Ship Design Exercise 2007 UCL, London, UK

CHAPTER 13 – POWERING

Speed, Power and Resistance

1. The resistance and power were calculated across the range of ship
speeds at various stages throughout the design process so that it could be
seen what the ramifications of particular changes were for power requirement.
The resistance and speed power curves were calculated using the simple
Holtrop (1) method including a 10% sea margin and a 10% appendage margin
applied to resistance. It was also assumed that a 10% reduction in wave
making resistance could be achieved by placing our side hulls between the
transom and amidships. This resistance saving results from wave cancellation
between the side hulls and the main hulls which does not occur with trimarans
which have their side hulls centred at amidships.

2. The decision was made to employ azimuthing pods to eliminate the

need for shaft lines which would have to run the entire length of the dock. In
order to carry out calculations of power and resistance certain assumptions
had to be made;

a. Pods can be angled into the flow of water to allow the blades to
function at their optimum, design angle of attack.

b. The absence of shafts and A-frames in the flow field mean that the
flow is less turbulent as it enters the propeller.

c. The angling of the pod along with the absence of shaft lines means
that the after cut up can be faired more effectively thereby
achieving a more efficient hull.

d. The pods selected for LPD rotate and are connected to the hull by
a control surface comparable to a rudder which rotates with the
pod. This means that the ship should be more manoeuvrable and
the appendage resistance will be less than with shafted propulsion.

Data from the Alstom Mermaid Pods used on QM2 suggested the following
figures for percentage power saving are given in the table below. These pods
operate at a similar power and are similar weight to the LPD pod selection.

Area where power saving is made % Power saving

More efficient hull 6-8
Reduced appendages 4-6
Tilting propeller into the flow 1-2
Total 11-14
Table 1: Efficiency of Pods

MSc NA/MSc ME 13-1/12 LPD – Group 6

Ship Design
reExercise
sistance2007
variation w ith changes UCL,
in bulbous bow London, UK
are a

717.00

R e s is t a n c e ( k W )
716.00
715.00
714.00
713.00
712.00
711.00
710.00
709.00
0 5 10 15 20
projected are a of bulbous bow (m ^2)

These % power savings were applied to the speed power curves after the
calculations had been made for conventional shafted propulsion.

3. Because of the size and displacement of the LPD a bulbous bow was
included in the design to minimise the resistance of the hull. This was
originally estimated to be a 10 square metre projected area bulbous bow.
However, for the final speed power calculation an investigation was made into
the optimum size of the bulbous bow by keeping all other parameters constant
and repeating the Holtrop calculation with varying bulbous bow sizes. The
results are shown in figure 1 and as can be seen the benefit of increasing the
bulbous bow size tales off after 13 square metres bulbous bow projected area
and so this was selected.

Figure 1: Effect of a Bulbous Bow

4. The speed power curve was calculated using the simple Holtrop
method for trimarans. The power savings from the use of pods were applied
at their lower end (11%) thereby assuming the worst case. The final speed
power curve is shown below along with a table of the values. The two rows
highlighted in the table are the two most important speeds for our ship based
on the operating profile; loitering speed and cruise speed. The maximum
power in the water required at top speed of 24kts is 41.7MW.

speed (kts) Shaft Power

(MW)

MSc NA/MSc ME 13-2/12 LPD – Group 6

Ship Design Exercise 2007 UCL, London, UK

2 0.4
4 0.7
6 1.1
8 1.7
10 2.7
12 4.1
14 6.2
16 9.5
18 14.2
20 21.0
22 29.7
24 41.7
Table 2: Power Speed Figures

Speed Power Curve from Paramarine Output

45.0

40.0

35.0
Shaft Power (MW)

30.0

25.0

20.0

15.0

10.0

5.0

0.0
0 5 10 15 20 25 30
Speed (kts)

Figure 2: Power Speed Curve

5. The power speed calculations at this design stage have involved no

analysis of different wave conditions and headings. Based on past ship design
exercises which used MAXSURF seakeeping software the added resistance
due to waves can as much as double the ship’s resistance in head seas for a
specific encounter frequency. However, careful operation of the ship can
avoid these spikes in resistance. By altering course and speed the critical
encounter frequency can be avoided and the added resistance due to waves
across the range of encounter frequencies averages out to within the 10% sea
margin which was specified in the Holtrop calculation.

