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

net/publication/288482859

A study on the characteristics of self-propulsion factors of planing craft with

outboard engine

Article · January 2012

CITATIONS READS

0 252

3 authors, including:

Toru Katayama
Osaka Prefecture University
103 PUBLICATIONS   290 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE

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

High Speed Craft View project

Parametric Rolling View project

All content following this page was uploaded by Toru Katayama on 16 May 2017.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

 Study on the Characteristics of Self-propulsion Factors of Planing
Craft with Outboard Engine

Toru Katayama (M), Graduate School of Engineering, Osaka Prefecture University, Osaka, Japan
Yoshitaka Nishihara (V), Graduate School of Engineering, Osaka Prefecture University, Osaka, Japan
Takuya Sato (V), Suzuki Motor Corporation, Shizuoka, Japan
The purpose of this study is to develop a method to estimate propulsive performance for planing craft with outboard
engines. In order to understand the characteristics of this form of propulsion, a fully captive model test system with
propulsion was developed and tested. The effects of the changes in hydrodynamic forces and moments acting on the
hull due to the interaction with the lower-hull of the outboard engine and its propeller, as well as the effective wake
fraction and the relative rotative efficiency, are presented. Based on the experimental results, an estimation method
is proposed. By using the proposed method, running attitude (or trim and rise), thrust (or THP; Thrust Horse
Power), crank shaft torque (or BHP; Braking Horse Power), maximum forward speed and fuel consumption of a real
craft are estimated. It was found that the effective wake fraction and the relative rotative efficiency have significant
impact on the estimate of maximum forward speed of the craft.

INTRODUCTION
Reduction of environmental impact of small craft is as important
as it is for conventional vessels. So, it is important to consider
various improvements for reduction of fuel consumption as one
of ways. It is well known (e.g. Hadler, 1986) that the fuel
consumption of a vessel is composed of the interactions of the
hull, propulsion and engine. In order to improve the fuel
consumption, it is necessary to consider their characteristics.
However, in the case of small craft with outboard engine, its
hull and outboard engine are developed by individual companies,
usually. Therefore, the fuel consumption of the craft may not be
optimized. In order to estimate the fuel consumption, a
propulsive performance estimation method for planing craft
with outboard engine has been proposed by Katayama et al.,
(2007) based on the running attitude & resistance simulation of
planing craft (Yokomizo et al., 1992) (Ikeda et al., 1995).
However, in the optimization of fuel consumption, the method
does not consider the effects of propeller action, which is well
known as the self-propulsion factors for conventional vessels,
enough under the assumption that its effects are negligible.
The purpose of this study is to develop a method to estimate
propulsive performance for planing craft with outboard engines,
which includes the effects of propeller action. In order to
understand the characteristics of the effects, a fully captive
model test system was developed and tested. The changes in
hydrodynamic forces and moments acting on the hull due to the
interaction with the lower-hull of the outboard engine and its
propeller, as well as the effective wake fraction and the relative
rotative efficiency, are presented. Based on the experimental
results, an improved estimation method is proposed. By using
the proposed method, the propulsive performance of a real craft,
which includes running attitude (or trim and rise), thrust (or
THP), crank shaft torque (or BHP), maximum forward speed
and fuel consumption, is estimated. Moreover, the estimated
results are compared with that of the previous method
(Katayama et al., 2007), and the effects of propeller action on
the estimation is shown.
EXPERIMENTAL FACILITY
Figure 1 shows the principal particulars and the body plan of a
hull model. This craft is a small fishing boat with an
approximately 90 PS/5800 rpm outboard engine. Figure 2
shows a coordinate system for the lower-hull model which is
attached to the hull model. Its angle (tilt angle:  [deg]) and
height (rigging height: r [mm]) can be adjusted. The standard
attached position of the lower-hull model (=0and r=0) is also
shown in this figure. Figure 3 shows a schematic view of a
propeller model. Figure 4 shows a POT (Propeller Open water
Test) device. The propeller model is rotated by a servo motor.
This device is attached to a load cell to measure thrust, and its
angular height can be changed to measure the effects of inclined
flow caused by running trim angle of hull and tilt angle of
outboard engine.

133
 Length between perpendiculars : Lpp [m] 0.95
Breadth : B [m] 0.46
Deadrise angle at transom 12
scale 1:5

[m]

0.2
s.s.9.0 s.s.5.4
s.s.4.5
s.s.8.1

0.1 Figure 4: Picture of the POT device.

s.s.7.2
W.L.
s.s.0 s.s.6.3 In order to measure the self-propulsion factors for conventional
s.s.4.5
0.068[m] vessel by model test, Skin Friction Correction Force (or Tow
Force) should be considered to account for the correction of
–0.2 0 0.2 [m]
viscous effects between model- and real- scale. On the other
Figure 1: Principal particulars and body plan of the hull model hand, in the case of planing craft, running attitude of model is
(Model-A). also different from that of real-scale craft because of the scale
effects on hydrodynamic forces and moment (drag, lift and trim
Rigging height :r moment) (Hayashita et al., 2002).
Center of rotation (up)
Then, in order to investigate the effects of propeller action for
Hull model planing craft, the fully captive model test with propulsion,
Lower hull model
whose schematic view is shown in Figure 5, was developed. In
(down) the figure, the hull with lower-hull and the POT device are
captured by load cells, respectively. Load Cell 1 measures
Tilt angle
: +
132 mm hydrodynamic forces and moment (drag: Fx, lift: Fz and trim
moment: My) acting on the hull and the lower-hull. Load Cell 2
measures hydrodynamic forces (thrust: FT) acting on the POT
device. However the measured values include the drag acting
Anti- B.L. on the POT device (its shaft, strut etc). Thrust is finally
ventilation plate
37 mm obtained by removing the measured force by Load Cell 2 in the
same measurement without propeller blades. Load Cell 3,
Boss length :Lboss which is set between the hull and the lower-hull, measures
hydrodynamic forces (tangential force to bottom of hull: FKT_l.h.,
Figure 2: Coordinate system of the lower-hull model attaching and normal force to bottom of hull: FKN_l.h.) acting on the lower-
to the hull model. hull. The propeller revolution (nP) and motor torque are
obtained from output of the servo motor amplifier, which
controls propeller action, and the propeller torque (QP) is
calculated by the subtraction of the mechanical transfer loss of
the POT device from the motor torque.

