Hull Roughness

Featured on this page

Chapters and Articles

You might find these chapters and articles relevant to this topic.

Powering
In The Maritime Engineering Reference Book, 2008

5.7.2 Hull roughness and fouling

The surface texture or hull roughness of a vessel is a continuously
changing parameter which has a comparatively significant effect on the
ship performance. This effect derives from the way in which the
roughness of the hull surface influences the boundary layer and its
growth over the hull. Hence, the effect of hull roughness can be
considered as an addition to the frictional component of resistance of
the hull. Table 5.20 shows typical comparative proportions of frictional
resistance (CF) to total resistance (CT) at design speed for a series of
ship types.

Table 5.20. Typical proportions of frictional to total resistance for a

range of ship types.

Ship type Empty Cell CF/CT

ULCC – 516 893 dwt (loaded) 0.85

Crude carrier – 140 803 dwt (loaded) 0.78

(ballast) 0.63

Product tanker – 50 801 dwt (loaded) 0.67

Refrigerated cargo ship – 8500 dwt 0.53

Container ship – 37000 dwt 0.62

Ro/Ro ferry 0.55

:
 Cruise liner 0.66

Offshore tug supply vessel 0.38

From this table it is clearly seen that the frictional components play a
large role for almost all types of vessel. Naturally the larger full-form
vessels have the largest frictional components.

The roughness of a hull can be considered to be the sum of two

separate components as follows:

in which the permanent roughness refers to the amount of unevenness

in the steel plates and the temporary roughness is that caused by the
amount and composition of marine fouling.

Permanent roughness derives from the initial condition of the hull

plates and the condition of the painted surface directly due to either
the application or the drying of the paint on the hull. The condition of
the hull plates embraces the bowing of the ships plates, weld seams
and the condition of the steel surface. The bowing of the plates or
‘hungry horse’ appearance has a comparatively small effect on
resistance, generally not greater than about one per cent. Similarly, the
welded seams also have a small contribution: for example, a VLCC or
container ships might incur a penalty of the order per cent and so it
may be cost effective to remove these by grinding the surface of the
weld. By far the greatest influence on resistance is to be found in the
local surface topography of the steel plates. This topography is
governed by a wide range of variables: corrosion, mechanical damage,
deterioration of the paint film, a build-up of old coatings, rough coating
caused by poor application, cold flow resulting from too short a drying
time prior to immersion, scoring of the paint film resulting from
scrubbing to remove fouling, poor cleaning prior to repainting, etc.
Consequently, it can be seen that the permanent roughness, which is
permanent in the sense of providing the base surface after building or
dry-docking during service, cannot be eliminated by subsequent
coating, and therefore, to improve it in terms of local surface
topography, complete removal of the old coatings is necessary to
restore the hull surface.

In contrast, temporary roughness can be removed or reduced by the

removal of the fouling organisms or subsequent coating treatment. It is
caused in a variety of different ways: for example, the porosity of
leached-out anti-fouling, the flaking of the current coating caused by
internal stresses, and corrosion caused by the complete breakdown of
:
 the coating system and by marine fouling. Whilst permanent
roughness can be responsible for an annual increment of, say, 30 to
60 µm in roughness perhaps, the effects of marine fouling can be
considerably more dramatic and can be responsible, given the right
circumstances, for 30 to 40 per cent increases in fuel consumption in a
relatively short time.

The sequence of marine fouling commences with slime, comprising

bacteria and diatoms, which then progresses to algae and in turn on to
animal foulers such as barnacles, culminating in the climax
community. Within this cycle Christie (1981) describes the
colonization by marine bacteria of a non-toxic surface as being
immediate, their numbers reaching several hundreds in a few minutes,
several thousands within a few hours and several millions within two
to three days. Diatoms tend to appear within the first two or three days
and grow rapidly, reaching peak numbers within the first fortnight.
Depending on local conditions this early diatom growth may be
overtaken by fouling algae.

The mixture of bacteria, diatoms and algae in this early stage of surface
colonization is recognized as the primary slime film. The particular
fouling community which will eventually establish itself on the surface
is known as the climax community and is particularly dependent on
the localized environment. In conditions of good illumination this
community may be dominated by green algae, or by barnacles or
mussels, as is often observed on static structures such as pier piles or
drilling rigs.

The vast numbers and diversity of organism comprising the primary

slime film results in the inevitable formation of ‘slime’ on every
submerged marine surface, whether it is ‘toxic’ or ‘non-toxic’. The
adaptability of the bacteria is such that these organisms are found in
nature colonizing habitats varying in temperature from below 0 to
75°C. The adaptability of diatoms is similarly impressive; they can be
found in all aquatic environments from fresh water to hyper-saline
conditions and are even found growing on the undersides of ice floes.
These life cycles and the adaptability of the various organisms combine
to produce a particularly difficult control problem.

