See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

net/publication/237150778

A Study for the Effect of Surface Roughness on Resistance Characteristics of

Flat Plates

Conference Paper · April 2013

DOI: 10.3940/rina.coat.2013.03

CITATIONS READS

11 4,959

2 authors:

Onur Usta Emin Korkut

Deniz Harp Okulu - Tuzla Istanbul Istanbul Technical University
28 PUBLICATIONS   146 CITATIONS    42 PUBLICATIONS   549 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE

Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects:

Cavitation Erosion Modeling on Marine Propellers View project

KATMANSIS (ITU Large Cavitation Tunnel) View project

All content following this page was uploaded by Onur Usta on 22 May 2014.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

Marine Coatings, 18 April 2013, London, UK

A STUDY FOR THE EFFECT OF SURFACE ROUGHNESS ON RESISTANCE

CHARACTERISTICS OF FLAT PLATES

O Usta and E Korkut, Istanbul Technical University, Faculty of Naval Architecture and Ocean Engineering, 34469
Maslak-Istanbul, Turkey

SUMMARY

Total resistance of a ship increases as hull surface roughens. In this study, resistance experiments of five aluminium
plates were carried out to determine effect of surface roughness on drag characteristics. Plates had the same geometrical
particulars but different surface roughness characteristics. Four of the plates were coated with different antifouling
coatings and one of the plates was left uncoated as the reference plate. Resistance experiments were carried out for a
speed range of 0.5 m/s to 3.75 m/s in the towing tank of Ata Nutku Ship Model Testing Laboratory. Resistance
components of the different coated plates were calculated and compared. In addition, Computational Fluid Dynamics
(CFD) analyses were carried out for 5 different plates by generating the same conditions as the resistance experiments.
Based on both experimental and CFD results, surface roughness plays an important role in resistance characteristics of
the plates.

KEY WORDS: Hull surface roughness, resistance, resistance experiment, CFD.

NOMENCLATURE RT Total resistance (N)

RW Wave-making resistance (N)
Rt50 Highest peak to lowest valley
BCT Uncertainties of the total bias roughness height for a 50 mm cut-off
CA Correlation allowance length (µm)
CF Friction resistance coefficient Rz Vertical separation of the average of 5
CF-ITTC Friction resistance coefficient highest peaks and the average of 5
according to the ITTC 1957 model ship lowest valleys (µm)
correlation line T Draught (m)
CR Residual resistance coefficient UCT Uncertainty for the total resistance
CT Total resistance coefficient coefficient
CD Drag coefficient Uτ Friction velocity (m s-1 )
CVP Viscous pressure resistance coefficient V Velocity (m s-1)
CW Wave resistance coefficient y+ Nondimensional wall distance (The
Fn Froude number first grid point from the wall)
h Roughness height (µm) δ Boundary layer thickness (mm)
h+ Nondimensional roughness height ν Kinematic viscosity ( N s m-2)
k Equivalent sand grain roughness height 1+k Form factor
(µm)
k+ Roughness Reynolds number (µm)
ks mean apparent amplitude of hull 1. INTRODUCTION
roughness over 50 mm cut-off length
(µm) Antifouling paint systems are an essential component of
L Ship length (m) an economic vessel [1]. Fouling increases the frictional
P Pressure (N m-2 ) resistance which makes up 80-90% of the total resistance
Density of water (kg m -3) for cargo carriers and tankers [2], and generally more
PCT Uncertainties of the total precision than 50% for high speed crafts [1].
Ra Average roughness height (µm)
Re Reynolds number Recently, a significant effort has been made to reduce
Rq Highest peak to lowest valley height fuel consumption of ships due to high fuel prices and
(µm) also Energy Efficiency Design Index (EEDI) requirement
RD Drag (N) by IMO (International Maritime Organization). One of

