The Thirty-fourth Thomas Lowe Gray Lecture
RESISTANCE OF SHIPS, WITH SPECIAL REFERENCE TO
SKIN FRICTION AND HULL SURFACE CONDITION
By H. Lackenby, M.Sc.*
INTRODUCTION
SKINFRICTIONor resistance of viscous origin plays an im-
portant part in the resistance of ships for two reasons:
(1) For most ships it is the major component of
resistance. I n cargo carriers, which form the vast majority
of the world’s mercantile fleet, skin friction amounts to
between 80 and 90 per cent of the total resistance. Even in
the fastest passenger liners and warships it generally
amounts to more than half the total.
(2) It plays a vital role in the prediction of the resist-
ance of ships from tests on small-scale models in experi-
ment tanks.
As a component of ship resistance, recent research has
brought about a fuller realization of the importance of hull
surface condition on skin friction and the sensitivity of this
to small changes in roughness. In particular, in clean, new,
sister ships, differences in power of over 20 per cent have
been measured which are largely to be ascribed to painting
and hull surface finish. Prominence has also been given to
this matter by the improved performance of the smoother
hulls arising from the replacement of riveted by welded
construction. The indications are that for a large tanker
this amounts to about 20 per cent reduction in power
between an all-riveted and all-welded hull.
Further, after entry into service, gross increases in
resistance can be brought about by quite moderate degrees
of fouling and bottom deterioration. In the case of an
18 000-ton deadweight tanker an increase in power of the
order of 40 per cent was required due to paint breakdown
and corrosion products alone.
Considerable effort and thought have also been applied
in recent years to the development of more rational methods
of extrapolating the results of model tests to the full scale.
In this connection, it is customary to assume, among other
things, that the skin friction of model and ship can be cal-
culated directly from data for plane surfaces of the same
length and wetted area. When the effect of the three-
The M S . of this lecture was received at the Institution on 29th
November 1961. For a report of the meeting at which this lecture
was dclivered see p . 1024.
Chief Naval Architect, British Shipbuilding Research Association,
London.
Proc Znrtn Mtch Engrs
Downloaded from pme.sagepub.com at City University Library on December 18, 2015
dimensional ship form is taken into account, however, it is
shown that a different perspective is put on the relative
importance of the components of ship resistance in that
the viscous effects are more preponderant than was hitherto
realized.
This lecture reviews the present position in this field of
research and reference is made to the economic advantage
to be gained if hull surface deterioration in ships could be
arrested by improved anti-corrosive and anti-fouling
measures.
Even in clean, new ships, hull roughness contributes
appreciably to the resistance, and the scope for improve-
ment in this direction is also discussed.
In the concluding sections consideration is given to other
methods of reducing skin friction in ships including
boundary-layer damping and the development of laminar
flow. In small-scale model testing, laminar flow can be a
curse but in ships it would be a great blessing in that the
resistance would be reduced to a mere fraction of what it
would be otherwise. In this connection, relevant work has
recently been carried out in the United States of America
in which success has been claimed in the development of
resilient rubber skins specially designed to damp out
turbulence in the boundary layer. Reference is made to this
and to complementary work in hand in Great Britain.
Whereas the induction and maintenance of laminar flow
on a ship would be extremely difficult it is shown that if it
could be achieved the prize would indeed be a glittering one.
Notation
C Resistance coefficient in general.
CF Mean frictional resistance coefficient.
CF’ Local frictional resistance coefficient.
C, Residuary resistance coefficient.
C, Total resistance coefficient.
Cv Viscous resistance coefficient.
C
, Wave-making resistance coefficient.
C1 Mean frictional resistance coefficient for laminar flow.
C1’ Local frictional resistance coefficient for laminar flow.
C, Mean frictional resistance coefficient for mixed flow.
C, Mcai frictional resistance coefficient for turbulent
flow.
Vol176 1962
982 H. LACKENBY

c; Local frictional resistance coefficient for turbulent which the water produces on the hull surface or skin of the
flow. ship. This generally varies in a regular manner with speed
d Diameter of solid of revolution or thickness of two- and, apart from the viscosity and density of the water, it
dimensional body. depends primarily on the area, length and roughness of
f Froude’s coefficient of skin friction in RF =fSVn. the wetted surface of the hull. It is that part of the ship’s
g Acceleration due to gravity. resistance which to a great extent is uncontrollable in design,
k Diameter of sand grain. except in so far as the wetted surface is affected by choice
L Length of ship or body, in particular, length of full- of proportions.
scale ship. The wave-making resistance manifests itself in the form
Lc Distance of transition point from leading edge. of normal pressures on the hull due to the surface wave
1 Length of model as distinct from ship. systems set up by the action of the hull on the water. This
m Power of the Reynolds number at which the part of the resistance is the summation of the components
resistance coefficient varies C oc R,m. in the direction of motion of these normal pressures. Wave-
n Power of the speed at which the resistance varies, that making resistance can vary in an undulatory manner with
is, R oc V”. speed due to interference effects between the bow and stem
PS Shaft horsepower. wave systems. Apart from the density of the water, it is
P Index of the power law for velocity distribution in primarily affected by geometrical features such as propor-
the boundary layer v/V = (y/S)l/p. tions, fineness and shape of hull and is that part of the ship’s
4 Ratio of skin friction to total resistance, RF/RT. resistance which can be controlled in design.
R Total resistance. The third component, that is, resistance due to eddy-
RF Skin friction resistance. making, has usually been associated in the past with energy
RW Wave-making resistance. losses due to the formation of eddies behind bluff endings
Rn Reynolds number on total length, Rn = VL/v. in way of the stern of the ship; more especially those as-
R, Reynolds number on distance from leading edge, sociated with the rudder and stern post and the propeller
R, = Vxiv. shaft supports. As explained later, however, separation of
Rc Critical Reynolds number. flow leading to the formation of vortices and eddies can also
r Form factor. take place on streamlined bodies under certain adverse
rW Wave-making resistance of model as distinct from ship. pressure gradients associated with the contracting flow in
S Wetted surface area. the after-body. This resistance also manifests itself in the
V Speed in general. Free stream velocity, in particular, form of normal pressures on the hull but is generally of
speed of full-scale ship. viscous origin. By good design this form of energy loss can
V Speed of model, as distinct from ship, speed within usually be reduced to negligible proportions.
boundary layer. The fourth component referred to is the resistance due
W Weight density, pg. to the relative wind acting on the above-water part of the
CL Coefficient of dynamic viscosity, shear strcsslunit ship. Owing to the very low density of the air compared
velocity gradient. with water, this is generally quite small compared with the
X Distance from leading edge. water resistance and is usually not very significant except in
Y Distance from surface. quite strong winds.
U Mean hull roughness. In rough water there is also additional resistance due to
6 Thickness of boundary layer. ocean waves and ship motions, but this aspect is beyond the
h Linear scale ratio, LII. scope of the present lecture.
V Kinematic viscosity. For a well-designed hull form, therefore, it can be said
P Mass density. that there are two principal components of resistance,
Pm Density of water for model. namely, skin friction and wave-making. By dimensional
PS Density of water for ship. analysis these can be expressed in terms of non-dimensional
7s Surface shearing stress. parameters as follows :
4 Complex function depending on the proportions and
geometry of the ship.

The speed parameter VL/v, or Reynolds number, governs

T H E COMPONENTS OF SHIP RESISTANCE
It is customary to consider the resistance of a ship in steady
motion in calm water to be composed of the following
principal components : (i) skin friction resistance; (ii) wave-
making resistance; (iii) eddy-making resistance; (iv) wind
and air resistance. As the name implies, skin friction is
intended to be the summation of the components in the
direction of motion of the frictional or tungential stresses
Proc Instn Mech Engrs
the skin friction resistance which is essentially of viscous
origin, and V/‘l.\/gL,or Froude number, the wave-making
resistance.
As one would expect, wave-making resistance is more
important in high-speed than in low-speed ships but, as
will be shown later, the skin friction resistance always plays
a predominant part.
Whereas there has been no basic change in this rather
Vol 176 1962

Downloaded from pme.sagepub.com at City University Library on December 18, 2015

 RESISTANCE OF SHIPS, WITH SPECIAL REFERENCE TO SKIN FRICTION AND HULL SURFACE CONDITION
broad breakdown of ship resistance since the subject was
first rationalized on these lines by William Froude about a
century ago, it is now realized that the position is not quite
so straightforward and clear cut. These aspects and the
assumptions involved in the practical evaluation of the
various components w ill now be discussed in the light of
recent developments.
THE B A S I S O F THE MODEL TEST
Although considerable progress has been made in recent
years in the development of the mathematical theory of ship
resistance (incidentally this generally refers to wave-making
resistance only) the position is such that ship designers
must still rely in one form or another on the results of tests
on small-scale models in experiment tanks for the powering
of ships. In other words, although theory has shed much
light on the general nature of the # function referred to
earlier, the solutions are only tractable under quite radical
assumptions and for actual ship forms they can be reliably
determined only from experiment. In this connection, tank
tests are used in respect of the following:
(1) the comparison of the relative merits of different
ship forms to suit specified requirements.
(2) the prediction of the full-scale resistance for the
chosen form.
Whereas the comparisons referred to in (1) are generally
made on the basis of model tests alone, the predictions
referred to in (2) are, at the present stage of development,
made in conjunction with a factor of experience or ‘corre-
lation factor’ referred to later.
Although it is beyond the scope of this paper to deal at
any length with the technicalities of ship model testing, it
is relevant to refer briefly to the background to this, at least
so far as the prediction of ship resistance is concerned.
Indeed, in considering the skin friction of ships it will be
seen that it is appropriate to approach the subject from the
model end, so to speak.
I n considering the fluid flow around a ship and a small-
scale model, complete dynamic similarity could be obtained
only by simultaneous satisfaction of the Froude and Rey-
nolds laws for wave-making and skin friction resistance
respectively, that is, the dimensionless parameters ~ / d
and VL/v should have the same value for model and ship.
For a given hull surface condition the dimensionless resist-
ance coefficient RIpV2L2 would then have the same value
and the full-scale resistance could be readily determined
from the measured model resistance.
For example, if the linear dimensions of the ship are A
times those of the model, then to satisfy the Froude law the
model would have to travel slower than the ship at a speed
proportional to the square root of the model and ship
lengths, that is,
where the capital and lower case symbols refer to the ship
and model respectively.
Proc Instn Mech Engrs
Downloaded from pme.sagepub.com at City University Library on December 18, 2015
983
T o satisfy the Reynolds law, however, the product of
speed and length must be the same for model and ship,
that is, the speed must vary inversely as the length. The
speed of the model would then have to be greater than that
of the ship, namely, v = AV. The requirements of the two
physical laws are therefore quite different and, for a given
fluid medium, they cannot be simultaneously satisfied in
a small-scale model test. This impasse, although not fully
understood at the time, was ingeniouslyovercome by William
Froude, the great pioneer of ship model testing as we know
it today (I)*, by assuming that skin friction and wave-
making resistance were for all practical purposes indepen-
dent and separable. This amounted to expressing equation
(1) in the following form:
where #, and +2 are independent functions, that is,
Froude made the model dynamically similar to the ship
so far as wave-making resistance was concerned, by satisfy-
ing the non-dimensional parameter V d g T and regarded the
skin friction as something apart for which separate estimates
would have to be made for both model and ship. He based
these estimates on skin friction data, obtained from compre-
hensive tests he carried out on a series of planks of different
lengths which were towed in his first experiment tank at
Torquay (2) (3)-
T o put this into effect Froude then made a second major
assumption, namely, that the skin friction of both the
model and the ship would be equal to that of a plane surface
of the same length and area as the wetted surface of the
model and ship respectively. In the light of present-day
knowledge it can readily be shown that this assumption was
not quite correct, but it was a very reasonable one at the
time and is, in fact, still being effectively used.
Froude’s procedure was then to measure the resistance
of a small-scale model in his experiment tank at a series of
speeds and subtract from this the estimated skin friction
from his plank data. The remainder, or ‘residuary’resistance
s as he called it, was then taken to be largely composed of
wave-making resistance corresponding to the function 42
in equation (2) which at ‘corresponding speeds’ would be
expected to have the same non-dimensional value for model
and ship. This would mean that
psV2L2
R -r -
- wpmv212
where Rw and rw are the wave-making resistance for the
ship and model respectively and p s and p m are the densities
of the water in each case. As shown earlier, however,
V = A4v and A = L/l so that
R , = r W Ps
rA3 . . . . (3)
Prn
* A niimerical list of references is given in Appendix III.
Vol I76 1962
984
It will be seen, therefore, that for the same density of water
for model and ship the wave-making or residuary resistance
varies as the cube of the linear dimensions or as the volume
of displacement. Taking the densities into account this
simply means that the residuary resistance varies as the
weight of water displaced. Or, as Froude put his law of
comparison : the residuary resistance per ton of displace-
ment is the same for model and ship when running at
‘corresponding speeds’, that is, speeds proportional to the
square root of their lengths.
It should be mentioned here that at the time Froude’s
law was enunciated in 1870 he was not aware of the precise
form of the viscous parameter VL/v, but from his argu-
ments and reasoning there is no doubt that he was fully
aware of its implications in general terms at least. Reynolds’
treatise dealing essentially with fluid flow in pipes did not
appear until some time later, in 1883 (4).
THE NATURE O F SKIN FRICTION
It is convenient in the first place to consider the skin
friction of a flat surface moving in its own plane, just as
Froude did.
As pointed out by Reynolds (4) in connection with flow
in pipes, there are at least two flow regimes in this work:
that known as ‘laminar flow’ where the viscous forces pre-
dominate over the inertia forces and that known as ‘turbu-
lent flow’ where the converse is the case. The former is
generally associated with Reynolds numbers less than a
certain critical value and the latter with higher values.
For fluid flow along smooth planes there are generally
three cases to be considered:
(1) purely laminar flow;
(2) transition or ‘mixed flow’ where the extent of the
laminar region is of the same order as that of the turbulent
region;
(3) purely turbulent flow or where the extent of the
laminar region is relatively small and its effect negligible.
Laminar flow is less resistant than turbulent flow, the width
of the frictional belt* or boundary layer normal to the sur-
face being much thinner and there is little disturbance in
That part of the jluid in the immediate tiekhbourhood of the plane
whose motion is affected by the shear stress at the surface.
c
I
LAMINAR SUBLAYER
Fig. 1. Schentatic development of boundary layer on a frat plate: Vertical scale 6 corresponds approximately to 20
times horizontal scale x
Proc Instn Mech Engrs
Downloaded from pme.sagepub.com at City University Library on December 18, 2015
H. LACKENBY
the fluid apart from the viscous shearing of consecutive
fluid laminae. In proceeding downstream from the leading
edge of the plane the laminar boundary layer gradually
increases in thickness and, eventually, at a critical value of
Reynolds number VL,/v (where L, is the distance from the
leading edge), the laminar flow breaks down and becomes
‘turbulent’. The fluid particles then have an oscillatory
motion about a mean flow path instead of the strictly
rectilinear motion appropriate to laminar flow. As the
boundary layer is much thicker, the momentum generated
and consequently the resistance to motion is considerably
greater. A pictorial representation of this development
along a plane surface is shown in Fig. 1. A point of particular
interest is that, even in turbulent flow there is still a very
thin laminar sublayer through which the final transfer of
momentum is made.
In Fig. 2a is shown a comprehensive resistance plotting
for these different flow regimes on plane rectangular surfaces.
The ordinate is the non-dimensional resistance coe5cient
in the form CF = RF/+pV2Splotted on a base of Reynolds
number R, = VLlv, where RF is the skin friction resistance.
Compared with the resistance coefficient in equation (I)
it will be seen that the size characteristic L2 has been
replaced by S, the total surface area of the plane in contact
with the fluid, and the numerical coefficient of has been +
introduced into the denominator. The coefficient now has
the physical significance of the ratio of the mean shear
stress on the plane (RF/S) to the dynamic or ‘stagnation
pressure’ of the fluid (+p . V2).Consequently, the numerical
value of the coefficient is of the same order of magnitude
as the ratio of the resistance of the surface to motion in its
own plane to that when the plane is at right angles to the
direction of motion or ‘head on’ to the flow. This explains
why the numerical values of the coefficient C , are so small.
The upper bold line AB is the resistance coefficient C,,
for turbulent flow, due to Prandtl and Schlichting ( 5 ) and
the lower bold line CD is the resistance coefficient C , for
laminar flow due to Blasius (6). This shows clearly how,
for a given value of the speed parameter VL/vlaminar flow
is much less resistant than turbulent. Also of interest is the
fact that both the resistance coefficients for turbulent and
laminar flow, reduce with increasing R,. This means that if
we regard R, as being increased due to length alone, the
specific resistance or resistance per square foot becomes less.
I TRANSITION i
Y-SPEED INI
FREE STREAM
I-DISTANCE FROM
LEADING EDGE
- LEADING EDGE- J
C’ol 176 I961
 RESISTANCE OF SHIPS, WITH SPECIAL REFERENCE To SKIN FRICTION AND HULL SURFACE CONDITION 985

u)
(1
%
a
-yu
\

k
0
i
I-
* z
w
0
L
L
w
ou
W
0
z
f
-
v)
v)
w
a
-I
a
z
0
c
0
a
Lr
2
a
s

090;