Severe difficulty of fouling control is not, however, restricted to

microfouling; recent years have seen the emergence of oceanic, stalked
barnacles as a serious problem fouling VLCCs working between the
Persian Gulf and Northern Europe. This group of barnacles is
distinguished from the more familiar ‘acorn’ barnacles in both habitat
and structure.
:
 Whereas acorn barnacles are found in coastal waters, characteristically
attached directly to fixed objects such as rocks, buoys, ships, pilings
and sometimes to other organisms, such as crabs, lobsters and
shellfish; stalked barnacles are usually found far from land attached to
flotsam or to larger animals such as whales, turtles and sea snakes by
means of a long, fleshy stalk. The species, the most important of which
is the Conchoderma, is recognized as a problem for large slow-moving
vessels, and much research dealing with their life cycle and habits has
been undertaken. The conclusions of this work indicate that VLCCs
become fouled with Conchoderma while under way in open ocean. The
results of the shipboard studies suggest that vessels travelling between
the Gulf and Northern Europe are most likely to become fouled in the
Atlantic Ocean between the Canary Islands and South Africa and
particularly in an area between 17°S and 34°[Link] Conchoderma,
however, have been reported to be in every ocean in the world, and so
there are no areas of warm ocean where vessels can be considered
immune from attack.

The fouling of underwater surfaces is clearly dependent on a variety of

parameters such as ship type, speed, trading pattern, fouling pattern,
dry-dock interval, basic roughness and so on. To assist in quantifying
some of these characteristics Evans and Svensen (1987) produced a
general classification of ports with respect to their fouling or cleaning
characteristics; Table 5.21 reproduces this classification.

Table 5.21. Port classification according to Evans and Svensen (1987).

Clean ports Fouling ports Cleaning ports

Empty Cell Light Heavy Non-scouring Scouring

Most UK Alexandria Freetown Bremen Calcutta

ports

Auckland Bombay Macassar Bribane Shanghai

Cape Town Colombo Mauritius Buenos Aires Yangtze

Ports

Chittagong Madras Rio de E. London

Janeiro

Halifax Mombasa Scurabaya Hamburg

Melbourne Negapatam Lagos Hudson Ports

Valparaiso Karadii La Plata

Wellington Pernambuco St Lawrence

:
 Ports

Sydney* Santos Manchester

Singapore

Suez

Tuticorin

Yokohama

*
Variable conditions.

Paint systems have developed from traditional anti-fouling coatings to

self-polishing anti-fouling (SPA) and reactivatable anti-foulings (RA) in
order to provide greater protection against fouling problems. SPAs are
based on components which dissolve slowly in sea water and due to
the friction of the sea water passing over the hull, toxins are
continuously released. Thus, this overcomes the weakness of
traditional anti-fouling where only part of the anti-fouling is water
soluble, and where an inactive layer slowly develops through which the
toxins have to migrate. Reactivatable coatings depend on a mechanical
polishing with special brushes in order to remove the inactive layer
formed at the surface of the anti-fouling. Both SPA and RA systems
depend upon high-quality anti-corrosive systems to act as a basis, and
the service life is proportional to the thickness of the film at
application. Figure 5.110 shows in schematic form the action of an SPA
type of coating.

Figure 5.110. Principle of self-polishing process.

The life of an SPA coating, which if correctly applied can extend hull
protection considerably beyond that afforded by traditional anti-
foulings. Typically in the order of five years, dependent on the ship
speed, hull permanent roughness, distance travelled and the thickness
and polishing rate of the coats applied. The wear-off rate or polishing
rate of anti-foulings is not always completely uniform, since it depends
on both the turbulence structure of the flow and the local friction
coefficient. The flow structure and turbulence intensities and
:
 distribution within the boundary layer change with increasing ship
speed, which gives a thinner lamina sublayer, and consequently a
hydrodynamically rougher surface, since more of the roughness peaks
penetrate the sublayer at higher ship speeds. A further consequence of
the reduced lamina sublayer at high speed is that the diffusion length
for the chemically active ingredients is shorter, which leads to a faster
chemical reaction, and therefore faster renewal, at the surface. In
addition to the ship speed considerations, the hull permanent
roughness is also of considerable importance. Whilst this will not in
general affect the polishing rate of the coating, one will find that in the
region of the peaks the anti-fouling will polish through more quickly
since the coating surface will be worked harder by the increased shear
stresses and turbulent vortices. Figure 5.111 shows this effect in
schematic form. Whilst the average polishing rate for the coating will
be the same for a rough or smooth hull, the standard deviation on the
distribution curve for polishing rate will give a much bigger spread for
rough hulls. Figure 5.112 demonstrates this effect by showing the
results of model experiments (Bidstrup et al. (1981)) for both a smooth
and rough surface, 50 and 500 µm, respectively; similar effects are
noted on vessels at sea. Consequently, it will be seen that the paint
coating needs to be matched carefully to the operating and general
conditions of the vessel.

