Ship Design For Efficiency and Economy-7-226-41-46

Lines design 41
Figure 2.8 Half-angle of entry iE of the waterline
of entry. These recommendations are primarily applicable to ships without

bulbous bows and just soft guidelines.
Fore end contour of the CWL

The forward contour radius should be as small as possible in the area of the
CWL. The sharpness depends on the type of construction. Round steel bars
at the stem allow sufficiently small contour radii. Using sectional steel at the
fore end allows a choice of sharpness. Where plates are rounded, the smallest
possible radius is about 3–4 times the plate thickness. Where the stem has a
round steel end bar the welded seams should be protected against ice abrasion
by keeping the round steel diameter somewhat greater than that corresponding
to the faired form (Fig. 2.9). In this example, the waterline plane ends short
of the forward perpendicular. This shows the discrepancy that arises where
the widths of the waterplane are measured to the moulded surface, but the
forward perpendicular is placed at the outer edge of the stem bar. The radius
at the weather deck should be relatively small, since the wave resistance rises
sharply as the contour radius increases. A standard value is RDeck D 0.08 Ð B/2
for CB 0.72. Downward from the waterplane, the contour radius can increase
again. The transition from a round bar stem to a formed-plate stem is a costly
detail of construction. A special form of bow which uses larger contour radii
at the waterplane is the ‘parabolic bow’.
Figure 2.9 Stem with round bar at the end of the CWL
Parabolic bow
Bows without sharp stems have been developed for ships with CB > 0.8 and
Fn < 0.18. They are used on tankers and bulk carriers, and also on less full
42 Ship Design for Efficiency and Economy
vessels with high B/T ratios. These bow forms have elliptical waterlines with
the minor axis of the ellipse equal to the ship’s width. They are often called
‘parabolic’. To improve water flow, the profile may be given a rounded form
between keel and stem. These bows create a relatively large displacement in
the vicinity of the perpendicular and less sharp shoulders positioned some-
what further back in comparison with alternative designs with sharp stems.
Parabolic bows can also be fitted with bulbs, for which cylindrical bulb forms
are usually employed. Comparative experiments using models of bulk carriers
have demonstrated the superiority of parabolic bows for ships with CB > 0.8
and low L/B ratios over the whole speed range investigated (Fn D 0.11–0.18)
(Figs 2.10 and 2.11).
Figure 2.10 Parabolic bow—waterplane and profile
Figure 2.11 Comparison of sectional area curves of normal bow and parabolic bow
2.4 Bulbous bow

Recommended additional literature includes Hähnel and Labes (1968), Eckert
and Sharma (1970), Kerlen (1971), Hoyle et al. (1986), and Jensen (1994).
Historical development
Today the bulbous bow is a normal part of modern seagoing cargo ships.
Comparative model experiments show that a ship fitted with a bulbous bow
Lines design 43
can require far less propulsive power and have considerably better resistance
characteristics than the same ship without a bulbous bow.
The bulbous bow was discovered rather than invented. Before 1900, towing
tests with warships in the USA established that the ram stem projecting below
the water decreased resistance. A torpedo boat model showed that an under-
water torpedo discharge pipe ending in the forward stem also reduced the
resistance. A bulbous bow was first used in 1912 by the US navy, based on a
design by David Taylor. It was not until 1929 that the first civil ships were fitted
with them. These were the passenger ships Bremen and Europa belonging to
the Norddeutscher Lloyd of Bremen. A more widespread application in cargo
shipping did not happen until the 1950s. The first bulb for tankers, invented
by Schneekluth, was installed in 1957.
Bulbous bows are defined using the following form characteristics:
1. Shape of section.
2. Side-view.
3. Length of projection beyond perpendicular.
4. Position of axis.
5. Area ratio.
6. Transition to hull.
Some of these characteristics can be expressed by numbers.
Bulb forms
Today bulbous forms tapering sharply underneath are preferred, since these
reduce slamming. The lower waterplanes also taper sharply, so that for the
vessel in ballast the bulb has the same effect as a normal bow lengthened
(Fig. 2.12). This avoids additional resistance and spray formation created by
the partially submerged bulb. Bulbs with circular cross-sections are preferred
where a simple building procedure is required and the potential danger of slam-
ming effects can be avoided. The optimum relation of the forward section shape
to the bulb is usually determined by trial and error in computer simulations,
see Section 2.11 and, for example, Hoyle et al. (1986).
Modern bulbous forms, wedge shaped below and projecting in front of the
perpendicular, are geometrically particularly well suited to V section forms.
Figure 2.12 Modern bulb form

Cylindrical bulbs, projecting forward of the perpendicular, and Taylor non-
projecting bulbs can easily be faired into U forward sections. Whether these
combinations, suitable in form, lead also to minimum power requirements has
yet to be discovered.
Bulbous bow projecting above CWL

