Effect of Salinity, Hull Angle, and Boat Length on the Drag Force Experienced by

Miniature Boats

Troy Lorenger and Samuel Penn

Macomb Mathematics Science and Technology Center

Physics/IDS

11A

Mr. McMillan & Mrs. Cybulski

27 May 2022
 Effect of Salinity, Hull Angle, and Boat Length on the Drag Force Experienced by

Miniature Boats

Increasing the efficiency of travel and transportation of goods through the oceans

waterways by reducing the force of drag on boats poses a useful method to reduce the

speed as to which climate change progresses. In this experiment, the effects of salinity,

hull angle, and boat length were used to determine which has the largest effect on the

drag force experienced on the boats. It was hypothesized that the highest salinity in

combination with the lowest hull angle and longest boat would have the highest drag

force and therefore would lead to the most inefficient fuel usage and contribute the most

to climate change.

To collect data the boats were tied to weights which were draped over pulleys

connected to a computer to record the acceleration from the slope of a velocity versus

time graph. Acceleration represents the drag as a higher acceleration represents a lower

drag force and lower acceleration represents a higher drag force.

The hypothesis was rejected as none of the data was determined to be significant

meaning, there was no evidence that any of the factors or the interactions between the

factors had any significant effect on the drag force experienced by the boat. However

looking at the raw data collected could provide useful information in future research in

work on drag as the angle of the hull had an effect value which was not only just below

the doubled range of standards (a test of significance) but was also much larger than any

other effect value found being 0.1717 m/s2. The least significant effect was determined to

be the interaction between salinity and hull angle (0.0126) and was very comparable to

the interaction between salinity and boat length (0.015).

 Table of Contents

Introduction………………………………………………………………………………..1
Review of Literature……………………………………………………………………… 4
Problem Statement………………………………………………………………………. 10
Experimental Design……………………………………………………………………..11
Data and Observations…………………………………………………………………... 15
Data Analysis and Interpretation………………………………………………………... 20
Conclusion………………………………………………………………………………. 31
Acknowledgements………………………………………………………………………38
Appendix A: How to build and print a Miniature Boat…………………………………. 39
Appendix B: Test of Significance and Prediction Equations…………………………….44
Appendix C: Professional Contact……………………………………………………….46
Works Cited……………………………………………………………………………... 47
 Lorenger - Penn 1

Introduction

According to Oceana, “The shipping industry is responsible for a significant

proportion of the global climate change problem. More than three percent of global

carbon dioxide emissions can be attributed to ocean-going ships. This is an amount

comparable to major carbon-emitting countries -- and the industry continues to grow

rapidly”. As everyone is aware, global warming is one of the biggest problems facing the

modern world. The problems that global warming poses are threats to humans, animals,

and the general environment. As the World Wildlife Fund states, “Humans and wild

animals face new challenges for survival because of climate change. More frequent and

intense drought, storms, heat waves, rising sea levels, melting glaciers and warming

oceans can directly harm animals, destroy the places they live, and wreak havoc on

people’s livelihoods and communities.” The constant threat of global warming needs to

be solved or at least reduced. What better way to accomplish that goal by looking at the

shipping industry. More specifically, ocean transportation. Being able to find solutions to

reduce carbon dioxide emissions in water transportation directly relates to a better

environment overall. Since the industry continues to grow rapidly, the emissions will only

worsen. This means it’s time for a solution.

Drag is the force that opposes the movement of an object through a fluid, it slows

down boats and increases the fuel consumption indirectly. Maximizing the fuel efficiently

is the main goal. With less fuel being used, less carbon dioxide will be released into the

atmosphere, thus contributing to lessened effects of global warming. Drag directly affects

fuel consumption, as the level of drag increases, the amount of fuel used increases. This

then increases the amount of carbon dioxide released which further adds to the effects of
 Lorenger - Penn 2

global warming. However with less drag comes better fuel efficiency (reduced fuel

consumption). Reducing the amount of drag that is present in the transportation of the

watercraft is key to minimize the emissions in ocean shipping and transportation.

The force of drag is determined by factors of the boat and the water. The boat

length, hull angle, and salinity of water were factors that seemed to be the most

significant to test. The length of the boat is significant because as the length increases, the

more surface area that touches the water. As the surface area of an object in a fluid

increases, the force of drag increases during motion, therefore as the length of the boat

increases, the increased surface area increases the drag force. The angle of the hull is

significant because it provides the top of the boat with support. It’s able to balance the

watercraft as well as “cut” through the water. When the vehicle is able to cut through the

water, the speed increases which most likely leads to better fuel efficiency and a lower

drag force. The salinity of the water is significant because it affects the density of the

water which contributes to drag. Plus there are a ton of different water sources throughout

the world with all different levels of salinity. Being able to determine if drag is affected

by salinity would be important for people to route where they are going to potentially

increase their speed and reduce fuel consumption by avoiding areas of high saline ocean

brine.

The hope of this experiment was to find the lowest drag force based on the three

factors previously mentioned. The factors determined to produce the lowest drag force

would represent a significant improvement in the overall fuel efficiency of watercraft

shipping vessels, reducing carbon dioxide emissions. In the scope of this experiment, it is
 Lorenger - Penn 3

predicted that the combination of high salinity, longest boat, and a flat, 0° hull will

produce the largest drag force exerted by the water on the boat.

The boats used in the experiment were designed in solid works before being 3D

printed to allow for uniformity. The boats were made into three different sizes, the low

was 4 inches, the standard was 5 inches, and the high was 6 inches. The hull angles were

0° for the low, 22.5° for the standard, and 45° for the high.

In order to evaluate the force of drag for each boat of each factor the acceleration

of the boats was found using a computer program and a velocity recording pulley. The

data recorded from this collection was done so in a velocity versus time graph, the slope

of this represents the acceleration which was recorded. Acceleration was recorded as

opposed to simply recording the drag force because it was simpler to set up, but it also

plays a role in drag. As the acceleration of the boat increases, the drag force decreases,

and as acceleration decreases, the drag force increases. Therefore in the scope of this

experiment, the boat combination that causes the lowest acceleration would be deemed to

have the highest drag force and would contribute the largest to carbon emissions and

therefore play a larger role in climate change.

 Lorenger - Penn 4

Review of Literature

In order to create a more efficient way of consuming fuel on the waters, the effects of

salinity, volume of water displaced, and the angle of the hull on a miniature boat were

studied to find which combination of factors produce the lowest drag force. With a low

drag force, fuel efficiency would increase, thus reducing the amount of CO2 released into

the atmosphere, curbing global warming growth.

When looking to increase the fuel efficiency of boats, drag is an important factor.

Drag is a mechanical force which acts between a moving solid and the fluid (either liquid

or gas) surrounding it. Drag being a mechanical force requires movement between the

object and the fluid as well as constant contact between the two, if there is no contact

between the two, there is no drag (“What is Drag?”).