Figure 5.111. Influence of surface roughness on polishing anti-fouling

paints.
:
 Figure 5.112. Influence of roughness on polishing rate (Bidstrup et al.
(1981)).

Although particularly successful in minimizing the hull resistance over

a docking cycle, hull coatings containing toxins have been the subject
of a progressive banning regime by the International Maritime
Organization. This occurred first with pleasure craft based in coastal
and estuarial marinas where it was noted that mutations in marine life
were occurring and then latterly the ban was extended to large
commercial ships. This led to intensive research efforts into
maintaining hull performance during the service life of ships and has
represented a significant challenge given that the fouling sequence
normally commences with slime which then progresses to algae,
following which the animal foulers tend to take up residence and
finally culminate in a climax community. Prior to the introduction of
bioactive compounds hull fouling led, in ship performance terms, to
regular and frequent increases in hull resistance over a docking cycle.
With the introduction of anti-fouling paints this sawtooth
characteristic largely disappeared and the necessity to dry-dock for
fouling reasons reduced as discussed in Section 5.7.5.

A number of coating solutions are being evolved for use in the post
biocide era with various benefits claimed. In the case of the silicone-
based elastomeric coatings, which have no known toxic effects, these
prevent marine life from adhering to the hull surface by virtue of the
coating's properties provided that the ship speed is maintained above a
critical value, typically in the region of 17 to 18 knots and does not
spend long periods stationary in port. Moreover, some advantage in
terms of a reduced turbulent flow wall shear stress is also likely and a
:
 number of sea trials are currently in progress to demonstrate whether
this is the case.
Featured on this page
The standard measure of hull roughness that has been adopted within
the marine industry is Rt(50). This is a measure of the maximum peak-
to-valley height over 50 mm lengths of the hull surface, as shown in
Figure 5.113. When undertaking a survey of a hull, several values of
Rt(50) will be determined at a particular location on the hull and these
are combined to give a mean hull roughness (MHR) at that location
defined by

Figure 5.113. Definition of Rt(50) roughness measure.

(5.104)

where hi are the individual Rt(50) values measured at that location.

The Average Hull Roughness (AHR) is an attempt to combine the

individual MHR values into a single parameter defining the hull
conditions at a particular time. Typically the vessel may have been
divided up into a number of equal areas, perhaps 100, and a value of
MHR determined for each area. These MHR values are then combined
in the same way as Equation (5.104) to give the AHR for the vessel:

(5.105)

where wj is a weight function depending on the location of the patch

on the hull surface. For many purposes wj is put equal to unity for all j
values; however, by defining the relation in the general way some
flexibility is given to providing a means for weighting important areas
of the hull with respect to hull roughness. Most notable here are the
regions in the fore part of the vessel.

Townsin et al. (1981) suggest that if a full hull roughness survey is

made, the AHR will be statistically correct using wj = 1 in Equation
(5.105). However, should some stations be left out for reasons of access,
etc., then the AHR can be obtained in the following way:

(5.106)
:
 Much debate has centred on the use of a simple parameter such as
Rt(50) in representing non-homogenous surfaces. The arguments
against this parameter suggest that the lack of data defining the surface
in terms of its texture is serious and has led to the development of
replica-based criteria for predicting power loss resulting from hull
roughness, Anon. (1987). With this method, the surface of the actual
ship is compared to those reproduced on replica cards, which
themselves have been cast from other ships in service and the surfaces
tested in a water tunnel to determine their drag. When a particular
card has been chosen as being representative of a particular hull
surface, a calculation of power penalty is made by use of diagrams
relating the principal ship particulars; these diagrams having been
constructed from a theoretical analysis procedure.

There is unfortunately limited data to be found that gives a statistical

analysis and correlation with measured roughness functions for typical
hull surfaces. Amongst the tests carried out, Musker (1977), Johannson
(1985) and Walderhaug (1986), feature as well-known examples. In the
case of Musker, for example, he found that the measured roughness
function for a set of five surfaces did not show a good correlation with
Rt(50) and used a combination of statistical parameters to improve the
correlation.

The parameters used in his study were:

1. the standard deviation (σr);

2. the average slope (Sp);
3. the skewness of the height distribution (Sk);
4. the Kurtosis of the distribution (Ku);

and he combined them into an ‘equivalent height’ (h′) which correlated

with the measured roughness function using a filtered profile with a
2 mm long wavelength cut off. The relationship used was

(5.107)

With regard to Rt(50) as a parameter, Townsin (1987) concludes that for

rough surfaces, including surface-damaged and deteriorated anti-
fouling coatings – in excess of around 250 µm AHR, it is an unreliable
parameter to correlate with added drag. However, for new and
relatively smooth hulls it appears to correlate well with other available
measures of roughness function, and so can form a basis to assess
power penalties for ships.