6. It had originally been expected to be able to reduce resistance from the

equivalent monohull by going for the trimaran option however this was
discovered to be untrue for the LPD. Because the LPD’s main hull beam and
length are driven by the dock and vehicle deck dimensions the main hull of
the trimaran turned out to be very similar to a monohull. Therefore the
powering requirements could not be decreased by making the hull longer and

MSc NA/MSc ME 13-3/12 LPD – Group 6

Ship Design Exercise 2007 UCL, London, UK

thinner. Also, the speed at which a ship of this displacement starts to save
power by being a trimaran was outside the LPDs operating profile as
discussed in CHAPTER 2.

7. Hull fouling has not been taken into account in this calculation but
through life this is not expected to be a problem. Roughness due to hull
fouling usually reaches it’s maximum after a year and can be cleaned off
during maintenance periods. It does not get progressively worse throughout
ship life.

8. The 10% appendage margin stated in paragraph 1 was not the result of
calculation. At this early stage of the design process the design of
appendages was not considered a priority for LPD. The appendage margin is
a generic number based on past designs but in a detailed design cycle it is
hoped that this 10% could be improved upon with the use of pods since they
eliminate the need for rudders. Also, the high block coefficient of LPD will
have a high roll damping coefficient when compared to the hull of a frigate.
The side hulls will display overall roll damping via their own local heave
damping. These two factors should mean bilge keels and stabilisers need only
be small if they are required at all.

Propeller Design & Selection

9. Propeller design presented a problem at first because the methodical

data does not exist for pods as it does for the propeller selection for shafted
propulsion. Therefore the decision was made to design the propellers in the
traditional way and then add the margins discussed in the previous chapter at
the resistance calculation. Because LPD was designed with pods there was
no requirement for a Controllable Pitch Propeller (CPP) and it would be
impractical to fit such propellers to a pod anyway. Therefore the design was
undertaken for a Fixed Pitch Propeller (FPP).

10. The design drivers for propeller design on the LPD were not just a
trade off between propeller diameter and power or rpm required to achieve
the appropriate speeds. LPD is to operate in the littoral environment (and
dock down); hence the draught of the ship design was constrained by
requirements to 5.8m. Therefore the aim of the propeller design was to arrive
at a propeller size and pod configuration such that it would all fit between the
keel and the dock bottom, enveloped by the after cut up. It was known from
the percentage power savings available by the use of pods that a smaller
propeller would be possible to maintain an acceptable power requirement.
Consideration was also given to using three smaller pods but this was
discarded as the losses involved in the unavoidable opposition of propellers
was deemed to cancel out the power saving made by employing pods.
Another option was to fit large tractor pods on the side of the main hull with
two very small pods astern for steering however the Marine Engineer felt that
the technological risk inherent in this design was too great. Therefore the
purpose of the propeller design was to select the smallest propeller possible

MSc NA/MSc ME 13-4/12 LPD – Group 6

Ship Design Exercise 2007 UCL, London, UK

to deliver the required power and speed at the acceptable expense of

efficiency.

11. The initial approach adopted to conduct propeller design was to use
the charts from the AEW Series Propeller Experiments ( 2). In order to do this
the following assumptions and estimations were made.

Parameter Basis of assumption Assumed value (* at

14kts
Taylor Wake Fraction Scaled from frigate data 0.05*
Thrust Deduction Based on known frigate 0.1*
Coefficient data
Shaft RPM Based on specific data 100*
for our pod RPM ranges
Thrust Coefficient, KT Based on frigate data 0.23*
and a BAR of 0.8
Propeller Diameter Based on mid-range of 4m
(initial) similar ship’s propellers
Hull efficiency Scaled from frigate data 0.95
Table 3: Assumptions for Propeller Design

12. In order to make a propeller selection from the AEW data series some
initial estimates of BAR for various diameters were calculated. The calculation
process is outlined below.