Figure 1. Drag Forces on a Boat. Source: “Mechanics -.” Princeton University, The

Trustees of Princeton University,

https://www.princeton.edu/~maelabs/hpt/mechanics/mecha_6.htm

As seen in Figure 1, drag is a force that opposes the motion of an object, thrust,

through a fluid. There is no effect of lift (also called buoyancy) and weight on drag as
 Lorenger - Penn 5

both are perpendicular to the motion and counteract each other. Drag however

counteracts the effect of thrust which propels an object forward, through a fluid.

As the fluid flows and moves around an object, the localized pressures (pressures

of individual areas around an object) change. As pressure is a measure of the momentum

of the fluid’s molecules, changes in the pressure produce a force, these varying pressures,

and therefore varying forces, will all act upon the object. This total force, or integrated

force, can be found by summing the local pressures multiplied by the surface area of the

entire body (“What is Drag?”). Drag is also related to the density of the fluid, as the

density increases, the drag increases. Density however is not the only factor affecting

drag, as previously mentioned surface area and localized pressure determine drag,

therefore increasing the speed an object travels (increasing the localized pressures) as

well as increasing the surface area exposed to the fluid, will increase the force of drag.

The final factors which affect drag are shape, texture, and viscosity, these make up the

coefficient of drag (Elert).

Hull designs are a careful and critical part of determining performance, speed,

stability, handling, and fuel consumption. Talking in more basic terms, the hull of a boat

is the portion of the boat that rides both in and out of the water. A key term to understand

when talking about the hull of a boat is “deadrise”. A boat’s deadrise is the amount of

angle that forms between the boat bottom and a horizontal plane (most likely water).

Generally speaking, the deadrise of a boat is an indicator of how it will perform in

shallow water, rough water as well as the overall performance of the watercraft (The Hull

Truth). A larger deadrise value will be able to cut through seas easier and even give a

softer ride (“Deadrise Explained: What It Means…”). There are certain inferences that
 Lorenger - Penn 6

can be made to suggest that a greater deadrise leads to a better fuel economy. Overall, the

hull and deadrise of the boat is important to not only fuel efficiency but to the overall

performance of said watercraft (“How Better Aerodynamics...”).

Figure 2 Deadrise Diagram “Deadrise Angle Diagram.” Crowder, Richard, What Is

Deadrise on a Boat?, 9 July 2021,

https://www.boatblurb.com/post/what-is-deadrise-on-a-boat

Figure 2 above, defines what the deadrise angle of a watercraft would look like.

The gray shape would be the hull of the watercraft and the line would most likely be the

sea level. The angle is then formed between the two factors. The angle starts from the

point where the two factors intersect and it continues down the edge of the watercraft

hull.

As the hull of the boat cuts through the water, the drag from the water pulls back

against the motion. Recall that the force of drag is related to the density of the fluid which

surrounds the object. In international trade, the oceans are widely used to transport large

quantities of goods and as salinity increases the density of water, transport through the

oceans therefore is more fuel intensive as there is more drag compared to freshwater

transport (“How Better Aerodynamics Lead to Fuel Savings.”). Salinity, which is the
 Lorenger - Penn 7

concentration of salt in liquids, is measured in parts per thousand (abbreviated and

referred to as ppt). Freshwater is relatively salt free as it is between 0 and 0.5 ppt (0-0.5g

per liter). Brackish water, a mixture between freshwater and seawater, has a higher

salinity which is under 33 ppt (<35g per liter). Seawater is more saline sitting at

approximately 35 ppt (35g per liter), and hypersaline water (also known as brine) is the

most saline at 38 ppt (>38g per liter) or more (“Measuring Salinity”; Western Australian

Government, Department of Water.). As previously stated, salinity increases the density

of water. This is seen through the density of freshwater being approximately 1000 kg/m3

while surface seawater has a density of 1021 kg/m3. As denser fluids sink under lower

density fluids, deeper oceanic seawater has been found to have a density of 1070 kg/m3

(Talley et al.). It is important to measure the density of the fluid an object is moving

through as it directly affects the drag force experienced on the object (“The Drag

Equation”).

Boats carrying large quantities of items over long distances will likely have a

larger volume displacement of the water as compared to one which was recently

unloaded. This volume displacement also increases the surface area which is exposed to

the water. Recall that increasing the surface area that is exposed to the fluid will also

increase the force of drag that is experienced by the object. The two, surface area and

drag, are proportional and therefore any increase in surface area will do the same to drag

as well. When looking at the area to determine the force of drag on an object there are

two different surface areas to consider, frontal surface area and total surface area (“Effect

of Size on Drag”).
 Lorenger - Penn 8

Figure 3. Size Effects on Drag Source: “Effect of Size on Drag.” NASA, NASA,

https://www.grc.nasa.gov/www/k-12/airplane/sized.html#:~:text=The%20total%20aerod

ynamic%20force%20is,the%20area%20doubles%20the%20drag.

Figure 3 shows the differences between frontal surface area, the area which is

perpendicular to the motion of an object through the fluid, and the total surface area, the

total area of the object. The areas are independent of each other however and the choice

between the two has no effect on the force of drag found.

 Lorenger - Penn 9

Figure 4 The Drag Equation Source: “The Drag Equation.” NASA, NASA,

https://www.grc.nasa.gov/www/k-12/airplane/drageq.html.

Figure 4 above shows the equation which can be used to find the drag. As it says,

the coefficient of drag is determined separately as determined by the surface area that is

used. This also affects the reference area that is used and each balances each other out

leaving the same force of drag for either surface area.

Factors that affect drag are density of the water, shape of the hull, and surface area

of the hull. Increasing the specific salinities will increase the density of the water as there

is now the inclusion of salt within the volume of the water and increasing the surface area

of the boat increases the water displacement and vice versa. With this design and

background knowledge, the hope is to determine what levels of salinity, what angle of the

hull, and what water volume displacement will provide the least amount of drag,

increasing the fuel efficiency of boats, helping to curb climate change.

 Lorenger - Penn 10

Problem Statement

Problem:

To determine the effects of salinity, volume of water displaced, and angle of the

hull on the drag force exerted on a miniature boat.

Hypothesis:

The combination of high salinity, longest boat, and a flat, 0° hull will produce the

largest drag force exerted by the water on the boat.

Data Measured:

The explanatory variables for this experiment were the salinity of the water, the

volume of water displaced, and the shape of the hull of the miniature boat. The low,

standard, and high levels of salinity were 0, 17.5, and 35 g/L respectively. The low,

standard, and high levels of boat length were 4, 5, and 6 inches, respectively. The low,

standard, and high levels of the angle of the miniature boat's hull were 0°, 22°, and 45°,

respectively.