(1
L Ooot
0
Lk
\
I.
II
-6QOO!
c
z
w
Y
; 0004
8
w
0
z
8 0.003
E
an
W
a
-I
9002

E
0
K
LL
0.001
<
0
0
4

0
1
LOCAL REYNOLDS NUMBER. R x = V X / v
b Local.
Fig. 2. Curves of frictional resistance coeficcient
Proc Insrn Mech Engrs Vol I76 I962

Downloaded from pme.sagepub.com at City University Library on December 18, 2015

986
In other words, so far as skin friction is concerned, increase
in length is generally an advantage and this is explained by
the fact that any extension of a plane surface at the down-
stream end benefits from the forward-moving fluid, the
momentum of which has been generated by the surface
ahead of it.
Referring now to the series of curves marked ‘normal’
transition curves such as gh, these represent the usual form
of transition when no artificial means are taken to stimulate
turbulence. Each curve corresponds to transition at a con-
stant critical value of Reynolds number R, = VL,/v (for
example, R, = 106 for the curve gh, that is, the position at
which the curve meets the line for laminar flow). It then
follows that the extent of the laminar strip at the fore end
decreases with increasing speed (the product VL, being
constant) and the transition curves gradually approach the
fully turbulent line C,. It can be shown (7) that such tran-
sition curves take the form :
K This behaviour has been explained by the fact that up to a
c, = (2,-- Rn
. . . (4) f
where K is a constant depending on the critical Reynolds
number R,. Although transition curves of this form are
deduced from theoretical considerations based on certain
assumptions, there is considerable evidence to coniirm their
general nature (7). Experience also shows that the point at
which transition takes place can vary according to circum-
stances as, for example, the presence of initial turbulence
in the fluid or the condition of the surface. I n other words,
there is not a unique transition curve but, even so, when no
special means are taken to stimulate turbulence an average
figure for the critical Reynolds number R, appears to be
about 4.5x 105. This makes the constant K i n the transition
curve 1500 as shown in Fig. 2a. Curves corresponding to
transition at R, = 2x 10’ and 106 are also indicated.
Between the two lines AB and CD (i.e. complete turbu-
lence and laminarity respectively) are a series of inter-
mediate lines of somewhat similar character which also give
resistance coefficients for mixed flow conditions. These
correspond to lixed degrees of laminarity between 0 and
100 per cent; for example, the line ef marked 30 per cent
laminarity corresponds to the first 30 per cent of the surface
area from the fore end being subject to laminar flow and
the remaining 70 per cent to turbulent flow and so on over
the range. These correspond to the stimulation of turbulence
at fixed positions along the length by special devices.
It is also to be pointed out that there is no reason to
suspect that the various relations discussed above do not
apply to all fluids including both air and water provided
due cognizance is taken of the appropriate values of p and v.
Indeed, all the evidence there is tends to confirm this
generality.
So far as water is concerned the effect of temperature on
p is small, but v is affected quite significantly. For turbulent
flow on a smooth surface the net effect is that there is a
reduction in resistance of about 24 per cent for a rise in
temperature of 10°F. Some figures for this are given in
Appendix 11.
Z+oc Insrn Mech Engrs
Downloaded from pme.sagepub.com at City University Library on December 18, 2015
H. LACKENBY
Also shown in Fig. 2a, above the turbulent friction line
AB are a series of curves representing the resistance of a
particular form of rough surface. These correspond to the
surface of the plane being completely covered with tightly
packed sand grains of various sizes. The significant para-
meter for these is the relative roughness k/L, where K is
the grain size and L is the length of surface. These curves
were developed by Schlichting(8) from tests carried out
by Nikuradse with roughened pipes and will be referred to
later. For a given value of the roughness parameter K/L it
will be noted that:
(1) U p to a certain value of the Reynolds number the
resistance is identical with that of the smooth plane in
turbulent flow.
(2) As R , increases the resistance coefficient rises
above that for the smooth surface and eventually attains
a constant value (resistance varying as speed squared).
certain speed the roughness elements are completely en-
veloped by the thin laminar sublayer and, as a consequence,
are not resistance-sensitive. At higher speeds this sublayer
becomes progressively thinner, the roughness elements then
project through and cause additional turbulence. It is
stressed that this behaviour is not necessarily general, but
applies particularly to sand roughness. It was considered
appropriate, however, to refer to it briefly at this stage in
view of its importance. Of particular import is the fact that
for minimum resistance a surface does not have to be per-
fectly smooth and a certain amount of roughness can be
borne without detriment in that respect. Ths is known as
the ‘admissible’ roughness and is plotted in Fig. 3.
The above considerations refer to the skin friction of a
plane as a whole and the coefficients CF,C, and C , are
usually referred to as the ‘total’ or the ‘mean’ resistance
coefficients. An important concept in this work, however,
.-
REYNOLDS NUMBER. R n n V L / v
4
Fig. 3. Schlichting’s admissible roughness for vurioiis
lengths of plate
I‘oi 176 I962
 RESISTANCE OF SHIPS, W I T H SPECIAL REFERENCE T O SKIN FRICTION AND HULL SURFACE CONDITION
is that of the ‘local‘ skin friction or the actual shearing
stress T at a point in the surface, say, distance x from the
leading edge. This is defined by
r
CF’ = -
+p v2
where CF‘ is the corresponding dimensionless resistance
coefficient known as the local specific resistance. It can be
shown (7) that provided the mean specific resistance CF is
a function only of Reynolds number there is a definite
relationship between the mean and local coefficients,
namely,
CF’=R,-+CFdCF . .
dRn
(6)
If n is the power of the speed at which the resistance varies
at given R, then it can be shown that
then from equations (6) and (7)
CF’ = cF(n-1) . . * (8)
This gives a very convenient relation between the ‘local’
and ‘mean’ specific resistance at a given point. For example,
in purely laminar flow the resistance varies uniformly as
speed raised to the power of 1+ which means that the local
coefficient of resistance C,’ is exactly half that of the mean
coefficient C,.
For turbulent flow the speed exponent n is not constant,
but increases slowly with R, and is always less than 2. At
R, = 107, n = 1.84, which means that at this point
C,‘ = 0.84 C,.
The broken line A’B’ shown in Fig. 2a is the local
resistance coefficient for turbulent flow. It will be noted
that the ‘normal’ transition curves all intersect the line
A’B’ at their maxima which is a characteristic of these
curves (7).
In Fig. 26 are shown the curves of local resistance co-
efficients CF‘ corresponding to the mean values in Fig. 2a.
The abscissa is now the local Reynolds number R, = VX/V,
where x is any distance downstream from the leading edge.
The transitions from laminar to turbulent flow corre-
sponding to the ‘normal’ curves shown in Fig. 2a are
indicated by the vertical lines such as ab. There is evidence
to suggest that transition is, in fact, more gradual (7) but
this does not affect the general shape of the mixed flow
curves once transition has taken place.
The principal relations illustrated in Figs. 2a and b are
as follows:
0.455
‘ - [log,, Rn]2.SS . . . . (9)
C -
C,’ = c, 1-
[ l,;1g:
1.328
C -- . . . .
I - R,*
0.664
C1’ = - . . . . .
R,+
Proc Znsrn hfech Engrs
Downloaded from pme.sagepub.com at City University Library on December 18, 2015
987
For fully developed sand roughness (R E Vz) the resist-
ance coefficients are given by:
2.87- 1.58 log,, - -
X
]
k -24
. . (14)
Fig. 4a shows typical velocity distributions in the
boundary layer for both laminar and turbulent flow where,
for convenience, the plane is at rest and the body of fluid
is flowing past it at speed V. These are non-dimensional
presentations in which the fluid speed z, at distance y from
- the wall is expressed as a fraction of the free stream speed V,
and y itself is expressed as a ratio of the boundary layer
thickness 6.
The distribution for laminar flow in this form is unique
for all values of R, and therefore any position on the plane,
(7) although, of course, the actual thickness will vary. On the
other hand, the distribution for turbulent flow varies with
R, as shown. Some distributions for rough surfaces are
shown in Fig. 4b.
For both types of flow v = 0 at y = 0, that is, there is
no ‘slip’ at the fluid-solid interface. This is generally
accepted to be in accordance with the experimental evidence
and is referred to later.
Fig. 4c shows typical laminar and turbulent velocity dis-
tributions in a pipe and their resemblance in character to
those for the flat plate will be noted. Indeed, much of our
knowledge of the nature of boundary layers has arisen as a
result of the study of pipe flow.
The nature of boundary layers is discussed in more detail
in Appendix I where methods of calculating their thickness
are also given.
FROUDE’S SKIN FRICTION EXPERIMENTS
In view of their importance in the development of the
subject of ship resistance, a very brief account will now be
given of Froude’s classic experiments on the surface friction
of planes. These were carried out in the year 1872 in the
experiment tank he had built near Torquay shortly after he
had laid down his law of comparison for model tests. The
results were published in two reports to the British Associa-
tion (2) and (3) together with a tentative suggestion as to
how to use them for estimating the skin friction of planes
of length greater than the longest plane tested.
The planes were wooden boards 19 in. wide and varied
in length from 1 to 50 ft. They were towed in a vertical
plane in fresh water, completely submerged, at speeds up
to 1000 ftlmin. A number of different surface finishes were
tried but the principal one was the varnished surface, which
was regarded as the basis of comparison.
The concept of Reynolds number for the analysis of
surface friction was not known at the time and Froude
analysed his results empirically on the assumption that skin
.
friction would vary jointly as the wetted surface area and
the speed raised to some power, that is,
RF = f S P , where f and n were constants.
Vol I76 I962
9R 8 H. LACKENBY

He found this held quite well for a given plane but thatf
and n did, in fact, vary from one plane to another and, in
particular, tended to decrease with increasing length. By
noting the nature of the decrement off, values off were
extrapolated for lengths beyond that of the longest plane
tested. The value of n varied very slowly with length and
was assumed constant in the extrapolated region and
approximately equal to that for the 50-fi plane. This was
eventually fixed at 1-825throughout and the f values were
adjusted accordingly. A detailed account of how this extra-
polation was made for ship lengths up to 600 ft and its
subsequent extension to lengths of 1200 ft was given in a
paper by Payne in 1936 (9).
In reference (7) Froude’s original experiment results were
re-analysed on a Reynolds number base, the essence of
which is shown in Fig. 5. It is pertinent to remark here that
whereas Froude was eminently aware that wave-making
v/v
and skin friction followed quite different laws he was not
in a position to know at the time that skin friction itself
a Smooth plate.
was subject to different flow regimes. In this connection it
is quite clear from Fig. 5 that all Froude’s planes of 1 6 4
length and less were suffering from laminar flow to varying
extents, many of them following well-defined transition
curves. Indeed, it appears that only the 28- and 50-ft planes
were reasonably free from this effect.
Also shown in Fig. 5 are values of specific resistance
corresponding to Froude’s empirical analysis and extra-
polation referred to earlier. It is clear that these do not
conform to Reynolds law in that CF is a function of both
Reynolds number and surface length. Values are shown for
various constant lengths varying from 5 to 1000 ft, the
specific resistance increasing with length at a given value
of R,.
It is clear, however, that when the results are analysed on
the more rational Reynolds number and due account is
taken of the laminar flow on the smaller planes, Froude’s
results are, in fact, compatible with a unique turbulent
friction line* such as that shown in Fig. 5. This, as described
“lV in (7), is also supported by other experimental evidence-
b Plates with various degrees of roughness. in particular, Kempf’s measurements on painted steel
surfaces ( I 0 ) and ( I I).
Towards the right-hand side of Fig. 5 it will be noted
that Froude’s extrapolated values of resistance rise above
the turbulent friction line, and the more so as length
I increases. This is the region of ship Reynolds numbers and

MEAN SPEED

-
OF FL0W.V

-
-- , i
i CENTRE-LINE OF PIPE 1 1
it is often claimed that Froude included some allowance for
hull roughness for these longer lengths. In the author’s
opinion, however, a very significant factor in this gradation
with length was the undoubted fact that Froude’s shorter
planes were suffering from laminar flow and offered rela-
tively less resistance on that account. This must have
affected to some extent the length effect arising from the
empirical analysis which doubtless made itself felt in the
extrapolated region.
The capricious effects of laminar flow on skin friction are,
of course, now well known but, as will be seen later, the
c Smooth pipe.
Fig. 4. Typical velocity distributions * This lies somewhat higher Than modern fortnulatiom for smooth
surfaces for reasons explained in ( 7 ) .
Proc Insm Mcch Engrr Vol 176 1962

Downloaded from pme.sagepub.com at City University Library on December 18, 2015

 RESISTANCE O F SHIPS, WITH SPECIAL REFERENCE T O SKIN FRICTION AND HULL SURFACE CONDITION 989

REYNOLDS N W B E R , R ~ = +

Fig. 5. Analysis of F r d ' s plank data

rather unexpected discovery of laminar flow on certain
types of ship model had a profound effect on model testing
technique in very recent times (see Allan and Corn's paper
to the Institution of Naval Architects some ten years
ago (12)).
EXTRAPOLATION OF MODEL RESISTANCE
TO FULL S C A L E
The nature and size of the extrapolation problem is illus-
trated in Fig. 6a for a 10 000-ton dry cargo vessel with a
service speed of 14 knots. Here again, resistance is plotted
in non-dimensional form on a base of log R, to cover both
the model and ship ranges. The curve C , to the left
represents the measured resistance of a 16-ft model and
below this is drawn a modern turbulent f r i d o n line for a
plane surface extending the whole length of the diagram.
The intercept C , between the modcl resistance and the
ship; conversely, the larger the ship the smaller the resist-
ance coefficient.
The principle of extrapolation illustrated in Fig. 6a is
essentially that in use in experiment tanks today and many
establishments still use the original Froude coefficients,
whereas others use a Reynolds number-based formulation.
Assumptions are involved, however, whether Froude's,
frictional coefficients or an R,-based formulationis used and,
at the present time, it is necessary to use a factor of
0.005
1 0-004
0-003
P
: 0.002

I
I
turbulent friction line then represents the 'residuary'
resistance as defined by Froude w?lich, according to his
0.001
0
10'
1 I ....
107
. . .. ...
10'
. .
c,
.
WP)
. J.1
10'
law of comparison, should be the same for model and ship.
By setting up these intercepts at the corresponding ship
REYNOLDS NUMBER, I% - VUU
(I
R , we obtain the C , curve on the right which represents
the predicted resistance for the smooth ship. T o this has to
be added a factor dC, based on experience to allow for the
roughness of the ship's hull and other effects which will be
discussed in more detail later.
It is of interest to consider thi: degree of extrapolation in
this instance. Assuming length to be the criterion, this is
410116 = 25.6 times, but on the more correct basis of
Reynolds number or P x L product, this is no less than
130 times. This brings out the vital importance which skin 01
10'
' ' ''....I
10'
. ' .. ...I
10'
. ' ' ..Ll
10'
friction plays in the extrapolation of model resistance and
the need for a very accurate assessment of it. W I D 5 NUMBER, Rn
b
- VUV
Another point of interest from this figure is the fact that,
for its size, the model is appreciably more resistant than the Fig. 6. Extrapolation of model resistance
Proc Instn Mech Engrr Vol176 1962

