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
(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.

JULY 1983 0025-331618312003-0209500.6110 209

 Introduction
TOWBOATS pushing multiple-barge tows such as shown in the
frontispiece are a common sight on the inland waterways. Pres-
ently 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 Missis-
sippi-Ohio system would double by the end of the century, in-
creasing 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 de-
signer can refer to a number of published papers on the ar-
rangement 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:
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 sum-
marized 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) (2)
where
w = wake fraction; Va = (1 - w)V
t = thrust deduction; R = (1 - t)T
R = total resistance
T = propeller thrust
V = tow velocity
Va = local velocity seen by propeller
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]

Pu
~D - (1) Catamaran Conventional Barge
PD
M 799 M 771
where Length LWL, m 35.00 35.OO 76.00
Beam, B, m 14.00 14.00 11.33
PE = ehp towrope hp = RV/550 Beam hull, m 5.00
PD = hp absorbed by propeller(s) Draft, T m 2.00a
Displ., w m 3 541.78 517.08 2528.83
In contrast, oceangoing supertankers have values of 0.5 to 0.6, (TL = 3.2)
and typical high-speed containerships may reach values of 0.6 2195.00
to 0.7. Volker attributes the low towboat rid to a "suction force" (TL = 2.8)
which appears as an increase in the thrust deduction t when the PROPELLER DESIGN
towboat propellers operate between tree running and push towing Diameter, D, m 2.1 2.1
conditions [10]. Pitch/dia, P/D 1.052 1.052
Area, Ae/Ao 0.710 0.710
While the relationships of the other items to the propulsive Blade No., z 4 4
efficiency may not be clear, it is worthwhile to attempt a summary
of the large amount of experience in towboat hull and propulsion NOTES:
Model scale 1:16.
design. The authors felt it timely to review recent European re- a Catamaran hulls have deeper draft to obtain equivalent displace-
search in towboat hull design, characterize recent high-powered ment.

210 MARINE TECHNOLOGY

 , , , , , , , i , , , , i , , , , , , , , , , ' ' ' l l " I ' I I z / I

SHALLOW WATER TESTS

h = 5.0m 4 BARGES
T = 2.8m and 3.2m
O 1 2 3 4 5 G 7 8, 9
15 1G 17 18 19 20
7.5 m iSETWEEN SHAFTS
1.55mFROM B.L. TO TRANSOM BOTTOM

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 VBD M 751-762

1.55m EROM B.L. TO TRANSOM BOTTOM

O 1 2 3 4 5 G 18 19 20 O 1 1G '17 18 19 20

b) C A T A M A R A N TOWBOAT VBD M-799 c) S T A N D A R D " E U R O P A H" BARGE

Fig. 1 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

TOW B O A T
~CONV E N TIONAL
.... CATAMARAN . ~....~ TLz 3-20 m
TRIM ]CL - l -
FORWARD W I WAKE [~J--'TL'- 2.8Orn
o.41 ~ I W M~-ASURE'DWlTHOUT .
5 6 7 15 V
TRIM & S NKAC,4~-'9,'- ~--'-'~----~-----~"- "-- --'K------7" ' - - ' - - ~ . ~ T RIM
cOl._ TOWBOAT / / 7 - - r - - 7 ~ - ~T -_~.d'-'~ "~.~T'L:~.s0,~
PROPULSIONTESTS / ] / I I I t
S I NKAGE • F [ ~ I - ~V;;IRDOEMNTIHTRyUST -
RESISTANCE AND PROPULSION TESTS WITH BARC4E TRAIN

c::l I I
M-771 WATER DEPTH h: 5Ore
PD or
M-799 TOWBOAT WITHOUT
WPS
RUDDERS AND NOZZLES
n
CONVENTIONAL TOWBOAT
°.11 J -"
4000 DRAFT T :1.75 m
(2o .... CATAMARAN TOWBOAT 0.3Tc3.2o ~ " - -"- _. . . . .
DRAFT T:2.00 m m:.
QU,ASI-PROP ULSIVE
CQEFFICIENT I
3 0 0 0 -2OO
02 ' '

5O
, ?oo
EFFICIENCY ,"~";
/ 1,2 I -- "~ '"° '" '"" CO,r,
2000 !100 TL: 3.20m~...... ~ " ' ~ ' = =
(10oo)
¢~/ / 1OOO
1.1

1OOO

L
~ F F I ~
10[ 80m
TL=3 20

0
4 5 G
I 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 kVm/h
I

9
j

10
TL: B A R G E

11
i I
12
TRAIN DRAFT
I
13
i
14 V km.~

Comparison of resistance and propulsion tests [ 12], conventional Fig. 3 Self-propulsion test results [12], conventional and catamaran
Fig. 2
and catamaran towboats pushing a barge train towboats pushing a barge train

JULY 1983 211

 i
MEASUREMENT
PLANE h : 5.O0 m
PLANE h= 5 . 0 0 rn
TOW
£ CONV. CAT.
TL: 2 . 8 O m
V : 12.78 km/h
M 771 I t TL= 2 . 8 0 m

3.75m PROP. PROR BARGE

& &
4.50m LWL
p-
- - -o.~s L 4 ;] %~,r,? ~,
--" " TI;?I,,"; 't//i' :
A.4~b.Yl ,,, , ~' . . - p . 2 s -
~?
'. i
I(/! r-;
1,' ~ ----M ':O,80
t. .4
")5.f:°~-s,.: ' ~'o/I ,.', )1".1 ; Ifl*~°~." I
V~//v = O, 7 Fig. 7 Change in wake field ( Vpro - - Vno V for conventional towboat
Fig. 4 Wake field V a / V o f barge train without towboat measured at 0.4D ~t2]
ahead of propeller plane [12]

