THE UNIVERSITY OF MICHIGAN COLLEGE OF ENGINEERING Department of Naval Architecture and Marine Engineering Technical Report RESISTANCE TEST RESULTS ON DD HULL WITH LARGE BULBOUS BOWS T. Takehet J. Le Moss Project Director: R. B. Couch ORA Project 04886 under contract with: BUREAU OF SHIPS NAVY DEPARTMENT CONTRACT NO. NOBS 4L85 WASHINGTON, D. C. administered through: OFFICE OF RESEARCH ADMINISTRATION ANN ARBOR September 1962‘TABLE OF CONTENTS LIST OF TABLES LIST OF FIGURES I, INTRODUCTION II. TEST PROCEDURE IIT, MODELS AND BULB DESIGNS IV. TES? RESULTS V. SUMMARY VI. ACKNOWLEDGMENTS SELECTED BIBLIOGRAPHY Appendix A, SEPARATION EFFECTS AND TURBULENCE STIMULATION B. THE WAVE-CANCELLING EFFECT OF THE BOW AND BLUB WAVES . CAVITATION INVESTIGATION D. COMPARISON WITH JAPANESE RESULTS E, COMPARISON OF EHP USING HUGHES' AND SCHOENHERR'S FRICTION EXTRAPOLATORS iii Page vit 10 35 ub 45 uy 51LIST OF TABLES Table Page I. DD Hull Characteristics u II, Bulb Characteristics 12 DI, Comparison of Hull Characteristics 48Figure L 2 10. ne LB. ue 1b. 16. 17. 18. 19. 20. LIST OF FIGURES Main bull lines. Bulb Fl lines. Bulb FIRI lines. Bulb F2 lines. Bulb F5 lines. Bulb Pi lines. Bulb F5 lines. Bulb %6 lines. Bulb F7 lines. Balb F7. Sectional area curves of bulbs combined with DD hull. Model resistence with bulb Fl. Model resistance with bulb FIRL, Model resistance with bulb F2, Model resistance with bulb F3. Model resistence with bulb Fi, Model resistence with bulb F5. Model resistence with bulb F7. Ship resistance and pover with bulb Fl. Ship resistance and power with bulb FIRL, vii Page B 13 ub 1b is 15 16 17 qy 18 19 20 al 22 3 ek 25 26 eTFigure al. 22. 23. 2h, 25. 26. 2. Ael. Ae, AB. Ach, Bel. El. LIST OF FIGURES (Concluded) Ship resistance and power with bulb F2. Ship resistance and power with bulb 7. Ship resistance and power with bulb Fi, Ship resistance and power with bulb F5. Ship resistance and power with bulb F7. Comparison of various bulbs. Effectiveness of bulb F7 compared with Navy. sonar dome F6. Configuration of stimlation on large bulbs. Effects on model resistance of varying stimlation on bulb F5. Effects on model resistance of varying stimulation on bulb a Effects on model resistance of varying stimlation on bulb F7. Amplitude function of bow wave and bulb weves for DD hull. Photographs of wave profiles on 12-foot model. Measured wave profiles on 12-foot model. Comparison with Japenese model tests. Comparison of EHP using Hughes' and Schoenherr's friction extrapolators. vit Page 28 29 30 BL 32 33 3 3T 38 39 40 he 43, ay 49 53I. INTRODUCTION Reported herein are resistance test results for the DD hull and for the hull in combination with several different large bulbous bows. The tests were carried out at The University of Michigan from April to August, 1962. Recently, at the University of Tokyo, Professor Inui, assisted by Dr. Tekehei, one of the authors of this report,developed a hydrodynamic theory of wave cancellation which utilizes large bulbs. According to the theory, bow and stern waves can be completely cancelled at a specific speed by proper com- bination of bulb volume, shape, and location with the main hull, Over a wide speed range, wave resistance cen be considerebly reduced. For hulls whose shape is a known hydrodynamic singularity distribution, direct calculation of optimum bulbs is possible. For conventional hulls, the current practice in optimization is to vary the bulb parameters systematically. Modern naval vessels have, suspended beneath the main hull, larged feired domes in which the sonar transducer is mounted end which adversely effect the total resistence, The design criterion for the sonar housing on the hull tested requires that it be able to accommodate a cylinder 17 feet in diameter and 8 feet high. These experiments were designed to explore for the first time the feasibility of designing a bulb of sufficient size to accommodate the sonar transducer and to have a wave cancelling effect as well. All but two of the bulbs tested were of sufficient size to accommodate the transducer.II, TEST PROCEDURE The model used in these experiments was 12 feet long and made of wood. The