RESISTANCE, SINKAGE AND TRIM, WAVE PROFILE, AND NOMINAL WAKE TESTS

AND UNCERTAINTY ASSESSMENT FOR DTMB MODEL 5512

Joe Longo and Fred Stern

Iowa Institute of Hydraulic Research
The University of Iowa
Iowa City, IA 52242

ABSTRACT database for CFD validation, as part of an international

Results from towing-tank experiments for David
Taylor Model Basin model 5512 are presented for
resistance, sinkage and trim, wave profile, and nominal
wake tests and uncertainty assessment. The resistance and
sinkage and trim data are for Froude numbers 0.05-0.45
and free-model condition. The wave profiles and nominal
wake data are for Froude numbers 0.28 and 0.41 and
fixed-model condition (at the dynamic sinkage and trim
for each Fr). The test design, measurement systems, and
uncertainty assessment are described. The uncertainty
assessment methodology rigorously follows the AIAA
Standard S-071-1995. The results are discussed with
regard to the data trends and uncertainties, including Fr
effects. Future work is mentioned. The data contributes
to the surface-ship resistance and propulsion model-scale
database for computational fluid dynamics validation, as
part of an international collaborative project between
Iowa Institute of Hydraulic Research, Istituto Nazionale
per Studi ed Esperienze di Architettura Navale, and David
Taylor Model Basin on experimental and computational
fluid dynamics and uncertainty assessment for a
combatant geometry.
1 Introduction
There is a continuing need for additional model-scale
data for computational fluid dynamics (CFD) code
verification, validation/calibration, and accreditation for
realization of simulation based design, especially for
modern hull forms. The task is awesome since many hull
forms, conditions, and physics are of interest and the
documentation, quality, and quantity of data must be
sufficient, as discussed recently by Stern et al. (1998) in
their evaluation of the surface-ship resistance and
propulsion model-scale database for validation of
Reynolds-averaged Navier-Stokes (RANS) codes.
However, both rapid advancements in the development of
experimental fluid dynamics (EFD) and collaboration
between institutes for test design, data procurement and
analysis, documentation, shared resources, and
determination of facility biases should be helpful.
The goal of the present study is to contribute to the
surface-ship resistance and propulsion model-scale
collaborative project between Iowa Institute of Hydraulic
Research (IIHR), Istituto Nazionale per Studi ed
Esperienze di Architettura Navale (INSEAN), and David
Taylor Model Basin (DTMB) on EFD/CFD and
uncertainty assessment for a combatant geometry. The
combatant geometry is the 5.72 m, 1/24.8 scale DTMB
model 5415 (5415). 5415 has been adopted by the
International Towing Tank Conference (ITTC) as a
recommended benchmark for CFD validation for
resistance and propulsion (ITTC, 1996) and will be used
accordingly at the upcoming Gothenburg 2000 CFD
Workshop (Gothenburg, 2000). The Gothenburg 2000
CFD Workshop will compare RANS CFD methods and
data for cargo/container, combatant, and tanker hull
forms, including many conditions and physics: boundary
layer and wake, stern flow, turbulence, Fr effects,
propeller-hull interaction, and full-scale simulations.
5415 was conceived as a preliminary design for a
surface combatant ca. 1980 with a sonar dome bow and
transom stern. The IIHR studies are for DTMB model
5512 (5512), which is a 3.048 m, 1/46.6 scale geosym of
5415 (Figure 1); the INSEAN studies (Avanzini et al,
1998; Olivieri and Penna, 1999) are for INSEAN model
2340, which is an identical geosym of 5415; and the
DTMB studies (Ratcliffe, 1995) are for 5415. Table 1
provides geometric parameters for model and full scale.
Between all three institutions many conditions and
physics are under investigation. The conditions include
bare hull without (all) and with appendages and propulsor
(DTMB), fixed and free model (all), and model size
(IIHR). The physics are comprehensive and include
model size (IIHR), facility bias (all), Re effects (all),
boundary layer and wake (INSEAN), stern flow (all), Fr
effects (all), bow flow (DTMB), transom flow (DTMB),
wave breaking (all), and waves (IIHR). Overlapping tests
for resistance, sinkage and trim, wave profile, and
nominal wake are included for cross validation, through
comparisons of data and uncertainties, and evaluations of
Re effects and facility biases. Most of the studies should
be completed by late 1999, including detailed
documentation and availability via the internet. The
quality of data is very good (i.e., the data uncertainties are
relatively small in comparison to related studies) as
measured through rigorous application of the AIAA
Standard (1995) for experimental uncertainty assessment
methodology. The quantity of data is large mapping and
dense, which is of relatively high density in comparison to
related studies, and was determined based on previous
studies and CFD. Stern et al. (1999) will provide a
project overview and the results from the comparisons of
the overlapping tests and evaluations of Re effects and
facility biases.
The present study provides the IIHR overlapping test
results for the resistance, sinkage and trim, wave profile,
and nominal wake tests and uncertainty assessment for
DTMB model 5512. The resistance and sinkage and trim
data are for Froude numbers (Fr) 0.05-0.45 and free-
model condition. The wave profiles and nominal wake
data are for Fr=0.28 and 0.41 and fixed-model condition
(at the dynamic sinkage and trim at each Fr). The test
design and measurement systems are described. The
results are discussed with regard to the data trends and
uncertainties, including Fr effects. Future work is
mentioned. The uncertainty assessment procedures and
results are provided in Appendix B.
2 Test Design
The most typical towing-tank tests were selected for
the overlapping tests, i.e., resistance, sinkage and trim,
wave profile, and nominal wake. Each institute followed
their usual procedures; however, special consideration
was given to complementary CFD, CFD validation, and
integration of uncertainty assessment into all phases of the
experimental process as recommended by the AIAA
Standard (1995). This was achieved through
collaboration between institutes, including contributions
from Professors H. Coleman, University of Alabama
Huntsville, and D. Whitfield, Mississippi State University
(MSU). It was decided to procure data for resistance and
sinkage and trim for range of Fr=0.05-0.45, whereas for
detailed wave profiles and pattern and flow field
measurements for restricted Fr=0.28 (cruise speed) and
0.41 (flank speed). The corresponding Reynolds numbers
(Re) for 5512 are Re=5.2x106 and 7.6x106, respectively.
For the former tests, the usual model-free condition is
used. For the latter tests, the model-fixed condition (at
the dynamic sinkage and trim at each Fr) is used to reduce
data uncertainties and facilitate use of the data for CFD
validation. The authors followed similar procedures in
their previous studies for the Series 60 (S60)
cargo/container hull form (Toda et al., 1992; Longo et al.,
1993; Longo and Stern, 1996b); however, the model-fixed
condition tests were at the static sinkage and trim (i.e.,
σ=τ=0.0). Complementary CFD using the MSU UNCLE
(Beddhu et al., 1998) and IIHR CFDSHIP-IOWA
(Paterson et al., 1998; Wilson et al., 1998) RANS codes
was used for planning the data locations for the detailed
measurements. Table 2 summarizes the measurement
conditions and locations.
The resistance test design and uncertainty assessment
also benefited from collaboration with the 22nd ITTC
Resistance Committee of which the second author is
chairman. The Committee’s work includes
recommendations to the 22nd ITTC for adoption of the
AIAA Standard (1995) for experimental uncertainty
assessment methodology, including a guideline for
towing-tank tests and an example application for a
towing-tank resistance test. The present resistance test is
included in the example along with contributions from
most of the Committee. Also helpful was previous work
at DTMB done in collaboration with Professors Coleman
and G. Steele (MSU), concerning measurement
uncertainty assessment of a ship-model resistance test
(Forgach, 1992).
3 Measurement Systems and Test Procedures
The tests were conducted in the IIHR towing tank,
which is 100 m long and 3.048 m wide and deep and
equipped with a drive carriage for housing the controls
and personal computer (PC) and three trailers (1 north and
2 south) for installation of instrumentation and models.
The north trailer is used for the present experiments. The
carriage and trailer are cable driven by a 15-horsepower
motor and move across leveled rails. The carriage/trailer
is capable of speeds up to 3 m/s. Side-wall beaches
enable twelve-minute intervals between carriage runs.
A Cartesian coordinate system is used with origin at
the intersection of the forward perpendicular (FP) and
design waterplane. The (x, y, z) axes are directed
downstream, transverse, and upward, respectively.
Figure 2 provides a block diagram of the tests
indicating the individual measurement systems, data-
reduction equations and results, and propagation of errors.
Model Geometry. 5512 was manufactured at
DTMB using molded fiber-reinforced Plexiglas and
equipped with appendages (brass shafts and struts and
wooden rudders) and stainless-steel twin-screw
propellers, although the present tests are for the bare-hull
condition. Some modifications were made to 5512 at
IIHR: (1) the appendages were removed and the holes
filled; (2) adjustments were made to minimize differences
from the design offsets, including straightening and
reforming (for centerplane symmetry) the sonar dome; (3)
hard points were added for attachment to the trailer and
instrumentation; (4) aluminum deck rigging was added
for strengthening; (5) the hull was repainted using three
colors and clear coat for resistance to long-term water-
immersion; (6) a painted grid (calm waterline and 37 x-
station lines) was added for ballasting and measuring the
wave profile; and (7) studs were attached to initiate
transition to turbulent flow. The studs are cylindrical with
1.6 mm height, 3.2 mm diameter, and 10.0 mm spacing
and located at x=0.05. The size and spacing of the studs
follows Toda et al. (1992).
The purpose of the model geometry test is to procure
data for the (x, y, z) coordinates and surface area S for the
as-tested 5512 (normalized by L and L2, respectively,
where L is the design-offsets length between
perpendiculars). The measurement system consists of
templates, level table, right angle, plumb, and rulers and
feeler gauges. The templates were cut using a
computerized-numerical-cutting (CNC) machine from
0.318 cm thick aluminum sheets according to the design
offsets. Thirty-one templates were made for various (y, z)
cross planes from the bow to the stern, whereas one
template was made for the bow region (x, z) center plane.
The procedure for procuring (x, y, z) and S is as
follows. The model was inverted and mounted on the
level table. At each x measured from the FP, the
templates were oriented relative to the model using a right
angle and plumb. Data was acquired for estimates of (y,
z) by measuring high and low spots for both the port and
starboard sides of the model using rulers and feeler
gauges. The data was reduced by computing crossplane
and global average values for the error in the offsets for
each coordinate and for S.
Carriage speed. The purpose of the carriage speed
test is to procure data for model speed Uc or in
nondimensional form Fr=Uc/(gL)0.5 [where g is the
gravitational constant computed from the local latitude as
9.8031 m/s2 (Halliday and Resnick, 1981)]. The
measurement system consists of individual measurement
systems for pulse count n, wheel diameter D, and 12 bit
digital-to-analog (DA) and analog-to-digital (AD) card
time base ∆t. Figure 3 provides a data-stream diagram.
The data-reduction equation is
nπD
Uc = (1 + U B ) (1)
8000∆t
where UB is a calibration for blockage of the tank walls.
UB is calculated as recommended by the ITTC (1978)
using Tamura’s formula
34
A  L m  number of outliers, which are identified and deleted using
U B = 0.67 m   1 − Frh2 (2)
 AT  B T 
In equation (2), Am is the midship sectional area of the
model, AT is the sectional area of the tank, Lm is the
length of the model, BT is the tank width, and Frh is the Fr
based on the tank depth h.
The individual measurement system for n consists of
the speed circuit and carriage PC with 12 bit, 16 channel
AD card and post-processing software. The speed circuit
consists of an optical encoder/sensor, a pulse counter, and
a 12 bit DA card enclosed in a small box attached to the
northeast wheel of the drive carriage. The encoder is
attached at the axis of the wheel, which is perforated
around its circumference with 8000 equally spaced and
sized windows. As the wheel rotates, the pulse counter
counts the number of windows that pass the sensor in the
time interval ∆t. The individual measurement system for
D simply consists of a precision vernier caliper. D is
measured annually (D=0.318 m). ∆t is provided by
manufacturer specifications (∆t=100 ms).
The speed circuit is calibrated periodically in the
IIHR electronics shop to determine its voltage-frequency
relationship. A precision frequency generator and
voltmeter are used. The frequency and voltage (V) ranges
are 0-40960 Hz and 0-10 V. The largest frequency
corresponds to the maximum number of pulses that can be
counted in ten time bases and the resulting voltage output
is 10 V, which is the upper limit of the AD/DA cards. The
voltage-frequency relationship is linear. A first-order
polynomial linear regression (i.e., the polynomial
coefficients are not functions of the independent variable)
curve fit is used to determine the slope/intercept, which
are then used to convert voltage to frequency. The
repeatability of the calibration is monitored.
Data acquisition is done in three steps as shown in
Figure 3: (1) pulse counts for time interval ∆t are
recorded in the speed circuit; (2) DA conversion in the
speed circuit; (3) AD conversion in carriage PC. Data
rates and number of samples are usually dictated by the
test being performed. Typically, data is sampled at 750-
800 Hz for 10-12 seconds (i.e., about 1500-2000 samples
depending on the number of channels used). Data is
acquired both when initially at-rest and subsequently
while the carriage/model is moving at steady speed/flow.
The at-rest data establishes a zero-reference value that is
subtracted from the average value for the carriage/model
at steady speed/flow. D is measured at several locations
around the circumference of the northeast carriage wheel.
Data reduction and/or calibration are done three
times: (1) AD card output is statistically analyzed (i.e.,
average, standard deviation, minimums, maximums, and
Chauvenet’s criterion); (2) the average value is converted
to frequency using the frequency-voltage calibration and
multiplication by ∆t; and (3) Uc is calculated using
equation (1).
Resistance. The purpose of the resistance test is to
procure data for the temperature-corrected (T=15°C)
resistance coefficient CT15C. The measurement system
consists of a four-channel (two force, two moment), 20
kg, strain-gage load cell, signal conditioner, and carriage
PC with 12 bit, 16 channel AD card. Figure 4 provides a
data-stream diagram. The data reduction equations are
C T15C = C R + C F15C (1 + k )
(3)
C R = C T − C F (1 + k ) (4)
Fx g
CT = (5)
0.5ρ(T ) U c2S
where CR is the residual resistance coefficient, CT15C and
CF are frictional resistance coefficients at T=15°C and
measured tank temperature, respectively, k is the form
factor, Fx is the force in the axial direction calibrated for
model inclination (resistance), ρ is the towing-tank water
density, Uc is from equation (1), and S is the design-
offsets wetted surface area for the static condition. CT15C
(or at the average test temperature) is the preferred result
as it calibrates all the data to the same temperature. The
temperature 15°C is recommended by the ITTC (1978) as
a standard to enable comparisons of tests (for similar
models) at different facilities. CF and k are calculated
also as recommended by the ITTC (1978) using,
respectively, the flat-plate friction line (ITTC, 1957)
0.075
CF = (6)
(log10 Re− 2.0 )2
and Prohaska’s method (ITTC, 1966). The use of and
results from Prohaska’s method for 5512 are provided by
Appendix A.
The dependency of the density ρ and kinematic
viscosity ν on temperature T was accounted for by
measurement of the towing-tank water temperature T and
linearly interpolating fresh-water values for ρ and ν from
the American Society of Mechanical Engineers (ASME)
steam tables (Chapman, 1984). The individual
measurement system for T was daily thermometer
readings at mid draft of the model. The range of values of
(T, ρ, ν) was (21.5-25.6°C, 997.97-996.93 kg/m3, 0.97-
0.88x106 m2/s).
Data were sampled for both resistance and force in
the transverse direction (side force) Fy. The latter was not
retained, but used for confirmation of model alignment.
The forces are measured in mass (gm) and converted to N
by multiplication by g. The tow point is at the
intersection of the centerplane (y=0.0), midship plane
(x=0.5), and waterplane (z=0.0641).
An end-to-end calibration is used for the resistance
test before and after data procurement. The load cell,
signal conditioner, and carriage PC AD card are statically
calibrated to determine its voltage-mass relationship. A
weight tray with standard weights is suspended plumb to
the load cell and the output recorded. Starting and ending
from zero mass, weights of known increments are placed
on the tray in ascending then descending order. Data is
sampled at 500 Hz for 4 seconds for each weight and
statistically analyzed. The two data average values for
each weight increment are averaged, except for the
maximum weight for which there is only one value. The
voltage-mass relationship is linear. A first-order
polynomial linear regression curve fit is used to determine
the slope/intercept, which are then used to convert voltage
to mass. The repeatability of the calibration between data
procurement cycles is monitored.
Data acquisition is done in three steps as shown in
Figure 4: (1) voltage from the load cell is sampled; (2)
the signal is amplified and filtered (3 Hz low-pass filter)
in the signal conditioner; and (3) AD conversion in
carriage PC. Data is sampled at 800 Hz using 4 channels
for 10 seconds (i.e., 2000 samples per channel). At-rest
data is used for the zero-reference value.
Data reduction and/or calibration are done three
times: (1) AD card output is statistically analyzed; (2) the
average value is converted to kg using the voltage-mass
calibration with linear interpolation; and (3) CT and CR
are calculated using equations (3) and (4).
Sinkage and Trim. The purpose of the sinkage and
trim test is to procure data for sinkage σ and trim
τ coefficients. The measurement system consists of two
resistive-type, linear motion potentiometers, data-transfer
box, 5-volt power supply, and carriage PC with 12 bit, 16
channel AD card. Figure 5 provides a data-stream
diagram. The data-reduction equations are
2 ∆FP + ∆AP
σ= (7)
Fr 2 2L
2 ∆AP − ∆FP
τ= (8)
Fr 2 L
where ∆FP and ∆AP are the measured displacements of
the FP and after perpendicular (AP). The potentiometers
are rigidly fixed to the trailer and plumb to the model
above the FP and AP. The cores extend to their midpoints
and make contact with the model hard points.
An end-to-end calibration is used for the sinkage and
trim test before and after data procurement. The
potentiometers, data-transfer box, 5-volt power supply,
and carriage PC AD card are statically calibrated to
determine its voltage-displacement relationship. The
potentiometer is placed plumb to a PC-controlled,
vertical-axis traversing system, which displaces the cores
up and down in specified increments and the output
recorded. Starting and ending from zero elevation, the
traverse is moved up to 90 mm and down in increments of The measurement system consists of a starboard-side,
10 mm. Data is sampled at 500 Hz for 4 seconds for each boundary-layer, five-hole pitot probe, port-side static pitot
displacement and statistically analyzed. The two data probe (center and five side holes), five differential
average values for each displacement increment are pressure transducers and signal conditioners, and carriage
averaged, except for the maximum displacement for PC with 12 bit, 16 channel AD card. Figure 6 provides a
which there is only one value. The voltage-displacement data-stream diagram. The data-reduction equations are
relationship is linear. A first-order polynomial linear
regression curve fit is used to determine the
(
u ( y, z ) = VX cos α p cos φ p + VY sin φ p +
slope/intercept, which are then used to convert voltage to VZ sin α p cos φ p U c ) (10)
displacement. The repeatability of the calibration
between data procurement cycles is monitored. (
v( y, z) = − VX cos α p sin φ p + VY cos φ p −
Data acquisition is done in two steps as shown in
Figure 5: (1) voltage from potentiometers is sampled; and
VZ sin α p sin φ p U c ) (11)
(2) AD conversion in carriage PC. Data is sampled at 800
Hz using 4 channels for 10 seconds (i.e., 2000 samples
(
w ( y, z) = VZ cos α p − VX sin α p U c ) (12)
per channel). At-rest data is used for the zero-reference
2(p − p o ) H′c − (PV′ 2 2g )
value. C p ( y, z ) = = (13)
Data reduction and/or calibration are done three ρU c2 U c2 2g
times: (1) AD card output is statistically analyzed; (2) the where
average value is converted to mm using the voltage-
VX = V ′ cos φ cos α (14)
displacement calibration with linear interpolation; and (3)
σ and τ are calculated using equations (7) and (8).
VY = V ′ sin φ (15)
Wave Profile. The purpose of the wave profile test
VZ = V ′ cos φ sin α (16)
is to procure data for the wave profile ζ on the hull. The
measurement system consists of adhesive markers,
2gM ′
painted grid on the hull, flexible ruler, level table, and V′ = (17)
height gauge. The data-reduction equation is M

