual service
by adding 30 percent of trial effective horsepower. power absorbtion for Propeller V will be 100 percent MCR at
Definition V: Propeller pitch is designed to absorb 85 100 percent rpm and for Propeller VII will require 103 percent
percent MCR at 100 percent of nominal propeller revolutions rpm to absorb 100 percent MCR. Propeller I will operate at
on trial. a reduced rpm of 93.5 percent and will absorb 93.5 percent
Definition VI: Propeller pitch is designed to absorb 80 MCR even though the BMEP is 100 percent. Any attempt to
percent MCR at 100 percent of nominal propeller revolutions increase the rpm in order to increase the speed of the vessel or
on trial. maintain the speed if weather conditions are worsening will
push the operating point of the propeller into the restricted
Definition VII: Propeller pitch is designed to absorb 80 range, thereby overloading the engine. Propellers II, III and
percent of normal continuous output (NCR) at 100 percent rpm
IV will create overloading similar to Propeller I, but to a lesser
on trial where NCR is 90 percent MCR. degree.
Referring to the service margins previously discussed, Def- It can also be seen that Propellers VI and VII have been de-
inition I has no margin, while Definition II applies the rpm-type signed with an ample margin, if Event 2 is considered a design
margin; Definitions III and IV apply the increased resistance- condition. In the case of Events 3 and 4, Propellers VI and VII
type margin, and Definitions V, VI, and VII apply power-type will provide trouble-free operation at 100 percent rpm while
margins. Propeller VII will provide a further margin in power which
Figures 8 and 12 represent the performance of the RO/RO may be needed tO maintain the speed of the ship for weather
and OBO vessels on trial. Other than Definition I, Definitions conditions worse than Beaufort 4.
III and IV provide the smallest margins while Definitions V, In the case of the OBO vessel, as can be seen from Figs.
VI and VII provide the largest. Also,only Definitions I, II, III 13-15, Propellers V, VI and VII will provide an ample margin
and IV are able to demonstrate 100 percent MCR without ov- for the three anticipated service events. Even in Event 4,
erspeeding the engine. These definitions also provide the Propeller VII would not be able to absorb nominal power at 103
highest possible speeds on trials which would translate to the percent rpm. The diesel engine would not be fully utilized and
highest speeds right after trials. Because the other definitions can be considered too large or the propeller can be considered
cannot develop full power, they cannot produce quite the speed too "light." Propellers I, II, III and IV will operate in Service
of the other definitions on trials. However, in certain cases Events 2, 3 and 4 at reduced revolutions and 100 percent
where there are no critical shafting vibrations, some manu- BMEP. In Event 2, Propeller I will operate at 95 percent rpm
facturers permit higher revolutions on trials so that the full absorbing 95 percent MCR and the engine will operate at 100
power may be demonstrated. If this were possible for our two percent BMEP. This operating condition could be acceptable
ships, then approximately the same speeds as Definitions I, II, depending on the diesel engine characteristics.
III and IV could be shown on trials l~y Definitions, V, VI and For comparison reasons, results of the propeller absorption
VII. shown in Figs. 9 and 13 are recalculated with the assumption
The next step is to observe the performance of these seven that there is no propeller deterioration; this is; maintenance of
propellers in service. We have selected three events to simulate the propeller was such that the smoothness of 30/lm is always
service conditions, and the assumptions considered for Events maintained. These results are shown in Figs. 16 and 17. The
2, 3 and 4 are as discussed previously. To review: Event 2 is leftward displacement of the propeller absorption curves is
six months before the fourth dry-docking; Event 3 is one day much lower, demonstrating the importance of propeller surface
before the fourth dry-docking; and Event 4 is six months before maintenance when compared with hull maintenance. This is
the seventh dry-docking. Figures 9 through 11 and 13 through dramatized further by Figs. 18 and 19, where propeller ab-
15 represent the performance of the RO/RO and OBO ships sorption is plotted for the four service events with roughened
in service at the three events, outfitted with the seven different and smooth propellers for both ships.
propellers. Speed-keeping qualities
For each service event that represents larger deterioration It is often important for the ship operator to maintain ship
of hull and propeller, and takes into account worse weather speed in service. Very often in the contract specifications the
conditions than on trials (Event 1), the absorption curve is dis- "service speed" or "sustained sea speed" is defined as a speed
placed more toward the left side of the load diagram, resulting on trial at a selected power level and must be demonstrated by
in reduction of the propeller revolutions at the same power the shipbuilder during trial acceptance tests. How well does
level. The amount of this displacement varies as a function of this definition predict actual service speed? Analyzing the
the increase in vessel resistance, propeller deterioration, and propeller absorption diagrams for all four events, we can get
change in wake fraction. This holds true for any type of ship, a fairly clear answer to this question. The actual service speed
but the absolute value of curve displacement, expressed in will differ from the contractual service speed, measured during
propeller revolution drop, will vary for each vessel. trials, if the contractual service speed is not selected on the basis
Figures 9, 10, 11 and 13, 14, 15 depict this observation. The of propeller absorption analysis for a design service event.
absolute value of curves displacement, expressed in percent For vessels outfitted with a propeller designed with Defini-
drop of nominal rpm at a constant power level, is approximately tion V, for example, the contract service speed would often be
the same for all seven propellers between trials and any par- defined at 85 percent MCR. For the OBO ship this would be
ticular service event. In the case of the RO/RO vessel, the drop 13.4 knots. However, all seven propellers could propel the ship
in rpm between trials and Event 2, for all propellers, is about on trials at about the same speed at 85 percent MCR but with
4.7 percent; in case of the OBO vessel, the rpm drop is about different propeller revolutions, as shown in Fig. 12. After 7
3.3 percent. years and 6 months in service (Event 2) an actual service speed
Ptopetler SPEED OPEF~ATNGPOINT
+r 18.3 95.8 95.8
18.6 100.0 IOO.O
-m" 18.4 97.7 97.7
I~: 18.5 98.7 98.7
,¢" 18.6 102.0 100.0
"vr 18.4 103.0 97.2
18.3 103.0 93.4
]3t
lO0 J
5 Kt
,//
Fig. 16 RO/RO, Event 2, smooth 7~ HS~"Kt
propeller (hMAA = 30/~m)
r.5 Iq
5 Kt
+o ~ " ~ ~ 16.
80 85 90 95 100 103 108

%RPM

Z 12.7 96.9 96.9
"n" 12.9 100.9 I00.0
Tn" 12.8 99.1 99.1
~: 12.8 99.5 99.5
12.9 103.0 99.3
v'r 12.6 103.0 93.6
12.4 103.0 89.9
-IV
-v-
100 J 3.0 Kt
Fig. 17 OBO,Event 2, smooth 90

propeller ( h M A A = 30 p,m)
80
~t
70
60
50 ,,,
80 85 90 95 100 103 108

%RPM

ROU6HENED PROPELLER
.... SMOOTHPROPELLER
E4-
E; 3 E2
"1
J
100 i f j
.J
9O
.J z j
Jj ///.//-.,'~ / j-
Fig. 18 RO/RO, all events, roughened
and smooth propellers, Definition V
~!i~ 1i!!~ii I~¸¸