bulbs, also made of wood, were firmly attached to the hull end putty was used to smooth out the juncture between mein hull and bulb, No other ap- pendages were attached, There are at least two fundementel approaches to bulb-resistence test- ings one is based on keeping the displacement constant and the other on keep- ing the dreft constant from one test to another, The constant-draft method involves changing the displacement by using bulbs of different volume. In this way, the hydrodynamic characteristics of the mein hull remain unaltered, since all changes are caused by the bulb, In these experiments, turbulence was stimuleted in the following manner. For all tests, the main hull was stimleted by means of round studs 0.032 inches in diameter and ebout 0,030 inches high, the protruding end being squared off, The pitch of the studs was 1/2 inch; the line of studs was ver- tical and located 5% IWL aft of the F.P. ‘At The University of Michigan, a trip wire is generally used for main- hull stimulation, but because of possible air drawing by a wire on high-speed forms, studs were adopted for this experiment. Most of the bulbs were stim- ulated with studs of the same diameter end pitch es those on the main hull, but of 0.015 inches height, In some tests over the higher speed range, no pulb stimulation was necessary, A complete discussion of bulb stimlation is included in Appendix A.IV. TES? RESULTS The results of the Inui bulbs are compared with those of the bare hull and the hull fitted with the sonar dome, M6, in Figs. 12 through 25. In Figs. 12 through 18 they are compared on the bases of totel model resistence and residusry resistance coefficients, and in Figs. 19 through 25 on the bases of effective horsepower and total ship resistance per ton displecement. In the expression for residuary resistance coefficient, model length squared was substituted for wetted surface area because the letter was different for each bulb design. Had surfece area been used, ambiguity regarding the real effects of the bulbs would have resulted. The 1947 A.T.T.C, friction extrepoletor and the standard correlation factor of 0.0004 were used throughout, although as discussed in Appendix 3, the Hughes’ friction formiletion compares the bulbs with the basic hull more favorebly. Corrections were made for blockage according to routine practice at the Michigan model basin, However, such effects were extremely small as 1/LA was only 0.13%, where ¥ is model volume, L is model length, and A is tank cross-sectional area. Brief remarks concerning the performance of each bulb follow. Fh (Figs. 16,23,26) The best results were obtained with this bulb, which reduced Oh from that of the bare hull for speeds above the speed/length ratio of 0.8. ‘The maximum reduction was 21% at the speed/length ratio of approximately 0.9, or at @ ship speed of 18 knots, Reduction in total resistance per ton, full-scale, over that of bare hull occurs above 16 knots and attains a maximum of 10% at 30 knots. Similar trends in effective horse- power occur up to 6.4% at 30 knots, Significantly, there is no notice- able increase in effective horsepower at 15 knots. Figure 26 shows totel resistance per ton and effective horsepower ratios comparing Fk with the bare hull. For reference the portion of the residuary resist- ance in the total resistance per ton is shown in Fig. 25. Fl (Figs. 12,19) Although this bulb is similar in design to F4, its larger volume and ex- cess depth made it less effective in reducing wave resistance. The larger volume and surface area also caused increased viscous drag.FIRL (Figs. 15,20) The results for this bulb show that the separation behind Fl cannot be compensated by increasing fillet size and hence volume, which causes a rather deformed appearance of the main hull. The total resistance is, then, larger than with Fl owing to increased volume and surface area. Fe (Figs. 1h,21) From the amplitude function configuration for this bulb, the wave can- cellation effect appears to be lerger than with Fl (Appendix B, Fig. Bel). Nevertheless, test results show slightly higher resistance than with Pl; this is because the transverse-wave