Downloaded from pme.sagepub.com at City University Library on December 18, 2015

s9ll
experience or ‘correlation factor’ in predicting the resistance
of ships. These factors are obtained from the correlation
of model tests with carefully conducted trials on ships,
and are discussed later.
It should be mentioned here that ship model tests
generally consist of two complementary parts : resistance
(or towing tests) and propulsion tests in which the model
is self-propelled. The latter give the propulsive efficiency
which in conjunction with the resistance is used to estimate
the engine power of the ship. The propulsive aspects are,
however, beyond the scope of this lecture.
MODERN DEVELOPMENTS IN
EXTRAPOLATION
Minimum turbulent friction line
As already shown, the most important single factor in this
work is the skin-friction correction or basic friction line.
Whereas it was agreed in 1948 by the International Towing
Tank Conference (I.T.T.C.) that the empirical Froude
coefficients should be replaced by a system based on the
more rational Reynolds number base, there has been much
controversy as to which particular formulation to use.
Fig. 7 shows a plotting of the more well-known contendents
to which brief reference will now be made.
Perhaps the best known in ship-model work is the
Schoenherr line published in 1932 (13) the form of which
was based on von Kirmin’s theory of turbulence. It was
claimed that the numerical coefficient of 0.242 gave the best
fit to experimental data on the friction of planes available
a t that time.
It will be seen that the evaluation of the Schoenherr line
is for all practical purposes the same as the Prandtl-
REYNOLDS NUMBER. Re- VLJq
Fig. 7 . Various modern skin fiiction formulations bmed on Rtynolds I umber
Proc lnsrn M a h Engrs
Downloaded from pme.sagepub.com at City University Library on December 18, 2015
H. LACKENBY
Schlichting formulation. The latter was developed from
flow in pipes and boundary layer theory (5) and is the basic
friction line associated with the analysis of Nikuradse’s
classical research on sand roughness.
The Schultz-Grunow formulation published in 1940 (14)
is a development of the Prandtl-Schlichting formula (and
acknowledged as such by Schlichting*) in which a correction
was introduced as a result of extensive experiments on
planes in a wind tunnel. The general level is unchanged but
the slope is slightly steeper.
The Schoenherr line has been used very largely for ship-
model work in the United States of America. Both the
Schultz-Grunow and Prandtl-Schlichting formulations
appear to be in fairly general use in the aeronautical world
and the latter particularly in Great Britain.
In recent years a new formulation for plane surfaces was
developed by Hughes (16) based on comprehensive tests on
planes in the experiment tank at Ship Division, N.P.L.
Planes of various sizes and aspect ratios were towed, the
longest being 255 ft which was towed at a speed corre-
sponding to a Reynolds number as high as 2.5 x 108. He
found that aspect ratio or length/breadth ratio had a signifi-
cant effect on the results, the longer the plane in relation to
its breadth the higher the resistance. Correcting for this
effect, Hughes produced the formula shown for two-
dimensional flow, that is, the minimum turbulent friction
line. This line is slightly steeper than the Schoenherr line
in way of the model range but is generally some 10 per cent
less in ordinate which has given rise to much disputation.
The question of which line to adopt for this work was
discussed at length at the International Towing Tank
Conference in Madrid in 1957 when agreement was finally
* See Schlichting’s discussioir ON.(15).
KHULIZ -QRUNOW FRICTION LINE ---
XHMNCWRR FRICTION LINE -----
HUOHES FRICTION LINE ---
TELFER l090 FRCTION LIME -----
I.T.T.C. 1957 SHIP -MODEL
Lbl 176 1962
 RESISTANCE OF SHIPS, WITH SPECIAL REFERENCE TO SKIN FRICTION AND HULL SURFACE CONDITION
reached on a formulation called ‘the I.T.T.C. model-ship
correlation line (1957)’ (17) also shown in Fig. 7.
This line is at the Schoenherr rather than the Hughes
level, but its slope, which is all important in this work,
corresponds more to the Hughes trend. It is perhaps
significant that the Conference took pains not to label this
a skin friction line and stressed that it was to be used as an
interim measure for correlating ship and model results. I n
other words, significancewas to be given to the slope of the
line rather than to its magnitude.
It is obviously important, however, to be sure of the
magnitude of the turbulent friction line as well as its slope
and to throw light on this Smith and Walker (18) carried
out tests on a 5-fi plane in a wind tunnel at R, up to about
4x 107. The general level of resistance came out at the
Schoenherr rather than the Hughes level but they expressed
the view that the tests were not sufficiently comprehensive
to define a new formulation. There the matter rests at
present, but in view of the conflicting evidence one wonders
whether the various experimenters are measuring the same
thing. It is known that resistance is affected by degree of
turbulence and as this is induced artificially by various
devices it could well differ from natural turbulence. Indeed
one may well ask how natural turbulence should be defined
and whether in the circumstances one could expect a
unique turbulent friction line.
Fig. 7 also includes a formulation by Telfer which is part
of a system of extrapolation referred to later.
Form effect
A matter to which considerable attention is now being
given is the assumption that the skin friction of a ship form
can be taken as that of the ‘equivalent plane’ of the same
len,g.h and wetted area. Experience has, in fact, shown that
these are significantly different, the resistance of the ‘three-
dimensional’ form being higher for the following reasons :
(a) the augmented speed of flow around the ship form
as compared with a flat plate;
(b) a pressure resistance of viscous origin brought
about by the development of the frictional belt along the
length.
The pressure resistance (b) corresponds to the aero-
dynamicist’s ‘form drag’ and is additional to the wave-
making resistance which also manifests itself in the form
of normal pressures on the hull. The total effect of (a) and
(b) is usually referred to in naval architecture as the ‘form
effect’ on skin friction and some idea of its magnitude can
be obtained by running a model at very low speeds where
the wave-making resistance is negligible.
This is illustrated in Fig. 66 where at the left-hand side
the resistance of a model has been plotted above the
Schoenherr line. It will be noted that the low-speed end of
the curve is roughly parallel to the friction line and, as the
wave-making effects are obviously negligible, the resistance
here must be essentially of viscous origin. There is little
doubt, therefore, that the real level of the viscous resistance
should be at XX and not at YY as under the usual assump-
Proc Instn Mech Engrs
Downloaded from pme.sagepub.com at City University Library on December 18, 2015
991
tion. The intercept C , would then be a much closer estimate
of the wave-making resistance (to be scaled up according
to the law of comparison) than the ‘residuary’ resistance
represented by the intercept C,.
Having made a closer assessment of that part of the model
resistance which can be properly scaled up to full size, there
now remains the question of scaling up the form effect on
skin friction represented by the intercept C,. Happily, the
work of Squire and Young (19) ( 2 0 ) and Scholz (21) sug-
gests a very simple solution to this, namely, that the form
effect is likely to be a constant percentage, say r, of the flat
plate friction C,. This is based on the results of complex
calculations made for two-dimensional aerofoil sections and
also for solids of revolution. Unfortunately, the more geo-
metrically complex ship form is not so amenable to such
calculation but it seems reasonable to assume that the same
behaviour would apply. As a matter of interest, Scholz’s
results for aerofoils and Young’s results for solids of revolu-
tion are reproduced in Fig. 8 which shows the form effect in
terms of the thickness ratio d/L, where d is the maximum
thickness or diameter of the body and L the length. These
relations were shown to be independent of Reynolds
number.
In the light of the above, therefore, it would seem that a
more correct extrapolator would be a line which is tangential
to the model resistance at low speeds and is a constant per-
centage higher than the line for two-dimensional flow as
shown in Fig. 6b. Proposals on these lines were made by
Hughes in 1954(16) in conjunction with his own skin-
friction formulation. It will be clear from Fig. 66 that this
concept gives a lower prediction for the smooth ship than
the usual process illustrated in Fig. 6a.
Proposals very similar to those just discussed were made
by Telfer as long ago as 1927 (22). He used a basic friction
line or ‘extrapolator’ developed from pipe flow data of the
following form :
C, = 04012+0.340Rn-* . . (15)
Form effect as discussed above was implicit in Telfer’s
system and he claimed that this was taken into account by
(SCHOLZ)
d/L
Fig. 8. Form or ‘thickness’ eflects on skin friction based
on calculations
Vol 176 1962
992
adjusting the coefficient of R,-$ or the ‘extrapolator slope’
to suit the particular ship form. He quoted 0.366 as an
average value for ordinary merchant ships. Owing to the
factor 0.0012 in the equation, the corresponding form effect
is not quite a constant percentage of the basic friction but is
fairly close to it. Very recently, Telfer changed his two-
dimensional extrapolator slope from 0.340 to 0.300 to
bring it in line with Hughes’s data (23)and, as a result, the
two formulations agree fairly well in way of the practical
range of R, as shown in Fig. 7.
Another system of extrapolation involving variable form
effect to suit different ship forms has been proposed by
Lap (24).
The model family technique
Another technique for studying the extrapolation problem
is the testing of families of geometrically similar models of
the same ship form in which the scale or size of the models
is systematically varied. This was originally proposed by
Telfer in conjunction with his extrapolation system (22),
and, together with his method of plotting the results, was
an ingenious concept. It goes back to the fundamental
relation
f-
R
P V2S =+[y;a]
VL v
The proposal is shown schematically in Fig. 9 where a
series of model results are plotted on the same R , base
and the resistance curves are cross-connected by curves of
0
13 2 PS 3 4
Proc Instn Mech Engrs
Downloaded from pme.sagepub.com at City University Library on December 18, 2015
H. LACKENBY
constant Froude number ( V / d g y ) . This presentation
amounts to simultaneous compliance with the Reynolds
and Froude laws over the range covered without making
any assumptions at all. If Froude’s law holds, however,
and wave-making and friction are independent (or the
interdependence is similar in each model) the cross-curves
should be parallel and their slope related to the basic friction
line or extrapolator. Telfer’s intention was that his basic
two-dimensional extrapolator should apply and that the
cross-curves of constant V / t / g z should define experi-
mentally the extrapolator slope for the three-dimensional
ship form. To facilitate this he linearized his extrapolators
by plotting R,-+ as abscissa. This principle, of course,
including the linearization, can equally be applied to any
other R,-based formulation.
Whereas this process seems very attractive at first sight,
experience shows that there are difficulties. T o illustrate
this, reference is made to Fig. 10 which shows results for
a well known set of ‘geosims’ (as Telfer calls them) which
are unique in that the measured full-scale resistance of the
ship is also available. This work was carried out as part of
the British Shipbuilding Research Association’s (B.S.R.A.)
investigations on the Lucy Ashton ( 2 5 ) where, perhaps for
the first time, the resistance of a full-scale ship was ac-
curately measured.
The models were all tested at the Ship Division, N.P.L.
and ranged in length from 9 to 30 ft; the ship, a former
Clyde paddle steamer, was 190.5 ft long. The ‘extrapolation
diagram’ shown in Fig. 10 refers to correlation on the
I1
0.0012
s 7 0 1.5 2 3 4 s 7 9 2 5
Vol 176 1962
 RESISTANCE OF SHIPS, WITH SPECIAL REFERENCE T O SKIN FRICTION AND HULL SURFACE CONDITION

REYNOLDS NUMBER, R, = V L / V
Fig. 10. Correlation of ship and model results for Lucy Ashton
Schoenherr basis and for convenience the abscissa has been
contracted so as to linearize this formulation. It is clear
that all the models over 16 ft long have exaggerated resist-
ance due to the restricted tank boundaries or ‘blockage’
and an attempt has been made to correct the results for this
effect using recent work by Hughes(26). It is apparent,
however, that the consistency of the corrected spots is not
such as to define accurately the extrapolator slope by the
model results alone. A difficulty here is doubtless short-
comings in the blockage correction, a really rigorous solu-
tion for which has yet to be found.
It will also be noted that the spots for the smallest model
lie rather high at low speeds and it has been suggested that
this might be explained by separation effects. In this con-
nection, it is known that the tendency for flow separation
is more pronounced the smaller the model as discussed in
the next section. On the other hand, some ‘geosim’ experi-
menters have had difficulties in eliminating laminar flow
on their smaller models, which is another phenomenon
encouraged by small Reynolds numbers.
It would appear therefore that at the present stage of
development models can be too small, and for a given
tank too large also.
These difficulties have seriously impaired the usefulness
of the ‘model family’ technique in throwing light on this
problem and unless these effects can be satisfactorily over-
come we must rely very largely on the correctness of the
skin-friction formulation itself in extrapolating model
resistance.
A series of parallel cross-curves of constant Froude
number has been drawn in Fig. 10 at a slope corresponding
Proc Insrn Mcch Engrs
to a form effect of 8 per cent suggested by the general level
of the model results at low speeds. This gives a fairly
reasonable correlation of the corrected results, bearing in
mind their limited consistency and does not suggest any
significant departure from Froude’s law. The corresponding
smooth ship prediction lies somewhat lower than that
actually measured and is explained by the roughness of
the ship’s hull, referred to later. In this connection it should
be mentioned that in model testing no attempt is made to
simulate the structural and paint roughness present on
ships and it is generally considered that the surface finish
produced is ‘hydraulically smooth’, that is, not resistance-
sensitive as compared with that of a perfectly smooth sur-
face. In spite of the present limitations in the interpretation
of the results of model families, Fig. 10 nevertheless gives
a good general impression of the extrapolation problem
and of the gradual reduction in the specific resistance in
ship forms with increasing size.
General comment
It is apparent from the foregoing that considerable effort
and thought have been applied over the last few decades
to rationalizing the extrapolation of model resistance which
is primarily a question of skin friction. In spite of this,
however, it cannot be said that hality has been reached
either as regards the basic friction formulation or the
method of dealing with form effect and, so far as the
practising naval architect is concerned, predictions are still
made on the basis of Froude’s assumptions but without
necessarily using his frictional coefficients. I n this con-
nection the I.T.T.C. 1957 line seems to have been used
Vol I76 1962