' ,i~..~-.J-~ ~I ..Z..____J~..=,,,"

M E ASUREM ENT MEASUREMENT
PLANEM771 i ~ I h : 5 . 0 0 rn i~ L I I I ~ I I
PLANE II h = 5.00m
TL: 2 . 8 0 m M 799 TL= 2 . S O m
• V -- 12.78 km/~ V = 12,78 kmjh
LWL

--~,1-I X ,", :,, ', :I :

• -O.15 _tl
2~1 ""1
/ /,
O,1-- 1>
II :~f
y ,,,x 0.2'-' Z,' 7 ~

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 Fig. 8 Change in wake field ( Vpro[o12]Vno prop)/Vfor catamaran towboat
[12]

, , ~ - - - ~ ....... ~
MEASUREMENT
P L A N E M 799
Lw
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
~
A V- Vwp -- Vnp
V (3)
h= 5.OO m
Tff 2.80 m
where
V :12.78 km/h
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 qua-
druple-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-pro-
pulsion test results for the towboat are summarized in Figs. 10
and 11. The more streamlined tow arrangement (~ in these fig-
ures 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 pro-
pulsive 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

212 MARINE TECHNOLOGY

 '1
o _ _ . o o
I/ li I TRA~ISQM 3
.~-/// Lw.._&L

L : 35.00m T : 1.70m C~
B : t4.95m g : 553.5m 3

... I 1 I 1 I li

14 15 16 17 18 19
:L20

0 1 2 3 4 5m
Fig. 9 Lines of VBD triple-screw towboat [13]

Table 2 Particulars of triple-screw towboat and barges [13]

Towboat Barge Qr-q ' i ', ~,

Length LWL, m 35.00 74.00

Beam, B, m 14.95 11.33
Draft, T, m 1.70 3.00
Displ., v , m a 553.50 2359.70

PROPELLER DESIGN
Diameter, D, m 2.10 o.2~- ~
Pitch/dia, P/D 1.052
Area Ratio, Ae/Ao 0.710 t T H R U S T DEDUCTION
Blade No., z 4
Rotation direction
from aft:
0.2 ~(~)

G ~ I I i.J
~ ! 'l
°-11- 1 I •
P~ ~T~ WT WAKE FRACTION
BARE
PS
5000
/sTep I L

n S o.~ -----~'t Q / " I

4000

3000
3OO
rpm

.200
20
WT MIDDLE
0.4

0.3
I P.O," CfO..~----~
I L _

10 17 14 VS km~l
/
/ 30 Fig. 11 Self-propulsion test results showing influence of barge train ar-
200C -1004--
rangement [13]: Triple-screw towboat pushing six-barge train for test
conditions shown in Fig. 10

4O
1 000 --0 1

% HRUST
Mp
I
I ~ . . Fig. 10 Resistance and propulsion tests for six-barge train pushed
10.0
5.0 v s Km~ by the triple-screw towboat in Fig. 9 [13]

213
JULY 1983
 I it_...... - .,,x.. ~r' ~ ], ~ ~ ~ ~ ,
MEASU~EMEN, --~ ~ L . - - L . J ~ L...J
PLANE I h = 5.O0 m

~ , 7 . g . t_..
" t - o j. , ' - 2 . 7"9,-~- 1~ P.~.,o.,,k
~<"-~ I,'' - " l/,7" ~ " C'_-I--~C
~ ~

-,
-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 pro-
peller 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
where
Va = local velocity seen by propeller
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 ar-
rangement, 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

MEASUREMENT

.PLA"E~, I i ---'. A' --:--/ 8] h=~.OOr.

L~i I i VS : 1 2 . 5 7 km h
~[ . n = 228 rprn

/ //l, rl/Jf ,I." " F\ ~i ,k'J~

.x ~ / _ L Z L A _ / " 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 i 1 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 re-
cently 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 .wL~
prepared design guidelines [6, 15, 19, 20[. Baier [6] used the
scheme shown in Fig. 17(a). In Bogdanov's book [15] a similar
I I I 7' ,111#1+
scheme is adopted along with the design recommendations in Fig. z i i I I li']'i,I..,,
17(b). Heuser [27] developed a more detailed scheme for the 0 N b,,+,
[ iZ
tunnel stern with nozzle propellers. This scheme is shown in Figs.
17(c-1) and 17(c-2) along with the design recommendations. Fig. 15 Lines of Model 1 [14]
Lederer [19] has developed a tunnel stern arrangement based on
the propeller diameter shown in Fig. 17(d). subsequent introduction of larger tows and more powerful tow-
Baier's 1959 paper [6] appears to be the main source of pub- boats. This update was accomplished with the cooperation of
lished data on tunnel stern designs used in contemporary U.S. several designers and towboat builders. Tunnel stern data fol-
towboat designs. However, it should be updated to reflect the lowing the characterization in Fig. 17(a) were collected for over

x L,..,. I I I I
II II
II II~ ii i
MI I! ilr--'*.//////~"
UOr!
L: : : : i iA~-i ... "
~r!!Itii
..-!! ~ ii

i i '.i
!l !! i!!! i! !!

