Sea Trials: Some Recommended Practices

R o b e r t L. J a c k 1

The paper discusses some of the common errors committed in conducting sea trials on commercial
vessels. Precautions that are covered in the T&R Bulletin C2, Code for Sea Trials, soon to be published by the Society, have been purposely omitted. The author has attempted to call attention to
many accepted practices that can, and often do, produce inaccurate trial results. In addition, there
are discussions and recommendations on several long-standing controversies associated with sea
trials such as the necessity for shaft calibrations and the allowable factors used in the correction of
fuel rates and turbine water rates.

Introduction

attempting to schedule trials as early as possible. In my

opinion, there is an optimum time in the construction progThe Society of Naval Architects and Marine Engineers will ress for this event.
soon publish Technical and Research Bulletin C2, Code for
As a prerequisite, all machinery used for trials should have
Sea Trials [1].2 This is a very comprehensive document been installed and all dockside testing associated therewith
which consolidates, amplifies, and updates the previously should have been successfully completed. A builder's trial,
published SNAME codes on this subject. It has been excep- although not usually specified, is highly desirable and often
tionally well done and has covered many of the recommenda- economically advantageous to the contractor. It is not necestions that the author has had in mind for some time for in- sary, nor desirable, that the accommodation spaces be 100
clusion in a paper such as this. However, after a careful re- percent complete although heating and air conditioning,
view of the final draft of Bulletin C2, I believe there are still plumbing, etc. should be operational for the comfort of trial
many "do's" and "don't's" that are not properly a part of a personnel. Installation of certain furniture, floor covering and
document of that kind but which nonetheless must be cb- final painting can well be delayed until after trials. This will
served if meaningful trial results are to be obtained.
not only minimize the effort of final cleanup and touch-up
Trials are expensive in terms of time, equipment, and
required at delivery but will provide a period of time in the
manpower. It is probably the only time during the life of the
normal construction process for repairs or alterations that
ship when operational data, some from special instrumentamay be found necessary as a result of the trials. Realizing
tion, are documented for all of the ship's systems. It therethat all ships do not "finish up" the same, it is my opinion
fore appears shortsighted to undertake such a comprehensive
that this optimum time for trials is about two weeks prior to
and expensive effort without taking every reasonable precau- delivery.
tion to ensure that the recorded results will be as accurate as
possible.
S c h e d u l i n g of e v e n t s
Many of the more common causes of inaccurate data and
questionable trial results, such as inadequate planning, inopBy carefully sequencing the events, the trials can be conerable and improperly calibrated instruments and gages, inducted with m i n i m u m loss of time and chance of mechanical
adequate training of data takers, and incomplete dockside failure.
testing of components and systems, are not covered in this
Where one trial event bears a technical relationship to anpaper. Although there is always some evidence of these
other, thought must be given to their proper order. As an exshortcomings on every trial, the desirability of their eliminaample, on a trial where both water rates and fuel rates are
tion and the necessary corrective actions seem obvious. Fur- determined, the turbine water rate test should be conducted
thermore, there are dissertations in depth on all of these
prior to the fuel rate test. The water rate data could then be
matters in T&R Bulletin C2, which shouhl become the offiused in the evaluation of any abnormalities that may be
cial guide of the industry.
found in the determination of fuel rate.
It is with these thoughts that this paper has been preIn addition, care must be taken to schedule events in such
pared. Many of the suggestions presented herein are personal
an order that possible damage to the plant or its equipment
opinions of the author and some are known to be in opposi- is minimized. For example, in the past the crash ahead from
tion to the opinions of others and accepted practice. These
astern was generally conducted at the conclusion of the ascomments are the result of the author's experience with
tern run. This is an example of improper scheduling since it
trials of steam-propelled merchant vessels and may or may
invites a "rub" or imbalance of the LP turbine rotor due to
not be relevant to Navy procedures.
the rapid and uneven cooling of the LP casing and/or rotor
when going full ahead after running astern for an extended
T i m e of trials
period. This practice has also resulted in severe damage to
low-pressure turbine couplings since they are subjected to
At what stage of construction should trials be held? Strong
m a x i m u m torque at the critical time of m a x i m u m misalignpositions are often taken on this question, the owners generment as the result of thermal expansion of the turbine and
ally wanting the ship completely finished and the contractors
condenser.
Table 1 shows a suggested, if not typical, trial agenda f o r
1 Assistant Chief, Design Engineering, Office of Ship Construction, the first ship of a design. Where appropriate, a generous time
Maritime Administration, U. S. Department of Commerce, Washing- allowance has been provided to prepare for ~ subsequent
ton, D. C.
events. It will be noted that total underway time from depar2 Numbers in brackets designate References at end of paper.
Presented at the February 13, 1973 meeting of the Chesapeake ture to arrival back at the shipyard (allowing eight hours to
Section of The Society of Naval Architects and Marine Engineers.
and from the trial area) is approximately 40 hr. Experience
380

MARINE TECHNOLOGY

Table

Typical trial agenda for first ship

T Ir:IE

DOD AM

DEPART SHIPYARD

4:00 PM

DALIBRATE COMPASSAND RDF

class

EVENTS

EVENT No

of a

PRE TRIAL CONFERENCE

5:00 PM

DRAG SHAFTFOR ZEROTO~SIONMETER READING

D:45

CONDUCT STANDADOIZATION TRIALS

PM

10:4~ PM

CONDUCT TURNING CIRCLES

I I : l D PM

CONDUCT ' Z'MANEUVER

IR:lD AM

2:00 AM

CONDUCT NON EXTRACTION WATERRATE

CONDUCT FUEL RATE

]O

R:O0 AM

CONDUCT AHEADSTEERING

11

6:30 AM

CONDUCT EMERGENCYSTEERbNG
DRAG SHAFTFOR ZEROTORSIONMETER READING

]2

6:45 AM

13

?:45 AM

CONDUCT CRASHAHEADFROMASTERN

14

D:OO A~

CONOUCT CRASHASTERNFRO~ AHEAU

]5

8:15 AM

CONDUCT ASTERNrNRURANR~ RUN

16

9:]5 AM

CONDUCT ASTERNSTEERING

f7

10:30 AB

CONDUCT BOILER OVERLOADS

1B

]:OD PM

CONDUCT AUTOMATIONDEMONSTRATION

2:30 P~

CONDUCT ANCHORHANDLING TEST

20

2:30 PM

CALIBRATE SHAFT TORSIONMETER (DURING EVENTIg)