z M ′ = 4H ′c − H ′t − H ′b − H ′p − H ′s
ζ= (9)
L
where z is the measured wave height.
The data acquisition is done in 5 steps: (1) at each x-
station, adhesive markers are fixed to the side of the hull
with the marker tip at the top of the wave profile [in
regions where the contact line is turbulent (mid and after
body), the tip is placed such that it is in/out of the water
50% of the run]; (2) after all x-stations are marked, the
model is removed from the tank and a flexible ruler is
used to measure the wave profile distance along the girth
of the model from the calm waterline; (3) steps (1) and (2)
are repeated to obtain three sets of data; (4) the model was
inverted and mounted on the level table and the average
values from step (3) were remarked along the girth of the
model from the calm waterline; and (4) the height gauge
is used to measure the wave height z.
Data-reduction is done two times: (1) average values
are calculated for the 3 sets of data; and (2) wave height z
is normalized by L.
Nominal Wake. The purpose of the nominal wake
test is to procure data for mean velocity u, v, w and
pressure coefficient Cp in the propeller plane (x=0.9346).
(18)
H ′t − H ′b
K′ = (19)
(4H ′c − H ′t − H ′b − H ′p − H ′s )
H ′s − H ′p
L′ = (20)
(4H ′c − H ′t − H ′b − H ′p − H ′s )
(αp, φp) are the five-hole pitot probe preset pitch and yaw
angles, respectively, (α, φ) are the measured pitch and
yaw angles of the velocity vector in five-hole pitot probe
coordinates, respectively, and H´j=c,t,b,p,s are the measured
pressures for the center, top, bottom, port, and starboard
holes. The side holes of the static pitot probe are used for
the reference pressure. The primed variables designate
the local measured values, whereas, unprimed variables
(K, L, M, P) designate variables from a wind-tunnel
calibration of the five-hole pitot probe described below.
(α, φ) are obtained from ( K ′, L′ ) and their corresponding
five-hole pitot probe calibration coefficients (K, L).
(α, φ) are then used to obtain (M, P) from their
corresponding five-hole pitot probe calibration
coefficients.
Three calibrations are used for the nominal wake
test. First, prior to the towing-tank tests, the five-hole
pitot probe was calibrated in the 1.07 m test section of an
open-throat wind tunnel. The five-hole pitot probe was
mounted on a dual turntable stand with its tip at the center
of the test section and incrementally (∆α=∆φ=5°) rotated
in pitch (±25°) and yaw (±25°). A static pitot probe (the
same as used for the towing-tank tests) was mounted on
the centerplane of the tunnel below the five-hole pitot
probe and used for the reference dynamic pressure
H d = U 2t 2g (where Ut is the tunnel speed). Five-hole
pitot probe calibration coefficients (i.e., K, L, M/Hd,
and P = H c H d ) are computed at each location. The
five-hole pitot probe calibration coefficients were similar
to those obtained previously for this same probe using a
similar procedure by Longo and Stern (1996b), although
some differences were evident by as much as 8%.
Second, the differential pressure transducers and signal
conditioners, and carriage PC AD card are end-to-end
statically calibrated to determine its voltage-pressure
relationship before and after data procurement. A water
tank is moved up (4-8 cm) and down (4-8 cm) in equal
increments relative to a stationary water tank using a PC-
controlled, vertical-axis traversing system and the output
recorded. Data is sampled at 500 Hz for 4 seconds for
each elevation and statistically analyzed. The two data
average values for each elevation increment are averaged,
except for the maximum and minimum elevations for
which there is only one value. The voltage-pressure
relationship is linear. A first-order polynomial linear
regression curve fit is used to determine the
slope/intercept, which are then used to convert voltage to
displacement. The repeatability of the calibration
between data procurement cycles is monitored. Third, a
calibration is made for the five-hole pitot probe preset
angles, by taking initial data at each x-station with the
probe located at sufficient (y, z) that uniform-flow
conditions prevail. (αp, φp) are used to correct the mean
velocity as shown in equations (10-12).
Data acquisition is done in three steps as shown in
Figure 5: (1) voltage from the differential pressure
transducers are sampled; (2) the signal is amplified and
filtered (1 Hz low-pass filter) in the signal conditioner;
and (3) AD conversion in carriage PC. Data is sampled at
750 Hz using 6 channels for 12 seconds (i.e., 1500
samples per channel). At-rest data is used for the zero-
reference value.
Data reduction and/or calibration are done five times:
(1) AD card output is statistically analyzed; (2) the
average value is converted to mm H2O using the voltage-
pressure calibration with linear interpolation; (3) (α, φ, M,
P) are obtained from the five-hole pitot probe calibration
coefficients with cubic spline interpolation; (4) correction
for five-hole pitot probe preset angle from calibration for
(αp, φp); and (5) u, v, w, and Cp are calculated using
equations (10)-(15) and (18)-(20).
4 Results
The results are discussed with regard to the data
trends and uncertainties, including Fr effects. The
discussions are in order of geometry, resistance, sinkage
and trim, wave profile, and nominal wake tests.
The (bias) errors in the (y, z) geometry of 5512 are
shown in Figures 7a,b. The largest errors are at the port
and starboard bow and dome regions. Localized spots in
these regions can deviate from the design offsets by as
much as 0.8-1.6 mm. For x>0.20, errors in (y, z) are very
small, i.e., <0.8 mm. The global error in the (y, z)
represents an average deviation over all (x, y, z)
coordinates and is estimated to be ±0.8 mm.
The total CT and residuary CR resistance coefficients
vs. Fr are shown in Figures 8a,b. CT mildly decreases for
0.05<Fr<0.125, is fairly constant (CT=0.0045) for
0.125<Fr<0.275, mildly increases for 0.275<Fr<0.35, and
rapidly increases for Fr>0.35. CR is roughly piecewise
linear with increasing slope for 0.05<Fr<0.275,
0.275<Fr<0.35, and Fr>0.35. In both cases, the
appearance of humps and hollows is limited. The UCT
values (1.46, 0.63, 0.60)% decrease for increasing for
Fr=(0.1, 0.28, 0.41), respectively. For Fr=(0.1, 0.28,
0.41), BCT>PCT.
The sinkage σ and trim τ vs. Fr are shown in Figures
9a,b. σ is roughly linear for 0.1<Fr<0.41. For Fr<0.1, the
data is widely scattered, whereas for Fr>0.41, σ mildly
decreases. τ is roughly piecewise linear with mild
negative slope for 0.1<Fr<0.275 and increasing positive
slope for 0.275<Fr<0.35 and Fr>0.35. For Fr<0.1, the
data is widely scattered. For Fr>0.25, the τ and CR trends
are similar. 5512 sinkage increases for increasing Fr,
whereas she has mild bow down trim for Fr<.25 vs. strong
bow up trim for Fr>0.25. The Uσ values (8.72, 1.40,
0.61)% and Uτ values (10.22, 1.83, 1.76)% decrease for
increasing Fr=(0.1, 0.28, 0.41), respectively. For Fr=0.1,
Bσ,τ>Pσ,τ, whereas for Fr=(0.28, 0.41), Pσ,τ>Bσ,τ.
The wave profiles ζ for Fr=(0.28, 0.41) are shown in
Figures 10 and 11, respectively, including side and
transom views and photos of the bow/near-wake flow.
For Fr=0.28, ζ exhibits a large bow wave, relatively small
shoulder waves, (i.e., ζ~0.0) for 0.125<x<0.875, and
mildly increases at the stern. The transom profile is
roughly constant (ζ~0.0). The photo of the bow flow
shows the nature of the spilling breaker bow wave. For
Fr=0.41, ζ exhibits a very large bow wave, somewhat
larger shoulder waves for x=(0.3, 0.85), trough near/aft of
midships, and increases at the stern. The transom profile
is roughly constant (ζ=-0.005). The photo of the near-
wake flow shows the nature of the transom rooster tail.
The Uζ values (3.43, 2.00)% decrease for increasing
Fr=(0.28, 0.41), respectively. For both Fr, Bζ>Pζ.
The nominal wake u, v, w, and Cp for Fr=(0.28, 0.41)
are shown in Figure 12, including crossplane vectors vw,
total head H contours, axial velocity contours u, pressure
coefficient Cp contours, and axial vorticity ωx contours.
Vw is upward and towards the centerplane. The upward
flow increases for Fr=0.41. H and u have a similar
pattern, i.e., relatively thin boundary layer near the
centerplane and waterplane, but with a large thick
boundary layer region (bulge) near midgirth and towards
the centerplane. The bulge is likely due to the interaction
of the sonar dome wake vortices and hull boundary layer.
The boundary layer thickness decreases for Fr=0.41. The
Cp contours are roughly parallel to the hull and free
surface, except for some distortion in the bulge region.
The shape of the contours near the free surface may be
influenced by the interaction between the five-hole pitot
probe tip and free surface. Cp is reduced for Fr=0.41.
The ωx contours are positive and parallel to the hull
surface in the region close to the hull, whereas in the
bulge region, negative inner (close to the centerplane) and
positive outer (close to the free surface) circular vorticies
(i.e., closed contour lines) are evident. The vorticity
magnitudes are somewhat larger for Fr=0.41. The
uncertainties for u, v, w, Cp fall in the general ranges: (u)
1.0-2.3%; (v) 3.3-5.5%; (w) 2.5-5.2%; (Cp) 9.5-29.1%
and are Fr independent. For all variables, the bias limits
contribute 91.5-99.95% to the total uncertainty.
5 Concluding Remarks
Results from towing-tank experiments for 5512 were
presented for resistance, sinkage and trim, wave profile,
and nominal wake tests and uncertainty assessment. The
resistance and sinkage and trim data are for Fr=0.05-0.45
and free-model condition. The wave profiles and nominal
wake data are for Fr=(0.28, 0.41) and fixed-model
condition (at the dynamic sinkage and trim for each Fr).
The test design, measurement systems, and uncertainty
assessment were described. The uncertainty assessment
methodology rigorously follows the AIAA Standard
(1995), including integration of uncertainty assessment
into all phases of the experimental process. The results
were discussed with regard to the data trends and
uncertainties, including Fr effects.
Admittedly the present data itself is not a large
contribution, since most of it was already available for
5415 from DTMB research and preliminary design
reports (Ratcliffe, 1995). The contribution is in rigorous
application of the AIAA Standard (1995) for experimental
uncertainty assessment for the most typical towing-tank
tests chosen as overlapping tests as part of an
international collaboration between IIHR, INSEAN, and
DTMB on EFD/CFD and uncertainty assessment for
combatant geometry 5415 using models 5512, 2340, and
5415, respectively. Between all three institutions many
conditions and physics are under investigation. The data
contributes to the surface-ship resistance and propulsion
model-scale database for CFD validation. The purpose of
the overlapping tests is cross validation, through
comparisons of data and uncertainties, and evaluations of
Re effects and facility biases. Stern et al. (1999) will
provide a project overview and the results from the
comparisons of the overlapping tests and evaluations of
Re effects and facility biases.
The present results also provide additional credibility
for previous IIHR work for S60 as well as for future work
for 5512. In previous work for S60, as already
mentioned, similar test procedures were used. However,
the uncertainty assessment was based on limited bias error
analysis and simple repeat tests in lieu of rigorous
application of experimental uncertainty assessment
methodologies. Thus, the present uncertainty estimates
supersede those given previously based on nonstandard
procedures and should be used for CFD validation both
when using the present data and previous S60 data. The
present resistance test results are included in the 22nd
ITTC Resistance Committee’s example of the application
of the AIAA Standard (1995) for a towing-tank resistance
test.
Future work will focus on procurement of CFD
validation data for unsteady RANS simulations and
explication of flow physics for 5512 in regular head
waves. A companion paper at this conference, provides a
description of the IIHR towing-tank wavemaker (Longo
et al., 1999).
Acknowledgements
This research was sponsored by the Office of Naval
Research under Grant N00014-96-1-0018 administered by
Dr. E. P. Rood.
References
AIAA Standard, 1995, “Assessment of Wind Tunnel Data
Uncertainty,” AIAA S-071-1995, Washington D.C.
Avanzini, G., Benedetti, L., and Penna, R., 1998,
"Experimental Evaluation of Ship Resistance for
RANS Code Validation", ISOPE ’98, Montreal,
Canada.
Beddhu, M., Jiang, M.Y., Whitfield, D.L., Taylor, L.K.,
and Arabshahi, A., 1998, “CFD Validation of the
Free Surface Flow Around DTMB Model 5415,”
Proceedings Third Osaka Colloquium on Advanced
CFD Applications to Ship Flow and Hull Form
Design, Osaka, Japan, pp. 373-393.
Chapman, A., 1984, “Heat Transfer,” Macmillan
Publishing Company, New York.
Coleman, H. and Steele, G., (1995), “Engineering
Application of Experimental Uncertainty Analysis,”
AIAA Journal, Vol. 33, No. 10, pp. 1888-1896.
Forgach, K., 1992, “Measurement Uncertainty Analysis Propulsion Model-Scale Database for CFD
of a Ship Model Resistance Test,” unpublished Validation,” 1st Symposium on Marine Applications
DTMB manuscript. of Computational Fluid Dynamics, McLean, VA.
Gothenburg, 2000, “Gothenburg 2000 Workshop on CFD Stern, F., Longo, J., Penna, R., Avanzini, G., Benedetti,
for Ship Hydrodynamics,” www.iihr.uiowa.edu/ L., Olivieri, A., T. Ratcliffe, and H. Coleman, 1999,
gothenburg2000/ “International Collaboration on Steady-Flow Tests
Halliday, D. and Resnick, R., 1981, Fundamentals of and Uncertainty Assessment for Ship Models DTMB
Physics, John Wiley and Sons, New York. 5415 and 5512 and INSEAN 2340,” IIHR Rept. (in
ITTC, 1957, Proceedings of the 8th International Towing preparation).
Tank Conference, Madrid, Spain. Toda, Y., Stern, F., and Longo, J., 1992, “Mean-Flow
ITTC, 1966, “A Simple Method for the Evaluation of the Measurements in the Boundary Layer and Wake and
Form Factor and the Low Speed Wave Resistance,” Wave Field of a Series 60 CB=0.60 Ship Model - Part
Proceedings of the 11th International Towing Tank 1: Froude Numbers 0.16 and 0.316,” Journal of Ship
Conference, Resistance Session, Tokyo, Japan, pp. Research, Vol. 36, No. 4, pp. 360-377.
65-66. Wilson, R., Paterson, E., and Stern, F., 1998, "Unsteady
ITTC, 1978, Proceedings of the 15th International Towing RANS CFD Method for Naval Combatant in Waves,"
Tank Conference, Report of Performance Committee, Proceedings of the 22nd ONR Symposium on Naval
the Hague, the Netherlands, pp. 364-366. Hydrodynamics, Washington, DC.
ITTC, 1996, Proceedings of the 21st International Towing
Tank Conference, Report of the Resistance and Flow
Committee, Trondheim, Norway, pp. 439-514.
ITTC, 1999, Proceedings of the 22nd International Towing
Tank Conference, Report of the Resistance
Committee, (in preparation).
Longo, J. and Stern, F., 1996a, “ Technical Note:
Evaluation of Surface-Ship Resistance and
Propulsion Model-Scale Database for CFD
Validation,” Journal of Ship Research, Vol. 40, No.
2, June 1996, pp. 112-116.
Longo, J. and F. Stern, 1996b, “Yaw effects on model-
scale ship flows,” Proceedings of the 21st ONR
Symposium on Naval Hydrodynamics, Trondheim,
Norway, pp. 312-327.
Longo, J., Stern, F., and Toda, Y., 1993, “Mean-Flow
Measurements in the Boundary Layer and Wake and
Wave Field of a Series 60 CB=0.60 Ship Model - Part
2: Scale Effects on Near-Field Wave Patterns and
Comparisons with Inviscid Theory,” Journal of Ship
Research, Vol. 37, No. 1, pp. 16-24.
Longo, J., Rhee, S.-H., Kuhl, D., Metcalf, B., Rose, R.,
and Stern, F., 1999, “IIHR Towing-Tank
Wavemaker,” Proceedings 25th ATTC, Iowa City,
Iowa.
Olivieri, A., and Penna, R., 1999, "Uncertainty
Assessment in Wave Elevation Measurements",
ISOPE ’99, Brest, France, (to be presented).
Paterson, E.G., Wilson, R.V., and Stern, F., 1998,
“Verification/Validation of a Steady Flow CFD
RANS Code for a Naval Combatant,” 1st Symposium
on Marine Applications of Computational Fluid
Dynamics, McLean, VA.
Ratcliffe, T., 1995, http://www50.dt.navy.mil/5415/.
Stern, F., Longo, J., Maksoud, M., and Suzuki, T., 1998,
“Evaluation of Surface-Ship Resistance and
 Table 1. Geometric parameters for DTMB models 5415 and 5512, INSEAN
model 2340, and full scale.

