Kul-24.

4110 Ship Project A

Course project
Resistance, propulsion and machinery
Post-Panamax cruise ship with two-floor loft cabins

Aleksi Airinen, 81809S

Andres Rene Kurmiste, 399915
Rainer Klein, 399779

Aalto 2014
Contents

1. Resistane....................................................................................................................................... 3

1.1. Methods ................................................................................................................................. 3

1.2. Model input ........................................................................................................................... 3

1.3. Holtrop-Mennen method ....................................................................................................... 5

1.4. ITTC-78 method .................................................................................................................... 7

1.5. Comparison and discussion ................................................................................................... 9

2. Machinery..................................................................................................................................... 9

2.1. Main diesel engines, generators and backup power ............................................................ 11

2.2. Main propulsors, transverse thrusters, other components ................................................... 12

3. Electrical balance ....................................................................................................................... 15

4. Propulsion................................................................................................................................... 15

4.1. General ................................................................................................................................ 15

4.2. Propeller efficiency ............................................................................................................. 17

4.3. Cavitation ............................................................................................................................ 19

References ...................................................................................................................................... 21

Appendix 1 ..................................................................................................................................... 23

Appendix 2 ..................................................................................................................................... 24

Appendix 3 ..................................................................................................................................... 25

2
 1. Resistane
1.1. Methods
We aimed to find a method which has been proven to provide the best results. That way ITTC-57
was ruled out for being too simplistic, from a time even before the bulbows bow. A consultation
with J. Matusiak led us to evaluate using Taylor Standard Series method which was soon deemed
unfit for its limited B/T range. Next we looked into using others systematic series methods such as
MARAD, Series-60 and SSPA but again our high B/T ratio lay outside of the models limits. ITTC-
78 method was chosen because it was able to provide a rough estimation with little chance of
application error. Holtop-Mennen method (HMM) [1] [2] was chosen as it was sufficiently simple
to implement and we could find software (NavCad) to test the quality of our implementation. Input
parameters used for the estimations are presented in Table 1, Table 2 and Appendix 1. Water
properties those of ocean water.

1.2. Model input

Table 1: HMM input data

Variable Abbrev. value unit Reference

𝑘𝑔
Density of water Ρ 1025 -
𝑚3
𝑚
Gravity acceleration G 9.81 -
𝑠2
𝑚2
Kinematic viscosity of water Μ 1.19E-06 -
𝑠
Length between
𝐿𝑏𝑝 334 m -
perpendiculars

Overall length 𝐿𝑜𝑎 359 m -

Waterline length 𝐿𝑤𝑙 349 m -

Draught at aft 𝑇𝑎 9.4 m -

Draught at bow 𝑇𝑏 9.4 m -

Beam at waterline B 48 m -

3
Speed V 12.6 m/s -

block coefficient 𝐶𝑏 0.73 - [3] [4]

Prismatic coefficient 𝐶𝑝 0.75 - [3] [4]

Midship sectional area [3] [4]

𝐶𝑚 0.97 -
coefficient

Waterplane area coefficient 𝐶𝑤𝑝 0.91 - [4]

Stern shape coefficient 𝐶𝑠𝑡𝑒𝑟𝑛 0 - [2]

Longitudinal center of [5]

LCB 0 %
buoyancy

Bulb transverse sectional area 𝐴𝑏𝑡 30.6 𝑚2 [6]

Wetted area of appendages 𝑆𝑎𝑝𝑝 1750 𝑚2 [4]

Appendage resistance factor 1 + 𝑘2 3 - [1]

Bulb transverse area center [6]

ℎ𝑏 5 𝑚
above keel line

Half-angle of entrance 𝑖𝑒 30 ˚ [4]

Transom area 𝐴𝑡 0 𝑚2 [7]

