LIEUTENANT COMMANDER JAMES V .

JOLLZFF, USN

SCALE EFFECTS ON A PARTICULAR

SuBlMERGED BODY OF REVOLUT7ION*

*Adapted from a thesis submitted to the faculty of Webb Institute of

Naval Architecture by LCDR M . Arcelle, U S N ; LCDR D. W . Blount,
U S N ; LCDR J . V . Jolliff,U S N .

THE AUTHOR
graduated from the Naval Academy in 1954. Following graduation he
served aboard USS SAMUEL N. MOORE (DD 747) as Engineer officer
and USS CZMARRON ( A 0 22) as First Lieutentant and Gunnery 06-
cer. After a short tour as Ship Superintendent, Long Beach Navul Ship-
yard, he attended Webb Znstitute of Naval Architecture for three years
while studying Nuval Construction and Engineering in Hull Option.
After receipt of a Master of Science in Naval Architecture degree he was
designated an Engineering Duty Oficer (EDO) and ussigned to duty at
the Long Beach Naval Shipyard. While there he served in billets of
Assistant Repair Superintendent and Assistant Planning and Estimating
Superintendent and as such was primarily concerned with the repair
and conversion of U.S. nuval surface ships. After two years at Long
Beach he was ordered to duty .as Staff Maintenance Oficer, Commander
Mine Force, U.S. Pacific Fleet. He is currently at the U.S. Naval Acad-
emy as an instructor in the Engineering Department. The author has
been n contributor to the Bureau of Ships J o u m l .

INTRODUCTION of objects, other than flat plates, and

N UMEROUS =CENT Geosim tests [I,2, 3, 4, 5, 61
all lead to the conclusion that the existing single
line concept for expansion of model test results to
full scale predictions is inadequate.
This paper presents an analysis of experimentally
obtained resistance, hull normal pressure, and wake
data for a submerged body of revolution to:
(a) Examine the present methods of expandmg
:3tal resistance and local wake velocity for a series
(b) Determine if the shape of an object is a factor
in model test expansion for a particular model series.
The form tested was a 4 foot model of a submerged
body of revolution of the type suitable for use as a
submarine hull, and having a length-to-diameter
ratio of approximately 7.3. The experimental results
are correlated with data obtained from a geomet-
rically similar 15 foot model tested by David Taylor
Model Basin.
The present method of expanding the resistance