Parameter Equation Units 5415/2340 5512 Full scale

Linear scale ratio λ - - 24.8316 46.6000 1
Length L - m 5.7200 3.0480 142.0368
Beam B - m 0.7242 0.3859 17.9832
Draft T - m 0.4020 0.2142 9.9822
Wetted surface area S - m2 4.8273 1.3707 2976.6532
Waterplane area AWP - m2 3.2228 0.9151 1987.2269
Displacement S - m3 0.8426 0.1275 12901.632
Block coefficient CB = ∇ (LBT ) - 0.5060 0.5060 0.5060
Waterplane coefficient C WP = A WP (LB ) - 0.7780 0.7780 0.7780
Wetted surface coefficient CS = S ∇L - 2.1989 2.1989 2.1989
Beam/length ratio B/L - 1:7.9 1:7.9 1:7.9
Draft/length ratio T/L - 1:14.2 1:14.2 1:14.2
Draft/beam ratio T/B - 1:1.8 1:1.8 1:1.8

-: not applicable; italic: values for present model

Table 2. Measurement conditions and locations.

Measurement Conditions and locations
Geometry (Port and starboard) x=FP, 0.02, 0.04, 0.06, 0.08, 0.1, 0.12,
0.14, 0.16, 0.18, 0.2, 0.24, 0.28, 0.32, 0.36, 0.4, 0.44, 0.48, 0.52,
0.56, 0.6, 0.64, 0.68, 0.72, 0.76, 0.8, 0.84, 0.88, 0.92, 0.96, AP
y=0 (sonar dome)

Resistance Fr=0.05-0.45, ∆Fr=0.01

Th2oave=25.1 °C
105 carrige runs

Sinkage and trim Fr=0.05-0.45, ∆Fr=0.01

Th2oave =21.5 °C
113 carrige runs

Wave profile Fr=0.28 and 0.41

Th2oave =18.5°C
(Starboard) x=0, 0.02, 0.03, 0.04, 0.06, 0.07, 0.08, 0.1, 0.12,
0.14, 0.16, 0.18, 0.2, 0.24, 0.28, 0.32, 0.36, 0.4, 0.44, 0.48, 0.52,
0.56, 0.6, 0.64, 0.68, 0.72, 0.76, 0.8, 0.82, 0.84, 0.86, 0.88, 0.90,
0.92, 0.94, 0.96, 0.98, 0.9969, 0.9987, 1.0008, 1.0018, 1.0023
Italic: on transom 85 carriage runs

Nominal wake Fr=0.28 and 0.41

Th2oave =12.7 °C
(Starboard) x=0.9346
0>y>0.01, ∆y=0.00025, 0.000625, 0.00125, 0.0025, 0.005,
0.0075, and 0.01
-z=0.01, 0.0125, 0.015, 0.0175, 0.02, 0.0225, 0.025, 0.0275,
0.03, 0.0325, 0.035, 0.0375, 0.04, 0.0425, 0.045, 0.0475, 0.05,
0.0525, 0.055, 0.0575, 0.06, 0.0625, 0.065, 0.0675, 0.07, 0.0725,
0.075, 0.0775, 0.08, 0.0825, 0.085, 0.0875, 0.09, 0.0925, 0.0950,
0.0975, 0.1
897 carriage runs
 Figure 1. DTMB model 5512.

Elemental
BIAS (CALIBRATION DATA ACQUISITION DATA REDUCTION) AND PRECISION error sources

CARRIAGE RESIST- SINKAGE WAVE NOMINAL TEMP- Individual

GEOMETRY
SPEED ANCE AND TRIM PROFILE WAKE ERATURE measurement
systems

X1 X2 X3 X4 X5 X6 X7 Measurement of
B1, P1 B2, P2 B3, P3 B4, P4 B5, P5 B6, P6 B7, P7 individual variables

ri=ri(X1, X2, X3, X4, X5, X6, X7) Data-reduction

equations

s,t (u, v, w)/UC, r,n

(x, y, z)/L, S UC, Fr CT15C, CR z Experimental
Br, Pr Br, Pr Br, Pr Cp Br, Pr
Br, Pr Br, Pr results
Br, Pr

Figure 2. Block diagram of the tests showing elemental error sources, individual measurement systems,
measurement of individual variables, data-reduction equations, and experimental results.
 SPEED CIRCUIT RESISTANCE INSTRUMENTATION

12-bit
Optical Load mx, my mx, my
'n' sampled DA
encoder conversion cell sampled by amplified
by encoder and filtered
Bn1 (digital) Bn2 BFx1, BFx2 load cell
(sensor) (sensor) (analog) (analog)
(analog)

Interpolation Compute
12-bit from speed resistance
Conversion 12-bit
AD circuit Conversion w/calibration
w/resol Statistics Equations (1, 2) Uc, Fr AD Statistics Equations (3, 4, 5) CT15C, CR
conversion calibration w/resol coefficient
(Volts) conversion
Bn3 Bn4 (Volts) BFx3
(digital)
(digital) (Hz) (kg)
g, r
D, D t Uc, S
Calibrated End-to-end calibrated
BD, BD t
PC BT
PC

Figure 3. Data-stream diagram for the carriage speed test. Figure 4. Data-stream diagram for the resistance test.