In this system, the measurement is carried out for some towing

speeds (or Fn  V gL pp , V: forward speed, g: acceleration of
0.035[m]

0.035[m]
gravity, Lpp: length of perpendiculars). For each towing speed,
fixed attitude of the model and propeller revolutions are
systematically changed around the self-propulsion point of the
Figure 3: Schematic view of the propeller model.
real craft. Finally, by using the measured data, the running
attitude and thrust at self-propulsion point of real craft are
calculated by a computer simulation, and the self-propulsion
factors are also calculated.

134 Study on the Characteristics of Self-Propulsion Factors of Planing Craft with Outboard Engine
 High Speed Carriage for turbulence flow,  is mass density of water, SS is the wetted
surface area at running condition, V is forward speed (towing
Load Cell 1 speed of model or forward speed of real craft), RnKL is Reynolds
Load Cell 2
(6-component)
(3-component)
number, LK is the wetted keel length, and  is kinematic
Fz (+) viscosity.
Fx (+) My (+)
FKN_l.h.
POT device
FKT_l.h. (+) Hull SECLH is obtained from the following equation,
Torque : QP
(+)
Load Cell 3
SECLH  0.5CD M  CD S M SMVM
Revolution : nP 2
Lower hull (2-component) Rise : H (+)
of O.E. (3)
Trim Angle
FT (+) ：
where CD is the drag coefficient of lower-hull, S is the frontal
projected area under water line of lower hull. In this equation,
Figure 5: Schematic view of the fully captive model test with the drag coefficients of lower-hull on model scale and real scale
propulsion. are obtained from Equation 4 with measured drag forces FxLH by
towing tank tests. The measured drag coefficients are shown in
Figure 6 shows how the fixed attitudes (rise H [mm] and trim Figure 7.
angle [deg]) in the fully captive model test with propulsion are
decided in this study. The fixed attitudes are set systematically Fx LH
around the simulated running attitude of the real craft by the CD 
0.5SV 2 (4)
running attitude & resistance simulation (Katayama, et al. 2007),
which does not consider the self-propulsion factors. It is
assumed that the difference between this simulated running Lboss V
Rn LH 
attitude and the running attitude at the self-propulsion point is  (5)
not so large even if propeller action affects its running attitude.
Rise [mm]
The propeller revolutions are set around the self-propulsion
40
point at fixed attitude. The required thrust at the self-propulsion
point at fixed attitude is expressed by the following equation, 30

FT cos   Fx cos   Fz sin  SFChull  SECLH cos   (1) 20 Fn=1.6 Fn=2.3

estimated running attitude ：
10
where SFChull is Skin Friction Correction acting on hull and condition of model test ：
SECLH is Scale Effects Correction of drag force acting on lower- 0
hull. For planing craft with outboard engine, the scale effects on 1.0 2.0 3.0 4.0 5.0 6.0 Trim [deg]
drag acting on its lower-hull are significant, because its lower- Figure 6: Fixed attitudes (rise and trim angle) at the fully
hull model is very small and its Reynolds number, which is captive model test with propulsion.
expressed by Equation 5 with the characteristic length of the
boss length of lower-hull Lboss, is lower than 5.0×105. CD
: 1/5 scale model test
SFChull is obtained from Equation 2 based on the concept of 0.4 : full scale model test
equivalent flat plate area (Katayama, et al. 2002),
0.3

SFChull  0.5 C f M  C f S M SS MVM  2

(2)
0.2
0.1
0.074 1700
Cf M   0
5.0 10  1.0 10 
0.2
RnKL M RnKL M 5.0 6.0 RnL.H.
5
 RnKLM 7 10 10
Figure 7: Measured drag coefficients CD of lower-hull of
0.463 outboard engine in model scale and real scale.
Cf S 
log10 RnKL S 2.6 1.0 10 7
 RnKL S  It should be noted that, in this paper, “the self-propulsion point”
and “the self-propulsion point at fixed attitude” are used. The
self-propulsion point means the condition where a craft is
LKV
RnKL  running at constant forward speed by its own propulsion as
 known in the naval architecture. On the other hand, the self-
propulsion point at fixed attitude means the equilibrium
where subscript M denotes a value on model scale and subscript condition of only thrust and resistance after considering the
S denotes a value on real scale, Cf is the frictional resistance correction of hydrodynamic forces caused by viscous scale
coefficient of flat plate, CfM is a frictional resistance coefficient effects, for each fixed attitude in the fully captive model test
for transition flow and CfS is a frictional resistance coefficient with propulsion.