NdVdl Enqinewrr Journdl. October IPbb $65

SCALE EFFECTS
NOTATIONS
c-strut chord length in inches
C.-strut chord length in feet
C-non dimensional coefficient of resistance
Ct-coefficient of frictional resistance based on varia-
tions with Reynolds Number
Act-a displacement of the Cf line to account for the
effect of the increased roughness of the ship over
the model
Cpcoefhient of pressure resistance
Ct-coefficient of residual resistance based on
I Froudes Law
C.i-coefficient of strut interference resistance
Ct-coefficient of total resistance
Ct tp-coefficient of strut tip resistance
I C-coefficient of viscous resistance (C.=rCf)
D-maximum diameter of model bow
I-increment of length as measured from model bow
L-model length
PN-normal pressure
PI.-longitudinaI component of normal pressure
Apdifference between static and measured pressure
q-stagnation pressure (%pVm)
r-form factor
r/R-nondimensional radius vector, where R is pro-
peller radius
R-maximum radius of model or propeller radius
when noted in text
R-tank blockage resistance component of total re-
sistance
R.-Reynolds Number
Rt-frictional resistance component of total resistance
Rt-resistance due to interference of boundary layer
of model with that of strut
Rm-model resistance
R-pressure resistance or drag component of total
resistance
R.-residual resistance component of total resistance
R.-spray resistance of strut
R ~ t o t a measured
l resistance
RI-viscous resistance of strut
R--wave making resistance of strut or model
Rttpresistance due to tip effect on strut in pounds
S-wetted surface in feet squared
t-strut maximum thickness in inches
vt-average local wake velocity
V-velocity in feet per second
Vm-model velocity in feet per second
w-average local wake fraction ( 1- 1.)
V
v m
x-distance along surface of object in the direction
of flow
8-boundary layer thickness. (Defined as the dis-
tance from the hull to the point where the ratio
of local velocity to free stream velocity is very
close to unity).
6,-laminar boundary layer thickness
8,-separated flow boundary layer thickness
6,-turbulent boundary layer thickness
p-density of fluid
v-kinematic viscosity of fluid
866 Naval Enq;nears Journal. October 1966
JOLLIFF
of a small towed model to that of a full sized ship is
based on the time honored contribution of William
Froude. That is, it is assumed that the total resist-
ance may be dwided into two components, one of
which is subject to Froudes Law and the other
subject to variation with Reynolds Number. This
method is graphically illustrated in Figure 1.
le
Figure 1: Illustration of Expansion Technique.
Where:
C is a non dimensional coefficient of resistance
C,is a coefficient of total resistance
C, is a coefficient of frictional resistance (based on variations
with Reynolds Number)
C, is a coefficient of residual resistance (Based on Froudes
Law)
a C, is a displacement of the C, line to account for the
correlation allowance
The original concept proposed by Froude was that
the expansion of frictional resistance from model to
ship could be made along a friction line found ex-
perimentally by testing flat plates of varying length.
Applying this theory, Froude developed a family of
frictional resistance lines to use with various lengths
of model and ship Since this original work, how-
ever, numerous single expansion lines have been
proposed. The most significant are: 1) the Schoen-
herr Line, w h c h is an average friction line based
on a large amount of flat plate data, and 2) the 1957
International Towing Tank Conference line which
does not represent any particular plate friction data,
but was accepted by that conference as a possible
expansion line. The use of a single expansion line
is almost universal for expansion purposes at the
present time.
Due to the expense of full scale ship resistance
tests, the number of such tests conducted is small,
thus the accuracy of the model to ship expansion has
always been uncertain. An alternate method of eval-
uating expansion technique is to test a series of
models of geometrically similar shape, but of differ-
ent sizes. By testing smooth surfaced models, the
advantage of eliminating the uncertain roughness
allowance portion of the correlation allowance
(ACF) can be realized.
For such a series to be truly representative it is
not sufficient for the models to be of geometrically
 JOLLIFF
similar shape. That is, certain other conditions must
be fulfilled [l].
(1) The flow over each of the models must be
fully turbulent throughout the testing range and
must be free of any parasitic drag of the turbulence
stimulator. This requirement must be given careful
consideration in order to obtain the most satisfactory
stimulator [2].
(2) The flow over each of the models must be
free of any effect of tank boundary interference, or,
as this effect generally can not be eliminated with
any degree of certainty, the interference effects
should be equal for each model. The latter condition
may best be fulfilled by testing models of such size
that the ratio of their maximum section area to the
cross sectional area of the tank is constant, i.e., small
models should be tested in small tanks and large
models in large tanks.
As stated previously, the numerous recent geosim
tests [1, 2, 3, 4, 4, 61 that have been conducted all
lead to the conclusion that the existing single expan-
sion line concept is not adequate. What is needed is
a family of such lines that consider the fact that a
s h p is a three-dimensional object rather than a two-
dimensional flat plate.
Two of the more noteworthy three dimensional
proposals are those of Hughes [ 1, 3J and of Lap and
Troost [4, 51. In each of these proposals a basic line
is obtained by extrapolating flat plate friction data
to a plate of infinite aspect ratio. The required ex-
pansion line is then found by applying a form factor
that effectively shifts the basic line to the required
position.
The Hughes viscous resistance line is found from
the formulation
C,=r x C, (basic).
where r is the form factor that is to be found in the
low wave-making range and is assumed to be inde-
pendent of Froude's Number. However, recent
papers indicate that this assumption is not correct.
r2, 61
It may be seen from the foregoing discussion that
the gmsim analysis is an invaluable tool in attempt-
ing to obtain the proper method of expansion from
small to large model. "he requirement to be capable
of expanding between smooth models, before expan-
sion from model to ship may be accompfished with
any degree of accuracy, is a definite necessity.
MODEL SELECTION
In order to investigate the resistance and local
wake velocities of a series of geometrically similar
three dimensional objects, a model type which had
been tested previously had to be selected. Further-
more, it was necessary to select a model whose re-
sistance could be readily reduced to only viscous
resistance; and whose size would produce tank inter-
[erence effects that would be small enough to be
neglected or of the same magnitude as those en-
SCALE EFFECTS
countered on larger geometrically similar models.
It was necessary therefore, to examine all com-
ponents of the total resistance of a smooth surfaced
model and ascertain how they could best be elimi-
nated.
It was felt that the residual resistance component
of the Froude breakdown (R total = R friction -k
R residual) was not sufficiently specific. The resid-
ual resistance should normally be separated into a
wave-making component and a pressure drag com-
ponent. However, since the model was to be towed
in a tank, the interference effect of the tank bound-
aries had to be included as a component of residual
resistance. Thus, the formula for the residual re-
sistance of the model would be:
R (residuaI) = R (wave) +- R (pressure) +
R (blockage)
Each of these components was considered individu-
ally as follows:
(1). R (wave)-Using the data presented in
DTMB Translation 234 [7J it was found that a sub-
merged body of revolution could be towed with a
negligible amount of wave-making resistance if the
depth-to-diameter ratio was at least three. It was
also concluded that in order to minimize the bound-
ary effect of both the surface and bottom of the tank,
the model should be towed at the mean depth of
water. As the Webb Tank is five feet deep, it was
decided to tow the model at a two and one-half (2.5)
foot depth. It was therefore concluded that a sub-
merged body of revolution of not more than ten
inches diameter could be towed with a negligible
amount of wave making resistance. (Depth/diam-
eter = 30"/10" = 3).
(2) . R (pressure)-The requirement of obtaining
the pressure resistance further indicated the desira-
bility of testing a body of revolution as this compo-
nent of resistance could be readily calculated by a
simple integration of the longitudinal components
of the experimentally measured normal pressures.
Further, with a body of revolution the theoretical
normal pressure distribution along the body could
be calculated and used to check the experimentally
determined values of normal pressure.
(3). R (blockage)-Since this component could
not be fully eliminated and since there appears to
be no accurate method for correcting for its differ-
ence, it was felt that the size of the model must be
selected such that the blockage would be of the
same order of magnitude as the other models in the
series.
It was also necessary to ensure that the geosim
series selected for the investigation meet the afore-
mentioned requirement, i.e., a submerged body of
revolution for which reliable large scale model re-
sistance and pressure test data was available.
Results were available from tests previously con-
ducted at David Taylor Model Basin on a 1.5-foot
model of a similar body of revolution.
The DTMB Tank has a cross section area of 1122
square feet. The maximum cross section of the fif-
Ndval Engineers Journal, October 1966 867
SCALE EFFECTS
teen foot model was 3.28 square feet. The ratio of
tank cross section area to maximum model cross
section area was 0.00292. As it was beliwed that any
model size less than four feet in length would pre-
sent stimulation difficulties when tested in the Webb
Tank, the minimum model length was lunited to
this value. The maximum cross section area of a
four foot geosim model was .2296 square feet. Since
the Webb Tank has a cross section area of 50 square
feet, the resultant ratio of tank cross section area to
maximum model cross section area was 0.00459.
Although this was not exactly the same ratio as that
found for the fifteen foot model, it was of the same
order of magnitude. Since the width to depth ratio
of the DTMB and Webb Tanks are not the m e , it
was decided to consider the tank depth as the con-
trolling dimension. The depths of the DTMB tank
and the Webb tank are respectively twenty-two feet
and five feet. The size of the model to be tested
based on this consideration would have to be ap-
proximately Y4 that of the DTMB model. Based on
the above considerations, a four foot model size was
selected. (Hereafter referred to as the "Webb
Model") .
Since the model series selected was a body of
revolution, the entire pressure distribution could be
obtained by measurements taken along a single
longitudinal line. For this reason a single longi-
tudinal row of pressure taps was installed in the
model. Because the maximum deviation from the
theoretical pressure distribution was expected to
occur near the stern, the pressure taps were closely
spaced in that region.
The pressure taps were located on the under side
of the model for two reasons: (1) to minimize the
effect of the towing strut on the pressure field, and
(2) to make it possible to arrange the internal pres-
sure tubing with no inflections that would entrap
air.
The towing strut arrangement was similar to that
used in the 15' model tests. The model was made
neutrally buoyant in order to prevent a vertical
force on the towing strut.
TEST PROCEDURES AND PREPARATION OF
TEST EQUIPMENT
Since the Webb model was to be tested in the
submerged condition, special equipment had to be
developed for use in the Webb Institute Towing
Tank to measure resistance, pressure normal to the
hull, and wake velocities.
The initial consideration was to determine a
method of rigging the model for towing. Figure 2
illustrates the towing configuration developed. This
system was used for all tests with the exception
that a steadying brace was used instead of the dy-
namometer during pressure and wake survey test
runs.
With regard to the resistance measuring equip-
ment, a high capacity dynamometer [9] and a piv-
868 Naval Enqineen Journal. October 1966
JOLLIFF
LlQU
Figure 2. Model and Resistance Testing Equipment.
oted support that would parallel the motion of the
dynamometer was utilized, Figure 2.
The towing strut selected was a solid aluminum
2.9 inch by y4 inch ogive section.
The towing strut truss connected between the dy-
namometer and pivot support was designed to have
the shortest length possible and in this way provided
the strongest possible structure with the minimum
amount of weight. To accomplish this, the dyna-
mometer was placed aft of the towing clamps while
the pivot support was placed forward.
After the model, towing strut and truss were
manufactured, the resistance measuring equipment
was assembled. The dynamometer pivot support and
towing truss were mounted on the carriage. Level
and cross-level were established on the truss by use
of a precision level. The truss was then removed
from the carriage and mounted on the fitting-out
bench where it was positioned at the same attitude
as determined on the carriage. In this position, the
towing strut and model were attached and aligned.
Once the model had been aligned in the towing
truss, the only alteration necessary during the en-
tire testing process was during "normal" pressure
measurements. For these measurements, tubes from
the internal pressure taps on the model were faired
along the strut and then streamlined within a tear-
drop shaped section of tubing.
With regard to the measurement of body normal
pressures, it had been established from the litera-
ture available from the 15-foot model tests [22] that
it would be necessary, to have a sensitive pressure
measuring device. To ensure accuracy, a pressure
measuring system available at the Webb Tank with
an accuracy of * .01 inch of water was utilized [S].
The pressure measuring system as developed in-
corporated a Schaevitz LVDT (Linear Variable
Differential Transformer) equipped transducer with
associated electronic, switching, and test equipment.
JOLLIFF SCALE EFFECTS