component of F2 is too large for the fine DD hull, which is already feirly well designed for inherent transverse-wave cancellation. (See Appendix B for @ more de- tailed explanation of wave cancellation phenomena.) Also, the larger size of F2 contributes to its higher resistance. FS (Figs. 15,22) Although total resistance is not sufficiently low with this bulb, the wave resistance was decreased remarkably over the high-speed range. The resulting decrease in resistance per ton was 10.3% less than thet for ‘the bare hull et 30 knots. ¥5 (Figs. 17,2h)) Under the condition of sufficient volume to enclose the sonar transducer, F5 has the lowest resistance for speeds up to 24 knots. By decreasing the fillet size from thet of Fl, the main hull remained unaltered es much as possible, The results for this bulb indicate thet when bulb shapes are faired into main hull forms, often the best procedure is to refrain from emphasizing fairness as one does in usual lines develop- ment. In this case, lines bordering on grotesqueness happen to yield lower resistance than lines with more gentle fairing such as those of Fl and FIRL. The Navy's present sonar dome exhibited the highest resistance except at the highest speed range of sbout 30 knots, where the effective horse~ power was nearly the same as that of the bare hull,FT (Figs. 18,25,26,27) As already mentioned, F5 end F7 are very similar. The total resistance of F7 was slightly higher than thet of F5 below 24 knots (speed/length ratio of 1.2) and lower above 2h knots. As shown in Fig. 27, the total resistance of F7 is 20% less than that of F6 at 15 knots and 7% less at 30 knots. Since totel displacement is nearly the same for both F6 and F7, differences in effective horsepower percentage are about the same as differences in total resistance. Since very few test results utilizing lerge bulbous bows are availeble, @ comparison of results from the DD hull and those from some Jepanese de- stroyer escort models is included in Appendix D.v. SUMMARY The best bulb from the standpoint of resistence only is F4, which sub- stantially decreased total ship resistence above speeds of 17 knots. When taking into account the sonar transducer dimensions, bulb F7 deserves strong recommendation for further investigation of its performance in waves, maneu- verebility, ete. In this experiment, the conventional DD hull wes used without modifica- tion, On the basis of the theory, however, to obtain better wave interference it would be better to alter the forebody directly behind the bulb than to de~ sign the bulb to fit the existing bow. By keeping the principal dimensions and displacement of the basic hull constant, approximately 5% further reduc- tion in resistance in the high speed renge should be expected.VI. ACKNOWLEDGMENTS The authors wish to acknowledge the cooperation of Dr, Ryo Tasaki in the performance of tests and the enalysis of test results, The drafting of Mr. Otto Scherer and Mr. Norman Rabe and the calculations of Mr. Nils Salvesen are also acknowledged.*L #8. 9, 10. ul. SELECTED BIBLIOGRAPHY "Wave Profile Measurements on the Wave-Making Characteristics of the Bulbous Bow," by T. Inui, 7. Takahei, and M. Kumano, Journal of Society of Naval Architects of Japan, Vol. 108, 1960. "A Study on the Waveless Bow," Part I, by T. Tekehei, Journal of Socity of Naval Architects of Japan, Vol. 108, 1960. "A Study on the Waveless Bow," Part II, by 7. Takehei, Journal of Society of Naval Architects of Japan, Vol. 109, 1961. "A Study on the Waveless Stern," Part I, by M. Kumano, Journal of Society of Naval Architects of Japan, Vol. 108, 1960. "A Study on the Weveless Stern," Part II, by M. Kumano, Journal of Society of Naval Architects of Japan, Vol. 109, 1961. "A Study on the Waveless Stern," by M. Kumano, Pert III, Journal of Society of Naval Architects of Japan, Vol. 110, 1961. "The Wave-Cancelling Effects of Waveless Bulb on the High-Speed Pas- senger Coaster M/S KURENAI MARU; Part I: The Model Resistance and Pro- pulsion Experiments, by T. Inui and 7, Takehei; Pert IT: The Full Scale Experiment, by M, Shigemitsu and K, Kai; Part III: Photogram- metrical Observation of Ship