Study on the Characteristics of Self-Propulsion Factors of Planing Craft with Outboard Engine 135
 [ Running Attitude ] EFFECTS OF PROPELLER ACTION BEHIND
:  =4.0 H=24.4 :  =4.0 H=34.4 :  =5.0 H=23.8 :  =5.0 H=33.8 HULL
:  =3.0 H=32.0 :  =3.0 H=40.0 :  =4.0 H=31.4 :  =4.0 H=39.4

Change of Hydrodynamic Forces acting on the

0.6 Fn = 1.6 Fn = 2.3 0.6 Hull and the Lower-Hull of Outboard Engine
Figure 8 shows the changes of Fx, Fz and My caused by propeller
0.4 action. These values are calculated by the subtraction of the
dFx [kgf]

0.4
measured forces by the fully captive model test without
0.2 0.2 propulsion at the same running attitude as the fully captive
model test with propulsion. In this figure, when the thrust
0 0
0 increases, the drag and the trim moment increase while the lift
0 decreases. And these values are also affected by changes of
–0.2 fixed attitude and towing speed. However, their changes for
–0.2
dFz [kgf]

thrust are linear and their gradients are similar for any towing
–0.4 –0.4 speed and fixed attitude.

–0.6 –0.6 Figure 9 shows the ratio of changes of Fx, Fz and My to the
measured results by the fully captive model test without
0.06 propulsion. In this figure, the same marks as in Figure 8 are
0.06
dMy [kgfm]

used. This figure shows that propeller action changes by about

0.04 0.04 10% not only the drag but also the lift and trim moment.
0.02 0.02 Therefore, it is supposed that these changes affect simulation of
running attitude. The effects are confirmed in the next and final
0 0 chapters.
1.0 2.0 3.0 1.5 2.5 3.5
T [kgf] T [kgf] Table 1 shows the components of hydrodynamic forces acting
on hull and lower-hull and how to obtain them. Figure 10
Figure 8: Measured changes of hydrodynamic forces acting on
shows changes of these components. This figure shows that the
the hull and the lower-hull for various running attitudes around
change of Hull component is not significant. On the other hand,
model self-propulsion points.
the changes of L.H. and Interaction with Hull components in the
drag and lift are about 40% of the total changes respectively,
and other changes are caused by the interaction between hull
Fn = 1.6 Fn = 2.3 and lower-hull. According to the results, these changes by
0.3
propeller action occur mainly about the hydrodynamic
interaction between the hull and the lower-hull. Therefore, in
|dFx / Fx0|

0.2 0.2
order to measure the effects of propeller action properly, hull
0.1 0.1 model should include lower-hull as a part of it.

0 0 Table 1: Components of hydrodynamic forces acting on hull

and lower-hull.
0.6 0.6
|dFz / Fz0|

Component Set-up Device

0.4 0.4 Hull + L.H. +
All Load Cell 1
0.2 0.2 POT device
0 0 Hull +
1) Hull Load Cell 1
POT device
0.5 0.5
|dMy / My0|

0.4 0.4 2) L.H. Hull + L.H. +

0.3 0.3 Load Cell 3
3) Interaction with Hull POT device
0.2 0.2
0.1 0.1 which is obtained to deduct 1), 2)
0 0 4) Interaction with L.H.
and 3) from all component
1.0 2.0 3.0 1.5 2.5 3.5
T [kgf] T [kgf]
Figure 9: Ratios of dFx, dFz and dMy to Fx0, Fz0 and My0 which
are hydrodynamic forces acting on the hull and the lower-hull
obtained by fully captive model tests without propulsion (marks
are the same as in Figure 8).

136 Study on the Characteristics of Self-Propulsion Factors of Planing Craft with Outboard Engine
 model test with propulsion. Then, the Reynolds number of
[ Running atittude : Fn=1.6  =5.0 H=24 ] propeller based on chord length at 0.7R is calculated by the
: Hull with L.H. : Hull component following equation,
: L.H. + Interaction with Hull component

C0.7 R VM  0.7 nM DM 
2 2

Rn 
 (8)

and its value is Rn=2.7 to 3.2×105 at Fn=1.6 and Rn=3.8 to

4.0×105 at Fn=2.3, in this study. Figure 11 shows that the
effective wake fraction and the relative rotative efficiency are
affected by fixed attitude, and these values vary linearly with the
thrust. The effective wake fractional coefficient is smaller than
that of a conventional vessel (e.g. Oogusi, 1963) and the relative
rotative efficiency is almost of the same order as that of a
conventional vessel.

[ Running Attitude ]
:  =4.0 H=24.4 :  =4.0 H=34.4 :  =5.0 H=23.8 :  =5.0 H=33.8
:  =3.0 H=32.0 :  =3.0 H=40.0 :  =4.0 H=31.4 :  =4.0 H=39.4

Fn = 1.6 Fn = 2.3

0.98 0.98
0.96 0.96

1–wT
0.94 0.94
Figure 10: Comparisons of hull, lower-hull and interaction 0.92 0.92
components of the changes of hydrodynamic forces acting on 0.9 0.9
hull & lower-hull.
0.98 0.98
Therefore, the fully captive model test with propulsion should
0.96 0.96
be carried out by using hull with lower-hull model. Fx, Fz and
R