Downloaded from pme.sagepub.com at City University Library on December 18, 2015

991
very little and so far as can be ascertained the Americans
are still using Schoenherr and the British the Froude
coefficients.
It is necessary in these circumstances to use correlation
factors based on experience with similar ships which are
particular to the method of extrapolation. Although satis-
factory predictions can be made in this way it is obviously
important to reduce or eliminate such empiricisms as far
as possible. The outstanding matters are being actively
pursued by the authorities concerned and in particular the
International Towing Tank Conference.
The fact that the I.T.T.C. 1957 line has not been taken
up to any great extent has been ascribed to lack of experience
of the appropriate correlation factors to be used with it.
In this connection it is to be stated that t h i s formulation is
empirical in that it was not intended that any form effect
should be applied in conjunction with it-indeed, it was
supposed to include an average allowance for this. In the
author's opinion, however, a rational treatment of form
effect must be made sooner or later which may well mean
revision of this line.
INTERDEPENDENCE OF THE COMPONENTS
OF SHIP RESISTANCE
Yet another assumption in the application of the law of
comparison is that the frictional and wave-making com-
ponents are independent and separable. This even applies
to the refinements discussed in the previous section and,
whereas there is good reason to believe that this is a reason-
able assumption, it certainly needs investigation. I n this
connection, B.S.R.A. initiated and has been responsible
0.007 -
0.006 - SKIN FRICTION IN
ABSENCE OF WAVES
(WIND TUNNEL)-?
0.005 -
/
I TOTAL PRESSURE
HUGHES PLATE
FRICTION
0.001 -
0 - 1 a I I 1
0.2
01
0.4 06
Downloaded from pme.sagepub.com at City University Library on December 18, 2015
H. LACKENBY
for a programme of work at N.P.L. with the objective of
throwing light on these matters and the physics of ship
resistance generally. This work has involved wind-tunnel
tests on a double or 'reflex' model of a mathematical form
to measure the skin friction in the absence of waves and
tank tests on a similar model from which the skin friction
in the presence of waves has been determined.
Some preliminary results of this investigation are shown
in Fig. 11 which refers primarily to the tank experiments
on a model 20 ft long x 2 ft beam x 1.25 ft draught, having
parabolic transverse sections and water-lines. The model
was subjected to detailed pressure plotting and by inte-
grating the pressures over the surface the total pressure
resistance was determined. The upper full line represents
the total resistance measured on the dynamometer and by
subtracting from this the total pressure resistance, the true
skin friction was obtained as shown by the lower full line.
The skin friction measured on the wind-tunnel model is
also shown as are the Schoenherr and Hughes plane friction
formulations.
It will be noted that the skin friction determined from the
wind-tunnel tests follows closely the trend shown by Hughes
and Schoenherr and is about 14 per cent above the Hughes
and 3 per cent above the Schoenherr values. Including the
'form drag', these percentages become 16 and 5 per cent
respectively. These latter percentages are, of course, the
form effect on skin friction discussed earlier and it is of
interest to mention that according to Young (Fig. 8) a body
having this slenderness ratio would be expected to have a
form effect of 5 per cent, which, suggests compatibility
with the Schoenherr rather than the Hughes line.
TOTAL RESISTANCE
(TANK)
I RESISTANCE
(WAVEMAKING AND
1 SKIN FRICTION IN
LPRESENCE OF WAVES
(TANK)
8 1 ' I I ' "
0.2
0.8 1.0
0.3
1.2
.-
0.4
1.4
-2 -. 1.6
0.5
.v/w , 1 . . - . I _ L - I
 RESISTANCE O F SHIPS, WITH SPECIAL REFERENCE T O SKIN FRICTION AND HULL SURFACE CONDITION
An interesting and perhaps not unexpected feature is
that the skin friction deduced from the tank tests is un-
dulatory and doubtless affected by the presence of the wave
system generated by the model. I t will be noted that the
humps in the total resistance curve are generally associated
with hollows in the skin-friction curve and vice versa.
It is clear, therefore, that in this instance the skin friction
is not independent of the wave-making resistance but it does
not follow that this necessarily affects the extrapolation to
the full scale; provided the effect is generally similar in
model and ship, it may make little difference. This needs
investigation, however, and similar experiments on larger
scale models and also on models of different form would
throw light on the problem.
LAMINAR FLOW AND SEPARATION EFFECTS
Reference has already been made to the capricious effects
of laminar flow in connection with Froude’s experiments
on the friction of planes and the effect this had on his
empirical analysis of them. This matter came into promin-
ence again just over ten years ago when it was discovered
that models of the fuller mercantile forms were subject to
laminar flow at the fore end to a quite significant extent.
As there was no reason to believe that a corresponding
laminar area existed on the ship this meant that the
phenomenon had a profound effect on the ship prediction.
Moreover, it was found that the extent of this laminar area
depended on the shape of the fore end, and model experi-
ments involving different bow shapes probably reflected
changes in the extent of the laminar area rather than
genuine changes in resistance so far as the ship was
concerned.
In particular, it was found that the pronounced pressure
gradient associated with the rounded entrance of the fuller
models was conducive to laminar flow whereas the finer
models of about 0-65 block coefficient* and below were not
affected by laminarity to any significant extent. This
difficulty was eventually overcome by the fitting of turbu-
lence stimulating devices at the fore end of models to ensure
that the laminar flow was broken up. One such device and
probably the best known is a ‘trip-wire’ usually about
0.05 in. diameter which is fitted on the surface of the model
square to the flow near the fore end. It was in exploratory
testing with such devices initiated by B.S.R.A. (12)that
attention was focused on the magnitude of this effect for
fuller forms and which led to the general introduction of
turbulence stimulation in ship model testing. These tests
were made on a full form of 0.75 block coefficient and it
was shown that turbulence stimulation increased the resist-
ance of the model by about 10 per cent corresponding to
about 15 per cent on the predicted ship resistance. This was
not the first time that this matter had been raised (27)nor,
indeed, the first time that a trip-wire had been fitted to a
model, but the effect in this instance was very pronounced
and had far-reaching effects.
volume of displacemenr .
* Block coeficient =
length x breadth x draught
Proc Instn ,Mech E n p s
Downloaded from pme.sagepub.com at City University Library on December 18, 2015
995
The extent of the laminar flow on the 0.75 block form
amounted to about the first 10 per cent of the length of the
model. Since that time, however, the trend has been for
the fullness of cargo ships to increase appreciably and
block coefficients of the order of 0.80 are quite common-
place. T o anticipate further developments along these lines
N.P.L. in conjunction with B.S.R.A. has been carrying out
exploratory tests on forms as full as 0.85 block coefficient.
Very careful attention needs to be given to turbulence
stimulation on these models of such extreme fullness but
flow detection techniques have shown that this can be
achieved. T o illustrate the effect of fullness, however, it is
of interest to mention that without turbulence stimulation,
laminar flow was detected as far back as 17 per cent of the
length abaft the stem on an 18-ft model of 0-85 block
coefficient.
The possibility of inducing laminar flow on ships will be
discussed later but, in passing, it is of interest to refer to
the well-rounded entrance water-lines on sailing yachts
which might well be conducive to laminar flow and im-
proved performance as a consequence.
Another flow phenomenon which may be present on
small-scale models but not necessarily on ships, or at least
to the same extent, is that of separation of flow in the after-
body. The position is that as the boundary layer or frictional
belt develops along the ship’s length, the layers of fluid in
close proximity to the hull are gradually slowed down owing
to surface friction, the more so as one proceeds aft. More-
over, in the after-body, the pressure gradient in the stream
flow just outside the boundary layer is such as to aggravate
this effect and in certain circumstances the boundary-layer
flow close to the ship’s surface may actually be reversed in
direction. A vortex or eddy is then formed and the stream-
line flow breaks down or ‘separates’ downstream from that
position. This can lead to a significant loss of energy which
manifests itself in increased resistance and can also have a
serious effect on the performance of propellers and rudders.
The adverse pressure gradient conducive to separation is
more pronounced the steeper the flow lines or the fuller
the form in the after-body. It is interesting to note that this
effect is quite the converse of that discussed earlier in con-
nection with the development of laminar flow at the fore
end of models. There, the pronounced pressure gradient
associated with a full, well-rounded bow was directed so as
to accelerate the frictional belt and, indeed, had a stabilizing
effect on it, to the extent that the transition from laminar to
turbulent flow tended to be delayed. In the after-body the
pressure gradient is reversed in direction and at the same
time the frictional belt is much thicker and it is this com-
bination of circumstances which is conducive to instability.
These effects are illustrated schematically in Fig. 12.
It is important to underline that this form of separation
is essentially of viscous origin and certainly would not take
place in a perfect fluid. So far as its effect on resistance is
concerned, however, it manifests itself in the form of normal
pressures on the hull or rather a deficit of pressure on ”le
hull abaft the separation point, with the result that the net
pressure resistance of viscous origin is increased. It is dear,
Vol 176 1961
 H. LACKENBY
T O SEPARATION)
Fig. 12
therefore, that two of the significant parameters for this
phenomenon are boundary-layer thickness controlled by
Reynolds number and the pressure gradient which in turn
depends on the geometry of the form.
This problem cropped up recently in connection with
model tests carried out for B.S.R.A. at the Ship Division,
N.P.L. in which the design parameters of a mercantile ship
form were systematically varied. The particular form had
a block coefficient of 0.80 and the effect of changing the
position of the longitudinal centre of buoyancy (L.C.B.)
was being investigated, that is, moving the longitudinal
centroid of the immersed volume of the hull by fining the
fore end and filling out the after end and vice versa. Some
of the resistance results are shown in Fig. 13 where it will
be seen that in moving the L.C.B. from 1; per cent L
forward to per cent L forward there was no appreciable
change in resistance. When this was moved to per cent + Reynolds number. In this connection, there is little doubt
L aft, however, there was considerable increase in resistance
amounting to nearly 20 per cent in the working speed
SPEED- knots
Fig. 13. Effect of $ow separation on resistance
Proc Insrn Mech Engrs
Downloaded from pme.sagepub.com at City University Library on December 18, 2015
T O LAMINARITY)
range. Flow separation was suspected and confirmed by
flow visualization tests using cotton tufts as indicators.
Some light was shed on this problem by Kempf (28) who
measured the resistance of a series of submerged solids of
revolution in which the fullness of the run was systematically
varied. These bodies were torpedo-shaped, the main portion
being cylindrical with a hemispherical fore end and the
Reynolds number was in the usual model range (5x 106).
The resistance increased gradually with increasing fullness,
but when the angle of run reached 18" the resistance
increased sharply indicating that separation had taken
place. For a ship model, however, the surface disturbance
might well affect the critical condition.
An important practical consideration is whether such
behaviour on the model is reproduced on the full-scale ship,
bearing in mind that one of the controlling parameters is
that for a smooth hull surface the full-scale boundary layer
will be relatively thinner than that of the model, with the
consequence that there will be more tendency toward
separation on the model. On the other hand, the ship
boundary-layer will become thicker as the hull surface
deteriorates (due to corrosion and fouling) and it would be
prudent perhaps not to be too sanguine about this.
T o counteract this tendency in a full form it would seem
necessary to accelerate the flagging flow in the boundary
layer at the after end and the introduction of water jets
might be effective. These would need to be tangential to
the hull surface and directed aft. Another possibility would
be to suck away the 'dead' water through slots on similar
lines to analogous techniques which have already been used
in aeronautics. In this connection, the action of the ship's
propeller doubtless helps a little in stabilizing any tendency
for separation on the hull in close proximity to it.
There is little doubt that a rigorous solution of this
problem involving quantification of the critical cambina-
tions of the controlling parameters is one of the more
important problems in ship resistance today, especially in
Vol 176 1962
 RESISTANCE O F SHIPS, WITH SPECIAL REFERENCE T O SKIN FRICTION AND HULL SURFACE CONDITION
view of the trend for increasing fullness in cargo carriers
and in tankers particularly. I n this connection devices such
as the jets referred to above might well enable the fullness
of stern lines to be increased beyond present limits.
Pending clarification of these matters it would seem
prudent to ensure that flow separation does not take place
to any significant extent on the model scale which should
give some reassurance so far as the ship is concerned.
Before leaving this topic, it is relevant to refer to rather
puzzling differencesin the trial performance of ships which
are reported from time to time. Reference is being made
here to successive trials on the same ship, usually under
slightly different conditions of trim, when considerable
differences in power for the same speed, as much as 20-30
per cent, have been reported. These are generallytwin-screw
ships and it seems to the author that this may be bound up
in some way with flow separationassociated with the bossings
and shaft supports. It could be that the flow over such
appendages is extremely sensitive to changes in trim. Flow
visualization tests on stationary models in flumes or circu-
lating water channels would appear to be a useful first
approach in studying this behaviour.
T H E SKIN FRICTION OF SHIPS
The basic outcome of the model test is ideally an extra-
polated prediction of the resistance of the corresponding
ship with a perfectly smooth surface. It is then necessary to
add to that the additional resistance caused by the rough-
ness of the full-scale hull. For a new Ship this takes two
forms :
(1) Structural roughness which depends on the type
of shell construction: for example, rivet heads and plate
overlaps in a riveted ship, and weld beads in a welded
ship.
(2) Roughness on the body of the plates depending on
the surface preparation before painting, the method of
application and the texture of the paints themselves.
For a ship which has been in service, further roughening
takes place due to (i) breakdown of the paint system and the
formation of corrosion products; (ii) organic fouling such
as weed and barnacles.
It is in this field of hull roughness that much remains to
be done although, as will be seen, a considerable amount of
information is already available. The obvious approach
would be to attempt to bridge the gap between the ‘smooth’
model and the ‘rough’ ship by comparing trial results for
actual ships with model predictions, but it is not easy to
isolate the roughness resistance because of other extraneous
effects. One difficulty in particular is that we are not yet
quite certain about the smooth ship prediction for reasons
already discussed and there are other unknowns too, in-
cluding propulsion scale effect* which arises when models
are self-propelled. It is most important, nevertheless, to
* By this is meant the extent to which the full-scale propeller (and
irs interaction with the hull) does not follow the scaling laws applied
to rhe model test. This is beyond the scope of this lecture, but for
those interested it is suggested that reference be made to recenr work
by van Manen and Lap (29).
Proc Instn Mech Engrs
Downloaded from pme.sagepub.com at City University Library on December 18, 2015
997
ascertain just what these roughness effects amount to in
terms of ship resistance and a brief review will now be made
of relevant work already done and investigations proceeding.
This comes under two broad headings, namely, investi-
gations on ships, and those under more controlledconditions
in laboratories.
Investigations on ships
Lucy Ashton trials. One way of overcoming the bugbear
of propulsion scale effect is to measure directly the resistance
of a full-scale ship which means that there will only be two
factors involved in making the shipmodel balance, namely,
the extrapolation process and the hull roughness. Experi-
ence shows that the measurement of full-scale resistance is
an ambitious and expensive project, but this was success-
fully achieved during the investigations carried out by
B.S.R.A. on the Lucy Ashton (25).
I n these experiments, this former Clyde steamer was
propelled by aircraft jet engines, the collective measured
thrusts from which gave an accurate measure of the ship’s
resistance. This was considered to be the first time that the
resistance of a full-scale ship had been accurately measured
and this method of propulsion effectively overcame difK-
culties inherent in towing which had been used by previous
experimenters in this field. It is appropriate to mention
perhaps that to measure ship resistance one or other of
these techniques must be used as, owing to interaction With
the hull, the thrust of a conventional propeller differs from
the resistance ofthe ship.
In these trials the effect of a number of Merent hull
surface conditions was measured including :
(i) the normal service condition with red-oxide paint;
(ii) as (i) with the plate edges faired off;
(iii) as (ii) but coated with bituminous aluminium
paint;
(iv) as (iii) after various periods of fouling.
The ship resistance shown plotted in Fig. 10 is for con-
dition (i)-the normal service condition, and is about
16 per cent above the smooth ship prediction from the
model tests. In terms of resistance coefficient, this intercept
AC, or ‘roughness allowance’, as it is called, is about 0.0004.
As for the rest, the results are now fairly well known and
it is not proposed to go into them in any detail. Suffice it to
say there was a noticeable difference between the red oxide
paint and the slightly smoother aluminium paint, amounting
to 3 per cent on total resistance and 5 per cent on the
estimated skin friction. Fairing the plate edges reduced the
resistance a further 3 per cent. After allowing the hull to
foul, gross increases in resistance of over 30 per cent were
measured corresponding to about 50 per cent on the skin
friction (30). The fouling here consisted of a scattering of
+
small barnacles about in. high on the flat of the bottom
together with a band of fine grasses on the side which, as
fouling goes, could not be described as severe.
These tests drew particular attention at the time to the
sensitivity of full-scale resistance to small roughnesses-
those with the clean ship demonstrating the importance of
Vol176 1962
998
obtaining the smoothest practicable hull surface in the first
place, and those in the fouled conditions the importance
from the economic point of view of keeping the hull free
from marine growths.
In an attempt to throw light on these results, very careful
records of hull roughness were taken with a wall gauge on
the two paint surfaces used. Analysis of these showed that
the nature of the roughness was a complex function of
superposed undulations, the mean amplitude depending
on the wavelength, and there appeared to be no simple
parameter which could be used to define the surface. A
form of harmonic analysis was applied which showed that
the amplitude decreased with diminishing wavelength and
that over most of the range the aluminium paint surface
was the smoother, the amplitudes being about 3 those of
the red oxide which was in keeping with the measured
resistances.
Apart from the evidence of the roughness records, the
aluminium paint surface had the appearance and touch of
a smoother and harder surface. This paint differs from red
oxide in that the aluminium filler is lamellar rather than
granular and, on drying out, the small metallic flakes align
themselves parallel to the surface and interlock to form
what is, in effect, a thin layer of aluminium foil over the
surface of the hull.
Hull roughness emerged from this work as a very im-
portant factor affecting the performance of ships and, as a
direct consequence, some ten years ago B.S.R.A. began
makmg hull roughness surveys on the trials of all ships
with which they were concerned. It was hoped that these
might explain puzzling differences in performance even
between sister ships, which is discussed below.
Trials on new ships. Pending a complete solution of the
extrapolation problem it is important from’ the practical
point of view to correlate model results with those of care-
fully conducted measured-mile trials for a range of ship
types and surface conditions in order to develop empirical
‘allowances’ or ‘correlation factors’ which can be used to
predict trial performance.
Work on these lines has been the subject of joint research
between B.S.R.A. and the Ship Division, N.P.L. for over
ten years, and British shipbuilders and owners have been
most helpful in providing the necessary facilities on the
acceptance trials of ships and, on occasions, in arranging
special trials for the purpose. In this connection, B.S.R.A.
is primarily responsible for the ship measurements and
N.P.L. for the corresponding model tests.
In order to obtain the best possible correlation between
ship and model, particular attention is given to those trials
carried out under good weather conditions, and, where
necessary, model tests are made after the trial so as to
reproduce accurately the correct draught and trim.
After correcting for wind resistance, the power for a given
speed is then compared with that predicted from the
smooth model in the usual way and the ratio of these is
usually referred to as the ship-model correlation factor.
In making this comparison it is usual to assume that the
Proc Znrtn Alech Engrs
Downloaded from pme.sagepub.com at City University Library on December 18, 2015
H. LACKENBY
model propulsive efficiency applies without correction to
the ship, that is, that propulsion scale effect is negligible.
Alternatively, an estimate of ship resistance can be made
from the measured power in conjunction with the model
propulsive efficiency and a correlation made in terms of
resistance, which is preferred in the present context.
Referring to Fig. 6 this can be expressed as follows :
CT(rough ship) = C,(model)+C,(smooth ship)+dC, (16)
The correlation factor is now dCF, or the allowance in terms
of resistance coefficient necessary to complete the ship-
model balance. If for the sake of argument, we accept the
assumptions referred to earlier regarding the extrapolation
process, then the factor ACF could be ascribed to hull
roughness, and this explains why these are sometimes
referred to as ‘roughness allowances’. If we then add AC,
to the calculated smooth skin friction for the ship, we
obtain what is, in effect, an estimate of the skin friction of
the rough ship.
Fig. 14 shows ship-model correlation factors in this form
plotted against R, for ships of two different types of shell
construction :
(1) half-welded hulls (welded butts and riveted
seams);
(2) all-welded hulls (welded butts and seams).
In both instances CF has been determined using the
Schoenherr friction formulation. The full lines refer to
actual ship trials and the broken line to comparable CF
values determined from the Lucy Ashton investigation. A
broken line also shows the level of 3CF = 0.0004, a value
often associated with the Schoenherr formulation.
It will be noted that whereas there is a definite tendency
for the all-welded results to plot lower on the average there
is a large amount of scatter in each class. The difference in
the average levels amounts to about 7 per cent on power
between an all-welded and half-welded hull. The scatter
even for sister slips can correspond to variations in power
as much as 23 per cent.
It will also be noted that a number of results come below
the Schoenherr line, implying that the ship friction is less
than that for a smooth surface. It has to be pointed out,
however, that this may be due to shortcomings in the
method of extrapolation and also to propulsion scale effect
which has been neglected. Strictly speaking, the only
results in Fig. 14 which truly aspire to be ‘roughness allow-
ances’ are those for the Lucy Ashton which, as already ex-
plained, are based purely on comparison of resistance. The
average value of the Lucy Ashton curve in Fig. 14a corre-
sponds to dCF = 0.0002 about, and this is a fair average
of the other results taken as a whole, but one has to bear
in mind the possible deviations shown. The results refer
particularly to single-screw ships up to 675 ft long and
further details are given in (31).
Reverting to the scatter in Fig. 14, experience on the
Lucy Ashton suggested that hull roughness was likely to
be a major factor and comprehensive roughness records
are taken on these trial ships using the B.S.R.A. wall rough-
ness gauge specially developed for the purpose. These
I’ol I76 I962
 RESISTANCE OF SHIPS, WITH SPECIAL REFERENCE T O SKIN FRICTION AND HULL SURFACE CONDITION 999

00030

0.0025

u) 0.0020
n
>
Q
-IN
\ 00015
b‘
u,
c, 0~0010

QOOO5

1.5 20. 25 3.0 3 5 4 5 6 7 8 9 10’ 1.5 2-0

R E Y N O L D S NUMBER, R n - V U v
u With half-welded hulls, i.e. welded butts and riveted seams.

