0
Article

Frictional Resistance of Antifouling Coating Systems

[+] Author and Article Information
Michael P. Schultz

Department of Naval Architecture and Ocean Engineering, United States Naval Academy, Annapolis, MD 21402

J. Fluids Eng 126(6), 1039-1047 (Mar 11, 2005) (9 pages) doi:10.1115/1.1845552 History: Received March 21, 2004; Revised June 12, 2004; Online March 11, 2005
Copyright © 2004 by ASME
Your Session has timed out. Please sign back in to continue.

References

Kempf,  G., 1937, “On the Effect of Roughness on the Resistance of Ships,” Trans. Institution of Naval Architects 79, pp. 109–119.
Benson, J. M., Ebert, J. W., and Beery, T. D., 1938, “Investigation in the NACA Tank of the Effect of Immersion in Salt Water on the Resistance of Plates Coated With Different Shipbottom Paints,” N.A.C.A. Memorandum Report C&R C-S19-1(3).
Denny,  M. E., 1951, “B.S.R.A. Resistance Experiments on the Lucy Ashton: Part I—Full-Scale Measurements,” Trans. Institution of Naval Architects 93, pp. 40–57.
Lewthwaite,  J. C., Molland,  A. F., and Thomas,  K. W., 1985, “An Investigation Into the Variation of Ship Skin Frictional Resistance With Fouling,” Trans. Royal Institute of Naval Architect., 127, pp. 269–284.
Watanabe,  S., Nagamatsu,  N., Yokoo,  K., and Kawakami,  Y., 1969, “The Augmentation in Frictional Resistance Due to Slime,” J. Kansai Society of Naval Architects,131, pp. 45–51.
Leer-Andersen,  M., and Larsson,  L., 2003, “An Experimental/Numerical Approach for Evaluating Skin Friction on Full-Scale Ships With Surface Roughness,” J. Marine Sci. Technol.,8, pp. 26–36.
Townsin,  R. L., 2003, “The Ship Hull Fouling Penalty,” Biofouling,19(Supplement), pp. 9–16.
Swain, G., 1998, “Biofouling Control: A Critical Component of Drag Reduction,” Proceedings of the International Symposium on Seawater Drag Reduction, Newport, RI, pp. 155–161.
Champ,  M. A., 2003, “Economic and Environmental Impacts on Port and Harbors From the Convention to Ban Harmful Marine Anti-Fouling Systems,” Mar. Pollution Bull., 46, pp. 935–940.
Swain,  G. W., and Schultz,  M. P., 1996, “The Testing and Evaluation of Non-Toxic Antifouling Coatings,” Biofouling,10, pp. 187–197.
Candries, M., Atlar, M., and Anderson, C. D., 2000, “Considering the Use of Alternative Antifoulings: the Advantages of Foul-Release Systems,” Proceedings ENSUS 2000, Newcastle, UK, pp. 88–95.
Brady,  R. F., and Singer,  I. L., 2000, “Mechanical Factors Favoring Release From Fouling Release Coatings,” Biofouling,15, pp. 73–81.
Schultz,  M. P., Finlay,  J. A., Callow,  M. E., and Callow,  J. A., 2003, “Three Models to Relate Detachment of Low Form Fouling at Laboratory and Ship Scale,” Biofouling,19(Supplement), pp. 17–26.
Swain,  G. W., Nelson,  W. G., and Preedeekanit,  S., 1998, “The Influence of Biofouling and Biotic Disturbance on the Development of Fouling Communities on Non-Toxic Surfaces,” Biofouling,12, pp. 257–269.
Kavanagh,  C. J., Schultz,  M. P., Swain,  G. W., Stein,  J., Truby,  K., and Darkangelo Wood,  C., 2001, “Variation in Adhesion Strength of Balanus Eburneus, Crassotrea Virginica and Hydroides Dianthus to Fouling-Release Coatings,” Biofouling,17, pp. 155–167.
Kovach, B. S., and Swain, G. W., 1998, “A Boat-Mounted Foil to Measure the Drag Properties of Antifouling Coatings Applied to Static Immersion Panels,” Proceedings of the International Symposium on Seawater Drag Reduction, Newport, RI, pp. 169–173.
Lackenby, H., 1962, “Resistance of Ships, With Special Reference to Skin Friction and Hull Surface Condition,” Proceedings of the Institution of Mechanical Engineers, 176 , pp. 981–1014.