,o
60
50
80 85 9O 95 100 103 108

%RPM
- - ROUGHENED PROPELLER
..... SMOOTHPROPELLER
E4
E3E
110
100
j
J'j
.J j"
9O /-/
Fig. 19 OBO, all events, roughened
and smooth propellers, Definition V
:/ °
,o
60
50
80 85 90 95 100 103 108

%RPM
110
J
100 /Pj
/
/ /
/ / "
90
Fig, 20 RO/RO,all events,roughened / /

propeller, DefinitionV 80.
~/"j;
70
Cz
60.
'/y
/50
80 85 90 95 100 103 108

%RPM
%PB it)
100 / / /
/ / " J ~ /
9o _/
f
_ ~o°/~
Fig. 21 OBO,all events,roughened
propeller, DefinitionV 80/(o.y>
tz
.o ~
f.--
60 /,
80 85 90 95 100 103 108

%RPM

RO/RO VESSEL
PROPELLER _V
J
• ROUGHENED PROPELLER
AVG.
. . . . $1dOOTH PROPELLER
SPEED
(K'r
19
L- . . . . -I
I-- . . . . -L.---- - --b_ ....
18
17
i ,i
v ~ iv
4 6 8 I0 12 14
Fig. 22 Average service speed between dry~ocking--RO/RO
of 12.4 knots would be attained at 100 percent rpm at 95 per- experienced this when they compared sister ships where the
cent MCR Speed could be increased to a maximum of 12.6 propeller of one ship was kept clean and the second was allowed
knots by permitting the propeller to run at 102 percent rpm, to foul [19]. Considerable speed difference was experienced
100 percent MCR and 98 percent BMEP. In the case of Event between the two ships, which prompted them to begin having
4, the maximum speed would be 12.2 knots at 108 percent rpm propellers cleaned by divers before each voyage. This again
and 100 percent MCR. The difference between contractual illustrates the importance of keeping the propeller as clean as
and actual service speed in Event 2 of 0.8 knots would be ex- possible.
perienced and in Event 4 the drop in service speed would be
1.2 knots. All other propellers would experience similar speed Conclusions
loss. Therefore, the contract service speed overpredicts the The performance comparison analysis shown for the two
actual speed in service. example ships demonstrates the facts which must be considered
Figures 20 and 21 demonstrate the performance of the for the proper layout of propeller/diesel engine systems in order
RO/RO and OBO vessels, outfitted with Propeller V, in all four to avoid abnormal maintenance and operating problems.
events. In case of the RO/RO vessel out-fitted with Propeller When creating a design-point definition which is supposed to
V, Fig. 18, it is evident that the contractual service speed, de- be included in the contract specifications, the amount of margin '
fined as a speed on trials at 85 percent MCR, cannot be main- and the form in which this margin shall be defined should be
tained for long. Following the constant speed line of 19.0 knots based on a propeller absorption analysis prepared for the spe-
the propeller revolution must be increased up to about 102.5 cific service conditions the vessel will encounter.
percent RPM when 100 percent MCR is reached. After that By applying the methods described in the paper, the pro-
a drop in propeller revolutions and ship speed will follow until peller absorption curves for various propellers should be su-
Service Event 2 propeller absorption curve is reached. At that perimposed on the proposed diesel engine load diagram to
point the speed of the vessel will be 18.2 knots and the diesel evaluate which propeller will insure that there will be no
engine will operate at 100 percent rpm and 100 percent MCR. overloading before the design service event. Taking into
If the speed on trials is to represent the actual service speed in consideration the limitations of a proposed diesel engine, fuel
Event 2, the engine would need to develop only 70 percent consumption rate at various power levels and revolutions, ship
MCR. speed, and additional power margin required for operational
The loss of an average service speed between two dry- reasons, such as maintaining speed in bad weather, the pitch
dockings, as a functions of years in service, was calculated for can be selected. With the propeller chosen, the trial propeller
the RO/RO vessel with all seven propellers. It is of interest to absorption curve can be calculated and, by again superimposing
note that for this case all propellers will perform so that an av- it on the selected diesel engine load diagram, performance data
erage ship speed will occur approximately 14 months after each required for the propeller design-point definitions may be se-
docking. The actual service speed between dry-dockings for lected.
the RO/RO vessel with Propeller V is shown in Fig. 22. The Often in contract specifications the service speed is specified
loss in actual average service speed, from docking to docking, as: "Service speed or sustained sea speed shall be attained on
is indicated with a solid line which assumes hull and propeller trials at 'H' percent MCR." Further, the propeller design-point
maintenance procedures as outlined in Table 1. The dotted definition is very often not included at all. How valuable then
line represents an average speed between dockings with the is such a statement, and what does this mean to a shipowner or
assumption that the propeller blade roughness is maintained shipbuilder? Referring to Fig. 8, on trials at 85 percent MCR
at 80 # m - - a n ideal situation. The New Zealand Shipping Co. all seven propellers will provide a "service speed" of 19.0 knots.
The decision as to which propeller finally will be installed on will actually perform in service with such a speed. Also, since
the ship, from the contractual point of view, is left to the ship- the time when the "service speed" will be attained is not
yard. Certainly, the diesel engine manufacturers will suggest specified, it has limited use for economic studies. A more ac-
the selection of Propeller V, VI or VII, if possible, while some curate average service speed between two dry-dockings can be
shipyards will select a propeller which will provide the highest estimated for a selected propeller as a function of time in service
speed on trials, as has been seen in practice. By comparing and maintenance program procedures. Such results could then
Figs. 8 and 9, it is evident that the actual service speed, on the be used for operational studies or analysis of required hull
day in the life of the vessel represented by Event 2, with Pro- and/or propeller maintenance procedures.
pellers I, V and VII, will be 17.4 knots, 18.1 knots and 18.1 knots, Specifying "service speed" on trials at a particular power
respectively--lower than predicted. level without also indicating propeller revolutions will not ad-
It is also clear from Fig. 22 that between two dry-dockings equately define propeller characteristics. This will contribute
the average service speed of the ship, outfitted with Propeller to the confusion as to how to design the propeller and mislead
V, will never be 19.0 knots as specified on trials at 85 percent the shipowner in his operational predictions.
MCR. The actual service speed is constantly changing between It should also be mentioned that selecting a service design
dry-dockings, as was previously discussed, and, even though event is a complex task and could be hard for a shipowner to
the ship's speed for Event 2 is 18.1 knots, the average speed deal with if the trade route is not known and a hull and pro-
between the third and fourth dry-dockings is 18.3 knots. peller maintenance program is not routinely established.
Therefore, it is evident that the wording of the contract Monitoring the performance of other ships in the fleet by
specification is not adequate in specifying the propeller. If this measuring power absorption and revolutions in service on a
is not satisfactory, what would be? First, the idea that the speed regular basis, and measuring MAA and hMaa at in-docking and