Waves," by T. Inui and 7, Takehei; Journal of Society of Naval Architects of Jepen, Vol. 110, 1961. "A Study on the Large Bulbous Bow of High-Speed Displacement Ships; Part I: Resistence Tests in Still Water," by 8, Takezewe, Journal of Society of Naval Architects of Japan, Vol. 110, 1961. "A Study on the Large Bulbous Bow of High-Speed Displacement Ships; Part II: Performance in Waves," by 8, Takezawa, Journal of Society of Naval Architects of Japan, Vol. 111, 1962. "Fishing Boat of the Waveless Hull Form" (in Mnglish), by N. Yokoyama, "Friction and Form Resistance in Turbulent Flow, end a Proposed Form- ulation for Use in Model and Ship Correlation," by G. Hughes, Trans- “Translated into English at The University of Michigan, Dec. 1961. ‘xfransleted into English at The University of Michigen, Part I: May 1962; Part II: July, 1962. 10TABLE I DD HULL CHARACTERISTICS Ship Owner: U. S. Navy U of M Model No.: 946 Model Material: Sugar Pine Seale Ratio: 32.5 Model WL 12,000 ft B 1.260 ft H oui ft Trim None v 3.076 ft? A 191.48 lb at 73°F FW. Wetted Surface 15.902 rt? Form Parameters: Cp = 0,605 Oy = 0.480 Cy = 0.792 ICB = 1.2% IWL aft of midship L/B 512 L/H = 28,89 n Ship 390.0 ft 410 ft 13.5 ft None 105,590 £t° 3017.8 L.T. at 59°F SW. 16,796 tt2233 9Ty'O = vere uoT30as dryspru TIMy OFsEq qoquso 48 qIng JO were TEUOTIOAS oBToAsUET} sar wory qtng Jo yaBuET BurpNaz07d sroquas qtng Jo wadep ta'g wory zeqUe0 qTnq Jo eouwISTP TeUTPNITBUOT aqnq Jo yypeorg unUTFXEUL 43 00°2T = Ting oTseq Jo aUTTTeqUA UO UABUST ATWO qTAq JO sovsms poaqon Z4F 206°GT = ATnq ANOUITA TINT oFSeq JO SowFINs pean ATuO qTnq JO sunToA yueWIOETESTD etF QLO'E = atm qnouyTA Trny oTsEq JO ouMTOA 3uDUDDETESTD gx Lt oAS wH oH aT O6'h «6a°g «CTea"LT 6TE'T «LeS «gees BgT"O Ld gx LT Ton Cen oH orc- oes «STg «GETLT LOT GOS TEe"E GGT"O 9a gx Jt ons te Ch BT OG «GH. 9BETOT EOT GB"E —-9ST'E OBT'O GE Lx GOT Sle 9% TS 29 gare 00'S EDIT GLO LE*Z ENT'E ->-——_ i h- ! ou = & Fig. 1. Main mull lines. Dwi a ow + } + Fig. 2. Bulb FL lines. a ~ ~ oe | — ©. |FIRI Dwi Dy Ws WT a Bulb ¥2 lines. aTirtoaarc ir + ° + Fig. 6. Bulb Fh lines. a5aarti, iS F6Fig. 10. sulb F7 a7“TTR GE MITA pouTgMDD sqTNG Jo seaIno ware TWHOTII9g “TT “Bia z IF di I z € ’ 7 \ 1 eyo] - suoneys Ayuamy \ i 4 | / tiny UreW | Ot Nw ay ZL 4 y K sy ra | xyoyoney ‘TINH GQ HIM G3NI8WO9 SE1Nd 30 S3NUND VIB TYNOLLIS L 1 i3.8 3.4 3.0 26 eve + Re/ + - = Cr [\ / / \ Legend \ —---- Bare Hull LS _| ______ F6 Navy Sonar __| x i Bulb 3 S ~ f Bulb FI fi | i Fig. 12. V/A/LWL Model resistance with bulb FL. 19Bare Hull F6 Navy Sonar Dome Bulb FIRL ——4 = VW Fig. 13. Model resistance with bulb FIRL. 203.8 . fA 6 / \ MTL 22 i = = Bare Hull — %S ji Sonar 18 @ | Bulb F2 at 7 | a x S a L4 ales zZ i Fo ¢ Z . we 8 6 4 +3 e si | _= = Vu (ft/sec) ri [s 6 7 8). 9, 0 | au ee eer | ee 4.6 .8 LO L2 14 16 18 20 VW Fig. 14, Model resistance with bulb Fe. 213.8 34 3.0 26 22 > 1 [\ f \ > bl < —-— —Bare Hull ——— ve 7 XN —— F6 Navy Sonar Dome oe XN Bulb F3 fi 7 U - + Y = t e 7 Ze = = Ze Vu (ft/sec) ee | ee 46 8 LO L2 14 16 18 20 VA/WL Fig. 15. Model resistance with bulb F3.3.8 —= 3.4 3.0 / — | \ 26 jend % \ ‘es Bare Hull Ej F6 Navy Sonar Bote \ Dome 4 x 1 LD Bulb F4 L8 . a7 eo 4-~ ‘7 y (\ - Bare Hull —— F6 Navy Sonar Dome ~~ ‘%S Ne Bulb F7 x .e & 1 L. va Lo" | eo | 2 i = 7 ha =e =F | Wylt/sec) cia (sf 7 8| 9 | wo jn 4 8 10 L2 L4 16 18 20 vA. Fig. 18. Model resistance with bulb F7.EHP x 1073 16 Legend | ~~ Bare Hull ——— Fé Navy Sonar Dome Fig. 19. Bulb Fl 7 7 ? vA 5 L5 eu i a pola ma BOSCO Vs (Knots) Ship resistance and power with bulb Fl. 660 Ry/As 16 BY EHP x 10> = Bare Hull ———F6 Navy Sonar Dome Bulb FIRI Vs (Knots) Fig. 20. Ship resistance and power with bulb FIRL. 27100 24 \ VON ! 1.0 i Fig. 21. Vg (Knots) Ship resistance and power with bulb F2. 28 fF" | 15 20 1 pod ap i? 1 12 16 20 24 2B 32 36 40EHP x 1075 Try Wo ly a Ze ZA VAAL _ 10 15 20 12 16 20 24 2B 32 36 40 Vs (Knots) Fig. 22. Ship resistance and power with bulb F3. 29100 16 Residual Resistance per Ton | / 12 Bare Hull -— F6 Navy Sonar Dome Bulb F 4 EHP x 107° a5] ul 49 32 ~C«SSSC Vs (knots) Fig. 23. Ship resistance and power with bulb Fi.x 20 6 Legend == ey 7 —— F6 Navy Sonar Dome , 2 | - Bulb F5 2 | e | z° / 4 a 5 oL2 1 8 Vs (Knots) Fig. 2k, Ship resistance and pover with bulb 15. 