A three factor design of experiment would be an appropriate analysis tool as there

are three different, independent variables which are being tested. A three factor DOE is

also appropriate as it allows the effects of each individual variable to be calculated as

well as the interaction effects between each. Most importantly, the DOE determines

which independent variable is most important. There would be 3 runs with 11 trials in

each broken down into 9 standard trials, and 24 trials for combinations of each of the

factors, salinity, volume of water displaced, and angle of the miniature boat's hull.
 Lorenger - Penn 11

Experimental Design

Materials:

(5) Miniature Boats Iodised Salt (400g)

(2) Photogate String (3.5m)
(2) Computer Water (1650 mL)
(2) Super Pulley Ten Spoke In Groove Graduated Cylinder (1000 mL)
(2) LabQuest Beaker (200mL)
(2) Planting Boxes (188.44 in3) Coffee Stirrer
(5) Weights (20g)

Procedure:

1. Using a computer, set up the photogate (10 spoke in grove) using the LabQuest
software, it should be reading in m/s.

2. Number the trials 1-11, using a random number generator without replacement
randomly drawn numbers 1-11, this will determine the order the trials are run.
While doing the randomization, the standard trials must be left as trials 1, 6, and
11 (12, 17, 22, 23, 28, and 33 in subsequent runs).

3. Add 1650mL of tap water to both of the planting boxes.

4. Weigh out 57.75g of salt and add it to one of the planting boxes filled with water,
stir to dissolve the salt, this should not be emptied until the end of the trials.

5. Weigh out 28.86g of salt and add it to the second planting box, be prepared to
empty this box when the low trial is needed, adding the necessary water, and add
28.86g of salt when the standard is needed. Note that a rinse of water between
switching the salt water is recommended.

6. Measure out 70cm of string and cut for the boats. Repeat this process to cut four
more strands of string all 70cm each.

7. Attach each string to the boat via a knot towards the tip of a boat. The string
should be tight and secure to avoid it from falling off. Repeat this process for
every boat.

8. Attach the Super Pulley to one end of the table and move one of the planting
boxes next to it. Repeat this process with the other Super Pulley and other
planting box. Make sure that both the Pulley and planting box are level.
 Lorenger - Penn 12

9. Tie the 20g weight to the other end of the string that is not attached to the boat.
Repeat this process for all boats.

10. Place the boat that needs to be tested into the correct water for the current trial.
Hold the boat and place the string over the Super Pulley. The weight should be
hanging off the edge of the pulley and will drop when the boat is not being held
onto.

11. Be prepared to start collecting data on the computer. When data is collecting, let
go of the boat to make the weight drop which will move the boat towards the
pulley. Then stop the data collection to record accurate results.

12. Three graphs will be presented although only the middle graph, which is velocity
vs time, is needed for data collection. Towards the top of the program click the
big “A” icon, this will autoscale the graph to make it easier to see. Highlight the
start of the graph where the slope looks the most linear. Then click to the linear fit
button at the top to get the data. See figure 2.

13. In the data box, locate the slope as acceleration. This will be the number that is
needed for collection. Record the slope in the DOE spreadsheet with the correct
trial location.

14. Repeat steps 10-13 for all of the trials needed.

15. Once all trials have been completed, clean up the area and be sure to wash out the
planting boxes thoroughly.
 Lorenger - Penn 13

Diagrams:

Figure 5. Materials for Procedure

Figure 5 above, shows the various materials needed to run the experiment as well

as a partial set up of the LabQuest and computer.

Figure 6. Data Collection

Figure 6 shows the data collection method. The boat is being held and will be

released after the data collection begins. The weight will pull the boat through the water
 Lorenger - Penn 14

and will spin the pulley while doing so. This spin of the pulley is measured by the

photogate and logged on a velocity versus time graph. The slope of this graph represents

the acceleration and is the measurement being recorded.

Figure 7. Recorded Data Graphs

Figure 7 shows the graphs recorded from the data collected. The middle graph is

the velocity versus time graph and the highlighted section is the most linear, therefore the

slope of it represents the average acceleration of the boat and is recorded for the design of

experiment data.
 Lorenger - Penn 15

Data and Observations

Table 1
Factors Used In Experiment

Variables
Length of Boat (in.) Hull Angle (°) Salinity of Water (g/L)
(-) Std. (+) (-) Std. (+) (-) Std. (+)
4 5 6 0 22 45 0 17.5 35

Table 1 shows the three factors that were used in the experiment. It also describes

the low, standard, and high values of each. The values for the length of the boat are 4

inches (low), 5 inches (standard), and 6 inches (high). The values for the angle of the hull

are 0 degrees (low), 22 degrees (standard), and 45 degrees (high). The values for the

water salinity level are 0 grams per liter (low), 17.5 grams per liter (standard), and 35

grams per liter (high). Combinations of each were used for all 33 trials tested.

Table 2
Average Acceleration Measured by Factors
Average
Randomized Salinity, Length, Hull Acceleration
Run 1 Run 2 Run 3
Trials Angle (
𝑚
)
2
𝑠

1, 12, 23 Standard 0.6578 0.5474 0.6036 0.6029

4, 19, 26 +++ 0.7475 0.7178 0.7875 0.7509
8, 16, 32 ++- 0.6422 0.5916 0.6311 0.6216
9, 15, 29 +-+ 0.7669 0.7391 0.7449 0.7503
2, 18, 25 +-- 0.4904 0.5403 0.5027 0.5111
6, 17, 28 Standard 0.7299 0.7670 0.6061 0.7010
3, 21, 27 -++ 0.7430 0.7007 0.6853 0.7097
10, 20, 30 -+- 0.6030 0.6278 0.5677 0.5995
7, 14, 31 --+ 0.6178 0.6899 0.7115 0.6731
5, 13, 24 --- 0.4581 0.4871 0.4502 0.4651
11, 22, 33 Standard 0.6490 0.5991 0.6480 0.6320
 Lorenger - Penn 16

Table 2 shows the data that was collected. Each of the three runs consisted of

eleven trials that included three standards as well as the other trials that had a randomized

order to run. In each run, the standards occurred on the first, sixth, and eleventh trial to

maintain consistency. The first column in the “Randomized Trials” section of the table

shows what trial was run in run one. For example, the +++ (a 6-inch boat, with a

45-degree angle, in 35 g/L of salt) trial was the fourth trial run during the first run. The

second column in the “Randomized Trials” section of the table shows what trials were

run in run two. The same principle applies to column three and run three. To get the

average acceleration, the numbers in sections “Run 1”, “Run 2”, and “Run 3” were

averaged together. This average number represents the acceleration for that row.

Table 3
Experimental Significant Observations
Run Trial Observation
1 Std. 1 Water spilled over the edge after the boat finished being pulled.
After hitting the edge of the container, some water splashed out
4 (+++) which created a ripple effect and caused the boat to move back
some.
The string kept falling off of the pulley due to the uneven tie to
5 (---)
the boat.
6 Std. 2 The boat slightly tipped to an angle.
13 (---) The string slipped off the pulley once but continued to pull.
The linear pattern that needed to be recorded on the LabQuest
16 (++-)
seemed off so the data may not be the most accurate.
Std. 3 (Second The boat tipped to angle but fixed itself halfway through data
22
Run) collection.
A shake in the table could have resulted in inaccurate data so
27 (-++)
the trial was run again.
Trial was run a second time due to not clicking the "Collect
31 (--+)
Data" button on the computer.