It is found that the majority of new vessels have AHR of the order of 90
to 130 µm provided that they have been finished in a careful and
proper manner. McKelvie (1981) notes, however, that values for new
:
 vessels of 200 to 250 µm have not been uncommon in the period
preceding 1981. The way in which this value increases with time is a
variable depending on the type of coating used. To illustrate this Figure
5.114 shows a typical scenario, Naess (1980), for a vessel in the first
eight years of its life. In the figure it will be seen that the initial
roughness AHR increased after four years to a value of around 250 µm
using traditional anti-fouling coatings (Point A on the diagram). If the
vessel is shot blasted, it can be assumed that the initial hull roughness
could be reinstated since an insignificant amount of corrosion should
have taken place. If, after cleaning, the vessel is treated with a
reactivatable or SPA, after a further period of four years in service the
increase in roughness would be small. Alternatively, if the vessel had
been treated with traditional anti-fouling, as in the previous four-year
period, then a similar increase in roughness would be noted. As
illustrated in the diagram, the rate of increasing roughness depends on
the coating system employed and the figures shown in Table 5.22 will
give some general indication of the probable increases.

Figure 5.114. Effect of different coatings on hull roughness (Reproduced

from Naess (1980)).

Table 5.22. Typical annual hull roughness increments.

Coating type Annual increase in roughness (µm/year)

Self-polishing paints 10–30

Traditional coating 40–60

Clearly, significant deviations can occur in these roughening rates in

individual circumstances for a wide variety of reasons. Figure 5.115,
which is taken from Townsin (1986) shows the scatter that can be
obtained over a sample of some 86 surveys conducted over the two-
year period 1984/85.
:
 Figure 5.115. Survey of hull roughness conducted during period 1984–
85 (Reproduced with permission from Townsin et al. (1986)).

Assuming that the AHR can be evaluated, this value then has to be
converted into a power penalty if it is to be of any practical significance
beyond being purely an arbitrary measure of paint quality. Lackenby
(1962) proposed an early approximation that for every 25 µm increase
in roughness an increase in fuel consumption of around 2.5 per cent
could be anticipated.

Bowden and Davison (1974) proposed the relationship

(5.108)

where k1 and k2 are the AHR for the rough and smooth ship,
respectively, and ∆P1 and ∆P2 are the power increments associated
with these conditions, P is the maximum continuous power rating of
the vessel.

The relationship was adopted by the 1978 International Towing Tank

Conference (ITTC) as the basis for the formulation of power penalties
and appeared in those proceedings in the form:

(5.109)

in which ks is the mean apparent amplitude of the surface roughness

over a 50 mm wavelength and L is the ship length. With Equation
(5.109) a restriction in length of 400 m was applied, and it is suitable
for resistance extrapolation using a form factor method and the 1957
ITTC friction line. It assumes a standard roughness of 150 µm.

Townsin (1987) has produced a modified expression for the calculation

of ∆CF based on the AHR parameter and applicable to new and
relatively smooth vessels:

(5.110)
:
 The effects of the distribution of roughness on the skin friction of ships
have been explored by Kauczynski and Walderhaug (1987). They
showed the most important part of the hull with respect to the
increase in resistance due to roughness is the bow region. However, the
length of the significant part of this portion of the hull decreases as the
block coefficient increases. In the case of vessels with higher block
coefficients, of the order of 0.7 to 0.8, the afterbody also plays a
significant role. Figure 5.116, based on Kauczynski and Walderhaug
(1987), illustrates this point by considering two smoothing regimes for
a vessel. In case A, a smooth strip equal to 25 per cent of LWL was fixed
to the bow, whereas in case B the smooth area was divided into two
equal portions, both with a length equal to 12.5 per cent LWL. In both
cases the smoothed areas were equal. Calculations showed that the
reduction in CF compared to the whole rough surface were 0.105×10−3
and 0.119×10−3 for cases A and B, respectively, thus showing an
advantage for the smoothing regimes of case B. In order to compute the
value of CF corresponding to paint roughness, Kauczynski and
Walderhaug based their calculations on a conformal mapping
technique for describing the hull form and used a momentum integral
method for the calculation of the three-dimensional turbulent
boundary layer characteristics. The results of these calculations for five
hull forms of the Series 60 models with block coefficients between 0.60
and 0.80 have shown that the increase of frictional resistance due to
roughness ∆CF is a function of block coefficient, Reynolds number, Rt(50)
and Rt(1). A regression procedure was applied by the authors to these
results in order to give a readily applicable approximation of the form

Figure 5.116. Hull smoothing regimes considered by Kauczynski and

Walderhaug (Reproduced from Kauczynski and Walderhaug (1987)).
:
 (5.111)

where i, j=1, 2, 3 and

with

In order to derive the coefficients a0 and ai in Equation (5.111) a further

polynomial expression has been derived as follows:

where i=0, 1, 2, 3

The coefficients fi,p are given by Table 5.23 for all values of p=1, 2, 3,…,
20. The coefficients bj are given by Table 5.24.