It is often necessary to reduce the resistance caused by the upper side of
bulbous bows which project above the CWL creating strong turbulence. The
aim should be a fin effect where the upper surface of the bulb runs downwards
towards the perpendicular. A bulbous bow projecting above the waterline
usually has considerably greater influence on propulsion power requirements
than a submerged bulb. Where a bulbous bow projects above the CWL, the
authorities may stipulate that the forward perpendicular be taken as the point of
intersection of the bulb contour with the CWL. Unlike well-submerged bulbs,
this type of bulb form can thus increase the calculation length for freeboard
and classification (Fig. 2.13). Regarding the bulb height, in applying the free-
board regulations, the length is measured at 85% of the depth to the freeboard
deck. Consequently, even a bulb that only approaches the CWL can still cause
an increase in the calculation length of ships with low freeboard decks, e.g.
shelter-deckers (Fig. 2.14).
Figure 2.13 Position of forward perpendicular with high bulbous bows
Figure 2.14 Length of freeboard calculation with low freeboard deck

Lines design 45
Projecting length
The length projecting beyond the forward perpendicular depends on the bulb
form and the Froude number. For safety reasons, the bulbous bow is never
allowed to project longitudinally beyond the upper end of the stem: 20% B
is a favourable size for the projection length. Enlarging this size improves
the resistance only negligibly. Today, bulbs are rarely constructed without a
projecting length. If the recess in the CWL is filled in, possibly by designing
a straight stem line running from the forward edge of the bulb to the upper
edge of the stem, the resistance can usually be greatly reduced. This method
is hardly ever used, however.
Bulb axis
The bulb axis is not precisely defined. It should slope downwards toward the
stern so as to lie in the flowlines. This criterion is also valid for the line of the
maximum bulb breadth and for any concave parts which may be incorporated
in the bulb. The inclination of the flowlines directly behind the stem is more
pronounced in full than fine vessels. Hence on full ships, the concave part
between bulb and hull should incline more steeply towards the stern.
Area ratio
The area ratio ABT /AM is the ratio of the bulb area at the forward perpendicular
to the midship section area. If the bulb just reaches the forward perpendicular,
or the forward edge of the bulb is situated behind the forward perpendicular the
lines are faired by plotting against the curvature of the section area curve to the
perpendicular (Fig. 2.15). At the design draught, the resistance of the ship with
deeply submerged bulb decreases with increasing area ratio. A reduction of
the area ratio (well below the resistance optimum) can, however, be advocated
in the light of the following aspects:
1. Low resistance at ballast draught.
2. Avoidance of excessive slamming effects.
3. The ability to perform anchoring operations without the anchor touching
the bulb.
4. Too great a width may increase the resistance of high bulbs, since these are
particularly exposed to turbulence in the upper area.
Figure 2.15 Bulb with projecting length. Theoretical bulb section area of the forward
perpendicular
The effective area ratio can be further increased if the bulb is allowed to project
above the CWL. Although the section above the CWL is not included in the
normal evaluation of the area ratio, it increases the effective area ratio and can
considerably reduce resistance, provided that the bulb is of suitable shape.
Transition
The transition from a bulbous bow to the hull can be either faired or be discon-
tinuous (superimposed bulb). The faired-in form usually has lower resistance.
The more the hollow surface lies in the flowlines, the less it increases resis-
tance. In general, concave surfaces increase resistance less.
Bases for comparison between bulbous and normal bows

In the normal bow/bulbous bow comparison, alternative consideration and
comparative model experiments usually assume a constant waterplane length
between the perpendiculars.
The conventional methods to calculate the resistance of a modern vessel
with bulbous bow start with a bulbless ship and then adjust to the resistance.
This resistance deduction is made in only a few of the resistance calculation
methods, usually insufficiently and without taking into account those bulbs
with pronounced projecting forms. All resistance calculation methods can,
however, include a deduction for bulbous bows using empirical values derived
from any source, e.g. Kracht (1973).
The reduction in resistance can relate to the form resistance or to the overall
resistance. In view of the widely differing hydrodynamic lengths of basis ships
with and without bulbous bows, estimates of savings on power due to the
bulbous bow are considerably less reliable than for earlier bulbous forms,
which only extended to the forward perpendicular. The bulb may reduce resis-
tance in the range 0.17 Fn 0.7. Earlier non-projecting bulbs decreased
resistance at best by some 6%. Modern bulbs decrease resistance often by
more than 20%. Whereas above Fn D 0.23 the main effect of the bulb is to
shift the bow wave forward, the voluminous bulbs and relatively short wave-
lengths of slower vessels may also cause displacement to shift forward from
the area of the forward shoulder. In this way, the bulb displacement can be used
to position the forward shoulder further aft, so that the entrance length approx-
imates to the wavelength (Fig. 2.16). Another way to decrease resistance is to
reduce trim at the stern.
Figure 2.16 Possible increase in effective entrance length with bulbous bow

Ship Design For Efficiency and Economy-7-226-41-46

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Ship Design For Efficiency and Economy-7-226-41-46

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Ship Design For Efficiency and Economy-7-226-41-46

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Lines design 41

Figure 2.8 Half-angle of entry iE of the waterline

of entry. These recommendations are primarily applicable to ships without

Fore end contour of the CWL

Figure 2.10 Parabolic bow—waterplane and profile

2.4 Bulbous bow

Figure 2.12 Modern bulb form

Bulbous bow projecting above CWL

Figure 2.13 Position of forward perpendicular with high bulbous bows

Figure 2.14 Length of freeboard calculation with low freeboard deck

Bases for comparison between bulbous and normal bows

You might also like