AS GAUGE MOVES HOLDER CARRYING

measurements are made in dry dock shortly before, or im- 3081-1.HOLDER MOVES l i n . STANDARD 3 i n x l i n
mediately after trials and involve the recording of roughness GIVING HORIZONTAL GLASS SLIDE COATED
profiles at 50 or more positions on the hull. Fig. 15 illus- REDUCTION O F 1O:l WITH COLLOIDAL
/GRAPHITE
trates the principle of the wall gauge. This consists
essentially of a probe mounted on a carriage which is SINGLE M & N E T
CLAMPING RAIL
‘ SAPPHIRE STYLUS
traversed over the hull surface and automatically records TO SHIP’S SIDE
the roughness profile on a smoked-glass plate. Fig. 16a OR BOTTOM
shows a photograph of the gauge itself and Fig. 16b the
gauge in use on the side of a ship. This shows the gauge
being traversed over guide-rails which are clamped to the
ship’s side by magnets. Each record covers a length of
about 30 in. These records are projected optically on to a
/I
i
HULL SURFAC;~ ,/ -LEAF SPRINGS

screen for harmonic analysis, as mentioned earlier, and the ‘SINGLE FOOT
‘mean apparent amplitude’ for a wavelength of 2 in. is
usually taken as a typical measure of the roughness.
Although this choice of roughness parameter is arbitrary
PROBE WITH S i n DIA.
BALL POINT CONSTRAINED
-
DIRECTION OF
TO MOVE NORMAL TO TRAVEL O F GAUGE
to some extent, it will be seen that it leads to reasonable TRACK

correlation with trial results. Fig. 15. Diagrammatic arrangement of B.S.R.A. wall
A histogram showingthe distribution of average roughness roughness gauge and track
Proc Insrn Mech Engrs VoI 176 1962

Downloaded from pme.sagepub.com at City University Library on December 18, 2015

lo00 H. LACKENBY

among a sample of 68 new ships is shown in Fig. 17.
This shows a fairly normal distribution and the most fre-
quent or average value is about 0.007 in. The roughest is
about twice and the smoothest about half the mean value
respectively, and typical roughness records for these
a Carriage showing probe, stylus and slide holder.
categories are shown in Fig. 18. The uppermost line shows
a record taken on a bad surface, the middle line on an
average surface and the bottom line on the best hull surface
measured.
On the uppermost line the background construction to
the analysis method is also shown. This consists of a 'grid'
of lines spaced 2 in. apart along the length of the record
together with upper and lower envelopes of the roughness
profile which take in the highest and lowest peaks in each
2-in. division. The mean separation of the upper and lower
envelopes is then the 'mean apparent amplitude' for a wave-
length of 2 in. and these in turn are averaged for the entire
hull. A fuller account of this process is given in ( 2 5 ) .
More than half the sample of 68 hulls referred to in
Fig. 17 had not received any special treatment apart from
the usual wire brushing. A number of flame-cleaned hulls
were included and some which had been descaled by
pickling, but these did not appear to have any significant
effect on the distribution of roughness. Before drawing
definite conclusions, however, larger samples are required.
I n order to disentangle the separate effects of the various
factors affecting trial performance, statistical methods are
now being used at B.S.R.A. and, so far as the analysis has

In
MEAN ROUGHNESS VALUE FW
$20
SAMPLE OF 68 HULLS 00074 In. -
8 15
a
w
!$lo
3
2
5

'35 45 55 65 75 85 95 105 115 125 135 145

AVERAGE ROUGHNESS x 10' in.
Roughness is given as mean apparent amplitude for a wavelength
of 2 in.
b In use on side of ship. Fig. 17. Distribution of hull roughness among clean new
Fig. 16. B.S.R.A. wall roughness gauge ships

AVER-E SURFACE

---
--
- 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 I I I I I IIIIII 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1

TENTHS OF AN INCH
Fig. I N . Typical records of hull roughness
Proc Insrn Mech Engn Val 176 I962

Downloaded from pme.sagepub.com at City University Library on December 18, 2015

 RESISTANCE OF SHIPS, WITH SPECIAL REFERENCE TO SKIN FRICTION AND HULL SURFACE CONDITION
gone, plate roughness has proved by far the most significant
factor as, indeed, was to be expected. Present indications
are that an increase in the average roughness of 0.001 in.
would increase the resistance of a large, new, single-screw
ship by about 2+ per cent. This means that we would expect
the bad surface in Fig. 18 to require 17 per cent more power
than the average surface and the good surface some 8 per
cent less, making a total difference between the two
extremes of 25 per cent. By far the greatest part of the
variation in hull surface roughness is due to the uneven
application of paint. The figures quoted therefore underline
the benefit to be gained from the careful painting and
preparation of the hull before trials and the penalty to be
paid for bad workmanship.
Similar roughness surveys have also been made on
propeller blades. Whereas this is outside the scope of this
paper, it is of interest to mention that for new bronze
propellers the effect on performance of variations in surface
finish are quite small and not more than about 2 per cent.
After roughening in service, however, the effect may be
much larger and this is being investigated.
Ships in service. In the previous section reference was
made to the significant effects which random variations in
the hull surface finish can have on the performance of new
ships in the clean condition. After entry into service,
however, further roughening takes place due to break-down
of the paint system, formation of corrosion products and
organic fouling. This all leads to increased skin friction and
a consequent deterioration in performance which is of
particular interest to the shipowner.
Some idea of this deterioration can be obtained by a
0 1
Figures refer to service speed of 14) knots, still air condition and displacement of 24 282 tons.
Fig. 19. Percentage increase in trial ship over the original trial
Proc Iirrrn Mech Eiigrs
Downloaded from pme.sagepub.com at City University Library on December 18, 2015
1001
careful analysis of service performance records, and work
on these lines is being carried out by B.S.R.A. on a number
of ships using voyage data sent in by ships’ staff. Here
again, there is a multiplicity of variables, however, in-
cluding the effect of wind and waves on particular trade
routes and statistical processes are again being used to
disentangle the separate effects.
In order to isolate the effect of deterioration of hull
surface, B.S.R.A., in conjunction with Shell Tankers, has
recently been carrying out a series of ‘repeat’ trials on two
sister ships after various periods in service, the results of
which have been very revealing. These are 18000 tons dead-
weight tankers and the procedure has been to run measured-
mile trials before and after routine dry dockings covering
periods in service up to 4+ years. On each occasion, hull
surface roughness was measured in dry dock before and
after cleaning down and repainting.
The results for these ships are summarized in Fig. 19,
which shows the percentage increase in trial power over
that for the original acceptance trial of the new ships
plotted on a base of time in service. In order to underline
the trends, the individual spots have been connected by
straight lines, but it does not necessarily follow that the
fall-off in performance with time was actually linear. In
fact, analysis of service records suggests that this is initially
quite rapid so that the burden of increased resistance would
be borne for the greater part of the time between dockings.
It will be seen that there is a marked deterioration in per-
formance after one year and only partial recovery after dry
docking, cleaning and repainting. For ship By the last pair
of trials after about 4; years in service, showed an increase
in power before docking of 40 per cent, and 32 per cent after
1
u)
E
8I
L
L
W
I-
LL
4
1
ul
I
I-
z
P
%!
a
W
I-
lb
<
2 3 4 5
TIME IN SERVICE-years
Vol I76 I962
1002 H. LACKENBY

cleaning. The behaviour of ship A was somewhat similar

but the deterioration was not so marked.
The dry dock inspections showed that there was little or
no organic fouling and that the deterioration of the hull
surface was to be ascribed primarily to corrosion. The trials
were all carried out under good weather conditions and
the results do not include the effects of wind and waves.
Further details are given in (32).
In Fig. 20 the measured powers have been plotted on a
base of the corresponding hull roughness together with a
number of additional results for new ships of the same class. P
0
Whereas there is appreciable scatter there is nevertheless a I
c 2-
marked trend, the power increasing with hull surface LL
U
roughness. A mean line has been drawn, the form of which EQUATlON.OF TREND LINE:
is based on the Nikuradse-Schlichting data for sand rough-
ness, and this has been extrapolated back to give some idea
0
' I
2.805 x 106
= F-89+la62 Lo%
I I
4''
I
-882

of what power might be expected for a hydraulically smooth
ship. This comes out at 28 per cent less than the best new
ship trial which compares with 15 per cent obtained from
the smooth ship prediction from the model. This difference
is not surprising bearing in mind the assumptions involved
in Fig. 20 but it gives some idea of the scope for improve-
ment by producing better surface finish. Taking grain
roughness as a guide Table I shows for a number of typical
ships the admissible roughness, the minuteness of which
underlines the difficulty of obtaining a 'hydraulically
smooth' ship.
It is appropriate to mention here the difficulty of develop-
ing a roughness parameter which will be significant as far
as resistance is concerned. The nature of the roughness
varies in different parts of a hull (for example, paint drops
tend to accumulate on the flat of the bottom) and alterna-
tively, the same degree of roughness may well have different
effects on resistance according to the position in the ship.
The choice of mean apparent amplitude at 2 in. as the
roughness parameter, was largely arbitrary, and some other
parameter might well improve the correlation shown in
Fig. 20.
0 50 100 150 200 250 300 350 400
AVERAGE HULL ROUGHNESS a x lo4 in.
Displacement 24 282 tons; speed 14i knots.
Fig. 20. Perforniance of 18 000-ton deadweight tankers.
Variation in trial s.h.p. with hull roughness
It is of interest to compare this behaviour with corre-
sponding results recently published by Professor Aerts-
sen(33) for two cross-channel ships. Results for one of
these, the Koningen Elisabeth, are shown in Fig. 21, in
which the percentage increase in power is again presented
on a base of time in service. The docking periods are clearly
evident by the sharp drop in the curves at roughly twelve-
month intervals and the intervening curves refer to the
actual fall-off in performance as determined from records
taken in service. It will be seen that the rate of increase is
highest immediately after undocking. The striking feature
here is that after cleaning and repainting the original per-
formance is very nearly regained and, after 3 years, the
difference only amounts to about 3 per cent. The results for
the second ship were very similar. This is in marked con-
trast to the behaviour of the tankers discussed earlier, one

Table I
-

I
Type of vessel Length Beam, Draughi Displace- Service Block Maximum Maximum
B.P., ment, speed coeffi- width of width of
ft tons V,, cient turbulent laminar
ft ft knots boundary boundary
layer, ft layer, in.*
-
Tug
Trawler
.
Cross-chan;lel
Dry cargo .
100
185
356
419
28.0 12.0
32.0 1543
46.6 11415
60.0 27.02
483
1390
3024
13428
I 1 11.5
12-5
22.0
13.5
0.503
0.572
0.534
0.693
1.15
0.92
1.17
0.66
1.52 X 108
3.05x 10s
1.03x 109
7.45x 10s
0.00079
0.00073
0.00042
OW068
1.04
1.75
2.86
3.51
0.48
0.62
0.65
0.90
Destroyer .
18 OOO ton deadweigh;
320 32.0 9.25 1500 30.0 0.550 1.68 1.27x 109 0~00030 2.50 0.53
tanker . 530 69.3 29.70 24311 14.5 0.782 0.63 1-01x 109 OW063 4.27 0.98
36 OOO ton deadweigh;
tanker . 660 90.0 36.38 48 733 16.0 0.790 0.62 1-39x 109 000057 5.10 1 a4
65 OOO ton deadweight
tanker . . . 775 112.5 43.0 85 500 15.0 0.800 0.54 1.53x 109 O~Ooo61 5.92 1.16
Passenger liner . . 740 97.0 31.30 37 900 27.0 0.590 0.99 2.63 x 109 0.00034 5.28 0.85
Transatlantic passenger
liner . . . 950 101.5 35.0 52 500 30.0 0.540 0.97 3.76 x 109 0.00030 6.52 0.91
-
Width of laminar boundary layer taken to the point where velocity equals 99 per cent of the main stream velocity.
Proc Instn Mech Engrs VoI 176 1962