This equipment included the following:

(1).LVDT equipped micrometer test stand.
( 2 ) . Audio oscilator, EICO, Model 377.
(3). Audio amplifier, HEATHKIT, Model VA-2.
(4). Audio preamplifier, HEATHKIT, Model
AA-60.
(5). System switchng and nulling junction.
(6). Oscilloscope, TEKTRONIX Model 531 A.
(7). Transducer calibration manometer.
The Schaevitz LVDT transducer is an instrument
that produces an output voltage that varies linearly
with input pressure within a certain range. A pres-
sure capsule acts as a diaphragm to detect changes
in pressure and a LVDT converts linear movements
of this capsule into an output signal. The LVDT as-
sembly consists of a moveable nickel-iron core sur-
rounded by three windings aligned axially The mid-
dle winding or primary coil, is straddled by two
identical secondary coils connected in series oppo-
sition. In operation, the series opposing connections
of the secondary windings cause two induced volt- Figure 3. Wake Survey Carriage Mount from Forward.
ages to add algebraically. At the so-called null
point of the core, the voltage of each winding is
equal and across the output of the differentially
connected winding there is zero voltage. Any dis-
placement of the core changes proportionally the
r
voltages generated in the windings.
The pressure instrumentation system was cali-
brated by inducing various heads of water on a
manometer, both above and below the zero psition
to a range of * . 6 of water, and observing the de-
flection of the signal on the oscilloscope. Calibration
curves drawn during the tests confirmed that the
transducer signal was linear and returned to zero
position after each run.
For conducting the wake survey, the use of a
Prandtl Pitot-tube probe connected differentially
to the transducer proved to be effective. However,
because of the deep location of the model, it was
necessary to encase the probe in a rigid streamline
housing and in turn, connect this tube to a rigid
indexing stand attached to the carriage, Figures 3
and 4.
Calibration of the pitot-tube probe used for wake
survey was conducted by making open water runs Figure 4. Wake SUNW Carriage Mount from Rear.
at speeds from one to five feet per second to obtain
a log-log plot of oscilloscope reading versus velocity
of the probe. Thus, with the probe located behind tained from the total measured resistance. There-
the model, oscilloscope readings could be converted fore, an investigation of towing strut resistance had
directly to local wake velocities using this calibra- to be conducted.
tion plot. It was considered that the total resistance of the
The preceding paragraphs have discussed the model-strut system would be comprised of the fol-
evolution of the test equipment used in obtaining lowing components: [11]
pressure and resistance data. This equipment proved
satisfactory throughout the entire test sequence.
Rt=%
where:
+ + + +
(Rv Rw Rs R , )
R, =total measured resistance.
DISCUSSION OF TOWING STRUT AND WIRE RESISTANCE
%=model resistance.
R,=viscous resistance of strut.
The first basic problem encountered was to deter- R,=wavemaking resistance of strut.
mine how the resistance of the model could be ob- R,=spray resistance of strut.

