Page 1 of 12

SNAME 2014 Annual Meeting

Ship Speed-Power Performance Assessment

Henk J.J. van den Boom1 (Membership; V), Thijs W.F. Hasselaar1 (Membership; V)
1
MARIN, Trials & Monitoring department
The speed/power characteristics of ships have always been at the core of ship design. To prove contractually agreed
values, speed trials are conducted by the yard prior to delivery of the ship to the owner. In the past schedule integrity
of the vessel was often the most important factor for the speed requirement. Today, owners and operators are keen to
reduce fuel consumption to decrease operational costs. So far a variety of methods for conducting and analyzing
speed/power trials have been used by shipyards. With the assistance of the Sea Trial Analysis-Joint Industry Project,
ITTC developed guidelines for the execution and analysis of speed/power trials compliant with IMO EEDI. The need
to reduce fuel costs and exhaust gas emissions including the upcoming environmental regulations such as EEOI by
IMO urge for reliable monitoring of ship performance in service conditions. This requires accurate information of
the speed through water. Although the speed log is one of the oldest instruments on board it is not considered the
most reliable one. Results of an extensive monitoring campaign on board a 1800 TEU container vessel equipped with
six speed logs within SPA-JIP will be presented. The state of art of performance monitoring will be presented.
KEY WORDS: Delivery Trials; Speed Trials; Speed Through
Water; Speed Log; Performance Monitoring; EEDI speed;
STAIMO; Direct Power Method.
NOMENCLATURE
CFD
Computational Fluid Dynamics
EEDI Energy Efficiency Design Index
EEOI Energy Efficiency Operational Index
MCR Main engines Maximum Continuous Rating
PI
Performance Index
RANS Reynolds Averaged Navier Stokes
RPM Rotations Per Minute
SOG
Speed Over Ground
SPA
Service Performance Analysis
STA-JIP Sea Trial Analysis Joint Industry Project
STW Speed Through Water

INTRODUCTION
As long as ships have been designed and build, their
speed/power performance has been a dominant driver. Sailing
vessels were subjected to races to compare their mutual speed in
the given wind conditions or tried to set a new record time for
ocean crossings. With the arrival of the steam turbine, new ships
were subject to a speed trial over a selected stretch of water
clearly marked over a distance of 1 nautical mile. Over this
measured mile it was only required to clock the required time
to derive the speed of the vessel. With the availability of GPS
the need for pre-defined trial tracks has disappeared and
speed/power trials are conducted worldwide. Although the
speed-power relation is based on the speed through water,
during trials use is made by the speed over ground which is
accurately derived from the speed run end positions given by
GPS. By conducting trial runs over reciprocal courses the speed
through water can be derived by averaging the measured speed
over ground of each run.

The relevance of speed/power trials is increasing in time. The

ship yard is nowadays responsible for the design of the vessel
including the model tests, engineering, construction, outfitting
and delivery. Many ship owners leave the responsibility of the
delivery trials including speed-power trials with the yard. This
implies that the yard itself has to prove that the vessel meets the
regulatory and contractual requirements on speed/power
performance. It is evident that in this situation reliable,
transparent and accurate procedures are required.
As the conditions encountered during the trials often deviate
from the contract conditions, corrections are applied during the
analysis and reporting of the trial results. In the past, institutions
such as British Ship Research Association (BSRA), Netherlands
Ship Model Basin (NSMB), Society of Naval Architecture and
Marine Engineers (SNAME) and International Towing Tank
Conference (ITTC) published methods for conducting and
analysis of Speed/Power trials. Ship yards randomly choose a
method and developed their own yard standard. In 2002, The
International Standard Organization published ISO 15016,
describing a method to analyze speed trial data. The standard is
however not specific; the user may select any added wind or
wave resistance calculation method, and the method to reduce
the added resistance from the measured shaft power gives room
to own interpretation. As a result, when speed & power trials are
done in rough conditions, correction methods can be selected
such that on paper the ship performs better than it would do in
reality in calm water. This has lead to several ship owners taken
delivery of ships which were unable to meet their contract
performance in service and burning significantly more fuel than
anticipated. In some cases the sea margin of 15% on power,
was already consumed by the new ship in calm water.
This was reason for Shell, P&O-Nedlloyd and MARIN to
initiate the Sea Trial Analysis-Joint Industry Project (STA-JIP)
in 2004. STA aimed at a transparent, practical and reliable best
practice for conducting and analyzing Speed & Power trials
utilizing present day knowledge and methods for modern ships.

SNAME 2014 Annual Meeting

The Speed & Power trial analysis and reporting should be

completed on board within one hour after completing the speed
runs. Only in this way additional tests can be initiated when unsatisfactory results are obtained.
Today, the delivery speed-power trials is not only relevant for
the contractual agreements between yard and owner, but also for
the Energy Efficiency Design Index (EEDI). The EEDI is
calculated by the shaft power divided by the speed and
displacement at full laden conditions and 75% MCR. An
unambiguous way to measure, correct and calculate this speed
and power is crucial to avoid conflicts between ship yard and
owner and EEDI verifier when the calculated EEDI is close to
the EEDI threshold for the ship under consideration. Over the
last few years STA-Group closely worked together with the
International Towing Tank Conference in the development of
the ITTC Guidelines for Speed & Power Trials which have been
approved by MEPC and accepted for EEDI. In the next section
these new Guidelines are discussed in detail.
The speed-power relation derived from the delivery trials are not
only relevant for the new building contract and for EEDI, but
are also a starting point for the performance monitoring of the
vessel over its entire service life. The drivers for continuous
monitoring of speed and power are obvious; high fuel costs,
marginal freight rates and an increasing number of regulations
to reduce exhaust gases and improve the regional air quality.
The operational profile of a vessel can deviate substantially
from the contractual conditions for which the vessel was
designed due to slow steaming, fouling, draft deviations,
weather etc. By optimizing the vessel for the actual trade, large
gains in fuel performance can be obtained. Accurate
measurement of the performance is however, far from
straightforward.
Unlike in speed trials, the speed trough water of a trading vessel
has to be derived over a single course using a speed log.
Although one of the oldest instruments on board, the speed log
is not considered as the most reliable one (Munk 2006;
Babbedge 1976; Dinham-Peren & Dand 2010; Logan et al.
1980; Muntean 2011; Pedersen & Larsen 2009). Furthermore,
the vessel conditions (draft, trim, marine growth) are
continuously changing as well as the environmental conditions
(wind, waves, shallow water). This normally results in a large
spreading of speed/power data points. Therefore special filtering
and analysis techniques as well as a better understanding of the
accuracy of speed logs is required. In Section 3 these aspects a
discussed in detail.