Table 2. ITTC-78 input data

Variable Abbreviation Value Unit Referecnce
Design length L 334 m Delftship
Breadth B 48 m
Draught T 9,4 m
Block coefficient CB 0,73 [4]
Speed V 13,12 m/s
Kinematic viscosity ν 1,19*10^-6 m^2/s
Prismatic coefficient cp 0,75 [4]

4
 Length and volume’s LPP 6,97
cube root relation 3

Volume  110080 m^3

1.3. Holtrop-Mennen method

First we shall calculate the frictional resistance 𝑅𝐹 sccording to ITTC-57 method [8]. For this
purpose we need to find the wetted surface area 𝑆 and Reynolds number 𝑅𝑒 of our ship. Reynolds
nr of the ship is found by dividing the ships speed V and length L by the kinematic viscosity of
the water μ.
25∗0.5144∗334
𝑅𝑒 = = 3.61 ∗ 109 (1)
1.19𝐸−6

This allows us to calculate the frictional resistance coefficient 𝐶𝐹 of our ship

0.075
. 𝐶𝐹 = (log(3.61𝐸+9)−2)2 = 1.31 ∗ 10−3 (2)

The wetted surface area of the hull is found from a 3D model of the hull prepared in DelftShip
(Appendix 1).
𝑆 = 18983 𝑚2 . (2)
Now we can calculate the frictional resistance 𝑅𝐹 .
𝑅𝑓 = 1.31 ∗ 10−3 ∗ 0.5 ∗ 1.025 ∗ 12.62 ∗ 18983 = 2.19 ∗ 103 𝑁. (3)
As our ship has a bulbous bow we must also calculate its resistance. First we need to calculate
bulb characteristics such as bow emergence 𝑃𝑏 and immersion Froude number 𝐹𝑛𝑖
√30.6
𝑃𝑏 = 0.56 ∗ = 1.89
9.4 − 1.5 ∗ 5.2
12.6
𝐹𝑛𝑖 = = 1.79
√9.81(9.4 − 5.2 − 0.25√30.6) + 0.15 ∗ 12.62

Thus we can calculate bulb resistance

1.025 ∗ 9.81
𝑅𝑏 = 0.11 ∗ 𝐸𝑋𝑃(−3 ∗ 1.89−2 ) ∗ 1.653 ∗ 30.61.5 ∗ = 1.11 ∗ 105 𝑁
1 + 1.652
In the following step appendage resistance 𝑅𝑎𝑝𝑝 is calculated. This resistance is dependent on the
total area of appendages 𝑆𝑎𝑝𝑝 , coefficient 1 + 𝑘2 , which describes the severity of resistance
increasing effect of various appendages such as bilge keels and rudders, and the frictional
resistance coefficient.

5
𝑅𝑎𝑝𝑝 = 0.5 ∗ 1.025 ∗ 12.62 ∗ 1000 ∗ 3 ∗ 1.31 ∗ 10−3 = 3.47 ∗ 105 𝑁
Transom resistance 𝑅𝑡𝑟 also plays a part in the HMM but according to our research it has no
significant effect for our ship [7] [1].
𝑅𝑡𝑟 = 0
Next we shall calculate the wave resistance of the ship. This requires the use of 12 coefficients
𝑐1 , 𝑐2 , 𝑐3 , 𝑐5 , 𝑐7 , 𝑐15 , 𝑐15 , 𝜆, 𝑚1 , 𝑚4 , 𝑑, 𝐹𝑛 which are described in [1] and [2].

𝑅𝑤 = 0.7946 ∗ 0.7000 ∗ 0.9817 ∗ 110078 ∗ 1.025 ∗ 9.81 ∗ 𝐸𝑋𝑃 (−1.646 ∗ 0.23−0.9 −

0.8789
0.0089 ∗ cos ) = 1.23 ∗ 106 𝑁 (1)
0.232

The final part of resistance calculations is finding the model-ship correlation resistance. This is
dependent on coefficients 𝑐2 , 𝑐4 which can be found in [2] [1].