© 2013: The Royal Institution of Naval Architects


the ways to reduce the fuel consumption is to decrease
ship resistance. Ship resistance is composed of various
resistance components, such as wave making resistance,
viscous resistance, friction resistance and residual
resistance. There are several parameters affecting
components of the ship resistance. One of these
parameters is surface roughness.
Surface roughness is very small compared to other full
scale dimensions of a ship such as length, beam, draft
etc. For this reason, even though surface roughness effect
of a ship is one of the most important parameters for ship
resistance, it cannot be simulated properly in model
experiments.
Model experiments are carried out with smooth surface
models with turbulent stimulators. However, full scale
ships have some roughness on their surface and
propeller. Researchers include the effects of surface
roughness (e.g., paint, corrosion, and fouling) in an
allowance coefficient, which is added to the smooth
surface friction and residual resistance coefficients when
determining the overall drag of a full scale ship [3]. The
International Towing Tank Conference (ITTC) [4]
adopted the allowance coefficient of Bowden and
Davison [5] to be used with the 1978 ITTC performance
prediction line for ship resistance. This coefficient is a
function of the mean hull roughness; the average peak-
to-trough roughness height measured over 50 mm
sampling lengths on the hull surface [6].
The relationship between the geometry of a surface and
its hydrodynamic friction are unknown. The main
difficulty in this respect is a rough surface cannot be
described solely by a single parameter such as the
average roughness height [7].
Townsin et al. [8] provided a formula for predicting the
roughness penalty based on the mean hull roughness and
the Reynolds number. While the inclusion of a Reynolds
number dependence allows for calculations, the
roughness parameter was still only based on a simple
measure of the roughness height and did not take into
account other roughness texture characteristics. These
considerations, along with a lack of accurate hull
roughness measurements, led the 24th ITTC Specialist
Committee on Powering Performance Prediction [6] to
conclude that the methods used to correct for hull
roughness and fouling are of doubtful accuracy. In 25 th
ITTC [9], most of the organizations decided to apply a
roughness correction to the full scale frictional
resistance. However there was not a single method that
stands out as more common as the others for
conventional ships and high speed marine vehicles. A
questionnaire circulated by the committee showed that
many members of the community use the ITTC-78
prediction method but only one member organization is
using it without any modification. Many member
organizations do use the ITTC-57 friction line but set k to
zero, many also use a roughness allowance but following
their own experience and using the roughness allowance
Marine Coatings, 18 April2013, London, UK
more as a correlation factor than really as a factor
allowing for the roughness of the hull or for different
paint systems [9].
In the above context, the main objective of the study is to
determine the effect of surface roughness on resistance
characteristics of flat plates. The remaining of the paper
is organized as follows: In section 2, resistance
components and correlation allowance are explained
shortly. Section 3 gives brief information about
characterization of surface roughness and roughness
parameters used in the study. Experimental study is
explained in section 4. Section 5 contains generating
computational grid and Computational Fluid Dynamics
(CFD) calculations. Results of towing tank experiments
and CFD analyses are given in section 6. A general
conclusion is made in the last section.
2. RESISTANCE COMPONENTS AND
CORRELATION ALLOWANCE
2.1 RESISTANCE COMPONENTS
As known from the basic naval architecture practice, the
total resistance (RT) consists of the drag (RD) and the
wave-making resistance (R W). The resistance values,
namely the ones read directly from the dynamometer are
called “total resistance”. Drag was consequently
calculated by subtracting the wave resistance from the
total resistance, assuming that the wave resistance is not
influenced by the coatings significantly. The remaining
resistance on the other hand, in this case called drag, is
composed of mainly frictional resistance and viscous
pressure drag due to thickness effect of the plates and
spray formation.
CT=RT / ½ ρ S V2 (1)
CT = CD+CW (2)
CD = CVP+CF=(1+k)C F (3)
The wave resistance was calculated by a CFD software
flow solver ITU Dawson [11]. Drag coefficient values
were calculated by subtracting the wave resistance from
the total resistance (Eq. 2).
