PDA

View Full Version : specifics of efficiency in motor vesels over 45'


Boston
06-07-2009, 02:01 AM
in an effort to establish design criteria for the most fuel efficient mono hull form over 45' and specifically for a 60' build
I would like to consider the possibility of bow wave cancellation appendage forms for a speed cruise range of approx 12~15 knots, 60' length, 13.5 beam, 4.5 depth, in a semi-displacement hull of aprox 42000lbs, 250 hp, bilge keels

I would reference the following two articles

one considering a classic bow bulb
a passive system

the other considering a active lifting body bow appendage originally designed to augment a foil system
but capable of a passive configuration without rest of the foil system

thing is that the lifting body system if made passive would still illicit a wave cancellation effect while offering some advantage to a typical bow bulb by also lending some lift
there is less wetted surface area but I think it would have more drag per sq/ft so the drag should be a wash in the end but the wetted surface area be reduced while canceling some portion of the bow wave

question is since I dont have a computer modeling program

if I removed the active components of the lifting body
its still a lifting body it just doesn't adjust for wave action
but its still got the hydrodynamics of a leading wave front who's trough could be engineered to cancel some portion of the primary bow wave
I think
unless Im missing something

any ideas for me



The bulbous bow, a standard feature of most large, modern ships with displacement hulls, is a protruding bulb at the bow (or front) below the waterline. The bulb modifies the way water flows around the hull, reducing drag and increasing speed, range, fuel efficiency, and stability. Ships with bulbous bows generally have 12 to 15 percent better fuel efficiency than similar vessels without them; thus, it is rare to see a large transport ship without one.

Bulbous bows have been most effective as applied to hulls of at least 45' and especially to those greater than 60'. They have been used to greatest effect on large ships with long, narrow hulls such as freighters, navy vessels and various passenger ships. They are much less common on short, wide hulls and recreational boats designed for wide speed ranges and planing. The gains of the bulbous bow generally increase as a function of speed; highest return is near the top end of semi-displacement speed range. At low speed (e.g., 6 knots), they can increase drag due to their greater wetted area.

How they work

The fluid dynamics of bulbous bows can be calculated.

Long waves are faster, so a ship that wants to go fast has to excite long waves and not short ones. In a conventionally shaped bow, a bow wave forms immediately before the bow. When a bulb is placed below the water ahead of this wave, water is forced to flow up over the bulb. If the trough formed by water flowing off of the bulb coincides with the bow wave, the two partially cancel out and reduce the vessel's wake. While inducing another wave stream saps energy from the ship, canceling out the second wave stream at the bow changes the pressure distribution along the hull, thereby reducing wave resistance. The effect that pressure distribution has on a surface is known as the form effect.

Some explanations note that water flowing over the bulb depresses the ship's bow and keeps it trimmed better. Since many of the bulbous bows are symmetrical or even angled upwards which would tend to raise the bow further, the improved trim is likely a by product of the reduced wave action as the vessel approaches hull speed, rather than direct action of waterflow over the bulb.

A sharp bow on a conventional hull form would produce waves and low drag like a bulbous bow, but waves coming from the side would strike it harder. Also, in heavy seas, water flowing around the bulb dampens pitching movements like a squiggle keel. The blunt bulbous bow also produces higher pressure in a large region in front, making the bow wave start earlier.

It is unclear when bulbous bows were conclusively first examined by western researchers, but scientific papers on the subject were first published in the 1950s. Engineers began experimenting with bulbous bows after discovering that ships fitted with a ram bow were exhibiting substantially lower drag characteristics than predicted, and eventually found that they could reduce drag by about 5%. Experimentation and refinement slowly improved the geometry of bulbous bows, but they were not widely exploited until computer modelling techniques enabled researchers at the University of British Columbia to increase their performance to a practical level in the 1980s.and this next

SUMMARY OF THE INVENTION
In accordance with an aspect of the present invention, an underwater lifting body is provided that meets these objectives. In particular a lifting body of the general type described in U.S. Pat. No. 6,263,819 is secured to the bow of a watercraft hull below the vessel's design water line for improved efficiency and motions in a seaway. Such bow attached lifting bodies are referred to herein as a Bow Lifting Body or BLB.

It has been found that a BLB applied at the bow of a ship can introduce numerous positive attributes.