0.94 0.94
My should be measured at systemically changed trim angle and
0.92 0.92
rise around the simulated running attitude of real scaled craft
0.9 0.9
(Katayama, et al. 2007). Moreover the measurement should be
carried out for at least two propeller revolutions, one above and
one below the self-propulsion point at fixed attitude of the fully 1.0 2.0 3.0 1.5 2.5 3.5
T [kgf] T [kgf]
captive model test with propulsion.
Figure 11: Measured effective wake fraction and relative
Propeller Performance behind Hull and Lower- rotative efficiency for various fixed attitudes.
Hull Propeller performance behind hull and lower-hull may be
Figure 11 shows the effective wake fraction and the relative affected by their wake and inclined inflow caused by running
rotative efficiency around the self-propulsion point at fixed trim angle. These effects are investigated.
attitude. Using the thrust identity method, they are obtained
from the following equations, First, the POT with angle of inclination ( ), whose schematic
view is shown in Figure 12, is carried out. Figure 13 shows
propeller performance at the inclined shaft condition. The
J T M n M DM advance coefficient along the x-axis is obtained from the
1  wTM  following equation by using shaft directional velocity VM.
VM
(6)
VM cos
K qT M J
R  nM DM
(9)
KqM
(7)
This figure shows that the results at   4o are almost same as
where JT is the advance coefficient obtained from the results of the results at   0o . However, at   10o and 14o , the thrust
the POT by using the thrust coefficient measured by the fully and torque coefficients increase with the increase of shaft
captive model test with propulsion, D is the diameter of inclination. For the real craft, at the forward speed, its running
propeller, n is the propeller revolutions, KqT is the torque trim angle is about 4 degrees. This means that, in the case of tilt
coefficient obtained from the results of the POT by using the JT, angle   0 , the effect of inclined flow is very small.
and Kq is the torque coefficient measured by the fully captive

Study on the Characteristics of Self-Propulsion Factors of Planing Craft with Outboard Engine 137
Second, in order to investigate the effect of wake, the fully
captive model test with propulsion is carried out using hull
model with and without lower-hull model. Figure 14 shows the
measured effective wake fraction and relative rotative efficiency.
This figure shows that the results of hull without lower-hull are
almost 1.0. In other words, the effect of the wake is mainly
caused by the lower-hull.

High speed carriage

Load Cell
Forward speed: V

POT device
Depth
of propeller
: d =0.8D

Angle of the inclination

Figure 14: Comparison of propeller open characteristics and
of the propeller shaft: + propeller performance behind the hull with and without the
lower-hull.
Figure 12: Schematic view of propeller open water test in dFx [kgf]
inclined flow. 0.5
0.4
0.3 ：H = 31.4 [mm]
0.2
0.1 ：H = 39.4 [mm]

0 1.0 2.0 3.0 4.0  [deg]

dFz [kgf]
0
–0.1
–0.2
–0.3
–0.4
–0.5
0 1.0 2.0 3.0 4.0  [deg]
dMy [kgfm]
0.10
0.08
0.06
0.04
0.02
0 1.0 2.0 3.0 4.0  [deg]
1–wTM
1
0.98
0.96
0.94
0.92
0 1.0 2.0 3.0 4.0  [deg]
R
1
0.98
0.96
0.94
0.92
Figure 13: Result of propeller open water tests with various 0 1.0 2.0 3.0 4.0  [deg]
inclinations of the propeller shaft.
Figure 15: Measured self-propulsion factors for various fixed
attitudes at Fn = 2.3.
Thus, the recommendation of how to carry out the measurement
of the effective wake fraction and the relative rotative efficiency
using the fully captive model test with propulsion follows. The
measurement should be carried out at systematically varied trim
angles and rises around the simulated running attitude of the real
craft (Katayama, et al. 2007). The measurement should be
carried out for at least two propeller revolutions, one above and
one below the self-propulsion point at fixed attitude of the fully
captive model test with propulsion.

138 Study on the Characteristics of Self-Propulsion Factors of Planing Craft with Outboard Engine
Self-propulsion Factors at the Self-propulsion [ Running attitude : Fn=2.3  =4.0 d=25 ]
Point at Fixed Attitude : Model−A : Model−B

The self-propulsion factors at the self-propulsion point at fixed dFx [kgf] | dFx / F x0|
0.3 0.3
attitude are calculated by the linear interpolation of the results of
Figure 8 and Figure 11. Figure 15 shows that the self- 0.2 0.2
propulsion factors are affected by the fixed attitudes.
0.1 0.1
Effects of Hull Form on Self-propulsion Factors 0 0
In order to investigate the effect of hull form on self-propulsion 0
dFz [kgf] | dFz / F z0|
factors, the fully captive model test with and without propulsion 0.3
are carried out for another hull model ( Model-B) shown in −0.2
0.2
Figure 16. In this test, the fixed attitude of Model-B is set as the
same trim angle and transom draft (that is the depth of the −0.4 0.1
intersection point of bottom and transom) as that of Model-A
shown in Figure 1. Moreover, the same lower-hull model is −0.6 0
used at the same setting as Model-A. dMy [kgfm] | dMy / M y0|
0.08 0.3
Figure 17 shows the comparison of the changes of 0.06 0.2
hydrodynamic forces of Model-A and Model-B at Fn=2.3. 0.04
Following this figure, the changes are affected by hull form. 0.02
0.1

0
Figure 18 shows the comparisons of the effective wake fraction
and relative rotative efficiency of Model-A and Model-B. This 1.5 2.0 2.5 3.0 1.5 2.0 2.5 3.0
T [kgf] T [kgf]
figure shows that these factors are slightly affected by hull form. Figure 17: Comparison of the results of Model-A (Figure 8) and
Length between perpendiculars : Lpp [m] 0.60 Model-B at fixed attitude =4deg and H=39.4mm.