334
𝑅𝑎 = 1.025 ∗ 12.62 ∗ 18983 ∗ 0.006 ∗ (334 + 100)−0.16 − 0.00205 + 0.003 ∗ √ ∗ 0.6944
7.5

∗ 0.7008 ∗ (0.04 − 0.027) = 8.98 ∗ 105 𝑁

Total ship resistance in HMM 𝑅𝑇 is a sum of frictional resistance 𝑅𝐹 , appendage induced
resistance 𝑅𝐴𝑃𝑃 , wave resistance 𝑅𝑊 , bulb induced resistance 𝑅𝐵 , underwater transom resistance
𝑅𝑇𝑅 and 𝑅𝐴 , which is model-ship correlation resistance. 1 + 𝑘1 is here called form factor of the
hull.
𝑅𝑇 = 𝑅𝐹 (1 + 𝑘1 ) + 𝑅𝐴𝑃𝑃 + 𝑅𝑊 + 𝑅𝐵 + 𝑅𝑇𝑅 + 𝑅𝐴 (1).
The hull form factor is a function of waterline dimensions breath B, length L and draft T as well
as ship shape coefficients 𝑐14 , 𝐿𝑅 .
0.36486
48.1 1.06806 9.4 0.46106 334 0.121563 3343
(1 + 𝑘1 ) = 0.93 + 0.487118 ∗ 1 ( ) (334) ( 99 ) (109204) (1 −
334
0.716)−0.604247 = 1.203 (2)
For the value of ship resistance at a speed of V=24.5 kn we obtain
𝑅𝑇 = 1.98 ∗ 106 (1.203) + 3.47 ∗ 105 + 1.23 ∗ 106 + 1.11 ∗ 105 + 0 + 8.98 ∗ 105 =
5.11 ∗ 106 𝑁 (1).
Total effective power for our ship at 24.5 kn is
𝑃𝑒 = 5.22 ∗ 106 ∗ 12.6 = 67.1 𝑀𝑊
For comparison, we also calculated the resistance with NavCad software. As our demo version
was not capable of calculating wave resistance, we could not fully compare the results yet were
able to get a general idea by removing the wave components from our calculations.

6
According to our Excel implementation, the resistance would be
𝑅1 = 3.92 ∗ 106 𝑁
Whereas the NavCad implementation leads us to
𝑅2 = 4.55 ∗ 106 𝑁 .
We believe this difference is relatively small and can be attributed to the different manner that
ship parameters are presented and modified.

Chart 1: Ship resistance estimation by HMM

80

70

60
Ship effective power, MW

50

40

30

20

10

0
0 5 10 15 20 25 30
Ship speed, kn

1.4. ITTC-78 method

The total resistance coefficient of a ship without bilge keel is [9]:
CT  1  k C F  C R  C F  C AA  1  0,074  0,0013  0,00057  0,00015  0,00066  0,00262

, where
k – form factor
CF – frictional coefficient of the ship according to the ITTC-1957 ship-model correlation line
CR – residual resistance coefficient
ΔCF – roughness allowance
CAA – air resistance

7
We are using the equation where the bilge keel is not included due to not having bilge keels, but
instead stabilizers, which can’t be compared with bilge keels.

We can estimate the form factor by Watanabe’s equation [4]:

CB 0,730
k  0,095  25,6  2
 0,095  25,6  2
 0,074
 LWL  B  348,98  48,07
     
 B  T  48,07  9,38

The frictional coefficient comes from ITTC-57, which is the following [4]:
0,075 0,075
CF    0,00131
log Rn  2 2
log3,69  10   2
9 2

, where
V  LWL 12.6  349
Rn    3,69  109
 1,004  10 6

The residual resistance coefficient can be taken from Guldhammer and Harvald’s method graphs,
LPP
which gives us the following result from graph where =7,0 [10].
3

C R  0,00057
Our ships’ Froude number:
V 12,6
Fn    0,22
g  LPP 9,81  335

Now we need to calculate the roughness allowance [9]:

 1
  1

     150  10 6 3
  0,64  10  105     0,64  10 3  0,00015 , where
k 3
C F  105   S 3
  LWL     348,98  
   
ks = 150*10^-6 – roughness [m]

Finally we need to estimate the air resistance coefficient [9]:

8
 AT 12500
C AA  0,001   0,001   0,00066 , where
S 18983
AT – ship’s transverse cross-sectional area above waterline
S - wetted surface area

The wetted surface area was found from DelftShip model and transverse sectional area estimated
based on known superstructure measurements.
The total resistance of the ship is at the maximum speed of 24.5 knots is:
1 1
RT     V 2  S  CT   1025  12,62  18983  0,00262  4391kN
2 2
The effective power of the ship at 24.5 knots is [11]:
PE  RT V  4391000 12,6  11072035,4  57.6MW

1.5. Comparison and discussion

Between the two methods and three implementations tested, Holtrop method in NavCad delivered
the highest result at 71.6 MW, Holtop-Mennen method in our Excel implementation gave an
estimate of 67.1 MW and ITTC-78 implemented in Excel 57.6 MW. Both methods use the ITTC-
57 method of frictional resistance calculation but with different wetted surface area calculations.
ITTC-78 uses the ITTC-57 frictional coefficient as to many other empirical methods. It’s residual
resistance was taken at the moment from Guldhammer-Harvald method graphs, but it seem that
this method greatly underestimates the residual resistance component, which lead to such high
differences between the two methods.

2. Machinery
We have decided to use a power plant type arrangement with six medium-speed diesel engines and
electric generators. The power generated is used both for on-board consuming and electric
propulsion. The system consists of Wärtsilä medium-speed HFO diesel engines and bow thrusters,
ABB electrical power generators, switchboards, transformers, frequency converters and Azipod
electric propulsion units [12] as shown in Figure 1 and Figure 2.

9
Comparison of advantages and disadvantages of a diesel electric power system with Azipod
propulsion units [12] [13]:
 Improved life cycle cost by reduced fuel consumption and maintenance (up tp 20% less
fuel consumed compared to conventional shaftline propulsion system).
 Reduced vulnerability to single failure in the system.
 Less space consumption and more flexible utilization of the on-board space.
 Improved maneuverability by utilizing azimuting thrusters (smaller turning radius and
shorter crash stop distance).
 Decreased propulsion noise and vibration due to shorter shaft lines and less cavitation.
 Even wakefield due to the use of pulling propellers and greater freedom in choosing the
location of the propulsors.
 Less resistance arising from the lack appendages such as stern thrusters, rudders and shaft
brackets.
 Proven technology (currently used on 108 vessels, 48 of which are cruise ships)
- Increased investment costs.
- Increased transmission losses at full load caused by additional components.
- Extra crew training might be required due to more complex machinery.
- Less damage to underwater surface from anchoring as the propulsors can be used to keep
this ship in place.

Figure 1. Power flow in a simplified electric power system [12]

10
Figure 2. Simplified single line diagram of the power plant with a propulsion system [13]

Estimation using the ITTC-78, Holtrop-Mennen method and case studies of similar ships proved
the required power to be roughly 54 MW. This can be met by three Azipod XO2100 propulsion
units providing a maximum of 21 MW each [14]. Analysis of reference ships concluded that the
electric propulsors best fitting our needs are the R-R Mermaid series and ABB Azipod series,
demonstrated in Table 4. Further research revealed that the mermaid propulsors suffer from serious
reliability issues compared to more popular and proven Azipod units

2.1. Main diesel engines, generators and backup power

Having compared the most powerful medium-speed diesel engines of Rolls-Royce (R-R), Wärtsilä,
MAN Diesel & Turbo SE (MAN) and Caterpillar Maschinenbau Kiel (CAT), we concluded that
the best option is to use Wärtsilä products. It appears that R-R does not produce marine engines of
sufficient power output. MAN products had the benefit of including a generator developed and
tested by the same company thus decreasing the probability of compatibility errors. Nevertheless
the greater cost made the sets incompatible for our design. CAT engines were discarded in favor