Table 5.23. Values of coefficient fi,p (taken from Kauczynski and

Walderhaug (1987).

P f0,p×103 f1,p×103 f2,p×103 f3,p×103

1 −0.05695 −0.08235 −0.48093 0.43460

2 −0.25473 −0.73105 1.01946 −1.37640

3 −0.18337 −2.01563 1.31724 −0.11176

4 0.38401 0.79786 2.02432 −2.30461

5 −0.27985 0.27460 −2.56908 2.26801

6 0.12397 0.47117 1.30053 −1.43575

7 1.95506 −10.87320 35.18020 −24.04790

8 −4.89111 17.57430 −63.66010 49.25690

9 1.70315 −5.44915 19.77400 −15.92990

10 0.72533 −2.50564 9.33041 −7.31122

11 −0.07676 −0.74104 0.62533 −0.06440

12 −2.93232 9.38549 −36.49980 29.61980

13 1.88597 −0.39504 6.04098 −11.67790

:
 14 6.04607 −23.66800 88.78930 −64.38880

15 −5.02286 17.10700 −64.93670 49.93150

16 0.07829 0.00438 0.56607 −0.56425

17 0.04596 0.25232 −0.09525 −0.39173

18 3.04651 −10.75950 42.36420 −31.51610

19 −7.47250 23.29540 −93.06020 72.79150

20 4.26166 −13.00580 51.38600 −40.80970

Table 5.24. Coefficients bj (taken from Kauczynski and Walderhaug

(1987).

j bj×103

1 −0.09440

2 0.01126

3 0.13756

The calculation procedure is subject to the constraints imposed by the

model series and the conditions examined. Thus
are defined as 105 µm, 3.32×109, 2.7×106 and 0.6,
respectively. The method described has been examined in comparison
with others, notably those by Hohansson, Townsin and Bowden, for a
16 knot, 350 m tanker, and the results are shown in Figure 5.117. The
range of values predicted for in the range 4 to 8, typical values
for painted surfaces, embrace the result from Bowden's formula.
Nevertheless, Bowden's formula does not consider the effects of Rn and
CB, and consequently in other examples differences may occur. With
regard to Townsin and Johansson's formulae, close agreement is also
seen in the region where is of the order of 30 µm.
:
 Figure 5.117. Comparison of roughness ∆CF values (Reproduced with
permission from Kauczynski and Walderhaug (1987)).

Walderhaug (1986) suggests an approximation to the procedure

outlined above, which has the form

(5.112)

where the effective roughness kE is given by

with the roughness to wavelength ratio at=1 mm and the

admissible roughness kA given by

with f=2.5 for painted surfaces and the friction velocity

Read less

Read full chapter

URL: [Link]

Service Performance and Analysis

J.S. Carlton FREng, in
Marine Propellers and Propulsion (Third Edition), 2012

24.4 Propeller Roughness and Fouling

:
 Propeller roughness is a complementary problem to that of hull
roughness and one which is no less important. As in the hull roughness
case, propeller roughness arises from a variety of causes, chief of which
are marine growth, impingement attack, corrosion, cavitation erosion,
poor maintenance and contact damage.

The marine growth found on propellers is similar to that observed on

hulls except that the longer weed strands tend to get worn off.
Notwithstanding this, weed having a length of the order of 10–20 mm
is not uncommon on the minor regions of the blade, as indeed are
stalked barnacles which are frequently found alive on the blades after a
vessel has docked subsequent to undertaking a considerable journey.
Marine fouling of this type increases the power absorption of the
propeller, which for a fixed pitch propeller will result in a reduction of
service rotational speed.

Impingement attack resulting from the passage of the water and the
abrasive particles held in suspension over the blade surfaces normally
affects the blades in the leading edge region and particularly in the
outer radii of the blade where the velocities are highest. This results in
a comparatively widespread area of fairly shallow depth surface
Read more
roughness: similar to corrosion of either the chemical or
electrochemical
Read full chapter kind. Furthermore, with both corrosive and

impingement roughness the severity of the attack tends to be

URL: [Link]
increased with the turbulence levels in the boundary layer of the
section. Consequently, subsequent to an initial attack, increased rates
Resistance
of surface degradation could be expected with time.