b-.4,

!i !i Jilt !! !! !¢,0
, : 0,j

:: 0,7
Ii •iC~t l l i t lo.?l l t l l O.8 -- 0,~
0

Fig. 16 Variation of propeller performance at different channel depths h [14]. Notation: K1 = KT,
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 50 recently built towboats. The data are summarized in Table
3 [15-191.
PROPELLER
PLANE The following discussion of the trends in towboat tunnel stern
~ . , , , f ~ TUNNEL CE design makes use of the rsults from a subsequent study [20]
I FLECI'ION WL- I- completed after the original paper was presented at the Section
T T meeting.
I t It was found that the preliminary sizing of the towboat length
12 --I L and propeller diameter D can be estimated from the bhp/shaft
i
Ii [20]:
A L --TOWBOAT L E N G T H -~..p
L = 62.0 + 7.5X - 0.235X 1.s (5)
D = 3.5 + 0.35X - 0.05X 2 (6)
B) R E C O M M E N D E D VALUES B.V.BOGDANOV[15] where
0.33 ~ l l ~ S O.Z.5 6 _< ll/hT~ 7 0.I-< hT-T_<0.2 X - bhp/shaft
T 100.0
0.10_<12/{__< 0.20 12°_<O _< 15° O.05_<hTE-T<O.07
T 300 < bhp/shaft < 3240 hp
The tunnel stern height hT and arrangement can be developed
C-I)DUCTED PROPELLER T U N N E L from the guidelines in Fig. 17. As Fig. 18(a) shows, there is a trend
STERN DESIGN H. HEUSER[27] for the ratio D/hT to decrease from a value of 0.94 at 1500
bhp/shaft to 0.90 at 3200 bhp/shaft.
t ~11~l-" 12~1-13-1 Vibration from inadequate water inflow/outflow in the tunnel
_Y__ / I "1 ,I is a design problem Baler treated [6]. Baler showed that two
towboats which had excessive vibration, Nos. 42 and 62 in Table
IC 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]:
~t 4 ;-l~)-I z5 N9 ]
bhp/shaft [bhp/shaft]
16 0 T2 230.0 + 20.86 [ ~ I (7)
12 m_<L_<40 m 0,42 _< I6/L_<0,58 5,4 -<16/D~:7,3 A simpler guideline developed by Latorre uses the "tunnel flow
L/B_>I.60 0.80-< 15116<-0.90 1.0_<14/D_<2.0 angles" 01 and 02 defined using the notation of Fig. 17(a) as
MINIMUM VALUES 13/~D_>0.75 12/1~ 1.30 01 = tan-1 [_-~-~j
h/1 inflow tunnel angle (8)
t = O.lOm
hT-D = O.15m 15°-<O<'25° Oo<12°
Ih - q
02 = tan -1 [ - - 1 ~ - 2 [ outflow tunnel angle (9)

C-2) D U C T E D PROPELLER T U N N E L The data in Table 3 were used to prepare Figs. 19(a) and 19(b).
S T E R N DESIGN H. H E U S E R 1271 These figures indicate that contemporary towboat designs use
0 angles larger than Bagdonov's recommended 0 _< 15 deg. The
I data are in better agreement with Heuser's recommendation that
IZL-I. o2 i, 15 d e g < 0 _< 25 deg.
The limiting value of 01/0 in Fig. 19(a) is given by
-w "WL--
01/0 < 1.14 - 0.018 0 < 1.0 (10)
The towboat designs exhibiting severe vibration are shown in this
figure before and after redesign. For towboat 42, the value 01/0
propeller separation = 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
b2
0.02_<R/B<_0.04 0.52 <_b2/B<_ 0.57 bl/D ~ 0.52 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,
MINIMUM VALUES al_< 22° a2_< 19° which is above the guideline given by equation (10). This is the
t = O.10m tl = 0.20rn reason why there was no improvement in towboat vibration after
redesign.
The limiting value of 02/0 in Fig. 19(b) is given by
D) D U C T E D PROPELLER TUNNEL
S T E R N DESIGN A.LEDERER [191 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
PROPELLER PITCH P/D = 1.094 refinement. In the interterm they represent a simple way to check
whether there will be adequate inflow and outflow in the tunnel
Fi@. 17 Characterizationof river towboat tunnel stern [6, 15-19, 27] stern.

216 MARINE TECHNOLOGY

 Table 3 Summary of river towboat tunnel [6, 15-18] (notation in Fig. 17)

Towboat Prop. bhp Type Code L, T, ll, 12, hT, 0, Prop. Dia,
No. No. Shaft Tunnel (Fig. 18) ft ft ft ft ft deg ft Notes

1 1 1500 ()pen [] 105.00 7.50 48.00 11.00 7.92 16 ...

