Scientific American Supplement, No. 598, June 18, 1887 · Chapter 6Some Recent High-Speed Twin Screws.[1
This chapter is not translated yet. You are reading the original.
One of the most interesting and valuable features in the development of naval construction in recent years is the great advance which has been made in the speeds of our war ships. This advance has been general, and not confined to any particular vessel or class of vessel. From the first class armored fighting ship of about 10,000 tons displacement down to the comparatively diminutive cruiser of 1,500 tons, the very desirable quality of a high speed has been provided.
These are all twin screw ships, and each of the twins is driven by its own set of engines and line of shafting, so that the propelling machinery of each ship is duplicated throughout. The speeds attained indicate a high efficiency with the twin screws. In all ships, but more especially in high speed ships, success depends largely upon the provision of propellers suited for the work they have to perform, and where a high propulsive efficiency has been secured, there is no doubt the screws are working with a high efficiency. The principal purpose of this paper is to record the particulars of the propellers, and the results of the trials of several of these high speed twin screw ships. The table gives the leading particulars of several classes of ships, the particulars of the screws, and the results obtained on the measured mile trials from a ship of each class, except C. The vessels whose trials are inserted in the table have not been selected as showing the highest speeds for the several classes. Excepting C, they are the ships which have been run on the measured mile at or near the designed load water line. On light draught trials, speeds have been attained from half a knot to a knot higher than those here recorded. No ship of the class C has yet been officially tried on the measured mile, but as several are in a forward state, perhaps the actual data from one of them may shortly be obtained. All these measured mile trials were made under the usual Admiralty conditions, that is to say, the ships' bottoms and the screws were clean, and the force of the wind and state of the sea were not such as to make the trials useless for purposes of comparison. On such trials the i.h.p. is obtained from diagrams taken while the ship is on the mile, and the revolutions are recorded by ruechanical counters for the time occupied in running the mile. Not less than four runs are made during a trial extending over several hours. The i.h.p. in the table is not necessarily the maximum during the trial, for the average while on the mile is sometimes a little below the average for the whole of the trial. The revolutions are the mean for the two sets of engines, and the i.h.p. is the sum of the powers of the two sets. The pitch of the screw is measured. The bolt holes in the blade flanges allow an adjustment of pitch, but in each case the blades were set as nearly as possible at the pitch at which they were cast. The particulars given in the table may be taken to be as reliable and accurate as such things can be obtained, and for each ship there are corresponding data; that is, the powers, speeds, displacements, revolutions, pitches, and other items existed at the same time. There are a few points of detail about these propellers which deserve a passing notice. In Fig. 1 is shown a fore and aft section through the boss. It will be observed that the flanges of the blades are sunk into the boss, and that the bolts are sunk into the flanges. The recess for the bolt heads is covered with a thin plate having the curve of the flange, so that the flanges and the boss form a section of a sphere. This method of construction is a little more expensive than exposed flanges and bolts, which, however, render the boss a huge churn. With the high revolutions at which these screws work, a spherical boss is extremely desirable, but, of course, the details need not be exactly as shown in the illustration. The conical tail is fitted to prevent loss with eddies behind the flat end of the boss, and is particularly valuable with the screws of high speed ships. The light hood shown on the stern bracket is for the purpose of preventing eddies behind the boss of the stern bracket, and to save the resistance of the flat face of the screw boss. The edges of the blades are cast sharp, instead of being rounded at the back, with a small radius, as in the usual practice—the object of the sharp edge being the diminution of the edge resistance. The driving key extends the whole length of the boss, and the tapered shaft fits throughout its length.
FIG. 1.
These points of detail have been features of all Admiralty screws for some years.
