1 3
and the volumetric Froude number F
n
. The residual resistance values in Fig. 3
are based on a reanalysis carried out by De Groot [2] using the 1947 ATTC friction line
with C
A
= 0.
 Round bilge hull forms
 tested at 3 diff. drafts
 Useful for full scale displacement up to 30m
3
 Refer fig 1.  for results
where
3 / 1
3 / 1
and f /
,
`
.

g
V
F
L
R
n R
De  Groot Series
In 1951, De Groot [2] published the results of tests with 31 round bilge, highspeed hull
forms, 7 of which were tested at 2 or more draughts. These models were tested at the
Netherlands Ship Model Basin (NSMB). Four of these 31 models, each tested at 4
draughts, constitute a small systematic series. Tests with these 4 models were also
carried out in the towing tank of the Delft University of Technology.
The results of resistance tests with all 31 models, carried out in calm water, were
analysed using the 1947 ATTC friction coefficients. For the small systematic series, De
Groot presented a diagram displaying the values of the residual resistance coefficient C
R
= R
R
/
1
2
p SV
2
as a function of
V L /
and the displacementlength ratio /(0.1L)
3
which diagram is often referred to by other workers in the field. More benefit of the
work carried out by De Groot, however, lies in the fact that he derived a single graph
(Fig. 8 of Ref. 2), showing the average resistance of 76 models (including the Nordstrom
5
data) as a function of the displacementlength ratio for the speed range corresponding to
V/
L
= 1.0 to 3.5. Unfortunately, the total resistance values given were for model
lengths of 2.25 metres only. Even though De Groot showed how to use this graph in
arriving at a prediction of the resistance of a new design, this procedure has not found
general acceptance. At NSMB, however, these results are used up to this day as a
standard to which the results of model resistance tests of fast, roundbilge hull forms are
compared in order to arrive at a first qualification of the lines of a new design.
To facilitate preparing a resistance prediction using this average data, the total model
resistance values referred to have been converted to values of the residual resistance
displacement weight ratio R
R
/ by using the average value for the wetted surface of the
models given by S = 2.75
L
, and the 1947 ATTC friction coefficients. These residual
resistance values are given in Fig. 3.
 31 round bilge high speed hull forms
 7 of these tested at 2 or more draft tested at NSMB ( now known as MARIN)
 analysed using ATTC  47 friction coeff.
 C
R
represented as
( )
f
V
L L
,
.

.
`
,
1
3
 Obtained a single graph showing the average resistance of the models as a
function of displacement length ratio for
 The total resistance values for model lengths of 2.5m.
 This procedure has not found acceptance.
 To facilitate preparing a resistance prediction using this average data, total
model resistance have been converted to values of the residual resistance
to displacement ratio by using the average value for friction coefficients. fig 2.
The Marwood and Silverleaf Data
6
In 1960, Marwood and Silverleaf [3] presented the results of resistance tests with
approximately 30 unrelated roundbilge forms carried out at the Ship Division of the
British National Physical Laboratory. Mean resistance lines were given for these models,
together with lines representing 5 and 10 per cent deviations from the mean lines. From
these results, Marwood and Silverleaf confirmed earlier observations by Nordstrom and
De Groot that other than the lengthdisplacement ratio, and the Froude number, no clear
evidence of any important systematic variation in resistance with other parameters can
be discerned in the speed range considered, contrary to the case for the low speed range
and the planing speed range.
The Marwood and Silverleaf resistance data presents the resistance coefficient
EHP V 427 1
2 2 3
. /
/
1 3
covered is from 5.2 to 8.2. These results have not been converted to
R
R
/  values here as was done for the De Groot data, since this would only form a
duplication of the De Groot data, in that both present average results.
Series 63
Results of resistance tests with models of five 50 feet round bilge utility boats were
reported on by Beys [4] in 1963. These tests were carried out in the towing tank of the
Davidson Laboratory of the Stevens Institute of Technology. These models form a
methodical series in that the body plans of all 5 models are geometrically similar. The
parent model has a nominal lengthbeam ratio of 4. All other models were derived from
this parent model by multiplying the waterline and buttock spacings of the parent model
by a constant so as to obtain nominal L/B values 2.5, 3.0, 4.0, 5.0 and 6.0. The models
had a length of 3 feet. Unfortunately, this procedure of deriving a systematic series
leads to changes not only in L/B, but also in B/T (and hence in C
B
, C
P
, LCB, etc.) when
tests at equal lengthdisplacement ratios are carried out such as is the case here. To
obtain the same L/
1/3
for the model with L/B = 2.5 as for the model with L/B = 6.0,
for example, a relatively smaller draught has to be adopted for the model with the
largest beam. Therefore, the differences in the resistance values between the different
7
models at equal lengthdisplacement and Froude number values cannot be attributed
solely to differences in L/B only. Nevertheless, the results obtained with these 5 models
are useful to designers requiring more information on the influence on resistance of hull
form parameters other than the lengthdisplacement ratio. The residual resistance
displacement weight ratio R
R
/ for each of these models are, accordingly, given here in
Figs. 3, 4, 5, 6 and 7 in the format used in Figs. 1 and 2. The presented residual
resistance values were derived from the measured total resistance by means of the 1947
ATTC friction line with C
A
= 0.
 Tested in Davidson Lab.
 Models of 50ft round bilge utility boats.
 Body plans of 5 models geometrically similar
 Parent model L/B = 4.
 All models obtained by waterline and buttock spacing by a constant
L/B=2.5,3,4,5,6
 Model length 3ft.
Changing L/B ratio  changes B/T ratio
 Which changes (B, C
p
, LCB etc)
To obtain same L/
1
3
for L/B = 2.5 & L/B = 6 for the beamier vessel smaller draft
required.
So different in resistance values at equal L/
1
3
for different models cannot be attributed
to changes in L/B only.
 R
R
/ for each model shown in fig 3, 4, 5, 6 & 7.
 obtained using ATTC 47 friction coefficient & C
A
= 0.
Series 64 (1965)
Results of tests with 27 models of slender, highspeed, roundbilge displacement forms
at the David W. Taylor Naval Ship Research and Development Center were published by
8
Yeh [5] in 1965. These 27 models comprise a systematic series of which the varied
parameters are /(0.01L)
3
(from 15 to 55), B/T (from 2 to 4) and C
B
(from 0.35 to
0.55). On assigning values to /(0.01L)
3
or L/
1/3
, B/T and C
B
, the L/B value is no
longer free to choose since:
( )
T / B
/ L C
B
L
3
3 / 1
B
The L/B values of these 27 models thus range from 8.454 to 18.264. The speed range
covered corresponds to values of the Froude number F
n
from 0 to 1.5 (equivalent to a
range in V/
L
from 0 to 5.0). The results of the resistance tests in calm water were
reduced to residuary resistance values by Yeh, by using the 1947 ATTC frictional
resistance coefficients with C
A
= 0.
Due to the rather extreme type of hull forms in this series, the resistance results for the
individual models are not often used or referred to. Average resistance values for the
complete series, however, are frequently adopted for use in parametric studies for
slender ships and other purposes. For this reason the average residual resistance
displacement weight ratio R
R
/ , as a function of L/
1/3
and F
n
, is shown in Fig. 8. In
preparing this figure the data for /(0.01L)
3
= 20 and C
B
= 0.45 was not considered
because of the "inconsistency" of this data with the results for the other models of the
series.
 27 models of slender high speed round bilge displacement forms at DTMB.