After obtaining CD values, CF values were calculated by
using Eq. (3). (1+k) form factor was calculated as 1.075
by using Prohaska method [10]. In addition to these,
ITTC-57 frictional resistance coefficients were calculated
for each plate by using the equation below:
CF-ITTC = 0.075 / (logRe-2)2 (4)
2.2 CALCULATING WAVE RESISTANCE
The flow solver (ITU-Dawson) employed in the present
work calculates the wave resistance by distributing
panels on the wetted surface of the plate and on the free
surface on which a constant-strength source/sink
© 2013: The Royal Institution of Naval Architects
Marine Coatings, 18 April 2013, London, UK
distribution is made [11]. Wave resistance used in
evaluating the experimental results is given in Figure 1.
Figure 1: Calculated wave resistance values.
2.2 CORRELATION ALLOWANCE OR
ROUGHNESS ALLOWANCE
For a full scale ship, total resistance coefficient is
composed of:
CT=CF+CR+CA (5)
Correlation allowance CA is an empirical addition,
derived from analyses of the correlation between
extrapolated power predictions and trial measurements.
It accounts for hull resistance due to surface roughness,
paint roughness, corrosion, and fouling of the hull
surface. It is consistent with the use of the ITTC-78
extrapolation method [9].
Bowden-Davison [12] formula (6) was proposed to
determine CA in 1974:
CA*103 = 105(ks/Lpp)1/3 -0.64 (6)
For the subsequent investigations of the ITTC
performance prediction method, standard amplitude of
ks=150*10-6 m was assumed.
Since 1983 a number of new formulas of increasing
complexity has been proposed. Each investigator
proceeded on the basis of theoretical boundary layer
calculations and used empiricisms derived from available
laboratory and full scale measurements of ship roughness
and roughness drag [9].
Townsin et al. [13] have proposed a correlation for just
the effects of hull roughness [9]:
∆CF=[0.044(AHR/L)1/3 – 10Re-1/3 ]+0.000125 (7)
where Average Hull Roughness (AHR) can be
considered to be equal to ks.
3. CHARACTERIZATION OF SURFACE
ROUGHNESS
The surface of a coating can be described by its texture,
which has four essential elements including roughness.
© 2013: The Royal Institution of Naval Architects
The other three elements are waviness upon which
roughness is imposed, lay (predominant direction or
pattern of the surface texture) and flaws such as scratches
in the paint or weld marks on the hull etc. [14].
Roughness can be characterized by using several
parameters which are mainly grouped as amplitude and
texture parameters. The roughness analyses in this paper
relies on the most widely used amplitude parameters.
3.1 ROUGHNESS GEOMETRY PARAMETERS
3.1 (a) Amplitude Parameters
Amplitude parameters are considered to be the most
important roughness measurement, because they have the
most pronounced effect on drag. Centerline average
roughness Ra, is arithmetic average of the absolute values
of all points of the profile. It is the universally recognised
and the most used international parameter of roughness.
Root mean square (RMS) roughness Rq, is equal to the
standard deviation of the profile about the mean line. It
also gives some information about the texture of the
surface. For many surfaces, it is possible to use Ra and Rq
interchangeably, as they are correlated and inherent
statistical variation in all roughness measurements [1,
14]. Maximum peak to valley roughness Rt or Rmax, is
defined as the height difference between highest peak
and the lowest valley on the profile within the sampling
length [14]. Rz is vertical separation of the average of the
5 highest peaks and the average of the 5 lowest valleys
within the assessments length [1, 14].
Hull roughness on ships is measured as the maximum
peak to lowest trough height (Rt50) expressed in microns,
in any given length of 50 mm along the underwater hull.
At each location the surface probe is manually run over a
distance of approximately 750 mm to generate 12 Rt50
readings, the average of which is the mean hull
roughness (MHR) at that particular location. In practise,
the hull is divided into 10 main sections longitudinally,
with 10 measurements each, 5 on the port, 5 on the
starboard side. There are a total of 50 readings taken on
each side, 30 on the vertical sides and 20 on the flats.
From 100 measuring locations the AHR is calculated and
the distribution of roughness is plotted.
3.1 (b) Wavelength Parameters
The effect of surface roughness wavelength parameters
has not been used as much as amplitude parameters.
Wavelength parameters are; average wavelength λa,
average slope Sa, peak count wavelength λpc and
autocorrelation length [15].
3.2 ROUGHNESS MEASUREMENTS OF THE
ALUMINIUM PLATES
Smaller size aluminium plates were prepared and painted
in the workshop of Ata Nutku Ship Model Testing
 Marine Coatings, 18 April2013, London, UK