Table 3 shows the notable observations that occurred during data collection. Most

of the unusual occurrences were minor which didn’t have much effect on the data.
 Lorenger - Penn 17

Instances that were determined to change or alter data collection were retested to ensure

the most accurate data was collected. Of the situations where the problem could be fixed,

it was so that trials down the line were not affected.

Figure 8. Material Setup

Figure 8 shows all of the materials that were used to conduct the experiment. The

string was tied to all of the boats via the knob and one of the weights which were used to

pull the boat forward. The Super Pulley was attached to the side of the table and plugged

into the LabQuest which was then plugged into the computer. The planting boxes filled

with water (and whatever level of salt was being tested) were placed by the Super Pulley

with the correct boat inside. The string of the boat was then placed over the pulley and

once let go, the boat would propel forward.

 Lorenger - Penn 18

Figure 9. Experimental Setup

Figure 9 shows more of what the setup would look like once all of the materials

are in the right spot. The close-up shot of the computer shows the graphs that the

LabQuest will provide once data has stopped being collected. The highlighted section of

the graph in the middle is the data that is being collected since it is the most linear part of

the graph. The far-away setup shows how the Super Pulley will be parallel to the planting

box. A boat is placed inside the box and the weight with the string attached is resting on

the pulley.
 Lorenger - Penn 19

Figure 10. Graphical Data

Figure 10 shows a more in-depth view of the three graphs that the LabQuest will

provide once data collection has been completed. The middle graph is the one that will

need to be focused on because it calculates the velocity which provides the slope.

Highlight the most linear part of the graph and look for where it says slope. The slope is

the measure of the acceleration which was recorded in Table 2.

 Lorenger - Penn 20

Figure 11. Hull Angles and Boat Lengths

Figure 11 shows a comparison of the hull angles of the boats used in the

experiment. From left to right are the 4 in. 45°, 4 in. 0°, 5 in. 22.5°, 6 in. 0°, and 6 in. 45°

boats.
 Lorenger - Penn 21

Data Analysis and Interpretation

Within this experiment data was collected by releasing a weight tied to a string,

tied to the boat over a pulley system connected to a LabQuest. The acceleration was

recorded as the slope of the line of best fit for the most linear section of the velocity vs.

time graph as recorded by the LabQuest. The data collected is quantitative as it is a

numerical value that is being compared among other values to determine the effects of

each. It is also continuous as the acceleration values are not limited by a specific domain

and could, theoretically, be captured by any value with the specific significant figures

being limited by the accurate collection of the computer. To ensure that the collected data

was reliable and to limit the impact of possible outliers, multiple trials of each factor were

run and the data collected from each were averaged together, this average data was used

in the DOE. Although averages are not immune to influence from outliers, using them

helped to limit the effect of outliers to a larger extent as opposed to simply using the raw

data. The standards are set; data points are not included in the random drawing of trials to

ensure that any possible trends that could influence the data are able to be seen and

recorded to prevent these external, confounding effects from skewing the data in any

noticeable way. The other factors however were randomized to prevent any possible

biases or trends from being present and playing any effect on the data that was collected.
 Lorenger - Penn 22

Table 4
Average Acceleration
Salinity, Length, Hull Angle Average Acceleration Salinity, Length, Hull Angle Average Acceleration

Standard 0.6029 -++ 0.7097

+++ 0.7509 -+- 0.5995
++- 0.6216 --+ 0.6731
+-+ 0.7503 --- 0.4651
+-- 0.5111 Standard 0.6320
Standard 0.7010

Table 4 shows the average acceleration for each trial of each type.

Figure 12. Graph of Individual Standards

Figure 12 shows the graph of each individual standard. There is a larger degree of

variability between the standards in this figure as opposed to the averaged standards seen

in Figure 1. This wider range of variability is likely due to the data collection method,

because the slope of each line is measured by eyeballing the most linear part of the graph

and performing a linear regression, the unequal areas selected for the data to be recorded

likely acted as a confounding variable resulting in the variability seen in the graph of
 Lorenger - Penn 23

individual standards due to inconsistent collection. However there are no obvious trends

within the data and each could be considered an equally likely scenario for a standard

trial. The range of standards presented from this is 0.2196 m/s² which further excludes

any factors from having a statistically significant effect on the acceleration. The x-axis

represents the trial number the standard was run on and the y-axis represents the

acceleration that was recorded.

Figure 13. Graph of Averaged Standards

Figure 13 shows the graph of the average values of the standard trials and shows

no obvious trends in the data. There is variability within the data but it is as expected, the

range of the data is 0.0981 m/s². The x-axis represents the trial numbers and the y-axis

represents the average acceleration produced in m/s².

 Lorenger - Penn 24

Table 5
Effect of Salinity
Effect of Salinity
Low (-) (0 g/L) High (+) (35 g/L)
0.4651 0.511
0.6731 0.7503
0.5995 0.6216
0.7097 0.7509
Ave: 0.6119 Ave: 0.6585
Effect Value = 0.6585-0.6119 =0.0466 m/s²

Table 5 shows the data for calculating the effect of salinity on acceleration.

Figure 14. Effect of Salinity

Figure 14 shows the graph of the effect of salinity on the acceleration of the boats;

the line appears to be approximately flat with an interaction effect of 0.0466 m/s². On

average, as the salinity of the water increases, the acceleration of the boat increases by

0.0466 m/s². The effect value represents the difference in acceleration from the low value

compared to the high value. This effect value was found by subtracting the low effect

average from the high effect average. This effect value means that (ignoring all other
 Lorenger - Penn 25

effects and confounding variables) on average the higher salinity water generates a

slightly higher acceleration than the low salinity levels.

Table 6
Effect of Boat Length
Effect of Boat Length
Low (-) (4 in.) High (+) (6 in.)
0.7503 0.7509
0.5111 0.6216
0.6731 0.7097
0.4651 0.5995
Ave: 0.5999 Ave: 0.6704
Effect Value = 0.6704-0.5999 = 0.0705 m/s²

Table 7 shows the data for calculating the effect of boat length on acceleration.

Figure 15. Effect of Length

Figure 15 shows the graph of the effect of the length of the boat on the

acceleration of the boats; the line appears to be approximately flat with an interaction

effect of 0.0705 m/s². On average, as the length of the boat increases, the acceleration of

the boat increases by 0.0705 m/s². The effect value represents the difference in
 Lorenger - Penn 26

acceleration from the low value compared to the high value. This effect value was found

by subtracting the low effect average from the high effect average. This effect value

means that (ignoring all other effects and confounding variables) on average the higher

boat length water generates a slightly higher acceleration than the low boat length.

Table 7
Effect of Hull Angle
Effect of Hull Angle
Low (-) (0°) High (+) (45°)
0.6216 0.7509
0.5111 0.7503
0.5995 0.7097
0.4651 0.6731
Ave: 0.5493 Ave: 0.7210
Effect Value = 0.7210-0.5493 = 0.1717 m/s²
Table 7 shows the data for calculating the effect of hull angle on acceleration.