Deadrise angle at transom [deg] 22

1−wTM
1
[m] 0.98 ：model−A
0.96
0.94 ：model−B
0.2 0.92
0 0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0 2.5 3.0 T [kgf]
R
s.s.0 s.s.10 1
s.s.5 0.98
0.1 0.96
0.94
0.92
0 0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0 2.5 3.0 T [kgf]
–0.2 0 0.2 [m] Figure 18: Comparison of the results of Model-A (Figure 8) and
Figure 16: Principal particulars and body plan of the hull model Model-B at fixed attitude =4deg and H=39.4mm.
(Model-B). EFFECTS OF SELF-PROPULSION FACTORS ON
PROPULSIVE PERFORMANCE
Flow of Analysis
Figure 19 shows the flowchart of the propulsive performance
estimation method. In the proposed method, in order to consider
the self-propulsion factors, after the running attitude simulation
of real craft (Katayama, et al. 2007), the fully captive model test
with propulsion is carried out. The running attitude and the
thrust are re-simulated using the measured data under propeller
action. Propeller revolutions and its torque are calculated taking
into account the self-propulsion factors. Finally, the maximum
speed and the respective fuel consumption are obtained on the
basis of engine performance data.

Study on the Characteristics of Self-Propulsion Factors of Planing Craft with Outboard Engine 139
 (Previous Estimation Method) hull drag component is corrected using Figure 7 and Equation 3.
Fully Captive Model Test On the other hand, dFx, dFz and dMG are corrected according to
of Hull with L.H. Froude’s similarity law, because these values are measured at
Database of
the self-propulsion point at fixed attitude. Using the
Hydrodynamic Forces hydrodynamic forces with scale effects correction, running
(Fx, Fz, My)
attitude and thrust are obtained from balance Equations 9, 10
Simulation of Running
and 11.
Attitude and Resistance

(Katayama, et al 2007)
Trim, Rise, EHP
Fx S  dFx S  TS cos    
(Proposed Estimation Method)
(9)
Fully Captive Model Test Propeller Open

(full scale ship value)
Propeller
Performance
・Propeller Revolution
・Propeller Torque
Fz S  dFz S  TS sin     FB S  W
with Propulsion Water Test
(10)
Change of Fx, Fz, My
M G S  dM G S  FT S LT S  M B S  0
Simulation of Running (11)
Attitude and Thrust

Engine
Calculation of Propeller Rate of Revolution and
1-wT ,  R
Performance Trim, Rise, THP
Propeller Torque at a Forward Speed
・Maximum Forward Speed Propeller First of all, using the calculated thrusts TS at various forward
・Fuel Consumption Performance
speeds, and running attitudes, KTS/J2 is obtained from the
・Propeller Revolution following equation,
・Propeller Torque (or DHP)

・Gear Ratio
・Transmission Efficiency
・Engine Performance
・Maximum Forward Speed
・Fuel Consumption
Figure 19: Flowchart of the previous (Katayama et al., 2007)
and the proposed estimation methods.
FZ MG
MB
FB
C.G.
LT
Fx
dFx
 W
dFz
T
Figure 20: Forces and moments acting on the hull and the
lower-hull at running condition.
Calculation of Running Attitude and Thrust
Figure 20 shows forces and moments acting on hull and lower-
hull of outboard engine at running condition. In this figure, Fx,
Fz and MG are hydrodynamic forces and moment acting on hull
and lower-hull, dFx, dFz and dMG are changes in them caused by
propeller action, FB and MB are hydrostatic force and moment,
and T and W are thrust and ship weight.
KT S TS TS
 
 S DS 1  wT S 2 VS 2
JS
2
 S DS Va S
2 2 2
(12)
where KTS is propeller thrust coefficient, D is propeller diameter
and wT is effective wake fraction. The effective wake fraction
used in Equation 12 is obtained by the linear interpolation of the
values at fixed attitudes as shown in Figures 15 or 18. The
effective wake fraction for conventional vessel has significant
scale effects. In the case of small craft, the difference of
Reynolds number between model- and real-scale is not so large.
Then, in this study, the effective wake fraction of real craft is
assumed equal to that of the model.
dMG
B.L. wT S  wT M
 (13)
Figure 21 shows KT and O-J curves obtained by the POT, and
KT/J2-J curve is also shown. In the same figure, KTS/JS2, which
is calculated by Equation 12, is also indicated. From the
intersection of KT/J2-J curve and KTS/JS2 line, an advance
coefficient JS’ is obtained and the propeller rate of revolution nS’
at the forward speed is calculated by the following equation.
VS
nS '  1  wT S 
J S ' DS
(14)
For the same JS’, a propeller efficiency O’ is also obtained from
the same figure. DHP (delivered horse power) and propeller
torque are calculated by the following equations,

In order to obtain the running attitude and the thrust of the real
THP Va S TS 1  wTS VS TS
craft, the scale effects on Fx, Fz, MG and dFx, dFz, dMG must be DHP   
taken into account. In the correction of Fx, Fz and MG, these are O ' R O ' R O ' R (15)
divided into hull frictional component, hull pressure component
and lower hull drag component (Katayama, et al. 2007). The 75
hull frictional component and the hull pressure component are QP S  DHP
2 nS '
corrected according to Reynolds similarity law and Froude’s (16)
similarity law, respectively (Katayama, et al. 2002). The lower-

140 Study on the Characteristics of Self-Propulsion Factors of Planing Craft with Outboard Engine
where QP is propeller torque and R is the relative rotative
efficiency. The relative rotative efficiency used in Equation 15
is obtained from the linear interpolation of the values depending
on fixed attitudes as shown in Figures 15 or 18.
Calculation of Fuel Consumption
In order to obtain fuel consumption, the fuel consumption
contour lines, which are obtained by an engine bench test for
outboard engine, is compared with the estimated QES curve.
They are shown in Figure 23. The intersections of the contour
lines and the QES curve indicate the fuel consumption at each
forward speed.