Laboratory, ITU, for the roughness measurements in 3.3 ROUGHNESS REGIMES

addition to the plates for the resistance tests. The
measurements were performed for smaller plates in a Roughness of the ship surfaces can be classified into
laboratory condition, which were coated in the same three regimes: Micro roughness regime spans surface
conditions and the same technique as the plates for the wavelengths of the order of several microns to a few
resistance tests. millimetres. Macro roughness regime extends from the
millimetre scale to centimetre scale. Structural roughness
The standard cut-off lengths of ISO, which are 2.5 mm, has a wavelength range that extends from centimetre
0.8 mm, 0.25 mm, and 0.08 mm, were determined in the scales to higher values [14].
measurements. 2.5 mm cut-off length Ra (µm) values
were used in the CFD analyses [16]. Three flow regimes exist for turbulent flow over rough
surfaces, (hydraulically smooth, transitionally rough and
Surface roughness characterizations of measurements of fully rough flows) primarily depending on the size of the
different surfaces are tabulated between Table 1 and roughness elements relative to the viscous sublayer. For
Table 5 [16]. k-type roughness, the equivalent sand grain roughness
Reynolds number k+=Uτ k/ν can be used as an indicator
Table 1: The roughness amplitude parameters of Plate 1.
of the rough wall turbulence regime as follows:
Plate 1 hydraulically smooth wall for 0<k+≤5, transitionally
Cut-off (mm) 2.5 0.8 0.25 0.008 rough regime for 5< k+<70 and completely rough regime
Ra (µm) 1.81 0.98 0.775 0.742 for k+≥70 [15].
Rq µm) 2.13 1.20 0.982 0.992
Rt (µm) 11.4 6.78 5.200 5.270
Rz (µm) 9.98 5.93 4.350 3.190 4 DESCRIPTION OF EXPERIMENTAL SET-
UP AND TEST CONDITIONS
Table 2: The roughness amplitude parameters of Plate 2.
Plate 2 Resistance experiments were carried out in the Large
Cut-off (mm) 2.5 0.8 0.25 0.008 Towing Tank at the Ata Nutku Ship Model Testing
Ra (µm) 2.16 1.02 0.340 0.980 Laboratory of Istanbul Technical University. The tank is
Rq µm) 2.40 1.20 0.402 0.261 160 m long, 6 m wide and has a water depth of 3.4 m and
Rt (µm) 11.0 4.94 2.120 1.650 equipped with a manned carriage which is able to run at a
Rz (µm) 8.94 4.45 1.570 0.835 speed of up to 5.5 m/s.

Table 3: The roughness amplitude parameters of Plate 3. In the resistance tests, the plates were fitted to the
Plate 3 carriage and tests were carried out using a Kempf &
Cut-off (mm) 2.5 0.8 0.25 0.008 Remmers R35-I single component dynamometer. The
Ra (µm) 2.47 0.428 0.241 0.169 immersion (draught) of the plates was 410 mm from the
Rq µm) 3.02 0.603 0.292 0.206 bottom of the plates. The dynamometer was calibrated
Rt (µm) 11.9 5.090 1.500 1.060 before the experiments and the linearity of values were
Rz (µm) 11.1 3.820 1.300 0.725 obtained. Figure 2 shows the attachment of the plates and
dynamometer connection.
Table 4: The roughness amplitude parameters of Plate 4.
Plate 4
Cut-off (mm) 2.5 0.8 0.25 0.008
Ra (µm) 4.47 1.19 0.726 0.223
Rq µm) 5.17 1.36 0.854 0.281
Rt (µm) 18.6 6.01 3.770 1.460
Rz (µm) 17.9 5.11 2.94 0.923

Table 5: The roughness amplitude parameters of Plate 5.