31100 80 60 Legend Navy Sonar Isp Sener Dome 7 7 | ys ko, | Ls Lr ° Fig. 25. 16 20 24 2B 32 36 Vs (Knots) Ship resistance and power with bulb FT. &| 321.70 1.60 1.50 1.40 1,30 1.20 1,10 1,00 90 1.70 1.60 1,50 1.40 1,30 1,20 1.10 1,00 90 1 L L 80 90 1.00 - 80 +90 1,00 TiO 12 1300 4140 6150 1.60 T2130 10 150 160 vA i 4 2 2 m2 6 28 30 32 Vs (Knots) (a) Ratio of Rp/Ag of bulbs to that of bare bull. L10 pot py (EHP)pup (EHP) parE V/V 1 L 16 18 20 22 m6 28 30 32 Vg (Knots) (b) Ratio of EHP of bulbs to that of bare hull. Fig. 26. Comparison of various bulbs.po pop i - 80 -9 100 110 120 130 140 1.50 5 1 1 4 vA ae 4 1 Jo 16 18 20 22 24 26 28 30 Vg (Knots) (a) Ratio of Ry/dg of F7 bulb to that of Nevy sonar dome 16, 100 = =~———— 1% (EHP) ao (EHP pg 85 80 Pre) BL VA/INL j | SSCS BSC Vg (Knots) (v) Ratio of ERP of F7 bulb to that of Navy soner dome B®. Fig. 27. Effectiveness of bulb F7 compared with Navy sonar dome 76, 3hAPPENDIX A SEPARATION EFFECTS AND TURBULENCE STIMULATION Experience during bulb tests hes repeatedly shown the need for taking ex- treme care when stimleting turbulence, Since the Reynolds number of the bulb with respect to diemeter is about that of the critical value where the bound- ary leyer separation changes from laminar to turbulent, difficulty arises in stimlating flow on the model which simulates the flow on the ship, The prob- lem is aggravated by the fact thet the critical speed is often included within the speed range over which the model is tested. Initially, comparative tests were run in which various degrees of stimiletion were used, The bulb chosen for these tests was of the type which protrudes in front of the mein hull but not mich below it, By mounting studs on the bulb in @ manner to be described, essentially the same resistance record was obtained es for the case in which no studs at all were used. The only exception occurred at very low speeds (model Reynolds number of sbout one million), where all the data were gener- ally scattered, However, the trend in the low-speed renge for the case in which studs were used was towards slightly less scatter and slightly less totel resistance, The studs were round, about 0.032 inches in diameter, and the ends were squared off. The height of the studs on the bulbs was one-half the height of those on the main hull, the latter being pleced at 5% IWL from the forward perpendiculer, The height of the studs on the bulbs was sbout one-half the boundary leyer thickness at the stud location. The position of the line of studs on the bulb was determined by the intersection of the bulb end a cone with its apex located at the center of the bulb. (‘he half angle of the apex was 65°) (see Fig. A-l). This location of stimulation is the same as thet used on sphere drag tests in order to induce turbulent separation. The normal stud pitch was 1/2 inch, Initially, then, 1 seemed that the stimulation used afforded the most convenience end the least snount of scele effect over the ordinary speed renge of Reynolds numbers—about 1.5 x 106 to 10 x 10°, In the more recent configurations which have been tested on the DD hull model, the majority of bulbs were suspended below the keel line in contrast with those previously mentioned (see Fig. A-1). When the bulbs were suspended in this manner, the flow seemed to be sensitive to separation in the region beneath the keel line, i.e,, the region where there was no hull form immedi- ately behind thet portion of the bulb. 35Figures A-2, A-3, and A-l show model resistance for three varieties of this type of bulb and include specifications for the different types of stim- lation used in various tests with each bulb. As one might expect, the ef- fect of stimilation becomes more severe as the amount of fillet between the bulb and hull is reduced, i.e., over the whole speed range tested, the re- sistance increases with increased fillet. The greater increment of increased resistence corresponds to the lesser fillet size and also to the lower Rey- nolds number. Similar trends can be seen for cylinder