Figure 21: Estimated thrust coefficient by running attitude &

thrust simulation by using hydrodynamic data obtained from
fully captive model test with propulsion, and propeller open
water test results.
Figure 23: Estimated crank shaft torque, and measured torque
Calculation of Maximum Forward Speed curve and fuel consumption contour lines by engine bench test.
In order to obtain the maximum forward speed, the estimated
engine torque curve QES is compared with engine performance SAMPLE CALCULATION OF PROPULSIVE
curve of outboard engine (max engine torque QE vs. engine rate PERFORMANCE BY THE PROPOSED METHOD
of revolutions nE curve). QES and its engine rate of revolution
n’ES are calculated by the following equations, Figure 24 shows the estimated results of running attitude and
thrust. The x-axis is Froude number. The marks are the
QP S calculated results by the proposed method, and the curves are
QES  the estimated results by the previous method. This figure shows
rG  t
(17) that trim angle and rise change a little by propeller action, and
the same holds for resistance. According to the results, it can be
nES '  nS '  rG (18) safely said that the hydrodynamic forces acting on the hull and
the lower-hull are not affected significantly by the propeller
where t is the transmission efficiency and rG is the reduction action on the way to estimate the running attitude and the thrust.
gear ratio. Figure 22 shows a comparison of them. The
intersection of both curves indicates the condition of maximum Figure 25 shows the estimated results at the maximum forward
forward speed. speed. Gray marks are the calculated results by the proposed
method. Black marks are the calculated results by the previous
Q [kgfm] method. White marks are the calculated results by the proposed
method without considering the change of hydrodynamic forces
Fn = c acting on hull and lower-hull by propeller action. From the
Fn = b comparison of propeller torques indicated by the gray and black
marks, the difference of them is 6% at Fn = 2.3. Then, the
Fn = a change of maximum speed is 4%, which is 2.5 km/h in real scale.
QE QES On the other hand, from the comparison of the gray and white
( Fn : a < b < c )
marks, it is found that there is little difference between them.
The results also indicate that the change of hydrodynamic forces
acting on hull and lower-hull by propeller action is not
n [rpm] significant, in agreement with the above-mentioned result.
Figure 22: Estimated crank shaft torque and measured torque
curve by engine bench test. Thus, in order to estimate propulsive performance for planing
craft with outboard engine, the effective wake fraction and the
relative rotative efficiency should not be ignored.

Study on the Characteristics of Self-Propulsion Factors of Planing Craft with Outboard Engine 141
 Trim angle [deg] real craft is estimated. The following conclusions are obtained:
1. Propeller action causes changes of the hydrodynamic forces
10 which are drag, lift and trim moment acting on the hull and
8 the lower-hull. These hydrodynamic forces at a fixed
6 attitude of model and a towing speed are increased linearly
with the thrust. The values of their changes are different for
4
the fixed attitudes and the towing speeds.
2 2. These changes occur mainly on the hydrodynamic
0 interaction between hull and lower-hull, and they are
0 0.5 1 1.5 2 Fn affected by the hull form and the lower-hull form.
Therefore, in order to measure the changes properly, the
fully captive model test with propulsion should be carried
out by using the hull model with the lower-hull model.
3. The effective wake fraction of planing craft is smaller than
that of conventional displacement vessels, and its relative
rotative efficiency is almost of the same order. The
propeller efficiency behind the hull is affected mainly by
the lower-hull and it is affected a little by the hull.
4. The effective wake fraction and the relative rotative
efficiency are affected by the fixed attitudes and the towing
Thrust [kgf]
speeds, and their values vary almost linearly with thrust.
5. In order to obtain the self-propulsion factors from the
400 ：previous estimated result proposed propulsive performance estimation method, the
：estimated result fully captive model test with propulsion should be carried
300 included self–propulsion factors
out at systematically varied fixed attitude (trim angle and
200 rise) around the simulated running attitude of the full-scale
craft (by the method proposed by Katayama, et al. 2007).
100 The measurement should be carried out at a minimum of
two propeller revolutions, one above and one below the
0 self-propulsion point, at each fixed attitude and towing
0 0.5 1 1.5 2 Fn
speed.
Figure 24: Comparison of the simulated results for the real craft 6. From a sample estimation of the propulsive performance of
by the previous (Katayama et al., 2007) and the proposed a real craft, it is found that the change of its resistance and
estimation method. running attitude caused by propeller action is not significant
for that craft. This is due to the small changes of the
Q/QEmax running attitude, as well as to the fact that the transom draft
and the wetted surface area of the craft almost don't change.
Fn= 2.5
Fn= 2.4
On the other hand, the estimated propeller torque changes
1 engine performance
Fn= 2.3 up to 6% when its self-propulsion factors are accounted for,
0.8 while the maximum forward speed varies by 4%. This
0.6 Fn= 1.6 change corresponds to 2.5km/h.
：previous estimated result
0.4 ：estimated result included effect of wake,R
0.2 and cahange of running attitudes REFERENCES
：estimated result included effect of wake andR
0 HADLER J.B., 1966, “The Prediction of Power Performance on
0.4 0.6 0.8 n/nEmax
Planing Craft”, Transactions SNAME.
Figure 25: Comparison of the estimated maximum forward HAYASHITA S., Ikeda Y., Katayama T. and Suzuki K., 2002,
speed of the real craft by the previous (Katayama et al., 2007) “An Experimental Method to Evaluate Resistance and
and the proposed method. Attitudes of Planing Craft Using Very Small Models”,
Journal of the Society of Naval Architects of Japan, Vol.191,
CONCLUSIONS pp.1-7.
IKEDA Y., Katayama T., Yamashita Y., Otsuka K. and Maeda T.,
In this study, a method to estimate propulsive performance of 1995, “Development of an Experimental Method to Assess
the real planing craft with outboard engines is developed. To the Performance of High Speed Craft (1st Report) -
this end, a fully captive model test system with propulsion has Development of High Speed Towing System-”, Journal of
been proposed, and the self-propulsion factors of planing craft the Kansai Society of Naval Architects, Japan, No.223,
are investigated experimentally. Moreover, based on the pp.43-48.
measured results, an estimation procedure of propulsive KATAYAMA T., Hayashita S., Suzuki K. and Ikeda Y., 2002,
performance using the developed test system and a computer “Development of Resistance Test for High-speed Planing
calculation are proposed, and the propulsive performance of a Craft Using Very Small Models – Scale Effects on Drag