Plate 5
Cut-off (mm) 2.5 0.8 0.25 0.008
Ra (µm) 2.12 0.803 0.396 0.172
Rq µm) 2.38 0.928 0.493 0.212 Figure 2: A view of plate and dynamometer connection
Rt (µm) 8.39 3.88 2.75 0.952 to carriage.
Rz (µm) 7.99 3.66 1.91 0.762 5 plates were used to measure drag characteristics. The
plates had different surface characteristics and marked as
Plate 1, 2, 3, 4 and 5. Plate 1 was left uncoated as the
reference plate while the other four plates were coated
with different antifouling paints. For the paint application

© 2013: The Royal Institution of Naval Architects

Marine Coatings, 18 April 2013, London, UK

a three-layer coating system yielded approximately 250 Grid points are concentrated near the free surface of the
µm paint thickness. The plates were made from plate, on the plate and near the plate by means of
aluminium. The sizes of the plates were determined successive ratio to increase accuracy as shown in Figure
according to the size of the towing tank facility and the 4. The computational grid was constructed about 2.8x105
capacity of the dynamometer. The overall dimensions of elements. The first grid point from the wall (y+) was
the plates are given in Table 1. sufficiently small for the turbulence to be captured in the
boundary layer. y+≤ 5 solution is in linear sub-region,
Table 1 : Overall dimensions of the plates.
5<y+<30 is buffer region, 30≤y+≤800 is in log-law
Length (L) 1.5 m
region. The y+ values near to the free surface in this study
Maximum Breadth (B) 0.05 m were kept in linear sub-region.
Height (D) 0.61 m
Draft (T) 0.41 m
Wetted surface (S) 1.308 m2

During the trial tests above the speed of 4 m/s, high

waves generated by the plates were observed, affecting
the dynamometer. Therefore a speed range was chosen as
0.5 m/s to 3.75 m/s. Thus, a series of towing tests were
performed between V=0.5 m/s and V=3.75 m/s, with a
∆V=0.5 m/s interval. The Reynolds number range of the
experiments was between 6.5x105 to 5x106. Thus the
flow was considered as turbulent in this study. Figure 3
shows a view from the resistance experiment of plate 3 at
the speed of 3.54 m/s velocity.
Figure 3: A view of the plate 3 during the test at the
speed of 3.54 m/s.
5. CFD CALCULATIONS
Figure 4: Mesh structure and prism layers of the plate.
Since experiments were carried out in two fluids, air and
water; CFD calculations were modelled identically.
Volume of Fluid (VOF) method was used to model the
behaviour of air and water within the same continuum in
the analyses. This approach captures the movement of
the interface between the fluid phases. As there were two
fluids in different phases, the Eulerian multiphase model
was used. The flow was considered as segregated.
Segregated flow model solves the flow equations in a
segregated or uncoupled manner. The linkage between
the momentum and continuity equations is achieved with
a predictor-corrector approach [17]. The effect of
turbulence on the fluid was modelled using k-ε
turbulence model.
Figure 5 shows generation of computational model. Blue
part represents air and red part represents water.

Meshing and flow simulations are performed with the

Reynolds Average Navier-Stokes (RANS) solver at Star-
CCM+ CFD program. The code solves the RANS and
continuity equations in integral form on a polyhedral
mesh by means of the finite volume technique [17]. The
equations were solved by means of realizable k-ε
turbulence model.

The flow was considered incompressible, viscous,

irrotational, unsteady and turbulent as in the experiments.
Solution domain (towing tank), was generated 11.25 m
length, 2.61 m breadth and 3.65 m deep. The plate was
placed 2.75 m from front and 7 m from back of the
towing tank. Height of the computational domain was 1.1
m above and 2.55 m below from the free surface of the
plate.
Figure 5: Generation of computational model.
Roughness was represented by roughness height in the
CFD analyses. Roughness heights for the plates were
taken as the measured Ra roughness values in 2.5 mm
cut-off length. In addition, the analyses were run taking
Ra roughness height values in 0.8 mm and 0.25 mm cut-
off lengths to determine whether the cut-off length has an
effect on resistance characteristics.