Figure 16. Effect of Hull Angle

Figure 16 shows the graph of the effect of hull angle on the acceleration of the

boats, and has an interaction effect of 0.1717 m/s². On average, as the hull angle

increases, the acceleration of the boat increases by 0.1717 m/s². The effect value
 Lorenger - Penn 27

represents the difference in acceleration from the low value compared to the high value.

This effect value was found by subtracting the low effect average from the high effect

average. This effect value means that (ignoring all other effects and confounding

variables) on average the higher hull angle water generates a higher acceleration than the

low hull angles.

Table 8
Interaction Effect of Salinity and Boat Length
(-) Boat Length (4 in.) (+) Boat Length (6 in.)
Line Segment (+)
(solid) Salinity
(35 g/L) Ave: 0.6307 Ave:0.6863
Line Segment (-)
(dotted) Salinity
(0 g/L) Ave: 0.5691 Ave: 0.6546
Effect Value = 0.04275-0.02778 = 0.01497
Table 8 shows the data for calculating the interaction effect of salinity and boat

length on acceleration.
 Lorenger - Penn 28

Figure 17. Interaction Effect of Boat Length and Salinity

Figure 17 shows the interaction effect of boat length and salinity, because the

lines appear to be roughly parallel there may be little to no interaction between the

variables. In other words, it does not matter if salinity is held high or low, the outcome

changes at the same rate as boat length goes from high to low. The effect of -0.0150 was

found by subtracting the slope of the low salinity line (dotted line) from that of the high

salinity line (solid line).

Table 9
Interaction Effect of Salinity and Hull Angle
(-) Hull Angle (0°) (+) Hull Angle (45°)
Line Segment (+)
(solid) Salinity
(35 g/L) Ave: 0.5664 Ave: 0.7506
Line Segment (-)
(dotted) Salinity
(0 g/L) Ave: 0.5323 Ave: 0.6914
Effect Value = 0.09213-0.07955 = 0.01258
Table 9 shows the data for calculating the interaction effect of salinity and hull

angle on acceleration.
 Lorenger - Penn 29

Figure 18. Interaction Effect of Hull Angle and Salinity

Figure 18 shows the interaction effect of hull angle and salinity, because the lines

appear to be roughly parallel there is little to no interaction between the variables. In

other words, it does not matter if salinity is held high or low, the outcome changes at the

same rate as hull angle goes from high to low. The effect of 0.0126 was found by

subtracting the slope of the low salinity line (dotted line) from that of the high salinity

line (solid line).

Table 10
Interaction Effect of Boat Length and Hull Angle
(-) Hull Angle (0°) (+) Hull Angle (45°)
Line Segment (+)
(solid) Boat
Length (6 in.) Ave: 0.6106 Ave: 0.7303
Line Segment (-)
(dotted) Boat
Length (4 in.) Ave: 0.4881 Ave: 07117
Effect Value = 0.05988-0.11180 = -0.05192
Table 10 shows the data for calculating the interaction effect of boat length and

hull angle on acceleration.

 Lorenger - Penn 30

Figure 19. Interaction Effect of Hull Angle and Boat Length

Figure 19 shows the interaction effect of hull angle and boat length, because the

lines do not appear to be roughly parallel, other methods will be needed to determine if

there is an effect on acceleration if boat length is held high while hull angle goes from

low to high. The effect of -0.0519 was found by subtracting the slope of the low boat

length line (dotted line) from that of the high boat length line (solid line).

Figure 20. Dot Plot of Effects

Figure 20 shows the dot plot of effects, because all values fall within the double

range of standard fences, no factors play a significant role in the acceleration of boats.
 Lorenger - Penn 31

The boundaries were calculated as the double of the range of standards (range of

standards was found in Figure 13). All of the factors, salinity, boat length, and hull angle,

as well as the interactions, boat length and hull angle, salinity and boat length, and

salinity and hull angle, are not statistically significant. However, through the data it

appears that the factors of Hull Angle and Boat Length, as well as the interaction of these

factors appeared to have the largest effect as the calculated effect values are significantly

larger than any other calculated value.

As shown in both Figure 20 and Appendix B, Figure 25, none of the variables

have a significant effect on the acceleration of boats pulled through water. Not only did

no factors break past the fences of the doubled range of standards (Figure 20) but none

were found to be greater than 2 (after absolute value), therefore there are no significant

effects on the acceleration of boats. This is shown in the parsimonious prediction

equation (Appendix A) as because none of the factors were found statistically significant,

none of the factors were included in the equation. The prediction equation on the other

hand (Appendix A) uses all variables.

 Lorenger - Penn 32

Conclusion

This experiment manipulated the values of boat length, boat hull, and water

salinity to test how drag force was affected, and how the three variables interacted with

each other. In order to do this, five 3D printed boats were constructed to run the

experiment. To help conclude findings, a Three-Factor DOE (Design of Experiment) was

used to analyze the data collected.

It was hypothesized that the combination of high salinity water (35 g/L), the

longest boat length (6 inches), and a hull of 0° would produce the largest drag force

(lowest acceleration) exerted by the water on the boat. This hypothesis was found to be

incorrect, as the largest drag force exerted was produced by a run including the lowest

salinity water (0 g/L), the shortest boat length (4 inches), and a hull of 0°. The average

acceleration for the run hypothesized to produce the largest drag force (lowest average

acceleration) was 0.6216 m/s2 while the average acceleration for the run that actually

produced the largest drag force was 0.4651m/s2. Even though the hypothesis was

incorrect, the data was deemed statistically insignificant after performing the three-factor

DOE tests.

An important thing to note in this experiment is that while drag force was the

ultimate goal, it was extremely difficult to calculate. This is why average acceleration

was used due to the fact that it is easier to find and can be interpreted to drag force. In the

experiment, as average acceleration increases, an inference can be made that the force of

drag decreases. This works the other way around as well. So as the average acceleration

decreases, an inference can be made that the force of drag increases. This makes sense

because acceleration is a change in velocity and if the change is greater, that has to mean
 Lorenger - Penn 33

another force (drag) is not acting as hard since the boat is moving faster. If the change in

velocity is lesser, that has to mean that another force (drag) is acting harder since the boat

is moving slower and will take more time to get to the “goal”.

In terms of this experiment, the run that produced the highest drag force (the

lowest acceleration) includes the lowest values of all three factors. The average

acceleration of these factors was 0.4651m/s2. Ultimately, this is not what is wanted

because as the boat spends more time in the water, the amount of fuel used increases

which decreases fuel efficiency. The run that produced the lowest drag force (the highest

acceleration) includes the highest values of all three factors, those being a hull angle of

45 degrees, a boat length of 6 inches, and a water salinity level of 35 g/L. The average

acceleration of these factors was 0.7509 m/s2. The test of all high values resulted in the

lowest drag force because the high hull angle cuts through the water the most efficiently.