SINKAGE AND TRIM INSTRUMENTATION

NOMINAL WAKE INSTRUMENTATION

Five-hole
Linear D FP,D AP Junction pitot
potentiometer sampled by box probe Hc, ,t b, p, s Hc, ,t b, p, s
Differential
BD FP1, BD FP2 potentiometer (analog) sampled by amplified
pressure
(sensor) (analog) transducers transducers and filtered
(sensors) (analog) (analog)
Pitot-
static
probe

Compute Compute
12-bit displacements 12-bit h2o head
Conversion Conversion u, v, w
AD w/calibration AD Statistics w/calibration Equations (10-20)
w/resol Statistics Equations (7, 8) st , w/resol Cp
coefficients conversion coefficients
conversion (Volts)
(Volts) BD FP3, BD AP3 (digital) (m h2o)
(digital)
(m)
End-to-end calibrated g, Uc
End-to-end calibrated Fr, L PC
PC
Figure 5. Data-stream diagram for the sinkage and trim test. Figure 6. Data-stream diagram for the nominal wake test.
(m m )

1 .0
0 .8
0 .6
0 .4
0 .2
0 .0
-0 .2
-0 .4
-0 .6
-0 .8
-1 .0

X
 1.1 1 0.9 0.8 0.7 0.6 0.5 0.4 0.3 0.2 0.1 0 -0.1
0.040 0.040

0.030 0.030
DTMB model 5512 (hull)
0.020 DTMB model 5512 (transom) 0.020

0.010 0.010
ζ

0.000 0.000

-0.010 ∆FP=-9.3 mm Uζ -0.010

∆AP=-2.4 mm
-0.020 -0.020
1.1 1 0.9 0.8 0.7 0.6 0.5 0.4 0.3 0.2 0.1 0 -0.1
x

(a) Starboard wave profile

1.002 1.001 1 0.999 0.998

0.040 0.040

Hull centerplane
0.030 0.030
DTMB model 5512 (transom)
0.020 0.020

0.010 0.010
ζ

0.000 0.000

-0.010 -0.010
Uζ
-0.020 -0.020
1.002 1.001 1 0.999 0.998
x

(b) Transom wave profile

(c) Bow flow photo

Figure 10. Wave profile data for 5512 at Fr=0.28.

 1.1 1 0.9 0.8 0.7 0.6 0.5 0.4 0.3 0.2 0.1 0 -0.1
0.040 0.040

0.030 0.030
DTMB model 5512 (hull)
0.020 DTMB model 5512 (transom) 0.020

0.010 0.010
ζ

0.000 0.000

-0.010 ∆FP=-4.5 mm Uζ -0.010

∆AP=-24.2 mm
-0.020 -0.020
1.1 1 0.9 0.8 0.7 0.6 0.5 0.4 0.3 0.2 0.1 0 -0.1
x

(a) Starboard wave profile

1.002 1.001 1 0.999 0.998

0.040 0.040

0.030 0.030
Hull centerplane
DTMB model 5512 (transom)
0.020 0.020

0.010 0.010
ζ

0.000 0.000

-0.010 -0.010
Uζ
-0.020 -0.020
1.002 1.001 1 0.999 0.998
x

(b) Transom wave profile

(c) Near wake photo

Figure 11. Wave profile data for 5512 at Fr=0.41.

 0 0.025 0.05 0.075 0.1 0 0.025 0.05 0.075 0.1

vw vw
0 0 0 0

-0.02 -0.02 -0.02 -0.02

z

z
-0.04 -0.04 -0.04 -0.04

-0.06 -0.06 -0.06 -0.06

-0.08 -0.08 -0.08 -0.08

0 0.025 0.05 0.075 0.1 0 0.025 0.05 0.075 0.1

y y

0 0.025 0.05 0.075 0.1 0 0.025 0.05 0.075 0.1

H H
0 0 0 0

0 0.8 4
0..989 3
5

0.7
0.9

5
6 7 .8
0.5 0.7 0 8 77
0.5 9 0.62 0 .62 0.6 0.
0.65 0.68 0.7 1 1 8
86

0.77 0.8 0.83 0.7 0.9

4
0.7

0.

0.8
98

6 0 0.62
-0.02 0.89 -0.02 -0.02 -0.02
0.

0.92 0.65 80
0.68 0.77 0.74 0.
2
0.9

0.
0.8
0.95

92
3
0.8 0.92 6
0.8
0.89 5
z

0.9
0.95
0.

0.98
98

-0.04 -0.04 -0.04 8 -0.04

0.9

-0.06 -0.06 -0.06 -0.06

-0.08 -0.08 -0.08 -0.08

0 0.025 0.05 0.075 0.1 0 0.025 0.05 0.075 0.1

y y

0 0.025 0.05 0.075 0.1 0 0.025 0.05 0.075 0.1

u u
0 0 0 0
2
0.6 78
8

7
1
00..788

0.
0.8

720.6

0.406.55
5

8 84 8
0.

0.9
0.9

1
0.97 0.5 0.
0.52 0.58 0.55 0.8 0.55
0.62 0.68
71

0.65
0.78 0.75 0.64
0.

-0.02 0.84 0.81

1 -0.02 -0.02 0.61 9 -0.02
0.9 0.720.6
7
0.78 0. 0.70 0.8 8
84
0.81 75 2 0.9
0. 0.89 0.84 0.9
0.92 1.01
4
0.9

0.8
8 0.87
0.9 5
z

1 0.9
0.9

0.94
8

-0.04 -0.04 -0.04 -0.04

0.97
1.01

-0.06 -0.06 -0.06 -0.06

-0.08 -0.08 -0.08 -0.08

0 0.025 0.05 0.075 0.1 0 0.025 0.05 0.075 0.1

y y

Fr=0.28 Fr=0.41

Figure 12. Nominal wake data for 5512 at Fr=0.28 and 0.41.
 0 0 .0 2 5 0 .0 5 0 .0 7 5

0 0
W X

-0 .0 2 -0 .0 2
z

-0 .0 4 -0 .0 4

-0 .0 6 -0 .0 6

-0 .0 8 -0 .0 8

0 0 .0 2 5 0 .0 5 0 .0 7 5

y
APPENDIX A Prohaska’s Method respectively, which are helpful for identifying elemental
The form factor k is calculated as recommended by bias errors for the individual variables. Section 3
the ITTC (1978) using Prohaska’s method (ITTC, 1966). provides a detailed description of the measurement
The method assumes that at low speed and with no systems and test procedures. The current uncertainty
separation, CR in equation (4) can be approximated by assessment represents the most complete treatment yet of
the errors associated with the present tests, and
C R = yFr 4 (A.1) accordingly, the present uncertainty estimates supercede
those from previous studies at IIHR using the same
Then
equipment and experimental procedures.
yFr 4
= (1 + k ) +
CT
(A.2) B.1 Summary of Uncertainty Assessment
CF CF
Methodology
and values of CT/CF form a line with slope y and intercept The 95% confidence large-sample uncertainty
(1+k). For 5512, CT data is used for 0.05≤Fr≤0.2, and the assessment approach is used as recommended by the
results are provided below in Figure A.1. The estimated AIAA Standard (1995) for the vast majority of
intercept is (1+k)=1.15. engineering tests. The approach is derived and explained
in detail by Coleman and Steele (1995), which the present
0.0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1.0 summary closely follows.
1.6 1.6
A general representation of the data-reduction
1.4 1.4 equation is
1.2 1.2 r = r (X1 , X 2 ,..., X J ) (B.1)
1.0 1.0 where r is the experimental result determined from J
(1+k)=1.15
measured individual variables Xi. Each of the measured
CT/CF

0.8 0.8
variables contains bias and precision errors. The errors in
0.6 0.6 the measured variables propagate through the data-
reduction equation, thereby generating the bias and
0.4 0.4 precision errors in the experimental result.
0.2 0.2
Single tests. For single tests, the result r is
determined once from a single set of measurements (X1,
0.0 0.0 X2, …, XJ) at a given test condition where the Xi’s are
0.0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1.0
4
Fr /CF
considered single measurements. The uncertainty in r is
the root-sum-square (RSS) of the bias and precision limits

Figure A.1 Evaluation of the form factor for model 5512 U 2r = B 2r + Pr2 (B.2)
using Prohaska’s method.
The bias limit of the result is given by
J J −1 J
APPENDIX B Uncertainty Assessment B 2r = ∑ θ i2 B i2 + 2 ∑ ∑ θ i θ k B ik (B.3)
This Appendix provides the details of the uncertainty i =1 i =1k =i +1
assessment procedures and results, which follow the where θi are the sensitivity coefficients
AIAA Standard (1995). The Appendix is organized as
∂r
follows. First in section B.1, a summary of the θi = (B.4)
uncertainty assessment methodology is provided. Then in ∂X i
sections B.2-B.7, the detailed procedures and results are
provided for, respectively, the model geometry, carriage Bi are the bias limits in Xi, and Bik are the correlated bias
speed, resistance, sinkage and trim, wave profile, and limits in Xi and Xk
nominal wake measurement systems. Figure 2 provides a L
block diagram of the tests showing elemental error B ik = ∑ (B i )α (B k )α (B.5)
α =1
sources, individual measurement systems, measurements
of individual variables, data-reduction equations, and (L is the number of correlated bias error sources that are
experimental results. Figures 3, 4, 5, and 6 are data- common for measurement of variables Xi and Xk). The
stream diagrams for carriage speed, resistance, sinkage bias limit Bi for each variable is an estimate of elemental
and trim, and nominal wake measurement systems, bias errors from different categories: calibration errors;
data-acquisition errors; data-reduction errors; and tS r
conceptual bias errors. Within each category, there may Pr = (B.12)
M
be several elemental sources of bias. For instance, if for
the i-th variable Xi there are M elemental bias errors The uncertainty for the average result is given by

( )2
identified as significant and whose bias limits are
estimated as (Bi)1, …, (Bi)M, then the bias limit for the U 2 = B 2r + 2S r M (B.13)
r
measurement of Xi is calculated as the RSS combination
of the elemental limits where Br is given by equation (B.3) and t=2.
M Implementation. The uncertainty assessment
B i2 = ∑ (B i )2k (B.6) methodology is implemented by first identifying the data-
k =1 reduction equation. Then a block diagram of the test is
The precision limit of the result is given by constructed to help organize the individual measurement
systems and the propagation of elemental error sources
J into the result. Data-stream diagrams are constructed next
Pi2 = ∑ θ i2 Pi2 (B.7)
i =1 showing data flow from sensor-to-result and are helpful
for identification and organization of the elemental bias
where Pi are the precision limits in Xi and precision errors at the individual-variable level. Bias
Pi = t i S i (B.8) limits contributing either to a single variable or the overall
result are identified (calibration, data acquisition, data
with standard deviation Si and coverage factor ti reduction, or conceptual bias) and combined. For the vast
determined with νi degrees of freedom and assuming no majority of experiments, precision limits are estimated as
correlated precision limits. Si is determined from Ni described above with repeated end-to-end data-acquisition
readings (νi=Ni-1) of Xi taken over an appropriate time and reduction cycles. The replicated tests are done over a
interval, i.e., includes all factors causing variability in the period of time that is comparable with the period of the
result. Often it is the case that the time interval is factors that cause variability in r. Ideally M≥10, however,
insufficient and the Pi’s or Pr must be estimated based on often this not the case and for M<10, a coverage factor of
previous readings taken over an appropriate time interval t=2 is permissible if the bias and precision limits have
or best available information. similar magnitude.
Multiple tests. For multiple tests, the result r is
determined from several sets of measurements (X1, X2, B.2 Model Geometry
…, XJ) at the same test condition. An average result r is The model-geometry measurement system consists of
determined from CNC milled templates, rulers, and feeler gages for
determining the uncertainty in the x, y, z-offsets. Bias
1 M
r= ∑ rk (B.9) limits in the wetted surface area S are then estimated
M k =1 using a simplified procedure. Precision limits are not
considered. The bias limits and total uncertainty in S are
If the M sets of measurements are taken over an
evaluated and summarized in Table A.1.
appropriate time interval the precision limit that should be
Measurements of the error in x and (y, z) are made at
associated with a single result would be
one (centerplane) and thirty-one (axial) stations,
Pr = t r S r (B.10) respectively. The errors are determined at several points
along the girth of each template, averaged, and a global
where t is determined with M-1 degrees of freedom (taken uncertainty is computed for the average errors from all
as 2 for M≥10) and Sr is the standard deviation of the templates. The global uncertainty in (x, y, z) is 0.7938
sample of M results mm (i.e., 1/32”).
Bias Limits. The bias limit in S is computed in two
( )
12
 1 M 
Sr =  ∑ rk − r  (B.11) steps. First, biases in S from errors in the geometrical
 M − 1 k =1  offsets are considered by assuming the model geometry
error to be 0.7938 mm in all coordinates, i.e., the length
The uncertainty of a single result of the sample of M
(x) and beam (y) increase by 1.5875 mm and the draft (z)
results is obtained from equation (B.2) with equations
increases by 0.7938 mm. By holding the block
(B.3) and (B.10). The precision limit that should be
coefficient CB constant while expanding the coordinates
associated with the average result is given by
as above, the new displacement is
∇ ′ = (C B L ′B′T ′ ) ∗ 1000 = 128.55 kg (B.14)
where the primed variables are the increased dimensions
of the model. The new displacement in equation (B.14) is
an increase of 1.06 kg from the nominal displacement.
Assuming the wetted surface coefficient (CS=2.1989) is
constant, the wetted surface area for the larger model is
S′ = 2.1989 ∇ ′L ′ = 1.3768 m 2 (B.15)
which corresponds to an increase of 0.0061 m2 of the
nominal wetted surface area (S=1.3707 m2). If the model
is loaded on displacement, then the larger model has a
smaller draft (floats higher) which somewhat offsets the
increase in S from the expanded offsets. However, for the
present case, the model is loaded to the full-load draft and
this benefit is not realized. Therefore, the bias in the
wetted surface area due to errors in the x, y, z offsets is
B S1 = 0.0061 m 2 (B.16)
Secondly, biases in S from installation errors are
considered. For the resistance test, the model is loaded to
the full-load draft and errors in the draft-line placement
and ballasting of the model to the draft line are estimated
at 1 mm. By perturbing the draft with the aforementioned
uncertainty and holding the model length and beam and
block coefficient constant, the new displacement is
∇ ′′ = (C B LBT ′′ ) ∗ 1000 = 128.08 kg
(B.17)
where the double-primed variables are the increased
dimensions of the model. Similarly as above, the new
displacement in equation (B.17) produces a change in the
wetted surface area given by
S′′ = 2.1989 ∇ ′′L = 1.3739 m 2 (B.18)
which corresponds to an increase of 0.0032 m2 of the
nominal wetted surface area. The bias in the wetted
surface area due to draft-line placement and installation
errors is
B S2 = 0.0032 m 2 (B.19)
If the model were loaded on displacement, BS2 would be
computed from the individual uncertainties of the ballast
weights.
Total uncertainty. The total uncertainty in S is
US=0.006867 m2 or 0.50% of the nominal wetted surface
area. Improvement of US should focus on loading the
model on displacement instead of draft, which would
reduce BS1. Reductions in US could be achieved with
improved methods of hull-form construction such as CNC
milling and would yield improvements in uncertainties for
total resistance as shown later.
Previous uncertainty assessment has not considered
US. Results from many laboratories (ITTC, 1999)
indicate US’s ranging from 0.11-0.50% of which IIHR
represents the highest value. For IIHR, although the error
in the geometry offsets is small, US is relatively high
because the model is relatively small, having three-four
times less wetted surface area than models at other
facilities, i.e., DTMB 5415 and INSEAN 2340 have
L=5.72m, S=4.89 m2.
B.3 Carriage Speed
Equations (1) and (2) give the carriage speed data-
reduction equation. The carriage speed and resistance
tests are done concurrently which is the reason equation
(2) is included in the evaluation of uncertainty in Uc,
however, uncertainty associated with equation (2) is
unknown. The carriage speed measurement system
consists of individual measurement systems for n, D, and
∆t. The bias and precision limits and total uncertainty in
Uc are evaluated at three Fr=0.10, 0.28, and 0.41 and
summarized in Table A.1.
Bias Limits. The bias limit, equation (B.3), is given
by
B 2Uc = (θ n B n )2 + (θ D B D )2 + (θ ∆t B ∆t )2 (B.20)
where
∂U c ∂U c ∂U c
θn = θD = θ ∆t = (B.21)
∂n ∂D ∂∆t
There are four elemental bias errors for n
(θ n B n )2 = θ 2n [B 2n1 + B 2n 2 + B 2n 3 + B 2n 4 ] (B.22)
as indicated in Figure 3. The optical encoder is factory-
calibrated and rated for accuracy Bn1=1 pulse (or bit) on
every update. Data for n is sampled first by a DA card
and then by an AD card in order to transfer the data from
the speed circuit to the PC. The accuracy of the DA/AD
cards is Bn2=Bn3=1.5 bits. This is determined by
calibrating the boards to a precision voltage source.
Scaling of the voltage representation of n to frequency
(Hz) and subsequently to pulses is done with a bench-top
calibration of the speed circuit. The scatter in the
calibration data is quantified with the standard error of
estimate (SEE) and the bias error is Bn4=0.25 bit.
The value of D is periodically measured for the
northeast carriage wheel at three locations with a
precision vernier caliper. The three values are averaged
to determine a final value used in equation (1). D is
accurate to within 0.1145e-03 m.
From manufacturers specifications, the oscillator
modules on the DA/AD cards are accurate to within
0.1025e-04 s on every update of n.
Most of the uncertainty in n is from the DA/AD
conversions (80%). The accuracy of the pulse counter
and scaling of voltage to pulse count account for 18% and
1.2%, respectively, of Bn. The bias limits of the
individual variables Bn, BD, and B∆t are relatively small in
comparison to their respective ranges. The bias in n is
larger than in D and ∆t for all Fr and decreases with
increasing Fr. The bias in D and ∆t are Fr independent.
Evaluation of the effects of the sensitivity coefficients
demonstrates that most of BUc is composed of Bnθn, Bnθn
decreases with increasing Fr, and (BDθD and B∆tθ∆t)
increase with increasing Fr. For Fr=0.10, 0.28, and 0.41,
the contribution of BUc to the total uncertainty is 94.2,
85.9, and 82.3%, respectively.
Precision limits. The precision limits are estimated
from equation (B.12) in an end-to-end procedure of M=10
repeated measurements of Uc for three Fr=0.10, 0.28, and
0.41.
PUc contributes 5.8, 14.1, and 17.7% to UUc for
Fr=0.10, 0.28, and 0.41 respectively. In contrast to BUc,
PUc increases with increasing Fr.
Total uncertainty. Total uncertainties are expressed
as percentages of the mean measured Uc at Fr=0.10, 0.28,
and 0.41. Uncertainties for Uc are 0.66, 0.25, and 0.18%
for Fr=0.10, 0.28, and 0.41, respectively. Contributions
from BUc’s to UUc is 4-16 times higher than that of PUc,
and BUc is mostly due to the DA/AD conversions for
transferal of speed data to the PC. Attempts to improve
UUc would likely focus on reducing the uncertainty in the
DA/AD conversions or restructuring the data stream for
Uc to eliminate one or both conversions. Reductions in
UUc would yield improvements in uncertainties for total
resistance, sinkage and trim, and nominal wake data as
shown in later sections.
Previous uncertainty assessment treatment of UUc
focussed on one carriage speed and resulted in a single
estimate, UUc=0.33%, which is near the average value for
the present speed range. Results from other laboratories
(Longo and Stern, 1996a and ITTC, 1999) indicate UUc’s
ranging from 0.03-0.40%.
B.4 Resistance
Equations (3), (4), and (5) give the resistance data-
reduction equations. The measurement system consists of
individual measurement systems for Fx, ρ(T), and S. In
the present analysis, Bρ is assumed negligible, however,
BT is retained. The bias and precision limits and total
uncertainty in CT are evaluated at three Fr=0.10, 0.28, and
0.41 and summarized in Table A.1.
Bias Limits. The bias limit, equation (B.3), is given
by
2
B CT (
= (θ Fx B Fx )2 + θ ρ B ρ + B T θ T ρ T )2 +
(θ Uc B Uc )2 + (θS BS )2 (B.23)
where
∂C T ∂C T ∂C T ∂C T
θ Fx = θρ = θ Uc = θS = (B.24)
∂Fx ∂ρ ∂U c ∂S
There are three elemental bias errors for Fx
(θ Fx B Fx )2 = θ 2Fx [B 2Fx1 + B 2Fx 2 + B 2Fx3 ]
(B.25)
as indicated in Figure 4. Standard weights are used for
the load cell calibration. The uncertainty in the weight
values is 0.00025% NIST-rated class S. Four weights
(500, 1000, 1500, 2000 gm) are used in the calibration,
and the bias error is the product of the uncertainty and the
RSS of the weights
( )
4
B Fx1 = 0.0000025 ∑ Wi2 (B.26)
i =1
Misalignment of the load cell in the model is a data-
acquisition bias. The angle is small (<0.25°) and the bias
is
B Fx 2 = Fx − cos(0.25 o ) ∗ Fx (B.27)
The scatter in the load cell calibration data is quantified
with the SEE. Three calibrations are completed (two
before the resistance tests begin and one after the test
program is completed), and three values of the SEE are
computed. An average of the three values is used as the
data-reduction bias error BFx3.
The temperature gage is a resistive-type probe with a
signal conditioner and digital readout that is factory
calibrated. Manufacturer’s specifications state the
calibrated temperature-gage accuracy at 0.2°C. Bias error
associated with linear interpolation of ρ from T are
assumed negligible; therefore, there are no data-reduction
bias errors for T.
The load-cell calibration contributes 100% to the bias
uncertainty in Fx and the weight standard and load-cell
alignment are negligible. The bias limits in the individual
variables BFx, BUc, BT, and BS are relatively small in
comparison to their respective ranges. The terms for BFx
and BUc are Fr dependent, i.e., they decrease with
increasing Fr, whereas, BT and BS are Fr independent.
Evaluation of the effects of the sensitivity coefficients
demonstrates that most of BCT is composed of BFxθFx and
BUcθUc for Fr=0.10 and BUcθUc and BSθS for Fr=0.28 and
0.41. In addition, BFxθFx and BSθS decrease and increase
significantly, respectively, with increasing Fr.
remaining term, BTθρρT, contributes very little to the
The
magnitude of BCT. For Fr=0.10, 0.28, and 0.41, the
contribution of BCT to the total uncertainty is 87.6, 89.2,
and 80.5%, respectively.
Precision limits. The precision limits are estimated
from equation (B.12) in an end-to-end procedure of M=10
repeated measurements of Fx for three Fr=0.10, 0.28, and
0.41. The data for Fx at the measured and calibrated
[equation (2)] carriage speed is scaled to the desired speed
corresponding to either Fr=0.10, 0.28, or 0.41 with the
following equation
2
U cs
Fxs = Fx (B.28)
U c2
individual measurement systems for ∆FP, ∆AP, and Uc
where the first two variables are the vertical
displacements at the FP and AP, respectively, and the
later is expressed in its nondimensional form, Fr, for the
evaluation of equations (7) and (8). The bias and
precision limits and total uncertainty in σ and τ are
evaluated at three Fr=0.10, 0.28, and 0.41 and
summarized in Table A.2.
Bias Limits. The bias limits, equation (B.3), are
given by
B σ2 = B 2τ =

where Ucs and Fxs are the desired carriage speed and (θ Uc B Uc )2 + (θ ∆FP B ∆FP )2 + (θ ∆AP B ∆AP )2 (B.29)
scaled force, respectively. Force values from equation
(B.28) are used to compute CT at the measurement where
temperature. The next step is to scale CT to a specified
∂σ ∂σ ∂σ
water temperature (15°C) so that comparison of the θ Uc = θ ∆FP = θ ∆AP =
resistance data with data from other laboratories is ∂Uc ∂∆FP ∂∆AP
possible. This is completed in two parts: (1) the residual
∂τ ∂τ ∂τ
resistance CR is calculated with equation (4); and (2) θ Uc = θ ∆FP = θ ∆AP = (B.30)
CT15C is computed with equation (3). Standard deviations ∂Uc ∂∆FP ∂∆AP
for the three data sets of CT15C are then computed and the for sinkage and trim, respectively.
precision limits are listed in Table A.1. PCT15C contributes There are three elemental bias errors for ∆FP and
12.4, 10.8, and 19.5% to UCT15C for Fr=0.10, 0.28, and ∆AP
0.41 respectively. In contrast to BCT, PCT15C decreases

(θ ∆FP B ∆FP )2 = θ ∆2 FP [B ∆2 FP1 + B 2∆FP2 + B 2∆FP3 ]

from Fr=0.10-0.28 and then increases from Fr=0.28-0.41.
Total uncertainty. Total uncertainties are expressed
as percentages of the mean measured CT15C at Fr=0.10,

(θ ∆AP B ∆AP )2 = θ ∆2 AP [B 2∆AP1 + B 2∆AP2 + B 2∆AP3 ](B.31)

0.28, and 0.41. Uncertainties for CT15C are 1.46, 0.63, and
0.60% for Fr=0.10, 0.28, and 0.41, respectively.
Contributions from BCT’s to UCT is 4-8 times higher than
that of PCT15C, and BCT is mostly due to the uncertainty in as indicated in Figure 5. A computer-controlled traverse
Fx and Uc for Fr=0.10 and mostly due to the uncertainty in with a positional uncertainty of 0.0071% is the calibration
Uc and S for Fr=0.28 and 0.41. As mentioned above, the standard for the potentiometers. Calibrations are done
effects of the uncertainty in Uc and US have propagated over 90 mm in 10 mm increments. The bias error is the
into UCT15C, which plays a significant role in the product of the traverse uncertainty and the RSS of the
magnitude of UCT15C. The uncertainty assessment results traverse increments
demonstrate that improvements in the quality of the
resistance data should focus on improving the accuracy of
the speed circuit as per section B.3 and lowering the
uncertainty in the value of wetted surface area S as per
9
B ∆FP1,∆AP1 = 0.000071 ∑ z i2 ( )
i =1
(B.32)

section B.2.
Previous uncertainty assessment treatment of UCT Misalignment of the potentiometers with respect to the
resulted in a range of estimates, UCT=5.0-0.5 % (low-high vertical plane is a data-acquisition bias error. The angle is
Fr), which brackets the present values. Improvements in small (<0.25°) and the bias is
the treatment of the precision limits have reduced UCT at
the low Fr. Results from other laboratories (Longo and B ∆FP 2 = ∆FP − cos(0.25 o ) ∗ ∆FP
Stern, 1996a and ITTC, 1999) indicate UCT’s ranging
from 0.5-5.0%.
B ∆AP 2 = ∆AP − cos(0.25 o ) ∗ ∆AP (B.33)
B.5 Sinkage and Trim The scatter in the potentiometer calibration data is
Equations (7) and (8) give the sinkage and trim data- quantified with the SEE. Four calibrations are completed
reduction equations. The measurement system consists of
(two before the sinkage and trim tests begin and two after
the test program is completed), and four values of the
SEE are computed. An average of the four values is used
as the data-reduction bias limit B∆FP3, ∆AP3.
The potentiometer calibration standard contributes
3.8 and 10.7% to the bias uncertainty in ∆FP and ∆AP,
respectively. The scatter in the potentiometer calibration
data contributes 96.2 and 89.3% to the bias uncertainty in
∆FP and ∆AP, respectively. Contribution of the
installation error to the bias uncertainty is negligible.
The bias limits in the individual variables B∆FP, B∆AP, and
BUc are relatively small in comparison to their respective
ranges for Fr=0.28 and 0.41, but significant for Fr=0.10
due to the small measurement range for the lowest Fr.
The terms for B∆AP and BUc are Fr dependent, i.e., they
decrease with increasing Fr, whereas, B∆FP is Fr
independent. Evaluation of the effects of the sensitivity
coefficients demonstrates that most of Bσ is composed of
B∆FPθ∆FP and B∆APθ∆AP for Fr=0.10 and B∆FPθ∆FP and
BUcθUc for Fr=0.28 and 0.41. In addition, (B∆FPθ∆FP,
B∆APθ∆AP) and BUcθUc decrease and increase significantly,
respectively, with increasing Fr. Most of Bτ is composed
of B∆FPθ∆FP and B∆APθ∆AP, both of which are Fr
independent. The remaining component of Bτ, BUcθUc, is
small except for Fr=0.28 and Fr independent. For
Fr=0.10, 0.28, and 0.41, the contribution of Bσ to the total
uncertainty is 82.2, 30.3, and 42.8%, respectively. For
Fr=0.10, 0.28, and 0.41, the contribution of Bτ to the total
uncertainty is 50.8, 36.1, and 4.1%, respectively.
Precision limits. The precision limits are estimated from
equation (B.12) in an end-to-end procedure of M=10
repeated measurements of σ and τ for three Fr=0.10, 0.28,
and 0.41. Pσ contributes 17.8, 69.7, and 57.2% to Uσ for
Fr=0.10, 0.28, and 0.41 respectively. In contrast to Bσ, Pσ
increases from Fr=0.10-0.28 and then decreases from
Fr=0.28-0.41. Pτ contributes 49.2, 63.9, and 95.9% to Uτ
for Fr=0.10, 0.28, and 0.41 respectively. In contrast to Bτ,
Pτ increases with increasing Fr.
Total uncertainty. Total uncertainties are expressed
as percentages of the mean measured σ and τ at Fr=0.10,
0.28, and 0.41. Uncertainties for σ are 8.72, 1.40, and
0.61% for Fr=0.10, 0.28, and 0.41, respectively.
Contributions from Bσ to Uσ is four times higher than that
of Pσ for Fr=0.10, one-half that of Pσ for Fr=0.28, and
roughly equal to Pσ for Fr=0.41. Uncertainties for τ are
10.22, 1.83, and 1.76% for Fr=0.10, 0.28, and 0.41,
respectively. Contributions from Pτ to Uτ is roughly equal
to Bτ for Fr=0.10, two times higher than that of Bτ for
Fr=0.28, and twenty-five times that of Bτ for Fr=0.41.
The uncertainty assessment results demonstrate that
improvements in the quality of the sinkage and trim data
should focus on improving the linearity of the
potentiometer calibration data through higher quality
potentiometers.
Previous uncertainty assessment treatment of Uσ and
Uτ resulted in considerably lower uncertainties, i.e.,
Uσ=Uτ=0.3% for Fr=0.316 and Uσ=Uτ=1.8% for Fr=0.16
for the Series 60 CB=0.6. Comprehensive treatment of the
bias error terms in the present analysis accounts for the
increases in the uncertainties at all Fr. Results from other
laboratories (Longo and Stern, 1996a) indicate Uσ,Uτ’s
ranging from 0.3-6.0%.
B.6 Wave Profile
Equation (9) gives the wave profile data-reduction
equation. The bias error in the model length L is assumed
negligible. The bias and precision limits and total
uncertainty in ζ are evaluated at two Fr=0.28 and 0.41 and
summarized in Table A.2.
Bias Limits. There are four elemental bias errors for
ζ. The first is associated with the error in the placement
of the draft and vertical scale at each x-station line on the
model and is estimated as Bζ1=1.0 mm. The second is
associated with the error in the placement of the marker
on the hull and is estimated as Bζ2=1.5 mm. The third is
associated with reapplying the marks on the hull when the
model is on the level table and is estimated as Bζ3=1.0
mm. The fourth and final bias error is associated with
reading the wave elevation in the Cartesian coordinate
system from the height gauge and is estimated as Bζ4=0.5
mm. The total bias limit is a RSS of Bζ1, Bζ2, Bζ3, and
Bζ4. Bζ1, Bζ2, Bζ3, and Bζ4 contribute 22.9, 50.0, 22.9, and
4.2%, respectively, to Bζ and are Fr independent. Bζ
contributes 83.7 and 81.6% to Uζ for Fr=0.28 and 0.41,
respectively.
Precision limits. The precision limits are estimated
from equation (B.12) in an end-to-end procedure of M=3
repeated measurements of ζ for two Fr=0.28 and 0.41.
Standard deviations for the two data sets of ζ are then
computed and precision limits are listed in Table A.1. Pζ
contributes 16.3 and 18.4% to Uζ for Fr=0.28 and 0.41,
respectively.
Total uncertainty. Total uncertainties are expressed
as percentages of the respective measurement ranges at
Fr=0.28 and 0.41. Uncertainties for ζ are 3.43 and 2.00%
for Fr=0.28 and 0.41, respectively. Contributions from Bζ
to Uζ is roughly four times higher than that of Pζ for both
Fr. The uncertainty assessment results demonstrate that
improvements in the quality of the wave-profile data
should focus on more accurate placement of the markers
on the hull and more accurate reapplication of the wave-
elevation marks on the hull prior to measuring ζ in the
ship coordinate system.
Previous uncertainty assessment treatment of Uζ
resulted in lower uncertainties, i.e., Uζ=1.3% for Fr=0.316
and Uζ=2.6% for Fr=0.16 for the Series 60 CB=0.6.
Comprehensive treatment of the bias error terms in the
present analysis accounts for the increases in the
uncertainties at all Fr. Results from other laboratories
(Longo and Stern, 1996a) indicate Uζ’s ranging from 1.3-
22.0%.
B.7 Nominal Wake
Equations (10)-(20) give the nominal wake data-
reduction equations and are of the form
(
u i = U c−1f i y, z, M ′, M, α, φ, α p , φ p ) (B.34)
C p = U c−2 g(y, z, P, M ′, M )
where
( )
M ′ = M ′ H j′
The measurement system consists of individual
measurement systems for Uc and H´j=c,t,b,p,s where the
second variable is the measured pressures for the center,
top, bottom, port, and starboard holes, respectively, of the
boundary-layer type, five-hole pitot probe. The bias and
precision limits and total uncertainty in u, v, w, and Cp are
evaluated at two locations [low turbulence: (x, y,
z)=(0.9346, 0.1, -0.01375) and high turbulence: (x, y,
z)=(0.9346, 0, -0.02125)] for two Fr=0.28 and 0.41 and
summarized in Table A.3.
Bias Limits. The bias limits, equation (B.3), are
given by
(
B 2u = (θ Uc B Uc )2 + θ y B y )2 + (θ z B z )2 + (θ Hc′ B Hc′ )2 +
(θ Ht′ B Ht′ )2 + (θ Hb′ B Hb′ )2 + (θ Hp′ B Hp′ )2 +
(θ Hs′ B Hs′ )2 + (θ M B M )2 + (θ α B α )2 + (θ φ B φ )2 +
(θ αp Bαp )2 + (θφp Bφp )2
(
B 2v = (θ Uc B Uc )2 + θ y B y )2 + (θ z B z )2 + (θ Hc′ B Hc′ )2 +
(θ Ht′ B Ht′ )2 + (θ Hb′ B Hb′ )2 + (θ Hp′ B Hp′ )2 +
(θ Hs′ B Hs′ )2 + (θ M B M )2 + (θ α B α )2 + (θ φ B φ )2 +
(θ αp Bαp )2 + (θφp Bφp )2
( )2 + (θ z B z )2 + (θ Hc′ B Hc′ )2 +
B 2w = (θ Uc B Uc )2 + θ y B y
(θ Ht′ B Ht′ )2 + (θ Hb′ B Hb′ )2 + (θ Hp′ B Hp′ )2 +
(θ Hs′ B Hs′ )2 + (θ M B M )2 + (θ α B α )2 + (θ φ B φ )2 +
(θ αp Bαp )2 + (θφp Bφp )2 (B.39)
2
B Cp (
= (θ Uc B Uc )2 + θ y B y )2 + (θ z B z )2 + (θ P B P )2 +
(B.35)
(θ Hc′ B Hc′ )2 + (θ Ht′ B Ht′ )2 + (θ Hb′ B Hb′ )2 +
(θ Hp′ B Hp′ )2 + (θ Hs′ B Hs′ )2 + (θ M B M )2 (B.40)
(B.36) where the sensitivity coefficients are defined in the usual
manner, i.e., equation (B.4). The second and third terms
in each equation are biases stemming from inaccuracies in
the position of the five-hole pitot probe in the y and z
axes. The axial coordinate (x) positional bias is not
considered. All of the sensitivity coefficients in equations
(B.37-40) are evaluated analytically except for θy and θz,
which are evaluated numerically with TECPLOT at the
specific locations where the precision limit tests are done.
TECPLOT uses a central-difference method for
evaluation of derivatives.
The bias limits for Uc, as per the results in section
B.3, are used in the present analysis. The bias in
manually positioning the probe tip in relation to the hull
centerplane (y) and free surface (z) is estimated at 1.0 mm
and is based on the resolution of the traverse scales.
Positional bias due to multiple probe movements in the y,
z-axes are computed similarly as with equation (B.32) and
found to be negligible. Two elemental bias errors for H´j
are considered as indicated in Figure 6. The first error
source is associated with the resolution of the traverse
system used for calibrating the pressure transducers and is
(B.37)
negligible. The second error source is associated with the
scatter in the pressure transducer calibration data and is
quantified with the SEE before and after a set of tests. An
average of the two SEE values at each Fr is used as the
data-reduction bias error BH’j. For the interpolated
variables, M and P, the bias error is BM=0.05747 and
BP=0.01625, respectively, which is roughly 2.3 and 1.6%
of the range of these variables, respectively. The values
of BM and BP are the total uncertainties (UM and UP) of M
and P from the wind tunnel calibration. They are
obtained with standard uncertainty assessment
(B.38) procedures, i.e., computation of the bias limits with data-
reduction equations and estimation of the precision limits
with statistical analysis. However, for this case, the
precision limits are computed with a small-sample (M=3)
approach because of the excessive time commitment
required for M=10 iterations of the wind tunnel
calibration. The interpolation error in computing M and P
during the nominal wake tests is considered negligible in
comparison to the stated values of BM and BP. The bias
error in the angles (α, φ) of the velocity vector and the
preset angles of the five-hole pitot probe (αp, φp) are
estimated at 0.3°. This value is a result of a standard
uncertainty assessment for K and L, two additional
coefficients from the wind tunnel calibration that are
required to interpolate (α, φ) and (αp, φp) during the
nominal wake tests and uniform-flow test, respectively.
The uncertainty assessment for K and L, as well as M and
P, addresses traversing errors, probe-position
inaccuracies, and pressure measurement errors at the five-
hole pitot probe and static probe sustained during the
wind tunnel calibration. The total uncertainty in K, L
(UK=0.00777, UL=0.00636) propagates into the
calculation of (α, φ) and (αp, φp) as a bias error with a
magnitude of 0.3°.
For Fr=0.28 (low turbulence), most of Bu is due to
uncertainty in Uc and M, 3.5 and 96.3%, respectively. In
the high-turbulence region, Uc and M play a lesser role,
1.6 and 42.7%, respectively, and the uncertainty in the z-
coordinate is the major contributor (54.4%) to Bu. The
majority of Bv is attributed to uncertainty in φ and φp, 49.3
and 49.3%, respectively, for low turbulence and 49.4 and
47.0%, respectively, for high turbulence while the
uncertainty in M contributes 0.5-1.5% for both regions.
Position uncertainties for the z-coordinate, low turbulence
(0.7%) and y-coordinate, high turbulence (2.1%), account
for the remainder of Bv. The majority of Bw is attributed
to uncertainty in α and αp, 49.9 and 49.9%, respectively,
for low turbulence. For high turbulence, uncertainty in α
and αp also play an important role, 42.1 and 42.1%,
respectively, but bias associated with M is also important,
contributing 10.5%. Uncertainty in Uc plays a
comparatively minor (0.01-0.4%) role in Bw. The majority
of BCp is attributed to uncertainty in P and M, 33.0 and
65.9%, respectively for low turbulence and 34.3 and
64.5%, respectively for high turbulence with minor
contributions from the uncertainty in the z-coordinate
(~1%). Total bias limits for (u, v, w, Cp) contribute >99.7
and >91.5% to the total uncertainty for those variables for
the low- and high-turbulence regions, respectively.
For Fr=0.41 (low turbulence), most of Bu is due to
uncertainty in Uc and M, 1.9 and 97.6%, respectively. In
the high-turbulence region, Uc and M play a lesser role,
0.2 and 10.5%, respectively, and the uncertainty in the z-
coordinate becomes the major contributor (88.4%) to Bu
due to a large gradient of u along the z-axis at the location
of the high-turbulence region. The majority of Bv is
attributed to uncertainty in φ and φp, 49.8 and 49.7%,
respectively, for low turbulence and 50.4 and 48.1%,
respectively for high turbulence while the uncertainty in
M contributes 0.3-0.7% for both regions. Positional
uncertainties for the z-coordinate, low turbulence (0.2%)
and z-coordinate, high turbulence (0.7%), account for the
remainder of Bv. The majority of Bw is attributed to
uncertainty in α and αp, 49.4 and 49.4%, respectively for
low turbulence. For high turbulence, uncertainty in α and
αp play a lesser role, 15.9 and 15.9%, respectively, and
the positional bias for the z-coordinate is most important,
contributing 64.1%. Uncertainty in Uc and M play a
comparatively minor (0.01-3.7%) role in Bw. The
majority of BCp is attributed to uncertainty in P and M,
33.5 and 66.4%, respectively, for low turbulence and 34.7
and 65.1%, respectively, for high turbulence. Total bias
limits for (u, v, w, Cp) contribute >97% to the total
uncertainty for those variables in both low- and high-
turbulence regions.
In summary, the bias limits have consistent
magnitudes for both Fr and regions of turbulence. Also,
the magnitude of Bu and BCp are mainly influenced by the
uncertainty in M and P, whereas, the magnitude of Bv and
Bw are mainly influenced by the uncertainty in (α, φ) and
(αp, φp). Interestingly, the uncertainties associated with
H´c,t,b,p,s are negligible for all cases in comparison with the
other variables noted above.
Precision limits. The precision limits are estimated from
equation (B.12) in an end-to-end procedure of M=10
repeated measurements of (u, v, w, Cp) for high and low
turbulence locations at two Fr=0.28 and 0.41. For
Fr=0.28 (low turbulence), precision limits for (u, v, w, Cp)
contribute 0.05-0.3% to the total uncertainty, whereas, for
the high-turbulence region, contributions of 0.7-8.5% are
estimated for (u, v, w, Cp). For Fr=0.41 (low turbulence),
precision limits for (u, v, w, Cp) contribute 0.3-2.8% to
the total uncertainty, whereas, for the high-turbulence
region, contributions of 0.3-2.6% are estimated for (u, v,
w, Cp).
In summary, the precision limits are consistently
smaller than the respective bias limits, sometimes one-two
orders of magnitude smaller. This is a positive result of
the low-pass filtering of the data in the signal conditioners
and the natural low-pass filtering in using water to
transmit pressures to the pressure transducers. For
Fr=0.28, the low-turbulence precision limits are
consistently smaller than for the high-turbulence precision
limits, however, this trend is not evident for Fr=0.41.
Total uncertainty. Total uncertainties are expressed
as percentages of the ranges of the individual variables (u,
v, w, Cp). For Fr=0.28 (low turbulence), the uncertainties
are 1.19, 5.54, 4.08, and 29.10%, respectively, while in
the high-turbulence region, the uncertainties are 1.02,
3.33, 2.53, and 9.52%, respectively. Note that Uu, Uv, Uw
and UCp decrease between low and high-turbulence
regions. For Fr=0.41 (low turbulence), the uncertainties
are 1.15, 5.00, 4.56, and 22.82%, respectively, while in
the high-turbulence region, the uncertainties 2.29, 3.37,
5.24, and 10.31%, respectively. Moderate increases occur
for Uu and Uw, and moderate and significant decreases in
Uv and UCp, respectively, are observed between low and
high-turbulence regions. The levels of uncertainty
between Fr=0.28 and 0.41 are very similar for all
variables between both turbulence levels.
The uncertainty assessment results indicate that the
bias limits are the dominant terms in the total
uncertainties, regardless of Fr or high/low turbulence
region. Efforts to improve the quality of the mean-flow
data should focus on reducing the bias limits, particularly
those associated with the wind-tunnel calibration of the
five-hole pitot probe. This could be accomplished with
higher-precision traverses for angular movements of the
five-hole pitot probe and increased angular resolution in
the yaw and pitch planes. The goal is reduction of (BM,
BP) and (Bα, Bφ), which would yield improvements in the
uncertainties of (u, Cp) and (v, w), respectively. Also,
during the experimental setup of the mean-flow tests,
more accurate initial positioning of the five-hole pitot
probe in the z-coordinate would substantially reduce bias
limits for u and w.
Early uncertainty assessment treatment (Toda et al.,
1992) of Uu,v,w,Cp resulted in estimates of 2.5% for the
magnitude of u, v, w and 9.5% for Cp. Subsequent
improvements (Longo and Stern 1996b) to the analysis
yielded results of 1.5 and 3.0% for the magnitude of
velocity and pressure, respectively. The current
uncertainty estimates for Uu,v,w are comparable with the
later efforts, however, UCp is significantly larger for the
current work due to the comprehensive treatment of the
bias error terms. Results from other laboratories (Longo
and Stern, 1996a and Stern et al., 1998) indicate Uu,v,w,Cp’s
ranging from 0.8-5.0%.
 Table A.1. Summary of uncertainties for surface area S, carriage speed Uc, and resistance CT15C.
Fr=0.10 Fr=0.28 Fr=0.41

Term Magnitude % Magnitude % Magnitude %

Model geometry (S)
BS1 0.6077e-02 m2 c
78.3% 0.6077e-02 m2 c
78.3% 0.6077e-02 m2 c
78.3%
BS2 0.3197e-02 m2 c
21.7% 0.3197e-02 m2 c
21.7% 0.3197e-02 m2 c
21.7%

BS 0.6867e-02 m2 100.0% 0.6867e-02 m2 100.0% 0.6867e-02 m2 100.0%

PS - - - - - -
US 0.6867e-02 m2 0.50% 0.6867e-02 m2 0.50% 0.6867e-02 m2 0.50%
Carriage speed (Uc)
a a a
Bn1 1 bit 18.0% 1 bit 18.0% 1 bit 18.0%
a a a
Bn2 1.5 bits 40.4% 1.5 bits 40.4% 1.5 bits 40.4%
a a a
Bn3 1.5 bits 40.4% 1.5 bits 40.4% 1.5 bits 40.4%
a a a
Bn4 0.25 bit 1.2% 0.25 bit 1.2% 0.25 bit 1.2%

b b b
Bn 0.2358e+01 bits 0.65% 0.2358e+01 bits 0.23% 0.2358e+01 bits 0.16%
b b b
BD 0.1145e-03 m 0.03% 0.1145e-03 m 0.03% 0.1145e-03 m 0.03%
b b b
B∆t 0.1025e-04 s 0.01% 0.1025e-04 s 0.01% 0.1025e-04 s 0.01%

Bnθn 0.3528e-02 m/s c

99.8% 0.3528e-02 m/s c
98.1% 0.3528e-02 m/s c
96.1%
BDθD 0.1641e-03 m/s c
0.2% 0.4600e-03 m/s c
1.7% 0.6736e-03 m/s c
3.5%
B∆tθ∆t 0.5598e-04 m/s c
0% 0.1569e-03 m/s c
0.2% 0.2297e-03 m/s c
0.4%

BUc 0.3532e-02 m/s 94.2% 0.3561e-02 m/s 85.9% 0.3599e-02 m/s 82.3%
PUc 0.8727e-03 m/s 5.8% 0.1443e-02 m/s 14.1% 0.1671e-02 m/s 17.7%
UUc 0.3638e-02 m/s 0.66% 0.3842e-02 m/s 0.25% 0.3968e-02 m/s 0.18%
Resistance (CT)
a a a
BFx1 0.6847e-05 kg 0% 0.6847e-05 kg 0% 0.6847e-05 kg 0%
a a a
BFx2 0.9201e-06 kg 0% 0.7174e-05 kg 0% 0.2245e-04 kg 0.1%
a a a
BFx3 0.8384e-03 kg 100% 0.8384e-03 kg 100% 0.8384e-03 kg 99.9%

b b b
BFx 0.8384e-03 kg 0.87% 0.8385e-03 kg 0.11% 0.8387e-03 kg 0.04%
b b b
BT 0.2 °C 0.77% 0.2 °C 0.78% 0.2 °C 0.77%
b b b
BUc 0.3532e-02 m/s 0.64% 0.3561e-02 m/s 0.23% 0.3599e-02 m/s 0.16%
BS 0.6867e-02 m2 b
0.50% 0.6867e-02 m2 b
0.50% 0.6867e-02 m2 b
0.50%

BFxθFx 0.3980e-04 c
28.4% 0.5067e-05 c
2.6% 0.2358e-05 c
0.4%
BTθρρT 0.2393e-06 c
0% 0.2375e-06 c
0% 0.3459e-06 c
0.0%
BUcθUc 0.5895e-04 c
62.2% 0.2105e-04 c
44.8% 0.2112e-04 c
28.7%
BSθS 0.2298e-04 c
9.4% 0.2281e-04 c
52.6% 0.3321e-04 c
70.9%

BCT 0.7475e-04 87.6% 0.3145e-04 89.2% 0.3943e-04 80.5%

PCT15C 0.2807e-04 12.4% 0.1094e-04 10.8% 0.1940e-04 19.5%
UCT15C 0.7985e-04 1.46% 0.3330e-04 0.63% 0.4394e-04 0.60%

a: % of B2i range; b: % of the individual variable range; c: % of B2r range; italic: % of U 2r range; bold: % of mean value or range of the result
 Table A.2. Summary of uncertainties for sinkage σ and trim τ and wave profiles ζ.
Fr=0.10 Fr=0.28 Fr=0.41

Term Magnitude % Magnitude % Magnitude %

Sinkage and Trim (σ and τ)
a a a
B∆FP1 0.1199e-04 m 3.8% 0.1199e-04 m 3.8% 0.1199e-04 m 3.8%
a a a
B∆FP2 0.9116e-08 m 0% 0.8894e-08 m 0% 0.4343e-08 m 0%
a a a
B∆FP3 0.6025e-04 m 96.2% 0.6025e-04 m 96.2% 0.6025e-04 m 96.2%

a a a
B∆AP1 0.1199e-04 m 10.7% 0.1199e-04 m 10.7% 0.1199e-04 m 10.7%
a a a
B∆AP2 0.3845e-09 m 0% 0.2082e-09 m 0% 0.2355e-09 m 0%
a a a
B∆AP3 0.3500e-04 m 89.3% 0.3500e-04 m 89.3% 0.3500e-04 m 89.3%

b b b
B∆FP 0.6143e-04 m 6.41% 0.6143e-04 m 0.66% 0.6143e-04 m 1.35%
b b b
B∆AP 0.3670e-04 m 90.9% 0.3670e-04 m 1.68% 0.3670e-04 m 0.15%
b b b
BUc 0.3532e-02 m/s 0.64% 0.3561e-02 m/s 0.23% 0.3599e-02 m/s 0.16%

(B∆FPθ∆FP)σ 0.1994e-02 c
71.8% 0.2523e-03 c
47.5% 0.1181e-03 c
27.3%
(B∆APθ∆AP)σ 0.1191e-02 c
25.6% 0.1507e-03 c
17.0% 0.7056e-04 c
9.7%
(BUcθUc)σ 0.3829e-03 c
2.6% 0.2183e-03 c
35.5% 0.1796e-03 c
63.0%

(B∆FPθ∆FP)τ 0.3989e-02 c
71.4% 0.5046e-03 c
60.8% 0.2362e-03 c
73.1%
(B∆APθ∆AP)τ 0.2383e-02 c
25.5% 0.3014e-03 c
21.7% 0.1411e-03 c
26.1%
(BUcθUc)τ 0.8332e-03 c
3.1% 0.2710e-03 c
17.5% 0.2474e-04 c
0.8%

Bσ 0.2354e-02 82.2% 0.3661e-03 30.3% 0.2262e-03 42.8%

Pσ 0.1094e-02 17.8% 0.5549e-03 69.7% 0.2617e-03 57.2%
Uσ 0.2596e-02 8.72% 0.6648e-03 1.40% 0.3459e-03 0.61%

Bτ 0.4720e-02 50.8% 0.6472e-03 36.1% 0.2763e-03 4.1%

Pτ 0.4642e-02 49.2% 0.8617e-03 63.9% 0.1341e-02 95.9%
Uτ 0.6621e-02 10.22% 0.1078e-02 1.83% 0.1369e-02 1.76%
Wave Profile (ζ)
a a
Bζ1 0.3280e-03 22.9% 0.3280e-03 22.9%
a a
Bζ2 0.4921e-03 50.0% 0.4921e-03 50.0%
a a
Bζ3 0.3280e-03 22.9% 0.3280e-03 22.9%
a a
Bζ4 0.1640e-03 4.2% 0.1640e-03 4.2%

Bζ 0.6959e-03 83.7% 0.6959e-03 81.6%

Pζ 0.3069e-03 16.3% 0.3308e-03 18.4%
Uζ 0.7605e-03 3.43% 0.7705e-03 2.00%

a: % of B2i range; b: % of the individual variable range; c: % of B2r range; italic: % of U 2r range; bold: % of mean value or range of the result
 Table A.3. Summary of uncertainties for nominal wake (u, v, w) and Cp.
Fr=0.28 Fr=0.41
Low turbulence High turbulence Low turbulence High turbulence