The power required in the water was calculated previously via the Holtrop
method and this was the starting point for the calculation along with the
assumed parameters defined above. Velocity of advancement, Va, is given
by;

V A  (V s (1  WT ))0.51444

1 t
H 
1  WT

TR K T N s2 D 4V s (1  Wt ) 2 H

TM PEA

PEA
Thrust / propeller 
V A H Z

Thrust / propeller
BAR 
 
D 2 70000
4
All the different diameters gave results of Blade Area Ratio (BAR) close to 0.2
and this was the chart used for the propeller selection. However this is not a

MSc NA/MSc ME 13-5/12 LPD – Group 6

Ship Design Exercise 2007 UCL, London, UK

reliable value of BAR as will be shown in following paragraphs. In order to use

the charts an initial estimate of the ratio KT/J^2 was calculated as follows;

K T ThrustPer Pr opeller

J2 V A2 D 2

Then by assuming values of J^2 a parabola of KT values was plotted for each
diameter on the BAR=0.2 AEW data series charts. Copies of these charts are
shown in Annex P. The results from the AEW charts are summarised in the
table below.

Propeller Diameter Optimum Pitch Advancement Open Water

(m) BAR=0.2 ratio (P/D) Coefficient (J) efficiency
4.6 1.4 1.09 0.775
4.25 1.2 0.95 0.760
4 1.2 0.9 0.750
3.75 1.2 0.88 0.735
3.5 1.2 0.84 0.720
Table 4: Results of AEW Series Propeller Design

13. Figure 3 summarises the comparisons between the different propeller

diameters in terms of shaft power and shaft speed in revolutions per second.
As expected, the 3.5m diameter being the smallest requires the most power
and RPS. However, the results show that at the optimum pitch ratio of 1.2 the
difference in power was less than 1MW. Also, the shaft RPS at a pitch ratio of
1.2 for the 3.5m propeller was 2.2 (132RPM) at 14kts which was realistically
achievable with the proposed LPD pod machinery fit. Therefore, based on this
analysis a 3.5m diameter propeller is acceptable considering LPD’s draught
constraint although it is not the most efficient, it will still meet the speed power
requirements.

MSc NA/MSc ME 13-6/12 LPD – Group 6

Ship Design Exercise 2007 UCL, London, UK

Shaft RPS and Shaft Power required for 14 kts with different diameter props

10.000

9.500

9.000
Shaft Power (MW)

8.500

8.000

7.500

7.000
1.000 1.200 1.400 1.600 1.800 2.000 2.200 2.400 2.600 2.800 3.000
Shaft Speed (RPS)

3.5m diameter prop 3.75m diameter prop 4m diameter prop 4.25m diameter prop 4.6m diameter prop

Figure 3: Results of AEW Series Propeller Design

14. As previously mentioned, the initial calculation for estimating the BAR
turned out to be unreliable therefore it was necessary to validate these
selections of pitch ratio and diameter via a separate method. This was done in
two ways; a quick analysis using the Wageningen B (1) series; and using the
AEW series charts again but with a more sensible estimated BAR based on
similar ships.

15. The Wageningen B series data was used to check that the 3.5m
diameter propeller could provide the required ship speed for an achievable
RPM and power. Figure 4 shows that the smaller propeller does require
significantly faster shaft speed (130-300RPM to cover the ship speed range)
but this range is possible with LPD’s selected pod machinery fit. Any smaller
propellers would go beyond the 320RPM limit of this machinery fit.

MSc NA/MSc ME 13-7/12 LPD – Group 6

Ship Design Exercise 2007 UCL, London, UK

RPM Variation with Prop Diameter over speed range

350

300

250
Shaft Speed (RPM)

3.5m diameter prop

200 3.75m prop diameter
4m diameter prop
150 4.25m diameter prop
4.6m diameter prop
100

50

0
0 5 10 15 20 25 30
Ship Speed (kts)

Figure 4: RPM Variations With Propeller Diameter

Figure 5 shows that there is little difference in power requirement between the
various diameter propellers.

Power Delivered variations with diameter over the speed range

25000

20000
Power delivered to props (MW)

3.5m prop diameter

15000
3.75m prop diameter
4m prop diameter
4.25m prop diameter
10000
4.6m prop diameter

5000

0
0 5 10 15 20 25 30
ship speed (kts)

Figure 5: Power Required for Various Propeller Diameters

Figure 6 shows that, as expected the smaller diameter propeller is least

efficient. However we have seen that it can still provide the required speed for
an achievable power.

MSc NA/MSc ME 13-8/12 LPD – Group 6

Ship Design Exercise 2007 UCL, London, UK

Propeller Efficiency variation with prop diameter and ship speed

0.7

0.65
Propeller open water efficiency (%)

0.6

0.55 3.5 prop diameter

3.75m prop diameter
0.5 4m prop diameter
4.25m prop diameter
0.45 4.6m prop diameter

0.4

0.35

0.3
0 5 10 15 20 25 30
ship speed (kts)

Figure 6: Propeller Efficiency Variation With Propeller Diameter

Figure 7 shows that the optimum P/D ratio calculated via the Wageningen B
method is 1.1. However it was noted that there was less than1% difference in
propeller efficiency between P/D=1 and P/D=1.3.

Open Water Efficiency and rpm

0.80 350

0.75
300
0.70

0.65 250
Efficien cy

0.60
200 rp m
0.55
150
0.50

0.45 100
0.40
50
0.35

0.30 0
0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8 0.9 1 1.1 1.2 1.3 1.4
P/D

Figure 7: Wageningen B Open Water Efficiency and RPM

16. As a final consideration before making a propeller selection the AEW

methodical data series was used again. Instead of using the estimating
calculation of BAR an engineering estimate was made based on the propeller
fits seen on ships of similar displacement. The initial calculation of BAR=0.2
represents something which looks like an aircraft propeller. Typically large
ships have a BAR between 0.65 and 1.1, hence BAR=0.8 was selected for
this design. This was then used in the same way as previously described to

MSc NA/MSc ME 13-9/12 LPD – Group 6

Ship Design Exercise 2007 UCL, London, UK

plot the KT parabola and read off the results for op-en water efficiency,
advancement coefficient and optimum pitch ratio. The results were P/D=1.2
which corresponded to an advancement coefficient of 0.85 and an open water
efficiency of 0.68 (68%). Therefore, based on these three sets of analyses a
final propeller selection was made;

BAR P/D Diameter (m) No of Blades

0.8 1.2 3.5 5
Table 5: Final Propeller Selection

17. The propeller design has thus far taken no account of cavitation, noise,
vibration and pressure on the hull. It was assumed that a 5 bladed propeller
would mean that there were no problems with pressure on the hull. In a
following design cycle it is recommended that 6 blades are considered with a
view to getting the propeller closer to the hull and also using a propeller even
smaller than 3.5m without having to exceed the 320RPM pod limit. With
respect to vibration, the pods would be carefully positioned so as not to
transmit excessive vibrations up through bulkheads. This shouldn’t be a
problem as the presence of the dock means there are no bulkheads directly
above the pods and their machinery. Cavitation and noise were not
considered a major issue for LPD with respect to signature as it is expected to
be escorted in most roles and with the pod machinery in the water LPD will
never be super quiet. However, cavitaion analysis should be carried out in
further design cycles as it can damage the propellers and the hull (cavitation
corrosion) if it is excessive.

18. The draught constraint set in the requirements was 5.8m, hence the
efforts to select the smallest possible propeller. However, this has not been
possible at this stage of design. Even with the 3.5m propeller, the azimuthing
machinery requires a minimum of 1.8m. The structural stiffeners around the
after cut up were designed to be up to 0.3m deep and the dock sill must be
above the water line so the minimum draught to the bottom of the propeller
with the current design is 6.7m. CFD analysis would be useful also to
determine the losses involved in using 3 pods with their opposing rotational
direction as this may be a feasible option for meeting the draught requirement.
It is also recommended that CFD and or model tests are carried out to
validate the theory of propeller selection for the specific case of pods with the
specific hull form.

Recommendations for Further Work

19. It is recommended that the option of using contra rotating propellers is

investigated and compared with the current design of pods with a single
propeller mounted at the front of the pod. To solve the draught problem an
investigation into using three pods at the stern is feasible in terms of losses in
efficiency due to opposing rotational directions. Based on these two pieces of
research the optimum solution can be employed. Also, a CFD analysis of the

MSc NA/MSc ME 13-10/12 LPD – Group 6

Ship Design Exercise 2007 UCL, London, UK

pod and propeller configuration is required to predict the shaft power more
reliably.

MSc NA/MSc ME 13-11/12 LPD – Group 6

1() Ship Design Exercise, Calculation Tools software, UCL Naval Architecture
Department, 2007.
2() Methodical Series Propeller Experiments – Group A, Variation of Pitch and Blade Area,
Admiralty Experiment Works, Haslar, 1951