Naval Enainoom Journal. October 1966 869

 SCALE EFFECTS JOUIFF

R,=Resistance due to interference of boundary It was concluded from this calculation that Ri
layer of model with that of strut. could also be considered neghgible when compared
In order to obtain the resistance of the model, the to the measured total strut resistance.
strut resistance had to be evaluated and subtracted It was therefore concluded that since the resist-
from the measured resistance if it was of significant ance due to interference and tip effect was small
value. At this point the towing strut was towed at a enough to be neglected based on the above calcula-
speed of five feet per second and the total resistance tions that the tare resistance of the struts could be
was measured as R, = .185 #. This value converts obtained by measuring the resistance of the struts
to .0074 lb-sec2/ftz when placed in the form Rt/v2. alone.
This provided information for a rough approxima- The next step was to connect the towing strut to
tion of total strut resistance. the model and see if it could perform its required
Two possible methods of obtaining a strut tip re- function of towing the model in a steady reference
sistance were considered: plane. The model was prepared for towing as indi-
(1). Towing the strut with a plane square end. cated in Figure 2.
(2). Towing the strut with a flat end plate at- The towing strut system developed consisted of
tached to approximate the boundary layer interfer- the main towing strut previously mentioned and, an
ence with the model. outrigger which was attached to the after end of the
Since the R, R,, and R, components would be towing truss. Guy wires were attached from this
the same for both cases, only the relative values of outrigger. These wires were then connected to the
the end resistance were considered [12, 131. model and could be adjusted by turnbuckles at-
Considering item (1) above, the resistance caused tached to the outrigger. The models nosetail line
by tip effect was approximated utilizing [lo]. If Rtip could therefore be changed by adjustment of the
is the resistance due to tip effect on the strut, then turnbuckles, Figure 5. "his measure was taken be-
it is found that cause it was believed that a slight error in alignment
between model and free stream could cause a con-
tinually increasing angle of yaw which would result
in a transverse lift force. Since these two factors are
dependent one upon the other, the resultant would
be a continually increasing lift force on the model
c, ~ = .00059 whch in turn would cause a non-stable towing po-
sition. In order to be able to know when the model
Therefore: was beginning to deflect, an SR4 strain gage was
mounted on the strut just below the truss near the
Rt ,p=Ct t p 2-C,V
P
point of maximum bending moment. Thus any bend-
ing of the strut was indicated immediately on the
Where C,=chord length in feet,
t =chord thickness
V =velocity in ft/sec.
The velocity of 5 ft/sec. was used since it was the
upper test limit and gave the maximum tip resist-
ance expected to be encountered.
R, ,,,=(.OW59 x 1.934
__ x._ 9) 25
2 144
R,,,,=.0008916.
This order of magnitude was considered negligible
when compared to the total measured resistance of
the strut (.185 # at 5 ft sec.) . Investigation of Item
(2) above by use of [lo] indicated an even smaller
order of magnitude of resistance. However, since the
end effect of the strut as constructed gave neghgible
tip effect, it was considered unnecessary to make use
of an end plate.
With regard to R,, the resistance due to inter-
ference between boundary layer of strut and model,
it was found by use of [21] that for the sue strut
being used, C,,= .003/2 = .0015.
Then R, = C,, p/2 C,W2
Again with V = 5 f t sec.
R , = ,00226#. Figure 5. Transverse Deflection with OuMgger.