The frictional resistance of screw propellers is always a fruitful source of inefficiency. With a given screw, the loss due to friction may be taken to vary approximately as the square of the speed. This is not to say that the frictional resistance is greater in proportion to the thrust at high than at low speeds. The blades of screws for any speed should be as smooth and clean as possible, but for high speed screws the absolute saving of friction may be considerable with an improvement of the surface. There is no permanent advantage in polishing the blades. No doubt there is some advantage for a little time, and, probably, better results may thereby be secured on trial, but the blades soon become rough, and shell fish and weed appear to grow as rapidly on recently polished blades as on an ordinary surface. These screws are of gun metal. They were fitted to the ships in the condition in which they left the foundry. It appears that within certain limits mere shape of blade does not affect the efficiency of the screw, but, with a given number of blades and a given disk, the possible variations in the form or distribution of a given area are such that different results may be realized. The shapes of the blades of these propellers are shown in Figs. 2, 3, and 4. It will be seen the shapes are not exactly the same for all the screws, but the differences do not call for much remark.
FIG. 2., FIG. 3. & FIG. 4.
Fig. 2 shows the blades for the A screw. C and D have the same form. Fig. 3 shows in full lines the blades of the B screw, and, though very narrow at the tips, they, like A, are after the Griffith pattern. The blades of E and F are of a similar shape, as shown in Fig. 4, and approach an oval form rather than the Griffith pattern. The particulars of these propellers would be considered incomplete without some reference to their positions with respect to the hulls. When deciding the positions of twin screws, there is room for variation, vertically, longitudinally, and transversely. For these screws, the immersions inserted in the table give the vertical positions. The immersion in A is 9 ft., showing what may be done in a deep draught ship with a small screw. Whatever the value of deep immersion may be in smooth water, there can be no question that it is much enhanced in a seaway. The longitudinal positions are such that the center of the screw is about one-fifth of the diameter forward of the aft side of the rudder post. The positions may, perhaps, differ somewhat from this rule without appreciably affecting the performance, but, if any alteration be made, it would probably be better to put the screws a little farther aft rather than forward. The forward edges of the blades are from 2 ft. to 3 ft. clear of the legs of the bracket which carries the after bearing. The transverse positions are decided, to some extent, by the distance between the center lines of the engines. As regards propulsive efficiency, it would appear that the nearer the screws are to the middle line, the less is the resistance due to the shaft tubes and brackets, and the greater is the gain from the wake in the screw efficiency, but, on the other hand, the greater is the augment of the ship's resistance, due to the action of the screws. Further, the nearer the screws are to the hull, the less are they exposed. But experience is not wanting to show that the vibration may be troublesome when the blades come within a few inches of the hull. The average of the clearances between the tips of the blades and the respective hulls is about one-eighth of the diameter of the screw.
An interesting and noteworthy fact in connection with these propellers is the wide differences in the pitches and revolutions, though the products of the two do not greatly vary. Such differences are extremely rare in the mercantile marine for similar speeds, but in war ships they are inseparable from the conditions of the engine design. As a general rule, with (revolutions × pitch) a constant, an increase of revolutions and the consequent decrease of pitch allow a diminution of disk and of blade area—other modifying conditions, such as the thrust, slip, number, and pattern of blades, being the same. The screws for E and F are interesting, because, with practically the same speeds and slips, there is a considerable difference in the revolutions. It will be observed that F is a vessel of finer form and a little less displacement than E, and, therefore, has less resistance. Although E has the greater resistance and the screw the smaller pitch/diameter, the higher revolutions permit the use of a smaller screw. But from this example the influence of the high revolutions in diminishing the size of screw does not appear so great as some empirical rules would indicate. The screws for A and B are also worthy of attention. Although the ship A has a much greater resistance than B, the screw of the former is much the smaller, both in the blade area and the disk. A's screws, however, in addition to 22 per cent. more revolutions than B, have a much larger slip, and the blades have rather a fuller form at the tips. Compared with the practice in the mercantile marine, the revolutions of these screws are very high, and from the foregoing remarks it may appear that much larger screws would be required for a merchant ship than for a war ship of the same displacement and speed. There would, however, be several items favorable to the use of small screws. For a given displacement the resistance would be less in the mercantile ship, and with the lower revolutions the proportion of blade area to the disk could be increased without impairing the efficiency. Thus in passing from the war vessel to a merchant ship of the same displacement, there are the lower revolutions favorable to a larger screw, but, on the other hand, the smaller resistance, larger proportion of blade area, and the coarser pitch, are favorable to a diminution of the screw. The ship B has a very large screw at 88 revolutions, but the tips are very narrow. If the blade were as dotted for a diameter of 16 ft., the same work could be done with the same revolutions, but with a little coarser pitch and a little more slip.