A BLB provides all the positive attributes of a traditional bulbous bow. However, wave cancellation similar to a traditional bulbous bow is provided by a BLB, in an even larger speed range. Also, because of its volume, a BLB can be used for ballast or as a sonar dome, similar to traditional bulbous bows.

In the early 20 th century, D. W. Taylor developed the bulbous bow which has become a standard feature on modern ships. The battleship USS Delaware exhibited the first such bulbous bow in 1907. These bulbous protrusions are typically mounted at or slightly below the vessel's design waterline and various shapes have been developed over the years. These shapes are generally a cylindrical bulbous torpedo shape as shown in FIG. 3, conical as shown in FIG. 4, teardrop as shown in FIG. 5 or hybrid as shown in FIG. 6.

After Taylor discovered the bulbous bow and its potential to reduce a ship's drag at a specific speed, in 1935–36 Wigley performed calculations to quantify the resistance benefits of bulbous bows due to wave cancellation.

At high speeds, the reduction in wave resistance due to the interference between the wave systems of the hull and bulb, if properly located, is more than sufficient to overcome the frictional and form drag of the bulb, and the net result is a reduction in total resistance.
J D Van Manen and P Van Oossaney, Chapter 5, Volume II, Principles of Naval Architecture
As seen in FIGS. 3–6, traditional bulbous bows exhibit a shape that is symmetric about a longitudinal axis. Because of this symmetric shape, bulbous bows offer no dynamic lift at speed and increase drag and decrease efficiency over a range of speeds due to the fact that bulbous bows exhibit a certain amount of sinkage at speed. However conventional bulbous bows do have the positive attribute of wave cancellation which occurs in a specific speed range that is dependent on the length and beam of the hull as well as the length, size and location of the bulbous bow. This phenomenon is shown in FIGS. 1 and 2, FIG. 1 demonstrates the separate wave patterns 10 , 12 on the free water surface generated by a conventional hull and a schematically illustrated conventional bulbous bow structure 13 operating below the surface. The hull produces a wave peak 14 aft of bow 16 while the bulbous bow 18 creates a wave peak 20 immediately above it followed by a trough 22 . The trough 22 cancels wave peak 14 so a wave 24 of reduced height is formed. (FIG. 1) The size and placement of the bulbous bow is crucial to optimizing the ship's performance at a desired speed. However, because this increased efficiency with a bulbous bow is for one specific speed, generally cruise speed, all other speed ranges exhibit an increase in amount of drag and reduction in efficiency.

Because lifting bodies have a higher lift to drag ratio (L/D, efficiency) than that of a hull alone, most noticeably at high speeds, by adding a BLB component with a higher L/D ratio than that of the original system without such an addition, it is intuitive that the L/D ratio of the entire system increases.

In addition, a typical lifting body can lift as much as five (5) times its own displacement at speed. By adding a lifting body at the bow of a ship, this dynamic lift increases the payload capacity of the ship. A BLB with a high L/D ratio can introduce such possibilities as the option to shift the longitudinal center of gravity (LCG) toward the bow of the ship by means of adding fuel, payload, ballast tanks or similar. This shift in LCG can be desirable in certain seaways to reduce pitching motions.

Furthermore, by the introduction of an underwater body with a large platform area at the bow of a ship, the added mass in the vertical direction is increased, which significantly reduces unwanted motion.

Moreover, the motions of the ship in a seaway can be additionally reduced if the underwater body has active control surfaces which are linked to an Active Ride Control System (ARCS). A BLB offers the option of either being a passive, or active ride control device.

The above, and other objects, features and advantages of this invention will be apparent to those skilled in the art from the following detailed description of illustrative embodiments of the invention which is to be read in connection with the accompanying drawings wherein:http://www.freepatentsonline.com/7191725-0-display.jpg

mmd
06-07-2009, 03:54 AM
I thought that you wanted a wooden boat? I think that this would preclude that building bethod...