drag when stud dimen- sions are changed. * Near the critical speed, where the Reynolds number is sbout 1.5 x 10? with respect to bulb diameter, the dispersion of the measured resistance is much larger than it is beyond the critical speed, and the appropriate bulb stimlation sometimes causes noticeebly decreased resistance, Further investigation by means of dye injection around bulb F5 showed thet the flow did undergo transition to turbulent seperation near the crit- ical Reynolds nunber range. Therefore, for bulbs which protrude beneath the keel line, the tend- ency of resistance deviation dependency upon stimuletion closely resembles that of spheres and cylinders, and the differences in resistance found be- tween the two types of bulbs seem to be justified. Extreme care with respect to stimulation mst be exercised in testing models with bulbs whose major portion protrudes beneath the keel line. Above the critical range, smooth surfaces without eny stimlation are preferable, and below this renge the results which yield the least total resistence with stimulation may be considered valid, For models more then 10 feet long, most of the low speeds (below the criticel Reynolds nunber renge) are too low to ve considered important in an ordinary resistance test. Therefore it seems that test results can best be extrapolated to full scele by using the com- bination of results described above. ‘Modern Developments in Fluid Dynamics, ed. Sydney Goldstein, Oxford Univer- sity Press, 1938, Vol. II, p. 433. 36Model L = 12' UofM Model No, 946 aaa F5 Mean Dia, = 0, 540' Stimulation Line F6 Mean Dia, = 0,528" F7 Mean Dia, = 0. 540' Stimulation - 032" studs . 032" x . 032" studs TE oe : pea unter “ee Fig. A-l. Configuration of stimulation on large bulbs. - 032" studs 31*Gr qmnq vo woTywTMMTySs BupAIGA Jo souaASTSOx TopoN uO S400zIE *Z-¥ “PRE afeig ging) A = Fy € AAn6ua) [apow) A = TY — oun ow 6 8 f %» ¢ %b & 2 1 plxs » 9v6 ON 1300W , ; 7 - T T T T u u 6 g L 9 S$ v € é (29s/y) “W - - . - - 0 oe ay [ eee ee 20*1500 “Ly (Rady “295 ing), ng a. ¥01 10° Se ay e800 10° pueg saqqny AOIUL uO + pms —— a Buleds uBIaH 20° x uoneinuns 31d ON ——_ qing uo uoneinuns 7 4% .—— . WA Ci) (a) or 7 7 —— anna $4 1 38“9d QInq wo uOTyeTRUTySs BuTAreA Jo sousysTSex Tepou UO Sz09FIE ah eig ana) nay “ov STL 906 ‘ON 1300W gol XS , 2 : ' AAW BUT] |epoW) A= Wy r 7 oOlxtE ot 6 68 ye 4 6 2 + s or 6 8 I 9 ¢ y t ; ; r r T T T + (9057) “A - SS SS LS = . 1 0 dy A 20 | sooty (Rady “98S GING) Ad > ‘ ae Ly) y-%99 a | __ Buyseds 2 ‘spas ; o Bley ,S10°x “elq ,2e)*----7 Bujseds -# ‘spmis — . qUBIeH .2€0°x"eIa Zed * + , NWS ging oN ——+ t w . A We F 0 (@) we: : gina 94 39*LE qrnq wo woTyeTHMEys BupArea Jo soueysTsex Tepom uo saoeTTL "y-V “BTL Tajenbuey 1spow) 0 = "y glx of 6 8 4 9 ¢ r T T T T r r 1 9 ¢ ye z t T T T T T (9s/y) A sea SS See wT (eaty “95 aing) Ag & ———y ) v= %OV Buyeds 2 ‘spms RUBIGH S10" x ging 24 9%6 ‘ON 1300W. 1”APPENDIX B THE WAVE-CANCELLING EFFECT OF THE BOW AND BULB WAVES Associated with the bow and bulb waves ere the amplitude functions A(é) end B(@), respectively, which ere opposite in sign. When the bulb is located at the origin of the bow wave, the composite wave remaining after inter- ference is represented by the difference in amplitude functions. In Fig. B-l, A(@) was assumed for the DD hull, at @ particular speed, in accordance with the hull form. 3B(®), which is linearly proportional to volume and exponentially inversely proportional to depth, was obtained for three typical bulbs by assuming a sphere of the same volume as the bulb, Fl worked best because it had the least volume and surface which, from the wave-making viewpoint, were compensated by less depth. The larger the bulb, the deeper it mst be for the seme effectiveness; but the larger it is, the more the viscous drag is increased. The total wave system is comprised of two fundamental components, the transverse and the divergent wave systems. In the normal course of design ‘tthe main hull is designed for cancellation between the bow, stern, and two shoulder transverse wave systems. For a conventional ship, the bow bulb might be designed to cancel the bow divergent