870 Ndvdl Enqinears Journal. October 1%

 JOLLIFT
S R 4 strain gage recorder. With this arrangement,
the guy wires were adjusted so that no torsional or
transverse motions occurred in the speed range of
two feet per second to six feet per second. With this
arrangement, stability of the towing strut during
test runs could be ascertained without difficulty.
Once the position of the model was considered
stable, the alignment was checked by measuring the
depth from the bottom of the carriage to the stem
and bow, and by measuring the distance of the bow
and stern from the carriage centerline. The results
indicated that the alignment was within l/16'f in
yaw with reference to the longitudinal centerline
of the carriage and Ys" in trim with reference to the
surface of the water.
The strut and guy wires were rigged and tested
independent of the model. A final curve of towing
strut and guy wire resistance is shown in Figure 6.
This curve was used to determine model resistance
by subtracting its values from the total resistance
measured for all resistance tests conducted.
TURBULENCE STIMULATION TESTS
One of the most important techniques in small
model testing is that of obtaining proper turbulent
flow on the model. In order to provide accurate pre-
dictions in expansion of model data to full scale, the
model must operate in a turbulent boundary layer
since the flow over the actual ship will certainly be
turbulent.
Many investigations have been conducted to de-
termine a proper stimuhtor for model test work.
From these investigations it has been generally
proven that two dimensional stimulators such as
struts, trip wires, and sandstrips at the bow have
been found to be quite unsatisfactory as methods for
inducing transition from laminar to turbulent flow
on small models [l, 14, 15, 16, 171. As a result of
these investigations it has been concluded that the
best stimulator is the one which produces the high-
est possible model plus stimulator resistance at low
speeds and the lowest possible values at high speeds.
As a result of numerous tests conducted at Webb
Institute, the following conclusions are drawn with
regard to obtaining proper turbulence stimulation
on models tested there:
(1). The turbulence level of a small tank has a
marked effect on the resistance of most ship hull
forms tested in the bare condition and helps greatly
to produce early transition to turbulent flow when
stimulators are applied [18].
(2). Elevated tank temperatures and rapid test
intervals are extremely helpful in achieving proper
stimulation [2],
(3). Small pins with proportions developed by
Franklin and Schwendtner [19] have proven to be
very satisfactory in achieving turbulence stimula-
tion on various models [18].
(4). A series of tests should be conducted using
different size pins at different spacings and the re-
SCALE EXTECTS
sulting resistance curves plotted. Many of the tests
will show a region where the measured resistance
is the same. When this condition is encountered, one
looks for the stimulator resistance curve which has
the highest resistance value at the lower end of the
region. One can be fairly sure he has a proper stimu-
lator using this approach [lS].
( 5 ) . A single test of a single stimulator on a small
model gives no indication of a satisfactory resistance
measurement. The same resistance curve should be
obtained at least twice using different stimulators, if
one is to consider that proper resistance is being
measured [2].
(6). The best location for placement of pin stimu-
lators is approximately four inches aft of the stem
of the model [2].
The regular Webb Institute Towing Tank pro-
cedure was followed for all tests conducted.
A series of tests was conducted using varioussized
pin stimulators at various spacings to arrive at a
suitable stimulator for the body of revolution model.
All stimulators were located at a distance four (4)
inches aft of the stem of the model. The following
stimulator arrangements were tested:
(a). Bare hull-no stimulation
(b). Y8f' &a x 1/16" thick pins @ Y;" spacing
(c). Y8" dia x 1/16f' thick pins @ ?" spacing
(d) . %" and Y4l' dia x 1/16"thick pins alternating
@ 3/g" spacing
(e). yS" dia x %" thck pins @ Y;" spacing
(f) . Hama triangles (?4" equilateral triangles by
1/16: thick) [20]
The speed range considered was 2.0 feet per sec-
ond to 5.7 feet per second model speed.
Figures 7 and 8 show curves of model resistance
for tests conducted for above items (b) through (f) .
These curves were obtained by subtracting strut
and wire resistance previously obtained (Figure 6),
from total measured resistance.
*,LO'.,l
."
'I,,"~)
1" 60
Figure 6. Towing Strut and Wire Resistance no Stimulation.
Figure 9 presents a summary of the stimulator
resistance for various stimulators. Considering the
aforementioned requirement for selection of a
proper stimulator, it can be seen from Figure 9 that
the best possible stimulator of those tested for this
particular model is that of Test # 10.
The final conclusion was that the arrangement of
the Ysff and Y4" diameter x 1/16'' thick pins alternat-
ing at 3/g" spacing were the best stimulators available
for this model. These stimulators were used on all
test here after, conducted on the model. It followed
from this conclusion that this stimulator would cause
turbulent flow. This assumption was proven to be a
Naval Enpinaers Journal. October 1966 871
SCALE EFFECTS JOLLIFT

HULL PRESSURE MEASUREMENT

Measurements of pressure normal to the model

hull were conducted at model speeds of 2.7 feet per
second and 5.05 feet per second.
Figure 13 indicates the pressure distribution as
measured and its relation to the theoretical pres-
sure distribution as obtained from [24]. The compu-
tations of theoretical pressures were made on an
IBM 704 computer by Electric Boat Division of
General Dynamics Corporation. The method of com-
putation is an adaptation of that reported by A.M.O.
Smith and Jesse Pierce in a report entitled "Exact
Solution of the Neuman Problem: Calculation of
Non-Circulatory Plane and Axially Symmetric
Flows about or within Arbitrary Boundaries".

.ct4
The computation is made on the basis of a distri-
bution of sources, with source strengths adjusted so
Y.*
".$E = .- ., : - ; .1 - - -2- t
that the component of velocity normal to the surface
is zero at each station. Twenty-five (25) stations
were used in t h s computation conducted at Electric
Boat.
I* ** 4.
The pressure dstribution curves shown in Figure
a m u w

Figure 8. Stimulation Tests Body of Revolution. 11 reveal that the measured pressures conform
closely to the theoretical pressures calculated from
ideal fluid theory along the forward portion of the
body but diverge aft of 1/L equals 0.8. This is to be

c 1
0 I 0 a0 49

WkQIlY iR,r1
' 0

Figure 9. Summary of Model Stimulation Test Stimulators.

fact by boundary layer thickness analysis which is

_-

I
discussed later.

- -
Figure 11. Pressure Distribution
--__-- 5.05 ft/sec
- 2.70 ft/sec
- -. theoretical

*k Lo *L%IT* WrnJ
expected since the boundary layer thickens toward
the tail of the body, and the actual pressure should
be less than the theoretical value [ZS].
Figure 10. Model Resistance Stimulation: Pins %" Dia. x Figure 11 also indicates that there is an effect on
1/16'' th. -
'%" Ctm.
measured pressure coefficients with variation of
Reynolds Number. This is indicated in the difference
MODEL RESISTANCE in pressure coefficients computed from the measured
The resistance for the model is presented in Fig- pressures at 2.7 feet per second and 5.05 feet per
ure 10. The curve is presented with a scale of re- second. Since the difference is not constant over the
sistance divided by velocity squared (R/V2 versus model, it is believed attributed to scale effect.
velocity (V)). The reader may convert the term The measured pressure data from model testing
R/V' into a total resistance coefficient (C,) if de- was also used in calculating the pressure drag and
sired by dividmg by 4.850 the boundary layer thickness for the model.

