Marine Technology, Vol. 20, No. 3, July 1983, pp.

209-226

Marine Technology

Twin-screw 5600-hp towboat pushing a barge train

River Towboat Hull and Propulsion

Bob Christopoulos ~ and Robert Latorre 2
With the growth of inland barge transport there is a continued interest in improving the design of the towboat hull and propulsion. Drawing from a large amount of experience in towboat hull and propulsion design this paper presents a review of recent European research in towboat hull form, summarizes the trends in tunnel stern design, and illustrates the design of a towboat propeller. The design concerns a twin-screw, 5600-bhp towboat pushing a 15-barge tow in deep (45 ft) and shallow (16 ft) water.

1 Manager, Naval Architecture and Marine Engineering, American Commercial Barge Line Co., Jeffersonville, Indiana. 2 Associate professor, Department of Naval Architecture and Marine Engineering, University of New Orleans, New Orleans, Louisiana. Presently, visiting scientist, Bassin d'Essais des Carenes, Paris, France
JULY 1983

(formerly with The University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, Michigan). 3 Numbers in brackets designate References at end of paper. Presented at the January 28, 1982 meeting of the Great Lakes and Great Rivers Section of THE SOCIETY OF NAVALARCHITECTSAND MARINE ENGINEERS.
209

0025-331618312003-0209500.6110

Introduction TOWBOATS pushing multiple-barge tows such as shown in the frontispiece are a common sight on the inland waterways. Presently about 12 percent of the intercity freight moves on the 25 000-mile inland navigation system. With continued emphasis on economy in transportation, use of coal, and export of grain and coal, it has been estimated t h a t "barge traffic on the Mississippi-Ohio system would double by the end of the century, increasing from 624 million tons to 1.27 billion tons" [1]. 3 This growth was reflected in the shipbuilding on the inland waterways. The Annual Report of the Status of the Shipbuilding and Ship Repair Industry in the United States I980 confirms this growth. It reports that inland shipyards capable of building barges deliver about 2200 units annually. The number of inland barges (hopper, deck and tank) was predicted to increase 24 percent from 23 000 (1980) to 28 500 (1990). The delivery rate of towboats has already increased from 100 vessels per year (1965) to 140 (1980). The present towboat fleet estimated at 3200 vessels (1980) may reach 4500 vessels by 1990 [2]. With this growth in inland waterway barge traffic there is a continual interest in improving towboat design. While the designer can refer to a number of published papers on the arrangement of towboat machinery and accommodations [3, 4], there is relatively little published material on contemporary high-power towboat hull form, tunnel stern, and propulsion system design [5, 6]. This is unfortunate since one of the main design requirements in towboat design is to deliver the thrust required for pushing the barge tow. Obtaining this thrust requires the designer to consider a number of factors, including: Propeller loading related to the operating conditions: 1. number of barges being pushed, 2. loading of barges, 3. water depth, and 4. current speed and direction. Inflow into the propeller related to the preceding factors 1-4 and towboat hull: 5. hull lines, especially tunnel stern, 6. orientation of ahead and flanking rudders, and 7. propeller design. In many cases the relationship of each item to the towboat propulsive efficiency may not be clear. Among the more critical factors is the waterway depth which limits the propeller diameter and reduces the propulsive efficiency. The use of systematic ducted propeller studies [7, 8], adopting tunnel stern hull forms to increase the propeller diameter (Fig. 17) [5, 6], and using twin, triple, and sometimes quadruple propellers [9] have allowed the designer to obtain a steady increase in propulsive power. Model test results similar to Figs. 3 and 11 have shown that a towboat pushing a barge tow has a propulsive efficiency 7o of 0.30 to 0.40: ~D where
Pu

towboat tunnel stern designs, and present an example of the propeller design for a 5600-hp, twin-screw towboat pushing a 15-barge tow in deep (45 ft) and shallow (16 ft) water. Studies on towboat hull form

[ 11-14]

Recently several papers [11, 12, 13] were published in Germany summarizing research on the propulsion of towboats pushing barge trains in shallow water. These studies were done with 1:16 scale models in the shallow-water tank of the Versuchanstalt fur Binnenschiffbau e.V., Duisburg, West Germany (VBD). The appearance of twin-hull catamaran towboats pushing barge trains on the inland waterways of the Soviet Union p r o m p t e d a VBD research project to compare the performance of a conventional twin-screw towboat and the catamaran towboat [12]. The principal particulars of the towboats are summarized in Table 1. The lines of the towboat and barge models used are shown in Fig. 1. In the tests four barges were arranged stern to stern in two rows (2 X 2) in front of the towboat. The self-propulsion tests were conducted in shallow-water conditions representative of a 5-m water depth. The results of the self-propulsion tests are summarized in Figs. 2 and 3. It is clear that the catamaran towboat when tested without rudders or nozzles has about 10 percent lower power than the conventional towboat for the same speed at barge drafts of Tc = 3.2 and 2.8 m. Later tests with dueted propellers and rudders were inconclusive. This was due to the rudders not being set optimally to the incoming flow. In Fig. 3, the riD-Values are in the range of 0.3 to 0.35 typical of towboats operating behind a barge train in shallow water. Figure 3 indicates that the advantage of the catamaran towboat hull is in the lower values of the thrust deduction t which contribute to a higher hull efficiency ~H:
(1 - t )

~H - (1 - w) where w t R T V Va = = = = = = wake fraction; Va = (1 - w)V thrust deduction; R = (1 - t)T total resistance propeller thrust tow velocity local velocity seen by propeller

(2)

Detailed measurements of the wake behind the barge train with and without the towboat were also reported. The ratio of the
Table 1 Comparison of conventional and catamaran towboat and barge particulars [12]

PD

(1) Length LWL, m Beam, B, m Beam hull, m Draft, T m Displ., w m 3

Catamaran M 799 35.00 14.00 5.00 2.00a 541.78

Conventional M 771 35.OO 14.00

517.08

Barge 76.00 11.33

2528.83 (TL = 3.2)

PE = ehp towrope hp = RV/550

PD = hp absorbed by propeller(s) In contrast, oceangoing supertankers have values of 0.5 to 0.6, and typical high-speed containerships may reach values of 0.6 to 0.7. Volker attributes the low towboat rid to a "suction force" which appears as an increase in the thrust deduction t when the towboat propellers operate between tree running and push towing conditions [10]. While the relationships of the other items to the propulsive efficiency may not be clear, it is worthwhile to attempt a summary of the large amount of experience in towboat hull and propulsion design. The authors felt it timely to review recent European research in towboat hull design, characterize recent high-powered
210

2195.00 (TL = 2.8)

PROPELLER DESIGN

Diameter, D, m Pitch/dia, P/D Area, Ae/Ao Blade No., z

2.1 1.052 0.710 4

2.1 1.052 0.710 4

NOTES: Model scale 1:16. a Catamaran hulls have deeper draft to obtain equivalent displacement.
MARINE TECHNOLOGY

i , ,

'

'

'

" I ' I I z / I

SHALLOW
h = 5.0m T = 2.8m
O 1 2 3 4 5 G 7 15 1G 17 7.5 m iSETWEEN SHAFTS 1.55mFROM B.L. TO TRANSOM BOTTOM 8, 18 9 19 20

WATER
and 3.2m

TESTS

4 BARGES

a) C O N V E N T I O N A L

TOWBOAT

VBD M-771

~WLII!I ~..--d~ll

2 20

LW L

--

9.0 m BETWEEN SHAFTS 1.55m EROM B.L. TO TRANSOM BOTTOM

VBD

M 751-762

18

19

20

1G

'17

18

19

20

b) C A T A M A R A N
Fig. 1

TOWBOAT

VBD M-799

c) S T A N D A R D

" E U R O P A H" BARGE

Hull lines of VBD towboat and barge models [12]: (a) conventional towboat model M771; (b) catamaran towboat model M799; (c) Europa standard barge models M751-762

TRIM FORWARD 5 6 7 15 V TRIM & S NKAC,4~-'9,'- ~--'-'~----~-----~"- "-- --'K------7" ' - - ' - - ~ . ~ T RIM

TOW B O A T ~CONV E N TIONAL .... CATAMARAN

W I

WAKE

[~J--'TL'-

]CL - l

~....~ TLz 3-20 m

2.8Orn
.

o.41 ~

W M~-ASURE'DWlTHOUT

cOl._ TOWBOAT
S I NKAGE

PROPULSIONTESTS /

7 - - r - - 7 ~ - ~T
] / I I I t
TESTS WITH BARC4E TRAIN

-_~.d'-'~
F
[ ~ I - ~V;;IRDOEMNTIHTRyUST

"~.~T'L:~.s0,~
-

RESISTANCE AND PROPULSION

c::l
PD WPS M-771 or M-799 n

I
.11 J -"
-"'

WATER DEPTH h: 5Ore TOWBOAT WITHOUT RUDDERS AND NOZZLES

(2o

4000
....

CONVENTIONAL TOWBOAT DRAFT T :1.75 m CATAMARAN TOWBOAT DRAFT T:2.00 m

0.3Tc3.2o ~ " 02

_. . . . .

QU,ASI-PROP ULSIVE CQEFFICIENT 3 0 0 0 -2OO 5O 2000

m:.

'

I
,"~"; CO,r,

,
/
~/ /

?oo
EFFICIENCY
1,2

(10oo)
1OOO

!100

I -- "~ '" '" '"" TL: 3.20m~...... ~ " ' ~ ' = =

1OOO

1.1

TL=3 20
0 4 5 G

L
I

~ 10[ I 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 kVm/h 9

~ 80m

j 10

TL: B A R G E 11

12

TRAIN DRAFT 13

14 V km.~

Fig. 2

Comparison of resistance and propulsion tests [ 12], conventional and catamaran towboats pushing a barge train

Fig. 3

Self-propulsion test results [12], conventional and catamaran towboats pushing a barge train

JULY 1983

211

MEASUREMENT PLANE TOW

h : 5.O0 m TL: 2 . 8 O m CONV. PROP. 4.50m CAT. PROR V : 12.78 km/h BARGE LWL

PLANE M 771

h= 5 . 0 0 rn TL= 2 . 8 0 m

3.75m

&

&

p-

- - -o.~s L 4 ;] %~,r,? ~,

--" " TI;?I,,"; 't//i' :

A.4~b.Yl ,,,

~?
'.

, ~' . . - p . 2 s 1,' ~

")5.f:~-s,.: ' ~'o/I

V~//v = O, 7

t.

I(/! r-;
----M

.4
I

':O,80

,.', )1".1 ; Ifl*~~."

Fig. 7

Change in wake field ( Vpro

Fig. 4

Wake field V a / V o f barge train without towboat measured at 0.4D ahead of propeller plane [12]

~t2]

- - Vno

V for conventional towboat

' ,i~..~-.J-~
M E ASUREM ENT PLANEM771 i ~ I h : 5 . 0 0 rn TL: 2 . 8 0 m V -- 12.78 km/~ MEASUREMENT PLANE M 799 LWL

~I
i ~ L III ~ I I

..Z..____J~..=,,,"
II h = 5.00m TL= 2 . S O m V = 12,78 kmjh

--~,1-I
-O.15

X ,", :,,
_tl

',

:I :

2~1
/

""1
1>

/, O,1--

y ,,,x
Fig. 5 Wake field V a / V o f conventional towboat pushing a 2 X 2 barge train--measured without propeller at 0.4D ahead of propeller plane [12] Fig. 8

II

:~f

0.2

'-' Z,' 7 ~

Change in wake field ( Vpro[o12]Vno prop)/Vfor catamaran towboat

....... ~

~
h= 5.OO m Tff 2.80 m V :12.78 km/h

MEASUREMENT P L A N E M 799

A V-

Vwp -- Vnp

(3)

where

Lw

Vwp = local velocity with operating propeller Vnp = local velocity without propeller
V = tow velocity in Figs. 7 and 8. The values of A W are larger for the conventional towboat (Fig. 7) in comparison to the values for the catamaran towboat (Fig. 8). This reflects the higher hull efficiency of the catamaran towboat. VBD also completed an extensive study of triple and quadruple-screw towboats pushing a six-barge train [13]. Table 2 summarizes the main particulars of the triple-screw towboat VBD Model 838 and Fig. 9 shows the hull lines. The self-propulsion test results for the towboat are summarized in Figs. 10 and 11. The more streamlined tow arrangement (~ in these figures accounts for the lower resistance and the higher towing speed attained. The improvement in the towboat performance from using nozzle propellers is evident in Fig. 10. Figure 11 shows the significant influence of the barge tow arrangement on the propulsive factors. The propulsive coefficient ~H drops from 0.37 to 0.28 when the tow arrangement is changed from (J~)to (~). The velocity distribution given by contours of V J V in Fig. 12 has the same horizontal pattern in the outboard propeller. The change caused by the operating propellers is evident when Figs. 12 and 13 are compared. Earlier VBD tests with the towboat fitted with ducted propellers also included wake measurements. Figure 14 shows measured Va/V for the conditions in Fig. 13. The high values of V J V approaching 2.0 illustrate the effectiveness
MARINE TECHNOLOGY

VJv o.~ 0.7

Fig, 6 Wake field Va/V of catamaran towboat pushing a 2 X 2 barge train--measured with propeller operating at 0.4D ahead of propeller plane [12]

local velocity Va to the tow velocity V is plotted as contours of Va/V and wake fraction w in Figs. 4-6. Since the barge draft TL = 2.8 m is deeper than the towboat T = 1.75/2.0 m, the wake from the barge tow dominates the flow conditions at the propeller plane The towboat hull tends to flatten the Va/V contours in the propeller plane. The tunnel top flattens the contours into nearly horizontal lines in Figs. 5 and 6. When the operating propellers are present, there is a change in the flow pattern shown by contours of AV defined as
212

'1 li

_ _ . o o

I/

I TRA~ISQM

.~-///

Lw.._&L

L : B :

35.00m t4.95m

T : g :

1.70m 553.5m 3

C~

...

I 1 I 1 I li
14 0 15 1 2 16 3 4 17 5m 18 19

:L
20

Fig. 9

Lines of VBD triple-screw towboat [13]

Table 2

Particulars of triple-screw towboat and barges [13]

Towboat Barge 74.00 11.33 3.00 2359.70

Qr-q

'

',

~,

Length LWL, m Beam, B, m Draft, T, m Displ., v , m a

PROPELLER DESIGN

35.00 14.95 1.70 553.50 2.10 1.052 0.710 4

Diameter, D, m Pitch/dia, P/D Area Ratio, Ae/Ao Blade No., z Rotation direction from aft:

o.2~t

T H R U S T DEDUCTION

0.2

~(~)

G ~
~

I
!

I
'l

i.J
-11WT WAKE

1
FRACTION

P~
PS
5000

~T~
BARE

/sTep
o.~

L
I

n S rpm 4000
3OO

WT MIDDLE
0.4
0.3

-----~'t Q / "

P.O,"

CfO..~----~
I L _

3000

.200

20

10

17

14 VS km~l

/
/
200C

-1004--

30

Fig. 11 Self-propulsion test results showing influence of barge train arrangement [13]: Triple-screw towboat pushing six-barge train for test conditions shown in Fig. 10

1 000

--0

4O

%
I 10.0 5.0

HRUST
Mp

I
v s Km~

~ . . Fig. 10

Resistance and propulsion tests for six-barge train pushed by the triple-screw towboat in Fig. 9 [13] 213

JULY 1983

it_...... PLANE

.,,x..

~r'

~
I

],

~ ~ ~ ,
L...J
h = 5.O0 m

MEASU~EMEN,

--~ ~ L . - - L . J ~

~ , 7 . g . t_.. " t - o j. , ' - 2 .

7"9,-~- 1~

~<"-~ ' - " l/,7 " ~ " C'_-I--~C ~ ~ P.~.,o.,,k I,'

-li
-,
Fig. 12
Wake field V a / V o f triple-screw towboat pushing a 3 X 2 barge train--measured without propellers at 0.4D ahead of propeller plane [ 13]

of the duct in accelerating the flow into the propeller. In closing this discussion we refer to the experimental study of Borozoni [14] on the influence of water depth h on the propeller characteristics. The single-screw shallow-draft tunnel stern model I is shown in Fig. 15 (CB = 0.595, L = 2.4 m, B = 0.28 m, T = 0.062 m). The propeller characteristics were D = 80 mm, z = 3, P / D = 1.04, and A e / A o = 0.63. The self-propulsion tests were completed at the Leningrad River Transport Institute, USSR. The results are shown for different depths h in Fig. 16. This figure indicates that the influence of the shallow water h i T < 6.0 is large in the range of advance coefficient J between 0.14 and 0.4:
Va J - nD

n = propeller rps D = propeller diameter This drop in the thrust deduction (1 -. t) when the advance ratio J is between 0.14 and 0.40 is similar t< the observations of Volker [10]. These various studies make it possible to grasp something of the operating conditions of the towboat propeller as well as the influences due to changes in barge wake, towboat hull, tow arrangement, nozzle propellers, and water depth.

Towboat tunnel stern designs

(4) While operational requirements will dictate the barge number, draft Tt, and the water depth h, the designer can insure adequate water inflow to the propellers by proper design of the towboat tunnel stern. A comprehensive review of tunnel stern designs in

where
Va = local velocity seen by propeller

MEASUREMENT

.PLA"E~,
L~i I i

i ---'. A'
~[ .

--:--/

8]

h=~.OOr.
VS : 1 2 . 5 7 n = 228 km h rprn

//l, rl/Jf
.x ~ / _ L Z L A _ /

,I. " " F\ ~i ,k'J~

" I I \ I~',\1,"

\,~ 'tt~ ~t..rl,,l/','1/,;17,f "~l \l ~ ~1 :t'fl,~,l~',\',l-" I 1 { ~ ~ /ill ',II i q i~ L'~L'E~,~![I'.~ ~ ,I Ill ~7{~:7;! o,'~ o,.\~,]O.~o8~2~._v,~,.0 _ ,' ~ .~, ~.'E~':'~'" j,.," I,'IIA Vf \",~\ / ~ ~ I o,~
Fig. 13

Wake field Va/V of triple-screw towboat pushing a 3 X 2 barge train--measured with operating propellers at 0.4D ahead of propeller plane [ 13]

214

MARINE TECHNOLOGY

MEASUREMENT PLANE

h=5,0 m

'

"

14

'

Fig. 14

Wake field V a / V of triple-screw towboat pushing a 2 > 3 barge train--measured with propellers operating in ducts at 0.4D ahead of propeller plane [13]

the 1950's was published by Saunders in 1957 [5]. Allan has recently reviewed the design of multiple-screw tunnel sterns for operation in restricted water depths [9[. Several naval architects have developed schemes for the tunnel stern arrangement and prepared design guidelines [6, 15, 19, 20[. Baier [6] used the scheme shown in Fig. 17(a). In Bogdanov's book [15] a similar scheme is adopted along with the design recommendations in Fig. 17(b). Heuser [27] developed a more detailed scheme for the tunnel stern with nozzle propellers. This scheme is shown in Figs. 17(c-1) and 17(c-2) along with the design recommendations. Lederer [19] has developed a tunnel stern arrangement based on the propeller diameter shown in Fig. 17(d). Baier's 1959 paper [6] appears to be the main source of published data on tunnel stern designs used in contemporary U.S. towboat designs. However, it should be updated to reflect the

.wL~ z 0

N
Fig. 15

b,,+,

I I I 7' ,111#1+ i i I I li']'i,I..,,

[ iZ

Lines of Model 1 [14]

subsequent introduction of larger tows and more powerful towboats. This update was accomplished with the cooperation of several designers and towboat builders. Tunnel stern data following the characterization in Fig. 17(a) were collected for over

x L,..,.

MI

I!

I I I I II II II II~ ilr--'*.//////~"

ii i

L: : : :

i iA~-i

UOr!

... "

~r!!Itii
..-!! ~ ii

!l

!!

i!!!

i!
b-.4,

i i '.i !!

!i

!i

Jilt

!!

!!
, :

!,0
0,j

0 Fig. 16

I i i t l l i t l l l t l l C~ o.? O.8

:: -=

0,7 0,~
KT,

Variation of propeller performance at different channel depths h [14]. Notation: K1 K2 = Ko, Ke = K ~ l _ t), X = J = Va/(nD), 1/prop = ( K e / K 2 ) / ( X / 2 ~ r )

215 JULY 1983

A) TUNNEL STERN DESIGNI6] [151 ~ . , , , f ~ T

I

PROPELLER PLANE

TUNNEL CE FLECI'ION

I
12 --I
i

WL- IT

t
Ii L --TOWBOAT L E N G T H -~..p

50 recently built towboats. The data are summarized in Table 3 [15-191. The following discussion of the trends in towboat tunnel stern design makes use of the rsults from a subsequent study [20] completed after the original paper was presented at the Section meeting. It was found that the preliminary sizing of the towboat length L and propeller diameter D can be estimated from the bhp/shaft [20]: L = 62.0 + 7.5X - 0.235X 1.s D = 3.5 + 0.35X - 0.05X 2 (5) (6)

A
B) R E C O M M E N D E D

VALUES B.V.BOGDANOV[15]

where X - bhp/shaft 100.0 300 < bhp/shaft < 3240 hp The tunnel stern height hT and arrangement can be developed from the guidelines in Fig. 17. As Fig. 18(a) shows, there is a trend for the ratio D/hT to decrease from a value of 0.94 at 1500 bhp/shaft to 0.90 at 3200 bhp/shaft. Vibration from inadequate water inflow/outflow in the tunnel is a design problem Baler treated [6]. Baler showed that two towboats which had excessive vibration, Nos. 42 and 62 in Table 3, could be isolated on a plot of (0 bhp/shaft)/T 2 versus bhp/shaft similar to the one shown in Fig. 18(b). The dashed line in Fig. 18(b) is given by [20]: 0 bhp/shaft T2 [bhp/shaft] 230.0 + 20.86 [ ~ I (7)

0.33 ~ l l ~ S O.Z.5 0.10_<12/{__< 0.20

6 _< ll/hT~ 7

0.I-< hT-T_<0.2 T 12_<O _< 15 O.05_<hTE-T<O.07 T

C-I)DUCTED PROPELLER T U N N E L STERN DESIGN H. HEUSER[27]

t ~11~l-"
_Y__

12~1-13-1
I "1

,I

IC ;-l~)-I z5 N9
]

~t

16 12 m_<L_<40 m 0,42 _< I6/L_<0,58 5,4 -<16/D~:7,3 L/B_>I.60 0.80< 15116<-0.90 1.0_<14/D_<2.0 MINIMUM VALUES 13/~D_> 0.75 12/1~ 1.30
t = O.lOm

A simpler guideline developed by Latorre uses the "tunnel flow angles" 01 and 02 defined using the notation of Fig. 17(a) as 01 = tan-1 [_-~-~j h/1 inflow tunnel angle 02 = tan -1 [ - - 1 ~ - 2 [ outflow tunnel angle (8) (9)

hT-D = O.15m

15-<O<'25

Oo<12

Ih - q

C-2) D U C T E D PROPELLER T U N N E L S T E R N DESIGN H. H E U S E R 1271

IZL-I. o2
-w

"WL--

i,

The data in Table 3 were used to prepare Figs. 19(a) and 19(b). These figures indicate that contemporary towboat designs use 0 angles larger than Bagdonov's recommended 0 _< 15 deg. The data are in better agreement with Heuser's recommendation that 15 d e g < 0 _< 25 deg. The limiting value of 01/0 in Fig. 19(a) is given by 01/0 < 1.14 - 0.018 0 < 1.0 (10)

propeller separation b2 0.02_<R/B<_0.04 0.52 <_b2/B<_ 0.57 bl/D ~ 0.52 MINIMUM VALUES al_< 22 a2_< 19 t = O.10m tl = 0.20rn
,[.

D) D U C T E D PROPELLER TUNNEL S T E R N DESIGN A.LEDERER [191

The towboat designs exhibiting severe vibration are shown in this figure before and after redesign. For towboat 42, the value 01/0 = 0.56, which is below the guideline, and after redesign to towboat 43 the value 01/0 = 0.64, which is also under the guideline. For towboat 62, however, the value 01/0 -- 1.0, which is above the guideline. After the redesign to towboat 63, the value 01/0 -- 1.0, which is above the guideline given by equation (10). This is the reason why there was no improvement in towboat vibration after redesign. The limiting value of 02/0 in Fig. 19(b) is given by 02/0 < 1.01 - 0.0486 0 - 0.00117 02 - 0.0000093 03 (11) In Fig. 19(b) the value 02/0 = 0.518 for towboat 42, which is above the guideline given by equation (11). When the towboat is redesigned to towboat 43, the value 02/0 = 0.309, which is now under the guideline. This is why the vibration subsided to normal levels after the tunnel stern was redesigned to towboat 43. Like any other empirical approach, the use of 0i and 02 and the preceding guidelines will require further verification and refinement. In the interterm they represent a simple way to check whether there will be adequate inflow and outflow in the tunnel stern.
MARINE TECHNOLOGY

PROPELLER PITCH P/D = 1.094 Fi@. 17 Characterizationof river towboat tunnel stern [6, 15-19, 27]
216

Table 3
Towboat No. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 61 62 63 64 65 66 67 Prop. No. 1 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 3 3 3 3 3 3

Summary of river towboat tunnel [6, 15-18] (notation in Fig. 17)

L, ft 105.00 64.00 70.00 70.00 65.60 70.00 84.00 82.02 49.21 59.06 60.04 90.00 146.00 142.72 120.00 74.15 112.20 118.11 118.11 115.00 125.00 50.00 110.00 132.25 114.70 114.70 135.00 120.00 105.00 100.40 118.44 142.00 130.00 148.00 160.00 117.50 165.00 129.92 140.00 148.00 165.00 150.00 166.00 160.00 200.00 148.00 168.00 164.00 150.00 138.00 150.00 170.00 166.00 168.00 150.00 145.00 168.00 200.00 192.00 180.00 145.00 115.00 115.00 114.83 114.83 150.00 180.00 T, ft 7.50 5.50 5.83 5.83 3.60 5.83 5.24 5.08 4.92 5.41 4.60 7.50 6.00 4.10 6.50 6.40 5.25 5.41 6.07 6.50 5.90 7.50 6.50 6.75 5.74 5.74 6.00 7.50 9.00 4.75 5.58 7.00 7.00 8.33 8.00 7.50 8.17 8.00 7.50 8.33 8.17 6.58 7.38 7.75 9.00 8.33 8.44 8.50 8.35 9.00 8.50 9.06 8.35 8.44 8.35 9.00 8.44 9.00 8.75 8.85 9.00 3.50 4.5 7.35 6.89 8.00 9.00 ll, ft 12, ft hT, ft 7.92 5.50 4.68 4.68 4.37 4.68 5.67 6.24 5.37 5.55 5.88 6.56 6.25 4.75 6.50 6.80 5.30 6.81 8.46 6.50 7.25 6.56 7.33 7.85 7.17 7.50 6.42 8.25 7.81 6.31 6.79 7.83 7.75 9.02 9.00 7.50 8.75 8.80 9.25 9.02 8.75 9.0 8.76 10.08 10.79 9.02 10.02 9.67 9.85 9.50 9.00 10.25 10.75 10.02 9.85 10.50 10.02 10.79 11.15 11.04 10.50 4.83 4.83 7.82 7.81 8.75 10.5 0, deg 16 26.0 21.5 21.5 ... 21.5 ... 20.0 25.0 ... ... 18.5 11.0 ... 18.0 ... ... ... ... 16.0 ... 18.5 18.5 15.0 17.5 12.5 17.5 24.0 14.75 ... ... 19.0 20.0 16.0 21.0 14.0 17.0 ... 15.0 16.0 17.0 22.0 15.0 19.5 17.5 16.0 14.0 18.0 15.0 17.0 17.0 17.0 15.0 14.0 15.0 20.5 14.0 17.5 15.0 15.0 20.5 11.0 11.0 16.5 19.0 16.5 17.0 Prop. Dia, ft ... 4125 4.25 3.93 4.25 4.92 ... ... 5.08 4.92 6.00 4142 5.02 5.74 5.90

bhp
Shaft 1500 205 290 300 300 425 460 465 465 470 475 490 500 525 600 600 620 630 630 640 750 765 800 800 877 877 900 900 900 900 900 1200 1200 1280 1400 1475 1500 1600 1640 1640 1750 1920 1920 2000 2000 2160 2160 2160 2160 2180 2240 2500 2575 2600 2600 2875 3000 3000 3200 3225 3240 480 480 657.8 953 1600 2875

Type Tunnel ()pen KN KN open KN ... ... ... ... KI~ KN KI~ ... ... ... ... KN KI~ open KN ... ... open open KN ... K~q open KN KN open KN K]~ KN KN ()pen open KN KN KN KN KN KN ()pen open KN KN KN KN KN KN KN KN KN KN open open ... i(I~l KN

Code (Fig. 18) []

Notes

O +

+ h ,x + + $ + + + + +

+ [] zx h [] [] O + + [] [] + O O O O ~ ~ v v [] O

48.00 11.00 26.25 6.50 27.20 7.00 27.20 7.00 22.30 7.87 27.20 7.00 40.30 11.35 36.09 9.97 26.80 6.23 27.75 6.10 30.00 3.56 40.00 8.75 58.00 10.00 57.10 9.50 50.00 14.17 33.37 8.21 38.15 14.30 53.15 15.69 53.15 14.19 42.00 12.00 45.00 12.34 40.00 8.75 44.00 9.50 52.00 12.50 49.63 12.60 59.22 12.59 42.00 11.17 42.00 12.00 54.50 12.29 39.15 11.36 41.45 12.90 56,00 13.00 44.00 12.00 62.00 15.21 56.00 16.00 47.50 15.00 49.50 14.00 54.56 11.44 58.00 18.00 62.00 15.21 49.50 14.00 53.00 12.00 69.00 17.00 56.00 17.00 80.00 20.00 62.00 15.21 70.92 14.17 74.00 17.00 64.50 15.33 52.00 10.00 52.00 12.00 63.50 16.50 70.50 16.25 70.92 14.17 64.50 15.33 54.90 15,50 70.92 14.17 80.00 20.00 82.00 22.25 73.50 19.00 54.50 15.50 39.42 14.78 39.42 14.78 55.77 14.37 45.21 12.41 59.00 16.50 61.00 16.50

VBD Model i ~ : 815

VBD Model No. 816

6140 6.00
71()(J 6.89 ... 6.42 7166 5.90 6.23 ... 815() ... 81]'i 7.51 8:5" 8.17 ... ... . 101(J 8.5 9.0 9.09 9.0 8.5 8.33 9.16 9.75 9.00 9,00 9.16 9.00 10.00 10.00 10.00 9.16 ... ... 6189 911'6 VBD Model 1~o: 771 (Fig. 1 ) VBD Model No. 789

Serious Vibration [6] Redesign of 42 [6]

Serious Vibration [6] Redesign of 62 [6] VBD Model No. 863 VBD Model No. 838 (Fig. 9)

I~EY TO SYMBOL CODE

No. Propellers
1 2 3

Ref. [ 6 1 open a KN b
[]
D

[16], [17] open KN

0 t

[18]

[15]

-}-

[]

[]

a open: propeller without nozzle. b KN: propeller in Kort nozzle.

JULY 1983

217

..L CO
l r , , i

DpROP
' I i

hT
1.0

'IRI~/EIRTOWBOAT DESIGN
~)DpRP/hT VS B H P / s H A F T

---

e~ ~-= ~.14- o.o18.e

1.0~
z~ ,I4,
,

---,,,,,,,,..,,~ 0 O
0

0.9 0.8

"~

--....

[]

0.9
~

~o'~.
~

o+
+

-'a-- -----_
o

03
I I I I I I I I i I ,

~
[]

0.~,,, 0

,,,, ,,, 500 1000

, .... I 1500 2000

0.6 0.5
I I ~ I

2500

3O0O

BH P/SHAF T
I I I

~-#Ep / T
i ~ i ,

BHP/

2
, i n I f I I I I I I I 1 I I I v I I I

12 13 14

15 16 17

18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 0 DEG.

1200 ,RIVER TOWBOA[ DES]GN (~) BHP 0. SHAF_~___~T vs BHP/sHAFT lO00 T2

BHP
__ ~ s~___~: ~o.o, ~o.~q~
, ~ ,

1.0
J f

- '

R I'E'v R

.
0.8

o2/o
__ ~.--

T'o W B O ' AT ' v~ o

' SIGN ' DE

'

'

'

'

'

I
!

__

02

= 1.01-0.048550-0.00117402__0.0000093

e3

800
REDESIGN
I

J
J

60C
-

, i
J

j r
J

.6
- - i ~ 0 q

f <

0 j

40C
-

0.4 i

REDESIGN/
~,~1 ~1 mm 0 I

REDESIGN
[]

200
"I m --I

I
eL

0.2
[]

o "r Z 0
tO

500
Fig. 18

1000

1500

2000

2500

3000

11

12 13 14

15 16

17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25

@ DEG
Fig. 19 Relationship of tunnel stern inflow angle O1 and outflow angle O
2

BHP//sHA F T
Trends in river towboat tunnel stern design

.<

Estimating tow resistance and towboat push Rationale. Often the question is asked: " W h y do we have to know the tow resistance and towboat push?" The answer to this is simply that they are required to estimate the preliminary still-water speed. The resistance of a given barge tow is a direct function of its speed. The effective push for a given towboat will also be a direct function of its total horsepower and speed. For efficient operation the barge tow and towboat must be in equilibrium so
EP = RT

Kf 1.0 0.9 0.8 0.7 0.6 0.5

FASTENING COEFE Kf ,,~,,,,,AS A FUNCTION OF BARGE TRAIN

i-= E FN-7
l i l

~
i l

(12)

BARGE 2- LOADED BARGE . . . .

20 30 BARGE NUMBER Fastening coefficient Kt as a function of tow size [22] I0

where R T is the resistance of the barge train in pounds and E P is the effective push of towboat in pounds. The speed resulting from equation (12) is the design speed for the towboat-barge train. This speed will be used in determining the optimum propeller and in making economic tradeoff studies for setting rates and estimating travel time [28]. Studies on barge train tow resistance. Researchers have developed mathematical models and equations to use in predicting barge train tow resistance. Many of the major barge line companies have made model tests to predict the resistance of a particular barge two used in a dedicated trade, to enable them to maximize the efficiency of the towboat to be used. Comprehensive studies for predicting barge tow resistance where published by Howe [21] and Bronzini [22]. Howe deveh)ped a resistance equation where the two resistance is a quadratic function of tow speed. This equation was developed from data taken from tow movements, towboat log books, model tests, and tests with 195 by 95-ft barge tow arrangements. The equation is given as
R T = 0.07289e l"46/(h-T)V2TO6+50/(W-B)LO3sBl'19

Fig. 20

nl -- number of loaded barges ri = individual barge specific resistance, lb-sec2/ft 2 r = specific resistance of each vessel, towboat/barge, lbsec2/ft 2 B = beam (width) of vessel, ft T = draft of vessel, ft L = length of vessel, ft CB = block coefficient = v / L B T K c = resistance coefficient v = displacement of vessel, ft 3 This formula does not directly account for the waterway depth or channel width. There are corrections for shallow water to use with this formulation. Figures 21, 22, and 23 are examples of model test results. Such tank tests are usually made to answer specific questions. This enables the sponsoring companies to maximize towboat efficiency during the preliminary design. Figure 24 presents the barge train resistance curves developed by one of the authors from empirical and full-scale test data. These curves show the tow resistance versus the theoretical still-water speed for a semi-integrated 15-barge tow in deep (45 ft) and shallow (16 ft) water. Studies on towboat push and thrust. It was pointed out earlier t h a t the effective towboat push and thrust are directly functions of towboat horsepower and speed. In [21] and [22] empirical formulas were published to estimate the towboat push. In [21] Howe's equation for the effective push appears as follows:
E P = 31.82 H P - 0.0039 hp 2

(13)

where
R T = total barge train tow resistance, lb

e h T V W B L

= = = = = = =

base of natural log = 2.71828 channel depth, ft uniform barge draft, ft still-water tow speed, mph width of waterway, ft overall width of barge tow, ftoverall length of barge tow, ft

Bronzini developed a resistance speed function combining both empirical and theoretical results [22]. The following is taken from

[22]:
RT = r/V 2 = TF r/ = K / ~
t

(14) (15) (16) (17) (18)

+ (0.38 hp)h - 172.05 V 2 - 1.14V - H P

ri

(19)

where EP HP h V = = = = effective push, lb towboat horsepower, hp waterway depth, ft still-water equilibrium tow speed, mph

r = O . O l l 8 B T 2/5 L + 70.5 L K c = 2.42C~ -

: ~ / V l_--2~RIK c 3.43c~+ 1.34

K / = n~,K/,, + n l K / 1 n 3 + n]

where
R T = total barge train resistance, lb r~ = total specific barge train tow resistance, lb-sec2/ft 2 T F = thrust force of towboat, lb

This equation was based on d a t a from typical diesel-powered towboats. In [22] the thrust force of the towboat is given by
T F = 26.4 hp

(20)

V = still-water speed, fps K / = fastening coefficient, Fig. 20 K/e = fastening empty barge coefficient, Fig. 20 K/1 = fastening loaded barge coefficient, Fig. 20 ne = number of empty barges
JULY 1983

where T F is the thrust fbrce produced by the towboat in pounds and hp is the towboat horsepower. Notice t h a t this equation is not a direct function of the towboat speed. Figure 25 was developed by one of the authors for a typical twin-screw 5600-hp towboat with ll0-in.-dia 5-bladed propellers operating in K o r t nozzles. This figure shows the towboat push
219

150

RESISTANCE TEST WATER DEPTH h = 16 ft. BARGE DRAFTT = 9ft.

RESISTANCE TEST

6 x 5 TOW EHP

100 ~80
",c

KEY 2~

RESISTANCE OF
TOWBOAT (BEHIND BARGES) / /

/ /
RT 150 KIPS

BARGE DRAFT T = 9 f t

2000

2,

3,~
1000

~'60 z ~4o
t~
C9

a:20

I00

\
50

- 0

2\

3\

-50 4

I
5

/ / /
RT r ~ . 1 "

i --12

ft

Fig. 21

6 7 8 9 0 STILL WATER SPEED, MPH Model resistance test results for towboat with a fully integrated barge tow 970 ft long by 105 ft wide

L-/
i
3

2--/6ft . 3 - - 2 4 ft

t
4

RESISTANCE TEST

6x3

TOW

Fig. 23

5 6 7 8 MPH STILL WATER SPEED Model resistance test results for twin-screw towboat with a 6 X 5 barge tow at different water depths

3000 EHP

20(%

TWIN SCREW TOWBOAT / LOADED BARGES T = 9 f t / WATER DEPTH h = 16ft / KEY / I--EHP CURVE / 2-RESISTA NCE /

cuRv __/ /
I

RT 150 KIPS

as a function of still-water speed. It is based on empirical and full-scale data. E s t i m a t i n g tow speed in still w a t e r . It is possible for the designer to estimate the tow speed in still water using the following: 1. Howe's equations (12), (13), and (19) 2. Bronzini's equations (14), (15) and (20) to obtain (21): V= ~.4 _hp (21)

~/ KI ~i ri
I000

- I00

50

where V is the tow speed in unrestricted water. The speed V has to be then corrected for shallow water. 3. Model tank test results. 4. Empirical results such as Figs. 24 and 25 developed by the author from full scale data. For comparison purposes of the resistance, push, and tow speed from these various methods, we will consider a typical 5600-hp towboat pushing a 15-barge semi-integrated tow sketched in Fig. 24. The barges are typical raked hooper barges with L -- 195 ft, B = 35 ft, and D = 12 ft. The following will be assumed: W = 1500 ft = width of waterway h = 45 ft = deep waterway depth h = 16 ft = shallow waterway depth

t
4

t
5

For the tow arrangement we have: L B T T = 975 ft = 105 ft --- 9 ft = 1.5 ft = = -= overall length of tow overall width of tow draft of loaded barges assumed to be uniform draft of empty barges assumed to be uniform

Fig. 22

6 7 8 9 MPH STILL WATER SPEED Model resistance test results for twin-screw towboat with a 6 X 3 barge tow

220

MARINE TECHNOLOGY

ESTIMATED TOW RESISrANCE KIPS [ 160 KE Y I 2 3 4

I00

5 x 3 TOW

PUSH[ ESTIMATED TOWBOAT PUSH EP EP I T Y P I C A L 5600 HP TWIN SCREW TOWBOAT 1601 KORI" NOZZLE PROPELLERS IIOinch PROP. DIA
I

140

120

L B

BARGE DRAFT loaded T=gft loaded T =9 ft empty T= 1.5ft empty T = 1.5 ft =975 ft = IO 5 ft

WATER DEPTH shallow h=16ft deep h = 45ft shallow h=16ft deep h = 45ft

,
i

2 - - shallow h = 16ft 1 2 0 ~

80

6O
60

40

2O
20 I I t I 6 8 l0 12 14 STILL WATER SPEED MPH Fig, 25 Authors' estimate of towboat push for a typical 5600-bhp twinscrew towboat; five-bladed propellers 110 in. dia operating in a Kort nozzle I 2 I 4

0
Fig. 24

6 8 10 12 14 STILL WATER SPEED MPH Authors' resistance estimate for 5 X 3 barge tow

For the approach in [22] it is necessary to specify the following: CB Towboat Barge From Fig. 20: 0.65 0.90 B 48.0 35.0 T 9.0 9.0 L 145 195

Table 4

Comparison of 15-barge tow, still-water speed, mph

Tempty
115

Method

Deep Water, h = 45 ft Loaded Barges 10.9 10.68 9.8 Empty Barges 13:36 13.25

Shallow Water, h = 16 ft Loaded Barges 7.9 8.68 7.3 Empty Barges 12.9 12.55 10.75

Howe [20]a Sronzini [21]b Authors 'c = 0.6 = 0.82 = 0.6

K/loaded barge K/empty barge K/towboat

Finally, the shallow-water correction eh is given by

Y s h a l t o w w a t e r ---- eh V

NOTES: a Deep water Fig. 26; shallow water, Fig. 27. b Speed with empty barges in unrestricted water = 13.5 mph; speed with loaded barges in unrestricted water = 11.13 mph. c Deep water Fig. 28, shallow water Fig. 29.

(22)
peller characteristics, which as discussed earlier can improve towboat efficiency and increase the tow speed. Here 5-bladed propellers of 110 in. dia turning about 215 rpm are the reference point in this study. The towboat push and towing speed can be increased by using 4-bladed propellers if practical for the same horsepower.
Preliminary design of towboat propellers

where

eh = 1 + 0.0697T

(23)

V = speed in unrestricted water, equation (21) h = depth of waterway, ft T = draft of barges, ft Table 4 summarizes the results of the various towing speed estimates. The tow speed functions have several shortcomings. Howe's function is questionable for higher towboat horsepower and higher towboat tow speed. Bronzini's equation for towboat thrust does not account for the towboat with nozzle propellers. Towboats fitted with nozzle propellers have improved tow speed in comparison with open propeller towboats of the same horsepower. Also, none of the methods give consideration to the proJULY 1983

Philosophy--design c r i t e r i a . With rising fuel prices, all the propeller design particulars have to be chosen carefully to obtain optimum and efficient propeller performance. Different river trades determine the number and type of barges which make up a given barge tow train (dedicated tow). Then the total horsepower and type of engines to be used on a given towboat are established. The operational area is also normally specified.
221

EP RT 160 KIPS

HOWE'S SPEED FUNCTION[21] DEEP WATER 5600 HPTOWBOAT WITH 5x3TOW

HOWE'S SPEED FUNCTION[21] SHALLOW WATER 5600 HP TOWBOAT W1TH 5 x 3 T O W

~ 140

L I

E P = R T eq.(12) V= 10.9 mDh

/
EP
RT 100 KIPSI

KEY 120 I TOWBOAT EP eq.(t9) 2 TOWR T T=gfteq.(13) loaded 3 TOWR T T = l . 5 f t eq.(13)empty L=975 ft B = 105 i t h = 45 ft

KEg I TOWBOAT EP eq.(19) 2 TOW RT T=gfteq.(13) loaded 3 TOWR 1 T=l.5ft eq.(13)empty L=975 ft B= 105It h = l g f t

100

80

8o

: R T eq.(12)

60

60

40

40

20

2O
I-~-----r--I I I I I

6 8 10 12 MPHI4 STILL WATER SPEED Fig. 26 Howe's speed function (towboat push and resistance estimate) for a 5 X 3 barge tow in deep water, h = 45 ft, pushed by a 5600-hp towboat

14 MPH STILL WATER SPEED Fig. 27 Howe's speed function (towboat push and resistance estimate) for a 5 X 3 barge tow in shallow water, h = 16 ft, pushed by a 5600-hp towboat 8

--.-'~-----i~-~ 2

10

12

The power produced by the engines minus transmission losses must match the power absorbed by the propeller. This enginepropeller matching specifies the propeller rpm at which the propeller will absorb the horsepower delivered by the engines to propel the tow at a fixed towing speed. For this discussion we will consider a common coal-moving operation on the Ohio River. The 5600-hp towboat pushes a t5-barge tow (5 long by 3 wide due to lock and dam size restrictions). The towboat and barge characteristics are summarized in Table 5. Choice of tow r e s i s t a n c e , t o w b o a t push a n d t o w i n g speed. Consider the author's speed function in Fig. 28 for deep-water operation. As this figure indicates, the towboat will be able to push the loaded barges at 9.8 mph and the empty barges at 13.25
Table 5 Towboat and barge particulars

Towboat Length, L, ft Beam, B, ft Depth, D, ft Draft, T, ft 145.0 48.0 11.5 9.0

Barge 195.0 35.0 12.0 9.0

PROPELLER 5 blades Diameter in 110 Twin-screw fixed-pitch, with Kort nozzles Wake fraction, w = 0.18 Thrust Ded., t = 0.145
ENGINES

mph. The question is: Which speed will we select as the design speed for the towboat barge system and propeller(s) design? (a) If we design for 13.25 mph, the towboat is going to push the empty barge train at that speed. When the towboat pushes the loaded barge tow, the tow resistance will be much higher than the towboat push. (b) If we design for the 9.8 mph, the towboat is going to push the loaded barge train only at that speed. When the towboat pushes the empty barges then at 9.8 mph, the towboat push capability will be much higher than the tow resistance. In both cases, one condition will not be satisfied. The solution to this problem is given in the following subsection on matching the engine and propeller. M a t c h i n g e n g i n e a n d p r o p e l l e r . Since diesel engines have already been selected in this example, all the engine characteristics, limitations, and power curves are known. Some propeller characteristics can be established. Normally the diameter is made as large as the space behind the hull allows, the nmnber of propeller blades is chosen to minimize vibration excitation, and the area ratio is selected for satisfactory loading and minimum cavitation. In the present example the propeller diameter is 9.16 ft, the number of blades is 5, and to maintain a low blade tip speed the gear ratio is 4.192:1, giving a propeller rpm = 215. Assuming 2.5 percent losses at the gear, then the shaft horsepower is shp = 2915 0.975 = 2842 hp Because of the high horsepower it can be anticipated t h a t the blade area of the propeller will be large. A 4-bladed propeller is not practical and for this reason the 5-bladed propeller is used.
MARINE TECHNOLOGY

Two Alco Rating: Gear:

16V-251F diesel engines 2915 bhp at 900 rpm (MCR) Falk 3040 MR 4.192:1 reduction ratio

222

EP R[ 160 KIPS 140

AUTHOR'S SPEED FUNCTION DEEP WATER 5600 HPTOWBOAT WITH 5x3 TOW

AUTHOR'S SPEED FUNCTION SHALLOW WATER 5600 HPTOWBOAT WITH 5 x 3 TOW

-i-

l--

V=9.SMPH 120 KEY I00 FIG I TOWBOAT EP 26 \ 2 TOW RT T : 9 f t 25 loaded 3 TOWR T T = l . 5 f t 25 empty L=975ft B = 105ft h = 45 ft EP= RT

EP R[ 120 KIPS 100

KEY I TOW BOAT EP 2 TOW RT T = 9 f t 3 TOWR T T=1.5 L=975ft

FIG 26 25 loaded 25 empty h= 16ft

B= 105ft

~/~.._._______.___ 80

EP =R T eq (12)

80

V=
2

60

V= 60

40

40

20

20 l 4

I I I I 6 8 10 12Mp H 14 STILL WATER SPEED Fig. 28 Authors' speed function (towboat push and resistance estimate) for a 5 X 3 barge tow in deep water, h --- 45 ft, pushed by a 5600-hp towboat 0 2

6 8 I0 12Mp H 14 STILL WATER SPEED Fig, 29 Authors' speed function (towboat push and resistance estimate) for a 5 X 3 barge tow in shallow water, h = 16 ft, pushed by a 5600-hp towboat

For the intended deep-water, ice-free operation, propellers in nozzles are specified to obtain the highest towboat efficiency with the same engine power. As mentioned earlier, at equilibrium the power produced by the engine equals the power absorbed by the propeller. Matching the engine and propeller involves finding the operating point where propeller and engine torque, power, and rpm are equal. This insures that the power produced by the engine at maximum output equals the power absorbed by the load--in this case, the propeller. If the propeller and engine power-rpm curves are plotted together the propeller-engine matching can be done graphically. This is illustrated in Fig. 30 where the intersection of the engine and propeller curves at Point (~ shows the engine propeller match point. This point should be the most efficient horsepower output of the engine at rated rpm when matched on the properly pitched propeller to absorb the engine output and propel the tow and towboat at the given design speed. Typically for towboats, engine-propeller matching involves only the choice of the propeller pitcb. In this example the propeller pitch will be selected so the propeller can absorb the 2845 maximum rated horsepower at the engine speed of 900 rpm or 215 propeller rpm, Fig. 30. We now return to the earlier question of which of the two barge tow conditions, empty or loaded, will be used in the propeller design. These corresponded to 13.25- and 9.8-mph equilibrium speeds. The two different loads and speeds require two different propeller pitch values. Since the propellers are fixed pitch, we can only select a single design pitch. A compromise must be made to satisfy the two different loads determined by the best operating efficiency. (a) First, consider designing the propeller pitch for 13.25 mph
JULY 1983

with the empty tow. Figure 31 shows the engine-propeller design (match) Point ~ when pushing the loaded barge tow. Clearly the propeller would require less pitch since the speed would be lower. Therefore the existing high-pitch propeller would tend to drop engine hp and rpm to an engine overload at Point (~, resulting in maximum fuel consumption. Equilibrium does not exist, and worst yet the speed of the loaded tow will drop below 9.8 mph. This is evident because the propeller curve is to the left of the optimum curve. So the diesel engine operation is now limited by the diesel engine's overload limits for engine power and rpm. This is caused by the higher pitch of the propeller designed for 13.25-mph operation. (b) Now consider designing the propeller pitch for the 9.8-mph loaded barge tow speed. Figure 32 shows the engine-propeller design or match Point ~ when the towboat pushes the empty barges. Clearly the propeller would require a larger pitch, since the tow speed will be higher. Nevertheless with the existing low-pitch propeller, the engine could operate at the rated 900 engine rpm and develop less engine horsepower. Again the equilibrium conditions are not satisfied, but the diesel engines are not overloaded and the towboat will push the empty barge tow at a speed below 13.25 mph. Engine manufacturers recommend that the engines not be overloaded in operation and 50% of the anticipated towboat operation will be pushing the loaded barge tow. Therefore, the recommended still-water speed to use in the propeller design is the 9.8 mph estimated when pushing the 15 loaded barges. Propeller design and features of towboat propellers. Having selected a rational still-water speed for the towboat pushing the barge tow, it is now possible to proceed with the propeller design. With towboat propellers, most of the design
223

3200 HP 2800

ENGINE-PROPELLER MATCHING DESIGN PROPELLER PITCH DESIGN PROPELLER ABSORBS AT(~') MATCH :POINT@ 2842 HP KEY I DIESE 2 PROPE

2400

2000

ENGINE-PROPELLER MATCHING OFF-DESIGN OPERATION 3200 -MATCH POINT (~(RPM LIMITED) DESIGN TOWBOAT PUSHING HP MATC H EMPTY 5 x 3 TOW , N_____[[ PO I (~ 2800 KEY / LOADED TOW I DIESEL SHP / V=9.8 MPH / 2400 2 OFF-DESIGN PROPELLER L O A D /
2000
I c

/
MATCH

1600 1600 1200 1200 800 800 400

, , ,

900 ENGINE I RtPM

400 900 ENGINE l I I RPMI 0 150 200 215 250 300 PROPELLER RPM Fig. 32 Engine-propeller match with propellerpitch selectedfor 9.8 mph with 5 X 3 loaded barge tow in deep water. Engine is rpm limited (but not overloaded) when pushing the 5 X 3 empty barge tow I 50 I 100
factors are fixed so the propeller pitch has to be selected to m a t c h the propeller to the m a x i m u m o u t p u t of the engines. W i t h the following data, the propeller design can be completed: shp tIT dhp towboat speed V w = 2842 hp 97 p e r c e n t (3 p e r c e n t loss in shafting) = shp ~T = 2759 hp
--

Fig. 30

150 200215 250 300 PROPELLER RPM Illustration of towboat engine-propellermatching hp versusrpm plot

50

I00

ENGINE-PROPELLER

MATCHING

OFF-DESIGN OPERATION 3200 MATC H POINT (~(OVERLOAD) HP TOWBOAT PUSHING LOADED 5x3TOW 2800 MATCH POINT (~)
KEY

DESIGN MArC H PO 'NT(~) EMPTY TOW V=I3.25MPP

2400

2000

I DIESEL SHP 2 OFF-DESIGN PROPELLER LOAD

= 9.8 m p h or 9.8 0.8684 = 8.5 knots = 0.18

1600

1200

)
/

T h e following are calculated:

Va =

V(1 - w) = 8.5(1 - 0.18) = 6.97 knots Bp N - d h p 5 _ 88 Va2.5

NP

(24)

= ~

= 282.77

(25)

800

With the aid of systematic ducted propeller tests of the B-series propeller design in nozzles [7, 8], the o p t i m u m p i t c h / d i a m e t e r ratio is obtained:
P/D =

0.93

400 900 ENGINE 1 I I i I RIPM 0 50 100 150 200 215 250 300 PROPELLER RPM Fig. 31 Illustration of engine being overloaded (torque limited) when pushing 5 X 3 loaded barge tow in deep water. Propeller pitch selected for 13.25 mph with 5 X 3 empty barge tow in deep water
224
So the propeller pitch for D = 110 in. is 102.3 in. T o c o m p l e t e the design, routine cavitation and s t r e n g t h calculations are required. F r o m Fig. 28 at 9.8 m p h the total resist a n c e or towboat push is 93 000 lb or 46 500 lb/shaft. F r o m e q u a t i o n (7):
R = EP =

(1 - t ) T

(26)

where

MARINE TECHNOLOGY

--I.0 --0.9R
__o

/
II

/
',, /

--0.7 --0.6 --0.5 --0.4 --0.3 --0.2 R R

]
1
Fig. 33 R t T The by

PITCH DISTRIBUTION

~
L

p(R)/%a
Typical towboat propeller

; .....

= resistance, lb = thrust deduction = thrust = R / ( 1 - t) = 54.386 lb/shaft static pressure taken at the propeller centerline is given
Po - Pv = 14.45 + 0.45h psi

Ao ~ - -

KTrD 2 4

(31)

where K = 1.04 with nozzle and K = 1 without nozzle:

Ao = 1.04 X 7r 9.1672 = 68.63 ft 2 4

(27)

So the projected area ratio equals where h is the head of water at the propeller centerline, ft. For this example h = 3.86 ft, so from (27) Po - Pv = 16.187 psi. The dynamic pressure corresponding to the relative velocity VR at 0.7 radius is
qT = 1/2pVR 2
=

Ap = 51.7__6_6 = 0.754 Ao 68.63 From Taylor's approximate formula [23]: A _ _ ~ p= 1.067 - 0.229 X P AD D
AD is the developed area of the blades in feet: Ap AD
SO

(Va)2 I- (nD)2
(7.12) (329)

(28)

= 36.85 psi where Va = local velocity, knots n = propeller rpm D = propeller diameter, ft The local cavitation number is then [23]: o Po - P~ 16.187 = 0.439 qr 36.85

1.067 X 0.229 X 0.93

0.854

Ao = ~ = 60.61 ft 2 0.854 (29) and the developed area ratio:

AD 60.61 = 0.883 Ao 68.63

(32)

For the twin-screw towboat with such highly loaded propellers operating inside Kort nozzles, it will be assumed that there is a 7.5 percent cavitation on the back of the propeller blades. Keeping the propeller blade loading within 6.5 to 7.5 psi and using the Burrill chart [23], the value of ~"is - 0.198 (30) QT where T is the thrust in pounds and Ap is the projected area in square feet. Therefore
T / A p = QT X 0.198

T-

T/Ap

= 7.3 psi (blade loading) and

--

Figure 33 shows a typical towboat propeller designed from these criteria. Unlike recent oceangoing ship propellers, there is no blade skew or rake used in order to have good backing performance. In conventional towboat propeller designs the pitch at the blade tip is reduced as in Fig. 33 on the assumption that the blade tip speed could cause excessive cavitation. This still requires clarification. With the potential higher performance from loading the blade tip, there is an incentive not to reduce the pitch at the blade tip. For propellers designed for higher horsepower, the blade tip area increases and the tip region becomes more square, resembling a Kaplan-type blade with rounded corners.

Conclusions
Ap

T QT X 0.198

54 386 36.85 X 0.198 X 144

= 51.76~2 The propeller disk area is then

JULY 1983

This paper presents a discussion on towboat hull and propulsion design. A review of recent European research on towboat hull form is presented to illustrate the influences of limited water depth, the barge train wake, nozzle propellers, and the arrangement of the barges on the towboat propulsive performance.
225

T u n n e l stern designs are characterized following Fig. 17 for over 60 towboats. The authors introduced the t u n n e l inflow t u n n e l angle 01 and outflow tunnel angle 02 to characterize the t u n n e l geometry. Since there has been little published on towboat propeller design procedure, a design example for a twin-screw, 5600-hp towboat pushing a 15-barge tow in deep (45 ft) and shallow (16 ft) is presented. Beginning with published techniques [21, 22] for estimating tow resistance, a comparison is made with the authors' empirical data, showing a good agreement in deep water. T h e n the selection of the design conditions, namely, the tow speed, is presented. This is governed by the requirement of avoiding an overload of the diesel engine. Finally, the selection of propeller pitch is illustrated along with the cavitation and strength calculations. From the various points addressed, it is possible to make the following conclusions: 1. The towboat propulsive coefficient np ranges between 30 and 35 percent, which is lower than the values found on conventional merchant ships. This is due to (a) towboat operating in barge train wake, (b) high thrust loading on propellers, (e) propeller diameter being limited by water depth, and (d) propeller operation in tunnels and presence of ahead. and astern rudders. 2. Comparison of model tests of a conventional and catamaran towboat with open propellers indicate that the catamaran hull requires 10 percent less power to maintain the same tow speed. Later model tests with propeller nozzles and rudders fitted were inconclusive because of the nonoptional rudder setting on the catamaran hulls. 3. The arrangement and design recommendations for the towboat tunnel stern are summarized in Fig. 17. As a means to insure adequate inflow and outflow from the tunnel, the t u n n e l flow angles 01 and 02 along with design guidelines are introduced. 4. A comparison of a typical 15-barge tow resistance indicates that the previously published formulas under-estimate the tow resistance and over-estimate the towboat performance, which results in a higher equilibrium speed. 5. A design philosophy for selecting the propeller operating point is summarized and it is pointed out that the design point should be taken at the condition corresponding to the operation with loaded barges. 6. In the preliminary towboat propeller design example, a technique for designing the towboat propellers is illustrated.
Metric Conversion Table

grateful to Mr. Sidney Bond and Ms. Mayrene Haehl for their assistance in preparing the paper.

References
1 Cook, H., "Planning is Paramount in Waterway Development," 2 "AnnualReport on the Status of the Shipbuilding and Ship Repair Industry of the United States, 1980," Office of Maritime Affairs, Naval Sea System Command, GOM, Reports Control Symbol DD-J&L(A) 1141, Washington, D.C., July, 1981, pp. 1-35. 3 Parsons, A. R. and Renshaw, E., "A Review of Modern River Towboat Design," SNAME Gulf Section, May 3, 1957. 4 Martinson, A. M., "River Towboat Accomodation Design," SNAME Great Lakes and Great Rivers Section, May 19, 1961. 5 Saunders, H. E., Hydrodynamics in Ship Design, SNAME, Vol. 2, 1957, pp. 669-674. 6 Baler, L. A., "American River Towboats," International Shipbuilding Progress, Vol. 61, 1959, pp. 482-485. 7 Oosterveld, M. W. C., "Ducted Propeller Systems Suitable for Tugs and Pushboats," International Shipbuilding Progress, Vol. 19, No. 219, No~e.1972, pp. 351-371. 8 Van Manen, T. D. and Oosterveld, M. W. C., "Analysis of Ducted Propeller Design," Trans. SNAME, Vol. 74, 1966. 9 Allan, R. F., "Shallow Draught Towboats in the Canadian Northland," Proceedings, Second International Tug Conference, Paper No. 1. 10 Volker, H., Written Discussion to K. H. Pohl, "Uber die Weehselwirkung Zwisschen Schiff and Propeller," STG Jarbuch, 1961, pp. 298-300 (in German); English translation: [24]. 11 Luthra, G., "Effect of Profile Thickness and Angle of Attack of Flanking Rudders in Pusher Tugs on Thrust Deduction and Propulsion Power," Schi/f und Hafen, Heft 10, 1979 (in German); English translation: [26]. 12 Luthra, G., "Investigation of the Wake Distribution of a Towboat Pushing a Barge Train," HANSA, Vol. 3, No. 18, Sept. 1974, pp. 15151521 (in German); English translation: [25]. 13 Luthra, G., "Investigation of the Wakefield of Triple and Quadruple Screw Pusher Towboats," Versuchsantalt fur Binnenschiffbau, e.v. Report 919, June 26, 1979 (in German); English Translation: [25]. 14 Basin, A. M., "Influence of Shallow Water on Hull Propeller Interaction of Passenger Vessels," Ship Hydrodynamics In Shallow Water, Sudostroyeniye, Leningrad, 1976, pp. 150-163 (in Russian); English translation: [25]. 15 Bogdanov, B. V., "Form Coefficients and Hull Form," Towing Vessels, Sudostroyeniye, Leningrad, 1974, pp. 118-132 (in Russian); English translation: [25]. 16 Van Mook, C., Dravo Corp., private communication, June 4, 1981. 17 Christopoulos; B., American Commercial Barge Line Co., Jeffersonville, Ind., private communication, Dec. 7, 1981. 18 Muller, L., Versuchsanstalt fur Binnenschiffbau, Duisburg, West Germany, private communication, May 12, 1981. 19 Lederer,A., Universite Catholique de Louvain, Louvain, Belgium, private communication,April 30, 1981. 20 Latorre, R., "River Towboat Tunnel Stern," International Shipbuilding Progress, Vol. 29, No. 338, Oct. 1982. 21 Howe,C. W., Inland Waterway Transportation, Johns Hopkins Press, Baltimore, Md., 1969, pp. 23-27. 22 Bronzini, M. S., Lopez, L. A., and Stammer, R. E., "Inland Waterway Port Model: Design, Development, and Methodology," Transportation Center, University of Tennessee, Final Report Contract MA79-SAC-00183, Jan. 1981, pp. 408-409. 23 Principles of Naval Architecture, J. P. Comstock, Ed., SNAME, revised edition, 1977. 24 Latorre, R., "Flow Around Full Ship Stern; Translations of S-elected Japanese and German Technical Articles," Department of Naval Architecture and Marine Engineering, University of Michigan Report No. 198, Ann Arbor, May 1976. 25 Latorre, R. and Dunow, H., "Improvement of River Towboat Propulsion; Translations of Selected German and Russian Technical Articles," Department of Naval Architecture and Marine Engineering, University of Michigan Report No. 243, Ann Arbor, Nov. 1981. 26 Latorre, R., Luthra, G., and Tang, K., "Improvement of Inland Waterway Vessel and Barge Tow Performance; Translations of Selected Chinese, German, and Russian Technical Articles," Department of Naval Architecture and Marine Engineering, University of Michigan Report No. 249, Ann Arbor, Sept. 1982. 27 Heuser, H., "Optimierung Der Hinterschiffsform Von Schubbooten Versuchsanstalt fur Binnenschiffbau e.V.," Bericht No. 853a, Dec. 1977. 28 Marbury, F., "Least-Energy Operation of River Shipping," MARINE TECHNOLOGY,Vol. 16, No. 2, April 1979, pp. 136-155.
MARINE TECHNOLOGY

The Work Boat, Vol. 38, No. 4, April, 1981, pp. 42-43.

1 in. = 25.4 mm 1 ft = 0.3048 m 1 ft 2 = 0.0929 m2 1 ft 3 = 0.0283 m3 1 mile = 1.6 km 1 ton = 0.9 metric tons 1 lb = 0.45 kg 1 hhp = 0.7457 kW 1 ft/s 1.689knots 1 mph = 1.151 knots

Acknowledgments
The authors would like to acknowledge the assistance of Mr. Han-Herbert Dunow, DAAD program student in translating the German language materials and the cooperation of Dr. Heuser and Mr. Luthra, VBD. The tunnel stern information supplied by Mr. C. Van Mook, Dravo Corp., Professor Lederer, University of Louvain, and Dr. Muller, VBD, is deeply appreciated. Finally, the authors are

226