on trials predicts the service speed should be abandoned and, out-docking, plays an important role in providing valuable
secondly, the design-point definition should be spelled out in technical data, so necessary for correct propeller design.
the specification. The design-point definition should consist Equipped with reliable data, propeller design-point definitions
of the power to be absorbed by the propeller at a specific rpm could be estimated for a similar ship on a similar trade route
and the ship resistance, for most cases on'trials. After having with great reliability.
selected a propeller and calculating its absorption on trials, the Another advantage of having propeller absorption curves
design point data are readily available. calculated for various service events would be in the selection
Along with the design-point definition, the speed on trials of the diesel engine. By superimposing propeller absorption
at the design point must be specified. The demonstration of curves of the design and other service events on a proposed
speed on trials is important, so that the predictions of ship diesel engine load diagram, the engine will demonstrate
performance in service may be verified. If a ship cannot make whether it has enough flexibility in its operating range to ac-
the predicted trial speed, then the prediction of service per- commodate operational requirements without detrimental
formance would be in question. effects on engine maintenance. Also, this will provide an in-
The owner should remember, however, that the speed of the sight into specific fuel consumption for various operating points
ship on trials is not a prediction of service speed, but only a in service, and it will give a good indication when a hull and
criterion for acceptance. For the owner's economic analysis propeller maintenance program must be altered in order to
of the ship's future operation, the speed the ship will make in protect the diesel .engine from an overloading condition. All
service may be predicted only by the method advocated here this would permit the selection of a propeller/diesel engine to
or by some similar method. provide trouble-free operation in service.
It is also appropriate to note at this point that, with such large
variations in torque and power between trials and various ser-
vice conditions, the use of a controllable-pitch propeller (CPP)
Acknowledgments
would be a perfect solution to problems such as overloading of The authors would like to thank John J. McMullen Associates,
the diesel engine and would permit complete utilization of the Inc. (JJMA) for their sponsorship of this paper and for making
engine throughout service by maintaining nominal or any se- available computer time for the extensive calculations neces-
lected power level and revolution. The advantage of a CPP sary. They would also like to thank Mr. John Marra of Inter-
installation lies in the automatic load control that can be in- national Paint Company, Inc., who provided references and
corporated in the propeller/diesel engine system which will other technical information. Special thanks are also due to Mr.
insure the maximum power usage at all times, along with good Marko Vukasovic for his help in the preparation of the paper
maneuverability, especially when direct-coupled engines are and to all the secretaries at JJMA for their typing of the man-
in question. uscript.
The applications of CP propellers are not widespread on
larger installations and commercial vessels operating on Metric Conversion Table
worldwide trading routes. This is because of the large capital I mm = 0.04 in.
investment necessary to purchase a CP propeller and, according 1 m = 3.28 ft
to some shipowners, their doubtful reliability. Utilizing the 1 m2 = 10.76 ft2
method presented in this paper and taking into account dif- 1 long ton (LT) = 1.016 047 metric tons
ferent hull and propeller maintenance procedures and even
longer periods between dry-dockings, an evaluation could be References
conducted in order to investigate the possible economic ad- 1 Todd,F. H., "Resistanceand Propulsion"in Principles of Naval
vantages or disadvantages of a CP propeller. This would be Architecture, J. P. Comstock, Ed., SNAME, 1967.
especially interesting for ships where hull maintenance is ne- 2 Malone,J. A., Little, D. E., and Allman, M., "Effects of Hull
glected or in situ hull cleaning must be performed. The Foulants and Cleaning/Coating Practices on Ship Performance and
evaluation of propeller absorption and average service speed Economics," TRANS.SNAME, Vol. 88, 1980.
could provide reliable data for the justification of capital in- 3 Proceedings, 15th International Towing Tank Conference, M.
W. C. Oosterveld, Ed., Vol. I, The Hague, Sept. 1978.
vestment in a CP propeller versus a fixed-pitch propeller. 4 Townsin, R. L., Byrne, D., Milne, A., and Svensen, T., "Speed,
To conclude, the definition for the sustained sea speed or Power and Roughness: The Economics of Outer Bottom Mainte-
service speed on trials does not provide insurance that the ship nance," Trans. RINA, Vol. 122, 1980.
5 Isherwood, R. M., "Wind Resistance of Merchant Ships," Trans. 18 Naess, E., "'Reduction of Drag Resistance Caused by Surface
RINA, Vol. 115, 1973. Roughness and Marine Fouling," Norwegian Maritime Research, No.
6 Kan, S., Shiba, H., Tsuchida, K., and Yokoo, K., "Effect of 4, 1980.
Fouling of a Ship's Hull and Propeller Upon Propulsive Performance," 14 Grigson, C. W. B. "Propeller Roughness, Its Nature, and Its
International Shipbuilding Progress, Vol. 5, No. 41, Jan. 1958. • Effect upon the Drag Coefficients of Blades and Ship Power, RINA,
7 Holtrop, J., and Mennen, G. G. J., "An Approximate Power Supplementary Papers, Vol. 124, July 1982.
Prediction Method," International Shipbuilding Progress, Vol. 29, 15 Patience, G., "The Contribution of the Propeller to Energy
No. 335, July 1982. Conservation in Ship Operation," SMM Technics Paper No. 20, May
8 Bussler M., "Die Berechnung des Reibungsbeiwertes und 1982.
Reibungsmassstabeinflusses von glatten und rauchen Propellern,' 16 Report of Performance Committee, 14th International Towing
Schiffstechink, Band 3, 1955/56. Tank Conference, Ottawa, Vol. 3, 1975.
9 Ferguson, J. M., "The Effect of Surface Roughness on the
Performance of a Model Propeller," Trans. RINA, Vol. 100, 1958. 17 M. Aucher, "Useful Points of View on the Section Drag on
10 Byrne, D., Fitzsimmons, P. A., and Brook, A. K., "Maintaining Propeller Characteristics," prepared for the International Towing Tank
Propeller Smoothness: A Cost Effective Means of Energy Saving," Conference, Performance Committee Meetings, Tr0ndheim, Norway,
Symposium on Ship Costs and Energy, SNAME, Sept. 1982. Sept. 1973.
11 Townsin, R. L., Byrne, D., Svensen, T. E., andMilne, A., "Es- 18 H. Lerbs, "On the Effects of Scale and Roughness on Free
timating the Technical and Economical Penalties of Hull and Propeller Running Propellers," Journal of the American Society of Naval En-
Roughness," TRANS.SNAME, Vol. 89, 1981. gineers, No. 1, 1951.
12 Broersma, G. and Tasseron, K., "Propeller Maintenance-- 19 Ferguson, J. M., "The Effects of Surface Roughness on the
Propeller Efficiency and Blade Roughness," International Ship- Performance of a Model Propeller," Trans. RINA, Vol. 100, 1958;
building Progress., Vol. 14, 1967. written discussion by J. Baird.
Discussion
R. L. Townsin, Member Inserting some typical figures, the above formula gave cot service
This discussion is principally concerned with the first part = 0.37 while the authors' modification gave cot serviee=
of this important paper dealing with the additional loadings on 0.39.
Each of the three issues raised so far indicate some overesti-
the propeller from the exigencies of service.