2;
22

POST TRIAL RONFERENCF

11:30 PM

ARRIVE SHIPYARD

has shown, however, that the actual time for merchant ship
trials often approaches 3 days for the first ship of a class.
With proper pretrial preparation, the agenda in Table 1
could easily be met. Factors that could affect the agenda are:
1. Time to travel to trial area.
2. Location of radiometric operating area.
3. Location of anchor handling test area.
4. Additional demonstration other than standard trial tests.
5. Delays due to unsatisfactory trial tests.
6. Weather conditions.
7. Rest periods.
Actual trials begin with the shaft drags (event 4) to determine the torsionmeter zero which will be necessary for the
standardization runs, fuel and water rate tests (events 5, 8
and 9). After the final standardization run the ship will be at
full power. Since radiometric equipment will probably be
used in this event, there would be a smooth transition to
conduct the turning circles and "Z" maneuver (events 6 and
7), which also require the radiometric equipment and the
ship at full power. The plant will have had ample time to
warm up and balance out in preparation for the important
water rate and fuel rate tests. These events and the ahead
steering test (events 8, 9 and 10) will then follow with the
ship still at full power.
While slowing and cooling down to conduct the shaft drags
(event 12), the emergency steering test (event 11) will be
conducted when 50 percent of the m a x i m u m ahead rpm is
reached. After the shaft drags with the ship dead in the
water, astern power is built up, and the crash ahead (event
13) will then be conducted. Following this event and with the
ship again at full power ahead, the crash astern (event 14)
will be accomplished followed by the astern endurance run
(event 15) and the astern steering test (event 16). It will be
noted that by this scheduling the turbine is subjected t o
minimal thermal stress and expansion during these severe
power maneuvers.
The ship must then be brought slowly ahead to allow for
OCTOBER

1973

proper cooling of the LP casing and rotor. Boiler overload

tests (event 17) will be conducted after proper cooldown, followed by the automation demonstration (event 18). It is always advantageous to schedule this event toward the end of
the trial so that the equipment will have been thoroughly
checked and adjusted in advance of the demonstration.
Trials would terminate with the anchor handling test (event
19). This event, however, could be scheduled at the beginning of the trial if so desired or held in reserve to be conducted during possible delays due to a breakdown in equipment.
The foregoing agenda may not necessarily be ideal for all
trials; however, in most cases it should be applicable. The
purpose here is to demonstrate how judicious scheduling can
minimize the expensive at-sea time and provide rational and
smooth transitions from one event to another. With proper
advance preparation for each succeeding event, along with
the necessary coordination and communication with the trial
crew and trial witnesses, the time schedule in the agenda in
Table 1 could be further reduced.

Trial supervisor
All trials should be under the direction of a trial supervisor
for the contractor. He should have full authority and should
be in charge of the trials and all trial personnel, including
the captain and chief engineer of the ship. Failure to establish this clear line of authority can result in poor trial results.
For example, practically every trial captain tends to follow
the same course on every trial regardless of the purpose of
the trials or the prevailing weather. One captain navigated
solely by radar and refused to go beyond range of land. Consequently, these trials were conducted in waters of varying
depths, much of it quite shallow and with many course
changes. The accuracy of the torsionmeter readings and resulting horsepower calculations under such conditions are
greatly impaired.
After the ship is safely at sea, the trial supervisor should
have full say as to which course should be followed, the
power to be developed, the scheduling of events, the directions to the helmsman during maneuvers, etc., unless overruled by the captain solely for safety reasons. The captain, of
course, must ensure that the safety of the ship is never compromised, but other than that he should be there as a
"chauffeur" to operate the ship as directed by the trial supervisor.
Likewise, the engine room should be under the control of
the operating engineers but only as directed by the trial supervisor. Except for emergency situations, no changes in
plant operating conditions should be undertaken by the engine crew unless so directed by the technical supervisor in
charge of the trials. This applies to minor plant adjustments
as well as operation of auxiliary systems, i.e., ballasting,
transfer of fuel, distillers, tank heating, etc. Switching from
one fuel oil settling tank to another is a routine matter for
any operating crew, but this can cause serious consequences
during a fuel economy trial since the composition of the fuel
of one tank might be quite different from that of the other.

Shaft calibration
The question has often been raised as to the necessity for
the calibration of shafts as a prerequisite for accurate horsepower determination. A study on this subject was conducted
several years ago by the David Taylor Model Basin, now the
Naval Ship Research and Development Center, which was
summarized in a paper by Brandau [2].
It was the Navy practice to provide a special six-foot stub
section in the line shafting for the installation of the torsionmeter. As part of the above study, carefully controlled call381

Table 2

Shaft calibrations--MarAd

TORSIONAL MODULUS
SHIP

TORSIONMETER

MECHANIDA

~; DEVIATION FROM 1 1 . 9
TORSIONMETER

x 10 B

MECHANICAL

INDEPENDENCEP
INDEPENDENCE S
CONSTITUTION P
CONSTITUTION S
BARRETT
OEIGER
UPSHUR
S 0 BLAND
UNITED STATES ~I
UNITED STATES ~2
UNITED STATES ~3
UNITED STATES :4
G#LDEN MARINER
OLD COLONY MARINER
FREE STATE MARINER
KEYSTONE MARINER
GARDEN MARINER
LONE STAR MARINER
THOMAS NELSON
WILLIAM PATTERSON
BENJAMIN CHEW
SANTA ROSA P
SANTA ROSA S
COMET P
COMET S
BRASILP
BRASIL S
ARGENTINA P
ARGENTINA S
POINT BARROW P
POINT BARROW S
SANTA PAULA P
SANTA PAULA S
SAVANNAH
SURVEY0R
MORMACPRIDE
EXPORT AGENT
EXPORT AIDE
PRESIDENT LINCOLN
NANCY LYKES
JEAN LYKES
MORMACCOVE
JAMES LYKES
EXPORT BANNER
WASHINGTON MAIL
PHILIPPINE BEAR
SANTA MABDALINA
CHINA BEAR
CALIFORNIA
PIONEER MOON
BRINTON LYKES
SHIRLEY LYKES
AFRICAN COMET
AMERICAN COURIER
EXPORT ADVENTURER
SEA WITCH
ALASKAN MAIL
MORMACSEA
LASH ITALIA
AUSTRAL ENVOY