Downloaded from pme.sagepub.com at City University Library on December 18, 2015

 RESISTANCE O F SHIPS, WITH SPECIAL REFERENCE T O SKIN FRICTION AND HULL SURFACE CONDITION
Loss D~JETO FOULING
I \ I A
I I
1 2
YEARS IN SERVICE
Fig. 21. Loss in performance with time in service for the
cross-channel skip Koningen Elisabeth
of which, in the clean condition, was 27 per cent above the
performance of the new ship after a period of about 3 years.
In the case of the cross-channel vessel, the fall-off in
performance was almost entirely due to fouling and the
description of this (33) tallies closely with that encountered
on the Lucy Ashton, the effect on power being about the
same in each case, namely an increase of 30 per cent. Un-
like the tanker, however, there appeared to be little deteriora-
tion in hull surface due to corrosion and this may well be
explained by the fact that the cross-channel ship was fitted
with cathodic protection whereas the tanker was not.
To sum up, this work has clearly shown the appreciable
extent to which the performance of a ship can deteriorate
due to increased skin friction as a result of roughening of
the hull by either corrosion or fouling. Although the per-
centage increases refer particularly to horsepower, the effect
on fuel consumption for the same speed will be of much
the same order. It is clear, therefore, that considerable
economic advantage would accrue if this surface deteriora-
tion could be arrested and it is apparent that there is
considerable scope for improvement both as regards anti-
fouling and anti-corrosive measures. In regard to the latter,
cathodic protection seems to have been very effective on the
cross-channel ship. It may be that some improvement could
also be brought about by more careful preparation and
treatment of the shell plating, the additional cost of which
would be more than offset by the improvement in ship per-
formance. In this connection, in Professor Aertssen’s work
on the cargo ship Lubumbashi (34) it was found that after
five years in service there was a power increase of some
17 per cent which was attributed to deterioration of the
hull surface due essentially to the effects of corrosion. At
the end of this period the hull was sand-blasted in dry dock
with the result that the original new ship performance was
very nearly regained.
The treatment of new ship plates before painting has
been the subject of considerable research by the British
Iron and Steel Research Association(35) with which
B.S.R.A. has been closely associated. This has involved
controlled raft tests in which sample plates were immersed
in sea-water after various treatments and painting schemes
had been applied. It is beyond the scope of this lecture to
Proc Inrtn Mech Engrs
Downloaded from pme.sagepub.com at City University Library on December 18, 2015
1003
refer to the findings in any detail; suffice it to say that the
work underlined the value of various treatments before
painting in order to remove mill scale and to improve the
adhesion of the paint.
Laboratory investigations
Whereas laboratory work on roughness effects has the
advantage of enabling investigations to be carried out under
controlled conditions without the extraneous effects en-
countered on ship trials, there are disadvantages also.
3 These include the difficulty of reproducing realistic ship
roughness on the test surfaces and of obtaining Reynolds
numbers sufficiently high to make the results meaningful.
Perhaps the best known investigation was that of
Nikuradse, who measured pressure drop in pipes in which
the wall roughness was systematically varied by the appli-
cation of sand grains of various diameters(36). These
results were later translated by Schlichting (8) to equivalent
flat-plate friction referred to earlier in connection with
Fig. 2a. It will be remembered that a particular character-
istic of this form of roughness is that for a given grain size
the resistance coefficient rises above that for the smooth
plate and after a transition region reaches a steady value,
with increasing speed.
This pattern of behaviour was subsequently confirmed
from work carried out at the Ship Division, N.P.L. on
behalf of B.S.R.A. (37)) which involved resistance tests on
an 1 8 4 plank the surface of which was systematically
roughened with various grades of emery powder.
At one time it was proposed that all ship roughness effects
should be expressed in terms of a standard scale of equiva-
lent sand grain roughness, but there is evidence to suggest
that hull roughness does not follow this pattern. I n par-
ticular, from tank tests on a plane treated with paints of
different roughness Todd (38) showed that the resistance
coefficient for a given roughness rose above the curve for a
smooth plate and then tended to align itself parallel to it,
thus continuing to decrease with speed (that is, constant
AC,). This behaviour was also confirmed from trials on
ships.
The explanation might be that ship roughness is generally
milder than sand roughness which is a continuous succes-
sion of sharp excrescences. The former doubtless involves
some ‘waviness’ the effect of which is probably more in the
nature of a form effect than an increase in turbulence. It is
probable, however, that the actual state of affairs is a com-
promise between the two, particularly after fouling has set
in.
In this connection reference has already been made to the
difficulty of developing roughness parameters which will
be significant so far as resistance is concerned and this is
certainly one of the more important problems in ship
resistance today. T o throw light on it B.S.R.A. sponsored
fundamental work at Cambridge University in which a
novel technique was developed for testing paint and other
roughness under boundary-layer conditions equivalent to
the highest Reynolds numbers encountered on ships.
Val 176 1962
1004
I n this work air was used as the fluid medium and by
taking advantage of the greatly different density and vis-
cosity of air and water it was possible to obtain the appro-
priate conditions in a pipe of 2 in. diameter the walls of
which were suitably roughened. The resistance was
determined from the pressure drop and some preliminary
results have been published by Sacks (39). Only limited
roughness excrescences could be introduced into a pipe of
this size, however, and further work on these lines is
planned.
At B.S.R.A. more attention is now being given to the
harmonic analysis of hull roughness records over a wide
range of wavelengths and it is hoped that this in conjunc-
tion with information on significant parameters from the
laboratory tests will lead to a solution of this difficult
problem.
Finally, under this heading brief reference will be made
to the extensive tests by Allan and Cutland at the Ship
Division, N.P.L. on roughness effects (40) and, in par-
ticular, the effect of structural roughness such as plate over-
laps, rivet heads and weld beads. These excrescences were
simulated full size on flat-bottomed pontoons up to 200 ft
long which were towed in the ship tank.
It was found that when the additional resistance caused
by these excrescences was expressed in coefficient form in
terms of the projected area and the mean velocity in way
of the projection, good agreement was obtained with
previous work by Baker (41)and Kempf (10). These
results were used to estimate the effect of riveting versus
welding on a number of typical ships and a summary of the
results is given in Table 2. With the advent of welding on
a large scale, the difference in resistance between a welded
and riveted hull is now largely academic, but it is interesting
to see how the effect increases with length of ship. This is
due largely to the fact that plate size does not increase in
direct proportion to length and there are therefore relatively
more plate edges and rivets in the longer ships.
The ship trial results discussed earlier refer to ships in
length categories covered by the coaster, cargo ship and
tanker, and as regards the difference between all-welded
and half-welded hulls it is of interest to note that the mean
figure of 6 per cent for these three ships compares with
7 per cent deduced from the ship trials. It is noteworthy
that the weld beads in the all-welded ships contribute no
more than 14 per cent at the most which underlines the
resistance advantage of this form of construction, especially
for the longer ships. On this basis the difference between
all-welding and all-riveting amounts to no less than 35 per
cent for the Atlantic liner. It is the practice, however, to
fair off at least some of the plate edges on these ships which
will effect an improvement.
It must be mentioned that in Allan and Cutland’s tests
the structural roughnesses were attached to initially smooth
pontoons and it is a moot point as to what the effect would
have been had the surface had the roughness of ships’
plating. The opinion has been expressed that structural
roughness might tend to ‘lose itself’ in the general rough-
ness of the hull, especially after the surface deteriorates
Proc Insrn Mech Engrs
Downloaded from pme.sagepub.com at City University Library on December 18, 2015
H. LACKENBY
Table 2. Effect of structural roughness on sht$ resistance
ship
1 I I I 1 s,e:11;1
Type of Tug Trawler Coaster Cargo Tanker Pas- Atlantic
ship lincr
Length,ft
Speed,
knots 1 I 1 1 1 1
110
94
147
12
1 250
12
500
15
610
16
I 680
21
965
29
Percentage increase in resistance due to structural roughness
Half-
All-welded 0.5
* 1.e. weldcd butts, riveted seams.
with time in service. Tests on the 18-ft plank referred to
earlier (37), however, showed that when structural rough-
ness was applied together with a general roughening by
emery powder the increase in resistance over the smooth
surface was greater than the sum of the increases due to
each type of roughness applied separately. Whether this
would apply to ship roughness as well as the grain rough-
ness of emery powder is not known, but with the advent of
the all-welded ship there is perhaps little point in worrying
about it unduly.
T H E R E L A T I V E I M P O R T A N C E OF SKIN
FRICTION
Previous sections have underlined the important part which
skin friction plays in the extrapolation of model results
to the full scale and the sensitivity of ship resistance to
deterioration of the hull surface. It is of interest now to
consider its relative importance as a component of resistance
for different ship types. In this connection Fig. 22 shows a
composite plot of predicted resistance for a number of ships
ranging from a tug to a large Atlantic liner. The predic-
tions have been made using the Schoenherr line as extra-
polator on the usual Froude assumptions with the addition
of 0.0002 on the resistance coefficient to allow for hull
roughness.
The resistance curves for the individual ships have been
extended back to low speeds where the wave-making is
considered to be negligible and this is considered to be the
real level of the viscous resistance. Particulars of the ships
are given in Table 1 and two matters already referred to
are apparent:
(1) The high proportion of skin friction in the low
speed cargo carriers.
(2) The higher level of real friction as compared with
the conventional flat plate friction.
It is pertinent to consider these matters in relation to
the number of ships in different speed categories. In this
connection, Fig. 23 shows frequency distributions for new
Vol I76 1962
 RESISTANCE OF SHIPS, WITH SPECIAL REFERENCE TO SKIN FRICTION AND HULL SURFACE CONDITION
0.001
I
-
I
-m
a FRICTION (BLASIUS)
0
m7
-' I I 1 108
REYNOLDS NUMBER. R , I U / V
Fig. 22. Predicted resistancefor a range of ship types
merchant ships delivered both at home and abroad over
the past three years based on information published in the
technical press. These are given in three forms, namely, in
terms of (i) number of ships delivered; (ii) aggregate gross
tonnage; (5)aggregate installed horsepower, and dis-
tinction has been made between Werent'types of ship as
shown.
In Fig. 23c the approximate proportion of skin friction
to total resistance at the service speed has also been plotted
both on the basis of conventional flat plate friction and on
the real level of viscous resistance as discussed above.
It will be seen from each form of frequency distribution
that the volume of slow-speed cargo carriers in the speed-
length ratio category of 0.6-0.7 outweighs by far any other
and of course Fig. 23c shows that it is in this region that
the proportion of skin friction is highest--of the order of
85 per cent of the total resistance. For the present study
the distribution in terms of installed horsepower is perhaps
of most interest where it will be seen that nearly 50 per
cent of the engine power lies in this low-speed category.
By integrating this power distribution in conjunction with
the ratios given in Fig. 23c it has been estimated that for
this sample of ships delivered over the past three years no
Proc Instn Mech Engrs
Downloaded from pme.sagepub.com at City University Library on December 18, 2015
1005
0 -INDICATES SERVICE SPEED
65000 tons DWT TANKER
tons DWT TANKER
,
10
I I I I I I I
less than 80 per cent of the installed power is expended in
overcoming frictional resistance. Moreover, this applies to
ships in the clean condition. If some allowance is made for
the appreciable deterioration which can set in, a figure of
85 per cent would seem to be much nearer the mark.
A further comment regarding the comparison of resist-
ance curves given in Fig. 22: it will be seen that for the
cargo carriers the service speed corresponds roughly to
where the resistance curve begins to rise as the bow wave-
making begins to develop. In other words, for this class of
ship the speed is only taken up to that point where wave-
making resistance is just beginning to make itself felt which
is in line with the preponderance of skin friction discussed
above. This turning point in the resistance curve depends
largely on the fullness of the form, and the speed in relation
to the length and for slow-speed cargo carriers is given
approximately by the well-known Alexander formula :
V = 21/t(l.08-Cb) . . . (17)
Estimates show that if cargo ships are driven above this
speed the cost per ton mile of cargo carried begins to rise
sharply. This means that for a given block coefficient, Cb,
the speed in knots increases with absolute size in proportion
Val 176 I962
1006 H. LACKENBY

OIL TANKERS
DRY CARGO SHIPS
ORE CARRIERS AND SPECIAL-PURPOSE SHIPS
PASSENGER SHIPS
FISHING VESSELS
TUGS

O
’ I
’ O 1

04 0 5 0.6 0.7 0.8 0.0 1.0 1.1 1-2 1.3 1 04 (M 0.6 0.7 0.8 09 1.0 1.1 1.2 1.3 I
V/fT W/r
a C

F&. 23. Distribution of number, gross tonnage and installed horsepower of ships built during the past three years with respecr to
V/\/L where V is in knots and L is length of ship in feet

to the square root of the length. This is in accordance with
Froude’s Law of Comparison and the large ship has a speed
bonus on this account. This is in addition to the slight
bonus on resistance for the large ship due to reduction of
the frictional component with increasing length discussed
earlier.
L A M I N A R FLOW O N SHIPS
For reasons mentioned earlier, model experimenters go to
great pains to eliminate laminar flow on models but the
position is rather paradoxical in that, so far as ships are
concerned, it would obviously be desirable to encourage
laminar flow, bearing in mind the considerable reductions
in resistance which would be obtained. Aircraft wings have
been designed for laminar flow up to Reynolds numbers as
high as lo8. Further, as a reaction from the prominence
given to this matter over ten years ago in connection with
the testing of ship models, Lockwood Taylor in 1950 raised
the question of the laminar flow ship (42).
The various factors conducive to laminar flow on the full
scale were considered, including favourable pressure
gradients and the particular geometry of the form which
would bring these about as well as the necessary smoothness
of hull surface. I n connection with these, it was shown that
very small tolerances were required: as regards hull form
it was shown that a deviation in the required lines amount-
ing to only 0.03 in. over a length of 10 ft might be sufficient
Proc Instn Merh Engrs
to cancel a favourable gradient and for roughness, a grain
size as little as 0.01 in. might be critical. Another significant
and unfavourable factor would be initial turbulence in the
sea itself, about which little was known. These factors taken
together did not lead to any great optimism in the ensuing
discussion of Lockwood Taylor’s paper in 1950.
Since that time, however, fresh impetus has been given to
t h s matter by the study of fish propulsion and, in particular,
the reported high performance of certain marine animals,
particularly the dolphm. There has been much controversy
and speculation about this and, to throw light on the subject,
investigations were carried out by Gawn (43) at the
Admiralty experiment tank at Haslar, which included resist-
ance tests on a dead dolphin. From these it was estimated
that at 114 knots (the speed of a school of dolphins reported
by Admiralty observers) 1.2 horsepower would be required
to propel this 7-ft long creature of 187 lb weight. This
power was of the same order, but slightly higher than bio-
logists would accept at the time having regard to the weight
of muscle in the animal, namely 74 lb.
It has since been stated by Gray (44), however, that
speeds of over 22 mile/h have been confirmed for these
animals and this cannot be explained on the assumption of
turbulent flow over a rigid body of the same shape. Gray
has suggested that the oscillating movements of the animal’s
tail accelerates the water in the boundary layer which might
well reduce or prevent turbulence. Kramer (45) (46) is also
Vol I76 I962

Downloaded from pme.sagepub.com at City University Library on December 18, 2015

 RESISTANCE OF SHIPS, WITH SPECIAL REFERENCE TO SKIN FRICTION AND HULL SURFACE CONDITION
SEAMLESS HOSE
RIGID STRUCTURE
CROSS- SEC’TION
-‘
SECTION THROUGH STUBS
Dimensions in thousandths of an inch.
Fig. 24. Kramer’s compliant surface
convinced that laminar flow is the ‘dolphin’s secret’ but,
on the basis of investigations in the United States of
America, has put forward another explanation as to how
this is brought about.
Kramer has examined dolphins and ascertained that the
entire animal is covered by a delicate outer skin about & in.
thick, the surface layer of which is continuous and pliable
but the inner layer contains numerous narrow ducts filled
with a soft spongy material. He claims that this resilient
coating damps out turbulence in the boundary layer, the
viscous materials in the ducts flowing to and fro when
pressure oscillations strike the outer skin. Supporting theory
has been adduced and the phenomenon has been referred
to as ‘boundary layer stabilization by distributed damping’.
Kramer has gone on to reproduce this behaviour artificially
by the development of compliant rubber surfaces some
details of which are shown in Fig. 24. The total thickness
of this sandwich structure is just over .k in. and the central
interstices can be !illcd with damping fluids of various
viscosities.
Resistance tests with these rubber skins were carried out
on cylindrical bodies 4 ft long by 2+ in. diameter in which
the stiffness of the rubber and the viscosity of the damping
fluid were systematically varied. The bodies were towed
behind a launch at speeds up to 35 knots and a summary of
the results is shown in Fig. 25. Curve A represents the
resistance of the rigid cylinder, and it will be seen that this
is very nearly fully turbulent. The other curves B, C and D
refer to resilient coatings, of different stiffnesses and their
resemblance to the ‘transition curves’ referred to earlier
will be apparent. I n curve C the drag was about 60 per cent
less than that of the rigid model ostensibly due to extensive
laminar flow. Of particular importance, however, is that
tests in conjunction with trip wires have shown that such
coatings are capable of damping out turbulence which has
Proc Znsrn Mech Engrs
Downloaded from pme.sagepub.com at City University Library on December 18, 2015
lOOi
Curve A refers to the rigid surface; curves B, C and D to compliant
surfaces.
Fig. 25. Results of Kramer’s resistance tests
already set in. I n other words, it is not just a question of
delaying the transition point or prolonging the extent of
laminar flow already present. Kramer claims that although
his tests only extended up to R, = 1-5x 107 it appears likely
that this technique would be effective up to the largest
practical Reynolds numbers.
Complementary work is at present in hand in Great
Britain at the Admiralty Research Laboratory, Teddington,
using skins and damping fluids similar to those used by
Kramer. Larger cylindrical bodies are being used, however,
of 7.8 in. diameter and 11 ft 6 in. long and the tests are
being carried out in a water tunnel up to Reynolds numbers
of 6x 107. Further, the state of flow in the boundary layer
is being measured directly so that there should be no doubt
about the interpretation of the results. The outcome of this
important work is eagerly awaited.
Relevant work is also being carried out by the Aero-
dynamics Division, N.P.L. using two-dimensional surfaces
in a wind tunnel. A simple elastically compliant surface
without fluid damping is being used, but it is understood
that the results so far have been inconclusive. This experi-
mental approach is based on the theoretical treatment of
Brooke Benjamin of Cambridge University (47) dealing
with the damping effect of a compliant skin on the unstable
oscillations in the laminar boundary layer which normally
set in before transition takes place. I n other words, this is
essentially a question of promoting laminar flow by delaying
transition.
It is not only possible to delay transition by these means,
Vol I76 1962
lC08
Table 3
ship Len& Speed, Installed Reduc- Power
BP, ft knots ~horse- tion in required
power resist- with
ance, laminar
I per cent flow
Atlantic passenger
liner . 950 30 160 000 80
Intermediate pas-
senger liner 740 27 82 000
65000 ton dead:
weight tanker . 775 15 22 000
10000 ton dead-
weight dry cargo
ship . 419 13) 4 660
- jection and is, in fact, a new system of transportation for
but what is more important, it is possible to damp out or
reduce turbulence once it has set in. This encourages one
to take a tantalizing look at what the saving in power would
be for a number of typical ships on the assumption that
laminar flow could be established over the hull surface. This
would mean that in Fig. 22 that part of the resistance lying
above the level of the total viscous resistance should now be
plotted above the laminar friction line. I n this connection
no roughness allowance has been made as it would be
necessary to eliminate significant roughness in order to
obtain laminar conditions.
The results in a few typical instances are shown in
Table 3. The reductions in power are quite startling but
one has to bear in mind the appalling difficulties, many of
which have been mentioned already. Not least of these
would be that of preventing the surface of the compliant
skin from deteriorating and fouling under marine con-
ditions. Nevertheless, the gains are such as to warrant very
close study.
Another method of boundary layer control which it is
understood has a similar effect and is applicable up to the
highest Reynolds numbers is known as ‘distributed
boundary-layer removal’. In this process, the boundary
layer is sucked away through the outer skin of the body and
expelled by a pump. The suction points have to be very
evenly and closely distributed, however, and it is under-
stood that porous skins have been suggested for aircraft.
The pumping power would have to be debited against any
reduction in resistance obtained but the indications are that
this pumping power would be relatively small. Whereas
this might be feasible, although difficult, for aircraft, it
seems quite impracticable for ships in view of clogging of
the pores due to suspended particles and fouling.
O T H E R METHODS OF R E D U C I N G S K I N
FRICTION
The most elegant way of effecting a drastic reduction in skin
friction would appear to be to encourage the development
of laminar flow as discussed in the previous section. From
time to time other methods have been proposed and in the
past a popular idea with inventors has been ‘air lubrication’,
that is, to eject air through holes or slots at the fore end of
Prof Instn Mech Engrs
Downloaded from pme.sagepub.com at City University Library on December 18, 2015
H. LACKENBY
a ship with the object of introducing a thin layer of air
between the water and the hull surface. Although many
experiments have been carried out using this technique,
they have not been encouraging owing to difficulty in
stabilizing the layer. It appears that after ejection the air
forms into discrete bubbles which, if anything, increase the
turbulence in the boundary layer and also the resistance.
32 000 As is well known, however, the idea of separating the hull
from the water by a layer of air has been achieved in the case
of ‘Hovercraff or ‘GEMS’ (ground effect machines),
where a cushion of air has been successfully stabilized under
these flat-bottomed craft as shown in Fig. 26. This develop-
ment goes much further, however, than the idea of air in-
use on both land and water (48). Whereas in the ‘Hover-
craft’ skin friction is drastically reduced if not eliminated,
the power to maintain the air cushion has to be set off
against this. Further, as the weight of the craft has to be
borne ultimately by the water there is a surface depression
which induces some wave-making resistance, but much less
than a freely floating ship at the same speed. The further
development of this ‘Hovercraft’ principle is awaited with
considerable interest.
Another way of eliminating skin friction (and wave-
making too for that matter !), is to lift the ship out of the
water completely and support it on hydrofoils as shown in
Fig. 27. The hydrofoils are immersed in the water and
resemble, and indeed function, in exactly the same way as
do aeroplane wings although operating in a much denser
medium. The generation of lift on the foils, however,
induces drag and there is also the skin friaion or ‘profile
drag’ of the foils themselves as well as the supporting struts.
Nevertheless, for the type of passenger craft illustrated
(about 70 ft long) the resistance at the maximum speed of
42 knots is appreciably less than for a conventional craft
for the same duty. It is claimed that, for the same power,
these craft can achieve about twice the speed of conven-
tional high-speed motor boats. There seems little prospect
of their becoming competitive as cargo carriers, however, as
the payload is only about one-third of the weight of the
craft, whereas the conventional cargo ship carries about
three times its own weight in cargo.
Hydrofoil craft are being developed largely for short-
range passenger ferry services on inland or sheltered water-
ways for which they appear to be eminently suited.
Another matter considered at one time was the possible
effect of the ‘degree of wetting’ on skin friction. It is well
known that the surfaces of solids are wetted to different
degrees by different fluids and it was considered that the
manner of transfer of momentum from the surface of a
ship or model to the surrounding water might be affected
by this with a consequent change in resistance. This brings
to mind the non-wetting properties of black lead and the
practice of ‘blackleading’ sailing boat hulls with a view to
obtaining improved performance.
This matter was investigated by Lamble (49) who carried
out resistance tests on a 5-ft long glass plate when given a
number of surface treatments including varnish and
Val 176 1962
 RESISTANCE OF SHIPS, WITH SPECIAL REFERENCE T O SKIN FRICTION AND HULL SURFACE CONDITION 1009