11
of Wärtsilä engines to keep the production in Finland for job creation and logistical purposes and
because the Wärtsilä and ABB diesel-electric setup has been proven to work well in reference ships
that best resemble our concept (largest cruise ships produced).
The required electrical power output is 83818 kVA. The generators were chosen to fit the
revolution speed of the shaft and the required output power. Our chosen diesel-electric generator
system employs six Wärtsilä 14V46F engines and six ABB AMG 1600 generators. Using six
identical engines and generators reduces the total number of necessary spare parts needed onboard
as the reserves are interchangeable. The machinery system also becomes simpler to design and
easier to maintain which reduces the probability of malfunction and misuse.

Table 3: Diesel-electric set comparison

Engine Gen Single Single Total

Engine Engine Gen Gen nr SFOC,
power, output, engine generator weight,
maker model maker model required g/kWh
KW kW weight, t weight, t t
12V46D 12600 12222 ABB AMG 1600 8 173 172 106 2224
16V46D 16800 16296 ABB AMG 1600 6 173 218 106 1944
12V46F 14400 13968 ABB AMG 1600 7 170 173 106 1953
Wärtsilä AMG
14V46F 16800 16296 ABB 6
1600 170 216 106 1932
16V46F 19200 18624 ABB AMG 1600 6 170 233 106 2034
16V38 11600 11200 genset 9 176 200 1800
MAN 12V48/60 12600 12250 genset 8 173 273 2184
Diesel & 14V48/60 14700 14300 genset 7 173 314 2198
Turbo 18V48/60 18900 18400 genset 6 173 375 2250
CAT 12M43C 12000 11640 genset 9 176 273 2457
MaK 16M43C 16000 15520 genset 7 176 343 2401

The ship will also need emergency generator diesel engines to ensure power in case of a
catastrophic main engine room failure. In the forward part of the ship two MTU 16V4000 units
providing 5000 kW of power.

2.2. Main propulsors, transverse thrusters, other components

Analysis of reference ships concluded that the electric propulsors best fitting our needs are the R-
R Mermaid series and ABB Azipod series, demonstrated in Table 4. Further research revealed that

12
the mermaid propulsors suffer from serious reliability issues compared to more popular and proven
Azipod units, shown in Figure 3.

Table 4. Reference comparison of diesel engines and main propulsors.

Diesel engine Main propulsor
Ship name
Manufacturer Type Nr Manufacturer Type Nr
Wärtsilä 12V46 3 ABB Azipod XO 3
Oasis of the Seas
Wärtsilä 16V46 3
Wärtsilä 16V 46C-CR 4 R-R Mermaid 4
Queen Mary II
GE LM2500+ 2
Cat 16M43 3 Wärtsilä FP
Norwegian Epic
Cat 12M43 3
Wärtsilä 12V46 6 ABB Azimuth 2
Freedom of the Seas
ABB FP 1

Figure 3. Azipod propulsor concept [15]

We chose to use five Wärtsilä CT3500 bow thrusters. Our choice was based on reference ships of
similar wind area and operational conditions presented in Table 5. Seeing that Wärtsilä and Rolls
Royce are the main proven manufacturers in the market segment we researched their portfolio and

13
concluded that as the products made by the two companies are both very competitive, we will
choose Wärtsilä for their greater experience in similar projects. The number of thrusters was
determined by extrapolation.

Table 5. Reference comparison of transverse thrusters.