2 2 205 KN • 64.00 5.50 26.25 6.50 5.50 26.0
3 2 290 KN • 70.00 5.83 27.20 7.00 4.68 21.5 4125
4 2 300 open O 70.00 5.83 27.20 7.00 4.68 21.5 4.25
5 2 300 + 65.60 3.60 22.30 7.87 4.37 ... 3.93
6 2 425 KN • 70.00 5.83 27.20 7.00 4.68 21.5 4.25
7 2 460 ... + 84.00 5.24 40.30 11.35 5.67 ... 4.92
8 2 465 ... h 82.02 5.08 36.09 9.97 6.24 20.0 ... VBD Model i ~ : 815
9 2 465 ... ,x 49.21 4.92 26.80 6.23 5.37 25.0 ... VBD Model No. 816
10 2 470 ... + 59.06 5.41 27.75 6.10 5.55 ... 5.08
11 2 475 + 60.04 4.60 30.00 3.56 5.88 ... 4.92
12 2 490 KI~ $ 90.00 7.50 40.00 8.75 6.56 18.5 6.00
13 2 500 KN • 146.00 6.00 58.00 10.00 6.25 11.0
14 2 525 + 142.72 4.10 57.10 9.50 4.75 ... 4142
15 2 600 KI~ • 120.00 6.50 50.00 14.17 6.50 18.0
16 2 600 ... + 74.15 6.40 33.37 8.21 6.80 ...
17 2 620 ... + 112.20 5.25 38.15 14.30 5.30 ... 5.02
18 2 630 ... + 118.11 5.41 53.15 15.69 6.81 ... 5.74
19 2 630 ... + 118.11 6.07 53.15 14.19 8.46 ... 5.90
20 2 640 KN • 115.00 6.50 42.00 12.00 6.50 16.0
21 2 750 + 125.00 5.90 45.00 12.34 7.25 ... 6140
22 2 765 KI~ • 50.00 7.50 40.00 8.75 6.56 18.5 6.00
23 2 800 open [] 110.00 6.50 44.00 9.50 7.33 18.5
24 2 800 KN • 132.25 6.75 52.00 12.50 7.85 15.0 71()(J
25 2 877 ... zx 114.70 5.74 49.63 12.60 7.17 17.5 6.89 VBD Model 1~o: 771 (Fig. 1 )
26 2 877 ... h 114.70 5.74 59.22 12.59 7.50 12.5 ... VBD Model No. 789
27 2 900 open [] 135.00 6.00 42.00 11.17 6.42 17.5 6.42
28 2 900 open [] 120.00 7.50 42.00 12.00 8.25 24.0
29 2 900 KN O 105.00 9.00 54.50 12.29 7.81 14.75 7166
30 2 900 ... + 100.40 4.75 39.15 11.36 6.31 ... 5.90
31 2 900 + 118.44 5.58 41.45 12.90 6.79 ... 6.23
32 2 1200 K~q • 142.00 7.00 56,00 13.00 7.83 19.0 ...
33 2 1200 open [] 130.00 7.00 44.00 12.00 7.75 20.0
34 2 1280 KN • 148.00 8.33 62.00 15.21 9.02 16.0 815()
35 2 1400 KN • 160.00 8.00 56.00 16.00 9.00 21.0 ...
36 2 1475 open [] 117.50 7.50 47.50 15.00 7.50 14.0
37 2 1500 KN • 165.00 8.17 49.50 14.00 8.75 17.0 81]'i
38 2 1600 + 129.92 8.00 54.56 11.44 8.80 ... 7.51
39 2 1640 K]~ • 140.00 7.50 58.00 18.00 9.25 15.0
40 2 1640 KN • 148.00 8.33 62.00 15.21 9.02 16.0 8:5"
41 2 1750 KN • 165.00 8.17 49.50 14.00 8.75 17.0 8.17
42 2 1920 ()pen O 150.00 6.58 53.00 12.00 9.0 22.0 ... Serious Vibration [6]
43 2 1920 open O 166.00 7.38 69.00 17.00 8.76 15.0 ... Redesign of 42 [6]
44 2 2000 KN • 160.00 7.75 56.00 17.00 10.08 19.5 .
45 2 2000 KN • 200.00 9.00 80.00 20.00 10.79 17.5 101(J
46 2 2160 KN • 148.00 8.33 62.00 15.21 9.02 16.0 8.5
47 2 2160 KN • 168.00 8.44 70.92 14.17 10.02 14.0 9.0
48 2 2160 KN • 164.00 8.50 74.00 17.00 9.67 18.0 9.09
49 2 2160 KN • 150.00 8.35 64.50 15.33 9.85 15.0 9.0
50 2 2180 ()pen O 138.00 9.00 52.00 10.00 9.50 17.0 8.5
51 2 2240 open O 150.00 8.50 52.00 12.00 9.00 17.0 8.33
52 2 2500 KN • 170.00 9.06 63.50 16.50 10.25 17.0 9.16
53 2 2575 KN • 166.00 8.35 70.50 16.25 10.75 15.0 9.75
54 2 2600 KN • 168.00 8.44 70.92 14.17 10.02 14.0 9.00
55 2 2600 KN • 150.00 8.35 64.50 15.33 9.85 15.0 9,00
56 2 2875 KN • 145.00 9.00 54.90 15,50 10.50 20.5 9.16
57 2 3000 KN • 168.00 8.44 70.92 14.17 10.02 14.0 9.00
58 2 3000 KN • 200.00 9.00 80.00 20.00 10.79 17.5 10.00
59 2 3200 KN • 192.00 8.75 82.00 22.25 11.15 15.0 10.00
60 2 3225 KN • 180.00 8.85 73.50 19.00 11.04 15.0 10.00
61 2 3240 KN • 145.00 9.00 54.50 15.50 10.50 20.5 9.16
62 3 480 open ~ 115.00 3.50 39.42 14.78 4.83 11.0 ... Serious Vibration [6]
63 3 480 open ~ 115.00 4.5 39.42 14.78 4.83 11.0 ... Redesign of 62 [6]
64 3 657.8 ... v 114.83 7.35 55.77 14.37 7.82 16.5 VBD Model No. 863
65 3 953 v 114.83 6.89 45.21 12.41 7.81 19.0 6189 VBD Model No. 838 (Fig. 9)
66 3 1600 i(I~l [] 150.00 8.00 59.00 16.50 8.75 16.5
67 3 2875 KN O 180.00 9.00 61.00 16.50 10.5 17.0 911'6

I~EY TO SYMBOL CODE

No. Ref. [ 6 1 [16], [17] [18] [15]

Propellers open a KN b open KN

1 []
2 D • 0 t A -}-
3 [] [] O v

a open: propeller without nozzle.

b KN: propeller in Kort nozzle.