© 2013: The Royal Institution of Naval Architects


6. PRESENTATIONS AND DISCUSSIONS
OF RESULTS
Comparison of total resistance coefficients obtained from
experiments is shown in Figure 6. Drag coefficients of
the plates obtained from experiments and CFD analyses
are shown in Figs. 7 and 8, respectively. Drag
coefficients of plate 1 (uncoated), plate 3 and plate 4
which were obtained from the experiments and CFD
analyses are shown in Figs. 9-11, respectively.
The plates with varying surface properties were not
expected to indicate a significant difference in the
resistance values before the study. This was confirmed
by the experiments. The reason is that, there are very
little differences between the roughness heights.
The flat plate experiments showed that plate 4 which has
the highest Ra value, exhibited more total resistance and
drag than the other plates as shown in Figs. 6 and 7,
respectively.
Figure 6: Comparison of total resistance coefficients
obtained from the experiments.
Figure 7: Comparison of drag coefficients obtained from
the experiments.
Marine Coatings, 18 April2013, London, UK
In the small velocity range between 0.5 to 1.5 m/s, the
results did not indicate any difference due to other
effects. Therefore the comparison is only made for high
speed range between 1.5 to 3.75 m/s.
Results obtained from the CFD study showed a good
agreement with the experiments. Similar to the
experimental results, CFD analyses showed that plate 4
which has highest Ra value, exhibited more drag than the
other plates as shown in Figure 8.
Roughness heights for the plates were taken as the
measured Ra roughness heights values in 2.5 mm cut-off
length in the analyses. In addition, analyses were run
taking Ra values in 0.8 mm and 0.25 mm cut-off lengths.
Drag values have been varied depending on each cut-off
length.
Figure 8: Comparison of drag coefficients obtained from
the CFD analyses.
Experimental and CFD study results showed good
agreement for drag coefficient values as shown in Figs.
9-11 respectively.
Figure 9: Comparison of drag coefficients obtained
from the experiments and CFD analyses for
plate 1.
© 2013: The Royal Institution of Naval Architects
Marine Coatings, 18 April 2013, London, UK
Figure 10: Comparison of drag coefficients obtained
from the experiments and CFD analyses for
plate 3.
Figure 11: Comparison of drag coefficients obtained
from the experiments and CFD analyses for
plate 4.
The uncertainty level for the drag measurements was ±
1.2 %. The uncertainty analysis follows that of American
National Standard Institute (ANSI) and American
Society of Mechanical Engineers (ASME) standard on
measurement uncertainty, which is based on Root-Sum
Square (RSS) method [18, 19].
7. CONCLUSIONS
The effect of surface roughness on resistance
characteristics of flat plates was investigated by applying
different antifouling paints in this study. The plates were
made from aluminium and they had different surface
characteristics. Towing tank experiments and CFD
calculations were carried out to determine resistance
characteristics of the plates generating the same
conditions. Some conclusions drawn from the study are
as follows:
© 2013: The Royal Institution of Naval Architects
 Selection of the appropriate cut-off lengths to
predict the drag values of the plates is crucial
for CFD calculations. This requires further
investigation.
 Drag results does not explicitly promise a
straightforward linear relationship as de-facto
‘’more roughness more drag’’.
 Surface roughness plays an important role on
resistance characteristics of flat plates however
it cannot be defined with only roughness
geometry parameters such as roughness height.
The influences of texture parameters also should
be considered to be able to make an accurate
assessment about surface roughness effect on
resistance.
8. ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
The research presented in this paper is supported by the
Istanbul Technical University Scientific Research
Projects (BAP) with the project no: 34972. The authors
would like to thank to Prof. Ö. Gören, Assist. Prof. D.B.
Danışman and Assist. Prof. U.O. Ünal of Istanbul
Technical University for their help and comments on the
study. The authors also thank to Res. Assist. A.G. Avcı
and personnel of Ata Nutku Ship Model Testing
Laboratory for their help during the experiments.
9. REFERENCES
1. CANDRIES, M., Drag boundary-layer and roughness
characteristics of marine surfaces coated with
antifoulings, Ph.D. thesis, Department of Marine
Technology, University of Newcastle-Upon-Tyne, UK,
2001.
2. LACKENBY, H., ‘Resistance of ships with special
reference to skin friction and hull surface condition’, The
34th Thomas Lowe Grey Lecture, Proceedings of the
Institute of Mechanical Engineers, Vol. 176, pp. 981-
1014, 1962.
3. FLACK, K. A., SCHULTZ, M. P., Review of
Hydraulic Roughness Scales in the Fully Rough Regime,
Journal of Fluids Engineering, Vol. 132, pp. 041203/1-
10, 2010.
4.INTERNATIONAL TOWING TANK CONFERENCE
(ITTC), ‘Report of the Powering Performance
Committee’, 15th ITTC, Hague, 1978.
5. BOWDEN, B. S., AND DAVISON, N. J., Resistance
Increments Due to Hull Roughness Associated With
Form Factor Extrapolation Methods,” National Physical
Laboratory (NP) Ship Technical Manual 3800, 1974.
 Marine Coatings, 18 April2013, London, UK

6.INTERNATIONAL TOWING TANK CONFERENCE Uncertainty Analysis, Example for Resistance Test,
(ITTC), ‘Report of the Powering Performance 2002.
Committee’, 24th ITTC, Edinburgh, Scotland, UK, 2005.

7. ANDERSEN, M. L. and LARSSON, L, ‘An 10. AUTHORS BIOGRAPHY

experimental/numerical approach for evaluating skin
friction on full-scale ships with surface roughness’,
Journal of Marine Science and Technology, 2003.
8. TOWNSIN, R. L., BYRNE, D., SVENSEN, T. E.,
AND MİLNE, A., ‘Estimating the Technical and
Economic Penalties of Hull and Propeller Roughness’,
Trans. SNAME, 89, pp. 295–318, 1981.
Onur Usta is a research assistant at Faculty of Naval
Architecture and Ocean Engineering of ITU. His field of
study is ship hydromechanics. He graduated from ITU
Naval Architecture and Marine Engineering master
program in 2012. His master’s thesis was about effect of
surface roughness on boundary layer and ship resistance.
He is currently a postgraduate student.

9.INTERNATIONAL TOWING TANK CONFERENCE Emin Korkut is a lecturer at Faculty of Naval

(ITTC), ‘Proceedings of 25th ITTC- Volume II’,
Fukuoka, Japan, 2008.
10. CARLTON, J.S., Marine Propellers and Propulsion,
Second Edition, Butterworth-Heinemann, 2007.
Architecture and Ocean Engineering of ITU. He teaches
resistance and propulsion courses and his main interest is
ship resistance and propulsion, cavitation, noise and laser
based experimental systems.

11. GÖREN, Ö., Numerical study of wave resistance of

wet transom stern-ships, University of British Columbia
Department of Mechanical Engineering, Vancouver,
B.C., Canada, 1990.

12. BOWDEN, B.S. DAVISON, N.J., “Resistance

Increments Due to Hull Roughness Associated with
Form Factor Extrapolation Methods”, NPL Ship Report
TM 3800, 1974.

13. TOWNSİN, R.L., Medhurst, J.S., Hamlin, N.A. and

Sedat, B.S., “Progress in Calculating the Resistance of
Ships with Homogeneous or Distributed Roughness”,
NECIES Centenary Conference on Marine Propulsion,
1984.

14. THOMAS, T. R., Rough Surfaces, Second Edition,

Imperial College Press, 1999.

15. ÜNSALAN, D., The effects of hull and propeller

roughness and fouling on ship performance, Istanbul
Technical University Institute of Science and
Technology, Ph.D. Thesis, 1992.

16. TAYLAN, M., GÖREN, Ö., SÖYLEMEZ, M.,

KORKUT, E., TAKINACI, A.C., DANIŞMAN, D.B.,
MENTEŞ, A., ÜNAL, B., ÖZBULUT, M., KARAYEL,
H.B., AVCI, G., Roughness Measurements and Drag
Tests of Aluminium Panels, Ata Nutku Ship Testing
Laboratory, Report No:2010-PPG-P01, ITU, Istanbul,
2010.

17. STAR-CCM+ USER GUIDE, Version 6.0.14, 2011.

18. ASME Test uncertainty: instruments and apparatus.

ASME PTC 19.1, New Jersey, USA, 1998.

19. ITTC-Recommended Procedures and Guidelines,

Testing and Extrapolation Methods Resistance

© 2013: The Royal Institution of Naval Architects

View publication stats