( ) / . 0 01
3
L
varied from 15 to 55
 B/T 24
 C
B
0.35  0.55
On fixing the value of
( ) / . 0 01
3
L
or L/
1/3
9
B/T, C
B
& L/B are no larger free
as
( )
T / B
/ L C
B
L
3
3 / 1
B
/
/
/ 1 3
3
Speed range Fn = 0.4 to 1.2.
Using ITTC  57 residuary resistance values were obtained.
Results show for Fn = 0.4 to 0.9 length / displacement ratio is the only significant
parameter.
Refer figure 9 to see R
R
/ as function of L/
1
3
& F
n
.
NPL Series
Very useful resistance data on highspeed, round bilge displacement forms have been
published by Marwood and Bailey [7] in 1969 and by Bailey [8] in 1976, concerning the
tests carried out at the Ship Division of the British National Physical Laboratory with a
systematic series of 22 models of which L/B and B/T were varied. Five models were
tested having a L/B value of 3.33 with B/T values ranging from 3.19 to 10.21, 6 with L/B
equal to 4.54 with B/T values ranging from 1.72 to 6.87, 4 with L/B equal to 5.41 with
B/T values ranging from 1.94 to 4.86, 4 with L/B equal to 6.25 with B/T values ranging
from 1.93 to 5.80 and 3 models with L/B = 7.50 with B/T values ranging from 2.01 to
4.02. Other main hull form parameters were kept constant (C
B
= 0.397, C
P
= 0.693
and the longitudinal centre of buoyancy LCB was positioned 6.4% L aft of the midship
11
section). The speed range covered corresponds to values of the Froude number ranging
from 0.3 to 1.20 (equivalent to a range in V/
L
from 1.0 to 4.0).
The residuary resistance values were calculated from the measured model resistance by
subtracting the frictional resistance as determined by means of the 1957 ITTC skin
friction formulation. The residuary resistancedisplacement weight ratio was then
plotted against L/
1/3
for various F
n
values for each L/B value. These figures are
reproduced here as Figs. 10, 11, 12, 13 and 14.
Resistance Prediction by Empirical and Statistical Methods
Kafali's Graphical Method
In 1959, Kafali [9] published a graphical procedure for estimating the effective horse
power of small, round bilge highspeed vessels. The procedure adopts the following
formula:
2
E
L
V
V C P
,
`
.