The increasing use of self-polishing copolymer antifoulings mation of the effects of hull roughness by the authors, but al-
implies ships whose intact paint remains weed-free and shell- ternatives are offered.
Propeller roughness and its effects present especially difficult
free in service. Only the damaged areas are then subject to
• problems and it may be as well to repeat some of the cautions
fouling penalties. The polishing paints and a general im-
provement in paint application procedures during the past few given in reference [11]. Average Hull Roughness (or MAA) is
an inappropriate measure for propeller surfaces. The short
years allow the more optimistic view of surface deterioration
to be taken from reference [4]. wavelength cutoff determined by the stylus ball diameter and
the long wavelength cutoff are critical to the value ok the
The ITTC correlation allowance accounts not only for
roughness, but also, most importantly, for length. If it is to be roughness height measure; examples are given in reference [11].
Texture measures are also likely to be of importance to the drag.
used as a roughness penalty predictor, then it should be reduced
The Schlichting sand grain formula quoted by the authors is also
as noted in [11] and by about one half. A more up-to-date
formulation accounting also for speed [20] (additional refer- difficult to apply since the drag comparability between a 100
ences follow some discussions) is percent dense sand grain surface and a Colebrook-White sur-
face, such as a propeller blade, is unknown.
10aACF = 44 - 10(Rn) -1/a + 0.115 For the purposes of the authors' propeller design-point cal-
culation routine, however, improved and simplified methods
where Rn is Reynolds number. for both measuring and defining propeller roughness are likely
A resulting change to the authors' formula would then be to be available in the next few years. Meanwhile, use can be
made of Musker's equivalent height measure h' in the roughness
p(WS)(Cs)(O.5144Vs) a function when calculating rough section drag coefficients for
PE roughness = (]50
use in a propeller design routine for KT and K O. An interesting
It is worth noting that many new ships today enter service with recent example of rough propeller power penalties is given by
an average hull roughness less than 100 = # m AHR; 150 #m Svensen [21]:
is now a poor new finish. The authors' modification to the Ap
ITTC wake scaling formula (which has a + sign missing as - - × 100% = 1.107(h') 1/3 - 1.479 for h' > 8
P
printed) is open to question. An alternative approach is as
follows, We may write It may be that the 1/3rd power law may be as useful a rule of
COTSservice = (t + 0.04) + (COTM t 0.04)
- - - -
thumb for rough propellers as it is for rough hulls.
X (1 + k)CF trial -]- ACF trial + Cs Additional references
(1 + k)CrM 20 Townsin, R. L., "Bottom Condition and Fuel Conservation,"
Proceedings, VIII WEGEMT Graduate School, Gothenburg, Sweden,
COTStri~l = (t + 0.04) + (WTM -- t -- 0.04) Aug. 198&
X (1 '{- k)C F trial 4- mE F trial 21 Svensen,T. E., "The Economics of Hull & Propeller Mainte-
nance Examined in the Face of Uncertainty," Trans., NECIES, Oct.
(1 + k )CFM 1983.
from which, by division we obtain R. B. Couch, Member
coTS service = (t + 0 . 0 4 ) + (coTS trial -- t - 0.04)
I have read this paper with considerable interest. The au-
thors obviously have put a lot of work into it. I am not prepared
X 1 + (1 + k)Cv trial + ACe trial" to discuss it in depth; however, a few comments: Presumably
as more reliable data become available estimates of the effects layers of containers, which can make a difference in power
of bottom roughness and propeller roughness can be made with requirements of up to 10 percent.
great confidence. It probably can also be said that dry docking, As manufacturers also of controllable-pitch propellers, we
bottom cleaning and propeller cleaning carried out properly have no doubt that a point can be made for CP propellers and
and regularly will reduce the effect over the lifetime of the it would indeed be very interesting to evaluate the pros and cons
ship. in a detailed independent study. From operations in the Great
Recently we had the opportunity of retesting some old model Lakes with CP propellers coupled directly to slow-speed en-
propellers and found that the efficiency had dropped ap- gines, we know for a fact that the wear rate of liners, rings, etc.,
proximately five points over a period of several years. This is considerably better than on an equivalent engine running
difference was checked independently at two laboratories. with a fixed-pitch propeller. Also, in view of the ever-in-
Close inspection of the model propeller did not show obvious creasing use of PTO's (power takeoff's) even on slow-speed
damage or roughness. This surprising finding emphasizes the engines, a constant shaft rpm is very attractive.
importance of propeller conditions.
John Austin Malone, Member
Ernst P. Jung, Member The authors have presented a thorough treatment of pro-
The authors are to be congratulated for a very well written peller design-point definition, and its importance in establishing
and precise paper on a timely subject. It is a pleasant surprise meaningful performance requirements for contract specifi-
to note for a change that the increase in power is indeed at- cations. The propeller absorption analysis presented in the
tributed to the deterioration of the hull and propeller as well paper appears to be a technically sound procedure for evalu-
as the various operating conditions rather than to the deterio- ating propeller design points, assuming the user can reasonably
ration of the diesel engine. We have indeed held very lengthy predict hull and propeller roughness characteristics and their
discussions on this subject during the past few years and, of associated performance effects throughout the ship's service
course, depending upon the particular naval architects at the life. My comments pertain to the guidance providedby the
consultants, shipyards and owners, you get requests from authors in these areas.
practically no margin all the way up to 80 percent, mostly di- Figure 28 accompanying this discussion shows the wide range
vided between the engine and the vessel. As very clearly of Average Hull Roughness (AHR) values that may apply to a
documented in the paper, the actual requirements are some-• ship at any point in its service life. Also, the fouling factors that
where in between, were taken from my 1980 work (reference [2] of the paper)
The rule of thumb of a propeller absorbing 85 to 90 percent should have been adjusted for the present work using the
of MCR at nominal engine rpm, which we have used for a original source material from logbook data analysis as contained
considerable time, is generally still acceptable. However, it in references [22] and [23] of this discussion, bearing in mind
is vital that a greater emphasis be placed on the type of vessel that foulant macroroughness will completely mask substrate
and the intended service. As has been proved, even if we can microroughness.
run a containership on trial with full-load draft, it is an entirely To determine the effect of hull roughness on frictional re-
different matter when the deck is stacked with four or five sistance, the authors use the formula recommended by ITTC-
1200
1100
1000
E 900
:=L ,o
E
800
,K
v
~) 700
uJ
z 0
:c
I
600 0
n,,
0
n-
0
500 L
q.
o
uJ 400
0
<
0
tel
300
20O
IO0
0 2 4 6 8 - 10 12 14 16 18 20
Y E A R S IN S E R V I C E
Fig. 23
WE (KRESIC & HASKELL, RO-RO)
/ w n= 0.56 ]
O.40- i AT 450 DAYS
/ EVENT 2
O.35-
.A
0.30- ~,,
!
!
0.25- I
0 40 80 120 160
DAYS OF FOULING AFTER RE-PAINTING
+0.10- 'REF. 22 DATA FOR -KRESIC & HASKELL, RO-RO