When the boat is able to cut through the water, it travels faster by moving the water away

from the watercraft. With the highest length, the boat is more buoyant which allows the

watercraft to spend more time on top of the water and not emerge in, however it would

have a larger area exposed to the water which would slow it down. The high water

salinity level makes the boat travel the fastest because the dissolved salts make the water

denser. This then allows the boat to float higher out of the water which would allow it to

spend more time on top, like the length. This is what was wanted because the boat spends

less time in the water which increases the fuel efficiency.

This conclusion and disapproval of the hypothesis is supported by a similar

experiment. In “Buoyancy Increase and Drag-Reduction through a Simple

Superhydrophobic Coating'' by Gi Byoung Hwang, a chemist at the University College

 Lorenger - Penn 34

London, the experiment tested how a superhydrophobic coating would act on a boat in

terms of buoyancy and drag. A robust superhydrophobic surface was fabricated through

layer-by-layer coating using adhesive double sided tape and the paint, and after a 100 cm

abrasion test with sandpaper, the surface still retained its water repellency, enhanced

buoyancy and drag reduction (Hwang). The experiment states that as buoyancy increases,

the force of drag reduces.

According to Archimedes’ Principle, “The average density of an object is what

ultimately determines whether it floats. If an object’s average density is less than that of

the surrounding fluid, it will float. The reason is that the fluid, having a higher density,

contains more mass and hence more weight in the same volume. The buoyant force,

which equals the weight of the fluid displaced, is thus greater than the weight of the

object” (Moebs). In other words, as mass increases, the buoyant force increases, resulting

in the object floating.

Hwang’s experiment proves this conclusion because buoyancy is affected by the

mass of the object being measured. And as a general rule, as the length of something

increases, the mass is likely to increase. This is what happened in this experiment since as

the length of the boats increased, the mass also increased. Hwang’s statement can now be

loosely translated into “as length increases, the force of drag reduces”. As seen in this

experiment, as the length increased, the force of drag was more likely to reduce.

Before concluding the three-factor DOE tests, it was apparent in the table of raw

data that as the hull angle and length of the boat increased, the force of drag was reduced.

However after the tests were concluded, the effects of hull angle, length of boat, and the

interaction effect of both hull angle and boat length were not statistically significant.
 Lorenger - Penn 35

Along with those effects, no interaction or individual effect were statistically significant

which means that on a statistical level, the changing of the factors did not change the

average acceleration. It’s important to look at the data from a statistical and non-statistical

point of view because from the statistical side, it shows that there was a lot of variability

within the experiment to conclude that the factors made a significant difference. But from

a non-statistical point of view, some of the factors and interaction effects show promising

results in reducing drag, without much variability.

Most researchers within the field come to the conclusion that as drag decreases,

the fuel efficiency will increase. The results from this experiment show that without

variability, drag force on water crafts can decrease with the factors tested. The average

acceleration that was tested can relate to drag force. Again, as the average acceleration

increases, drag force decreases. With the researchers’ statement, this experiment showed

that with control of variability, drag force can be reduced which would ultimately

increase fuel efficiency. While most studies in the field test aerodynamic drag, it’s still

just as important to consider watercraft drag. As stated earlier, more than three percent of

global carbon dioxide emissions are from ocean-going ships. Being able to reduce the

amount of force drag created on watercraft would see a noticeable (positive) difference in

the three percent, leading to a better environment overall.

This experiment can be taken in two different ways by the scientific community.

Since there were no statistical significant factors, their first way to take the experiment

could be by saying that it does not prove any claim. For example, if someone wanted to

say that drag force is reduced as the length of a watercraft increases, they may not want to

use this experiment due to the insignificance that boat length plays statistically. The other
 Lorenger - Penn 36

way the field could take it is by looking at the claims of significant factors but not in a

statistical mindset. For example, someone could possibly cite this experiment by saying

that boat length and angle hull could have a possible effect on reducing drag as they

increase by looking at the raw data patterns.

With further improvement, the experiment could be done again and be used to

prove that the factors themselves and the effect between them are statistically significant.

Improvements such as control of temperature for the water, better acceleration graph

highlighting, and increasing the size of the box could result in less variability. By

controlling the temperature of the water for each trial, the confounding variable would no

longer affect the experiment with variability. The “best” temperature for the watercrafts

would have to be researched or it could possibly be turned into a factor itself. The graph

which produced the average acceleration could be highlighted better. With a ton of

variability with getting the slope (acceleration), finding a better way to determine exactly

what to highlight would be crucial to finding a better acceleration, leading to more

accurate results. Increasing the size of the box would increase the distance the watercraft

would travel. Over a longer distance, the effect of drag could be tested over a longer

period of time. This could possibly change the results of the experiment since the

watercraft is in the water for more time and the factors have more time to possibly create

an effect.

A weakness within the experiment came from some of the boats. When recording

the acceleration for boats that had no angle (low), they tended to tip over. In theory the

tipping makes total sense as a flat surface being dragged would tend to tilt and in water

it’s exaggerated. This was an annoying problem to try and fix because when the boats
 Lorenger - Penn 37

tipped, trials would have to be redone to try and keep things consistent. However, it

would be unfair to constantly redo trials so the tipping had to be compensated. This most

likely affected the average acceleration of the trial which impacted the final results.

Another huge weakness in the experiment came across was highlighting the graph

to find the acceleration of the run. Every graph was different so it was very difficult to

keep things consistent in the process. Determining the most linear part of the graph was a

challenge as the graphs were curves that started seemingly linear before leveling off and

finally falling. Therefore, only the first parts of the graphs could be highlighted for an

accurate acceleration statistic and if any of the curved, flattened area of the graph was

highlighted the acceleration could be wildly different from those of similar trials. To

compensate for the inconsistency of recording an appropriate acceleration for each trial,

only a small portion of the graphs were recorded from the very beginning of the graphs to

provide the most linear and therefore most accurate acceleration.

The final weakness of the experiment was the inconsistency of string lengths used

to tie the boats to weights and pull the boats through the water. Although the string was

measured when cut, it was a fast process which led to inconsistent lengths before being

tied to the boats. After the strings were tied to the boats and weights, the length of the

rope varied even more as different lengths of string were used to knot around the knob at

the front of the boat as well as wrapped around the weight. This presented a problem as

some of the boats, especially those which were held to a low length, could not start at the

back of the plant box (where the trials were conducted) compared to others which did

start at the back. This was a problem as because certain boats didn't have as much room

to be pulled through the water, the graph of data recorded was even more curved with less
 Lorenger - Penn 38

of an initial linear linear slope and as previously mentioned, this may have affected the

final, recorded acceleration for the boats.