I ~ 9 0 0 000
1 2 0 0 0 000
11980000
1 1 9 7 0 000
11 957 579
12 020 694
11884239
11902000
12 0 7 3 0 0 0
1 1 8 7 7 000
1 2 0 0 4 000
11 8 3 7 0 0 0
II882000
11 9 4 0 0 0 0
] l 880 000
11691000
1 1 8 9 0 O00
1 1 8 6 7 000
1 1 6 4 0 OOO
11 713 175
1 2 6 2 4 600
12 109 000
11 985 000
11813104
1 1 7 7 6 137
11 893 OOO
11 8 9 2 9 0 0
11837000
11742000
l I T O O 560
1! 787 355
12192053
Ii 9 4 1 5 0 0
12070552
1 1 7 1 7 452
~2 119 560
11 9 3 9 1 0 0
I~996408
11 893 400
1 1 7 7 4 672
l ' 890 361
1 i 9 0 2 028
11892000
11958485
1206~700
11 8 3 8 5 8 4
11 572 304
1 1 8 2 0 144
12 0 6 0 1 0 0
11 9 4 0 0 0 0
]1 768 199
11941 012
11 8 6 1 6 1 0
1 1 8 8 8 430
I I 9g8 903
I~ 812 OOO
12 1 9 3 0 0 0
1 2 0 8 7 000
11997000
11967000

11 880 000
11 8 2 0 0 0 0
I1965000
11840000
l l 707 808
11950759
12071562
I1 851000
1I 9 8 6 0 0 0
12042000
12 0 5 7 0 0 0
11973000
11 841 000
I1 8 7 0 0 0 0
11 7 7 0 0 0 0
1 1 6 3 0 000
11890000
11 670 OOO
1~ 790 O00
II 780 008
12 046400
12 008 500
12 llOgO0
11880645
I1 876 479
11778000
1 1 0 8 5 500
11929900
11934000
11 8 4 7 4 2 5
12 3 5 3 8 4 5
12121360
11 9 9 0 9 0 0
11 683 188
II 3 1 8 1 7 0
11 8 5 1 9 7 3
12 1 5 7 4 4 8
12001725
11 7 5 1 8 0 0
ll 802228
11 887 268
11 855 73i
11 9 5 5 0 0 0
12079465
12 004 100
1 1 6 1 5 344
1 1 4 5 8 710
1 1 6 8 1 082
12 157 500
12 070 O00
11 787 875
11 895 953
11 889 540
I1 8 3 8 5 2 7
1 2 0 0 1 733
11835000
12 0 1 3 0 O 0
12042000
11935000
11997000

*0 67
+0 59
+O 48
-1 01
-0 13
+0 01
l 45
- 0 19
+0 87
- 0 53
- 0 15
+0 34
-O 17
-I 76
- 0 08
- 0 28
- 2 10
-1 57
* 6 08
+I 76
+0 71
-0 73
-1 04
-I 73
-0 06
-053
-~ 33
-1 20
-0 95
*245
+035
.143
-I 53
+1 84
+0 33
+0 81
-1 7 4
- I 05
-0 08
+0 02
-O 07
+0 49
+1 36
-0 52
-2 75
-0 87
+1 34
*O 34
- I 01
+0 35
- 0 32
- 0 97
+0 83
-0 74
4-2 46
+1 57
+082
+0 56

34
67
55
50
95
43
44
-0 41
*0 72
+1 19
+1 32
+0 61
-0 50
-O 25
-1 09
-2 27
-O 08
-1 93
-O 92
-I 01
+8 26
+089
.1 77
-0 11
-020
-I 02
+072
+025
+0 29
-045
+380
+I 85
+078
-198
-4 88
-040
+216
+0185
-124
-0 82
-0 11
-O 37
*0 46
+1 51
+0 88
- 2 39
- 3 71
-184
+2 !6
+143
-095
-003
-009
-052
*0 85
-0 55
*095
*119
+029
+082

AVERAGE

li

I]

+0 114

+0074

913 571

908 823

brations using improved instrumentation were conducted at

temperatures of 40, 80, and 120 F on nine such stub shafts.
The resulting moduli varied in a narrow band between 11.89
x 106 and 11.93 x 106 or 1/4 percent from the standard of
11.9 x 106. In view of this consistency, it was Brandau's recommendation that shaft calibrations be waived for all Navy
stub shafts and 11.9 x 106 be adopted as the standard modulus for all shafts.
Unfortunately, the history of the shaft calibrations for
Maritime messels does not corroborate this degree of consistency. Table 2 is a tabulation of sixty shaft calibrations extending over a twenty-year period. As can be seen, the average modulus is 11,913,571, which is only a 0.114 percent
deviation from the standard of 11.9 x 106. However, this average is obviously made up of a mix of high and low moduli.
Figure 1 is a graphic display depicting the percent deviation o each calibration from the 11.9 x 106 standard, no differentiation being made between high and low. From this it
is seen that 37 percent o the calibrations exceeded 1-percent
deviation from the standard, 22 percent exceeded 1.5 percent, and 8 percent exceeded 2.0 percent. One maverick shaft
from the converted Liberty ship Benjamin Chew actually deviated 6.1 percent from the standard.
382

programs

ODD

+0 84

!; DEVIATION
TORS. vs MECH.

-0
-0
+0
-0
-0
*0
.1

0 34
1 50
012
09
1 42
057
1 08
0 43
072
1 38
0 45
14
0 35
0 59
0 92
051
0 O0
85
I 20
0 58
018
087
108
0 62
082
071
078
078
162
080
475
060
041
341
3.35
224

1 83
004
050
023
0 [)3
039
053
1 02
0 48
87
0.96
1 17
082
1 09
006
0 38
0 23
045
0 02
0 18
151
038
0 53
026

0 909

Why the marked difference between the consistency of the

Navy calibrations and those of the MarAd program?
Although this may be due to differences in technique, it is
the opinion of the author that the most logical explanation
lies in the probability that the Navy stub shafts were of greater uniformity than commercial line shafting. An examination
o Table 2 will indicate a number of MarAd calibrations
where there were differences between the torsionmeter and
mechanical determinations greater than 1 percent and several in the order o 2 percent and 3 percent. This inconsistency
is considered not to be the result of inferior instrumentation
or technique but to the fact that the shafts were not homogeneous throughout their lengths.
In view of the degree and frequency of variation from the
standard modulus o 11.9 x 106 o commercial shafts as indicated in Fig. 1, it is obvious that if unchallengable horsepower data are desired, shaft calibrations must be undertaken.
The 37-percent chance of an error exceeding 1 percent in
using an assumed modulus should be considered unacceptable. This is particularly true where the shipbuilding contract
may include a bonus-penalty provision in the order of $50,000
per 0.01 lb of fuel/hp-hr, which corresponds to nearly $25,000
for each percentage point of horsepower accuracy, which in
MARINE

TECHNOLOGY

6.0

SHAFT C A L I B R A T I O N BY TORSIONMETER
PERCENT D E V I A T I O N FROM

5.0

STANDARD MODULUS OF 1 1 , 9 O O , O O 0

4.0
Z
O

_~

>

3.0

2.0
.

