Sec. 5-1.7 



AIR AND WIND RESISTANCE OF SHIPS 



279 



Peabody, C. H., "Experiments on the Froude," 

 SNAME, 1911, Vol. 19, pp. 114-115 



Schoeneich, "Der Windwiderstand bei Seesohiffen 

 (The Wind Resistance of Oceangoing Ships)," 

 Schiffbau, 22 Nov 1911, pp. 121-129 



McEntee, W., "Notes from the Model Basin," 

 SNAME, 1916, Vol. 24, p. 86, and Pis. 70, 71 



Smith, W. W., "Effect of Wind and Fouling Resist- 

 ances on the U. S. S. Neptune," SNAME, 1917, 

 Vol. 25, pp. 41-69 



Biles, H. J. R., "Notes on the Effect of Wind on 

 Power and Speed," INA, 1927, Vol. LXIX, pp. 

 164-173 



Kempf, G., and Sottorf, W., "Probefahrtsmessungen 

 (Ship-Trial Measurements)," WRH, 22 Jun 1928, 

 pp. 232-236 



Hughes, G., "Model Experiments on the Wind 

 Resistance of Ships," Engineering, 8 Aug 1930, 

 p. 184 



Hughes, G., "Model Experiments on Wind Resistance 

 of Ships," INA, 1930, Vol. LXXII, pp. 310-329 

 and Pis. XXXIII-XXXVI. This paper gives the 

 results of wind-tunnel tests on abovewater models 

 of the tanker San Leandro, the cargo vessel Pacific 

 Trader, and the liner Mauretania (old). 



"The Effect of Wind on Ship Trials," EMB Rep. 264, 

 Aug 1930 



"Test of Drawing Room Model of 10,000-Ton Light 

 Cruisers (Pensacola and Salt Lake City, CL24, 25) 

 in Water to Determine Forces Due to Wind," 

 EMB Rep. 276, Dec 1930 



"Test of Drawing Room Model of U. S. Destroyer 

 Hamilton in Water to Determine Forces due to 

 Wind," TMB Rep. 312, Oct 1931 



Schoenherr, K. E., "On the Analysis of Ship Trial 

 Data," SNAME, 1931, Vol. 39, pp. 281-301 



Pitre, A. S., "Trial Analysis Methods," SNAME, 

 1932, Vol. 40, pp. 17-44 



Baker, G. S., "Ship Design, Resistance, and Screw 

 Propulsion," 1933, Vol. I, pp. 213-221 



Hughes, G., "The Effect of Wind on Ship Perform- 

 ance," INA, 1933, Vol. 75, pp. 97-121 and Pis. 

 VIII-X 



"Test of Model of U. S. S. Salinas Inverted in Water 

 to Determine Forces Due to Wind," TMB Rep. 

 345, Jan 1933 



Stevens, E. A., "Wind Resistance," ASNE, Feb. 

 1936, pp. 19-31; abstracted in SBSR, 2 Apr 1936, 

 pp. 408-409 



Eshbach, O. W., "Handbook of Engineering Funda- 

 mentals," 1st ed., 1936, pp. 9-64 through 9-69, 

 covering wind pressure on structures 



Malglaive, P. de, and Hardy, A. C., "The Trans- 

 atlantic Liner of the Future," IME, 14 Dec 1937; 

 abstracted in SBSR, 30 Dec 1937, pp. 811-818, 

 esp. pp. 813, 817. The authors estimate that 

 maximum streamlining on the Lusitania would 

 have reduced the wind resistance only by the 

 ratio of 0.17 to 0.12. Further, they estimate the 

 still-air resistance as only 0.02 of the total hydro- 

 dynamic resistance; in a 30-kt head wind as only 

 0.08 of the total. 

 (20) Nolan, R. W., "Design of Stacks to Minimize Smoke 

 Nuisance," SNAME, 1946, Vol. 54, pp. 42-82 



(21) Van Lammeren, W. P. A., Troost, L., and Koning, 



J. G., RPSS, 1948, pp. 24-26, 69 



(22) Kent, J. L., "The Design of Seakindly Ships," 



NECI, 1949-1950, Vol. 66, Part 8, pp. 417-442 

 and D159-D174 



(23) Aertssen, G., "Sea Trials on a 9,500-ton Deadweight 



Motor Cargo Liner," joint INA-IME (Institute 

 of Marine Engineers) mtg., 5 Apr 1955; abstracted 

 in SBMEB, Jul 1955, p. 434. The author found 

 that the adverse effects of wind and weather 

 depended upon the power-displacement ratio; 

 in other words, upon how hard the craft was 

 being driven. 



(24) A. J. W. Lap, in a published lecture on ship resistance, 



quotes extensively from Report 1 of the Japanese 

 Shipbuilding Research Assn., 1954, in a discussion 

 of the air resistances of ships and their super- 

 structures [Int. Shipbldg. Prog., Sep 1955, Vol. 

 3, No. 25, pp. 509-513] 



(25) Richter, E., "Strommgsgiinstige Formen von Schiffs- 



aufbauten (Flow Around the Most Favorable 

 Form of Ship Superstructures)," Schiff und Hafen, 

 Jun 1955, pp. 351-356. 



In addition to the tests on the wind-resistance 

 models of the ships hsted in the foregoing refer- 

 ences and on Figs. 54. C, 54. D, and 54.E of Sec. 

 54.9, it is reported that tests have been made on 

 models of several large tankers and of several 

 floating drydocks. Up to the date of writing 

 (1955) it has not been possible to locate and to 

 present these data. 



54.7 Drag Coefficients for Typical Abovewater 

 Hulls and Upper Works. Modifying Eq. (54.iii) 

 of Sec. 54.4 by applying it to the wind drag 

 rather than the wind resistance, and adhering 

 to the dimensional form, 



D^ = kA^W^ 



(54.vii) 



When Dw is in lb, ^ a is in ft^, and Wg in kt, 

 the value of k varies from 0.003 to 0.0056, for a 

 relative-wind velocity from directly ahead. A 

 round value for k, easily remembered, is 0.004. 



R. Ellis quotes a dimensional coefficient k of 

 0.0055 for determining the wind drag of a moored, 

 cruising-type sailing yacht, based upon wind 

 velocities in hurricanes. He reckons the cross- 

 sectional area A ^ as the product of the maximum 

 beam and the height of the cabin top above 

 water [Yachting, Jun 1955, p. 60]. However, 

 EUis uses a wind velocity in mph; replacing this 

 with a wind velocity in kt, the dimensional 

 coefficient k should be increased by the factor 

 (1.15)^ or 1.3225. The coefficient k then becomes 

 (0.0055) (1.3225) or 0.00727. 



When D^r of Eq. (54.vii) is in kg, A a is in m^ 

 and Wr in meters per sec, k is of the order of 