Eric C. Tupper
Cavitation BSc,
erosion is CEng, RCNC,
normally, FRINA,
but not WhSch,
always, in to localized
confined
Introduction to Naval
areas of the blade. It can Architecture (Fifth Edition),
vary from a comparatively 2013
slight and relatively
stable surface deterioration of a few millimeters in depth to a very
Roughness
rapid deterioration of the surface reaching depths of the order of the
Apart from the wetted surface area and speed the major factor in
section thickness in a few days. Fortunately, the later scenario is
determining the frictional resistance is the roughness of the hull. For
comparatively rare. Cavitation damage, however, presents a highly
slow ships the frictional resistance is the major part of the total and it
irregular surface, as seen in Figures 24.9 and 26.1, which will have an
is important to keep the hull as smooth as possible.
influence on the drag characteristics of the blade sections. Blade-to-
Owing to the increase in boundary layer thickness, the ratio of a given
blade differences are likely to occur in the erosion patterns caused by
roughness amplitude to boundary layer thickness decreases along the
cavitation and also, to some extent, with the forms of roughness. These
length of the hull. Protrusions have less effect at the after end than
differences will influence the individual drag characteristics of the
forward. In the towing trials of HMS Penelope, the hull roughness,
sections.
measured by a wall roughness gauge, was found to be 0.3 mm mean
apparent amplitude per 50 mm. This mean apparent amplitude per
50 mm gauge length is the standard parameter used in the United
Kingdom to represent hull roughness. Roughness can be considered
under three headings:
:
 • Structural roughness. This depends upon the design and method of
construction. A riveted ship was rougher than a welded ship, but in
welded hulls the plating exhibits a waviness between frames,
particularly in thin plating. This is also a form of roughness.

• Corrosion. Steel corrodes in sea water creating a roughened surface.

Modern painting systems are reasonably effective in reducing
Read more all the while the coating remains intact. If it is abraded in
corrosion
one area then corrosion is concentrated at that spot and pitting can
Read full chapter
be severe. This is bad from the structural point of view as well as
URL: [Link]
for frictional resistance. To reduce corrosion, many ships are fitted
with cathodic protection systems.

Service performance
• Fouling. Marine organisms such as and analysis
weed and barnacles can attach
themselves to the hull. This would represent a very severe
JS Carlton, in Marine Propellers and Propulsion (Second Edition),
roughening if steps were not taken to prevent it. Traditionally the
2007
underwater hull has been coated with anti-fouling compositions.
24.1Early
Effects of weather
treatments contained toxic materials such as compounds of
24.2mercury or copper
Hull roughness andwhich leached out into the water and prevented
fouling

24.3the marine
Hull growth taking a hold on the hull. Unfortunately these
drag reduction
compounds pollute the general ocean and other treatments are
24.4Propeller roughness and fouling
now used. Fouling is very dependent upon the time a ship spends
24.5Generalized equations for the roughness-induced power penalties
in port relative to its time at sea, and the ocean areas in which it
in ship operation
operates. Fouling increases more rapidly in port and in warmer
24.6waters.
Monitoring
In theofLucy
shipAshton
performance
towing trials it was found that the
frictional resistance increased by about 5% over 40 days, that is by
Readabout
full chapter
1/8 of 1% per day. This was a common allowance made for
time out of dock but with modern coatings a lower allowance
URL: [Link] is
appropriate.

Fouling control coatings using low

For an operator the deterioration of the hull surface with time results
in a slower speed for a given power or more power being needed for a
surface energy, foul release technology
given speed. This increases running costs which must be set against the
costs of docking, cleaning
R.L. Townsinretired, [Link] underwater
Anderson, in hull and applying new
Advances in Marine Antifouling Coatings and Technologies, 2009
coatings.

The Schoenherr and ITTC resistance formulations were intended to

26.4 The roughness of the applied foul release
apply to a perfectly smooth surface. This will not be true even for a
coating
newly completed ship. The usual allowance for roughness was to
The roughness of an applied foul release coating is of interest in
increase the frictional coefficient by 0.0004 for a new ship but with
relation to its fluid drag. Do the roughness characteristics of foul
modern coatings a figure of 0.00025 would be more realistic. The ITTC-
release coatings differ from those of earlier types of fouling control
recommended allowance was given above. In addition an allowance
coating, e.g. SPC, either TBT or tin-free? Do any such differences affect
must be made for the increase in frictional resistance with time out of
their drag?
dock. This has been estimated to be 10% and 40% of the frictional
Since the early work of Musker (1977), and others, it is generally
resistance per year, depending upon the service details.
understood that two statistical parameters are needed to define a
:
 surface in order to correlate it with its fluid drag. The required
descriptors are a height measure and a texture parameter. Generally,
the height is a reflection of the quality of application and the roughness
of the substrate, whereas the texture relates more to the rheology of
the coating. In the case of earlier coatings, their similar rheologies
resulted in a close relationship between height and texture for
moderate roughnesses, so that only the one parameter, viz. height, was
needed in order to characterise the roughness and correlate it with its
fluid drag.