Transverse thruster
Ship name
Manufacturer Type Nr
Wärtsilä CT3500 4
Oasis of the Seas

No info 3
Queen Mary II

Wärtsilä CT 275 4
Norwegian Epic
Wärtsilä CT 300 2
R-R TT 3300 4
Freedom of the Seas

The electrical drive system components shown in Figure 1. and Figure 2 will be supplied by ABB
to minimise compatibility problems and simplify system maintenance. The fuel distribution
components will be ordered from Wärtsilä to ensure the most efficient work mode for their engines.
The control systems of a cruise vessel are composed of a fieldbus network, control network, power
distribution network, plant network, terminals, a communication, positioning and vessel
automation system. The switchboards and transformers are necessary for the management of
electrical power distribution in the vessel and are usually located near the generators. As the
generators and propulsors are produced and fitted by ABB, the abovementioned equipment should
also fitted by the same company as an integrated solution in order to ease manufacturing and
increase compatibility.

The Water treatment, waste management and climate control systems shall be built by Aalborg
Industries, United Technologies and MTU on-site energy.

The preliminary setup is presented in Figure 4: Machinery setup.

14
Figure 4: Machinery setup

3. Electrical balance
Electrical balance is of crucial importance in the diesel-electric ship because the energy use can be
optimized much more flexibly. The electrical balance has to be calculated for different operating
situations, as the electricity consumption varies depending on the conditions. Usage profile –
different conditions and power consumptions in those conditions– is presented in Appendix 3 Table
6.

4. Propulsion
4.1. General
The thrust is provided by 3 fixed pitched propellers. Each propeller has 5 blades. More propeller
blades leads to smaller propeller peak loads, thus there is a decrease in the vibrational response of
the hull caused by pressure pulses from the propellers. Fixed pitch propellers were chosen, due to
the usage of Azipod propulsion. Azipods provide exceptional maneuverability and since they are
electrical propulsion units the thrust can be easily controlled by changing the propeller revolutions.

The propellers are operated by ABB XO2100 Azipod propulsion units, which each produce a
maximal power of 21 MW at ~170 rpm (Figure 5). However, the operational point of the propeller

15
is at ~120 rpm, where each Azipod produces ~14 MW of power, which is required to propel the
ship at the cruising speed of 22,5 knots. The required propulsive power at 22,5 knots is 41 MW.

Figure 5. ABB Azipod XO product series [16]

The propeller diameters available for XO2100 Azipods are from 4,4 to 6,4 m [13]. The optimal
solution would be to choose the largest propeller possible as larger propellers are more efficient.
However, we have to check if will be able to fit the propeller under our ship. According to [17] the
clearance between the hull and the propeller blade tip should be 25-30 % of the diameter of the
propeller and the propeller tip should not extend beyond the bottom of the ship. Thus we can
calculate the minimum required clearance for the largest available propeller as follows:

Cmin  0,25  6,4  1,6 m 4.1

Now me need to make sure that the tip of the 6,4 m propeller is not extending beyond the bottom
of the hull, i.e. that propeller tip is not lower than the draft. The draft of the ship is 9,4 m. As our
hull bottom at the location the Azipods is very close to the waterline, we can assume that the
distance to the hull bottom is equal to the draft. Thus we can use the propeller if the following
equation is satisfied:

T  Cmin  D  9,4  1,6  6,4  9,4  8 4.2

16
As we can see the equation is satisfied, thus we can use the 6,4 m propeller. However, it would
beneficial if the propeller tip would be as far away as possible from the hull. This would lead to an
additional reduction of the vibrations caused by propeller pressure pulses and in addition the
propeller would be operating in a more uniform wake, thus being more efficient. Therefore, let us
maximize equation 4.2, with respect to the clearance:

T  Cmin  D  Cmax  T  D  9,4  6,4  3m 4.3

We can see that the maximum clearance of the propeller tip from the hull can be 3 m for a 6,4 m
propeller.