Musker,  A. J., 1980–1981, “Universal Roughness Functions for Naturally-Occurring Surfaces,” Trans. Can. Soc. Mech. Eng., 1, pp. 1–6.
Townsin,  R. L., Byrne,  D., Svensen,  T. E., and Milne,  A., 1981, “Estimating the Technical and Economic Penalties of Hull and Propeller Roughness,” Trans. SNAME,89, pp. 295–318.
Granville,  P. S., 1987, “Three Indirect Methods for the Drag Characterization of Arbitrarily Rough Surfaces on Flat Plates,” J. Ship Res., 31, pp. 70–77.
Medhurst, J. S., 1989, “The Systematic Measurement and Correlation of the Frictional Resistance and Topography of Ship Hull Coatings, With Particular Reference to Ablative Antifoulings,” Ph.D. Thesis, University of Newcastle-upon-Tyne, Newcastle, UK.
Grigson,  C. W. B., 1992, “Drag Losses of New Ships Caused by Hull Finish,” J. Ship Res., 36, pp. 182–196.
Anon, 1952, Marine Fouling and Its Prevention, Woods Hole Oceanographic Institution.
McEntee,  W., 1915, “Variation of Frictional Resistance of Ships With Condition of Wetted Surface,” Trans. SNAME,24, pp. 37–42.
Picologlou,  B. F., Zelver,  N., and Characklis,  W. G., 1980, “Biofilm Growth and Hydraulic Performance,” J. Hydraul. Div., Am. Soc. Civ. Eng., HY5, pp. 733–746.
Haslbeck, E. G., and Bohlander, G., 1992, “Microbial Biofilm Effects on Drag—Lab and Field,” Proceedings 1992 SNAME Ship Production Symposium.
Schultz,  M. P., and Swain,  G. W., 1999, “The Effect of Biofilms on Turbulent Boundary Layers,” ASME J. Fluids Eng., 121, pp. 733–746.
Schultz,  M. P., 2000, “Turbulent Boundary Layers on Surfaces Covered With Filamentous Algae,” ASME J. Fluids Eng., 122, pp. 357–363.
Clauser,  F. H., 1954, “Turbulent Boundary Layers in Adverse Pressure Gradients,” J. Aeromaut. Sci. , 21, pp. 91–108.
Hama,  F. R., 1954, “Boundary-Layer Characteristics for Rough and Smooth Surfaces,” Trans. SNAME,62, pp. 333–351.
Krogstad,  P. Å., and Antonia,  R. Å., 1999, “Surface Roughness Effects in Turbulent Boundary Layers,” Exp. Fluids, 27, pp. 450–460.
Schultz,  M. P., and Flack,  K. A., 2003, “Turbulent Boundary Layers Over Surfaces Smoothed by Sanding,” ASME J. Fluids Eng., 125, pp. 863–870.
Schultz,  M. P., and Myers,  A., 2003, “Comparison of Three Roughness Function Determination Methods,” Exp. Fluids, 35, pp. 372–379.
Granville,  P. S., 1958, “The Frictional Resistance and Turbulent Boundary Layer of Rough Surfaces,” J. Ship Res., 2, pp. 52–74.
Schultz,  M. P., 2002, “The Relationship Between Frictional Resistance and Roughness for Surfaces Smoothed by Sanding,” ASME J. Fluids Eng., 124, pp. 492–499.
ASTM D3623, 1994, “Standard Test Method for Testing Antifouling Panels in Shallow Submergence,” Vol. 6.02.
Moffat,  R. J., 1988, “Describing the Uncertainties in Experimental Results,” Exp. Therm. Fluid Sci., 1, pp. 3–17.
Coleman,  H. W., and Steele,  W. G., 1995, “Engineering Application of Experimental Uncertainty Analysis,” AIAA J., 33(10), pp. 1888–1896.
Schoenherr,  K. E., 1932, “Resistances of Flat Surfaces Moving Through a Fluid,” Trans. SNAME,40, pp. 279–313.
Candries,  M., Atlar,  M., Mesbahi,  E., and Pazouki,  K., 2003, “The Measurement of the Drag Characteristics of Tin-Free Self-Polishing Co-Polymers and Fouling Release Coatings Using a Rotor Apparatus,” Biofouling,19(Supplement), pp. 27–36.
Schlichting, H., 1979, Boundary-Layer Theory, 7th ed., McGraw-Hill, New York.
Nikuradse, J., 1933, “Laws of Flow in Rough Pipes,” NACA Technical Memorandum 1292.
Bradshaw,  P., 2000, “A Note on “Critical Roughness Height” and “Transitional Roughness”,” Phys. Fluids, 12, pp. 1611–1614.

Figures

Grahic Jump Location
Schematic of the flat plate test fixture
Grahic Jump Location
Overall frictional resistance coefficient versus Reynolds number for all test surfaces in the fouled condition after 287 days exposure. (Overall uncertainty in CF: ±2% at highest Reynolds number; ±5% at lowest Reynolds number.)
Grahic Jump Location
Overall frictional resistance coefficient versus Reynolds number for all test surfaces in the cleaned condition. (Overall uncertainty in CF: ±2% at highest Reynolds number; ±5% at lowest Reynolds number.)
Grahic Jump Location
Roughness function for all test surfaces in the unfouled condition. [Overall uncertainty in ΔU+: ±6% or ±0.1 (whichever is larger) at highest Reynolds number; ±16% or ±0.2 (whichever is larger) at lowest Reynolds number.]
Grahic Jump Location
Roughness function for the AF test surfaces in the unfouled condition. [Overall uncertainty in ΔU+: ±6% or ±0.1 (whichever is larger) at highest Reynolds number; ±16% or ±0.2 (whichever is larger) at lowest Reynolds number.]
Grahic Jump Location
Roughness function for the AF test surfaces in the fouled condition after 287 days exposure. [Overall uncertainty in ΔU+: ±6% or ±0.1 (whichever is larger) at highest Reynolds number; ±16% or ±0.2 (whichever is larger) at lowest Reynolds number.]
Grahic Jump Location
Roughness function for the AF test surfaces in the cleaned condition. [Overall uncertainty in ΔU+: ±6% or ±0.1 (whichever is larger) at highest Reynolds number; ±16% or ±0.2 (whichever is larger) at lowest Reynolds number.]
Grahic Jump Location
Increase in CF at ship-scale (L=150 m) for the test surfaces in the unfouled, fouled, and cleaned conditions for U≈6.2 m/s (12 knots)
Grahic Jump Location
Overall frictional resistance coefficient versus Reynolds number for all test surfaces in the unfouled condition. (Overall uncertainty in CF: ±2% at highest Reynolds number; ±5% at lowest Reynolds number.)
Grahic Jump Location
Plan view of the surface waveform for (a) silicone 1 specimen; (b) Ablative copper specimen. (Overall uncertainty: y direction, ±1 μm; x and z directions, ±5 μm.)
Grahic Jump Location
Wave-number spectra of the surface waveforms for silicone 1 and ablative copper

Tables

Errata

Discussions

Some tools below are only available to our subscribers or users with an online account.

Related Content

Customize your page view by dragging and repositioning the boxes below.

Related Journal Articles
Related eBook Content
Topic Collections

Sorry! You do not have access to this content. For assistance or to subscribe, please contact us:

  • TELEPHONE: 1-800-843-2763 (Toll-free in the USA)
  • EMAIL: asmedigitalcollection@asme.org
Sign In