Boston
06-07-2009, 03:58 AM
just found another article on the subject and thought ild throw it in

the basic idea is that some lifting body could be adapted to mimic a bow bulb but would have less drag overall because of a lower overall wetted surface area in addition to the reduction in bow wave

given that it also has a flatter plan view it may also dampen pitch better

In the late 1980’s the University of British Columbia, utilizing the B.C. Research Ocean Engineering Center, initiated model test work on 60-foot fishing seiners. Since that time, B.C. Research (now Vizon SciTech) has become a center of bulbous bow technology, doing model test work for yacht builders and commercial yards alike as well as for designers and researchers. Results have shown that with the continuous displacement speeds that are run for days at a time, coupled with the limited change of draft, make long range motor yachts ideal for this application. Over 40 feet, the results are significant and above the 60-foot size, real gains are being achieved. This difference may be due to the stockier hull forms required in the really small ships, which possibly are not quite as compatible with the characteristics that make the bulb work so well in the longer vessels.
In the 30 plus retrofits on vessels between 40 and 90 feet that we have engineered and collected data on, all of them report a minimum ¾ knot increase in speed (or 10% drop in fuel consumption) along with a 50% reduction in pitching motion. Data collected in model test results confirms that up to 12% reduction in resistance (corresponding to fuel consumption) can be achieved at hull speed on vessels starting as small as 40 feet in length.
Pros and cons?
The benefit of a high-tech bulbous bow will reduce your fuel consumption by 12% to 14% thus giving you the equivalent greater range, or higher speed; however you choose to apply it. The greatest amount of benefit will be at the high end of the displacement-speed range, reducing as your speed decreases. At higher speeds, wave making resistance accounts for the greatest portion of the drag, and the slower you go proportionally the more of the resistance is taken up by wetted surface drag. At low speed (around 6 knots and lower) the bulb may even cause an increase in drag because of its greater wetted surface area, however at that low speed the added power consumption is negligible and generally little time is spent in this speed range so that the effect is not noticeable. In addition, you will find increased sea-keeping ability due to the 50% dampening of the pitching motion. One boat we tested could go two knots faster with the same degree of comfort as the slower speed without the bulb and this seems to be the average. When charging into head seas there is the chance of slamming the bulb on the troughs, but this is limited to a very narrow range of wave train and heading. A slight change in direction and/or speed will cure this ill effect. The increased comfort level is the biggest bonus noticed (and appreciated) by owners of all the retrofitted yachts we have done.

When anchoring off the bow stem consider installing an anchoring bowsprit to ensure the anchor falls well clear of the bulb, especially in conditions where swinging occurs, or use anchor pockets port and starboard. Overall, the pros far outweigh the cons, so enjoy those benefits.
How does it work?
Although much is known about the bulb, much of its functions are still in dispute. To say that on a hydrodynamic level the destructive interference of the primary and secondary wave trains causes an overall reduction in drag that is beneficial to the vessel’s resistance characteristics, would be true. Or on a more physical level, that the water coursing over the top of the bulb is exerting a downward pressure that is keeping the stern from squatting, thereby allowing a flatter trim, causing the vessel to run with less resistance. Still others would argue the finer points of laminar flow with no clear conclusions. In any case, it is a fact that bulbs do work and in some cases reduce resistance as much as 14%.
Their correct proportions are critical and are derived from the features and dimensions of the vessel itself. The diameter (volume) is a direct result of the hull mid-ship area. The length is determined by the stern profile and as the farther forward the bulb extends, the more leverage it has but is generally kept shorter than the bow overhang. The vertical placement is calculated so the bulb is just below the surface where it will create a wave in front of the ship thus interfering with the natural wave train of the vessel and creating a wave hollow where a crest should be. In this way the vessel will run flatter and the overall wave height will be reduced. The vessel will pitch less, which will cause less disturbance in the water and the passage of the vessel through the water will be achieved with less fuss and muss. Any time a vessel can be moved through the water with less waves and overall disturbance to the surface, less power has been transmitted to the water to create those waves. To be able to move a vessel through the water with no perceptible notice of its passage is the (as yet unattained) ultimate goal of al Naval Architects and the ultimate in power savings.