872 N a v a l Engineers Journal. October 1966

JOLLIFF SCALE EFFECTS

PRESSURE DRAG MEASUREMENTS

The pressure drag on an object moving through
a fluid is caused by a difference in the pressure
forces ahead and behnd the object. In the case of
an object in an ideal or non-viscous fluid these
pressure forces would be equal, hence there would
be no pressure drag. However, for an object in a
real or viscous fluid there would be a larger pres-
sure force on the forward portion of the object, thus
causing a pressure drag.
In order to obtain the frictional resistance of the
model, this pressure drag must be computed and
subtracted from the total model resistance.
The pressure drag was obtained by an integra-
tion of the longitudinal components of the measured
normal pressure. Although the longitudinal compo-
nent of the measured pressures could be obtained
graphically with sufficient accuracy, it was obtained
mathematically using the IBM 7090 computer avail-
able at the David Taylor Model Basin.
A non dimensional coefficient of pressure resist-
ance (C,) was computed for two speeds for the four
foot model. C , was also computed for a 7.6 foot wind
tunnel model using previously measured pressure
I I I 1
I .
I I
.I , , A ,
a .
1
I

Re x 10-t
.
I , I
Y I,
I 1
x ...
1 ,
.
I
,
I

data available at DTMB.

The computed coefficients of pressure resistance Figure 12
were plotted versus Reynolds Number, Figure 12,
on Log-Log coordinate paper as there appeared to
be a straight line relationship between the two
points for the four foot model and the mean value
for the 7.6 foot model.

WAKE SURVEY ANALYSIS

The wake survey on the Webb Model was con-
ducted in a vertical plane 3/4 inches astern of the
model, at speeds of 2.78 and 5.00 feet per second.
Three transits at angles of 900, 180, and 270 from , o0 .2 A .S .$ 1.0 1.2 1.4 1.6 IS 1.0
rh
the vertical were made radially outward from the NONDllENStCNU. MDIUS VF,C.CTOR

model centerline at Y4 inch increments until free
stream velocity was obtained. (The equipment used
was discussed previously). The faired results of
these transits are presented in Figure 13 in terms of
local average wake fraction (w) versus a non-di-
mensional radius vector (r/R) , where ris a radial
distance from the longitudinal centerline and R
is the scaled propeller radius (5.5 feet on the ship
scaled to 1.32 inches on the model).
The dashed segment of the 5.0 feet per second
curve, Figure 13, represents a more probable wake
curve. This is due to the possibility of a slight mis-
alignment between the model centerline and the
pitot probe. This can result in significant error in
wake fraction for a non-dimensional radius vector
Q T zero.
It should be noted that within the measured range
e l r/R values, there is no indication of separation.
U%en separation occurs, the local wake velocity be-
comes negative due to eddy currents and instability
0.flow. This in turn causes the wake fraction (w)
t tend toward a value greater than 1.0. Figure 13
) called the boundary layer. That is, the boundary
Figure 13. Nondimensional Radius Vector
Wake Fraction vs Bedial Position
Bare Hnll
NOTE: Local wake velocity is obtained by averaging
measured values from radial transits at angles of 90 180,
and 270 from the model vertical.
shows that the value of the wake fraction does not
tend toward a value of 1.0 and it is, therefore, con-
cluded that separation does not exist in the tested
range of r/R values.
BOUNDARY LAYER ANALYSIS
A body or revolution moving through a real or
viscous fluid creates a shear force in the fluid near
the surface of the object. That is, the fluid velocity
relative to the object would be zero at the surface
of the object and would be equal to the speed of the
object at some distance away. This fluid layer which
has its velocity affected by the boundary shear is

Naval Enclineen Journal, October I966 873

 SCALE EFFECTS
layer thickness may be defined as the distance from
the hull to the point where the ratio of local velocity
to free stream velocity is very close to unity. If the
fluid particles within the boundary layer move in
smooth layers the flow is said to be laminar, if the
fluid particles move in hap-hazard paths the flow is
said to be turbulent. The thickness of this boundary
layer for a particular object moving through a real
fluid at a constant speed depends upon the distance
along the surface in the direction of flow (x), the
type of flow, i.e. laminar or turbulent, and whether
separation exists. Streeter in [23] states that the
boundary layer thickness increases by xx for turbu-
lent flow and by xx for laminar flow. Although these
power relations were obtained using simplifying as-
sumptions, they do indicate that the thickness in-
creases more rapidly in the turbulent boundary
layer.
The effect of separation and type of flow on
boundary layer thickness is graphically illustrated
in Figure 14.
It is possible therefore, to determine the type of
flow and the presence of separation by examining
the boundary layer thickness.
.,r.u:ii?
IH
K!;lIEA27
. ,, , I.
~
\in1
>. .. , ,.. ,.L,, ;'-
Figure 14. Wed of Type Flow and Separation on Boundary
Layer Thickness.
A theoretical boundary layer thickness was ob-
tained for the four (4) foot body of revolution using
the method described by Granville in [XI. In this
method, the momentum and the moment-of-momen-
tum equations are solved as a pair of simultaneous
differential equations by numerical stepwise inte-
gration. The momentum equation is interpreted as
representing the rate change of the momentum of
the fluid within the boundary layer as a function of
the frictional resistance and of the pressure gradi-
ent. The frictional resistance dependency is found
from the "Law of the Wall" and the Schoenherr
friction formulation. The pressure gradient depend-
ency is found from the measured pressure values.
The solution of the hfferential equations was ac-
complished using an established program for the
DTMB U " A C computer. This program uses the
following assumptions:
a. That transition from laminar to turbulent flow
occurs at the stimulators, and
b. Turbulent flow exists aft of the stimulators, and
c. No separation exists.
The boundary layer thickness thus obtained is
874 Naval Enqinaen Journal. October 1966
JOLLIFF'
plotted as offsets from the model surface in Figure
15.
L..,. r,l I,,. VL
Figure 15. Theoretical Boundary Layer Thickness as Com-
puted from Experimental Normal Pressure Data for a Four
Foot Model.
Represents Boundary Layer Thickness determined from
the Wake Survey.
NOTE: The boundary layer distribution plotted above i s
that for a R, ~1.162x 100. Boundary layer thickness was also
calculated for R.=2.178 x lo", but is not shown since the
values are nearly the same.
The actual boundary layer thickness of the body
of revolution was obtained at a point directly astern
of the model by measuring the wake velocities.
This thickness (2.57") is plotted as a point on
Figure 15. This is obtained by noting that free
stream velocity is obtained at r/R = 1.95 from Fig-
ure 13 and that R = 1.32 for the model.
By comparing the theoretical and measured
boundary layer thickness at the point described
above, for speeds at the extremes of the testing
range (2.5 and 5 fps) it was possible to conclude:
a. The flow along the model was turbulent
throughout the test range.
m r b u i a n t ?In"
b. There was no measurable amount of separation
throughout the test range.
This is further evidenced by examination of the
LL.li.a-..
wake survey profile, Figure 13, as discussed previ-
ously.
DISCUSSION OF RESISTANCE OF SMALL A N D LARGE MODEL
It was previously concluded that for the 4 foot
body of revolution, the flow along the model was
fully turbulent, there was no measurable separation
of flow along the model, and the wavemaking re-
sistance could be neglected. It was possible there-
fore to obtain the frictional resistance of the four
foot model by subtracting the computed pressure re-
sistance from the total model resistance. The pres-
sure resistance was not available for the fifteen foot
model, therefore it was not possible to obtain the
frictional resistance in this case.
A plot was made of the coefficient of frictional
resistance (C,)vs Reynolds Number for the four
foot body of revolution and this was compared with
the most commonly used expansion lines, Figure 16.
Examination of this plot indicates that these two
dimensional expansion lines are not representative
of the frictional resistance of this three dimensional
M Y .
In order to investigate the problem of expansion
from small to large model, a plot of coefEcient of
total resistance (C,)vs Reynolds Number was made
for the small and large model. These were again
JOLLIF'F SCALE EFFECTS