in which P
E
= effective horse power
= displacement in tons
V = ship speed in knots
L = waterline length in feet.
In above eqn. C is a constant, the value of which is to be determined from graphs.
These graphs display C as a function of V/ L, L/
1/3
(where L is in feet and is in
tons) and B/T. One graph is provided for B/T = 3.65 and another for B/T = 4.45. In
Ref. 9, it is stated that the value of C was determined from model tests. No details of
these tests are provided, however. The values for the lengthdisplacement ratio adopted
in these graphs range from 19 to 26 (equivalent to values of L/
1/3
of between 5.84 to
8.00). The speed range covered correspondence to a Froude number range of 0.35 to
0.85 (equivalent to V/
L
values from 1.2 to 2.9). Equation and the associated graphs
12
for C, are valid for the barehull case, ie. for hulls without appendages, as is the case for
the methodical series data given in section 3.
In this method, the influence of length on frictional resistance is ignored. Only one value
for C
P
was used in determining the value of the constant C. On using an allowance of
between +5 and +10% to account for the effects of roughness and appendages, Kafali
finds a good agreement between the results of the method and trial results for a 20.8 ft.
and a 112 ft. motorboat.
Clement's Graphical Method
A graphical procedure for the prediction of the total resistance of small, round bilge,
highspeed craft was published by Clement in 1964 [10]. The Nordstrom data [1] and
the Marwood and Silverleaf data [3] were used by Clement to derive a set of eight
graphs presenting the total resistanceweight ratio R
T
/ , dependent on the
displacement weight , the lengthdisplacement ratio L/
1/3
and the volumetric Froude
number F
n
. Each graph is valid for one value of F
n
. Graphs are provided for F
n
=
1.2, 1.4, 1.6, 1.8, 2.0, 2.2, 2.4 and 2.6. The values of the lengthdisplacement ratio
covered by the graphs range from 5.2 to 8.2, while the displacement weight values
range from 5,000 to 100,000 pounds. As explained in section 2, a dependence on
displacement or length is necessary when the total resistance is adopted as the
dependent variable in lieu of the residual resistance because of the dependence of skin
friction on the Reynolds number. In deriving the R
T
/ values given in the graphs,
Clement made use of the Froude friction coefficients. He used values for the wetted
surface following from the formula S = 0.157L
2
(with L in feet), which formula is valid
for the average value of the (unrelated) models of Ref. 3. Application of the modelship
correlation factor C
A
, as outlined in section 2, is not possible on using total resistance
values derived from graphs such as presented to Clement. To arrive at realistic full
scale values of the resistance, use of an integral allowance of approximately =10%
seems appropriate for small vessels [3].
Van Oortmerssen's Numerical Method
13
Van Oortmerssen used a multiple regression technique to obtain a numerical expression
for the residual resistance of small ships. This work, published in 1971 [11], was based
on 970 resistance data points of 93 models of small vessels tested at NSMB. The basic
expression adopted for the residual resistance was derived from a theoretical model of
the wave resistance of a travelling, twodimensional pressure disturbance, having peaks
at the equivalent at the equivalent stem and stern positions and a pressure minimum in
between, such as occurs for vessels with no parallel middle body. The range of
parameters for which the coefficients of the basic expressions are valid, are as follows:
 waterline length between 8 and 80 metres;
 displacement volume between 5 and 3000 cubic metres;
 lengthbeam ratio between 3 and 6.2;
 breadthdraught ratio between 1.9 and 4.0;
 prismatic coefficient between 0.50 and 0.73;
 midship section coefficient between 0.70 and 0.97;
 longitudinal centre of buoyancy between 7% L and +2.8% L forward of 0.5 L;
 half angle of entrance of design waterline between 10 and 46.
The speed range covered by the 970 data points lie in the Froude number range between
0 and 0.50 (equivalent to a V/
L
range of 0 to 1.70). Some extrapolation to higher
speeds is permissible, however, because of the theoretical nature of the basic
expression. The numerical expression is as follows:
R
C e
mF
C e
mF
C e
mF
F C e
mF
F
R
n n n
n
n
n
+
+
+
1
2
2
2
3
2
2
4
2
2
9 /
. sin . cos
in which1000 C
1
= 79.32134  0.09287 LCB  0.00209 LCB
2
 246.45896 C
P
+ 187.13664 C
P
2
 1.42893 L/B
+ 0.11898 (L/B)
2
+ 0.15727 C
WL
 0.00064 C
WL
2
 2.52862 B/T + 0.50619 (B/T)
2
+ 1.62851 C
M
14
1000 C
2
= 6714.88397 + 19.83 LCB + 2.66997 LCB
2
 19662.024 C
P