JULY 1983 217

 ..L
CO

l r , , i I I I ,

DpROP
' I i I i ! i u i i i i n I I
e e~
hT 'IRI~/EIRTOWBOAT DESIGN X --- ~-= ~.14- o.o18.e
1.0 ~)DpR°P/hT VS B H P / s H A F T
1.0~
z~ ---,,,,,,,,..,,~
[]
• , 0 O
0.9 "~ --....
,I- 4,
0
0.9 ~o'~. o+ 0.8
• • -'a-- -----_
~ ~ +
÷
03 o ~
0.~,,, , ,,,, ,,, , .... I I I I I I I I I i I , 0.6 []
0 500 1000 1500 2000 2500 3O0O
0.5
BH P/SHAF T
I I ~ I I I I

O BHP/ 2 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25
~-#Ep / T
i ~ i , , i n I f I I I I I I I 1 I I I v I I I
0 DEG.
1200 ,RIVER TOWBOA[ DES]GN
(~) BHP
0. SHAF_~___~Tvs BHP/sHAFT
lO00 T2 1.0 - ' R I'E'v R T'o W B O' A T ' D E' S I G N' ' ' ' ' ' I
BHP , ~ , f
. ® o2/o v~ o
J ° 02 !
__ ~ s~___~: ~o.o, ~o.~q~ __ __ ~.-- = 1.01-0.048550-0.00117402__0.0000093 e3
J I • 0.8
800
REDESIGN J
I
°

3
, j .6 -
60C i i r f-
• - - ° i ~ -
J •
J < • 0 q
- 0 j
•)
• 0.4 i
40C
REDESIGN/ P • REDESIGN
- ~,~1 • []
~1 mm 0 I
0.2 • V I

200 I • []
"I eL

m
--I
m I i I I I I I I I I 1 I i I I I I I I I I t I I I I I I I I I I
o 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25
"r 0
Z
500 1000 1500 2000 2500 3000
0 @ DEG
t-
O
BHP//sHA F T
.< Fig. 18 Trends in river towboat tunnel stern design Fig. 19 Relationship of tunnel stern inflow angle O1 and outflow angle O 2
 Estimating tow resistance and towboat push Kf
FASTENING COEFE Kf
1.0 ,,~,,,,,ASA FUNCTION OF
Rationale. Often the question is asked: " W h y do we have to
BARGE TRAIN
know the tow resistance and towboat push?" The answer to this 0.9
is simply that they are required to estimate the preliminary
still-water speed. 0.8
The resistance of a given barge tow is a direct function of its 0.7
speed. The effective push for a given towboat will also be a direct
function of its total horsepower and speed. 0.6
For efficient operation the barge tow and towboat must be in
equilibrium so 0.5 i-= E FN-7 ~
BARGE
EP = RT (12) 2- LOADED BARGE
l i l i l ....
where R T is the resistance of the barge train in pounds and E P I0 20 30
is the effective push of towboat in pounds. BARGE NUMBER
The speed resulting from equation (12) is the design speed for Fig. 20 Fastening coefficient Kt as a function of tow size [22]
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]. nl -- number of loaded barges
Studies on barge train tow resistance. Researchers have ri = individual barge specific resistance, lb-sec2/ft 2
developed mathematical models and equations to use in pre- r = specific resistance of each vessel, towboat/barge, lb-
dicting barge train tow resistance. Many of the major barge line sec2/ft 2
companies have made model tests to predict the resistance of a B = beam (width) of vessel, ft
particular barge two used in a dedicated trade, to enable them T = draft of vessel, ft
to maximize the efficiency of the towboat to be used. L = length of vessel, ft
Comprehensive studies for predicting barge tow resistance CB = block coefficient = v / L B T
where published by Howe [21] and Bronzini [22]. K c = resistance coefficient
Howe deveh)ped a resistance equation where the two resistance v = displacement of vessel, ft 3
is a quadratic function of tow speed. This equation was developed
from data taken from tow movements, towboat log books, model This formula does not directly account for the waterway depth
tests, and tests with 195 by 95-ft barge tow arrangements. The or channel width. There are corrections for shallow water to use
equation is given as with this formulation.
Figures 21, 22, and 23 are examples of model test results. Such
R T = 0.07289e l"46/(h-T)V2TO6+50/(W-B)LO3sBl'19 (13)
tank tests are usually made to answer specific questions. This
where enables the sponsoring companies to maximize towboat efficiency
during the preliminary design.
R T = total barge train tow resistance, lb Figure 24 presents the barge train resistance curves developed
e = base of natural log = 2.71828 by one of the authors from empirical and full-scale test data.
h = channel depth, ft These curves show the tow resistance versus the theoretical
T = uniform barge draft, ft still-water speed for a semi-integrated 15-barge tow in deep (45
V = still-water tow speed, mph ft) and shallow (16 ft) water.
W = width of waterway, ft Studies on towboat push and thrust. It was pointed out
B = overall width of barge tow, ft- earlier t h a t the effective towboat push and thrust are directly
L = overall length of barge tow, ft functions of towboat horsepower and speed.
In [21] and [22] empirical formulas were published to estimate
Bronzini developed a resistance speed function combining both
the towboat push. In [21] Howe's equation for the effective push
empirical and theoretical results [22]. The following is taken from
appears as follows:
[22]:
RT = r/V 2 = TF (14) E P = 31.82 H P - 0.0039 hp 2
+ (0.38 hp)h - 172.05 V 2 - 1.14V - H P (19)
r/ = K / ~ ri (15)
t
where
EP = effective push, lb
r = O . O l l 8 B T 2/5 L + 70.5 L - : ~ / V l_--2~RIK c (16)
HP = towboat horsepower, hp
K c = 2.42C~ - 3.43c~+ 1.34 (17) h = waterway depth, ft
V = still-water equilibrium tow speed, mph
K / = n~,K/,, + n l K / 1 (18) This equation was based on d a t a from typical diesel-powered
n 3 + n]
towboats.
where In [22] the thrust force of the towboat is given by
R T = total barge train resistance, lb T F = 26.4 hp (20)
r~ = total specific barge train tow resistance, lb-sec2/ft 2
T F = thrust force of towboat, lb where T F is the thrust fbrce produced by the towboat in pounds
V = still-water speed, fps and hp is the towboat horsepower. Notice t h a t this equation is
K / = fastening coefficient, Fig. 20 not a direct function of the towboat speed.
K/e = fastening empty barge coefficient, Fig. 20 Figure 25 was developed by one of the authors for a typical
K/1 = fastening loaded barge coefficient, Fig. 20
twin-screw 5600-hp towboat with ll0-in.-dia 5-bladed propellers
ne = number of empty barges operating in K o r t nozzles. This figure shows the towboat push