examined, using the method proposed by Hughes

[3], as modified by Cedric-Ridgely-Nevitt, Webb In-
stitute, to determine if, in fact, a constant form fac-
tor could be obtained in the non-wavemaking region.
The form factor (r) was evaluated as follows:
(C,4'-Ct 15') V/$=constant
r=
(Cf4'-C, 15') Hughes or ATIC
where:
C, 4', Cr 15' is the total resistance coefficient of the
4- four foot model and fifteen foot model respectively,
measured at the same speed length ratio (V/vz).
Cf 4,Ct 15' is the friction resistance coefficient
from Hughes or ATTC lines obtained at a Reynolds
Figure 16. Comparison of Frictional Resistance of a Four
Foot Body of Revolution With Existing Expansion &a. Number corresponding to the speed-length ratio
NOTE: for model considered above.
C,=C,-G A plot of form factor (r) vs speed-length ratio
where C I = measured model resistance (V/vE) for this body of revolution is presented in
C, = pressure resistance
Figure 18. Examination of this plot indicates that
the form factor is not constant even on a submerged
body well below the surface where there is rela-
tively no wavemaking. Comparison of this curve
with a typical curve for a surface ship (obtained

I OC

I0 20 30 40 ,o 60 80 I00 zoo

Figure 17. Cornparkon of Total Resistance of a Four Foot

and Fifteen Foot Body of Revolution.
''1
l a

I
a
"

I
9
.
I
40
I
I,
I
12
I
I3
I
i*
I
is
I
(6
compared with the most commonly used expansion ,
lines, Figure 17. Examination of the curve for the Figure 18. Form Factor vs Sped Length Ratio.
fifteen foot body of revolution previously tested by
personnel from DTMB indicated the possibility of
under-stimulation in the low speed region and of from [2]) indicates that the form factor is related to
wave-making in the high speed region. Therefore, the speed in the same general manner for a sub-
these two regions were not considered in the com- merged body of revolution as for a surface ship.
parison, that is, only the range V/vz = .8 to 1.6
was considered. Figure 17 graphically illustrates that
CONCLUSIONS
in order to use the existing two dimensional expan-
sion lines to expand from the small to the large Based on the results of this model test, the follow-
model, a form factor must be applied. ing conclusions are drawn:
Hughes [3] concludes that a constant form factor 1. Two dimensional expansion lines are not r e p
(r) may be obtained by testing surface models in resentative of the frictional resistance of a small
the non-wavemaking region, then applying this fac- submerged axial symmetric body, Figure 16,clearly
tor (r) to the two dimensional expansion line (C,) indicates that the most commonly used two dimen-
to obtain a viscous expansion line (C,) that has the sional expansion lines are not representative of the
same slope as the model resistance line in this non- frictional resistance of the three dimensional body
wavemaking region (C, = rCf). This method of ex- tested.
pansion is based on the assumption that the form 2. Two dimensional expansion lines are not repre-
iactor (r) does not change with changes of Froude sentative of the frictional resistance of a small s u b
Number. merged body as indicated by pressure data and
The resistance data illustrated in Figure 17 was analysis. Figure 11 indicates that there is an effect