C4 BREAK BULK SHIP 6w=70.0Cs•
~o
°
Z ]+REF. 22 DATA FOR C7
O
k- I CONTAINERSHIP (NO •
o +0.05 - ~ TREND, OF 6w VS.
. Cs) ~ ~ [
t~
u.
z 0.00-
• +e ~" REF. 22, C4 BREAK BULK SHIP

Z 6w = 35.7C s + O.O13
<
-T-
O
-0.05 I I I I I I I I I I
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
•C s x 10 4
Fig. 24
1978, which does not account for the effects of varying sur{ace surement data, their propeller roughness time history must be
texture or roughness distribution on ACF. The authors' ref- recognized as highly speculative if not totally arbitrary.
erence [11] provides a critique highlighting the shortcomings With regard to the effect of propeller roughness on propul-
of the source data and associated data reduction techniques used sive efficiency, the ITTC-1978 equations do not account for
in developing that formula. With regard to reliability, refer- variations in surface texture, for the relative roughness on the
ence [11] suggests that the formula overestimates the hull suction and pressure sides, not for its spanwise or chordwise
roughness-induced performance penalty by 7 to 9 percent, distribution. In fact, the form of the ITTC-1978 formulation
while reference [24] herewith suggests that it underestimates suggests that kp is not a measurable roughness parameter but
the penalty by 9 percent, both based on the results of ship per- the Schlichting sand grain roughness, and, to the best of my
formance monitoring experiments. knowledge, there is no accepted relationship for establishing
To determine the effect of hull roughness on wake fraction, equivalence between measurable parameters and Schlichting
the authors use an adaptation of an ITTC-1978 formula which, sand grain roughness.
again, does not account for the distribution of roughness over In summary, shortcomings of present capabilities to reliably
the wetted surface with its significant influence on boundary- predict time histories of hull and propeller roughness, and to
layer development and wake fraction. Further, Fig. 24 reliably determine the associated effects on ship performance,
herewith shows that the wake fraction changes predicted for leave me with the feeling that the authors' propeller absorption
the RO/RO ship using this formula appear inconsistent with analysis technique is not as practical as it appears. It is a logical
respect to full-scale data from references [6] and [22]. approach for evaluating propeller design-point definitions, but
On propeller roughness, the authors have not addressed the results of such evaluations can be no more reliable than the
surface texture (a) or wavelength cutoff values (k), the im- input roughness time histories and roughness-induced perfor-
portance of which are emphasized in their references [10] and mance models. Looking ahead, as the roughness phenomenon
[11]. Also, in compiling propeller roughness data from the is better understood and improved roughness-control techniques
literature, the authors appear to have intermixed different become widely implemented, the propeller design-point
roughness height definitions, including MAA, Rtm, Ra, and problem will be greatly simplified by narrowing the range of
Hmax. For the record, the ISO standards use the definition of hull and propeller surface roughness conditions over which' a
average roughness height (Ra) with long wavelength cutoff of propeller/diesel engine system must operate in service.
0.8 mm, rather than a peak-to-valley height (MAA) as stated Additional references
in the paper. Considering this confusion over definitions, and
the authors' understatement on the limited extent of mea- 22 Hamlin, N. A. and Sedat, R., "'The In-Service Roughness AI-
lowance: Effects of Drydocking, Recoating and the Passing of Time,"
SNAME ShipbOard Energy Conservation Symposium, Sept. 1980.
23 Malone, J. A. and Allman, M., "Hull Performance Assessment
Model," U.S. Maritime Administration Report No. MA-RD-980- 17
- MCO
80015/6/7/8, Jan. 1980.
24 Gronwall, P. E. and Zink, P. F., "Containership Operator's "?, I
J
!
Program of Bottom Maintenance for Reducing Fuel Consumption," o 15 _ NSO I
SNAME Spring Meeting/STAR S37mposium, April 1982. X
R o b e r t E. R e i d , M e m b e r a_
This paper is an important contribution to the state of S

knowledge of the in-service performance on the ship-ma-
chinery-propeller system, and in particular its impact on pro- 3
peller design-point definition. The results presented in the
paper are based largely on theoretical or empirical relationships
due to the lack of experimental full-scale data, as carefully uJ
_ 2 ,/
pointed out by the authors. The authors also stress, as has been
done in, for example, references [4] and [10], the need for both tI
a routine hull and propeller maintenance program and the es-
tablishment of in-service performance monitoring.
We at Erskine Systems Control, Inc., under contract to the
Maritime Administration, have developed an onboard Ship
Performance Monitoring System to provide these very data for
these reasons. The system, shortly to be installed aboard the I
SS AImeria Lykes, measures and monitors, in real-time, many 40 50 60 70
Propeller Speed (rpm)
of the critical performance parameters of the ship/propeller/
engine system described in the paper, using several key mea- ( ~ ) ~ P r o p e l l e r Law Curve at Roted Propeller Pitch
( ~ , ) ~ M e i n Engine Output Limitation Curve
surement sensors and on-line digital processing techniques.
( ~ ) ~ M o i n Engine Speed Limitation Line
The system is designed to identify and track the changing @ ~ B a r r e d Speed Renge of Operation Due to Torsional
propeller/propulsion parameters, as a function of hull/propeller Vibration
degradation and environmental and operational factors. It is (~)-----Turbo Charger Blower Surging Zone
fully automatic, is self-learning and adaptive, and has the ability ~ ) - - - - I s o - F u e l Consumption Rate Curve
to both calibrate sensor errors and to detect and diagnose sensor (Z)----Minimum Fuel Consumption Rate Curve
failures. It represents the state of the art in on-line identifi- (~)m~lso_Ship Speed Curve
cation, estimation and performance monitoring technology. (~lso-Piich Curve
The principal stimulus for the current program is the recog-
nition, based on the recent and ongoing research into the effects ~ ----ALC Setting Curve
• Current Opereting Point
of hull and propeller degradation, of the need for on-line per- (~.-e---Pest Opereting Points end their Trock
formance monitoring if, as so well justified in the paper, the
Fig. 25 CPP propulsion system display and relationship of system
"ship" as a system is to be operated to both meet the in-service
operating variables
performance expectations of .the owner and run as efficiently
as possible. We hope to be able to report the results of our work
to the Society before long. gine and steering control systems. Figure 26 [26] shows the
As a comment on the authors' assumptions regarding iden- results of full-scale tests for a diesel-powered containership using
tification and correction of damage, reference [11] seems to different steering gear control systems in essentially calm water.
show that it cannot be assumed that damage to hull or propeller Both heading and rudder angle recordings, and measured
will be immediately diagnosed unless, of course, an on-line steering and propulsion performance, are included. The
performance monitoring system is in place aboard ship. The changeover from proportional steering gear control to bang-
authors' conclusions on the advantages of a CPP installation are
bang control resulted in an average decrease of 1.8 percen t in
also interesting. Optimum operation of the system to a speci- ship speed and an average increase of 0.4 percent in shaft torque
fied criterion depends on current knowledge of the charac- over the measurement period. The wear of the steering gear,
teristics of the ship, engine and CPP at that time. The selection
as discussed, [0r example, in [27[, will also have an impact on
of the correct operating point for the engine/CPP combination propeller performance. One of the additional goals of our
is still a relatively complex problem, which is best solved, we program is to gain further knowledge of the complex dynamics
believe, using the outputs from an on-line performance moni-
involved in this particular problem, which has been shown [26]
toring system and the correct human/computer interface. The to result in losses equivalent to between 2 and 4 percent of
current state of the art in the relevant display technology [25}
normal full power.
is shown in Fig. 25 herewith. We have configured our system
as a distributed intelligence network aboard ship, to enable local Additional references
decision-making and control at various points on the ship, and 25 Yamashita,F., "Advanced Propulsion Operation System--New
in particular to provide the means to select the correct controls Operation System in NKK's New Energy-Saving Ships," Proceedings,
for optimum operation of diesel engine and CPP propulsion 4th IFAC/IFIP International Symposium on Ship Operation Auto-
systems. mation, Genoa, Italy, Sept. 1982.
The authors also briefly refer to the effects of steering on 26 Reid, R. E. et al, "Energy Losses Due to Steering Gear Instal-
resistance. Added resistance related to steering, in both calm lations on Merchant Ships: Theory and Practice," SNAME Ship Costs
water and waves, does not have a significant effect on ship and Energy Symposium, New York, Sept. 1982.
27 K~illstr/Jm,C. G. and Norrbin, N. H., "Performance Criteria
speed/power performance, especially for a diesel-powered ship, for Ship Autopilots--An ~-nalysis of Shipboard Experiments," Pro-
as has been shown in [26]. The effect of wake fraction variation ceedings, Symposium on Ship Steering Automatic Control, Genoa,
due to yawing results in an interaction between the diesel en- Italy, June 1980.
Effects o f Propeller Design-Point Definition 221
Type 4 System Switching Point Type 2 System
I" q" q
~£
0 12 24 56
Time (Tins)
Rudder Rudder Angle Yaw Rate Mean Square Average Speed Average Shaft
Serve Variance Variance Heading Error Through Water Torques
Time Type {~;2 -- 32} {~'2- r~ {{~'} {7} {O}
0-12 Tin Type 4 0.188 deg 2 0.0037 (deg/sec) 2 0.033 deg 2 18.77 knots 72.85% of max
24-36 Tin Type 2 1.783 deg 2 0.0066 (deg/sec) 2 0.495 deg 2 18.43 knots 73.15% of max
Fig. 26 Measured steering and propulsion performance: proportional versus bang-bang steering systems,
610-ft-long containershi p in calm weather, North Atlantic, Feb. 1982
R. Latorre, Member 29 Latorre, R., Luthra, G., and Tang, K., Report No. 249, De-
partment of Naval Architecture and Marine Engineering, University
The authors have presented an interesting and timely paper of Michigan, Ann Arbor, Sept. 1982, pp. 35-44.
on the influence on the propeller design-point definition. They
have succeeded in making a clear presentation in Figs. 8 Mark F. Nittel, Member
through 21 of the consequences of the different design This paper presents an excellent overview of factors which
points. must be considered during the design of a propulsion system.
Since additional studies will be made following the authors The consideration of hull roughness, propeller blade roughness,
approach, it would be worthwhile if the authors would extend and changes in the propulsion components as a function of
Table 4 to indicate the Blade No. Z for the R O / R O and OBO. service life is a welcome approach. The formulas for esti-
In selecting the optimum propeller at each design point, I to VII, mating future changes in effective horsepower and wake
did the program examine different bladed propellers? If so, fractions are useful tools for propulsion plant designers. The
how was Ae/Ao or the resulting blade number influenced by seven propeller design-point definitions provide excellent ex-
the design-point definition? amples of the implications of service margins selected during
In references [28] and [29] herewith Jiang and Cui made a the design process.
study to the influence of the design point on the optimum The authors state that the controllable-pitch propeller is
propeller diameter, P/D, and area ratio, Ae/Ao. Table 12 il- perceived by some shipowners as a device with "doubtful re-
lustrates their results for a single-screw bulk carrier with a liability." The perception is not necessarily correct, as exam-
12 000-bhp MCR diesel at 122 rprn. They used the Japanese ination of the 34 ships of the DD 963 and DD 993 classes shows
AU propeller charts for the propeller design. that the CP propellers have indeed proven to be highly reliable.
Did the authors notice a similar trend in P/D and Ae/Ao Of all the incidents reported by these ships, only 0.75 percent
corresponding to Nos. 4, 5, and 6 where the rpm n and power relate to the CP propeller system. Further, there has been, to
is fixed and the propeller diameter D is also constant? In this the knowledge of Bird-Johnson Company, only one occasion
case a 5 percent addition in the resistance results in a 0.3 percent when a ship reported not ready for sea as a result of CP system
drop in the open-water propeller efficiency at the match difficulties in the more than 130 equivalent ship-years of op-
point. eration examined. It is hoped that the authors will consider this
The authors are to be congratulated on their study. It is in their future work.
hoped that they will continue it to examine the sensitivity of the
propeller design variables in the context of extended operation
over a period of years. Authors' Closure
Additional references The authors would like to thank all the discussers for their
28 Jiang, W. and Cui, C., "On the Propeller Design Point of Diesel comments. We found them most interesting and regard them
Powered Ships," Trans., Chinese Society of Naval Architecture and as valuable additions to the paper.
Marine Engineering, No. 74, July 1981, pp. 23-33 (in Chinese). We would particularly like to thank Dr. Townsin for his
Table 12 Propeller design for a single-screw bulk carrier, 12 000 bhp MCR, 122 rpm
Design Point Propeller Open-Water

No. Power rpm Resistance Dia, m P/D Ae/Ao Efficiency
1 100% 100% 100% 5.43 0.881 70% 56.5%
2 90% 100% 100% 5.31 0.881 74.3% 55.4%
3 100% 103.5 100% 5,28 0.883 70% 55.1%
4 100% 100% 110% 5.43 0.87 73% 55.0%
5 100% 100% 115% 5.43 0.865 75% 54.6%
6 100% 100% 120% 5.43 0.860 77% 54.3%

references for roughness allowance coefficient and propeller There is certainly need for more statistical data from the full-
deterioration. scale measurements.
As Dr. Townsin states, the increased use of self-polishing Much of Mr. Malone's discussion focuses on the fact that we
copolymer (SPC) antifouling paints is helping to decrease the have not taken into account the variation of roughness and
effect of roughness on ships. However, in the paper we have texture over the ship or propeller. We were aware of the work
considered only the use of conventional antifouling paints, in this area; however, that work has not yet been able to quan-
which are still the most prevalent paint type being used. The tify these effects to the point of predicting changes in ACF or
effects of using the SPC paints could easily be ex~imined with ACo. Therefore, we chose to ignore these details of the
our method by using the appropriate hull roughness factors. roughness in favor of the overall roughness measurement.
Based on Dr. Townsin's comments on our in-service effective We feel that Mr. Malone's Fig. 23 actually supports our hull
wake fraction formula we have to agree somewhat with his roughness predictions. Our hull roughness curve is within the
modification. There are two differences between his formula bounds of the roughness envelope through 16 years, which
and ours: the keeping of the 0.04 term in the formula and the seems to indicate that the hull roughening prediction is rea-
denominator of the last part of the formula. We do agree with sonable.
the addition of the roughness allowance coefficient in the de- Mr. Malone's comments on the effective wake fraction for-
nominator of the formula as Dr. Townsin suggests, owing to the mula indicates that we were not as clear on its use as we could
fact that this should be the total frictional resistance on trials have been. Our wake fractions formula predicts service wake
including roughness resistance. However, we still feel that the from trial wakes based on changes in the total hull roughness.
0.04 term should not stay in the formula. As stated in this Mr. Malone's interpretation of the effective wake, as shown in
paper, this term is meant to take into account the effect of the his diagram illustrating the wake unchanging for a period of
rudder in going from the model to full scale. However, when time, would be correct if roughness allowance coefficient was
predicting the wake from trial to service, it is no longer neces- influenced only by fouling. However, ACv is influenced by
sary to carry along any correction for the rudder. The modi- many factors before fouling becomes significant, as pointed out
fied formula would be in the paper. Therefore, ACF begins increasing the moment
the ship returns to the water and consequently the wake is also
WT service= t + (WT trials t)- - increasing steadily.
Also, Mr. Malone's comparison of the changes of wake
+ cs ] compared with those published for the C4 break-bulk ship is
(1 + k)CF + ACF trials not a valid comparison. His reference [22] indicates thats Aw
is the change from model tests to service; however, the Aw
The difference in calculated wakes between this modified taken from our paper is the change from full-scale trials to
formula and the one given in the paper is only about 1 to 2 service. By comparing these curves on the same basis, a con-
percent. The large differences Dr. Townsin quotes are mainly sistent trend is shown.
from the retention of the 0.04 term. We were not aware of the ship performance monitoring
Dr. Townsin indicates that the ITTC-78 ACF formula when system which Dr. Reid is implementing. The type of statistical
used as a roughness penalty predictor overestimates ACF, which data that could be produced by this type of program will be
would lead to a higher Pe roughnessthan would actually occur. very useful, though the full benefit of such a program can be
However, since finishing the paper we have had an opportunity realized only if the monitoring is coupled with the tracking of
to apply the method to an actual ship and found PE roughn~ was the ship and propeller roughness by measurement. Only with
underestimated. We found that the underprediction resulted both kinds of information would it be possible to Validate the
mainly from underprediction of the hull fouling effects. This present correlation methods between roughness and its ultimate
appears to be supported by Mr. Malone's comments, which effects on power absorption, revolution, and ship speed.
suggest that the fouling factors taken from his paper should be We look forward to the results of this study and hope more
reanalyzed. programs of this type will be undertaken in the next few
Using the fouling rates of the paper will lead to conservative years.
results, which are somewhat compensated for by using the In response to Dr. Latorre, for both ships analyzed in the
ITTC-78 ACv formula. To date we have been unable to find paper, only four-bladed propellers were used. Because the
a satisfactory replacement for the fouling factors given in the choice of the number of blades is determined most often by
paper, or to reanalyze Mr. Matone's data. But for guidance we vibrational considerations rather than by efficiency, we chose
have found work in the Russian literature, based on statistical only to investigate four-bladed propellers for this study.
analysis of ships of the Russian fleet [30], which shows that the The diameter, pitch and blade area were optimized to pro-
total resistance will increase between 30 and 40 percent in a vide the highest open-water efficiency; however, for our ships,
24-m0nth docking period for conventual antifouling paints and as is often the case, the maximum diameter was restricted by
depending upon the fouling severity. physical and operational constraints and did not permit the use
The impact of using higher resistance on the propeller ab- of the optimum propeller diameter.
sorption curves displacement would be up and to the left in the In Tables 13 herewith we have given the propeller charac-
diagram, creating even worse situations than are shown in Figs. teristics for each of the propeller design definitions, along with
8 through 15. Therefore, problems such as overloading, engin e the open-water efficiency, for beth the RO/RO and OBO ships
performance deterioration or speed loss will occur sooner in the described in the paper. Also given is the optimum propeller
life of the vessel and be intensified. diameter for each definition. As can be seen, in all cases the
Dr. Townsin and Mr. Malone are certainly correct in their optimum diameter was quite a bit larger than permitted.
cautions on the problems of measuring the roughness on the We were not surprised by Mr. Jung's comments that he is
propeller. This probably was the area in which we had most sometimes involved in designs where no margin is requested.
difficulty gathering information. However, we feel that Fig. This shows tbe necessity of educating people on the conse-
2, which compares test KT and KQ with those calculated, quences of inadequate margins. We have been involved in
demonstrates that the method is giving reasonable results. similar cases where the use of insufficient margins led only to
There is room for improvement in the area of estimating the headaches for the shipowner. We hope this paper will help to
rate and radial distribution of roughening of the propeller. convince shipowners and ship operators of the importance of
Table 13 however, we plan to try to research it further in an effort to also
take this phenomenon into account.
Definitions D, m P/D Ae/Ao 770 DOPT,m We would like to thank Professor Couch for his comments
on the change in efficiencies of the stock model propellers.
I 6.30 0.916 0.654 0.615 6.78 This is another illustration of the importance of keeping pro-
II 6.30 0.880 0.639 0.618 6.76
RO--O/R III 6.30 0.899 0.667 0.597 6.82 pellers clean at all times. Even very small increases in rough-
IV 6.30 0.891 0.674 0.588 6.82 ness that are unnoticible by visual inffpection will cause deg-
V 6.30 0.857 0.678 0.623 6.59 redations in performance.
VI 6.30 0.835 0.687 0.625 6.50 We would like to thank Mr. Nittel for his comments on CP
VII 6.30 0.820 0.693 0.626 6.46
propellers. We do agree that, today, CP propeller are generally
I 7.62 0.916 0.518 0.520 8.57
II 7.62 0.879 0.503 0.524 8.46 no less reliable than fixed-pitch propellers and offer many
III 7.62 0.895 0.533 0.485 8.62 benefits. Unfortunately, many shipowners believe, correctly
OBO IV 7.62 0.891 0.536 0.479 8.64 or uncorrectly, that CP propellers are less reliable than their
V 7.62 0.846 0.542 0.526 8.35 fixed-pitch counterparts along with being more expensive. It
VI 7.62 0.821 0.551 0.527 8.28
VII 7.62 0.803 0.558 0.528 8.20 appears that the manufacturers of CP propeller systems must
do more to dispel this notion, through studies using the method
shown in the paper.
having the correct margin for their designs, and that a thorough In closing, we hope that the paper has given a better appre-
propulsive analysis of a ship at the early stages of design is im- ciation of the influence of roughness on the performance of
portant. ships and the importance of a good hull maintenance program
Mr. Jung is right that diesel engines are often unjustly the first and adequate propeller design margins.
to be blamed when ships start to perform poorly, when there
are other factors involved. However, we are sure Mr. Jung will Additional reference
agree that there is a deterioration in performance of the engine 30 Dityatev, S. G. and Katsman, F. M., "Prediction of Ship Pro-
with time. We did not include this aspect in the method; pulsive Performance in Service," Sudostroenie, No. 11, 1982.

Effects of Propeller Design-Point Definition On The Performance

Cargado por

Información del documento

Título original

Derechos de autor

Formatos disponibles

Compartir este documento

Compartir o incrustar documentos

Opciones para compartir

¿Le pareció útil este documento?

¿Este contenido es inapropiado?

Copyright:

Formatos disponibles

Effects of Propeller Design-Point Definition On The Performance

Cargado por

Copyright:

Formatos disponibles

SNAME Transactions, Vol. 91, 1983, pp.

Effects of Propeller Design-Point Definition on the Performance of

196 Effects of Propeller Design-Point Definition

where Table 2 Hull roughness fouling factor [2]

Effects of Propeller Design-Point Definition 197

198 Effects of Propeller Design-Point Definition

Effects of Propeller Design-Point Definition 199

AKTo,AKgD = change in thrust and torque constants, as

hMAA,pm Event I Event 2 Event 3 Event 4 Event 4

O=DRY-DOC KI NG/Y EARS

202 Effects of Propeller Design-Point Definition

Table 6 RO/RO resistance and wake fraction--Event 2

I'I)'FAL tlLII.[. ROLIOttNESS= 5 1 6 . rnicr.or,~

LOA= 182.25 ,, D I S F ' =2?753. LT AL= 5053.6 sq. m

V T R I AL ~:0L1rj H[ t~]i t~G WAVES WI NIi SERVI CE V

16.00 .3464 • 3830 ( 10.55X )

Effects of Propeller Design-Point Definition 203

I ' f | I ' A L t l I I L L ROU8tlNESS= 602. mtcr.or, s

[OA= 182.25 m I}ISF'= 2 9 7 5 3 . LT At.:: 5053.6 sq. m

V I R I AL f,:D U [~H E-H ] N {.; WAVE .5 W I Nil SERV I I'.'E V

16.00 .3464 .31il87 (12.207.)

Table 8 RO/RO resistance and wake fraction--Event 4

I(}[AI ItlJLL F,:IIt|GIINES..S= 760. mJcror=s

L OA= 1 8 2 . 2 5 m DISF'= 2 9 7 5 3 . LT At= 5053.6 sq. m

V I RIAt I:OUGH[-tJ];NG WAVES WIND SERVICE V

16.00 .3464 • 3979 i 14.86%)

TOTAL ttULL ROUGItNESS= 516. mtcl"ons

LOA= 283.92 am D I S P = 158092. LT AL= 3702.0 sq.

U TRIAL F'£)U(;Ft E r,~]i HE~ WAVES WIND SERVICE 'V

11.00 .3570 .31168 ( 8.36%)

Table 10 O B O resistance and wake fraction--Event 3

TOTAL IltlLl_ RtIUOIINESS= l)02. micr.ons

LOA= 283.92 m DISF'= 150092. LT AL = 3702.0 sq. m

V TRIAL F,:OUC~HEIINllt~C) WAVES WIND SERVICE U

II.00 .3570 .3915 (9•66X)

Effects of Propeller Design-Point Definition 205

TgTAL IIULL ROUGIIHESB= 760, mlcronr;

LOA= 2 8 3 . 9 2 m BISP= 158092. LT AL= 3702.0 sq. m

u TRIAL ~,:[)LH;~HLN]IHG WAVES WIND SERVICE P

5332. 1386. ( 2 5 , 9 9 ~ ) 196. ( 3.67%) 214. ( 4.02%) 7129. ( 33.6ez ) 11.00

11.00 .3570 .3990 ( 1 1.77Z )

Fig. 7 KT, Ko, ~7ofor OBO ship (Definition V)

Fig. 8 RO/RO, Event 1, smooth

60 " " '= " -

80 85 90 95 100 103 108

Propeller SPEED OPERATNG POINT

90 //" '/~/ /'/ Fig. 9 RO!RO, Event 2, roughened

80 85 90 95 100 103 108

208 Effects of Propeller Design-Point Definition

"r 17,7 92.8 92.8

80 85 90 95 100 103 IO8

Propeller SPEED OPERATNG POINT

1" 17.4 91.5 91.5

80 85 90 95 100 103 108

Effects of Propeller Design-Point Definition 209

80 85 90 95 100 103 108

80 85 90 95 100 103 108

210 Effects of Propeller Design-Point Definition

Z 12.2 94.6 94,6

80 85 90 95 100 103 !os

80 85 90 95 100 103 108

Effects of Propeller Design-Point Definition 211

80 85 90 95 100 103 108