component. The small transverse com- ponent end large divergent component of F4 makes this’ bulb the best for the DD hull. The relationship between divergent end transverse wave systems can be seen by stereo-photographs of the whole wave system. The transverse system can be more easily observed in regular photographs of the wave profile from which wave height is measured by a grid on the model surface, as illustrated in Fig, B-2. After the bulb is fitted, the difference in wave profiles from the bare hull condition represents the wave generated by the bulb. ‘The measured wave difference in Fig. B-3 agrees quite well with the calculated wave generated vy a sphere, or doublet, which is hydrodynamically substituted for the bulb. Hence, the wave interference can properly be evaluated by taking advantege of the aforementioned amplitude function. aL“TINY dd Joy seve qrnq pus aaeA Mog Jo uOTIOUNE epngTTauy ($39u930) @ “T-a Star ed — anem ang ( @)a ---- anem Mog ( @)¥ 4 n : T= IMA = EO 4 2-01% he(a) Bare hull, (>) wien buId Fig. B of 6, + Photographs of wave profiles on 12-foot model. at model. speed yt feet per second, VAT. = 1.19, Vy = 23.6 knots.Main Hull Wave (without Bulb), 2: Hull Wave with F7 Bulb, 5 —-— = 7 7 6 5 4.3 2 Calculated Bulb Wave. Bulb Wave, _— =f ~ B a (aV//T =.971 Kol = lglV@=12 Vs = 19.2 KTS ’ Model Speed: Without Bulb 5, 684 ft Aec J With F7 Bulb 5. 681 ft Aec ()V/VE +1061 Kol=10 Vg = 21,0KTS Model Speed: Without Bulb 6. 207 ft sec With F7 Bulb 6, 208 ft Aec (cV//E =1.191 Kol=9 Vs = 23.6 KTS Model Speed: Without Bulb 6, 968 ft Sec With F7 Bulb 6. 974 ft /sec Fig. B-3. Measured wave profiles on 12-foot model. uy FPAPPENDIX C CAVITATION INVESTIGATION Calculations were carried out according to inviscid fluid theory in order to investigate the possible occurrence of cavitation on the F7 bulb. A three-dimensional Rankine-body of the seme dimensions as the forward pert of the bulb was chosen, The maximum velocity, 1,4 times the ship speed (and hence by the Bernoulli equation the minimum pressure), occurs at the maximum section when the ship runs in still water with the bulb center sbout 17.5 feet deep. Vapor pressure at the maximum breadth is reached at a ship speed of 32 knots, Hence for ship speeds of 32 knots and more, cavitation on the bulb should be expected. If the ship is pitching moderately, so thet the bulb is only 5 feet deneath the surface, cavitation could be expected at a ship speed of 28.1 knots. In these calculations, the static pressure assumed corresponded to an undisturbed free surface, 45APPENDIX D COMPARISON WITH JAPANESE RESULTS In Japan, Dr. Takezawa has carried out a series of tests (see Items 8 and 9 of the Bibliography) with large bulbous bows on two destroyer escort ship models having similar hull characteristics as the DD hull. In Table D-I the characteristics of one of the Japanese hulls are compared with those of the DD hull, Direct comparisons cannot be made because the Japanese tests were carried out with all appendages affixed, whereas the tests at Michigan were cerried out with no appendages except the bulbs. However, comparison of re- siduary resistance, with the Schoenherr line used as a friction basis for both cases, is enlightening (see Fig. D-1). In both series of tests, the bulbs compared had been designed by theory to most effectively cancel bow waves; no other design criterion wes considered. The curves for the basic hulls show large differences in favor of the DD hull, particularly at the moderate ship speed of around 20 knots. The DD hull is fevored even when the additional form resistance of the appendages on the Japanese hull is considered. The significant point, however, is that in both cases the reduction of wave making resistance is of the same trend and magnitude over the whole speed range. Since each test series was carried out independently, the bulbs compared are at least nearly optimum for the hull forms of conventional high-speed destroyers. 