Boston
06-07-2009, 04:13 AM
just kicking ideas around
and who knows maybe a aluminum appendage could be secured to a wood build assuming it can be shown to give an appropriate trade off in fuel efficiency for the additional embodied energy and be attached sufficiently to not end up floating behind me somewhere in heavy seas

although I think I just found a flaw in applying the lifting body to the bulb scenario

in the second to last paragraph in the above article its mentioned that one theory of the bow bulb is that it actually keeps the bow down which is the opposite effect of the lifting body
hmmmmmm
seems like a contradiction in basics
the original lifting body configuration was designed to work in conjunction to a foil system lifting some percentage of the hull out of the water
I dont need that
all I want is to reduce pitch and roll while increasing hull speed and efficiency
seems like bilge keels would do the trick although a transverse water tank would also do it and without the added resistance
course I loose the ability to safely ground either accidentally or deliberately

I wonder if its possible to create the canceling wave by the induced flow over a non lifting foil like section rather than by brute force of the bow bulb
kinda like a flying wing form but without the lift
you would get that accelerated fluid over the foil surface and an accompanying wave trough behind
should give the same depth of wave for less wetted surface area
and the buoyancy could be compensated for by engineering just the right amount of lift


might be a more efficient way to get the job done eh

Peerie Maa
06-07-2009, 07:05 AM
How much can you spend on Tank Testing?
There will be published sources for optimising a bulb to suit your vessel, but you are going to have to do your own research on the BLB.
I am assuming that the vessel will be operation at "constant" displacement and trim. Much variation in draft prevents optimisation of the bulb, Lord alone knows what it would do to the BLB.

andrewe
06-07-2009, 10:44 AM
Elvstrom designed a 35(?)ft Motor sailer with a bulb in about 1980. Can't remember any comment on the results but would have thought that on a small(ish) hull the pitching would be a problem.
A

Boston
06-07-2009, 12:58 PM
reports seem to indicate that pitch is significantly reduced
in the previous posted it was reported at 50% by the university of British Columbia back in the late 80's
although Im not sure they tested anything under 45'

my guess is it's partly because of the buoyancy but also partly the additional plan view surface area forward combined with the fluid both over and under it having to be displaced at each event

my thinking is tank testing all the way
I dont feel like building anything on a guess but if the basic bulb adds ~10% to the millage and this thing could improve on that then its worth it whatever the tank tests cost
up to a point obviously
cant imagine its all that pricey

question is
hows my theory

the bulb is
well
bulbous
(bad joke but you get my drift)
and the lifting body seems to be more conducive to cutting through the water rather than plowing through it
so
combine em and see what shakes loose

Boston
06-07-2009, 04:07 PM
something else that ought to help is a prop shroud or tunnel hull although I keep hearing tunnels can cavitate badly for a variety of reasons and they seem like they offer more wetted surface area than the shroud solution does

bilge keels in place of a central keel should give me better stability with the same surface area, unless I just read a whole bunch of articles wrong and if placed at the extremes of the hull should negate some of the squatting factor prevalent monohull forms

Charles Burgess
06-29-2009, 07:50 PM
[...snipped...]

question is
hows my theory

the bulb is
well
bulbous
(bad joke but you get my drift)
and the lifting body seems to be more conducive to cutting through the water rather than plowing through it
so
combine em and see what shakes loose

The bulbous bow is for displacement hulls...the lifting body is for planing hulls... the two types do not mix at all. The lifting body is of very limited application for a cruising boat...only works in calm seas and for that reason the PHM-1 were all decommissioned and sold off by the USN.

2MeterTroll
06-29-2009, 08:35 PM
IMU the bow bulb on anything below about 90' is pretty useless, unless you stick it way out in front.

the planing bow thing you had up seems way more complex then you would want to deal with.. but it might do to look at the greek dished bows where the wedge of the bow was carried forward at water line.

maybe MMD has looked at them.

Wiley Baggins
06-29-2009, 08:45 PM
IMU ...

IMU = In My Universe? :)

2MeterTroll
06-29-2009, 09:20 PM
na i dont have a universe that Hugh's job :)

U= understanding

Charles Burgess
06-29-2009, 09:59 PM
IMU the bow bulb on anything below about 90' is pretty useless, unless you stick it way out in front.

[...snipped...]

They're used on displacement commercial fishing boats.

The shortest hull for a bulb bow? ...30ft LWL seems to be the practical limit. At that size it costs more than the worth of its advantages. At 40+ ft LWL is when you see the cost benefit go positive.

2MeterTroll
06-29-2009, 10:10 PM
never seen one on anything smaller than a 50' boat. that one talking to the skipper he seemed to think it made no diffrence.

ahh ok.

well that changes things a bit.

thanks for the info CB :)