219
JULY 1983
 RESISTANCE TEST RESISTANCE TEST 6 x 5 TOW
150 WATER DEPTH h = 16 ft.
BARGE DRAFTT = 9ft. /
KEY
-
RESISTANCE OF
/
/ EHP

BARGE DRAFT T = 9 f t 2000

2~ TOWBOAT /
(BEHIND BARGES) /
100

RT I 2, 3,~
~80
",c 150 1000
~'60 KIPS
C9
z
~4o
t~

I00 - 0
a:20 2
\ , 2\ 3\

50
/ / / i --12 ft
-50 I 1 I I I RT r ~ . 1 " 2--/6ft .
4 5 6 7 8 9 0 L-/ 3 - - 2 4 ft
STILL WATER SPEED, MPH
Fig. 21 Model resistance test results for towboat with a fully integrated
barge tow 970 ft long by 105 ft wide i t 1 t t I
3 4 5 6 7 8 MPH
STILL WATER SPEED
Fig. 23 Model resistance test results for twin-screw towboat with a 6 X
RESISTANCE TEST 6x3 TOW 5 barge tow at different water depths

3000 as a function of still-water speed. It is based on empirical and

TWIN SCREW TOWBOAT / full-scale data.
LOADED BARGES T = 9 f t /
EHP WATER DEPTH h = 16ft / 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 fol-
KEY / lowing:

cuRv __/ /
I--EHP CURVE / RT 1. Howe's equations (12), (13), and (19)
2-RESISTA NCE / 2. Bronzini's equations (14), (15) and (20) to obtain (21):
20(% 150
V= ~.4 _hp (21)
KIPS
~/ KI ~i ri
I where V is the tow speed in unrestricted water. The speed V has
to be then corrected for shallow water.
I000 - I00 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.
50 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 t I I I I 0 For the tow arrangement we have:

4 5 6 7 8 9 MPH L = 975 ft = overall length of tow
STILL WATER SPEED B = 105 ft = overall width of tow
Fig. 22 Model resistance test results for twin-screw towboat with a 6 X T --- 9 ft -- draft of loaded barges assumed to be uniform
3 barge tow
T = 1.5 ft = draft of empty barges assumed to be uniform

220 MARINE TECHNOLOGY

 ESTIMATED TOW RESISrANCE 5 x 3 TOW PUSH[ ESTIMATED TOWBOAT PUSH EP
EP I

I T Y P I C A L 5600 HP TWIN SCREW TOWBOAT

KIPS [ 1601 KORI" NOZZLE PROPELLERS IIOinch PROP. DIA
I L I
160 KE Y BARGE WATER ,
DRAFT DEPTH i

loaded shallow
140 I T=gft h=16ft 2 - - shallow h = 16ft
2 loaded deep
T =9 ft h = 45ft 1 2 0 ~
3 empty shallow
120 T= 1.5ft h=16ft
4 empty deep
T = 1.5 ft h = 45ft
I00 L =975 ft
B = IO 5 ft

80
6O
60

40
2O
20
I I I I t I
0 2 4 6 8 l0 12 14
STILL WATER SPEED MPH
0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 Fig, 25 Authors' estimate of towboat push for a typical 5600-bhp twin-
STILL WATER SPEED MPH screw towboat; five-bladed propellers 110 in. dia operating in a Kort
Fig. 24 Authors' resistance estimate for 5 X 3 barge tow nozzle

For the approach in [22] it is necessary to specify the fol- Table 4 Comparison of 15-barge tow, still-water speed, mph
lowing:
Deep Water, Shallow Water,
CB B T L Tempty Method h = 45 ft h = 16 ft
Towboat 0.65 48.0 9.0 145 Loaded Empty Loaded Empty
Barge 0.90 35.0 9.0 195 115 Barges Barges Barges Barges
Howe [20]a 10.9 7.9 12.9
From Fig. 20: Sronzini [21]b 10.68 13:36 8.68 12.55
Authors 'c 9.8 13.25 7.3 10.75
K/loaded barge = 0.6
K/empty barge = 0.82 NOTES:
K/towboat = 0.6 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.
Finally, the shallow-water correction eh is given by c Deep water Fig. 28, shallow water Fig. 29.

Y s h a l t o w w a t e r ---- eh V
where
(
eh = 1 + 0.0697T
F (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 es-
timates. 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 horse-
power. Also, none of the methods give consideration to the pro-
(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
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 tow-
boat are established. The operational area is also normally
specified.

JULY 1983 221

 EP HOWE'S SPEED FUNCTION[21] DEEP WATER HOWE'S SPEED FUNCTION[21] SHALLOW WATER
RT 5600 HPTOWBOAT WITH 5x3TOW 5600 HP TOWBOAT W1TH 5 x 3 T O W

160
I L I /
KIPS

140
~ . ~ , . _
I
E P = R T eq.(12)
V= 10.9 mDh
/ KEg
I TOWBOAT EP eq.(19)
2 TOW RT T=gfteq.(13) loaded
KEY 3 TOWR 1 T=l.5ft eq.(13)empty
120 L=975 ft B= 105It h = l g f t
I TOWBOAT EP eq.(t9) EP
2 TOWR T T=gfteq.(13) loaded RT
100 3 TOWR T T = l . 5 f t eq.(13)empty
100
I
L=975 ft
KIPSI
B = 105 i t
80 h = 45 ft 8o : R T eq.(12)
2
\
60 60