For further research, different variables can be tested to see the effect they have

on the drag force generated. The variables in this experiment can also be altered or kept

strictly constant (such as keeping the 0° boat from tipping) to see the change in effect

they may have in this experiment and on the new results. Some suggestions for variables

include material of the boat, temperature of water, and distance the boat traveled. While

this experiment was focused on drag force from watercraft, an alternative experiment

could be testing forces of drag from cars, airplanes, etc. Overall, the improvement of fuel

efficiency throughout the world, from any type of transportation method, would decrease

the amount of carbon emissions which would ultimately help slow the progression of

climate change. To specifically reduce drag and improve fuel efficiency in terms of ocean

transportation, a watercraft that is long in length (than say the average watercraft), a hull

angle of around 45 degrees, and in water with a higher salinity level would be ideal.
 Lorenger - Penn 39

Acknowledgements

Mr. May - Heavily influenced the idea to 3D print boats instead of making them with

wood which would have been much harder. Also helped with the whole printing process,

even with all of the fails and complications at the time.

Mrs. Cybulski - Constantly reviewed this paper to make sure that it was the best work

possible. Helped with DOE complications and looked over the overall experiment.

Mr. McMillan - Helped decide the final problem statement of this experiment. Also gave

countless ideas and revisions to make sure that the paper was the best possible.

Mrs. Tallman - Gave the suggestion to do 33 trials instead of 27 like initially planned.

Without this suggestion, the DOE wouldn’t have been correct.

Lynne Talley - Professional contact, helped answer questions about salinity and its

relation to drag force. Provided free versions of her textbook to make sure our questions

were answered.

MMSTC 11A Peers - Countless members of 11A were there to support and help out with

the experiment. From things to tying string, paper revision, and ideas, the help was

appreciated immensely.
 Lorenger - Penn 40

Appendix A: How to build and print a Miniature Boat

Material

Computer PRUSA 3D Printer

SolidWorks Computer File PrusaSlicer Software
Black PLA Filament SD Card

Procedure:

1. If not previously done, download SolidWorks and open the software.

2. Open a new part and lay out a basic square shape. Extrude the base to the desired
length to make the object 3D.

3. Use the smart dimension tool to set the width and height of the rectangular prism to
1.5 inches. This will stay as the measurement of the width and height for all of the
boats.

4. Use the line tool to create lines on one surface of the prism. To see recommended
lines for a 45 degree cut, see Diagram 1.

5. Find the extruded cut command, this will be used to create the angles that the boat
has. Note that if the boat being created does not have an angle, creation is done.

6. To create boats with a 45 degree angle, click on the line from the midpoint of the
bottom of the prism to the midpoint of the left side. A menu should appear where
information will need to be entered. Leave the direction as blind but change the
distance to whatever length boat that needs to be created.

7. Next, click on the thin feature button. Leave the direction as “One-Direction” and
leave the distance as 0.1 inches. To see a straightforward example of the information,
see Figure 2. Note that the boat being created in Figure 2 is one that is four inches
long so the distance may need to be adjusted.

8. Click on the check mark icon to confirm the cut. A menu will appear that asks what
bodies to keep. Select the body that needs to be kept (most likely will be “Body 1”)
and press the “OK” button.

9. Repeat steps 6-8 with the line from the midpoint of the bottom of the prism to the
midpoint of the right side. The boat will be completed once this step is finished.

10. To save the boat, hit the save button at the top of the screen and save it as a “.prt” file.
Save the boat to the computer or an SD card for later use.
 Lorenger - Penn 41

11. To create a boat with a 22.5 degree angle, create the base lines on one side of the
prism. Unlike the 45 degree angle lines, different lines from the midpoint of the
bottom of the boat will need to be made. To make the new lines, click on the midpoint
of the bottom of the boat and drag the mouse to the left side of the boat. A menu
should appear to the left that declares the angle the line will be at. Move the line to
where the angle reads as 158 or simply type 158 into the box on the left. Repeat for
the right side of the boat. To see what the lines will look like, see Figure 3.

12. Click on the cut extrude feature to create cuts for the boat. Click on the lines created
in the last step to bring up the menu. Set the distance to whatever the boat needs to be
so that the cut will go right through the boat.

13. Make sure the arrow is facing downward and click the check mark towards the left of
the screen.

14. Once both sides are cut, save the boat just like in step 10.

15. Once all boats have been created and saved (there should be two 4 inch boats, one
with no angle and one with a 45 degree angle, one 5 inch boat with no angle, and two
6 inch boats, one with no angle and one with a 45 degree angle) a knob will need to
be put onto the boat.

16. Find a knob part either via the internet or one created by Solidworks and save it to the
computer. Open an assembly in Solidworks with the boat and knob file in it.

17. To make sure the knob is in the same place in every boat, mates will need to be made.
Click on the mate button to start this process. The first mate that will be created is one
that sticks the knob to the plane of the boat. This will be a standard coincident mate
between one face of the boat and one face of the knob. One both faces are selected,
click the check to confirm the mate.

18. The next mate is a directional mate to make sure the knob is in the same position
every time. Highlight the inside of the knob and one side of the line on the boat.
Make sure to not highlight the midpoint on the boat. Once both things are highlighted,
click the directional button on the left screen and change it to 0.75 inches, then press
the check. To see a detailed example, see Figure 4.

19. The final mate is another directional mate. Highlight the inside of the knob and the
top line of the boat. Again, make sure to not highlight the midpoint on the boat. Once
both things are highlighted, click the directional button on the left screen and change
it to 0.75 inches, then press check.

20. Save this assembly using the “Save As” feature at the top as a “.prt” file once again.
This is to ensure that both parts of the boat will come together as one.

21. Repeat steps 16-21 for all of the boats that need to have a knob attached.
 Lorenger - Penn 42

22. Open up the “.prt” file and click on the save button to save it as an “.stl” file.

23. Once all boats have been converted to “.stl” files, it’s time to convert them into G
code files using the PrusaSlicer software. G code files allow the 3D printer to read the
file and successfully print the design.

24. Import the “.stl” files into PrusaSlicer using the import feature in the top left of the
screen. The boats should be visible in the plane within the software. Be sure to space
all of the boats out so that they aren’t too close to each other. Make sure that all
supports are enabled so that the boats can have structural support. Set the infill to
15%.

25. Once all of the information is inputted, click on the export button to get the G code of
the boats. Import the G code onto a SD card that the 3D printer can read.

26. Insert the black PLA filament into the printer.

27. Insert the SD card that houses the boats’ G code file on it into the printer. Navigate
the printer to print the boats. On the printer recommended, the dial needs to be turned
until a section called “print from SD” is reached. Then, press into the dial to confirm
that selection. Find the file and press into the dial again to start the printing process.
Note that the bed and nozzle of the printer will get extremely hot so be careful.

28. Let the printer print for however long it needs. At the end of the printing process,
remove the boats from the bed of the printer. Clean off the bed of the printer and
begin to remove the supports from the boats.

29. Once the boats have been cleaned up, they are ready for testing.
 Lorenger - Penn 43

Diagram:

Figure 21.
Figure 21 shows a boat with the 45 degree lines drawn on before it has been
boss-extruded to remove the excess in the corners. These lines are recommended to draw
when creating the boat.

Figure 22.
Figure 22 above, shows the use of the “Cut Extrude” which will remove all of the
unnecessary material leaving just the main body of the boat which is needed.
 Lorenger - Penn 44

Figure 23.
Figure 23 above, “Line Properties” feature of SolidWorks which allows the boat
to be constructed as the 22 degree lines which are at the bottom of the boat to be made by
declaring the line and angle.

Figure 24.
Figure 24 above, shows the first mate that is used to connect the knob part and the
boat part to make one solid boat.
 Lorenger - Penn 45

Appendix B: Test of Significance and Prediction Equations

𝑅𝑎𝑛𝑔𝑒 𝑜𝑓 𝑆𝑡𝑎𝑛𝑑𝑎𝑟𝑑𝑠 = 0. 7010 − 0. 6029 = 0. 0981

0.0233
𝑆𝑎𝑙𝑖𝑛𝑖𝑡𝑦 𝐸𝑓𝑓𝑒𝑐𝑡: 0.0981
= 0. 237513

0.08585
𝐻𝑢𝑙𝑙 𝐴𝑛𝑔𝑙𝑒 𝐸𝑓𝑓𝑒𝑐𝑡: 0.0981
= 0. 875127

0.03525
𝐿𝑒𝑛𝑔𝑡ℎ 𝑜𝑓 𝐵𝑜𝑎𝑡 𝐸𝑓𝑓𝑒𝑐𝑡: 0.0981
= 0. 359327

−0.014975
𝐼𝑛𝑡𝑒𝑟𝑎𝑐𝑡𝑖𝑜𝑛 𝑜𝑓 𝑆𝑎𝑙𝑖𝑛𝑖𝑡𝑦 𝑎𝑛𝑑 𝐵𝑜𝑎𝑡 𝐿𝑒𝑛𝑔𝑡ℎ: 0.0981
=− 0. 15𝑡 265

0.012575
𝐼𝑛𝑡𝑒𝑟𝑎𝑐𝑡𝑖𝑜𝑛 𝑜𝑓 𝑆𝑎𝑙𝑖𝑛𝑖𝑡𝑦 𝑎𝑛𝑑 𝐻𝑢𝑙𝑙 𝐴𝑛𝑔𝑙𝑒: 0.0981
= 0. 128186

−0.051925
𝐼𝑛𝑡𝑒𝑟𝑎𝑐𝑡𝑖𝑜𝑛 𝑜𝑓 𝐵𝑜𝑎𝑡 𝐿𝑒𝑛𝑔𝑡ℎ 𝑎𝑛𝑑 𝐻𝑢𝑙𝑙 𝐴𝑛𝑔𝑙𝑒: 0.0981
=− 0. 0529307

Figure 25. Test of Significance

Figure 25 shows the test of significance, because the absolute value of the found

values are all less than 2, none of the effects played a significant effect on the

acceleration of the boats.

0.7509+0.6216+0.7503+0.5111+0.7097+0.5995+0.6731+0.4651
𝐺𝑟𝑎𝑛𝑑 𝐴𝑣𝑒𝑟𝑎𝑔𝑒 = 8
= 0. 6352

Figure 26. Grand Average

Figure 26 shows the calculation of the grand average which is used in the

parsimonious prediction equation.

0.0233 0.08585 0.03525 −0.014975 0.012575

𝑦 =. 6352 + 2
𝑆 + 2
𝐻𝐴 + 2
𝐵𝐿 + 2
𝑆𝐵𝐿 + 2
𝑆𝐻𝐴

−0.051925
+ 2
𝐵𝐿𝐻𝐴 + "𝑛𝑜𝑖𝑠𝑒"

Figure 27. Prediction Equation

Figure 27 shows the prediction equation. The prediction equation estimates the

value of the response variable (acceleration) and is found by using the grand average
 Lorenger - Penn 46

totaled with each of the variable effects all of which are divided by 2. The “noise” added

to the end of the equation represents the lurking or confounding variables which may

have affected the data resulting in statistically insignificant data.

𝑌 = 0. 6352 + "𝑛𝑜𝑖𝑠𝑒"

Figure 28. Parsimonious Prediction Equation

Figure 28 shows the parsimonious prediction equation, because no factors were

found to be significant, the only included value of the equation is the grand average due

to all of the data being deemed insignificant. The resulting parsimonious prediction

equation and any parsimonious prediction equation interpolated in this experiment would

be Y = 0.6352 + “noise” meaning that the average acceleration produced by each effect is

0.6352 m/s². The “noise” in this equation represents the unaccounted for confounding

variables which may have resulted in the data being deemed statistically insignificant.
 Lorenger - Penn 47

Appendix C: Professional Contact

Professional Contact Information:

Name: Lynne Talley

Title: Physical Oceanographer at Scripps Institution of Oceanography

Email: ltalley@ucsd.edu

Figure 29. Email Correspondence with Professional Contact

Figure 29 above highlights some of the email correspondence with Dr. Talley.

Within the conversation, she sent parts of her textbook which helped with the initial

problem statement and answered various questions that arose.

 Lorenger - Penn 48

Works Cited

“Deadrise Explained: What It Means and Why It Matters in Boating: Tom George Yacht

Group - TGYG.” Tom George Yacht Group,

https://www.tgyg.com/resources/deadrise.

“The Drag Equation.” NASA, NASA,

https://www.grc.nasa.gov/www/k-12/airplane/drageq.html.

“Effect of Size on Drag.” NASA, NASA,

https://www.grc.nasa.gov/www/k-12/airplane/sized.html#:~:text=The%20total%2

0aerodynamic%20force%20is,the%20area%20doubles%20the%20drag.

Elert, Glenn. “Aerodynamic Drag.” The Physics Hypertextbook, Hypertextbook,

https://physics.info/drag/.

“Measuring Salinity .” Exploring Our Fluid Earth,

https://manoa.hawaii.edu/exploringourfluidearth/physical/density-effects/measuring

-salinity.

“How Better Aerodynamics Lead to Fuel Savings.” RTS,

https://www.rtsinc.com/guides/how-better-aerodynamics-lead-fuel-savings.

The Hull Truth - Boating and Fishing Forum - Deadrise ...

https://www.thehulltruth.com/boating-forum/114732-deadrise-hull-truth-printerfrie

ndly.html.
 Lorenger - Penn 49

Talley, Lynne D, et al. “Physical Properties of Seawater.” Descriptive Physical

Oceanography: An Introduction, 6th ed., Academic Press, 2011, pp. 38–38.

Western Australian Government, Department of Water. “Understanding Salinity.”

Western Australian Government, Department of Water, Western Australian

Government, Department of Water,

https://www.water.wa.gov.au/water-topics/water-quality/managing-water-quality/un

derstanding-salinity.

Moebs, William, et al. “14.4 Archimedes' Principle and Buoyancy – University Physics

Volume 1.” BC Open Textbooks,

https://opentextbc.ca/universityphysicsv1openstax/chapter/14-4-archimedes-princip

le-and-buoyancy