Naval Engineers Jwrnal. October I966 875

 SCALE EFFECTS
on measured pressure coefficients with variation of
Reynolds Number. Since the difference is not con-
stant over the model, the variation is attributed to
scale effect.
3. In order to expand resistance from small to
large models, a form factor can be applied to the
two dimensional expansion line to obtain a viscous
expansion line that has the same slope as the model
resistance line in the non-wavemaking region. How-
ever, this form factor is not constant even in a re-
gion supposedly free from waves. It is related to
some functions of speed in the same general manner
for a submerged body of revolution as for a surface
ship.
4. Wake fraction varies with Reynolds Number
with the greatest variance occurring in the non-
hmensional Radius Vector (r/R) range of 0.0 to 1.0.
In this range, the local wake fraction increases with
Reynolds Number with the greatest increase occur-
ring at r/R equal 0.0. Above r/R = 1.0 this is little
or no variance with Reynolds Number. Test data in-
dicates that the total wake fraction decreases
slightly in value with increase in Reynolds Number
above r/R = 1.0.
5. It is considered quite significant that the CT-C,
data plotted for two dfferent speeds of the four foot
model on Figures 16 and 17 obviously do not fall on
the same friction line. It can be assumed then that
the shearing forces on the body of revolution do not
compare to flat plate test data results.
REFERENCES
11 1 The Prediction of Smooth Ship Resistance from Model
Data; G. Hughes. Transactions, I.N.A. 1958.
[ 2 1 Geometrically Similar Models--An Investigation of
Some Problems Resulting from their Resistance Values;
Cedric Ridgely-Nevitt. International Shipbuilding Prog-
ress 1959.
[ S ] Friction and Form Resistance in Turbulent Flow; and
a Proposed Formulation for use in Model and Ship
Correlation; G. Hughes Transactions, I. N. A. 1954.
141 Frictional Drag of Smooth and Rough Ship Forms;
A.J.W. Lap. Transactions, I.N.A. 1956.
151 Some Applications of the Three-Dimensional Extrapo-
lation of Ship Frictional Resistance; A.J.W. Lap. Trans-
actions I.E.S.S. 1968.
/ 61 Scale Effect Experiments on Some Ship Forms; Koichi
Yokoo. Society of Naval Architects of Japan 1959.
171 Tests on Wave Resistance of Immersed Bodies of Revo-
lution; G. Weinblum, H. Amtsberg, & W. Bock. DTMB
Translation 234.
181 Selection, Instrumentation, and Calibration of a Low
Range Pressure Transducer; Masters Thesis by R. M.
Sesler and W. B. Christmas. Webb Intitute of Naval
Atchitecture 1961.
191 Design and Construction of High-Capacity Dynamo-
meter for the Robinson Model Basin; Undergraduate
Thesis by R. L. Ediin. Webb Institute of Naval Archi-
tecture 1954.
1101 Fluid Dynamic Drag; S. F. Hoerner. Self Published
1958.
1111 Wave Drag of Surface Piercing Struts; Tank Tests by
Shiells. Transactions, I.N.A. 1953.
876 Naval Enginaan Journal. October I966
JOLLIFF
1121 Hydrodynamic Characteristics of Serveral Surface
Piercing Struts, Parts I & 11; J. P. Breslin and J. W.
Delleur. ETT Stevens Institute. Report Numbers 596 and
597. Jan. 1956.
1131 End Plate Effects; Benson, Land and Havens. NACA
Memo. Report 1942.
1141 Scale Effects on Victory Ships Models. Part I; W.P.A.
Van Lammerman, J. D. Van Manen, & A.J.W. Lap.
Transactions, I.N.A. 1955.
[lS] Turbulence Stimulation in Model Tests; K. S. M.
Davidson. 6th Internation Towing Tank Conference of
Ship Tank Superindendents.
1161 Turbulence Stimulation of a Single Screw Tanker
Model; Cedrid Ridgely-Nevitt. International Ship-
building Progress 1954.
1171 Turbulence Stimulation on Ship Models; G. Hughes
and J . F. Allen. Transactions, S.N.A.M.E. 1951.
181 Resistance of Trawler Hull Forms of 0.65 Prismatic
Coefficient Cedric Ridgely-Nevitt. Transactions,
S.N.A.M.E. 1956.
191 An Investigation of Turbulent Flow Stimulating De-
vices for High Hull Displacement Length Ratio Hulls;
J. J. Franklin and A. H. Schwendtner. Senior Thesis,
Webb Institute of Naval Architecture 1954.
203 On Transition from Laminar to Turbulent Flow; F. R.
Hama, J. D. Long, and J. C. Hagarty. University of
Maryland 1956. Institute for Fluid Dynamics and Ap-
plied Mathematics. Technical Note BN-81.
[21] Aerodynamic Drag; S. F. Hoerner. 1951. Self Pub-
lished.
[22] The Measurement of the Boundary Layer and Local
Turbulent Skin Friction on a Particular Body of Revo-
lution; W. Y. Hsu. DTMB Report C-892.
1231 Fluid Mechanics; Streeter. McGraw-Hill.
1241 Exact Solution of the Neuman Problem: Calculation
of Non-Circulatory Plane and Axially symmetric Flows
about or Within Arbitrary Boundaries; A. M. 0. Smith
and Jesse Pierce. Douglas Aircraft Company Report
Number E. S. 26988, El Segundo, California, April 25,
1958.
1251 Modern Developments in Fluid Dynamics. Vol 11; S.
Goldstein (Editor). Oxford University Press 1938.
1261 The Calculation of the Viscous Drag of Bodies of Revo-
lution; P. S. Granville. DTMB Repott 849.
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
Captain Robert A. Hinners, USN (Ret.) , Head of
the Luckenbach Graduate School, Webb Institute of
Naval Architecture, whose advice and encourage-
ment contributed to the fulfillment of this paper.
Professor Cednc Ridgely-Nevitt, Webb Institute
of Naval Archtecture, whose advice and technical
assistance contributed greatly to the fulfiIlment of
this paper.
The David Taylor Model Basin, Carderock, Mary-
land, which manufactured the model and provided
technical assistance without which the paper could
not have been undertaken.
Mr. D. M. McManus, Electric Boat Division of
General Dynamics Corporation, who provided the
theoretical normal pressure distribution for the
model.
LCDR M. Arcelle, USN and LCDR D. W. Blount,
USN, who assisted in co-authoring the original the-
sis from which this paper is excerpted.