142 Study on the Characteristics of Self-Propulsion Factors of Planing Craft with Outboard Engine
 Forces”, Journal of the Kansai Society of Naval Architects,
Japan, No.238, pp.39-47.
KATAYAMA T., Kaneko T. and Hori Y., 2007, “Development of
Estimation Method of Running Performance for Planing
Craft with Outboard Engine”, Journal of the Japan Society of
Naval Architects and Ocean Engineers, Vol.5, pp.195-203.
OOGUSI M., 1963, “Theoretical Naval Architects (Vol.3)”,
Kaibundo.
Discussion
Donald L. Blount, Fellow
This paper is a significant addition to technology related to
propulsion of planing craft. Not only are the findings of value
as extending the knowledge of propulsion of boats by outboard
engines, but also the rational detail of the testing procedures of
the experimental program answers questions before one might
doubt the conclusions. The authors are to be congratulated for
sharing this important work.
The testing procedure of having the propulsor isolated through
measurement sensors from the hull was critical to obtain the
values of the interactive coefficients of 1 – Wt and relative
rotative efficiency as well as trim angle. Some scale effect was
noted in drag measurements related to the lower hull (often
referred to as the lower unit of an outboard engine). A
suggestion: some towing tanks testing a model hull having a
smaller appendage which results in each having different
Reynolds numbers at speed have had success in minimizing
scale effects by adhesively bonding Hama triangles near the
leading edge of the small appendage (see Hama, et al., 1956).
Offering the design approach of optimizing the interactions of
the hull and propulsion system based on thrust provides a result
of maximum craft speed; this is a much better method than often
used for displacement vessels where propellers are sized to
absorb power are a specified RPM. The method described by
the authors is similar to and consistent with that for planing
boats having propellers on inclined shafts, powered by engines
mounted inboard of the hull discussed by Blount and Fox
(1976).
In summary, this is a most useful paper for designers of
outboard powered craft as well as model test tanks offering
experimental capability for advanced craft research. This paper
may very well become a teaching reference for university
classes on topics of advanced craft; it has much broader
application than just outboard powered craft.
Well done, authors.
REFERENCES
BLOUNT, Donald L. and Fox, David L., “Small-Craft Power
Prediction,” SNAME, Marine Technology, January 1976
HAMA, F.R., Long, J.D. and Hegarty, J.C., “ On Transition from
Laminar to Turbulent Flow,” Technical Note BN-81,
AFOSR, 1956 (also in JAP 1957 and available from
NTIC as Document AD 95817)
Study on the Characteristics of Self-Propulsion Factors of Planing Craft with Outboard Engine
YOKOMIZO K. and Ikeda Y., 1992, “Simulation of Running
Attitude and Resistance of a High-Speed Craft Using
Database of Three-Component Hydrodynamic Forces”,
Journal of the Kansai Society of Naval Architects, Japan,
No.218, pp.101-110
Dr. Gregory Grigoropoulos, Fellow
The authors are to be congratulated on presenting a paper
describing the results of delicate, time-consuming and
complicated model tests. Their results will contribute to a more
realistic evaluation of the propulsion requirements of planing
craft with outboard engines.
This paper actually extends a methodology originally proposed
by Prof. Ikeda, which has been elaborated during the last two
decades at Osaka Prefecture University, to the estimation of the
propulsive performance of craft with outboard engines. The
methodology is based on the testing of small models of High-
Speed Marine Vehicles (HSMV) at high-speeds and the
compensation for the scale effects, and it provides an alternative
way of deriving experimental results using small-scale models,
without conforming to the guideline of ITTC for using models at
least 2 m in length. Furthermore, in their paper the propeller
model has a diameter of 70 mm, while model propellers of about
150 mm are considered as providing reliable results in testing
facilities.
In this respect I would like to have some comments regarding
the reliability and the uncertainty in their experimental results.
How do the measured values compare with the range of the
instrumentation? An indication of the values measured by the
forces and moments measured by the load cells would be
appreciated. Have the authors carried out repeatability tests to
ensure that the measurements are acceptably repeatable? In this
respect it is quite difficult to accept comments regarding the
trends of dFX in Figure 8 and 9.
Finally, some reasoning provided by the authors for the
selection of the hull forms of models A and B and a comparison
of their characteristics would be helpful. Did they use the same
experimental propulsion unit for model B which was quite
smaller than model A?
I would appreciate the comments of the authors on the above
aspects.
Again, I congratulate the authors on their very useful paper, and
I look forward to their future contributions on the
hydrodynamics of small planing hull forms.
Dr. Kourosh Koushan, Visitor
The authors are addressing an important issue regarding planing