40
40

20
2O

I-~-----r--- I I I I I
--.-'~-----i~-~ I I I I I
0 2 6 4 8 10 12 MPHI4 0 2 4 6 8 10 12
14
STILL WATER SPEED MPH
Fig. 26 Howe's speed function (towboat push and resistance estimate) STILL WATER SPEED
for a 5 X 3 barge tow in deep water, h = 45 ft, pushed by a 5600-hp Fig. 27 Howe's speed function (towboat push and resistance estimate)
towboat for a 5 X 3 barge tow in shallow water, h = 16 ft, pushed by a 5600-hp
towboat

The power produced by the engines minus transmission losses mph. The question is: Which speed will we select as the design
must match the power absorbed by the propeller. This engine- speed for the towboat barge system and propeller(s) design?
propeller matching specifies the propeller rpm at which the (a) If we design for 13.25 mph, the towboat is going to push
propeller will absorb the horsepower delivered by the engines to the empty barge train at that speed. When the towboat pushes
propel the tow at a fixed towing speed. the loaded barge tow, the tow resistance will be much higher than
For this discussion we will consider a common coal-moving the towboat push.
operation on the Ohio River. The 5600-hp towboat pushes a (b) If we design for the 9.8 mph, the towboat is going to push
t5-barge tow (5 long by 3 wide due to lock and dam size restric- the loaded barge train only at that speed. When the towboat
tions). The towboat and barge characteristics are summarized pushes the empty barges then at 9.8 mph, the towboat push ca-
in Table 5. pability will be much higher than the tow resistance.
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. In both cases, one condition will not be satisfied. The solution
Consider the author's speed function in Fig. 28 for deep-water to this problem is given in the following subsection on matching
operation. As this figure indicates, the towboat will be able to the engine and propeller.
push the loaded barges at 9.8 mph and the empty barges at 13.25 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 character-
Table 5 Towboat and barge particulars istics, limitations, and power curves are known. Some propeller
characteristics can be established. Normally the diameter is made
Towboat Barge as large as the space behind the hull allows, the nmnber of pro-
peller blades is chosen to minimize vibration excitation, and the
Length, L, ft 145.0 195.0 area ratio is selected for satisfactory loading and minimum cav-
Beam, B, ft 48.0 35.0 itation.
Depth, D, ft 11.5 12.0
Draft, T, ft 9.0 9.0 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
PROPELLER 5 blades gear ratio is 4.192:1, giving a propeller rpm = 215. Assuming 2.5
Diameter in 110 percent losses at the gear, then the shaft horsepower is
Twin-screw fixed-pitch, with Kort nozzles
Wake fraction, w = 0.18
Thrust Ded., t = 0.145 shp = 2915 × 0.975 = 2842 hp
ENGINES
Two Alco 16V-251F diesel engines Because of the high horsepower it can be anticipated t h a t the
Rating: 2915 bhp at 900 rpm (MCR) blade area of the propeller will be large. A 4-bladed propeller is
Gear: Falk 3040 MR not practical and for this reason the 5-bladed propeller is
4.192:1 reduction ratio used.

222 MARINE TECHNOLOGY

 AUTHOR'S SPEED FUNCTION DEEP WATER AUTHOR'S SPEED FUNCTION SHALLOW WATER
EP 5600 HPTOWBOAT WITH 5x3 TOW 5600 HPTOWBOAT WITH 5 x 3 TOW
R[ -i-

160
_ l-- L l
KIPS KEY FIG
140 I TOW BOAT EP 26
EP 2 TOW RT T = 9 f t 25 loaded
V=9.SMPH R[ 3 TOWR T T=1.5 25 empty
120 120 L=975ft B= 105ft h= 16ft
KEY FIG
EP= RT KIPS
I TOWBOAT EP 26 \
I00
2 TOW RT T : 9 f t 25 loaded 100
EP =R T
3 TOWR T T = l . 5 f t 25 empty ~/~.._._______.___ eq (12)
80 L=975ft 80 V=
B = 105ft
h = 45 ft
2 V=
60 60 2

40 40 3

20 20

l I I I I I
0 2 4 6 8 10 12Mp H 14 0 2 4 6 8 I0 12Mp H 14
STILL WATER SPEED STILL WATER SPEED
Fig. 28 Authors' speed function (towboat push and resistance estimate) Fig, 29 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 for a 5 X 3 barge tow in shallow water, h = 16 ft, pushed by a 5600-hp
towboat 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 en-
gine 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 to-
gether 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 pro-
peller 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 oper-
ating efficiency.
(a) First, consider designing the propeller pitch for 13.25 mph
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 op-
eration 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

JULY 1983 223

 3200 ENGINE-PROPELLER MATCHING ENGINE-PROPELLER MATCHING
DESIGN PROPELLER PITCH DESIGN OFF-DESIGN OPERATION
HP PROPELLER ABSORBS AT(~') MATCH 3200 -MATCH POINT (~(RPM LIMITED)
2842 HP :POINT@ DESIGN
2800 HP TOWBOAT PUSHING
EMPTY 5 x 3 TOW MATC H
KEY , N_____[[
PO I (~
I DIESE 2800
KEY / LOADED
2400 2 PROPE TOW
I DIESEL SHP /
V=9.8 MPH
2400 2 OFF-DESIGN /
PROPELLER L O A D /
2000