47TABLE D-I COMPARISON OF HULL CHARACTERISTICS —— 59* 59(7)** get guerutt 1/B 9.25 9.51 1/H 29.8 28.9 cB 0.511 0.480 Cp 0.620 0.605 Cy 0.824 0.792 Av/Vh 1.89 2.37 s/s% 4.35 5.00 Ap/Ayh 25.7 27.9 ‘Japanese destroyer escort without bulb and with all appendages. ‘Japanese destroyer escort with bulb and with ell appendeges. *Dp hull without bulb end without eppendeges. ++pp hull with bulb and without appendages. uaT T T T T T RESIDUARY RESISTANCE COEFFICIENT Cf = B/S ever BASED ON SCHOENHERR LINE 45x10-4 : Japanese Destroyer Escort (Model 59) — Without and With Bulb (No 7) With All Appendages 4 F—+ Us Navy DD Hull (Model 946) ———-Without and With Bulb (F4) Without Appendage 35] Without Bult = Model 59 | | With Bulb. 3 ~ Model 59 (7) t— | | Without Bulb 25 Model 946 __| aT oO With Bulb a Model 946 F6 ale “Pus 1 Vs (Knots) as}—| 5 10 5 2 a 30| — a1 a2 a3 a4 a5 F = V/AAUM 0 02 O04 06 O8 Lo 12 14 16 WAL Fig. D-l. Comparison with Japanese model tests. 4gAPPENDIX E COMPARISON OF EHP USING HUGHES' AND SCHOENHERR'S FRICTION EXTRAPOLATORS In extrapolating test results to full scale, the reletive merits of the various bulbs are highly dependent upon the friction extrapolator used. Since ‘the proportion of residuary resistance to total resistence changes as the amount of frictionel resistance changes, according both to Reynolds munber and the friction basis, it is to be expected that the percentage of improve- ment in power prediction due to a bulb is affected by the use of different friction lines. The full-scale predictions in this report are all based upon the Schoen- herr (1947 A.T.T.C.) line which, among the extrapolators commonly advocated today, generally yields the lowest proportion of frictional resistance. The Hughes method generally yields the highest proportion of viscous resistance to be extrapolated to full scale, and therefore is particularly suiteble for comparative analysis. In 1954, Hughes proposed a model-to-ship viscous resistance correlation method in which the forma Cp = 0.066(108; 9Rn-2-03) “@ wes advocated for flet-plete friction, In order to account for the hypothe- sized increased negative slope of a line connecting the so-called run-in point of geosims of three dimensional forms, Hughes further proposed to mltiply the flat-plate forma by the factor (1+K), where K is a form factor, The resulting formule yields @ separate total viscous line for each ship form tested; the remainder of the total resistance is due to potential wave making and is expanded by means of Froude's lew. From e practical standpoint the form factor, K, is not easily determined ‘but the Japanese destroyer escort model tests (see Items & and 9 of the Bibli- ography) mentioned in Appendix D advocated using a form factor of approximately 0.27. For the DD hull, K = 0.25 was chosen and the resulting viscous extra- polation curve could then be considered as an upper prectical limit. Since the Schoenherr curve might be considered a lower limit, comparison of the re- sults using these tvo extrapolation methods indicates the range within which different extrapolation methods would predict full-scale results, 51Figure E-1 shows the comparison of bare hull and bulb Fi using the two methods. Because of the converging nature of the Hughes and Schoenherr curves with increasing Reynolds number, and beceuse the Hughes line is higher, one might expect the improvement due to the bulb to look more favorable, Such is the case; at 28 knots the predicted decrease in effective horsepower for ‘bulb Fh is 21% higher when the Hughes rather then the Schoenherr extrapolator is used, Stated another way, the decrease in effective horsepower due to the bulb at 28 knots over the bare hull condition is 9% by the Hughes line and 7% by the Schoenherr line, It should be noted that ACp = 0.0004 was used as a correlation factor in both cases, and also that at corresponding speeds the Hughes line yields lower effective horsepower than the Schoenherr line. 52Thousand Horsepower Thousand aor Horsepower Difference — Bare CEU "TL nfl | 1b oF 33. | —— Schoenherr Friction Line 4 —-— Hughes Line (Form Factor = 0, 25) Roughness CorrectionA C; = 0. 0004 ut Was Used For Both Methods ith F4 Bulb Bare Hull gb 7H > with Bulb 3 1 16 18 20 2 24 6 28 30 32 Speed in Knots Fig. E-1. Comparison of EHP using Hughes' and Schoenherr's friction extrapolators. 53ui