There is something to be said for large screws with a small proportion of blade area to disk. For instance, two bladed screws have frequently given better results than four bladed screws of smaller diameter, neglecting, of course, the question of vibrations. Twin screws, however, should, as a rule, be made as small as possible in diameter without loss of efficiency. The advantages of small twin screws are the shorter shaft tubes and stern brackets, deeper immersion, and less exposure as compared with large screws. The exposure of the screws is usually considered an objection, but, perhaps, too much has been made of it, for those well qualified to speak on the subject consider that careful handling of the ship would, in most cases, prevent damage to the screws, and that where the exposure is unusually great, effectual protection by portable protectors presents no insuperable difficulty.
HIGH SPEED TWIN SCREWS. --------------------------------------------------------------------- |Ship A.|Ship B.|Ship C.|Ship D.|Ship E.|Ship F. --------------------------------------------------------------------- Length, ft. | 325 | 315 | 300 | 300 | 220 | 250 Breadth, ft. | 68 | 61 | 56 | 46 | 34 | 32½ | | | | | | Draught on trial, | 26 ft | 24 ft | | 15 ft | 12 ft | 13 ft forward. | 2 in | 6 in | .... | 6 in | 10 in | 1 in | | | | | | Draught on trial, | 27 ft | 25 ft | | 19 ft | 15 ft | 14 ft aft. | 3 in | 6 in | .... | 9 in | 2 in | 7 in Displacement, | | | | | | tons. | 9,690 | 7,645 | 5,000 | 3,584 | 1,560 | 1,544 I.M.S., sq. ft. | 1,560 | 1,287 | 1,000 | 744 | 438 | 392 Speed of ship, | | | | | | knots. | 16.92 | 17.21 | 18.75 | 18.18 | 16.91 | 17 I.H.P. |11,610 |10,180 | 8,500 | 6,160 | 3,115 | 3,045 Revolutions per | | | | | | minute. | 107.2 | 88 | 120 | 122.6 | 150.4 | 132.1 | | | | | | Pitch of | 19 ft | 22 ft | 18 ft | 17 ft | 12 ft | 14 ft screw. | 5 in | | 9 in | 6 in | 7½in | 9 in | | | | | | Slip. per cent | 17.6 | 10 | ... | 14.2 | 9.7 | 11.4 | | | | | | Diameter of | 15 ft | 18 ft | 14 ft | 13 ft | 10 ft | 11 ft screw. | 6 in | | 6 in | | 6 in | | | | | | | Diameter of | 4 ft | 4 ft | 3 ft | 3 ft | 2 ft | 2 ft boss. | 4 in | 11 in | 9 in | 5 in | 9 in | 10 in Number of blades | 4 | 4 | 3 | 3 | 3 | 3 Blade area of one | | | | | | screw. | 72 | 87 | 60 | 47 | 24 | 24 Shape of blade. |Fig. 2.|Fig. 3.|Fig. 2.|Fig. 2.|Fig. 4.|Fig. 4 Pitch | | | | | | ---------- | 1.25 | 1.22 | 1.3 | 1.34 | 1.2 | 1.34 Diameter | | | | | | Disk | | | | | | -------- | 2.62 | 2.92 | 2.75 | 2.82 | 3.6 | 3.96 Blade area | | | | | | Immersion of | 9 ft | 5 ft | | 4 ft | 2 ft | 1 ft screw. | | 3 in | .... | 4 in | 9 in | 10 in --------------------------------------------------------------------
The slips of these screws vary from 10 to 17½ per cent., which is certainly not an extensive range, considering the widely different working conditions. Slip, as an indication of the efficiency of the screw, is not only an interesting subject, but it is often one of importance. In these ships, however, there is nothing about the slips which would give rise to any doubts as to the fitness of the screws for their work.
FIG. 5. & FIG. 6.
The ancient fallacy that small slip meant a high screw efficiency was supported by the great authority of the late Professor Rankine. Experience proved that considerable slips and efficient screws were companions. The late Mr. Froude offered an explanation of this general rule in a paper read before this Institution in 1878, and gave a curve of efficiency with varying true slip. In Mr. R E. Froude's paper last year there was a form of this curve, with an arbitrary abscissa scale for the slip, devised to illustrate in one diagram the wide conditions covered by his experiments. In the screws now under consideration, the values of the pitch/diameter vary only from 1.2 to 1.34, and for these the abscissa values for the same slips do not differ much. Taking the mean value, and bringing the slips to a common scale, Fig. 5 is obtained, which would approximately represent the relation between the efficiency of any one of these screws and its true slip, if this curve were applicable to full sized screws propelling actual ships. The slips in Fig. 5 being real or true, are not the slips of commerce, which are the apparent slips, such as those given in the table. Let us endeavor to split up these real slips into the apparent slips and another item, the speed of the wake. We then at once meet with the difficulty that the wake in which the screw works has not a uniform motion. Complex, however, as are the motions of the wake, the screw may be assumed to work in a cylinder of water having such a uniform forward velocity as will produce the same effect as the actual wake on the thrust of the screw. It is then readily seen that the real slip is the sum of the apparent slip and the speed of the hypothetical wake. To make this clear, let V be the speed of the ship, Vs the speed of the screw, i.e., revolutions × pitch, and V the speed of the wake; then—
Apparent slip = Vs - V. Real slip = Vs - speed of ship with respect to the wake. " = Vs - (V - V) = (Vs - V) + Vw. " = Apparent slip + speed of the wake.
If the apparent slip be zero, the real slip is the speed of the wake, and if the apparent slip be negative, the real slip is less than the speed of the wake. The real slip is greater than the apparent slip, and can never be a negative quantity. From Mr. Froude's model experiments, it appears that this speed of wake for the A class of ship amounts to about 10 per cent. of the speed of the A screw. If this value is correct, then the real slip is (10 + 17.6) per cent., or 27.6 per cent. This is shown in Fig. 6, where O is the point of no slip, being 17.64 from the point of real slip. Slips to the right of O are positive apparent slips, slips to the left are negative apparent slips. The vessel F would certainly have a wake with a speed considerably less than that of A's wake. From the model experiments, the wake for F is about one-half that for the A class, or, roughly, 5 per cent. of the speed of the screw. For the ship F, O is the point of no apparent slip, and the real slip is (5 + 11.4) or 16.4 per cent. For E, the point of real slip is approximately the same as for F. For B and D, the positions on the curve would be about the same. The ship B has a higher speed of wake than D, but the screw D has the greater apparent slip. The influence of the number of blades on the scale for the slip has been neglected. If this efficiency curve were applicable to full sized screws propelling actual ships, and if the determination of the wakes were beyond question, then we should have a proof that our screws were at or near the maximum efficiency. But, as we know, from the total propulsive efficiencies, that the screws have high and not widely different efficiencies on these ships, we may argue the other way, and say that there is good reason to consider that at least the upper part of the curve agrees with experience obtained from actual ships. Now take Fig. 6 and consider the general laws there represented. Take the speed of the wake as 10 per cent. of the speed of the screw, which is probably an average of widely different conditions, including many single as well as twin screw ships. Then this curve shows that considerable negative slips mean inefficient screws; that screws may have very different positive slips without any appreciable difference in their efficiencies; and that very large positive slips and inefficient screws may be companions. For instance, a screw with a large positive slip in smooth water is frequently inefficient at sea against a head wind, which increases the resistance, and necessitates an increase of slip. I venture to say that these statements, taken in a general manner, are not at variance with experience