SPEED/POWER TRIALS
General Principles
Speed/Power trials are conducted to establish the vessel speed at
a defined shaft power at a specified draught and trim under so
called ideal conditions: in deep water, no wind, no current and
no waves. To establish the speed/power relationship the vessel

Boom, van den

Page 2 of 12

has to be in the specified draught and trim condition. By

determining the speed and power at different engine power
settings and correcting these for the non-ideal conditions, the
speed-power relation for the ship in trial draught and trim can be
established.
The preparation and conduct of the speed/power trials is an
important factor in the accuracy of the performance
determination. The basic approach is to achieve steady
conditions for which the current can be eliminated and the
additional resistance caused by wind, waves, viscosity and
density of the sea water and the water depth can be corrected for
with reliable methods. As such correction methods are restricted
in their application, limits as to the minimum water depth, wind
speed, wave height and heading with respect to the waves have
to be observed. A detailed description of the requirements can
be found in (ITTC 2012a).
The shaft power can be derived using a shaft torque and RPM
meter. Shaft torque is defined as

Eq. 1
Where G is the shear modulus of the shaft, J the moment of
inertia of the shaft, the relative strain of the strain gauge and D
the diameter of the shaft. The largest uncertainty in the
estimation of shaft power is the shear modulus (G-value), which
relates the elastic deformation of the shaft in relation to the
applied torque. It cannot be measured directly. Ledbetter
investigated the variation in G-modulus on 20 random samples
of steel 304. He concluded a 1% variation in G-modulus, and
that the larger spread often found in literature is primarily
introduced by measurement uncertainties in the estimation of G
(Ledbetter et al. 1980; Ledbetter 1980). A reduction in
uncertainty requires a measured value of G with an uncertainty
estimate. It is assumed that the G-modulus of the shaft material
is specified accurately based on sample tests. If the G-modulus
is not specified with sample data, a conservative default value of
82,649 N/mm2 for regular shaft steel shall be applied.
To derive the speed through water with an accuracy in the order
of 0.05kn or better double runs must be executed, i.,e. each run
is repeated by a run in the opposite direction, performed with the
same engine setting. The speed is determined by calculating the
distance from end positions of runs using a Differential GPS
over a run duration of 10 minutes. This period is determined to
calculate the speed over ground with the required accuracy and
to encounter a sufficient waves to match the sea spectrum
measurements. By averaging the results over the counter runs
the current is eliminated from the equation. The current
normally varies in time and therefore multiple double runs for
the same power setting are required. The results have to be
averaged with the Mean of Means-method utilizing Pascals
triangle. If the speed on each run is noted , , . . , the mean
is found as follows:
speed

For one double run:

For two double runs, executed directly after each other:

Ship Speed-Power Performance Assessment

Page 3 of 12

SNAME 2014 Annual Meeting

This method of weighting assumes that the variations of current

speed in time are linear (one double run) or quadratic (two
double runs) (Kerwin & Hadler 2010).

D0: Propulsion efficiency coefficient in ideal condition, from

model test.
Constant derived from load variation model test.
p:

The following trial schedule is required for a first-of-series ship:

Two Double Runs at the same power setting around the
Contract Power
Two Double Runs at the same power setting around EEDI
Power (75% MCR)
One Double Run for at least one other power setting between
65% and 100% MCR
In case of strong current variations (>0.3kn within one double
run) or limiting wave conditions, an additional double run shall
be conducted.

Which is solved iteratively with respect to

Provided that the trial results of the first-of-series vessel are

acceptable, for the second and following vessel from a series of
sister ships (same dimensions, geometry, propulsor, delivered
from the same yard), can be subjected to a limited trial program:
One Double Run at the same power setting around the
Contract Power
One Double Run at the same power setting around EEDI
Power (75% MCR)
One Double Run at one other power setting between 65% and
100% MCR
As delivery trials cannot wait for ideal conditions the measured
trial data has to be corrected for wind, waves, water viscosity
and water depth. For this purpose the Direct Power Method is
the most transparent and unambiguous procedure. In this
method the added resistance encountered during the speed run is
approximated and used to predict the additional power required
to maintain the speed. All power deviations are subsequently
summed including the power deviation due to a different
loading of the propeller, obtained from load variation model
tests. Per set of measurements for one engine setting, after
power correction, the speed through water and average power is
determined using the mean of means of the corrected speed
and power points.
The measured delivered power is:

Eq. 2

PSM: Shaft power measured for each run

S: Shaft transmission efficiency (0.99 for conventional shaft)
The corrected delivered power is calculated as following:

Eq. 3

Where
R: Resistance increase due to wind, waves and temperature
deviations.
VSM: Ship speed measured, obtained from means of means from
double run

Boom, van den

For shallow water a speed correction is applied. Small

deviations in displacement are corrected for according using the
Admiralty constant (See (ITTC 2012b)).
The propeller loading during the trials is also taken into account
in the rate of rotation of the propeller shaft. The corrected shaft
rate nC is:

Eq. 4

Where
nM:
Measured propeller frequency of revolution,
VSM: Measured ship speed, obtained by means of means from
double run
, : Overload factors derived from load variation model test
: Speed correction due to shallow water
If load variation tests are not available, the overload factors p,
n and v may be obtained from statistical values from sufficient

load variation tests for this specific ship type, size and
propulsor. If these cannot be provided, the overload factors may
be derived by ITTC Procedure 7.5-02-03-01.4 (ITTC 2011).

Wind Correction
The wind drag on ships increases quadratic with the relative
wind speed and the can be calculated by:
Eq. 5
Where
AT: Area of maximum transverse section exposed to the wind
CX: Wind resistance coefficient as function of the relative wind
direction
VWR: Relative wind speed
A: Mass density of air
Wind load coefficients are usually normalized to the wind speed
10m above the water surface. As anemometers are often located
higher from the water surface, the wind speed from the
anemometer must be corrected for the boundary layer velocity
profile of the ocean. When the anemometer is e.g. located 50m
above water the correction to 10m reference height results in a
reduction of 21% in wind speed consequently 46% in wind load.
Wind speed read from the anemometer on top of the wheelhouse
should be treated with care, as the wheelhouse normally
generates over-speed at the anemometer location. For some
directions the anemometer may be shielded by masts, funnels or
cargo (Moat et al. 2004). To minimize these effects the wind

Ship Speed-Power Performance Assessment

SNAME 2014 Annual Meeting

vector is averaged over the results of the two counter runs in one
double run.
Wind drag coefficients for ships have been published by many
authors in the past (e.g. (Blendermann 1996; Fujiwara et al.
2005). Many databases are outdated due to the increase in vessel
size and change in geometry. Careful selection of the wind drag
coefficients for a geosimilar vessel as tested is therefore
important. Wind drag coefficients for modern ship geometries
can be obtained from wind tunnel measurements or Large eddy
simulation-RANS CFD. For containerships it is crucial to
distinguish the wind drag in ballast condition without containers
on deck but taking into account the lashing bridges (which are
exposed to wind during trials) and the design draught case
where the vessel is loaded with containers. The wind resistance
of the loaded vessel is normally lower than at ballast draught as
the full container pack provides a better flow shape than the
wheelhouse and lashing bridges.
STA-JIP conducted CFD analysis for four modern ship types to
correlate with wind tunnel data to arrive at a solid understanding
of wind drag of ships and to establish new sets for wind drag
correction alongside existing data sets.

Page 4 of 12

The added resistance in waves originates from two sources;

firstly the reflection of short waves on the hull and secondly the
wave induced ship motions; i.e. heave and pitch. The first
component is dominant in short waves; the second component
contributes if the wave lengths are similar to the ship length.
STA uses for this purpose two different added wave resistance
methods; STAwave-1 for reflecting irregular head waves and
STAwave-2 for head waves in which the vessel is pitching and
heaving.
STAwave-1 method is based on the fact that for todays large
ships the head waves encountered in trial conditions are
normally short compared to ship length and speed. The added
resistance due to the reflection of those short head waves is only
dependent on the shape of the waterline in the bow region. The
ship displacement, draught, trim and speed play a secondary
role. The dominating reflection part in added resistance is a
component of the second order wave (drift) forces which can be
analytically found from integration over the waterline geometry
(Pinkster 1981). For ship shapes in head waves this analytical
expressing is for practical sake approximated to:

Raw

1
B
gH s2 B
LBWL
16

Eq. 6

Where:
:
Vessel beam on the waterline[m]
: Length of bow section [m], as defined in Fig. 2
:
Significant wave height [m]

Fig. 1: Modern ship types used to compute wind drag

coefficients using RANS CFD for STA.

Wave Correction
Even within the trial limits for wave height, the added resistance
due to waves can be a substantial part of the required shaft
power. Model test results in regular and irregular head waves for
some ten ships in full load and ballast and at different speeds,
were compared by the STA-JIP group against the predictions by
several published methods used in ISO15016 (ISO15016 2002)
and widely used wave correction methods using the ship
specific geometry and the measured wave spectra. The spread in
the results and deviations from model tests were large, up to
factor 10 (van den Boom et al. 2008). In order to make the speed
trial analysis method more uniform and unambiguous it was
decided by STA-JIP that a new and more reliable method for
trial wave corrections was required. A method was developed
that is practical in use with limited required input; many yards
today refuse to deliver the body plan to the ship owner and the
encountered wave spectrum is normally not measured.

Boom, van den

Fig. 2: Definition of length of bow section

The above expression is in particular practical for speed/power
trials because very few input parameters are necessary. No other
ship particulars such as parametric coefficients or bluntness
factors nor ship speed or wave spectrum are required. It is
assumed that the asymptotic short wave value of the transfer
function extents over the complete range of wave frequencies
and thus that the vessel is not heaving and pitching, which can
easily be checked during trials.
For small and medium sized vessels or in case long swells are
encountered during the trials, the vessel will heave and pitch and
those motions will contribute to the overall resistance. For this
purpose STAwave-2 was developed. This is an empirical
statistical method utilizing sea keeping model test results of
some two hundred ships. The transfer function of the added
resistance in head waves is parameterized to a function of seven
input quantities resembling ship geometry, ship speed, and wave
spectrum. A Pierson-Moskowitz spectrum shape is assumed in
this method. Both significant wave height and mean period are

Ship Speed-Power Performance Assessment

Page 5 of 12

SNAME 2014 Annual Meeting

required as input for this wave correction method. A detailed

description of the method is included in (ITTC 2012b).

As reliable wave corrections can only be made for head waves

(and the added resistance in following waves is negligible for
normal trial conditions), it is required to conduct speed runs in
head waves and following waves. For wave directions within the
+/- 45 degrees bow sector, STAwave for head waves is applied.

4.5
4.0
3.5
3.0

Hslimit

Both STAwave methods were validated with dedicated model

tests for an Aframax tanker and an 2800TEU containership at
scale 1:40 in the MARIN Seakeeping and Maneuvering Basin.
Both STAwave-1 and STAwave-2 show an acceptable
agreement with the model test results (Fig 3) and are far more
reliable than the methods described in (ISO15016 2002).

5.0

2.5
2.0
1.5
1.0

Limitwithmeasuredwavespectrum

0.5

LimitwithobservedWaveHeight&Period

0.0
0

100

200

300

400

500

Lpp[m]

Fig. 4: Limits for wave height during Speed & Power trials

250
Stawave1
ModelTest
Stawave2

AddedWaveResistance[kN]

200

150

100

50

0
Vs= 11kn 11kn 15kn 15kn 11kn 11kn 11kn 11kn

17kn 17kn 23kn 23kn 17kn 17kn 23kn 23kn

/Lpp= 2.78 1.93 2.65 2.1 2.67 2.06 2.81 2.28

3.53 2.62 3.31 2.61 3.36 2.5 3.17 2.42

ballast

loaded
tanker

ballast

loaded
ContainerShip

Fig 3: Added resistance in irregular waves computed by

STAwave 1 & 2 compared with results of large model tests for
two vessels at different speeds, wave/ship lengths and loading
conditions
In any case the wave corrections can be conducted with the
transfer functions of added resistance derived from full
seakeeping tests. If use is made of model test results the wave
spectrum encountered during the trials shall be measured.
As none of the correction methods for waves are perfect, strict
limits as to the allowable wave height have to be observed for
speed/power trials. Especially in high sea states the relative error
in the added wave resistance methods becomes large, and the
run duration of 10 minutes too short to encounter statically
sufficient waves over a single run. If wave heights are derived
by visual observation the allowable wave height is further
limited as the uncertainty in wave parameters is large in this
case. Visual observation also require that the trials are
conducted in daylight. Fig. 4 shows the limits for both methods
(ITTC 2012a).

Correction for Water Depth

The ship speed/power relation is strongly affected by shallow
water. The dominant parameters for the shallower effect are the
draught/water depth ratio and the Froude number based on water
depth. With the arrival of 400 m container ships capable of 24
knots even the range of moderate water depths 25- 50 m has to
be considered shallow water, as the large displacement and high
speed affects the ships resistance in these water depths. For this
reason trials with such vessels in areas with such water depth
e.g. offshore China, are corrected for water depth.
Traditionally the method of Lackenby (Lackenby 1961) is used
for this correction. Lackenby used the model tests conducted by
Schlichting (Schlichting 1934). Recent research by Raven
(Raven 1992) has shown that Lackenby is far too conservative
and over predicts the effect of shallow water up to 100%. This is
explained by the fact the model tests were conducted in a
shallow water basin with limited tank width. These horizontal
restrictions strongly affected the speed/power of the models in
shallow water. Furthermore Schlichting only tested 3 old
fashioned navy vessels. Lackenbys method is therefore not only
over-conservative but also not applicable to present day ship
types. Although ITTC is still allowing the use of Lackenby, a
new method has been developed and is currently under
verification and validation by STA-Group. It is expected the
method proposed by Raven will be approved and accepted in the
ITTC Guidelines in the near future.
Conversion from Ballast Draught to Design Draught
Ship types such as container ships and dry cargo vessels cannot
be trialled on their design draught and trim during delivery trials
due to the lack of cargo. Results of speed trials have to be
converted to the contractual design draught and trim conditions.
This conversion is then based on the difference of calm water
model test results for the trial condition and the design
condition. This has proven to be one of the largest source of
deviations and discrepancies in the results of delivery speed
trials (Ligtelijn et al. 2004).
Model test results are always extrapolated to full scale on the
basis of scaling laws to which a correlation allowances (CA) is

Boom, van den

Ship Speed-Power Performance Assessment

SNAME 2014 Annual Meeting

added. These statistical correlation allowances relate the scaledup model test power with the actual power derived at the actual
speed/power trials with that vessel. For a model basin with a
sufficient large trial data base for the specific ship type and size,
this practice has proven over the years to deliver power
predictions with acceptable accuracy. The model test prediction
accuracy is thus dependent on the experience of the model basin
i.e. the availability of accurate Speed & Power trial data. For
several ship types, trial data at design draught is scarce. In
particular for relative new ship types, modern speeds and recent
sizes such data is often missing. The STA-JIP conducted
dedicated Speed & Power trials on, amongst others, three
container vessels in the range of 6000 to 14000 TEU at design
draught/trim and compared those data with the results of the
original delivery trials (Fig. 5) which were also measured and
analysed according to STA. For two vessels deviations above
10% in shaft power were found. At a fuel consumption of 240
tons/day this means an excess fuel consumption of 24 tons/day
over the life time of the vessel. For this reason STA-JIP has
formulated strict guidelines for this ballast draught-design
draught conversion of Speed & Power trial results as well as for
the extrapolation of model test results towards full scale. Such
guidelines were completely lacking in all previous Speed &
Power Trial methods.

Page 6 of 12

Fig. 6 shows a basic flow diagram of the analysis steps as used

in STAIMO.

Fig. 6: Flow diagram of calculation steps in STAIMO software

The STA-Group presently consists of 38 members and continues
to support STAIMO and to conduct further R&D in this field.

PERFORMANCE IN SERVICE

Fig. 5: 14000 TEU MSC Savona subjected by STA-Group to

speed/power trials in both ballast draught and design draught
(Courtesy: Claus Peter Offen).

STAIMO-Software
As part of the co-operation with ITTC to develop the Guidelines
for Speed & Power trials, the STA-Group also implemented
these Guidelines in a software package called STAIMO. This
software not only provides a full analysis of the measured data
but also produces the trial report. To avoid a proliferation of
different software versions of the ITTC analysis method,
STAIMO is released by STA-Group as freeware. It can be
downloaded from www.staimo.org. Each STAIMO produced
report has a unique number allowing an authenticity check to be
made via the website.

Boom, van den

The need to reduce fuel costs and exhaust gas emissions

including the upcoming EEOI regulations by IMO urge for
reliable monitoring of ship performance in service conditions.
Telfer was one of the first to discuss the issue in 1926 and
introduced a method to measure ship speed from a simple
measure of propeller rate of rotation and power (Telfer 1926).
Since then, many researchers have investigated ways to
accurately monitor the performance of a ship in service. The
problems introduced with manual data logging (data uncertainty,
reliability, limited data points per day and incomplete datasets),
can mostly be overcome with modern technology. This does
however not directly result in unambiguous, reliable and
accurate performance indicators. The highly unsteady marine
environment and constantly varying ship performance makes the
definition of the performance of a ship in service a challenging
task. Ship performance analysis should therefore not only focus
on the correction methods to transfer in-service performance
data to conditions which can be compared, but also on the
quality and reliability of input parameters such as, ship speed,
wind speed and wave height.
Many references can be found in technical literature describing
approaches to ship performance analysis. Detailed theoretical
foundations can be found in (SNAME 1989; Carlton 1994) as
well as numerous technical papers. The purpose of this section
is therefore not to discuss another analysis approach in detail,
but focuses on the quality of data that forms the basis for
performance monitoring.

Speed Through Water Measurement

Ship performance monitoring relies on an accurate speed
through water measurement. While during delivery speed trials

Ship Speed-Power Performance Assessment

SNAME 2014 Annual Meeting

counter runs can be executed to account for ocean currents, for a

ship in service this is not possible. As a consequence other
means to determine speed through water (STW), such as the
speed log must be used. When the signal from the speed log is
related to shaft power, it is assumed that the propeller inflow
speed, and therefore absorbed power, is directly related to the
speed through water measured by the speed log in the bow of
the ship. The propeller inflow speed varies as a consequence of,
hull roughness, drift, rudder action etc. The speed log, installed
in the bow of the ship, is furthermore affected by eddies,
stratified currents, ship motion, changes in boundary layer due
to trim etc. The relationship between propeller inflow velocity
and the velocity measured by a speed log is therefore not
constant. Speed logs have therefore become notorious for their
seemingly large uncertainty, regardless their high
instrumentation accuracy, mandated by IMO to be better than
2% of the measured speed (IMO 1995). To overcome the
problems experienced with a speed log many researchers have
proposed the use of the propeller as a speed indicator.

trend identification difficult, particularly as seasonal

weather conditions affect the surface current and variations
in loading conditions affect the wake fraction
1.3

1.2

Vprop/SOG[]

Page 7 of 12

1.1

0.9

0.8

0.7
Jan11

Feb11

Apr11

Jun11

Jul11

Sep11

Nov11

Dec11

Date

Propeller as a speed indicator

Using a torque and RPM sensor the propeller can be used to
determine ship speed. Telfer (Telfer 1926) was probably one of
the first to introduce this method in 1926 which can be
described as following:
1. Measure the propeller absorbed shaft torque and revolutions
2. Calculate the torque coefficient KQ and intersect KQ-J curve
from the propeller open water diagram (obtained either
from dedicated trials (Garg 1972) or from model tests)
3. Read the corresponding advance coefficient J and
consequently the flow experienced by the propeller (often
referred to as advance speed)
4. Using an assumed wake fraction, the advance speed can be
converted in a measure of the ship speed through water,
expressed in this paper as Vprop.
The methods relies on the availability of a known and constant
wake fraction. For ships sailing at two distinct loading
conditions the wake can be determined by comparing the
advance speed determined from
with the speed VS
measured by the speed log. The relative difference between Va
and VS relates to the wake fraction. Small changes in draft and
trim may however have large effects on the wake, depending on
hull shape. More importantly, the wake fraction increases as the
ships hull roughens and fouls, and propeller characteristics
change as the propeller roughness increases.
The rate of increase in wake cannot be predicted and should be
monitored over time to account for changes. The monitoring can
be done in two ways:
1.

Using the speed over ground and assuming that the

difference between speed through water and speed over
ground can be averaged over time. This assumption is
however dependent on trading route and requires a large
dataset to identify trends. Fig. 7 shows the difference
between SOG and STW for a container ship trading
between Africa and Asia. The typically large scatter makes

Boom, van den

Fig. 7: Relative difference between propeller speed and

speed over ground over a period of 1 year
2.

Using the speed log by periodically measuring the

effective wake fraction directly; the difference between
Vprop and STW from a speed log relates to changes in the
effective wake.

Apart from the wake fraction, the change in propeller

characteristics due to roughness also affect the estimated STW.
Propeller roughness reduces propeller efficiency. As a
consequence Vprop will indicate a lower ship speed than is
indicated on the speed log. This expresses in an overestimation
of the power loss of the ship. Methods are available to account
for changes in propeller roughness (e.g. (Wan et al. 2003;
Townsin et al. 1985)) but this requires periodical propeller
inspections and introduces large uncertainties.
Water speed log
A more direct way to determine ship speed, especially for ships
sailing on different loading conditions, is to use the speed log.
Speed logs give a more accurate figure of the actual speed
through water experienced by the hull, and those that measure
outside the boundary layer of the hull are in principle unaffected
by hull fouling and draft or trim variations. Doppler speed logs
measure outside the boundary layer, while most types of
Electro Magnetic (EM) or Acoustic Correlation (AC) logs
measure close to the hull and are affected by trim, draft and hull
roughness. They are for this reason less suitable for long-time
performance monitoring. To assess the accuracy of speed logs
under various conditions an extensive monitoring campaign was
setup in 2009 to investigate the uncertainties in speed through
water measurements as part of a large joint industry project
SPA-TOO. An 1800TEU container ship of VROON shipping
was equipped with 6 speed logs, distributed along the hull (Fig.
8) and monitored using a dedicated performance monitoring
system.

Ship Speed-Power Performance Assessment

SNAME 2014 Annual Meeting

Page 8 of 12

Fig. 8: Test vessel with position of speed logs (circles)

The availability of multiple speed logs allowed conclusions to
be made on the performance of speed logs and propeller
behavior in a range of conditions. Because ship performance is
expressed by speed and power, ship performance should only be
determined in conditions where the flow experienced by the
propeller is directly related to the flow experienced by the speed
log. This corresponds to the following conditions:
No acceleration or deceleration due to voluntary actions
No course deviations
Single draft and trim
Deep water
No drift
The first parameters can be identified using real-time
measurements of shaft RPM, course over ground, draft, trim
and water depth. Drift is more difficult to determine. The
difference between the heading and course over ground includes
both the drift due to surface current, as well as leeway drift due
to windage and beam waves (see Fig. 9). Only the latter is
sensed by the ship. Leeway drift can be measured using a dual
axis Doppler log, or can be estimated using the rudder angle.
The autopilot sets the rudder such that the lift generated by the
drifting hull balances the transverse forces from wind and
waves. Hence the rudder angle is an indirect method to indicate
the ship is drifting. Leeway drift results a change in boundary
layer and has large consequences on the wake field experienced
by the propeller. However, as the leeway drift angle is generally
small the effect on ship speed through water is practically
negligible. When a ship sails in beam winds a Doppler log will
show the correct ship speed, but the propeller will see a distorted
inflow. During beam winds the speed should therefore not be
related to propeller absorbed power. Fig. 10 shows a 23h time
series of the STW from 4 speed logs and the speed calculated
using propeller torque and RPM (Vprop) in bad weather
(relative wind speed increasing from 4 to 30m/s). The middle
graph shows the rudder angle. This shows that during the day
the rudder is for long periods in time either to port or starboard
to balance the transverse forces from wind and waves. The
lowest graph shows the relative difference between the
individual speed logs and Vprop to the Doppler log. Due to the
change in inflow of the propeller and a varying wake field
Vprop shows large errors up to 10% of the undisturbed speed.
The fact that 3 other speed logs are not showing this same
behavior confirms that it is not the Doppler log that is affected
by drift, but the propeller and inflow.

Boom, van den

Fig 9: Ship speed components

Fig. 10: 23-Hour time series of STW (top), rudder angle

(middle) and difference of 3 Speed Logs (SL) and Vprop
relative to the Doppler Log readings (bottom graph)
In a similar way it could be confirmed that pitch motion in a
seaway does not affect the calibration of speed logs. Draft and
trim variations can have a large influence on the accuracy of
STW measurements, depending on location of the speed log and
the thickness of the boundary layer. When ship speed is
however measured outside the boundary layer, e.g. using a
Doppler log, STW measurement is unaffected by draft, fouling,

Ship Speed-Power Performance Assessment

Page 9 of 12

SNAME 2014 Annual Meeting

propeller roughness or drift. This in contrast to methods that

relate propeller power & rpm to ship speed.
As with any sensor, electrical drift or calibration errors are
possible and should be monitored continuously. Loss in
calibration happens often unexpectedly and should be identified
by post-processing data. A drop in calibration from a speed log
will result in a higher power-loss indicator. The wake fraction
calculated with the speed logs STW signal can be used to
indicate speed los. A sudden change in wake while the
speed/power relationship remains unaltered is a trigger for
sensor problems and further investigations.

Wind and wave observations

Having an accurate measure of ship speed does not directly
imply that the Speed-Power relationship corrected for
environmental conditions will show no scatter. The uncertainties
in the measured environmental conditions also result in incorrect
performance indicators. Wind and waves are the dominant
forces causing speed variations for a ship in service. Wind
measurements on ships contain errors due to wind distortion
over the ships superstructure. The magnitude of the wind
distortion depends on deck configuration and wind direction,
and will vary per ship. Generally, the least distortion takes place
in the mast in the bow of the ship, well upwind of any
obstruction (Moat et al. 2005). Anemometers are however rarely
located at the bow to avoid damage from green water and to
reduce cable length between sensor and indicator. As a
consequence wind load calculations may have unavoidable
uncertainties in the order of 10-100% depending on anemometer
location (Moat et al. 2005).
Wave observations onboard ships are usually expressed by
means of the Beaufort or Douglas scale and logged once a day
in the abstract logbook. For automated performance monitoring
these values are of little use as they often show no correlation
with measured wave induced ship motions. A less subjective
and more reliable way to collect wave information is to use
forecast data from weather routing systems. They often have a
data export function, which can be monitored and logged by a
data acquisition system. Weather forecast systems can be highly
accurate in areas with a dense grid of wave buoys and
observation systems, but in more remote locations and coastal
zones, their predictions are less accurate. This holds especially
for wind waves; swell can be predicted more accurately using
wave propagation models and hind cast wind data. Fig. 11
shows the measured pitch amplitude versus swell height,
obtained from a weather routing system on a car carrier. The
wave induced motions have a clear relationship with the
predicted swell height. The wind waves on the other hand (Fig.
12) show no clear relationship. If performance monitoring only
includes wave characteristics from visual observations or from
relations between anemometer readings and wave height, the
motion induced wave resistance cannot be taken into account
correctly, resulting in incomplete corrections.

Boom, van den

Fig. 11: Relationship between pitch motion and swell on a car

carrier

Fig. 12: Relationship between pitch motion and predicted wave

height
A useful tool to evaluate the accuracy and validity of the impact
of waves, in particular the motion induced wave resistance, is a
motion sensor in the bow (e.g. as described by (Nielsen 2006).
This gives a direct measured figure of the ship responses, rather
than a predicted value based on forecast data. If no motion
sensor is available, use can also be made of the forward draft
sensor. By logging the signal of the draft pressure gauges with
high frequency (1Hz or faster), the deviation from the mean can
be determined, which, at constant draft, relates to pressure
fluctuations in the bow area due to pitch and heave motions.
Although the pressure fluctuations cannot be related directly to
ship motion, they provide a practical and easy to implement tool
for the evaluation of ship responses to waves.

Performance Analysis
To account for performance deviations caused by wind, waves
and draft deviations ship performance should be converted into
a reference condition, often referred to calm weather and design
draft conditions. Different approaches have been proposed in the
past, ranging from purely statistical methods to more
deterministic methods. A combination of both is necessary to
provide an unambiguous analysis approach and at the same time
deal with unavoidable measurement uncertainties in wind, wave,

Ship Speed-Power Performance Assessment

SNAME 2014 Annual Meeting

speed and power. The following analysis steps are therefore

recommended:
1.
2.
3.
4.

5.

6.

Validation of sensor data using redundant sensors (e.g. fuel

consumption and shaft power, STW and Vprop, draft from
draft sensors and noon reports)
Identification of steady state performance periods, by
looking at time series of propeller pitch or RPM, rate of
turn and rudder angle.
For each period the mean value of all individual
performance parameters is calculated
The power is corrected for windage by deducing the wind
resistance from the shaft power. Wind resistance can be
calculated using appropriate wind load coefficients and the
measured wind speed and direction
The power corrected for wind resistance is divided by the
power in calm water (taken from speed trial results) at the
same speed, to form a Performance Indicator (PI) in terms
of percentage power loss
The correction for wave resistance is more cumbersome
without a reliable measure of wave height, period or
spectrum. Without these parameters traditional approaches,
using empirical prediction methods or model test results in
waves, is not possible. A practical approach is to relate the
heave amplitude measured using acceleration sensors in the
bow to the performance indicator calculated in step 5.
Using data of a short period in time, filtered for a narrow
draft and trim range allows a relationship to be derived
which can be used to correct power to added wave
resistance. Although only the motion induced wave
resistance is considered in this approach the method is more
reliable and gives less scatter in performance indicators
than if abstract logbook data is used. Fig. 13 shows an
example of the relationship between PI and heave
amplitude measured by acceleration sensors.

Page 10 of 12

separation should be made for distinct draft ranges, to avoid

uncertainties in the correction of power, wake and thrust
deduction to large displacement deviations.

Reliability Based Regression Analysis

Regardless all efforts, there will remain uncertainties in the
collected data and correction methods. The regression analysis
method will therefore have to deal with various levels of
uncertainty. The most reliable performance indicators are those
to which no or very small corrections have been applied to
account for environmental and loading conditions. This
normally corresponds to measurements in calm wind and seas
and displacement that matches the reference condition. The
uncertainties from measurement errors or inaccurate correction
methods are here minimal. In practice, ships rarely sail in
completely calm weather conditions, so PIs will have different
reliability levels. To account for these differences when
determining trends in time, a weighed least squares method can
be used. The weighting factors must be related to a measure of
the severity of the environment such as wave height, heave
amplitude or wind speed. To account for measurement and
correction errors a probability range is used, whereby the
magnitude of the measured wind speed and wave height is used
to determine the size of the error band of each PI. The error
band for each PI is obtained by calculating the PI with a +/-30%
higher wind speed and wave height than measured. This gives a
maximum and minimum PI (PImax and PImin). When it is
assumed that the measurement errors in wind and wave are
normal distributed, the uncertainty can be determined by
assuming that the difference between PImax and PImin is a
measure of the width (standard deviation ) of the distribution
function. The probability for the PI to have a value x P(x) can
now be calculated using:
x 2

1
2
Eq. 7
P x
e 2
2
Where
: PI calculated using the measured wind speed and wave height
: standard deviation, here estimated as 1/3rd of the difference
between PImin and PImax

Fig. 14 shows an example of the probability curves for 13 data

points in different environmental conditions. The differences in
probability distributions are visualized on the x-axis.

Fig. 13: Relationship between PI and heave amplitude on a

80m bulk carrier.
7.

The PI values calculated are plotted on a time scale for

regression analysis, discussed in the following section. A

Boom, van den

Ship Speed-Power Performance Assessment

10

Page 11 of 12

SNAME 2014 Annual Meeting

Good weather, low

uncertainty
Bad weather, large
uncertainty

Fig.14: Performance Index values with different probability

ranges
Using the probability distributions, the mean PI can be found
that results in the highest combined probability for all data
points. The size of the bandwidth of the error bands, in this case
selected as 30% of the measured wind and wave height, is
hereby not crucial as the probability distribution remains
unaltered. This way of regression analysis provides more
reliable trend lines by giving more weight to good weather
data, without the need for extensive filtering, which may result
in too few data points for reliable regression analysis.
Typically the number of data points is not distributed evenly
over time; days in port result in no data points, while days
sailing in fair weather result in many valid data points. To avoid
ill-defined trend analysis, the weighted least squares PI
described above should be calculated over a period of one
month. Trend analysis should be performed over the monthly
averages. This avoids that days with few data points get less
weight in the identification of trends over time as months with
many data points.
Fig. 15 shows an example of corrected performance indicators
(light blue points) and the monthly weighted average data
points.

Interpretation of Performance Indicators

The probability based regression analysis provides a way to
interpret scatter in the PI Power Loss after it has been
corrected to environmental conditions to best knowledge and
data quality and divided in draft ranges. One final check is
however necessary to validate long-term trends in the PI. The
effective wake fraction and PI should show similar trends when
fouling or hull roughness develops when analysed over time.
The wake is less affected by environmental conditions than the
PI Power loss, and cross-correlation provides therefore a quick
way to evaluate the effectiveness of the probability based
regression analysis. The separate analysis of different draft and
trim conditions (which have a unique wake fraction, thrust
deduction and reference curve) is hereby important.

CONCLUSIONS
The ITTC Guidelines for Speed/Power Trials 2014 have set a
new international standard for the conduct and analysis of speed
trials. With this standard a worldwide level playing field has
been achieved. The EEDI is a starting point in the reduction of
CO2 exhaust by ships. Regional measures to improve the air
quality as well as the rising fuel costs, urge ship owners and
operators to improve the performance of their ships. For this
purpose continuous monitoring of performance data is essential.
Speed through water from a speed log and power can accurately
be related under no-drift conditions using a Doppler log,
providing a more reliable speed indicator than STW estimations
from propeller characteristics. Performance analysis follows by
defining periods of steady state performance, and applying
deterministic and statistic methods to deal with variations in
environmental conditions and uncertainties in measured ship
performance.

Fig.15: Time series of PI and weighted monthly mean

Boom, van den

Ship Speed-Power Performance Assessment

11

SNAME 2014 Annual Meeting

REFERENCES
Babbedge, M.P., 1976. A statistical method of correcting log
speeds. Trans. RINA 1977, pp.pp.121124.
Blendermann, W., 1996. Wind loading of ships - Collected data
from wind tunnel tests in uniform flow, Institut fur
schiffbau der universitat Hamburg.
Van den Boom, H.J.J., Hout, I.E. Van Der & Flikkema, M.B.,
2008. Speed-Power Performance of Ships during Trials
and in Service. In SNAME ship performance conference.
Carlton, J.S., 1994. Marine propellers and Propulsion,
Butterworth Heinemann.
Dinham-Peren, T.A. & Dand, I.W., 2010. The need for full scale
measurements. In William Froude Conference; Advances
in Theoretical and Applied Hydrodynamics. Portsmouth,
UK.
Fujiwara, T., Ueno, M. & Ikeda, Y., 2005. A new Estimation
Method of Wind Forces and Moments acting on Ships on
the basis of Physical Component Models. Journal of the
Japan Society of Naval Architects and Ocean Engineers, 2.
Garg, B.R., 1972. The service performance of ships with special
reference to tankers. Newcastle upon Tyne: Newcastle
University.
IMO, 1995. Resolution A.824(10) Performance standards for
devices to indicate speed and distance,
ISO15016, 2002. Ships and marine technology - Guidelines for
the assessment of speed and power performance by
analysis of speed trial data.
ITTC, 2011. 1978 ITTC Performance Prediction Method,
Available at: http://ittc.sname.org/CD 2011/pdf Procedures
2011/7.5-02-03-01.4.pdf.
ITTC, 2012a. Recommended procedures and Guidelines - Speed
and power trials Part 1: Preparation and Conduct,
ITTC, 2012b. Recommended procedures and guidelines - Speed
and Power Trials, Part 2: Analysis of Speed/Power Trial
data, ITTC.
Kerwin, J.E. & Hadler, J.., 2010. The Principles of Naval
Architectuer Series: propulsion J. R. Paulling, ed.,
SNAME.
Lackenby, H., 1961. Note on the effect of shallow water on ship
resistance, London: British shipbuilding research
association BSRA.
Ledbetter, H.M., 1980. Sound velocities and elastic constants of
steels 304, 310, and 316. Journal of Material Science and
Technology, 14(12), pp.595596.
Ledbetter, H.M., Frederick, N.V. & Austin, M.W., 1980.
Elastic-constant variability in stainless steel 304. J. Appl.
Physics, 51, pp.305309.
Ligtelijn, J.T., Wijngaarden, H.C.J. van & Verkuyl, J.B., 2004.
Correlation of cavitation; comparison of full-scale data
with results of model tests and computations. In SNAME
annual meeting. Washington D.C. USA.
Logan, K.P., Reid, R.E. & Williams, V.E., 1980. Considerations
in establishing a speed performance monitoring system for
merchant ships - Part 1. Techniques based on propeller
relationships - Part 2. In New York city: SNAME, pp.
pp93135.

Boom, van den

Page 12 of 12

Moat, B.I. et al., 2005. The effect of ship shape and anemometer
location on wind speed measurements obtained from ships.
In 4th International Conference on Marine Computational
Fluid Dynamics. University of Southampton, UK, pp. 133
139.
Moat, B.I., Yelland, M.J. & Molland, A.F., 2004. Possible
biases in wind speed measurements from merchant ships.
In 5th International Colloquium on Bluff Body
Aerodynamics and Applications. Ottawa, Canada, pp. 537
540.
Munk, T., 2006. Evaluating Hull coatings for precise impact on
vessel performance. In Florida USA.
Muntean, T., 2011. Propeller efficiency at full scale Measurement system and mathematical model design.
Eindhoven University.
Nielsen, U.D., 2006. Estimations of on-site directional wave
spectra from measured ship responses. Marine Structures,
19, pp.3369.
Pedersen, B.P. & Larsen, J., 2009. Modeling of Ship Propulsion
Performance. In World Maritime Technology Conference
WMTC2009. Mumbai, India: The Institute of Marine
Engineers.
Pinkster, J.A., 1981. Second Order Wave Drift Forces. Delft
University, the Netherlands.
Raven, H.C., 1992. A practical nonlinear method for calculating
ship wavemaking and wave resistance. In 19th Symposium
on Naval Hydrodynamics. Seoul, Korea.
Schlichting, O., 1934. Shiffswiderstand auf beschrankter
Wassertiefe; Widerstand von Seeschiffen auf flachem
Wasser (Resistance in restricted depths of water; the
resistance of sea going ships in shallow water). Jb.
Shiffbautech. Ges., 35, p.127.
SNAME, 1989. Principles of Naval Architecture Vol 3 Second
Rev. E. V Lewis, ed., SNAME.
Telfer, E. V, 1926. The practical analysis of merchant ship trials
and service performance. trans NECIES 1926-1927, 43.
Townsin, R.L. et al., 1985. Rough propeller penalties. SNAME
transactions 1985, 93, pp.165187.
Wan, B., Nishikawa, E. & M., U., 2003. A study of on-board
monitoring and analysis system of ship propulsion
performance - an estimation method of propeller
performance with surface roughness effects - (in Japanese).
J. Kansai Soc. Naval Architecture of Japan, No. 239 Ma,
pp.pp. 5560.

Ship Speed-Power Performance Assessment

12