Sailing yacht - Estimating ballast bulb added resistance?

Discussion in 'Hydrodynamics and Aerodynamics' started by Claudio Valerio Parboni, Apr 28, 2021.

  1. Claudio Valerio Parboni
    Joined: Jul 2018
    Posts: 16
    Likes: 0, Points: 1
    Location: Roma

    Claudio Valerio Parboni Junior Member

    Dear all,

    I am trying to estimate the resistance added from a bulb on a sailing yacht in upright resistance.
    • I have bare hull resistance calculated from maxsurf resistance
    • I have calculated appendage added resistance with the methods described in the book "Aero-Hydrodynamics and the performance of sailing yachts" by Fabio Fossati
    • I am now attempting to estimate the added resistance from the bulb
    • Fossati's book says that there are some sistematic series in developement (book is from 2009 - I wonder if they are public now...) and that currently there are no immediate or mathematical methods of estimation without recurring to CFD or Tow-tank testing.
    • Having calculated only rudder and the keel's fin resistance, I imagine that tip vortex and boundary effect on the bulb changes drastically, which puts another unknown in my research.
    • I have looked left and right, but I couldn't find anything, I am just wondering if I am missing something stupidly obvious or if it actually is a complex issue.
    • If you are wondering, I am assuming the bulb is a NACA section in profile, with round section shape (to simplify things, I know bulbs are shaped slightly different).
    Thank you in advance,

    Claudio Parboni
     
  2. Alik
    Joined: Jul 2003
    Posts: 2,974
    Likes: 279, Points: 93, Legacy Rep: 1306
    Location: Thailand

    Alik Senior Member

    Take any book on hydrodynamics or aerodynamics, there are plenty of formulas for stealmiled bodies, such as bulb.
    When I developed my VPP 25+ years ago, I just programmed one of these formulas... from Russian reference book.
     
  3. DCockey
    Joined: Oct 2009
    Posts: 4,936
    Likes: 457, Points: 83, Legacy Rep: 1485
    Location: Midcoast Maine

    DCockey Senior Member

    A common but bad assumption is to try to estimate the resistance of a body of revolution using the resistance of a 2D section with the same cross section. The velocity and pressure distribution around the body of revolution and the 2D section will be fundamentally different with lower peak velocity and minimum pressure around the body of revolution. If the bulb was not attached to the keel and has a long, tapered after-body then the drag coefficient based on frontal area due to the pressure variation around the body will probably be less than 0.010 as long as the leeway angle is not too large. The skin friction resistance due to the shear stress at the surface needs to be added to the pressure resistance.

    But a keel bulb is not isolated; it is attached to the keel. This means the flow will be altered by the presence of the keel which will influence separation and possible vortices along the junction. The shape of the junction between the keel and bulb is critical, probably more critical than the shape of the bulb itself.
     

  4. Dolfiman
    Joined: Aug 2017
    Posts: 1,343
    Likes: 555, Points: 113
    Location: France

    Dolfiman Senior Member

    In my home-made VPP (SA-VPP), and with reference to Hoerner Fluid Dynamic Drag, I use the formula (28) in 6-17 (Drag of streamlined bodies) , giving the equivalent friction coefficient for the total drag, based on wetted area :
    Cdwet/Cf = 1 + 1,5 (d/l)^1,5 + 7 (d/l)^3
    About the bulb/wing interaction, the issue is discussed in 7-7 (Wing-tip tanks) : on the one hand, you have an increase of the aspect ratio of the keel wing, on the other hand you can have parasitic drag due to interference between bulb and wing tip. So, in absence of either a sophisticated design of the bulb/wing interface and/or a dedicated CFD computation, one can wisely consider that pro and con effects just compensate.
    About the bulb shape with rounded section, the basic approach is to use the Naca 4 digits formulation but with x^1,5
     
Loading...
Similar Threads
  1. Dolfiman
    Replies:
    0
    Views:
    809
  2. Dolfiman
    Replies:
    6
    Views:
    1,301
  3. craphy
    Replies:
    1
    Views:
    2,216
  4. Rich_Hamer
    Replies:
    17
    Views:
    3,263
  5. Manfred.pech
    Replies:
    7
    Views:
    1,833
  6. Dolfiman
    Replies:
    3
    Views:
    1,242
  7. lunatic
    Replies:
    39
    Views:
    4,911
  8. TANSL
    Replies:
    40
    Views:
    4,622
  9. DouglasEagleson
    Replies:
    0
    Views:
    1,437
  10. Konstanty
    Replies:
    28
    Views:
    11,344
Forum posts represent the experience, opinion, and view of individual users. Boat Design Net does not necessarily endorse nor share the view of each individual post.
When making potentially dangerous or financial decisions, always employ and consult appropriate professionals. Your circumstances or experience may be different.