1.O

.O
0%

~.o.o

10%

20%

30%

..

"I "'" " ., [ . . . . ~ o . . . .

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

PERCENTAGE

Fig. 1

Shaft calibration by torsionmeter

turn is the same as each percentage point of shaft calibration

accuracy.
Another source of error that has never been considered on
MarAd trials but that could be significant is the effect of the
difference of ambient temperature at the time of shaft calibration and that at the time of the trials. The paper by
Brandau points out that the Navy tests indicate that the
shaft modulus decreases 0.017 percent per degree rise in temperature. This amounts to an 0.5 percent change in modulus
(or horsepower) with a temperature difference of 30 deg,
which is certainly not unusual. This difference could well be
more, particularly if the shaft was calibrated in a cold shop
in winter and the trials were conducted during hot weather
conditions.

Torsionmeters
Unless the propulsion system is electric drive, the horsepower must be determined by a torsionmeter attached to the
propeller shaft. The variable mutual inductance-type instrument should be used exclusively for trial purposes, and descriptions of its design, installation, calibration and zero determination are clearly presented in Section 5.5 of T&R Bulletin C2. Other types of horsepower meters have been installed for permanent ship's instruments but, because of
troublesome calibration and zero determination as well as
other problems, they are considered not to have sufficient
accuracy and reliability for use as trial instrumentation.
After each installation, the torsionmeter must be calibrated to determine the relationship between a measured movement of the i n s t r u m e n t mounted on the shaft to the resulting
reading of the remote indicator. The Navy has modified the
commercial version of this instrument to give it a greater
range of sensitivity and to provide a sophisticated calibration
procedure utilizing accurately machined gage blocks for measuring the displacement of the transformer core. This movement of the transformer core simulates the displacement
caused by the twisting of the shaft under torque. However,
this procedure requires the removal of the instrument from
the husk on the shaft, calibration in a special calibration
stand and then replacement in the husk. It was discovered
on one MarAd trial that this calibration is very sensitive to
the instrument being in an identical alignment in the calibration stand as installed in the husk. The Navy has subseOCTOBER 1973

quently issued very stringent limitations on the alignment of

the husk when installed on the shaft in an effort to guard
against this possible source of error.
With the commercial version, such great care is not necessary because the instrument is calibrated in place and any
effect caused by misalignment is reflected directly in the calibration. The commercial instrument is calibrated by moving
the transformer core a known a m o u n t by means of a micrometer screw that has an indexing head. Although the Navy
unit has greater sensitivity, this sensitivity can seldom if
ever be used during trials due to torque fluctuations, and its
benefit for calibration seems to be offset by the chance of
error in having to remove the instrument from the husk.
My personal convictions regarding the reliability of these
instruments were badly shaken a few years back when a micrometer calibration screw was discovered to have been inaccurately machined. Luckily, it happened on a twin-screw
ship. By using the good screw to calibrate first one then the
other meter, reliable results were obtained for both. That incident dramatized how much the accuracy of these instruments is dependent on the accuracy of the micrometer calibration screw. However, if the shaft was calibrated with the
same torsionmeter used for trials, any error of this nature
would generally be self-compensating.
Some of the problems of obtaining accurate readings of the
torsionmeter due to torque fluctuations have been mentioned
previously. For best results, the sensitivity should be kept
low so that the swing of the galvanometer needle is no more
than 50 percent of its maximum permissible travel. The instrument should be adjusted so that these swings are equidistant on either side of center zero, no attempt being made
to keep up with the constant fluctuations, and the setting
should be changed only when necessary to compensate for a
change in average torque. A common error is to operate the
instrument with excessive sensitivity, which actually complicates the relatively simple objective of balancing the galvanometer circuit to zero current flow.
Some ships have been equipped with recording horsepower
meters of the variable mutual inductance-type with a motor
driven followup mechanism that constantly balances the galvanometer circuit. This meter is identical to the commercial
trial instrument commented upon above except for the followup and recording features that can be disconnected by a
switch. This instrument is perfectly suitable for trial pur383

poses, but the automatic followup mechanism should be disconnected and the meter operated in the manual mode as
described above.

Shaft revolution counters

The determination of the shaft revolutions is quite
straightforward and is usually routinely accomplished with
great accuracy and reliability using special dual trial counters as described in Bulletin C2. However, these mechanical
devices are not infallible, and a backup for this essential
data can be readily provided by merely taking hourly readings of the ship's counters. This simple precaution has proven invaluable in more than one instance.

Fig. 2

Typical fuel oil meter

F u e l oil m e t e r s
If fuel economy trials are to be conducted, reliable and accurately calibrated twin fuel oil meters must be used. Experience has proven beyond any doubt that these meters must
be calibrated with fuel of approximately the same flow, temperature, and viscosity as that to be used on trials. Attempts
have been made to calibrate such meters with water or other
fluids and applying correction factors for viscosity. Without
exception, such calibrations have proven to be worthless. It is
believed that the only facility with the capability of calibrating with Bunker C fuel is the Naval Ship Engineering Center, Philadelphia Division. Fortunately, this facility also has
a supply of reliable meters that are available to any ship
contractor on a loan basis for a reasonable fee. These meters,
or others calibrated by NAVSEC Philadelphia, must be used
where accurate fuel measurement is a factor.
Although the fuel meters are not complicated, serious errors are often made in reading them due primarily to the arrangement of the dials. Figure 2 illustrates the problem. This
is a typical fluid flowmeter where the units, one to ten, are
measured by a rotating indicator at the top of the dial and
the remainder of the total is indicated by a worm-driven
counter. The tens indicator continuously revolves as in an
automobile odometer so that when the unit indicator is approaching zero the number shown is ahead of the actual
count. In Fig. 2 the correct reading is 2 3 4 8 7 5 9 but is
often misread as 2 3 4 8 7 6 9.
In order to minimize such errors, the data taker should (1)
be coached in reading the meters before the start of trials
and (2) be instructed to provide a time delay of one minute
by stop watch between reading one meter and the other. This
will permit reading both meters on exact time intervals, one
on the signal and the other one minute later, with plenty of
time to make an unhurried and accurate reading of each.
Fig. 3