4.2. Propeller efficiency

The propeller efficiency is evaluated for the operation point, which is defined at the cruising speed
of 22,5 kn and at propeller revolutions of ~120 rpm. Propeller efficiency can be evaluated using
the Wageningen B-series graphs. To select the right graph we need to know the number of blades
of the propeller and the blade area ratio. In the previous paragraph 4.1, we mentioned that we are
using 5-bladed propellers. The blade area ratio can be calculated with the following equation [17]:

AE 1,3  0,3Z T 1,3  0,3  5  1581  10 3

 k   0,1  0,770 4.4
A0  p0  pv D 2 163668  2172  6,4 2
, where
Z – number of blades = 5
1  RT  1  3542 
T – thrust produced by one propeller at operation point =      1581 kN
3  1  t  3  1  0,253 
, where
RT – total resistance of the hull at cruising speed = 3542 kN
t – thrust reduction coefficient = 1,25w  1,25  0,202  0,253
, where
w – wake fraction = 0,55C B  0,2  0,55  0,73  0,2  0,202
D – propeller diameter = 6,4 m

17
Ph – hydrostatic pressure = gh  pa  1025  9,81  6,2  101325  163668 Pa 
, where
h – distance from waterline to propeller axis = C + D/2 = 3 + 6,4/2 = 6,2 [m]
pa – atmospheric pressure = 101325 Pa
pv – vapor pressure of water (at T = 20 ºC) = 1294  71,7t  5,78t 2  2172
k – constant dependent on the ship type (not specified for 3 propeller ship closest is 2 propeller
ship) = 0,1

From the number of blades and the blade area ratio we can see that we need the Wagenigen B-
series graph for 5 blades and Ae/A0 = 0,750 (Wagenigen B-series for 5 blades and Ae/A0 = 0,750
Figure 6), as it is the closest to our blade area ratio.

Finally we need to calculate the advance number, which is done as follows:

VA 9,3
J   0,73 4.5
nD 2  6,4
, where
VA – advance speed at the cruising speed = V 1  w  11,6  1  0,202  9,3m / s
n – propeller revolutions at operation point = 120 rpm = 2 s-1

The propeller pitch ratio and efficiency can be read from Figure 6. We can see that the at the
cruising speed of 22,5 kn the P/D ratios of 0,9 and 1,0 would give the same efficiency of ~0,63.
However, P/D ratio of 1,0 would be a better choice, as operating at the maximum speed of 24,5 kn
a propeller with P/D ratio of 1,0 would be more efficient.

18
Figure 6. Wagenigen B-series for 5 blades and Ae/A0 = 0,750 [18]

4.3. Cavitation
Cavitation is the formation of gas phase in the fluid due to pressure decrease. Cavitation happens
when locally the critical pressure pcr is reached i.e. when the smallest possible pressure present in
the fluid is reached [17]. Problems caused by cavitation are corrosion of propeller blades, increased
vibrations and noise.

To get an idea if we might have problems with cavitation we need to calculate the cavitation
number. The dimensionless cavitation number is calculated as follows – if the reference speed is
the advance speed and the reference pressure is the hydro static pressure [17]:
p h  pv 163668  2172
   3,64 4.6
1 1
V A2
 1025  9,3 2

2 2

From Figure 7 we can see that for a cavitation number of 3,64 the hashed area – cavitation free
area – is from angles of attack of about -4 to 7. As we have a fixed pitched propeller the angle of
attack is always the same. Thus the blade tips – most cavitation prone areas – which usually have
an angle of attack of 0 degrees should not experience any cavitation at operation point. Even at
maximum speed of 24,5 kn our cavitation number is ~3, thus no cavitation should occur also at
maximum operational speed.

19
Figure 7. Cavitation number and angle of attack relation to cavitation [17]

20
References

[1] J. Holtrop and G. G. J. Mennen, "An Approximate Power Prediction Method," 1982.
[2] J. Holtrop, "A Statistical Reanalysis of Resistance and Propulsion Data," 1984.
[3] G. Jensen, "Moderne Schiffslinien.," in Handbuch der Werften Vol XXII, Hansa, 1994, p. 93.
[4] H. Schneekluth and V. Bertram, Ship Design for Efficiency and Economy, 1998.
[5] A. F. Molland, S. R. Turnock and D. A. Hudson, "Hull Form Design," in Ship Resistance and
Propulsion, p. 316.
[6] A. M. Kracht, "Design of Bulbous Bows," SNAME Transactions Vol. 86, pp. 197-217, 1978.
[7] V. Bertram, Practical Ship Hydrodynamics, 2000.
[8] ITTC, Performance, Propulsion 1957 ITTC Performance Prediction Method.
[9] ITTC, "1978 ITTC Performance Prediction Method," [Online]. Available:
http://ittc.sname.org/2002_recomm_proc/7.5-02-03-01.4.pdf. [Accessed 13 10 2013].
[10] "Noppa, Introduction to Marine Hydrodynamics, Weekly Exercises, figures in GH,"
[Online]. Available: https://noppa.aalto.fi/noppa/kurssi/kul-24.3200/viikkoharjoitukset.
[Accessed 13 10 2013].
[11] J. Matusiak, "Noppa, Introduction to Marine Hydrodynamics, osa 1b kurssimaterialista,"
[Online]. Available: https://noppa.aalto.fi/noppa/kurssi/kul-24.3200/materiaali. [Accessed
13 10 2013].
[12] ABB AS, "Maritime electrical installations and diesel-electric propulsion".
[13] ABB, "Azipod XO Product Introduction," August 2012. [Online]. Available:
http://new.abb.com/marine/systems-and-solutions/electric-propulsion/azipod. [Accessed 30
9 2014].
[14] ABB, "Azipod XO data sheet," [Online]. Available: http://www.abb.com. [Accessed 20
September 2013].
[15] J. Varis, "Azipod energy efficiency in marine propulsion".
[16] ABB, "Azipod XO," June 2012. [Online]. Available: http://new.abb.com/marine/systems-
and-solutions/electric-propulsion/azipod. [Accessed 30 9 2014].

21
[17] J. Matusiak, Laivan Propulsio, Otaniemi, 2005.
[18] M. M. Bernitsas, D. Ray and P. Kinley, "KT, KQ and Efficiency Curves for the Wagenigen
B-Series Propellers," The University of Michigan, Michigan, 1981.

22
Appendix 1
Delftship hydrostatics report

23
Appendix 2
NavCad Holtrop resistance estimation

24
Appendix 3
Table 6. Electrical balance

Maximum Cruising Coastal Manoeuvri

Harbor Emergency
speed speed waters ng

Time spent % 5 60 15 5 15 0
Speed kn 25.5 22.5 10 3 0 0
Aux. Mach. For
propulsion, cc KW 1500 1320 1320 1500 0 450
Aux. Mach. For
propulsion, pe kW 480 480 480 600 0 240
Electric propulsion kW 65000 40000 6000 3000 0 0
Heating, ventilation kW 5400 5400 5400 5400 5100 0
Deck machinery kW 390 390 390 360 900 0
Household equipment kW 1050 1050 1050 1050 1350 0
Working machinery kW 600 600 600 600 600 0
Lighting kW 2580 2850 2850 2700 2100 1290
Navigation, radio kW 150 150 150 150 75 150
Thrusters kW 0 0 0 25000 0 0
Stabilization kW 630 630 630 630 0 0
Total load kW 77780 52870 18870 40990 10125 2130
Power factor - 0.8 0.8 0.8 0.8 0.8 0.8
Required power kW 97225 66088 23588 51238 12656 2663
Main generators in use - 6 5 2 4 1 0
Generated electrical
power kW 100800 84000 33600 67200 16800 0
Emergency generators in
use - 0 0 0 0 0 1
Generated el.
emergency power kW 0 0 0 0 0 3000
Diesel generator loading % 96.5 78.7 70.2 76.2 75.3 88.8

25