Term Magnitude % Magnitude % Magnitude % Magnitude %

Nominal Wake (u, v, w, Cp)
b b b b
BUc (m/s) 0.3561e-02 0.2263e+00% 0.3561e-02 0.2258e+00% 0.3599e-02 0.1628e+00% 0.3599e-02 0.1627e+00%
b b b b
By (m) 0.001 0.7483e-01% 0.001 0.7483e-01% 0.001 0.7819e-01% 0.001 0.7819e-01%
b b b b
Bz (m) 0.001 0.1265e+00% 0.001 0.1265e+00% 0.001 0.1094e+00% 0.001 0.1094e+00%
b b b b
BP (nd) 0.01625 0.1625e+01% 0.01625 0.1625e+01% 0.01625 0.1625e+01% 0.01625 0.1625e+01%
b b b b
BH´c (m h2o) 0.2918e-04 0.2354e-01% 0.2918e-04 0.5820e-01% 0.8897e-04 0.3457e-01% 0.8897e-04 0.7200e-01%
b b b b
BH´t (m h2o) 0.5872e-04 0.1224e+00% 0.5872e-04 0.4320e+00% 0.1814e-03 0.1959e+00% 0.1814e-03 0.9894e+00%
b b b b
BH´b (m h2o) 0.2854e-04 0.5857e-01% 0.2854e-04 0.7322e-01% 0.1206e-03 0.1062e+00% 0.1206e-03 0.1357e+00%
b b b b
BH´p (m h2o) 0.4661e-04 0.7183e-01% 0.4661e-04 0.1592e+00% 0.1531e-03 0.1081e+00% 0.1531e-03 0.2184e+00%
b b b b
BH´s (m h2o) 0.3247e-04 0.9267e-01% 0.3247e-04 0.1937e+00% 0.8515e-04 0.1184e+00% 0.8515e-04 0.2448e+00%
b b b b
BM (nd) 0.05747 0.2299e+01% 0.05747 0.2299e+01% 0.05747 0.2299e+01% 0.0547 0.2299e+01%
b b b b
Bα (°) 0.3 0.6000e+00% 0.3 0.6000e+00% 0.3 0.6000e+00% 0.3 0.6000e+00%
b b b b
Bφ (°) 0.3 0.6000e+00% 0.3 0.6000e+00% 0.3 0.6000e+00% 0.3 0.6000e+00%
b b b b
Bαp (°) 0.3 0.6000e+00% 0.3 0.6000e+00% 0.3 0.6000e+00% 0.3 0.6000e+00%
b b b b
Bφp (°) 0.3 0.6000e+00% 0.3 0.6000e+00% 0.3 0.6000e+00% 0.3 0.6000e+00%

(BUcθUc)u 0.2233e-02 c
0.3515e+01% 0.1253e-02 c
0.1612e+01% 0.1624e-02 c
0.1879e+01% 0.1075e-02 c
0.2060e+00%
(Byθy)u 0.1613e-03 c
0.1836e-01% 0.3446e-03 c
0.1221e+00% 0.2331e-03 c
0.3875e-01% 0.1922e-02 c
0.6590e+00%
(Bzθz)u 0.1869e-03 c
0.2463e-00% 0.7277e-02 c
0.5442e+02% 0.5401e-03 c
0.2079e+00% 0.2226e-01 c
0.8835e+02%
(BHc´θHc´)u 0.1925e-03 c
0.2613e-01% 0.3176e-03 c
0.1036e+00% 0.2911e-03 c
0.6041e-01% 0.4163e-03 c
0.3092e-01%
(BHt´θHt´)u 0.9684e-04 c
0.6613e-02% 0.1598e-03 c
0.2623-01% 0.1484e-03 c
0.1570e-01% 0.2122e-03 c
0.8035e-02%
(BHb´θHb´)u 0.4706e-04 c
0.1562e-02% 0.7764e-04 c
0.6196e-02% 0.9865e-04 c
0.6937e-02% 0.1411e-03 c
0.3550e-02%
(BHp´θHp´)u 0.7687e-04 c
0.4167e-02% 0.1268e-03 c
0.1653e-01% 0.1252e-03 c
0.1118e-01% 0.1791e-03 c
0.5722e-02%
(BHs´θHs´)u 0.5354e-04 c
0.2022e-02% 0.8833-04 c
0.8019e-02% 0.6965e-04 c
0.3459e-02% 0.9962e-04 c
0.1770e-02%
(BMθM)u 0.1168e-01 c
0.9628e+02% 0.6447-02 c
0.4272e+02% 0.1170e-01 c
0.9764e+02% 0.7681e-02 c
0.1052e+02%
(Bαθα)u 0.1464e-03 c
0.1511e-01% 0.6505e-03 c
0.4349e+00% 0.2461e-03 c
0.4318e-01% 0.7489e-03 c
0.1000e+00%
(Bφθφ)u 0.2577e-03 c
0.4682e-01% 0.2191e-03 c
0.4933e-01% 0.1782e-03 c
0.2264e-01% 0.1760e-03 c
0.5526e-02%
(Bαpθαp)u 0.1464e-03 c
0.1511e-01% 0.6505e-03 c
0.4349e+00% 0.2461e-03 c
0.4318e-01% 0.7489e-03 c
0.1000e+00%
(Bφpθφp)u 0.2579e-03 c
0.4689e-01% 0.2276e-03 c
0.5322e-01% 0.1790e-03 c
0.2283e-01% 0.1877e-03 c
0.6285e-02%

(BUcθUc)v 0.1115e-03 c
0.2295e-01% 0.9813e-04 c
0.5366e-01% 0.5563e-04 c
0.5634e-02% 0.5834e-04 c
0.1370e-01%
(Byθy)v 0.8824e-04 c
0.1438e-01% 0.6171e-03 c
0.2122e+01% 0.2279e-03 c
0.9453e-01% 0.7793e-04 c
0.2445e-01%
(Bzθz)v 0.6304e-03 c
0.7340e+00% 0.5132e-04 c
0.1468e-01% 0.3296e-03 c
0.1978e+00% 0.4184e-03 c
0.7050e+00%
(BHc´θHc´)v 0.9609e-05 c
0.1706e-03% 0.2488e-04 c
0.3449e-02% 0.9976e-05 c
0.1811e-03% 0.2260e-04 c
0.2057e-02%
(BHt´θHt´)v 0.4835e-05 c
0.4317e-04% 0.1252e-04 c
0.8731e-03% 0.5086e-05 c
0.4707e-04% 0.1152e-04 c
0.5346e-03%
(BHb´θHb´)v 0.2350e-05 c
0.1020e-04% 0.6083e-05 c
0.2062e-03% 0.3380e-05 c
0.2080e-04% 0.7659e-05 c
0.2362e-03%
(BHp´θHp´)v 0.3837e-05 c
0.2720-04% 0.9935e-05 c
0.5501e-03% 0.4291e-05 c
0.3352e-04% 0.9723e-05 c
0.3806e-03%
(BHs´θHs´)v 0.2673e-05 c
0.1320e-04% 0.6921e-05 c
0.2669e-03% 0.2387e-05 c
0.1037e-04% 0.5408e-05 c
0.1178e-03%
(BMθM)v 0.5833e-03 c
0.6285+00% 0.5051e-03 c
0.1422e+01% 0.4011e-03 c
0.2928e+00% 0.4170e-03 c
0.7001e+00%
(Bαθα)v 0.3039e-05 c
0.1706e-04% 0.1351e-04 c
0.1017e-02% 0.1146e-04 c
0.2389e-03% 0.3486e-04 c
0.4893e-02%
(Bφθφ)v 0.5167e-02 c
0.4932e+02% 0.2976e-02 c
0.4937e+02% 0.5229e-02 c
0.4976e+02% 0.3538e-02 c
0.5040e+02%
(Bαpθαp)v 0.3039e-05 c
0.1706e-04% 0.1351-04 c
0.1017e-02% 0.1146e-04 c
0.2389e-03% 0.3486e-04 c
0.4893e-02%
(Bφpθφp)v 0.5165e-02 c
0.4928e+02% 0.2904e-02 c
0.4701e+02% 0.5223e-02 c
0.4965e+02% 0.3458e-02 c
0.4814e+02%

a: % of B2i range; b: % of the individual variable range; c: % of B2r range; italic: % of U 2r range; bold: % of mean value or range of the result
 Table A.3. Concluded.
Fr=0.28 Fr=0.41
Low turbulence High turbulence Low turbulence High turbulence

Term Magnitude % Magnitude % Magnitude % Magnitude %

Nominal Wake (u, v, w, Cp)
(BUcθUc)w 0.6328e-04 c
0.7502e-02% 0.2806e-03 c
0.3943e+00% 0.7659e-04 c
0.1067e-01% 0.2330e-03 c
0.7290e-01%
(Byθy)w 0.1495e-03 c
0.4187e-01% 0.4076e-03 c
0.8323e+00% 0.8472e-04 c
0.1306e-01% 0.3770e-03 c
0.1909e+00%
(Bzθz)w 0.9739e-04 c
0.1777e-01% 0.9015e-03 c
0.4070e+00% 0.6149e-03 c
0.6880e+00% 0.6908e-02 c
0.6410e+02%
(BHc´θHc´)w 0.5456e-05 c
0.5577e-04% 0.7113e-04 c
0.2534e-01% 0.1373e-04 c
0.3432e-03% 0.9027e-04 c
0.1094e-01%
(BHt´θHt´)w 0.2745e-05 c
0.1412e-04% 0.3579e-04 c
0.6415e-02% 0.7001e-05 c
0.8919e-04% 0.4602e-04 c
0.2844e-02%
(BHb´θHb´)w 0.1334e-05 c
0.3334e-05% 0.1739e-04 c
0.1515e-02% 0.4654e-05 c
0.3940e-04% 0.3059e-04 c
0.1257e-02%
(BHp´θHp´)w 0.2179e-05 c
0.8894e-05% 0.2841e-04 c
0.4042e-02% 0.5908e-05 c
0.6350e-04% 0.3883e-04 c
0.2025e-02%
(BHs´θHs´)w 0.1518e-05 c
0.4315e-05% 0.1979e-04 c
0.1961e-02% 0.3286e-05 c
0.1965e-04% 0.2160e-04 c
0.6265e-03%
(BMθM)w 0.3312e-03 c
0.2055e+00% 0.1444e-02 c
0.1045e+02% 0.5521e-03 c
0.5547e+00% 0.1665e-02 c
0.3725e+01%
(Bαθα)w 0.5159e-02 c
0.4986e+02% 0.2899e-02 c
0.4210e+02% 0.5209e-02 c
0.4937e+02% 0.3445e-02 c
0.1594e+02%
(Bφθφ)w 0.1035e-04 c
0.2009e-03% 0.6302e-04 c
0.1989e-01% 0.1992e-04 c
0.7221e-03% 0.7405e-04 c
0.7365e-02%
(Bαpθαp)w 0.5159e-02 c
0.4986e+02% 0.2899e-02 c
0.4210e+02% 0.5209e-02 c
0.4937e+02% 0.3445e-02 c
0.1594e+02%
(Bφpθφp)w 0.0000e+00 c
0.0000e+00% 0.0000e+00 c
0.0000e+00% 0.0000e+00 c
0.0000e+00% 0.0000e+00 c
0.0000e+00%

(BUcθUc)Cp 0.1561e-03 c
0.3190e-02% 0.3787e-03 c
0.1764e+00% 0.1909e-03 c
0.4637e-02% 0.1853e-03 c
0.2152e-01%
(Byθy)Cp 0.1270e-03 c
0.2114e-02% 0.6489e-04 c
0.5179e-02% 0.2774e-03 c
0.9790e-02% 0.1764e-03 c
0.7602e-01%
(Bzθz)Cp 0.2915e-02 c
0.1113e+01% 0.8792e-03 c
0.9507e+00% 0.8960e-03 c
0.1021e+00% 0.9465e-04 c
0.2188e-01%
(BPθP)Cp 0.1587e-01 c
0.3296e+02% 0.5282e-02 c
0.3431e+02% 0.1622e-01 c
0.3348e+02% 0.7441e-02 c
0.3468e+02%
(BH´cθH´c)Cp 0.1385e-03 c
0.2511e-02% 0.1265e-03 c
0.1969e-01% 0.2113e-03 c
0.5682e-02% 0.1961e-03 c
0.2409e-01%
(BH´tθH´t)Cp 0.1859e-03 c
0.4527e-02% 0.1794e-03 c
0.3958e-01% 0.2896e-03 c
0.1067e-01% 0.2818e-03 c
0.4973e-01%
(BH´bθH´b)Cp 0.9036e-04 c
0.1069e-02% 0.8718e-04 c
0.9348e-02% 0.1925e-03 c
0.4715e-02% 0.1873e-03 c
0.2197e-01%
(BH´pθH´p)Cp 0.1476e-03 c
0.2852e-02% 0.1424e-03 c
0.2494e-01% 0.2444e-03 c
0.7598e-02% 0.2378e-03 c
0.3541e-01%
(BH´sθH´s)Cp 0.1028e-03 c
0.1384e-02% 0.9918e-04 c
0.1210e-01% 0.1359e-03 c
0.2351e-02% 0.1322e-03 c
0.1096e-01%
(BMθM)Cp 0.2243e-01 c
0.6591e+02% 0.7239e-02 c
0.6445e+02% 0.2284e-01 c
0.6637e+02% 0.1020e-01 c
0.6513e+02%

Bu 0.1191e-01 99.75% 0.9864e-02 92.16% 0.1184e-01 99.63% 0.2368e-01 99.67%

Bv 0.7358e-02 99.70% 0.4236e-02 91.48% 0.7412e-02 97.58% 0.4983e-02 97.41%
Bw 0.7306e-02 99.92% 0.4468e-02 97.37% 0.7413e-02 97.19% 0.8629e-02 99.53%
BCp 0.2763e-01 99.95% 0.9017e-02 99.31% 0.2804e-01 99.75% 0.1263e-01 99.32%

Pu 0.5986e-03 0.25% 0.2878e-02 7.84% 0.7177e-03 0.37% 0.1357e-02 0.33%

Pv 0.4026e-03 0.30% 0.1292e-02 8.52% 0.1167e-02 2.42% 0.8130e-03 2.59%
Pw 0.2006e-03 0.08% 0.7347e-03 2.63% 0.1261e-02 2.81% 0.5941e-03 0.47%
PCp 0.6042e-03 0.05% 0.7507e-03 0.69% 0.1392e-02 0.25% 0.1048e-02 0.68%

Uu 0.1192e-01 1.19% 0.1028e-01 1.02% 0.1187e-01 1.15% 0.2372e-01 2.29%

Uv 0.7369e-02 5.54% 0.4429e-02 3.33% 0.7503e-02 5.00% 0.5049e-02 3.37%
Uw 0.7308e-02 4.08% 0.4528e-02 2.53% 0.7520e-02 4.56% 0.8649e-02 5.24%
UCp 0.2764e-01 29.10% 0.9048e-02 9.52% 0.2807e-01 22.82% 0.1268e-01 10.31%

a: % of B2i range; b: % of the individual variable range; c: % of B2r range; italic: % of U 2r range; bold: % of mean value or range of the result