Typical radiometric chart for ship trials

Radiometric equipment
Radiometric equipment was first used on commercial ship
trials twenty years ago for the standardization of the SS
United States. Since then this equipment has revolutionized
the procedures used in conducting not only standardization
trials but also such maneuvering tests as turning circles, Zmaneuvers, and crash stops. The result has been greater accuracy with less effort and a significant saving of expensive
trial time. An excellent treatise on the system and the associated equipment can be found in a paper prepared by Hastings and Comstock [3].
Figure 3 is a simplified chart for such a system having two
shore-based stations, which may either be fixed or portable.
As can be seen, the distances are measured by concentric circles from each station in increments called "lanes." The
length of a lane is constant but varies with the ratio frequen384

cy, being 148.23 ft for the frequency generally used by one of

the equipment suppliers.
The ship-based equipment is readily portable and easily
installed. There are counters and dials on the front of the
small cabinet that afford a direct reading in lanes of the distance from each station. The instrument is generally callbrated by determining the ship's position from a number of
visual bearings on shore, identifying that location on the
chart and setting the dial readings corresponding to the lane
count on the chart. The instrument can then be "locked in"
and will automatically indicate and plot on demand the lane
count from each station as long as the ship remains within
the range of the equipment, something in excess of 100 miles.
MARINE TECHNOLOGY

15 SECOND~'EVENT"MARKERS.

I SECONDTIMEBASE WITH IO SECOND/

" '--04oo

r~rrE~vAts

. . . . .

~X

' R~O" RAYDIST LANE COO DINA ES

. . . . . . . . . .
-

HEAD NG J
"'-~GYROI

Fig. 4

080

"

:,

.-7

~
o~o-

" 'I

~--

" I

"

iI

Typical r a d i o m e t r i c record chart

Since the lanes are equidistant and concentric, the accuracy

is not affected by distance.
In addition to plotting the movement of the ship in respect
to the two stations, the instrument also records time in seconds and shaft revolutions, as well as the ship's heading by
means of a connection to the ship's master gyro system.
Figure 4 is an actual strip chart recorded by the equipment
during a ship's trials. The pen tracings have been darkened
to improve reproduction and legibility. At some instant of
time "X" - "X", the ship was at a location corresponding to
1670 17/56 or 1670.303 lanes from the red station and 2060 29/52
or 2060.559 lanes from the green station. This translates to
247,589 ft and 305,429 ft or 40.72 miles and 50.24 miles respectively. The ships heading was 60 deg + (14/52 10) or
62.7 deg and the propeller speed was 41 rpm.
As can be seen, the result is a permanent and accurate
record of ship location, heading and rpm versus time over an
almost unlimited time frame. The owners of the equipment
boast of an accuracy to within 10 ft in the determination of
the ship location, and from an examination of the chart this
precision appears to be readily attainable.

ther calm or high seas the radar return usually lacks sufficient definition for plotting. At best, the results from this
procedure will be limited to a rough estimation of the diameter of the turning circle and will be completely lacking in
such elements as ship's headings, advance, and transfer.
A second method is to conduct the turning circle near a
fixed radar target such as a lighthouse or a floating target
dropped by the ship. As the ship circles, the target indication is marked on a clear plastic cover over the radar tube
with a grease pencil. Points are marked every second or third
sweep of the radar, and simultaneous readings are taken of
ship's heading and bearing to the target. The result is a
crude plot of the relationship of the fixed target to the moving ship. In order to obtain the desired plot of the ship to the
fixed target, each point must be reoriented by tedious trigonometric calculations.
The results obtained from either of these methods are so
unreliable and subject to error that it is questionable whether the time and effort of conducting the test can be justified.
It is the author's opinion that if radiometric equipment is not
available, no attempt should be made to conduct turning-circle tests.

Turning circles
Figure 5 is a typical turning circle plotted from data taken
from such a chart. With the accuracy afforded by this method the actual position of the ship can be shown at any desired spot and a circle can be developed from the locus of
points corresponding to any location on the ship. In this case,
the circle has been drawn through the ship's center of gravity.
Before the use of radiometric equipment, turning circles
were generally determined by measuring the range of the
ship from an object of known height, such as a lighthouse, by
means of a stadimeter. Simultaneously, heading and bearing
readings were also taken. Even with the best of weather conditions, these exercises could best be described as chaotic,
and the results were very inaccurate.
After the advent of radar, attempts were often made to use
this equipment for turning-circle plotting. The simplest
method is to trace the wake of ship as it appears on the radar
tube. This is most effective with a choppy sea, but with eiOCTOBER 1973

Quick reversal from ahead to astern

Figure 6 shows a plot of radiometric data taken of a crash
stop astern during an actual ship trial. The advantages over
the old Dutch log method of dropping markers over the side
are readily apparent. The result is a clear and accurate record of not only the stopping distance and time but also the
course, heading, and deceleration of the ship during the entire maneuver.

Communication and signaling systems

Figure 4.2 of T&R Bulletin C2 indicates recommended signal and communication systems for standardization trials.
Unfortunately, this diagram is incomplete due to a wrong assumption. The radiometric equipment is seldom if ever located in the trial control center with the torsionmeter and
counter as indicated. The radiometric equipment should be,
and usually is, located in the chartroom or some other area
385

TACTICAL DIAMETER 2 5 7 6

--

TRANSFER 1 0 0 6
1oh40m30 s

10h41
mOoS
loh4omoo s
1 oh46m30s

41m30 s

1oh47mo0 s

loh46mo0s J

oh39m30 s
Ioh45m30 s

10h42m00s

DIAMETER OF TURNING CIRCLE 1833

loIr45mOoSl

Initiate
loh39mOoS

10h42m30 s

oh43m00 s

10h44m30s

o~

LONG

Position p l o t t e d every 30 seconds during maneuver

S h i p s heading and length indicated by v e c t o r
O - P o s i t i o n of Raydist antenna
O - S h i p s center of g r a v i t y

loh38m30 s
BASE
COURSE

500

o9oOpgc

Fig. 5

0
I----4 }--4

500
I

Scale

1000
I

in feet

Radiometric plot--right turning circle

in close proximity to the bridge. This permits intimate communication with the bridge so essential for maintaining
proper position, direction, and heading during the standardization trials. The torsionmeter and counter on the other
hand are generally at a much lower level to minimize the
cable lengths to the instruments on the shaft.
Because of this difference in location, the following communication and signaling systems are essential:
Between radiometric equipment and torsionmeter indicator.
Between torsionmeter indicator and torsionmeter husk.
Between torsionmeter indicator and engine room.
Between bridge and radiometric equipment if remotely
located.
Ideally, the torsionmeter indicator would be in a control
386

~.t- 8903'I3

center or computing room which has a phone on the ship's

sound-powered system so that either the engine room or
bridge could be contacted. However, temporary phones connecting the torsionmeter indicator to the torsionmeter husk
and to the radiometric equipment will also be required as
well as a two-way signaling system between the torsionmeter
indicator and radiometric equipment.
It is noted that T& R Bulletin C2 does not mention a ship's
announcing system. This was a requirement of most MarAd
trials [4] and was found to be of invaluable assistance in expediting the various tests by advanced announcements of the
events, locating personnel, and keeping all attendees informed of the current status of the trials. This equipment is
particularly essential for the trials of large bulk, barge and
containerships of the current building program.
MARINE

TECHNOLOGY

Initiate
23h44m49s
~ 1 0 1 5 rpm
" ~ . 23h45mo0s

BASE
COURSE

# ~ 2 3 h 4 5 m 3 0

"%

"r#'4Ox/

4"/04"2./,ZEROpm~23h45m51
r
s
'/~ ~p

" ~ 2 3 h46mo0s

~,/

as

~47mOoS

t%s~d,

65 rpm
(astern)/
lh47ro30s/23h5

'/

23h48mo0s
23h48m30~

0s
lm30s

~23h51mo0 s

~23h5omo0 s
I~'23 h49m30s

(Dead in w a t e r >

Position plotted every 30 seconds dur,ng maneuver

Ship's heading and length indicated by vector
0-- Position of Raydist antenna
- - Ships center ef gravity
500
I

Fig. 6

Operating

1973

500

1ooo

Scale in feet

Radiometric plot--crash astern from ahead

conditions

Steady operating conditions are essential if meaningful

trial results are to be achieved. Plant conditions should be
stabilized and preferably at the design values during all
power runs. Special attention should be given to superheater
outlet temperature and pressure and condenser vacuum, and
adjustments should be made prior to the runs to bring these
values as close as practicable to design conditions. All automatic boiler controls should be serviced and adjusted to
eliminate all cycling of water level and firing rate as well as
to ensure equal boiler load sharing, proper combustion, and
excess air. No changes should be made to the plant during
the runs that would affect power output, and variances in
auxiliary load should be kept to a m i n i m u m . The use of
makeup steam and the possible dumping of auxiliary exhaust
to the condenser should be carefully monitored and eliminated. Before the start of any test runs, the plant should be
carefully inspected to ensure that heat balance conditions are
being met, boiler combustion is correctly adjusted, traps are
working properly, reserve fuel tanks are not being heated, relief valves are tight, etc.
OCTOBER

Obviously one of the most important trial determinations

is that of power, which is directly related to the torsionmeter
readings. The shaft torque is generally in a state of fluctuation due to action of the sea and rudder. Even moderate seas
aggravate this problem, but significant improvement can
often be achieved by slight course deviations. Running in
comparatively shallow water of varying depths will produce
highly erratic and sometimes unbelievable changes in the
torque/rpm relationship that will adversely affect the trial
results.
Finally, the most frequent source of torque variation, but
also the easiest to correct, is that due to excessive use of the
helm. This generally results from (1) the captain's insistance
on maintaining a straight course and (2) the use of improperly adjusted automatic steering equipment producing excessive rudder angles. Small rudder movements induce disproportionately large changes in shaft torque, particularly at
higher powers. Since coursekeeping is not essential except
during standardization, rudder angles should never exceed 2
deg in either automatic or manual mode. If the resulting
course is sloppy, it is of no consequence as there is usually
plenty of ocean and the ship is always equipped with the
387

most modern navigational aids so that the true position can

be accurately and quickly determined.
Course changes should never be made during power runs
without the bridge first notifying the computing room. Rudder angles should be kept to a practical m i n i m u m during
such changes, but should not exceed 5 deg. If the data recorded during the turns prove to be inconsistent and unreliable, they should be discarded from the official data by mutual agreement of the interested parties.
If the above precautions are followed the deviations in
power and fuel consumption from one time period to another
should be well within 1 percent.

Fuel analysis
Experience has proven to the MarAd Trial Board by several dramatic cases that the average commercial laboratory
cannot be relied upon to provide the consistent accuracy required in the determination of the higher heating value
(HHV) of the fuel.
For this reason, this value used in calculating the official
fuel rate should be determined by the National Bureau of
Standards if at all possible. Unfortunately, the quality service provided by NBS is limited to other government agencies and is presently available only to those Contractors
building ships under MarAd or Navy programs. Unless these
services are available, it is the author's opinion that a guaranteed fuel rate is meaningless and should not be specified.
Obviously tilere must be a preliminary fuel analysis made
prior to the trials to provide an HHV for calculating purposes
during the trials. This is often provided by the oil company
supplying the fuel to the ships and naturally it represents the
fuel as received and not as burned in the boiler. However, for
the most part, the accuracy of these analyses has been adequate for preliminary calculations.
Since the individual yards generally obtain their fuel from
one source, the characteristics of the fuel do not vary significantly from trial to trial. In the interest of developing expected values of the fuel oil used by the yards in different
locations, the Trial Board made an evaluation of the values
determined by the Bureau of Standards over a period of
about eight years. Included was a verification that there was
no time trend insofar as the heating value of fuel was concerned. The following are the developed averages:

Sun
Sparrows Point
Ingalls
Avondale
National Steel

HHV
18,495
18,170
18,216
18,257
17,934

LHV
17,582
17,382
17,372
17,416
17,212

Sp. Gr.
0.(`)642
0.(,)840
0.(,)928
0.9830
1.0039

Sampies Years
4
6
5
5
4
8
4
4
5
5

This summary has proven invaluable on several occasions

where the fuel rate was unacceptable, and the preliminary
fuel analysis was suspect. If the fuel characteristics used in
the calculations are in reasonable agreement with those of
the table, it is a fairly safe assumption that the problem lies
elsewhere, such as in the fuel meters or in the calculations.

Fuel rate calculations

If the fuel rate calculations are being made for the purpose
of determining a specified guaranteed operational rate, it is
my personal opinion that no correction should be made for
the deviation from design conditions of steam pressure and
perhaps of propeller rpm. Furthermore, the propriety of correcting for steam temperature deviations might also be ques388

tioned, particularly if the cause is not correctable or will not

be corrected. This is particularly applicable to the bonuspenalty type of contract where the owner has attempted to
ensure that he will obtain "an efficient propulsion system by
agreeing to reward the Contractor if the fuel rate is below a
specified amount.
At the same time he is looking for some compensation in
the form of a penalty if the contractor delivers him a ship
that will be operated for its lifetime with a fuel consumption
higher than anticipated. To compromise this basic business
agreement with technical fudge factors is fundamentally
wrong.
If the boiler controls are working as they should, the steam
pressure can be regulated to the exact design value. It is inc u m b e n t upon the owner and contractor to protect their own
interests during the trials by ensuring that the pressure is
not carried above or below this value. Very often, particularly with automatic superheater temperature control, the
steam temperature can also be regulated to approximately
design conditions. If not, then the owner has good cause to
reject the boilers until proper corrective measures are taken
to bring the temperature to the proper value.
The question is often raised regarding the allowance of a
correction for propeller rpm since the efficiency of the propulsion turbine is designed to peak at the specified speed.
Traditionally, the MarAd position has been that no correction for fuel rate should be allowed on the reasoning that it
should be i n c u m b e n t upon the contractor to provide a propeller that will match the propulsion system with the speed
and resistance of the hull. However, on several recent contracts, the contractor did not have this prerogative as the
propeller design was furnished by the owner. Also there is
the unavoidable situation prevailing on most cargo ship trials
that due to lack of ballasting capability the displacement is
extremely light, resulting in propeller speed much higher
than will be experienced with the ship at design draft.
It therefore appears that, under certain conditions, consideration might be given to allowing a propeller rpm correction
to the fuel rate. However, it should not be applicable to
trials where the ship can be deeply ballasted and the propeller is contractor designed.
One of the most significant fuel rate correction factors is
due to deviation from design conditions of the condenser vacuum. This correction is justified since the vacuum will obviously vary with the temperature of the seawater. Other corrections that are proper since they are variables beyond the
control of the designer and contractor are for items such as
generator load, distiller and ship service steam.

S t e a m rate c o r r e c t i o n s
As in the case of fuel rate determinations previously discussed, every effort should be made to have steam and vacumn conditions at design values. However, if this is impractical, corrections should be applied to all values. This apparently inconsistent opinion regarding the application of correction factor for fuel rate versus steam rates is perfectly logical when it is realized that in the case of the fuel rate the
objective should be to determine the true capability of the
complete propulsion system as constructed and not as designed. As for the steam rate, what is desired is to verify that
the turbine manufacturer provided a unit meeting the design
expectations, and he should neither be penalized nor given
an advantage for reason of off-design operating conditions.
Similarly, a correction factor should be provided for any deviation of rpm from the design value since this will certainly
have an adverse effect on the steam rate, and it is a factor
over which the turbine manufacturer has no control.
M A R I N E TECHNOLOGY

Spiral m a n e u v e r test
T&R Bulletin C2 states that this test "should be conducted only in relatively calm seas and winds of less than 5
knots." It is the author's opinion that the test should not be
attempted except in a flat calm and zero wind, and these
conditions must remain throughout the entire test, which
usually requires 3 or 4 hr. The odds against finding such conditions coincident with the trials are astronomical.
To my knowledge the only time that this test has ever
been conducted on any ship under the MarAd program with
any degree of success was on the NS Savannah. In this instance the test was started before sunrise with flat seas and
no wind. However, before the test was completed, a slight
breeze developed so that a true correlation of all data was
lost.
Subsequently, attempts were made to conduct spiral maneuvers on several ships built for the Coast & Geodetic Survey,. but favorable conditions never prevailed during the
trials and so the tests were never accomplished. To be of any
value, this test must be conducted under the ideal conditions
described above, and no attempt should be made to draw
conclusions from data taken from tests run otherwise.
Since the validity of this test is so dependent on extremely
improbable environmental conditions, the author questions
whether it should ever be specified or even included in the
Code for Sea Trials.

S t a n d a r d i z a t i o n trials
The use of radiometric equipment permits great latitude in
the conduct of standardization trials with reference to direction, distance from shore, time of day, weather conditions,
etc. Daylight free of haze and fog is no longer essential, and
in fact many of the recent standardizations have been conducted at night. But equally important is the flexibility in
selecting the course, thus permitting a heading to be chosen
that will minimize the effect of wind and sea.
For simplicity, the course selected for standardization is
usually directly to and from either of the two shore-based
stations. The distance of each run is readily determined by
counting the lanes traveled in relation to that station. The
other station is used only for positioning the ship and making
minor corrections to the course. Each run can be accomplished by either timing the interval to travel a predetermined number of lanes or measuring lanes traveled during a
fixed period of time.
T&R Bulletin C2 gives an empirical formula for the minim u m depth of water for standardization trials based on
draft, speed, and length of the ship. Since distance from
shore is no longer a constraint, it is recommended that all
such trials be conducted beyond the 60-fathom curve to
eliminate any possibility of shallow-water effect.

C o r r e l a t i o n w i t h model tests
For the past ten years, beginning with the American Challenger class ships for U. S. Lines, practically all of the ships
of the MarAd ship replacement program have proven slower
on trials than predicted by model tests. It is interesting to
note that the David Taylor Model Basin (NSRDC) changed
their correlation allowance from 0.0004 to 0.0002 at about the
same time.
Wilson and Roddy [5] touched on this subject in a paper
they prepared in regard to wind resistance of commercial
ships. After comparing the trial results with model tests on a
n u m b e r of MarAd designs, they came to the conclusion that
the correlation allowance should be raised from the current
figure of 0.0002 to 0.0003.
OCTOBER 1973

This study also emphasized that if there are sizeable differences in displacement (more than 10 percent) or trim
(more than 5 ft), a correlation between the ship trials and
model tests is meaningless. It is therefore essential that the
model be tested at drafts corresponding to those estimated
for the ship at trial conditions, based upon the tankage available for ballast plus fuel bunkers and the requirement that
the propeller be properly submerged. This often results in
light displacement and unusual trim conditions for cargo
ships.
The MarAd standard specifications include a requirement
that a ship must be drydocked not more than 20 days prior
to sea trials to ensure that trials are conducted with clean
bottom conditions. This is purely an arbitrary time limit in
use for many years as it is recognized that the fouling rate
varies widely at the different shipyards of the country.
Several months ago, trials were conducted on a 20,000-dwt
containership of the MarAd program. The speed at maxim u m power was more than 2~/2 knots below that predicted by
model tests, and the propeller rpm was about 6 turns slow.
Since the ship had been out of drydock about 50 days, or 30
days beyond the specified limit, the contractor was required
again to drydock the ship, clean and paint the bottom, and
rerun the standardization trials.
Figure 7 presents the results of these two trials together
with those of the model tests. Curves A-A and B-B are the
speed/power and speed/rpm curves respectively developed
from model tests. Curves C-C and D-D are similar curves
from data taken during the first trials. Curve E-E is the
speed/power curve from the second trials, the speed/rpm
curve being found to coincide precisely with the model curve,
B-B.
The curves of the ship trials are a plot of raw data, no correction being made for wind, sea, or other factors. Actually
the first trials were conducted under almost ideal conditions
whereas the weather was somewhat more adverse during the
second trials. Also, the ship suffered some bottom damage
while proceeding from the yard to sea for the second trials.
For these reasons, the improvement in speed of the second
trials is even greater than the 13/4knots as indicated.
George G. Sharp Co. prepared a comprehensive analysis of
the results of the second trials. The correction for wind,
water temperature, rudder, waves and bottom damage resulted in an increase in speed at full power estimated to be
about 0.4 knots. It is realized that the results of the first
trials should also be similarly corrected if comparisons are to
be made. However, due to the difference in weather and no
bottom damage, such first trial corrections should be significantly less. It is believed safe to say that the improvement in
speed due to cleaning and painting the bottom was very close
to 2 knots.
This is dramatic documentation of the significant reduction in speed that can result from excessive time at the outfitting pier after drydocking in certain yards where fouling is
a problem. At such yards, the standard 20 days may be excessive and if an accurate speed/power determination is desired, consideration should be given to specifying that the
trials should be conducted immediately after drydocking.
Several years ago, standardization trials were conducted on
another class of ship from the same yard, and the speed was
nearly 2 knots slow with the data uncorrected. It seems more
than coincidental that due to technical delays this ship also
was at the yard about 50 days after drydocking before going
on trials.