+ 14099.904 C
P
2
+ 137.33613 L/B  13.36938 (L/B)
2
 4.49852 C
WL
+ 0.021 C
WL
2
+ 216.44923 B/T
 35.07602 (B/T)
2
 128.72535 C
M
1000 C
3
=  908.44371 + 2.52704 LCB  0.35794 LCB
2
+ 755.1866 C
P
 48.93952 C
P
2
+ 9.86873 L/B
 0.77652 (L/B)
2
+ 3.79020 C
WL
 0.01879 C
WL
2
 9.24399 B/T + 1.28571 (B/T)
2
+ 250.6491 C
M
1000 C
4
= 3012.14549 + 2.71437 LCB + 0.25521 LCB
2
 9198.8084 C
P
+ 6886.60416 C
P
2
 159.92694 L/B
+ 16.23621 (L/B)
2
 0.82014 C
WL
+ 0.00225 C
WL
2
+ 236.3797 B/T  44.1782 (B/T)
2
+ 207.2558 C
M
and m = 0.14347 C
P
2.1976
In the formulas for 1000C
1
, 1000C
2
, 1000C
3
and 1000C
4
, the value of C
WL
is based on
the value of i
E
in degrees.
In the above expressions, C
WL
= i
E
. L/B, where i
E
is the half angle of entrance of the
design waterline. The values of L/B and B/T can be based on the waterline values of L, B
and T, although Van Oortmerssen used the displacement length L
D
rather than the
waterline length, where L
D
was defined as half the sum of the length between
perpendiculars and the waterline length.
15
Numerical Method Derived by Mercier and Savitsky
Mercier and Savitsky [12] carried out a regression analysis of the resistance results
obtained by Nordstrom [1] for a small systematic series (9 models), by De Groot [2] for
a small systematic series (12 models), by Beys [4] for the series 63 (21 models), by Yeh
[5] for the series 64 (27 models), by Lindgren and Williams [6] for the SSPA series (9
models), and by Marwood and Bailey [7] for the NPL series (23 models). The results
obtained by Clement and Blount [13] for the series 62 hardchine hull forms (17 models)
were also incorporated in the data base. Formulas were derived for the total resistance
displacement weight ratio R
T
/ for eleven values of the volumetric Froude number, 1.0,
1.1 to 2.0, for a displacement of 100000 lbs. Four parameters were selected for
inclusion in the resistance equations as independent variables. These are the
displacementlength ratio
1 3 /
/ L
, the beam loading coefficient C B
/
3
, the square
root of the angle of entrance of the load water line in degrees 2i
E
, and the ratio of
transom area to maximum section area A
T
/A
X
.
Although the formulas derived by Mercier and Savitsky were originally intended for
predicting the resistance of planing craft in the preplaning, displacement mode, they can
also be successfully used for predicting the resistance of displacement hulls, since 101 of
the 118 sets of model data used, are those of roundbilge, displacement hulls!
The general form of the resistance equation adopted by Mercier and Savitsky is as
follows:
R A A X A U A W A XZ A XU A XW A ZU A ZW
T
/ + + + + + + + +
1 2 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
+ + + + + A W A XW A ZW A UW A WU
15
2
18
2
19
2
24
2
27
2
where X =
1 3 3
2
/
/ , / , / L Z B U i and W A A
E T X
16
The values of the coefficients A
1
to A
27
are given in Table 4 for the eleven values of the
Froude number and a displacement weight of 100000 lbs (444.97375 kN).
In using above equations it is essential to remain within the range of values of the
independent variables used in the data base. Gross errors can occur otherwise. For
other displacement values, other water temperatures, friction coefficients or C
A
values,
Eg, 18 can be corrected according to the following expression:
( ) ( ) ( )
2
n
3 / 2
2
1
A F
1
f T T
F .
S
. C 18 . Eg C C 18 . Eg / R corr / R
+ +
In Eg. 19, (R
T
/ ) corr = corrected value of R
T
/ ,
(R
T
/ ) Eg.18 = value of R
T
/ according to Eg. 18,
C
F
1
= friction coefficient for alternative displacement, water
temperature or friction formulation,
C
F
Eq.18 = friction coefficient according to the 1947 ATTC friction
formulation,
C
A
= appropriate value of the modelship correlation factor,
S = wetted surface.
Table 4. Values of the coefficients in Eg. 18 as a function of Fn for = 100000 lbs in
sea water at 15C using the 1947 ATTC friction coefficients with CA = 0.
Fn = 1.0 Fn = 1.1 Fn = 1.2 Fn = 1.3 Fn = 1.4 Fn = 1.5
17
A1
A2
A4
A5
A6
A7
A8
A9
A10
A15
A18
A19
A24
A27
0.06473
0.48680
0.01030
0.06490
0.0
0.10628
0.97310
0.00272
0.01089
0.0
1.40962
0.29136
0.02971
0.00150
0.10776
0.88787
0.01634
0.13444
0.0
0.18186
1.83080
0.00389
0.01467
0.0
2.46696
0.47305
0.05877
0.00356
0.09483
0.63720
0.01540
0.13580
0.16046
0.16803
1.55972
0.00309
0.03481
0.0
2.46696
0.47305
0.05877
0.00356
0.03475
0.0
0.00978
0.05097
0.21880
0.10434
0.43510
0.00198
0.04113
0.0
2.15556
1.02992
0.05198
0.00105
0.03013
0.0
0.00664
0.05540
0.19359
0.09612
0.51820
0.00215
0.03901
0.0
0.95276
0.97757
0.02413
0.00140
0.03163
0.0
0.0
0.10543
0.20540
0.06007
0.58230
0.00372
0.04794
0.08317
0.70895
1.19737
0.0
0.0
Fn = 1.6 Fn = 1.7 Fn = 1.8 Fn = 1.9 Fn = 2.0
A1
A2
A4
A5
A6
A7
A8
A9
A10
A15
A18
A19
A24
A27
0.03194
0.0
0.0
0.08599
0.19442
0.06191
0.52049
0.00360
0.04436
0.07366
0.72057
1.18119
0.0
0.0
0.04343
0.0
0.0
0.13289
0.18062
0.05487
0.78195
0.00332
0.04187
0.12147
0.95929
1.01562
0.0
0.0
0.05036
0.0
0.0
0.15597
0.17813
0.05099
0.92859
0.00308
0.04111
0.14928
1.12178
0.93144
0.0
0.0
0.05612
0.0
0.0
0.18661
0.18288
0.04744
1.18569
0.00244
0.04124
0.18090
1.38644
0.78414
0.0
0.05967
0.0
0.0
0.19758
0.20152
0.04645
1.30026
0.00212
0.04343
0.19769
1.55127
0.78282
0.0
0.0
An analysis of the still water value of the wetted surface of the models comprising the
data base resulted in the following formula, with an accuracy of + 9% for 95% of the
cases comprising the data base.
( )
2 1/3 3 / 2
(B/T) 0.00287 B/T 046 . 0 1 L/ 262 . 2 / S + +
1 3
, L/B, B/T, C
B
, etc.
The main aspect dealt with in this paper is the stateofthe art of estimating the bare
hull resistance of highspeed, roundbilge ships, in the preliminary design stage, with an
emphasis on the dependence of the resistance on various hull form parameters to
facilitate design decisions.
21
22
23
24
The Recommended 'Magic Cube' for AMECRC
It is recommended that the current AMECRC series of two models should be extended as
shown below which will involve the design and testing of an additional seven hull forms
and which would encompass a range of hull forms which could conceivably be required
commercially.
While there would appear to be the potential for a conflict of interest between the
requirements of pure research and the requirements of the market, the ultimate proof of
the validity of both MARIN and AMECRC research will be the full scale results. Full scale
25
results are more likely to be achieved in that zone of the magic cube which encompasses
the currently perceived requirements of the market.
The proposed magic cube in Fig.4 below is believed to be the best compromise of both
requirements. The range of L/B. B/T and C
B
have been extended as far as possible
without including full scale configurations with no practical application.
Fig.4  Recommended 'Magic Cube' of AMECRC
Regression Analysis
 A Technique with broad applications
Statistical means to fit an equation through a given set of data
Quality and Quantity of data
 Data sample distribution in data base
Range of actual database
26
 Good regression analysis if the data distribution is homogenous
Random model data: error percentage increase in resistance
prediction
offers a better quantitative value for
comparison purposes
 Errors are generally due to
a) Hull shape or dimensions outside the limits of the prediction method
b) Scaling errors
c) Model result measuring errors and poor database
27
HOLTROP
Type of hull forms: A variety of hull forms ranging from tugs and trawlers to
naval vessels
Range of parameters: Cp 0.550.85, L/B 3.99.5
Speed range: Fn 0.050.50
SAVITSKY & BROWN
Type of hull forms: Prismatic and transon stern
Range of parameters: i L A A
e T X
5 0 65 3 13 0 5 1 0
1 3
. , / , / . .
/
LCG position (%0.5L) 0.0150.065
Speed range: Preplaning Fnv < 2.0, Planing Fnv > 2.0
VAN OORTMERSSEN
Type of hull forms: Tugs and trawlers
Range of parameters: Average displacement of 600 tonnes, mean L/B 4.6,
mean L 48m, mean Cb 0.6 and mean i
e
22 degrees
Speed range: Fn < 0.60
RADOJCIC
Type of hull forms: Series 62 and Series 65
Range of parameters: A L B
p
/ . . , / . .
/
2 3
4 25 9 5 2 36 6 73
deadrise angle at 50%L 1337.4 degrees,
28
position of LCG from transom 3044.8% of L
Speed range: Fnv 1.03.5
COMPTON
Type of hull forms: Transom stern hulls of round and hard chine bilge
Range of parameters: DisplacementLength ratio of 105150, position of LCG
to length ratio 0.13 to 0.02, L/B 45.2
Speed range: Fn 0.10.6
JIN PINGZHONG ET AL
Type of hull forms: Round bilge Displacement hulls
Range of parameters: ( ) 40 . 0 05 . 0 A / A , 7 . 5 5 . 1 L 1 . 0 / , 6 . 26 6 . 7 i
X T
3 / 1
e
Cp 0.60.66, LCB Position as % of L 06.4
Speed range: Fn 0.41.0
LAHTIHARJU ET AL
Type of hull forms: Round bilge and Hard Chine Vessels
A A L B
T X
/ . . , / . . , / . .
/
0 16 0 82 4 47 8 3 0 68 7 76
1 3 3
Range of parameters:
L B B T C
x
/ . . , / . . , . . 3 33 8 21 1 72 10 21 0 567 0 888
for round bilge hulls and
A A L
T x
/ . . , / . .
/
0 43 0 995 4 49 6 81
1 3
for hard chine vessels
Speed range: Fnv 1.83.2
29
Appendage Resistance
The appendage resistance was calculated separately for each appendage rather than
adding the wetted surface area to the bare hull and performing the analysis at once.
The expressions for resistance are given below:
Exposed Shafting, Stern Tubes and Bossings [2]
( )
F A
C d L V R sin 1 . 1
2
1
3 2
+
Where CF is calculated with Rnd
,
`
.

Vd
, where L is the length of shaft, d is the diameter
and is the inclination of shaft relative to keel.
Struts and Rudders [2]
,
`
.

,
`
.

+
,
`
.

+
4
2
60
c
t
2 1 2
2
1
c
t
C S V R
F A
Where CF is calculated with Rnc
,
`
.

Vc
, t/c is the thickness to chord ratio.
Bilge Keels [4]
,
`
.

+
y x
z
C S V R
F B A
2
2
2
1
2
Where CF is calculated with SB as the bilge keel wetted surface area and RnL
,
`
.

Vl
Transom Wedges [1]
( ) +
,
`
.

2
1
S c 046 . 0 0052 . 0
2
V R
A
Where is the wedge angle and is the trim angle of vessel.
Air Resistance [4]
30
2
V
2
1
T D AIR
A C R
AIR
References
1. Nordstrom, H.F., "Some Tests with Models of Small Vessels", Teknisk Tidskrift,
Skeppsbyggnadskonst, 1936. Published in English as publication No.19 of the
Swedish State Shipbuilding Experiment Tank, Gteborg, 1951.
2. Groot, D. de., "Weerstand en voortstuwing van motorboten", Schip en Werf, 1951.
Published in English in International Shipbuilding Progress, Vol.2, No.6, 1955.
3. Marwood, W.J., and Silverleaf, A., "Design Data for High Speed Displacement 
Type Hulls and a Comparison with Hydrofoil Craft", Third Symposium on Naval
Hydrodynamics, ONR ACR65, 1960.
4. Beys, P.M., "Series 63 Round Bottom Boats", Davidson Laboratory, Stevens
Institute of Technology, Report No. 949, 1963.
5. Yeh, H.Y.H., "Series 64 Resistance Experiments on HighSpeed Displacement
Forms", Marine Technology, July 1965.
6. Lindgren, H. and Williams, A., "Systematic Tests with Small, Fast Displacement
Vessels, Including a Study of the Influence of Spray Strips", Proceedings of
Diamond Jubilee International Meeting, Society of Naval Architects and Marine
Engineers, 1968.
7. Marwood, W.J., and Bailey, D., "Design Data for HighSpeed Displacement Hulls of
RoundBilge Form", British National Physical Laboratory, Ship Division, Report
No.99, 1969.
8. Bailey, D., "The NPL HighSpeed RoundBilge Displacement Hull Series", Royal
Institution of Naval Architects, Maritime Technology Monograph No.4, 1976.
31
9. Kafali, K., "The Powering of Round Bottom Motorboats", International Shipbuilding
Progress, Vol.6, No.54, 1959.
10. Clement, E.P., "Graphs for Predicting the Resistance of Round Bottom Boats",
International Shipbuilding Progress, Vol.11, No.114, 1964.
11. Oortmerssen, G. van, "A Power Prediction Method and Its Application to Small
Ships", International Shipbuilding Progress, Vol.18, No.207, 1971.
12. Mercier, J.A., and Savitsky, D., "Resistance of TransomStern Craft in the Pre
Planning Regime", Davidson Laboratory, Stevens Institute of Technology, Report
No.1667, 1973.
13. Clement, E.P., and Blount, D., "Resistance Tests of a Systematic Series of Planing
Hull Forms", Transactions, Society of Naval Architects and Marine Engineers,
Vol.71, 1963.
14. Holtrop, J. and Mennen, G.G.J., "A Statistical Power Prediction Method",
International Shipbuilding Progress, Vol.25, No.290, 1978.
32
Propulsion
In carrying out the investigation, the following constants for operating conditions were
carried throughout:
Operating Medium: Sea Water (Salinity level 3.5%)
Water Temperature: 18
0
C
Water Density: 1.0252 t/m
3
(ITTC, 1963)
Kinematic Viscosity: 1.10438 x 10
6
m
2
/s
Sea State 4 or 5
For the vessel and propeller the following parameters were used:
Wake Deduction Fraction (w): 0.03 Condition: 1.0 < FN
< 2.0
Thrust Deduction Fraction (t): 0.015 Condition: 1.0 < F N
< 2.0
Number of Propeller blades (Z): 4
Rotation Rate (n): 8.1 rps (s
1
)
With a set rotation rate and blade number, it is possible to determine the best propeller
by varying P/D, BAR and D. Software was then developed within Microsoft Excel using
the VBA programming language to handle multiple calculations and vary all the three
propeller parameters as mentioned previously. The program takes advantage of the
polynomial expression published in [5] for the Wageningen Bscrew Series for Rn=2 x
10
6
;
47
1 n
v u
O E
t s
Q
(Z) ) /A (A (P/D) (J) C K
39
1 n
v
u
O E
t s
T
(Z) ) /A (A (P/D) (J) C K
The various coefficients for C, s, t, u and v are shown in Table 6 and 7 below for thrust
coefficient KT and KQ respectively.
33
Table 6: Coefficients for the KT polynomial representing the Wageningen B
Screw Series Propellers for a Reynolds number of 2 x 10
6
.
Thrust Coefficient (KT)
n C s t u v
1 0.00880496 0 0 0 0
2 0.204554 1 0 0 0
3 0.166351 0 1 0 0
4 0.158114 0 2 0 0
5 0.147581 2 0 1 0
6 0.481497 1 1 1 0
7 0.415437 0 2 1 0
8 0.0144043 0 0 0 1
9 0.0530054 2 0 0 1
10 0.0143481 0 1 0 1
11 0.0606826 1 1 0 1
12 0.0125894 0 0 1 1
13 0.0109689 1 0 1 1
14 0.133698 0 3 0 0
15 0.00638407 0 6 0 0
16 0.00132718 2 6 0 0
17 0.168496 3 0 1 0
18 0.0507214 0 0 2 0
19 0.0854559 2 0 2 0
20 0.0504475 3 0 2 0
21 0.010465 1 6 2 0
22 0.00648272 2 6 2 0
23 0.00841728 0 3 0 1
24 0.0168424 1 3 0 1
25 0.00102296 3 3 0 1
26 0.0317791 0 3 1 1
27 0.018604 1 0 2 1
28 0.00410798 0 2 2 1
29 0.000606848 0 0 0 2
30 0.0049819 1 0 0 2
31 0.0025983 2 0 0 2
32 0.000560528 3 0 0 2
33 0.00163652 1 2 0 2
34 0.000328787 1 6 0 2
35 0.000116502 2 6 0 2
36 0.000690904 0 0 1 2
37 0.00421749 0 3 1 2
38 5.65229E05 3 6 1 2
39 0.00146564 0 3 2 2
Table 7: Coefficients for the KQ polynomial representing the Wageningen B
Screw Series Propellers for a Reynolds number of 2 x 10
6
.
34
Torque Coefficient (KQ)
35
n C s t u v
1 0.00379368 0 0 0 0
2 0.00886523 2 0 0 0
3 0.032241 1 1 0 0
4 0.00344778 0 2 0 0
5 0.0408811 0 1 1 0
6 0.108009 1 1 1 0
7 0.0885381 2 1 1 0
8 0.188561 0 2 1 0
9 0.00370871 1 0 0 1
10 0.00513696 0 1 0 1
11 0.0209449 1 1 0 1
12 0.00474319 2 1 0 1
13 0.00723408 2 0 1 1
14 0.00438388 1 1 1 1
15 0.0269403 0 2 1 1
16 0.0558082 3 0 1 0
17 0.0161886 0 3 1 0
18 0.00318086 1 3 1 0
19 0.015896 0 0 2 0
20 0.0471729 1 0 2 0
21 0.0196283 3 0 2 0
22 0.0502782 0 1 2 0
23 0.030055 3 1 2 0
24 0.0417122 2 2 2 0
25 0.0397722 0 3 2 0
26 0.00350024 0 6 2 0
27 0.0106854 3 0 0 1
28 0.00110903 3 3 0 1
29 0.000313912 0 6 0 1
30 0.0035985 3 0 1 1
31 0.00142121 0 6 1 1
32 0.00383637 1 0 2 1
33 0.0126803 0 2 2 1
34 0.00318278 2 3 2 1
35 0.00334268 0 6 2 1
36 0.00183491 1 1 0 2
37 0.000112451 3 2 0 2
38 2.97228E05 3 6 0 2
39 0.000269551 1 0 1 2
40 0.00083265 2 0 1 2
41 0.00155334 0 2 1 2
42 0.000302683 0 6 1 2
43 0.0001843 0 0 2 2
44 0.000425399 0 3 2 2
45 8.69243E05 3 3 2 2
46 0.0004659 0 6 2 2
47 5.54194E05 1 6 2 2
36
To make these results applicable for Reynolds Numbers greater than 2 x 10
6
a correction
is applied, again as published in [5] and shown in table 8 and 9.
x
9
1 n
v u
O E
t
s
T
) 301 . 0 ( (Z) ) /A (A (P/D) (J) C K
LogRn
x
13
1 n
v u
O E
t
s
Q
) 301 . 0 ( (Z) ) /A (A (P/D) (J) C K
LogRn
Table 8: Coefficients for the KT polynomial for Reynolds number >2 x 10
6
.
KT
n C s t u v x
1 0.000353485 0 0 0 0 0
2 0.00333758 2 0 1 0 0
3 0.00478125 1 1 1 0 0
4 0.000257792 2 0 1 0 2
5 0.000064192 2 6 0 0 1
6 1.10636E05 2 6 0 0 2
7 2.76305E05 2 0 1 1 2
8 0.0000954 1 1 1 1 1
9 3.2049E06 1 3 1 2 1
Finally, the KT and KQ values for the propeller are the sum of the two components. It is
specified the following conditions need to be adhered to before the above methods can
be employed:
No. of blades 2 Z 7
Blade Area Ratio (BAR) 0.3 AE/AO 1.05
Pitch ratio (normally taken at 0.7R) 0.5 P/D 1.40
Table 9: Coefficients for the KQ polynomial for Reynolds number >2 x 10
6
.
KQ
n C s t u v x
1 0.000591412 0 0 0 0 0
2 0.00696898 0 1 0 0 0
3 6.66654E05 0 6 0 0 0
4 0.0160818 0 0 2 0 0
5 0.000938091 0 1 0 0 1
37
6 0.00059593 0 2 0 0 1
7 7.82099E05 0 2 0 0 2
8 5.2199E06 2 0 1 0 1
9 8.8528E07 1 1 1 0 2
10 2.30171E05 0 6 0 0 1
11 1.84341E06 0 6 0 0 2
12 0.00400252 0 0 2 0 1
13 0.000220915 0 0 2 0 2
And Total Thrust Coefficient = KT + KT
and Total Torque Coefficient = KQ + KQ
Given that the number of blades has been fixed at 4, the BAR and P/D ratios can be
varied between these values. The diameter of the propeller is limited to between 1.5
metres and 1.95 metres; the specified propeller being 1.801 metres [6]. By
systematically varying the parameters within the polynomials, a series of data is
produced at varying propeller configurations, allowing developed thrust curves to be
calculated.
TREQ =
t 1
R
T
T
4 2
DEV
K D n T
where T is the thrust produced (kN)
RT is the total resistance (bare hull + air+ appendages + added resistance in
waves in sea state 4 where H1/3 = 2.5 m + additional frictional resistance due to
fouling taken at 18%)
is the water density (t/m
3
)
n is the rotation rate of the propeller (RPM in s
1
)
D is the propeller diameter (m)
KT is the thrust coefficient of the propeller
Q
2 K
J K
T
O
P
P
Required
Brake power of engine accounting for gear box efficiency (kW)
GB
S
B
P
P
Shaft power (kW)
S
D
S
P
P
Power delivered to propeller (kW)
B
A
D
V T
P
,
`
.

D
cZ
K
Q
= + 0.25 C
D
,
`
.

D
cZ
Where m & s = suffixes for model and ship
C
D
= change in drag coefficient
introduced by differing flow
regimes at model and full
scale and is given as
= C
DM
 C
DS
Where C
DM
= 2
]
]
]
]
,
`
.

+
3 / 2 6 / 1
5 044 . 0 2
1
n n
R R
c
t
and C
DS
= 2
5 . 2
10
log 62 . 1 89 . 1
2
1
,
`
.

,
`
.

+
,
`
.

+
p
K
c
c
t
43
Here
t
c
= section thickness to chord ratio =
( )
O
E
A
A
Z Z
073 . 2
00125 . 0 185 . 0
P/D = pitch ratio
c = Chord length
R
n
= local Reynolds number all relating to the section located at 0.75R
K
p
= blade roughness 30 x 10
6
m
In this method it is assumed that the fullscale propeller blade surface is hydro
dynamically rough and scaling procedure considers only the effect of R
n
on the drag
coefficient.
In calculating the R
n
based on chord length of the section and the undisturbed inflow
velocity
Rn =
c V
R
and VR the resultant velocity at .7R is found by
( ) [ ]
2 2 2
7 .
A R
V nD V +
44
Example
Propeller particulars
D = 6.5m
,
`
.

R
D
P
75 . 0
0.907
A
Ao
E
= 0.726
Z = 4
t/c = .0305
c/D = 0.42 chord dia ratio
= scale factor = 22
n
s
= revs = 2.079 sec
1
Open water tests are
J KTO KQO o
0 0.4959 0.06646 0
0.1 0.4514 0.06106 0.118
0.2 0.4051 0.05562 0.232
0.3 0.3574 0.0501 0.341
0.4 0.3082 0.04443 0.442
0.5 0.2578 0.03858 0.532
0.6 0.2062 0.03249 0.606
0.7 0.1573 0.0261 0.656
0.8 0.1004 0.01938 0.66
0.9 0.0464 0.01226 0.542
0.95 0 0.00584 0
45
Nomenclature
Deadrise angle in degrees
Displacement in tonnes
mass density of fluid (t/m
3
)
Running Trim (degrees)
Shaft Angle to Keel (degrees)
Wedge Inclination (degrees)
AIR Density of Air (kg/m
3
)
AT Transverse Projected Area (m
2
)
B Beam (m)
c Chord Length (m)
CB Block coefficient
CD Coefficient of Drag
CF ITTC 57 friction line
d Shaft Diameter (m)
D Propeller diameter (m)
Fb Froude beam number
gB
V
Fn Froude Number
gL
V
Fn
Froude beam number
3 / 1
g
V
ie Half angle of entrance of load
waterline in degrees
L Length (m)
LCG Longitudinal Centre of Gravity
(from AP in m)
LWL Length of waterline (m)
P/D Pitch ratio
RA Appendage Resistance (kN)
RAIR Air Resistance
Rn Reynolds Number
RT Total Resistance including sea
state 4
S Wetted Surface Area (m
2
)
T Draught at LCF (m)
t Thickness (m) and also thrust
deduction fraction
V Velocity (m/sec)
VCG Vertical Centre of Gravity (m)
w Wake fraction
46
References
1 Savitsky, D. and Brown, P. W. (1976), Procedures for Hydrodynamic Evaluation
of Planing Hulls in Smooth and Rough Water. Marine Technology, Vol. 13.
2 AMECRC notes p.193
3 Lewis, E., (ed.), 1988, Principles of Naval Architecture, SNAME publication, Vol. 2.
4 Blount, D. L., and Bjarne, E., 1989, Design and Selection of Propulsors for High
Speed Craft, Proceedings J.LipsPropeller Sysmposium, 2122 September,
Noordwyk on Sea, NL, pp 5.15.24.7
5 Bernitas, M.M., Ray, D. and Kinley, P., 1981, KT, KQ and Efficiency Curves for
Wageningen BSeries Propellers, The University of Michigan, College of
Engineering, No. 237, pp 1102.
6 Sahoo, P., (2003) Ship Resistance and PropulsionLecture Notes 2003, Australian
Maritime College, Launceston, Australia.