2000 /
I c
1600 MATCH

1600
1200

1200
800

800
400
900 ENGINE
400
, , , I RtPM
0 50 I00 150 200215 250 300 900 ENGINE
PROPELLER RPM I I l I I RPMI
Fig. 30 Illustration of towboat engine-propellermatching hp versusrpm 0 50 100 150 200 215 250 300
plot PROPELLER RPM
Fig. 32 Engine-propellermatch 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
ENGINE-PROPELLER MATCHING
OFF-DESIGN OPERATION factors are fixed so the propeller pitch has to be selected to m a t c h
3200 MATC H POINT (~(OVERLOAD) the propeller to the m a x i m u m o u t p u t of the engines.
DESIGN W i t h the following data, the propeller design can be com-
HP TOWBOAT PUSHING
LOADED 5x3TOW MArC H pleted:
PO 'NT(~)
2800 shp = 2842 hp
MATCH POINT (~) EMPTY
TOW tIT --97 p e r c e n t (3 p e r c e n t loss in shafting)
KEY V=I3.25MPP dhp = shp ~T = 2759 hp
2400 towboat
I DIESEL SHP
speed V = 9.8 m p h or 9.8 × 0.8684 = 8.5 knots
2 OFF-DESIGN
w = 0.18
PROPELLER
2000

)
LOAD T h e following are calculated:

1600
/ Va = V(1 - w) = 8.5(1 - 0.18) = 6.97 knots
N - d h p °5 _ 88 (24)
Bp - Va2.5
NP
1200 = ~ = 282.77 (25)

With the aid of systematic ducted propeller tests of the B-series

800 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
So the propeller pitch for D = 110 in. is 102.3 in.
900 ENGINE T o c o m p l e t e the design, routine cavitation and s t r e n g t h cal-
1 I I i I RIPM culations are required. F r o m Fig. 28 at 9.8 m p h the total resis-
0 50 100 150 200 215 250 300 t a n c e or towboat push is 93 000 lb or 46 500 lb/shaft.
PROPELLER RPM F r o m e q u a t i o n (7):
Fig. 31 Illustration of engine being overloaded (torque limited) when R = EP = (1 - t ) T (26)
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 where

224 MARINE TECHNOLOGY

 --I.0
--0.9R

__o
R

/ / /
--0.7

--0.6 II

--0.5

--0.4 R
--0.3 ',, /
--0.2 R

] PITCH DISTRIBUTION / ! ~
1 p(R)/%a× ± ; ..... L
Fig. 33 Typical towboat propeller

R = resistance, lb KTrD 2
t = thrust deduction Ao ~ - - (31)
4
T = thrust = R / ( 1 - t) = 54.386 lb/shaft
where K = 1.04 with nozzle and K = 1 without nozzle:
The static pressure taken at the propeller centerline is given
by Ao = 1.04 X 7r × 9.1672 = 68.63 ft 2
4
Po - Pv = 14.45 + 0.45h psi (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. Ap = 51.7__6_6= 0.754
The dynamic pressure corresponding to the relative velocity Ao 68.63
VR at 0.7 radius is From Taylor's approximate formula [23]:
qT = 1/2pVR 2 = (Va)2 I- (nD)2 (28) A__~p= 1.067 - 0.229 X P
(7.12) (329) AD D
= 36.85 psi AD is the developed area of the blades in feet:
where
Ap 1.067 X 0.229 X 0.93 0.854
Va = local velocity, knots AD
n = propeller rpm SO

D = propeller diameter, ft
Ao = ~ = 60.61 ft 2 (32)
The local cavitation number is then [23]: 0.854
Po - P~ 16.187 and the developed area ratio:
o - - = 0.439 (29)
qr 36.85 AD 60.61
- = 0.883
For the twin-screw towboat with such highly loaded propellers Ao 68.63
operating inside Kort nozzles, it will be assumed that there is a Figure 33 shows a typical towboat propeller designed from
7.5 percent cavitation on the back of the propeller blades. these criteria. Unlike recent oceangoing ship propellers, there is
Keeping the propeller blade loading within 6.5 to 7.5 psi and using
no blade skew or rake used in order to have good backing per-
the Burrill chart [23], the value of ~"is
formance. In conventional towboat propeller designs the pitch
T/Ap at the blade tip is reduced as in Fig. 33 on the assumption that
T-
- 0.198 (30) the blade tip speed could cause excessive cavitation. This still
QT
requires clarification. With the potential higher performance
where T is the thrust in pounds and Ap is the projected area in from loading the blade tip, there is an incentive not to reduce the
square feet. pitch at the blade tip. For propellers designed for higher horse-
Therefore
power, the blade tip area increases and the tip region becomes
T / A p = QT X 0.198 more square, resembling a Kaplan-type blade with rounded
corners.
= 7.3 psi (blade loading)
and Conclusions
--
T =
54 386 This paper presents a discussion on towboat hull and propul-
Ap QT X 0.198 36.85 X 0.198 X 144 sion design. A review of recent European research on towboat hull
= 51.76~2 form is presented to illustrate the influences of limited water
depth, the barge train wake, nozzle propellers, and the arrange-
The propeller disk area is then ment of the barges on the towboat propulsive performance.

JULY 1983 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 cal-
culations.
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 con-
ventional 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 intro-
duced.
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
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
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,"
The Work Boat, Vol. 38, No. 4, April, 1981, pp. 42-43.
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 Ship-
building 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 transla-
tion: [26].
12 Luthra, G., "Investigation of the Wake Distribution of a Towboat
Pushing a Barge Train," HANSA, Vol. 3, No. 18, Sept. 1974, pp. 1515-
1521 (in German); English translation: [25].
13 Luthra, G., "Investigation of the Wakefield of Triple and Qua-
druple 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 In-
teraction 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., Jef-
fersonville, 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 Wa-
terway Port Model: Design, Development, and Methodology," Trans-
portation Center, University of Tennessee, Final Report Contract MA-
79-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-e-
lected 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 Schub-
booten Versuchsanstalt fur Binnenschiffbau e.V.," Bericht No. 853a, Dec.
1977.
28 Marbury, F., "Least-Energy Operation of River Shipping," MA-
RINE TECHNOLOGY,Vol. 16, No. 2, April 1979, pp. 136-155.
MARINE TECHNOLOGY