crafts with an outboard engine. The study is done thoroughly
and the method for performance prediction of this type of craft
143
is well explained. I believe more discussion on following points
in the paper would be valuable:
1. The authors are using very small model size for testing.
Scale effects can be addressed more thoroughly. Due to
manufacturing tolerances, it is likely that some details of
propeller geometry, like leading and trailing edge, are not
exactly scaled. A discussion of effect of these differences in
the paper would be useful for the reader. A possible future
study could include testing with geosim models of different
scale to show the sensitivity of the results to model scale.
2. The test setup shown in figure 5 includes a propeller
dynamometer. The forces are measured by a six component
balance on top of the dynamometer. It appears that forces
measured include both propeller thrust and drag of
dynamometer gondola and strut. It is expected that water
Author’s Response
The authors would like to thank Mr. Blount for his important
comment. If a turbulent generator is used for small appendages
including lower hulls, the difference caused by Reynolds scale
effects may be decreased. In the near future, we will try to check
its effectiveness.
The paper you presented, “Small-Craft Power Prediction,”
includes significant principles for small craft design. I feel that
if our presented test method is used in model basins, more data
will be accrued and the test method can contribute to advancing
the quality of the power prediction method.
Thank you.
Thank you as well, Dr. Grigoropoulos, for your comments and
discussions.
Uncertainty in their experimental results
For measured results from using a small model, uncertainty
caused by the small value of measured force and repeatability
depending on model set-up are a significant problem.
Moreover, its uncertainty is also affected by the specification of
measurement devices. Table AR-1 below shows the capacity of
load cells and amplifier.
Table AR-1
3-components load cell
(NISSHO) LMC-3520-30S
Fx, Fz My
30kgf /1000μ 15kgf-m / 1300μ
6-components load cell
(NISSHO) LMC-6524-200N
Fx, Fy, Fz Mx, My Mz
8kgf-m 4kgf-m /
20kgf / 900μ
/900μ 1000μ
Amplifier
(KYOWA) EDX-100A with CDV-40B
measuring Range AD Conversion
500 μ 16bits
144 Study on the Characteristics of Self-Propulsion Factors of Planing Craft with Outboard Engine
surface around the strut is affected by the hull, which can
result in different drag force on the strut depending on the
vessel speed and trim. An explanation in the paper about
how propeller thrust is derived from such a measurement
would be informative.
3. Effect of hull form on self-propulsion factor is discussed.
Alternative hull form is 60 cm long whereas original hull
form was 100 cm long. The effect of different model
lengths and possible scale effects are not addressed in the
paper.
4. Figures 21 to 23 are presented without values of the axes.
The reason for the absence of the values is not given in the
paper.
In this study, in order to obtain all data, the tests were carried
out in several periods. At the start of each period, to confirm
continuity of measured data, the tests with the same conditions
were carried out and repeatability was checked.
Selection of models
In this section, two different models as a model of same scale
with the same lower hull and propeller are used, to indicate the
effects of difference of hull form on the value of self-propulsion
factors. The same experimental propulsion unit is also used for
Model B.
Thank you again, and thank you as well for the editorial
corrections.
Our thanks to Dr. Koushan for this significant discussion. I will
try to answer his questions.
1. If a small model is used, it is difficult to remove the
uncertainty of manufacturer accuracy, especially for
propellers. Unfortunately, in this study, its effects are not
understood well enough. I would like to investigate it in the
future.
2. The POT device is designed to minimize the effects of
propulsion backwash. However, the measured force by
Load Cell 2 shown in the paper includes the drag acting on
the POT device (its shaft, strut, etc.). Therefore I added to
the explanation how to obtain thrust as follows:
 “Load Cell 2 measures hydrodynamic forces
(thrust: FT) acting on the POT device. However
the measured value includes the drag acting on
POT device (its shaft, strut etc). Thrust is finally
obtained by removing the measured force by
Load Cell 2 in the same measurement without
propeller blades.”
3. In the section, two different models having the same lower
hull and propeller are used as the same scaled model, and it
Study on the Characteristics of Self-Propulsion Factors of Planing Craft with Outboard Engine
View publication stats
is indicated that the different hull form indicates a different
value of self-propulsion factors. The next section,
“EFFECTS OF SELF-PROPULSION FACTORS ON
PROPULSIVE PERFORMANCE”, shows how to treat the
scale effects of self-propulsion factors.
4. Figures 21, 22, and 23 show how to obtain some values by
using test results as an example. Therefore concrete values
are not indicated in these figures.
145