Fig. 26. Saunders Roe ‘Hovercraft’, SRNl, Mark 1

different types of wax. The ‘degree of wetting’ was defined
by the product of the surface tension of the water and
the cosine of the angle of contact of a droplet on the surface.
It was found that the value of this property for ‘water on
glass’ was considerably different from that for ‘water on wax’
with a varnished surface lying between the two. Lamble
Fig. 27. ‘Supratnar’ hydrofoil craft
Proc Instn Mech Engrr
inferred from his results, published in 1936, that such
differences in resistance as were measured were due merely
to changes in the critical R , at which transition from
laminar to turbulent flow took place, the transition being
earlier and the resistance higher the less the surface was
wetted. He expressed the view, however, that insufficient
evidence had been obtained to enable this to be stated with
certainty and this caution is justified bearing in mind the
‘mixed flow’ conditions on the plate and the fact that no
actual observations were taken of the extent of the laminar
flow. It would seem that this doubt needs clarifying and,
in connection with any further investigations, silicones
would now be an obvious choice as non-wetting agents.
Whereas the indications are that, apart from its effect on
transition, degree of wetting does not affect frictional
resistance or the adhesion of the fluid to the solid boundary,
one cannot help wondering whether there is not some
chemical or physical process which would break this
intimate bond. If some such means could be evolved to
introduce ‘slip’ at the hull surface, this would be a tre-
mendous break-through, and would appear to be more in
the province of the physical chemist than the naval architect
or engineer.
Yet another device which has been the subject of inven-
tion is the movable boundary. For example, if one considers
Vol 176 1962

Downloaded from pme.sagepub.com at City University Library on December 18, 2015

1010
Fig. 28. Make-up of resistance of 18 000-ton dead-
weight tanker at service speed of 14+ knots
a thin plane or ‘plank ship’ moving through the water and
if the wetted surface was arranged as some form of endless
belt such that it moved aft at the same speed as the plane
moved forward, this should effectively eliminate fluid
friction altogether as no boundary layer would develop, be
the surface rough or smooth. Apart from any losses at the
ends, the only power required would be that involved in
overcoming the mechanical friction in turning the belt. I n
a real ship, of course, the situation is somewhat different in
that the flow velocity is not uniform along the length, but
if the surface were moved aft at a mean value the skin
friction would no doubt be drastically reduced. Even with
a simplified ship form, however, the mechanical difficulties
involved in developing such an arrangement would appear
to be formidable.
CONCLUDING REMARKS A N D GENERAL
COMMENTS
This review has underlined the important role which skin
friction and viscous effects play not only in the resistance
of ships themselves, but also in the process of predicting
I’roc Imrn Afrch Engrs
Downloaded from pme.sagepub.com at City University Library on December 18, 2015
H. LACKENBY
ship resistance from tests on small-scale models. It cannot
be said that finality has been reached in either of these
aspects and reference has been made to outstanding matters
yet to be clarified and the directions in which substantial
gains might be achieved.
The salient points are conveniently summarized and
illustrated by reference to the performance of an 18 000-ton
deadweight tanker which has featured largely in the paper
and whose resistance characteristics can be regarded as
typical of the vast majority of the world’s mercantile fleet.
These are illustrated in Fig. 28 where the resistance of the
clean, new ship in calm weather is represented by 100 units.
The first column, at 164 units, represents the uncorrected
resistance of the corresponding 18-ft model when scaled
up to ship size. This illustrates the relatively higher resist-
ance of the model for its size and the considerable reduction
or ‘skin friction correction’ which has to be made in order
to predict the resistance of the clean, new ship. Also shown
in this column is the calculated ‘equivalent flat plate’
friction amounting to about 128 units and leaving 36 units
of ‘residuary resistance’ which, at the present time, is
regarded as that part of the model resistance to which the
law of comparison applies. In addition, the estimated total
viscous resistance is shown which takes into account the
effect of the 3-dimensional ship form on skin friction. This
amounts to 151 units and is considered to be the more
correct level of the viscous resistance leaving only 13 units
as ‘residuary’. The latter is regarded as a more accurate
assessment of the true wave-making resistance to which the
law of comparison strictly applies.
The second column at 100 units represents the resistance
of the clean, new ship. The levels of the residuary resistance
according to thc flat plate and 3-dimensional approaches
are also shown here and on this diagram they are the same
for model and ship. This underlines the fact that the real
proportion of viscous resistance in the total is appreciably
higher than has been generally assumed hitherto, namely,
87 per cent in this instance as compared with 64 per cent.
The third column, at 131 units, represents the average
resistance of one of these ships over the first four years in
service, the 31 per cent increase being ascribed to increased
skin friction due to deterioration of the hull surface by cor-
rosion and paint break-down. Had fouling taken place in
addition, this figure would doubtless have been higher.
The viscous resistance in this condition now amounts to
90 per cent of the total and it is noteworthy that the increase
in skin friction alone is more than twice the wave-making
resistance.
The fourth column, a t 85 units, represents what the
resistance of the ‘hydraulically smooth’ ship might be, that
is, when no hull roughness effects are included. This does
not mean that the ship has to be perfectly smooth for, as
explained above, there is good reason for believing that a
certain amount of roughness can be tolerated without being
resistance-sensitive. The scope for improvement in ship
performance by improving the surface finish of the new
ship appears, therefore, to be about 15 per cent.
The fifth column, at 15 units, represents the resistance
Vol I76 1962
 RESISTANCE O F SHIPS, WITH SPECIAL REFERENCE TO SKIN FRICTION AND HULL SURFACE CONDITION
140[
of the ‘laminar flow’ ship in which the skin friction as we
know it would be virtually eliminated.
Fig. 29 shows a similar comparison for the cross-channel
ship where remarks apply generally as before except that,
in this instance, the wave-making resistance is a larger
proportion of the total. The number of ships in this speed-
length category, however, is much smaller than that for
the tanker.
The figures for deterioration in performance during the
first few years of a ship’s life underline the economic
advantage to be gained by improved anti-corrosive and
anti-fouling measures. It is understood that the yearly fuel
bill for the tanker is of the order of E70,000 which means
that if the 31 per cent deterioration could be prevented an
annual saving in fuel of the order of ~20,000 might be
expected. It is considered quite feasible to prevent a large
proportion, if not all, of this deterioration by special
measures referred to above, the cost of which would have
to be offset against the saving in fuel. Treatments such as
grit-blasting, cathodic protection and special anti-fouling
measures are largely a matter for the shipowner to assess,
bearing in mind the other factors involved in the economics
of ship operation. Nevertheless, with a view to obtaining
information on costs and optimum procedures, B.S.R.A.
is to make an economic study of certain aspects, such as
frequency of dry docking, initial preparation and painting
of the hull, and the various measures now available for its
Proc Insrn Mech Engrs
Downloaded from pme.sagepub.com at City University Library on December 18, 2015
1011
maintenance. A number of shipowners have already agreed
to co-operate in this project.
As regards improving the surface finish of new ships, it
is apparent that the scope for improved performance here
is not so great as the advantage to be gained in preventing
deterioration of the surface. Moreover, it would not appear
to be easy to achieve a better surface finish and even more
difficult to maintain it. The possibility of rolling thin plastic
coatings on ships plates has been suggested, but, apart from
the cost of such measures, their success would also depend
on complete protection against fouling. Nevertheless, the
desirability of improving the surface finish of ships’ hulls
should be constantly borne in mind.
The achievement of the laminar flow ship or one in which
the turbulence is only partly damped would appear to be
the most difficult of all, although the reductions in resist-
ance are likely to be quite startling. Apart from the cost and
complication of compliant or porous skins, a prerequisite
would be the achievement and maintenance of an excep-
tionally smooth surface. There is little doubt, therefore that
the induction and maintenance of laminar flow on a ship
would be extremely difficult and might even be regarded
as far-fetched, but if it could be achieved, the prize would
indeed be a glittering one.
It has to be stated here that the above comments and com-
parisons refer particularly to ship performance in calm
weather, and to what extent these would apply under
rough weather conditions is rather difficult to state with
certainty at this stage. It may well be that the percentage
effects will be somewhat less when one takes into account
the allowance on power to overcome ship motions and
waves, but for most of the matters discussed there is no
reason for believing that the position would be radically
changed. Indeed, in our experience at B.S.R.A. the analysis
of service performance records shows that, on the average,
over a year or so of trading, the hull surface condition is by
far the major factor affecting performance.
General comments
So far as ships are concerned, there seems to have been a
tendency in the past to take skin friction for granted and to
concentrate the greater proportion of research on the
‘residuary’ or ‘wave-making’ component of resistance. This
applies both to experimentation on scale models and
mathematical analysis and it is interesting to note that
works on the ‘mathematical theory of ship resistance’
generally turn out to be concerned primarily with
wave-making resistance. As has been shown, however,
for the vast majority of the mercantile fleet the viscous
effects outweigh by far the gravitational or wave-
making component and recent developments suggest that
this preponderance is even greater than has been hitherto
supposed.
The balance is now being redressed to some extent by
researches referred to in the paper but the field is very
wide and the scope for improvement considerable. The
improvement and maintenance of hull surface finish is
Vol I76 1962
1012
largely a question for co-operation between the naval
architect on the one hand and the paint technologist and
corrosion engineer on the other. As for investigations into
boundary-layer control and damping, the co-operation of
the mathematician and physicist will also be required.
Reference should also be made here to possible advantages
to be gained from a study of the effects of ‘degree of wetting’
and the introduction of slip at the fluid interface which is
perhaps in the field of the physical chemist.
In the light of the above discussion it is pertinent to refer
to the order of improvements in the predicted performance
of ships arising from the routine testing of ship models. In
this connection, the Annual Report for 1960 of the National
Physical Laboratory states that improvements amounting
to between 3 and 12 per cent had been achieved in testing
ship forms for clients during that year. These would have
arisen either from a reduction of the ‘residuary’ component
of resistance or an improvement in propulsive efficiency or
both and they also refer particularly to performance in calm
water. In this respect it has to be said that a positive and
persistent improvement even of only 3 per cent would be ex-
pected to effect a valuable saving over the working life of a
ship. Nevertheless, these gains are smaller than the potential
reduction in viscous resistance discussed in this paper, as,
for example, the average saving of the order of 30 per cent
as a result of maintaining the hull surface of the clean, new
ship. Moreover, it seems reasonable to expect that the
improvements to be gained by routine tank testing must be
subject to the laws of diminishing returns as time goes on
and, for calm weather performance at least, by far the
greater potential gains lie in the field of viscous resistance.
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
The author expresses his thanks to the Council and Director
of Research of the British Shipbuilding Research Associa-
tion for permission to deliver this lecture. In connection
with the preparation of material he also gratefully acknow-
ledges the assistance of members of B.S.R.A. staff and
particularly Mr M. N. Parker, B.Eng. Thanks are also due
to the Director of the National Physical Laboratory, Ted-
dington, for permission to reproduce Figs. 11 and 13 and to
the Saunders-Roe Division of Westland Aircraft Ltd for
the photograph of the ‘ Hovercraft’ SRNl.
APPENDIX I
B O U N D A R Y LAYER R E L A T I O N S FOR P L A N E SURFACES
Turbulent boundary layers
Schlichting gives the following relation for the sensible thichess,
of the boundary layer 6, in turbulent flow ( 5 0 ) :
6
z
= 0’37Rn-l/5 . . . . . (18)
This was based on velocity distribution in the boundary layer
Proc Instn Mech Engrs
Downloaded from pme.sagepub.com at City University Library on December 18, 2015
H. LACKENBY
according to the ‘seventh power law’ as determined from experi-
ment, that is
‘=[%I
V
1’7 . . . . ,
and the corresponding resistance relationship is :
CF = 0.074Rn-1/5 . . . . (20)
I t was stated, however, that these relations only held for values of
Rn up to 107. Over t h i s limited range equation (20) agrees
closely with the Prandtl-Schlichting formulation, whieh is stated
to be valid up to R, = 109.
To embrace measurements at higher values of Rn the ‘loga-
rithmic law’ for velocity distribution was developed, which took
the form
= A loglo%’+B
V . . , (21)
u,
where v7 = v ’ T ~ ; (known as the ‘shearing velocity’) and A and
B are constants. Prandtl gave A = 5.75 and B = 550 and
equation (21) was regarded as the ‘universal velocity distribution’
applicable to pipes as well as plane surfaces. It is now acknow-
ledged that a relation of this form applies strictly for only a limited
distance out from the wall and is known as the ‘inner law’ or ‘law
of the wall’. There has been much discussion about the values of
the constants A and B and, in the light of more recent measure-
ments, Landweber (51) has suggested that for plane surfaces
A = 6 and B = 4 are more appropriate.
At Rn higher than 107, however, power law approximations
can still be used to define the whole of the sensible boundary layer
provided the index is adjusted to suit the slope of the resistance
formulation. In general, therefore, it can be said that
(22)
where p varies with Rn. If at a given value of R, it is assumed that
CF cc Rnm then it can be shown that there is a definite relationship
between p and M, namely,
For the ‘seventh power law’ p = 7 and m = l j 5 (equation (20)). -
For the Schoenherr line it can be shown that
=
-\ c,
0.279+ \
In
. a
where CF is the mean resistance coefficient at a given value of Rn.
For the Prandtl-Schlichting formulation this can be expressed
explicitly in terms of Rn, namely,
From momentum considerations it can be shown that
Substituting for m, gives
This has been evaluated for a range of R,, from 105 to 1010 using
the Schoenherr line as basis and is represented by the following
interpolation formula :
Substantially the same result would have been obtained had the
Prandtl-Schlichting or other similar plane friction formulation
been used as basis.
Formula (28) agrees closely with equation 18 up to R, about 107
after which it deviates to give somewhat greater values of S,as indeed
it should. It has been used to calculate the widths of the turbulent
boundary layers given in Table 1 for a range of ship types. These
can only be regarded as approximate, bearing in mind that the
formula applies particularly to smooth plane surfaces, but they
give some indication of the order of the boundary laycr thickness.
Vol 176 1962
 RESISTANCE OF SHIPS, WITH SPECIAL REFERENCE TO SKIN FRICTION AND HULL SURFACE CONDITION 1013

The lmrinar sublayer As mentioned earlier it will be noted that the density p varies
As mentioned earlier, even in turbulent flow there is a very thin little with temperature but the kinematic viscosity Y changes quite
laminar sublayer immediately adjacent to the wall, and measure- significantly. It is of interest to evaluate the effect of these changes
ments have shown (51)that its limiting thickness is represented by on resistance.
v-
7 ’ y = 30 . . . . . (29) If pI and vt refer to the standard temperature and p and Y to any
other temperature, then it can be shown that the change in
Substituting for ZJ we have the thickness frictional resistance SRF is given by the relation
a = 30. Y . . . . 6 R F = [“(y)“‘-l] . . . .
v\;cf’/2 RF P I

Purely laminar boundary layer where m is the index referred to in Appendix 1.