One obvious candidate roughness height parameter to characterise the

Read surface
coated more is a statistical measure devised for the Lucy Ashton trials

(Conn et al., 1953). The parameter is Rt(50) and is the maximum peak
Read full chapter
to the lowest trough in a 50 mm sample length, along the rough
URL: [Link]
surface. The roughness height distribution is random and therefore it is
necessary to use an average value of this parameter over a

Resistance and
measurement position Propulsion
(mean hull roughness, MHR), and then MHR is
averaged over the hull (average hull roughness, AHR). There is a
Volker Bertram, in
standard procedure for measurement of a ship hull surface Townsin et
Practical Ship Hydrodynamics (Second Edition), 2012
al. (1981). There is also a special stylus instrument for taking the
3.7.3 Hull Coatings
measurements of Rt(50), [Link] Air
the Hull Lubrication
Roughness Analyser.
The
As a frictional
concessionresistance is generally
to simplicity, the largest
it was found that, part of thethe
providing total
data was
resistance. The
restricted to frictional
values resistance
of Rt(50) (for which
< 230 µm, a givenisspeed) is governed
the moderately by
rough
wetted surface
ship range, then(main dimensions
the roughness and
drag trim) andwell
correlated surface roughness
enough with of
the hullcharacterised
height (average hullby
roughness ofall
Rt(50), for coating, added
the paint roughness
surfaces testeddue to
fouling
(Townsinand coating
and degradation).
Dey, 1990). The wayShips withopen
was now severe
to fouling may
correlate Rt(50)
require
directly twice the power added
with roughness as withresistance
a smoothvalues,
[Link] (2006)
measured by a
estimates
number ofthat only one-third
authorities. Finally,of the world
a simple fleet is
formula inthe
for good coating
added ship
condition
resistance with less of
in terms than 20% added
average resistance AHR,
hull roughness, compared to smooth
was the outcome:
surface condition.
26.1
Advanced hull coatings can reduce frictional resistance. An average hull
roughness (AHR) of 65 µm is very good, 150 µm standard, and AHR >
200 µm sub-standard. As a rule of thumb, every 20 µm of hull
where the added resistance, ∆R, in coefficient form, is, ∆C = ∆R /
roughness adds 1% to the required propulsion power (Townsin et al.
0.5ρSV , where the ship length is L, R is the ship Reynolds Number at
1980).
speed V and the ship wetted surface is S.
Low-surface-energy (LSE) coatings or foul release coatings create non-
Early in the commercial development of foul release coatings, it was
stick surfaces similar to those known in Teflon-coated pans, but best-
realised that the nature of the silicone elastomer surfaces might mean
practice LSE coatings reach barnacle adhesion strengths 10–20 times
different roughness characteristics and consequent differences in
lower than Teflon. On the other hand, dynamic tests on moving ships
roughness drag penalties. Accordingly, an extensive research
have shown that well-attached barnacles (e.g. after longer stays in
programme was set up at Newcastle University. Candries (2001)
port) may require relatively high ship speeds to be released (Swain
measured the resistance of coated flat planes in the towing tanks of the
2010).
ReadSome
morepublications claim fuel savings in excess of 10% due to LSE
university and at a Spanish facility, CEHIPAR. Also a coated catamaran
coatings as compared to copper-based ‘standard’ coatings. These
model
Read was
full tested at the Denny ship model testing tank in Dumbarton.
chapter
:
 URL: [Link]

Chemical Product Design: Toward a

Perspective Through Case Studies
Søren Kiil, ... KimDam-Johansen , in
Computer Aided Chemical Engineering, 2007

7.4.3 Full Paint System on a Ship

Painting a vessel's underwater hull serves two main purposes:

protection of the construction steel

prevention of undue hull roughness

As discussed in the section on consequences of biofouling, an increased

hull roughness will inevitably lead to increased resistance to
movements of the vessel, causing lower service speed or increased fuel
consumption. The hull roughness increase is mainly due to the
settlement of marine organisms or due to mechanical damages,
corrosion etc. When preventing corrosion of ship hulls, the principle of
creating a physical barrier that keeps out ions and retards the
penetration of water and oxygen is employed. This anticorrosive barrier
coat or primer is the first coat to be applied on the steel substrate. In
the case of new buildings a shop primer may, however, partly precede
such a coat. A shop primer is a thin anti corrosive coat (20 − 30 µm)
which provides a temporary protection to the steel plates during ship
building. In the final hull surface, a barrier effect is obtained by
applying thick coatings of paints with very low water permeability.
These paints are nowadays usually based on epoxy binders and they
are typically applied in 2 or even 3 turns to obtain a final thickness of
Read more
250-500 µm. By adding flake formed pigments e.g. leafing aluminium
or micaceous
Read iron oxide, a barrier effect can be achieved at a lower film
full chapter
thickness. However, if an anticorrosive coating is damaged, the areas of
URL: [Link]
damage lie open for corrosion, which can proceed both down into the
steel and outwards under the intact coating (under rusting). Thus,
Service
where there isPerformance andadditional
a risk of mechanical damage, Analysisprotection, in
the form of cathodic protection (e.g. zinc anodes or impressed current)
J.S. Carlton FREng, in
is often provided.
Marine Propellers and Propulsion (Third Edition), 2012
Normally an antifouling paint does not adhere well enough directly on
The subject of service performance quite naturally, therefore, can be
to the epoxy primer. Therefore a so called tie coat is usually applied
divided into four component parts for discussion purposes as follows:
before the antifouling coating system. The tie coat is typically based on
[Link]
Effects of with
weather – both which
properties sea andare
wind.
compatible with both the
2. Hull roughnessepoxy
chemically-curing primer and the physically-drying antifouling
and fouling.
paint. Finally the
3. Propeller antifouling
roughness paint is applied. The specific type of
and fouling.
:
 4. The monitoring of ship performance.

As such, the discussion in this chapter will essentially fall into these
four categories.

Read full chapter

URL: [Link]

Service performance and analysis

JS Carlton, in Marine Propellers and Propulsion (Second Edition),
2007

24.5 Generalized equations for the roughness-

induced power penalties in ship operation
Townsin et al. (Reference 20) established a valuable and practical basis
upon which to analyse the effects of roughness on the hull and
propeller of a ship. In this analysis they established a set of generalized
equations, the derivations of which form the basis of this section. The
starting point for their analysis is to consider the power delivered to
the propeller in order to propel a ship at a given speed Vs through the
water:

where R is the resistance of the ship at the speed Vs and the QPC is the
quasi-propulsive coefficient given by

Consequently, the basic relationship for the delivered power Pd can be

re-expressed as follows:

(24.13)

by writing the ship resistance R as ½SV2 C . Equation (24.13) can be

Read more
linearized by taking logarithms and differentiating the resulting
equation to give
Read full chapter

URL: [Link]

In this equation it can be assumed for all practical purposes that the
Corrosion Protection of Ships
density (ϱ), the wetted surface area (S) and the relative rotative
efficiency (η ) are unaffected by increases in roughness of the order
normally expected in ships in service. As consequence these terms can
be neglected in the above equation to give
:
 Chao Wei, ... Stephen Liu, in
Handbook of Environmental Degradation of Materials (Third
Edition)
, 2018

25.7.3 Underwater Hull Inspection and Fouling

Assessment
Class provides survey requirement on underwater hull and propeller
conditions. The survey of underwater hulls and propellers can combine
fouling condition assessment for fouling cleaning and energy efficiency
monitoring. The following standards may be referred to for fouling
assessment, hull roughness measurement, and hull performance
measurement:

• NACE SP0616-2016, Standard for Hull Roughness Measurements on

Ship Hulls in Dry Dock (published in December 2016)

• NACE Committee TG 475, Standard for Underwater Evaluation of

Degree of Fouling on Ship Hull (released for vote in December
2016)

• International Data Plan: In-Water Inspection Standards

• ISO 19030 parts 1–3:2016, Ships and Marine Technology—
Measurement of Changes in Hull and Propeller Performance
Read more
NACE SP0616 provides the methodology of measuring hull roughness
Read full chapter
of vessels in dry-dock. Fouling degree can be evaluated in accordance
URL:
with[Link]
a standard developed by NACE TG 475 or a standard provided by

Related terms:
the International Paint. The ISO standards provide the methods for
measurement and calculation of changes in hull and propeller
Model Test, Computational Fluid Dynamics,
performance. Boundary Layer, Hulls (Ship),

Underwater
Ship hull and
Model Tanks, Shippropeller
Models, cleanings
Frictional can be performed as
Resistance,
underwater cleaning or dry-dock cleaning. The underwater hull
Mechanical Damage,
cleaning of Hullbecome
a vessel has Surface,a necessity
Residual Resistance.
for shipowners with
consideration of underwater cleaning regulations from ports, states,
and administrations. A wide range of cleaning technologies and service
providers can be found worldwide.

Recommended publications

Ocean Engineering
Journal
:
 Applied Ocean Research
Journal

Journal of Cleaner Production

Journal

Marine Propellers and Propulsion (Fourth Edition)

Book • 2018

All content on this site: Copyright © 2024 Elsevier B.V., its licensors, and contributors. All rights are
reserved, including those for text and data mining, AI training, and similar technologies. For all open
access content, the Creative Commons licensing terms apply.
: