Professional Documents
Culture Documents
Resistance and Powering
Resistance and Powering
Resistance and Powering
4.1. RESISTANCE
The resistance of a ship at a given speed is the force required to tow the ship at that speed
in
Smooth water, assuming no interference from the towing ship. If the hull has no
appendages
This is called bare hull resistance.
Where,
PE is in kW,
RT is resistance in kN,
V is speed in m/s
For doing powering calculations we have to know total resistance of the ship. It can be
calculated in many ways, namely:-
1) Guldhammer and Harvald method
2) Holtrop & J.J Mennen method
etc.
Frictional resistance accounts for about 80-85 % of total resistance in slow speed ships and
About 50% in high speed ships. It depends upon the Reynolds number.
Where,
V is the speed in m/s,
L is the length on waterline,
is the kinematic viscosity of water
Where,
g is acceleration due to gravity
V is the speed in m/s
L is the length on waterline
The Holtrop and Mennen method was used and computations were done manually to
obtain the resistance value. The effective power requirement was also found for various
speeds.
The parameters used for the computation of resistance using holtrop and Mennen method
are as follows.
Moulded B 32.26 m
Moulded D 18.85 m
Displacement 71470 t
Trim 1025 m
Service Speed V 14 kn
Calculation
C12 0.547055197
C13 1.03
1+K1 1.923212137
1+k2 1.5
log rn 9.362319035
c1 8.179403727
c2 1
c5 1
c7 0.169281629
c15 -3.121785764
c16 1.1004703
m1 -2.080031968
m2 -0.06740158
lamda 1.105820533
c4 0.04
Trial Allowance TA 20 %
The Total Resistance with allowance has been found as 1550.95 kN and Effective Power
requirement is found as 11169.29 kW
Table 4.2 Variation of Effective Power with speed in Holtrop and Mennen method
SPEED PE(kW)
0 0.00
0.5 318.87
1 637.75
1.5 956.62
2 1275.50
2.5 1594.37
3 1913.25
3.5 2232.12
4 2550.99
4.5 2869.87
5 3188.74
5.5 3507.62
6 3826.49
6.5 4145.37
7 4464.24
7.5 4783.11
8 5101.99
8.5 5420.86
9 5739.74
9.25 5899.17
9.5 6058.61
9.75 6218.05
10 6377.49
10.25 6536.92
10.5 6696.36
10.75 6855.80
11 7015.23
Fig 4.1 V vs. PE Graph from Holtrop and Mennen method of resistance calculation
Where,
RT = total resistance
CT = Coefficient of resistance
= Mass density
S = wetted surface of the ship
VS = velocity of the ship and
CT = CR+ CF+ CA
Where,
3
The residuary resistance coefficient is obtained from a Froude number (Fn) vs. 10 CR
1/3
chart for different values of CP. These charts are for a specific L/ value. The actual
value of CR is obtained after applying corrections if any (such as B/T, LCB, etc.).
The results obtained through software and also the input parameters are given as below.
Length = 190.5700 m
Breadth = 32.2600 m
Depth = 18.8500 m
Draft (Mean) = 12.7200 m
Draft (Fwd) = 12.7200 m
Draft (Aft) = 12.7200 m
Displacement = 71470.0930 MT
Wet Surface Area = 9793.8300 m2
Water plane Area = 5655.9600 m2
Midship Section Area = 406.2400 m2
Half angle of entrance = 36.0000 Deg
LCB fwd of midship = 5.2520 m
-----------------------------------------------------------------
TOTAL APPENDAGE AREA = 86.0000 m2
NET FORM FACTOR (1+K2) = 1.5000
The above mentioned parameters were input into the software and the resistance was
computed. The software is based on exact science prediction.
Table 4.3 Variation of Resistance with respect to speed in Guldhammer and Harvald
method
Table 4.4 Variation of Effective Power with speed in Guldhammer and Harvald method
8000.00
7000.00
6000.00
5000.00
GULDHAMR
Eff. Power(KW) 4000.00
3000.00
2000.00
1000.00
0.00
0.000 5.000 10.000 15.000
Speed(Kn)
The total resistance value obtained from Holtrop and Mennen method was 6.61 % greater
than that of the Guldhammer and Harvald Method. The powering calculations are done as
per the resistance value obtained from the former. The total resistance value obtained from
Guldhammer and Harvald Method is 1158.77 kN and the former is 1240.76 kN
We are opting for the value given by Holtrop and Mennen as it was found as more
acceptable feasible solution comparing to our parent ships resistance and power. Also,
Holtrop and Mennen method is expected to give a more satisfying result and is widely used.
4.2.1. Introduction
Having knowledge of the variation of resistance with speed, the next step is to select an
engine which is able to deliver the power required to overcome the resistance. For this an
approximate prediction of shaft power should be done. After the selection of the engine a
propulsion system suitable to deliver the thrust to overcome the resistance at the maximum
possible efficiency is to be designed.
Configuration : Open-wheel
Number of blades : 2 to 7
Blade area ratio : 0.3 to 1.05
Pitch-Diameter ratio : 0.5 to 1.4
Advance coefficient : 0.05 to 1.5
QPC =D = H*R*o
From the above factors it is understood that to estimate QPC we need the values of t, w, H,
R, o. The former three values can be obtained from empirical relations and the open water
efficiency can be obtained from available open water propeller series for some basis
propeller. Some of the parameters of this basis propeller such as number of blades,
diameter, blade area ratio etc. are to be determined before using the series data. The
effects of these factors are discussed below.
The Hull efficiency is given by H = (1-t)/(1-w), where t is the thrust deduction factor which
accounts for the reduction in thrust due to the reduced pressure ahead of propeller and w is
the wake factor, which is indicative of the reduction in water velocity to the propeller.
In theory, the largest diameter produces the greatest possible efficiency. So the selection of
diameter is more often than not determined by the available stern opening. Like all physical
trends, however, there are practical limits that should be observed since this is not always
the case.
Obviously, some clearances must exist between the hull and the propeller tips to control
noise and vibration. The extent of this clearance depends upon the application, but is
usually ten to twenty percent of the diameter. Single-screw installations tend to require
greater clearances than multi-screw.
Cavitation play an important role in the selection of diameter. Excessive tip speeds - a
function of the diameter and RPM - can generate tip cavitation. Since propeller RPM is
often dictated by an existing reduction ratio, the diameter may be the only parameter that
can be changed to correct this.
The Average Thrust Deduction Factor calculation has been tabulated as below.
Draught 12.72 m
Approximate propeller diameter = 2/3 * T m 8.48 m
Hub diameter = 0.2D 1.696 m
Shaft diameter = 1/2(Hub diameter) 0.848 m
Length of the boss = 2.4 Shaft diameter 2.0352 m
For checking for safety against cavitation, the minimum expanded blade
ratio was
calculated using the Aufen Keller formula. We had considered the use of a
3 bladed propeller and has made some computations and later we
dropped it. We went for a 4 bladed propeller as we found that our parent
ship was using a 4 bladed propeller.
Based on the cavitation check formulae results, the minimum required expanded blade area
ratio is found as 0.573.
Since we have found the minimum value of AE/AO, we may choose the propeller type.
Hence, the chosen propeller is Wageningen B 4-70 series propeller. Our parent ship also
has similar propeller.
Wageningen B 3-65 series was also considered, but was not considered after computations
later.
The engine selection and rest of the propeller parameters has been found out through a
series of iterative processes as explained below.
We know that,
We assume the value of the delivered efficiency or QPC in between the range of possible
values. In this case, we take the assumed range of QPC values between 0.55 and 0.65.
Many iterations are done in intermediate positions.
With the value of assumed QPC, we find the Delivered Power PD and correspondingly
calculate Bp- values.
1/2 2.5
Bp=1.158(N*P /V )
We know that,
QPC =D = H*R*o
We substitute the values of o, H and R and find out the QPC again and compare the
percentage difference between the QPC as we got and the QPC we assumed. When the
difference is in the negligible level or when the difference changes in sign between two
values of QPC, we get to understand that the actual QPC is lying in between those two
values. This is how we find the QPC.
Some of the iterations that we did with various values of QPC are given below. Many
iterations have been omitted here.
In this case, the maximum open water efficiency is found at 65 rpm and hence we take the
value of open water efficiency 47.90 % and substitute in the equation below
QPC =D = H*R*o
The value of QPC obtained is as 0.613 which is different from the assumed QPC
which was 0.65
In this case, the maximum open water efficiency is found at 70 rpm and hence we take the
value of open water efficiency 46.50 % and substitute in the equation below.
QPC =D = H*R*o
The value of QPC obtained is as 0.595 which is different from the assumed QPC
which was 0.58
We observe that the difference between Assumed QPC and actual QPC has come down
greatly.
In this case, the maximum open water efficiency is found at 70 rpm and hence we take the
value of open water efficiency 46.70 % and substitute in the equation below.
QPC =D = H*R*o
The value of QPC obtained is as 0.5976 which is different from the assumed QPC
which was 0.59
We observe that the difference between Assumed QPC and actual QPC has further come
down greatly.
QPC =D = H*R*o
The value of QPC obtained is as 0.60149 which is different from the assumed QPC which
was 0.61
We observe that the actual QPC is lying between 0.59 and 0.61
In this case, the maximum open water efficiency is found at 65 rpm and hence we take the
value of open water efficiency 47.8 % and substitute in the equation below.
QPC =D = H*R*o
The value of QPC obtained is as 0.60149 which is different from the assumed QPC which
was 0.60
We observe that the actual QPC is lying between 0.60 and 0.61
In this case, the maximum open water efficiency is found at 70 rpm and hence we take the
value of open water efficiency 47.27 % and substitute in the equation below.
QPC =D = H*R*o
Also, the RPM at which the maximum open water efficiency is resulted is at 70 RPM. This
has to be the rated engine RPM as there is no gearing in our ship.
As we have found out the value of QPC, we choose the Engine for our ship based on that
QPC value. The computation of the power requirement per engine is tabulated as below.
The shaft efficiency is assumed as 98.5 %.
The engine selection had to be done in such a way that the engine we choose has to give
out that much power at the rated 70 rpm.
After having gone through thorough research, we found out an engine as per requirement.
The engine was selected and its parameters are as given below. The selected engine is
MAN B&W S60-ME-C8-8 .Its basically a ME Engine which is electronically controlled
engine which has higher efficiency and also lesser emissions.
The engine chosen is expected to comply with newer regulations put forward by
International authorities in the upcoming future. Also ME Engines has higher Power to
weight ratio compared to ordinary marine engines of same rating.
A check on displacement was done after choosing the Engine and was satisfactory with the
initial displacement check.
The resistance test was done using exact science prediction methodologies like Holtrop &
J.J Mennen method and Guldhammer & Harvald method. The result obtained through
Holtrop & Mennen was taken as it was found as more satisfying.
The propeller parameters are recommended and powering calculations were done and an
engine selection was done to overcome the offered resistance from the hull and at the
same time complying with the propeller chosen. The engine chosen is of advanced
technology which is more environment friendly.