An exact mathematical solution for this was developed by Wave-making resistance R w is proportional to density so that
Blasius (6). The unique velocity distribution is shown in Fig. 4a the corresponding relation is
and v approaches the free stream speed V asymptotically with
increasing y . At v = 0.99V the thickness is given by (33)
16 =488.Rn-112 . . . . (31) From (32) and (33) it can be shown that the corresponding relation
for total resistance RT is given by
The laminar-boundary layer thicknesses given in Table 1 have
been calculated by this formula. For v = 0.999V the numerical
coefficient is 6.
where q is the ratio of skin friction to total resistance.
A P P E N D I X I1 T h e index m varies slowly with Rn and for the ship range an
PHYSICAL P R O P E R T I E S O F W A T E R AND T E M P E R A T U R E average value is about -0.127 and in the model range -0.160;
EFFECTS these refer to the Schoenherr line, but substantially the same
The following table gives standard values of density, viscosity and figures would be obtained from other modem formulations.
kinematic viscosity for fresh and salt water adopted by the 9th Using these relations the reduction in skin friction for a 10°F
-
International Towing- Tank Conference held in Paris in 1960. increase in way of the standard temperature of 59°F amounts to
2.4 per cent in the model range and 1.9 per cent in the ship range.
Fresh water Sea water T h e corresponding figures for total resistance depend of
course on the ratio q which varies with type of ship. For slow-speed
cargo ships (say q = 0.90 for the model and 0.85 for the ship) the
Temp., Iensity Vis- Kine- >ensity, Vis- Kine- figures are 2.2 and 1.7 per cent respectively.
deg. F Pt, coslty, matic Pt, COSlty, matic
b. sec2/ x 105, riscostty b. secz/ x 105, .iscosity,
ft4 lb. sec/ x 105, ft4 Ib. sec/ x 105, A P P E N D I X 111
ft2 ft2/sec ft2 ft*/sec
___ REFERENCES
32 1.9399 3.7308 1.9232 1.9947 - - (I) FROUDE,
W. 1874 Trans. Znsrn nav. Archit., Lond., vol. 15,
34 1,9400 3.5931 1.8521 1.9946 - -
36 1.9401 34629 1.7849 1.9944 - - p. 36, ‘Experiments with H.M.S. Greyhound’.
38 1.9401 3.3401 1.7216 1.9942 - - (2) FROUDE, W. 1872 Rep. Brit. Assoc. Advnr Sci.
40 1.9401 3.2239 16617 1.9940 - - (3) FROUDE,
(4) REYNOLDS,
W. 1874 Rep. Brit. Assoc. Advnt Sci.
0. 1883 Phil. Trans., Part 111, vol. 174, p. 935,
42 1.9401 3.1 137 1.6049 1.9937 3.2936 6520 ‘An Experimental Investigation of the Circumstances
44 1.9400 3.0095 1.5513 1.9934 3.1872 .5989 which determine whether the Motion of Water shall be
46 1.9399 2,9106 1.5004 1.9931 3.0865 ,5486 Direct or Sinuous, and of the Law of Resistance in
48 1.9398 2.8168 1.4521 1.9928 2.9912 .SO10 Parallel Channels’.
50 1.9396 2.7275 14062 1.9924 2.9005 1.4558 (5) PRANDTL, L. 1932 Ergebn. Aerodyn. Ver. Anst., Gottingen,
Part IV, p. 18, ‘Zur Turbulenten Stromung in Rohren
52 1.9394 26428 1.3627 1.9921 2.8142 1.4127 und Lingsplatten’.
54 1.9392 2.5621 1.3212 1.9917 2.7322 1.3718
56 1.9389 2.4851 1.2817 1.9912 2.6541 1.3329 ( 6 ) BLASIUS,H. 1908 Z. Math. Phys., vol. 56, ‘Grenzschichten
58 1.9386 24120 1.2442 1.9908 2.5799 1.2959 in Flussigkeiten mit kleiner Reibung’.
*59 1.9384 2.3769 1.2262 1.9905 2.5439 1.2780 (7) LACKENBY, H. 1937 Trans. Instn nav. Archit., Lond.,
vol. 79, p. 120, ‘Re-Analysis of William Froude’s Ex-
60 1.9383 2.3419 1.2082 1.9903 2.5088 1.2605 periments on Surface Friction and their Extension in the
62 1.9379 2.2753 1.1741 1.9898 2441 1 1.2268 Light of Recent Developments’.
64 1.9375 2.2117 1.1415 1.9893 2.3760 1.1944 (8) PRANDTL, L. and SCHLICHTING, H. 1954 Werft, Reed.,
66 1.9371 2.1508 1.1103 1.9888 2.3140 1.1635 Hufen, 15, 1 (January), p. 1, ‘Das Widerstandsgesetz
68 1.9367 2.0926 1.0805 1.9882 2.2544 1.1339
rauher Platten’.
70 1.9362 2.0367 1.0519 1.9876 2.1975 1.1056 ( 9 ) PAYNE, M. P. 1936 Trans. Znstn nav. Archit., Lond.,
72 1.9358 1.9834 1.0246 1.9870 2.1430 1.0785 vol. 78, p. 93, ‘Historical Note on the Derivation of
74 1.9352 1.9321 0.9984 1.9864 2.0905 1.0524 Froude’s Skin Friction Constants’.
76 1.9347 1.8830 0.9733 1.9858 2.0400 1.0273 (10) KEMPF, G. 1929 Trans. Instn nav. Archit., Lond., vol. 71,
78 1.9342 1.8359 0.9492 1.9851 1.9916 1.0033 p. 104, ‘New Results Obtained in Measuring Frictional
Resistance’.
80 1.9336 1.7907 0.9261 1.9844 1.9451 0.9802
1.9837 1.9002 0.9579 (XI) KEMPF,G. 1937 3 b . schiflbautech. Ges., vol. 38, p. 159,
82 1.9330 1.7472 0.9039
84 1.9324 1.7055 0,8826 1.9830 1457 1 0.9365 ‘Uber den Einfluss der Rauhigkeit auf den Widerstand
86 1.9317 16653 0.8621 1.9823 1.8154 0.9158 von Schiffen’.
(12)ALLAN,J. F. and CONN,J. F. C. 1950 Trans. Znstn nav.
Archit., Lond., vol. 92, p. 107, ‘Effects of Laminar Flow
59°F (15°C) is the standard temperature to which ship-model
results are generally corrected. on Ship Models’.
t p = w/g, where PO is the density in pounds per cubic foot and g (13) SCHOENHERR, K. E. 1932 Trans. SOC.nay. Archit., N.Y.
is the acceleration of gravity. vol. 40, p. 279, ‘Resistance of Flat Surfaces’.
Proc Instn Mech Engrs Vol 176 1962

Downloaded from pme.sagepub.com at City University Library on December 18, 2015

 H. LACKENBY
SCHULTZ-GRUNOW, F. 1940 Luftfahrtforschung, vol. 17, (32) CANHAM, H. J. S. and LYNN,W. M. 1961 Trans. Znstn nov.
No. 8, p. 239, ‘Neues Reibungswiderstandsgesetz fur Archir., Lond., March, ‘The Propulsive Performance of
glatte Platten’. a Group of Intermediate Tankers’.
KEMPF, G. and KARHAH,K. 1951 3b. Schiffbautech (33) AERTSSEN,G. 1961 Trans. roy. Znstn nav. Archit., Lond.,
Ges., vol. 45, p. 228, ‘Zur Oberflachenreibung des vol. 103, p. 181, ‘Sea Trials on Two Cross-Channel
Schiffes’. Twin-Screw Motor Ships’.
HUGHES, G. 1954 Trans. Znstn nav. Archit., Lond., vol. 96, (34) AERTSSEN,G. 1960 Trans. roy. Znstn nav. Archit., Lond.,
p. 314, ‘Frictional and Form Resistance in Turbulent vol. 102, p. 174, ‘Sea Trials on the Sandblasted
Flow and Proposed Formulation for Use in Model and Lubumbashi’.
Ship Correlation’. (35) HUDSON, J. C., STANNERS, J. F. and MILLER,A. G. B. 1959
Decisions on Skin Friction and Turbulence stimulation. Trans. Znstn nav. Archit., Lond., vol. 101, p. 185, ‘The
1957 Proc. 8th Znt. Towing Tank Conf., Madrid, Surface Preparation of Ship Plate (Outer Bottom Plating!
September, p. 324. for Painting’.
SMITH,D. W. and WALKER, J. M. 1958 Nut . adz.. Comtti. (36) NIKURADSE, J. 1933 ForschArb. Zng. Wes., No. 361,
Aero., Tech. Note No. 4231, ‘Skin Friction Measure- ‘Stromungsgesetze in rauhen Rohren’.
ments in Incompressible Flow’. (37) ALLAN,J. F. and CUTLAND, R. S. 1955-56 Trans. Znsttz
SQUIRE,H. B. and YOUNG,A. D. 1938 Aero. Res. Coun. Engrs Shipb. Scot., vol. 99, p. 9, ‘Investigation of the
Rep. Mem., No. 1838, ‘The Calculation of the Profile Resistance of an 18-ft. Plank’.
Drag of Aerofoils’. (38) TODD. F. H. 1951 Trans. SOC.nav. Archir.. N.Y.. vol. 59.
YOUNG,A. D. 1939 Rep. Memor. adv. Comm.Aero., Lond., p. 315, ‘Skin Friction Resistance and-the iffects of
No. 1874, ‘The Calculation of the Total and Slun Fric- Surface Roughness’.
tion Drags of Bodies of Revolution at Zero Incidence’. SACKS, G. M. 1958 3. Hydraul. Div., Proc. Amer. SOC.Civ.
SCHOLZ,N. 1951 3b. schiffbaurech. Ges., vol. 45, p. 244, Engrs, vol. 84, No. HY3, June, p. 1664-1, ‘Skin Friction
‘Uber eine rationelle Berechnung der Stromungswider- Experiments on Rough Walls’.
standes schlanker Korper mit beliebig rauher Ober-
ALLAN, J. F. and CUTLAND,R. S. 1955-56 Trans. N . 4 .
flache’.
Cst Znsrn Engrs Shipb., vol. 72, p. 257, ‘The Effcct of
TELFER, E. V. 1927 Trans. Znstn m u . Archit., Lond., vol. 69,
Roughness on Ship Resistance’.
p. 174, ‘Ship Resistance Similarity’.
TELFER, E. V. 1959-60 Trans. N.-E. Cst Znstn Engrs BAKER, G. S. 1952 Trans. Znsrn nav. Archir., Lond., vol. 94,
Shipb., vol. 76, p. S105, ‘The Reconciliation of Model p. 41, ‘Scale Effect on Ship and Model Resistance and
Data, Measured Mile Results and Service Performance its Estimation’.
of Ships’. LOCKWOOD TAYLOR, J. 1951 Tram. Imtn nav. Archit.,
LAP,A. J. W. and TROOST, L. 1953 Bull. SOC.nav. Archir., Lond., vol. 93, p. 87, ‘Hull Design for Laminar Flow’.
N.Y.,No. 2, June, ‘Friction Drag of Ship Forms’. GAWN,R. W. L. 1950 Trans. Znstn nav. Archit., Land.,
CONN,J. F. C., LACKENBY, H. and WALKER, W. P. 1953 vol. 92, p. 323, ‘Fish Propulsion in Relation to Ship
Trans. Instn nav. Archit., Lond., 95, p. 350, ‘B.S.R.A. Design’.
Resistance Experiments on the Lucy Ashton. Part I1 GRAY,J. 1957 Sci. Amer., August, p. 48, ‘How Fishes
The Ship Model Correlation for the Naked Hull Con- Swim’.
dition’. KRAMER, M. 0. 1960 3. Amer. SOC.nav. Engrs, 72, No. 1,
HUGHES, G. 1961 Trans. Roy. Znstn nav. Archit., Lond., February, p. 25, ‘Boundary Layer Stabilization by
March, ‘Tank Boundary Effects on Model Resistance’. Distributed Damping’.
TELFER, E. V. 1959-60 Contribution to the Discussion of KRAMER,M. 0. 1961 3. Amer. SOC.nau. Engrs, vol. 73,
paper by Shepheard, V. G.: Trans. N.-E. Cst Znstn No. 1, February, p. 103, ‘The Dolphin’s Secret’.
Engrs Shipb., vol. 76, p. SD3, ‘The Prediction of Ship BROOKE BENJAMIN, T. 1960 3. Fl. Mech., vol. 9, part 4,
Performance from Model Tests: The Nature of the p. 513, ‘Effects of a Flexible Boundary on Hydrodynamic
Problem’. Stability’.
KEMPF,G. 1927 3b. Schiffbautech. Ges., vol. 28, p. 162, CREWE, P. R. and EGGINGTON, W. J. 1960 Trans. roy. Znstn
‘Neuere Erfahrungen im Schiff bau-Versuchswesen’. nav. Archit., Lond., vol. 102, p. 315, ‘The Hovercraft-
LAP,A. J. W. and VAN MANEN,J. D. 1961 Trans. Roy. A New Concept in Maritime Transport’.
Znstn nav. Archit., Lond., March, ‘Scale Effect Expcri- LAMBLE,J. H. 1936 Trans. Znstri nav. Archit., Lond.,
ments on Victorv Shim and Models (Parts I11 and IVY. vol. 78, p. 125, ‘On the Effects of Changes in “Degree
(30) SMITH, S. L. 1955 Trans. Znsrn nav. Archit., Lond., of Wetting” and “Degree of Turbulence” on Skin
vol. 97, p. 525, ‘B.S.R.A. Resistance Experiments on Frictional Resistance and Wake of Models’.
the Lucy Ashton. Part IV. Miscellaneous Investigations (50) SCHLICHTING, H. 1955 ‘Boundary Layer Theory’, pp. 35,
and General Appraisal. 432,433 (Pergamon Press, London).
(31) CLEMENTS, R. E. 1959 Trans. Znstn nav. Archit., Lond., (51) LANDWEBER, L. 1953 Trans. SOC.nav. Archir., N . Y., vol. 61,
vol. 101, p. 373, ‘An Analysis of Ship-Model Correlation p. 5, ‘The Frictional Resistance of Flat Plates in Zero
Data Using the 1957 I.T.T.C. Line’. Pressure Gradients’.

Proc Insrir hlech Engrs Vol I76 1962

Downloaded from pme.sagepub.com at City University Library on December 18, 2015