Trial reports
The trials cannot be considered complete until they have
been documented by a comprehensive but concise report. As389

MODEL & STANDARDIZATION CURVES

FOR C6 CONTAINER SHIP
POWER & RPM vsSPEEO
MEAN
DRAFT

NOBEL

TRIM ! LEBG[ND

28 3"

7 n'

FIRST TRIAL

22 I'D

7' 0

SECOND TOIAk

22' ] 1 '

6 2

120
--,

,//
//

110

/>

26,000

4,000

]00

00

22000
20000

80
70
60

ff / / "

//

60

/,/
/

18,000
1600D
14000
12000

DO

IO,O00
8 000

40
J

ff

30

20

..

6. 000
4000

~O
0

30.000

2000

i
i

I
12

13

la

i
I~

i~

]7

10

10

20

21

22

23

24

25

28

SPEED(KNOTS)
Fig. 7

Model

and standardization

suming that all instruments were accurately calibrated, all

tests successfully completed, and all data properly recorded,
there will still remain the large task of summarizing this
mass of material and presenting it in a form that will be
meaningful and useful.
After reviewing the formats used by the various shipyards
in preparing their preliminary reports, some good but many
of a hodgepodge nature, the MarAd Trial Board developed a
standard reporting form [6]. If this form is followed, all pertinent data will be presented in a logical sequence so that the
report can serve not only as a documentation of the trials but
as a ready reference as well. This booklet also includes instructions for calculating fuel rates and steam rates as well
as some recommendations in regard to instrumentation and
test procedures. Copies may be obtained from the MarAd
Trial Board.

Summary
This paper has attempted to call attention to a wide variety of problem areas associated with ship trials together with
precautions to be taken to avoid erratic data or erroneous
conclusions As a summary, the author would reemphasize
the following:
T r i a l supervision. Trials must be under one supervisor
for the contractor who shall have full authority as to supervision of trials and operation of the ship.
F u l l economy trials. For accurate results, (1) the shaft
must be calibrated, preferably with the torsionmeter to be
390

curves

used on trials; (2) the fuel meters must be calibrated at

NAVSEC Philadelphia with fuel oil of the same viscosity and
temperature as that to be used on trials; and (3) the analysis
of the fuel as burned must be carried out by the Bureau of
Standards.
Deviation from any of these recommendations can produce
fuel rate errors of multipercentage point magnitude. Unless
all three recommendations are followed, no bonus-penalty or
guaranteed fuel rates should be specified.
M a n e u v e r i n g trials. For meaningful results, turning circles and crash stops must be conducted using radiometric instrumentation. Spiral maneuvers should never be specified.
S t a n d a r d i z a t i o n trial. Radiometric instrumentation is
considered more accurate, more convenient, and probably
more economical than using a measured-mile course for the
determination of ship's speed. For accurate horsepower determination, the shaft must be calibrated. For vessels built
in areas where fouling is a problem, the vessels should be
drydocked immediately before standardization trials.

Acknowledgments
The author wishes to express his appreciation to Mr. E.
Scott Dillon, Mr. Ronald K. Kiss, Mr. William G. Bullock,
Mr. David H. Specht, Mr. John J. Davis, and Mr. Edward S.
Karlson, all of the Maritime Administration, for their helpful
suggestions and constructive comments on the draft Sincere
thanks are due Miss Shirlene Barr for typing the drafts and
final copy and Mr. Eugene Coffman for the preparation of
the tables, charts, and graphs.
MARINE

TECHNOLOGY

References
1 "Code for Sea Trials 1971," SNAME T&R Bulletin C2.
2 Brandau, John H., "Propulsion Shaft Calibration for Torsional Modulus of Rigidity," David Taylor Model Basin, March 1962.
3 Hastings, Charles E. and Comstock, Allen L., "Pinpoint Positioning of Surface Vessels Beyond Line-of-Sight," Hastings-Raydist
Co., Hampton, Virginia, Nov. 4, 1969.
4 "Supplementary Procedure for Testing Machinery," MarAd,
March 15, 1964.
5 Wilson, C. J. and Roddy, R. F., Jr., "Estimating the Wind
Resistance of Cargo Ships and~Tankers," May 1970.
6 "Requirements for Reporting Sea Trial Data," MarAd, revised
Jan. 1, 1966.
7 "Economy and Endurance Trials Code," SNAME, 1950.
8 "Standardization Trials Code," SNAME, 1949.
9 "Code on Maneuvering and Special Trials and Tests,"
SNAME, 1950.
10 "Recommended Practices for Correcting Steam Power Plant
Trial Performance," SNAME T&R Bulletin 3-17.

OCTOBER 1973

11 "A Recommended Practice for the Testing of Ships by Raydist," Hastings-Raydist, Inc., March 1965.
12 Bayles, B. E., "Instruction Manual for the TMB Torsionmeter
and Electric Revolution Counter," David Taylor Model Basin Report
1127.
13 Handler, J. B., Wilson, C. J., and Beal, A. L., "Ship Standardization Trial Performance and Correlation with Model Predictions," Dec. 7, 1971.

Discussers
Charles Zeien
Q. R. Robinson
C. J. Wilson
J o h n O. R. B r e e d e n

C . L . Long
H . M . Burford
Robert P. Giblon
J.W. Steadman
R. P. Meric, Jr.

391