Professional Documents
Culture Documents
net/publication/285240407
CITATION READS
1 162
2 authors, including:
Robert Latorre
University of New Orleans
105 PUBLICATIONS 347 CITATIONS
SEE PROFILE
All content following this page was uploaded by Robert Latorre on 01 December 2015.
B. C h r i s t o p o u l o s 1 a n d R. L a t o r r e 2
Improvement in river transport requires adopting more efficient towboat propellers. This paper summarizes
the design and towboat trials of a new semi-Kaplan propeller with an unconventional pitch distribution. A
comparison of towboat trip records shows that operation with semi-Kaplan propellers resulted in improve-
ments over operations with conventionally designed propellers. These improvements included a 13.5
percent increase in barge mpg of fuel and a 10 percent increase in tow speed. The trials with the
semi-Kaplan propeller indicated only a small increase in towboat vibration levels. The adoption of this new
propeller has potential for improving present river transport.
Nomenclature
A = power coefficient ( = 18.7 for K = tow a u g m e n t coefficient = 7.200 v = vibration level, in./sec
triple-screw towboat; = 19 for for 3 X 5 tow w = wake fraction
twin-screw towboat) L = barge tow length, ft W = width of waterway, ft
Greek symbols
B -- barge tow beam, ft l = barge length, ft
a = depth coefficient = 1.46 (h -- T)
C -- depth coefficient = 0.142 m = n u m b e r of empty barges fl = velocity coefficient = 2.0
Cr = load coefficient, equation (1) n = propeller rps ART = tow a u g m e n t for shallow water,
D -- propeller diameter, ft n = barge tow coefficient = 1.56 for 3 equation (5), lb
E = speed factor, equation (3) X 5 tow T = draft coefficient = 0.60 + 5.0/
EP = effective " p u s h " of pushboat, P = propeller pitch, ft (W-B)
equation (2), l b + PB = pushboat horsepower, h p 8 = tow length coefficient = 0.38
F = nonintegrated tow factor = 0.061 R = gear ratio E= tow width coefficient = 1.19
Fh = depth Froude n u m b e r R r = barge tow resistance, lb ~?D = propulsive efficiency
shafting efficiency
g = fuel consumption, gal T = draft, ft ~?s ~s =
7/G = gear efficiency
h p = pushboat horsepower t = t h r u s t deduction TO ratio of propeller to total t h r u s t
h = waterway depth, ft V = stillwater speed, m p h re = propeller loading p a r a m e t e r
[ooo,, Pb
power. Nevertheless, model tests [14-17] and actual trials RT= F e ~ V ~ T ~ L ~ B E lb (4)
[11,13] h a v e shown low propulsive efficiency ~D:
For shallow water, 1.33 _< h / T < 2.0, the R T values h a v e
PE been e s t i m a t e d using a modified A p u k h t i n d i a g r a m [12] as
~D - - (1) well as by adding a resistance a u g m e n t [21] ART:
P.
The values of 0.30 < ~D < 0.40 for river towboats are lower Rr= F e ~ V~ T 7 L 8 B e + A R r l b
t h a n t h e values of 0.50 < ~D < 0.60 for oceangoing t a n k e r s AR T = 0 f o r V < 6mph (5)
a nd 0.55 < ~D < 0.65 for high-speed containerships. V o l k e r
[18] reasoned t h a t these low values of towboat propulsive L~tR T = K(V - 6.0) n lb for V _> 6 m p h
efficiency ~D are due to t h e ~suction force" shown in Fig. 6.
Towboat propeller inflow field
To account for this '~suction force" the a u t h o r s have indepen-
d e n t l y developed a two-stage design procedure. T h e first stage The t h i r d i m p o r t a n t design factor is t h e u n i q u e towboat
accounts for this '~suction force" by directly reducing t h e propeller inflow. T h e investigations of t h e late G. L u t h r a ,
towboat push, E P . Th e v a lu e of t h e towboat push E P is esti- performed in t h e shallow w a t e r towing t a n k of t h e Versuch-
m a t e d from t h e towboat horsepower PB [12]: s a n s t a l t fur Binnenschiffbau e.V., Duisburg, G e r m a n y [15],
Table 2 Design specifications for repowering 700O-hp triple screw towboat with heavy-fuel engines
20 I~ 1~ 17 16 15 14 15 lZ :I 9 6 i 5 5 4 J Z 1 O--IL~-
A) 5-'~ .5
4 . 4
23
/ -
--WL 3 II --3
0 "" 20 WL--
:I
--2
J ,,-" 19
6., ",.i" " "
:18 --1
, 7-' / \ \ 17 15-9
,...
--BASE
9-15" LINE
B)
1 2 3 20
Y
row boat E H P
the equilibrium tow speed and required towboat thrust are
estimated. The first stage of the design procedure is divided
into three parts:
1. Estimation of towboat push E P from equation (2).
0 Towboat Speed ~
2. Estimation of barge tow resistance RT from equation (4).
Bollard With Tow Free 3. Estimation of operational match speed when E P = R T .
Running
At the operational match speed V, it is necessary that the
Fig. 6 Illustration of Volker's "suction force" in towboat operation [18] towboat push E P equal the barge tow resistance RT:
iO000C
'-----'~"~---. %t 3. Estimation of astern thrust.
4. Cavitation check.
Selection of pitch distribution
80000
Reviewing the design specifications in Table 2, it is clear
that the only propeller design variables are blade number,
60OOC pitch distribution, and area ratio. The mean pitch P value is
estimated using the Bp - 8 diagram for the K a 4-70 propeller
in Nozzle No. 19a [7] (see Table 2):
.4000C
N P °'5 190 X 22630.5
Bp -- - - - -- 94 (7)
2000C V2.5 6.212.5
ND 190 × 9.167
a = -- - 280.5 (8)
2 4 6 8 I0 12 V, 6.21
STILL WATER SPEED V MPH
For these values of Bp and 8, the value o f P / D = 1.1 at 0.7r
Fig. 7 Estimated towboat "push" EP versus tow speed V compared with data is found from the charts. In Fig. 11, the traditional pitch
from 5600-hp and 1800-hp twin-screw towboats [12] distribution and the constant pitch distribution adopted in
the semi-Kaplan design are compared. Figure 12 shows the
semi-Kaplan blade profile and pitch distribution. The semi-
EP = RT (6) Kaplan propeller design is summarized in Table 3. The blade
Since engine overloading is to be avoided, the propeller design tips of the semi-Kaplan propeller were pitched to have higher
condition is taken for the tow pushing the loaded barge tow loading. In this manner the required thrust was delivered
in deep water [11]. Then when the towboat pushes the empty by a four-bladed semi-Kaplan propeller in contrast to the
barge tow in deep water, the engine will be rpm limited, but five-bladed conventional ducted propeller.
not overloaded. Following the specifications in Table 2, the
Estimation of propeller and duct thrust
operational match speed V is determined for a 7000-hp tow-
boat pushing a 5 × 6 loaded barge train in deep water. The The adoption of a ducted propeller requires assignment of
curve of E P in Fig. 10 is calculated using equation (2) for a the ducted propeller thrust to the propeller Tp and duct TD
range of 7 < V < 9 mph. The curve of R T in Fig. 10 is thrust:
MEASUREMENT
PLANE ~ i h = 5,OO m
M 838 ' ~ . ~
Tl= 3 . 0 0 m
.. ~ + "~/~
I 1 1 Lt) 7
v--- ~2.~7.~ %
t-[o i
',1, Idt:,r _--:
a
/
.- J. --1 [--F_o!// V.1
__--zt-t : _.k2Y'I -I y 17o..,,r/)
. . . . i ....... 1 ........... J#._.
Fig. 8 Wake field of VJV of a triple-screw towboat pushing a 3 X 2 barge train measured without propeller
in duct at 0.4 D ahead of propeller plane [27]
MEASUREMENT
PLANE i h = 5.O0 m
M ~38 A A TL= 3.00 m
~1 t I I ~,.2v~"~ "-- ~-,~,kmh
8 n = 228 rpm
1.0R
GRAPHICAL SOLUTION FOR V
7000HP T o w b o a t Pushing
5x6 Loaded Barge Tow
2. 2/
in Deep Water
1 T o w b o a t Push EP
2 B a r g e Tow R T
EP, RT
Ibs
0.5 2
150000
140000 0.2
• ~ I i I
1.0 09 0,8 PP-axm
130000
COM PAR ISON
OF PITCH P/Pmax
.~ I I I I I I I
? 8 9 10 11 V MPH 1 Conventional
STILL WATER SPEED 2 Semi-Kaplan
Fig. 10 Graphical solution for operational speed V using equation (2) for a Fig. 11 Comparison of conventional pitch distribution with constant pitch
7OO0-hp towboat pushing a 5 X barge tow in d e e p water distribution adopted in present design
V.
T O -- -
T.+ T.
-
Va = V(1 -- w) = 10.474 f t / s e c
O.6R
0.5R
0.4R
0.3R
0.2 R \ -..j
1.0 0•85
P(R)~ma x
Fig. 12 Semi-Kaplanpropellerdesign
Table 3 Semi-Kaplan propeller design parameters: K~ 4-70, No. 19-A nozzle [7]
Towboat fitted with semi-Kaplan design 4-blade Towboat fitted with conventional 5-blade propeller
propeller (11/83-9/84) (9/84-2/85)
EBM, EBM/g, Speed EBM, EBM/g, Speed
Trip barge-mile barge-mile gal V, mph barge-mile barge-mile gal V, mph
1 15.0" 0.299 a 4.96 a 19.0 0.320 3.88
2 26.0 0.407 4.27 22.8 0.319 3.85
3 15.4 0.365 5.83 24.0 0.357 4.02
4 15.0 0,347 5.83 24.0" 0.228 a 2.83 ~
5 21.6 b 0.530 b 5.92 b 22.8 0.305 3.46
6 20.4 0.343 4.55 18.4 0.338 4.29
7 27.0 0.341 3.25 22.0 0.253 3.79
8 20.0 0.383 4.67 20.8 0.302 2.56
9 20.0 0.344 5.44 22.0 0.369 4.04
10 26.6 0.505 4.54 16,6 0.312 5.29
11 22.0 0.415 9.06 20.4 0.325 4.60
12 26.8 0.394 3.50 18.2 0.288 4.58
13 27.6 0.337 2.86 18.4 0.341 4.60
14 21.0 0.303 3.90 25.6 b 0.395 b 3.65 b
15 20.0 0.325 4.71 24.2 0.345 3.50
Avg. c 22.13 0.370 4.49 m 20.7 0.320 4.04
% Gain d 6.8% 13.5% 10% base base base
NOTES:
a Disregarded as low value of EBM/g.
b Disregarded as high value of EMB/g.
c Avg. of remaining 13 trips.
Value - base
x 100%.
base
LOCATION OF VIBRATION
M E A S U R E M E N T S ON T O W B O A T
(9(9 and®
Fig. 14 Location of vibration measurements on towboat
5. D i s c u s s i o n and c o n c l u s i o n s
2 3 1 2 3 1 2 3 Acknowledgment
C) BRORDER © BR.ORDE R ( ~ BIRORDER T h e a u t h o r s a r e g r a t e f u l to Mrs. M. L a t a p i e for t y p i n g t h e
Fig. 15 Comparison of vertical vibration levelsat towboat engines manuscript.
References
1 Big Load Afloat, American Waterways Operators, Washington,
D.C., 1973, pp. 1-5.
2 McEntree, C. C., "Model Experiments with River Towboats--Stern
v HORIZONTAL MEASUREMENTS AHEAD Wheel and Tunnel Propeller Types Compared," Trans. SNAME, Vol. 33,
i% KEY
1925, pp. 63-66.
3 Waller, W. P., "Tank Tests with Towboats and Barges in Deep and
Same as FIG14 Shallow Water," Transactions, Institute of Engineers and Shipbuilders
0.3 (Scotland), Vol. 94, 1950, pp. 210-274.
4 Mitchell, A. R, "Tunnel Type Vessels," Transactions, Institute of
Engineers and Shipbuilders (Scotland), Vol. 96, 1952-53, pp. 126-188.
5 Baier, L. A., "American River Towboats," International Shipbuild-
ing Progress, Vol. 6, No. 61, 1955, pp. 482¢-485.
0.2 6 Latorre, R., "River Towboat Tunnel Stern," International Ship-
building Progress, Vol. 29, No. 338, 1982, pp. 257-259.
7 Oosterveld, M., W. C., "Ducted Propeller Systems Suitable for Tugs
and Pushboats," International Shipbuilding Progress, Vol. 19, No. 219,
1972, pp. 351-371.
0,1 8 Van Manen, T. D. and Oosterveld, M. W. C., "Analysis of Ducted
Propeller Design," Trans. SNAME, Vol. 74, 1966, pp. 522-562.
9 Marbury, F., "Least-Energy Operation of River Shipping," MARINE
TECHNOLOGY,VOI. 16, No. 2, April 1979, pp. 136-155.
10 Spock, P., "The ACBL Blended Fuel Development Program,"
1 2 3 2 3 1 2 3 SNAME, Great Lakes and Great Rivers Section, Jan. 28, 1983.
11 Christopolous, B. and Latorre, R., "River Towboat Hull and Propul-
( ~ BRORDER (~) BR ORDER (~) BR ORDER sion," MARINETECHNOLOGY,Vol. 20, No. 3, July 1983, pp. 209-226.
Fig. 16 Comparison of horizontalvibration levels at towboat engine 12 Latorre, R, "Shallow River Pushboat Preliminary Design," ASCE
Journal of Waterway, Port, Coastal and Ocean Engineering, Vol. 111, No.
4, 1985, pp. 678-692.
13 Allan, R. E., "Shallow Draught Towboats in the Canadian North-
land," Proceedings, Second International Tug Conference, Paper 1, 1971.
14 Luthra, G., "Investigation of the Wake Distribution of a Towboat
Pushing a Barge Train," HANSA, Vol. 3, No. 18, 1974, pp. 1515-1521 (in
German), English translation [25].
v 15 Luthra, G., "Investigation of the Wakefield of a Triple and Quadru-
HORIZONTAL MEASUREMENTS ASTERN ple Screw Pusher Towboat," Versuchsantalt "fur Binnenschiffbau.ev, Re-
in/s KEY port 919, 1979 (in German), English translation [25].
16 Luthra, G, "Effect of Profile Thickness and Angle of Attack of
~&e as i °s Flanking Rudders in Pusher Tugs on Thrust Deduction and Propulsion
0.3 F IG. 14 Power," Schiff und Hafen, Heft 10, 1979 (in German), English translation
[26].
17 Basin, A. M., "Influence of Shallow Water on Hull Propeller Inter-
action of Passenger Vessels," Ship Hydrodynamics in Shallow Water,
0.2 Sudostroyeniye, Leningrad, 1976, pp. 150-163 (in Russian), English trans-
lation [25].
18 Volker, H., Written discussion to K. H. Pohl, "Uber die Weehsel
wirkung Zwisschen Schiff und Propeller," STG Jahbuch, 1961, pp. 298-
300, English translation [24].
0.1 J 19 Narita, H., Kunitake, Y., and Yagi, H., "Application and Develop-
ment of a Large Ducted Propeller for the 280 000-dwt Tanker, MS Thor-
sage," Trans. SNAME, Vol. 82, 1974, pp. 244-273.
20 Howe, C. W., et al, Inland Water Transportation, Johns Hopkins
University Press, Baltimore, 1969.
0 . -- - -
21 Latorre, R. and Warinner, C., "The Resistance of a 5 × 3 Barge
3 I 2 3 Tow Moving in Shallow Water," ASCE Journal of Waterway, Port, Coastal
( ~ BR.ORDER © BR ORDER (~) BR. ORDER and Ocean Engineering, Vol. 112, No. 4, 1986, pp. 531-535.
22 Principles of Naval Architecture, E. V. Lewis, Ed., 2nd Revision,
Fig. t7 Comparison of vibration levelsat towboat engineswhen backing VoL 2, SNAME, 1988, p. 182.
September 26-27 New England Section Marine Computers '91 Boston Marriott Burhngton
Burhngton, MA
November 13-16 SNAME 1991 Annual Meeting and International Maritime Exposition New York Hilton Hotel
New York, NY
1992
June 24-27 Intersociety High Performance Marine Vehcile Conference and Exhibit Ritz Carlton Hotel
Arlington, Va
September 1-4 Second International Symposium on Propellers and Cavttation (ISPC '92) Hangzhou, China
November 11-14 SNAME 1992 Annual Meeting and International Maritime Exposition New York Htlton Hotel
New York, NY
1993 - CENTENNIAL YEAR
September 14-19 SNAME Centennial Annual Meeting and International Maritime Exposition New York Hilton Hotel
New York, NY
1994
November 16-19 SNAME 1994 Annual Meeting and International Maritime Exposition Fairmont Hotel
New Orleans, LA
Tentative Dates September 13-17, 1995: September 18-22, 1996: September 10-14; 1997
SNAME Annual Meeting