obtained from the performances of screw ships. Before it is possible to satisfactorily decide if this curve applies in a general manner to full sized screws propelling ships, we require the results of trials of various ships where the screws are working about the region of no slip. Model experiments teach that the scale for the slip varies with the design of the screw, and that with a given screw the speed of the wake (which decides the point of no apparent slip) varies with the type of ship and with the position of the screw with respect to the hull. Remembering these disturbances, it is not improbable that it may be possible to account for or explain what at first sight may appear departures from the curve. The diameters of the screws in the table are not compared with the diameters given by the method explained by Mr. Froude in his paper last year, for there are differences in the slips, the proportions of blade area to disk, and, to some extent, in the shapes of the blades, which are not taken into account in that method. Assuming, however, as Mr. Froude does, a constant proportion of blade area to disk, and a uniform pattern of blade, the determination of the diameter for a given set of conditions may, as a rule, be a complete solution of the problem of the design of a screw, but these assumptions do not cover all the necessities of actual practice, which make it extremely desirable to know something about the influence or efficiency of various proportions of blade area to disk, and of the form or distribution of a given area.
During the discussion which followed, Mr. John said that, both as regarded the mercantile marine and the Royal Navy, there were few data to work upon, but few ships having been built with twin screws. Mr. Linnington's proportions of pitch to diameter of 1.2 to 1.34 was not invariably adhered to. He mentioned a couple of small twin screw vessels where the proportion of pitch to diameter came nearly to 1.5, and he remembered a few years ago the propellers in one of these vessels being changed and the pitch increased, the result being a very considerable improvement. He believed they might go with quick running twin screw engines to a larger proportion of pitch to diameter than they could with a single screw. He might instance the change in the Iris. She was first engined with the pitch equal to the diameter, and she gained two knots or thereabout when the diameter was reduced 2 ft. and the pitch increased 2 ft.
Admiral De Horsey said that he tried experiments with the single screw in the Aurora. She had a feathering serew, and when the sails were used to assist, they commonly altered the pitch of the screw according to the strength of the wind. The screw could be altered while it was revolving, and as the wind freshened they coarsened the pitch, and when they wanted to stop the engines they coarsened the pitch so as to bring the screw right fore and aft, so that they never altered the way of the ship in changing from steam to sail alone. The reason why twin screws had been adopted in the navy was that if one was damaged there was the other still available. But it gave them a still further advantage, as it enabled them to have a fore and aft bulkhead, which with a single screw was difficult. The mercantile marine had not as yet looked favorably on twin screws. Their finest and fastest ships were single screws, probably because, in very bad weather, the single screw was better.
Mr. Spyer said that in designing propellers for ships of war, they were obliged to attempt to obtain the highest possible speed, and that was not necessarily coincident with a propeller of maximum efficiency. On the other hand, for mercantile purposes, coal consumption was obviously of paramount importance, and the speed of any particular vessel must be obtained with the smallest possible amount of indicated horse power, and a propeller of maximum efficiency. Regarding the position of the propellers in a small pinnace, the propellers were shifted six or seven inches further out, and with about ten per cent. less indicated horse power she obtained three tenths of a knot more speed.
Mr. Barnaby asked Mr. Linnington whether, in designing twin screws for a vessel of 8,000 i.h.p., he would make each screw, which would have to take 4,000 i.h.p., of the same diameter as a screw for a single ship of 4,000 i.h.p., of the same speed. Unfortunately in high speed vessels, from one point of view, the faster they went for a given power the smaller the diameter of the screw had to be, and the larger the pitch, so that in very high speed twin screw vessels the ratio of pitch to diameter would be found to come out very great indeed. In a twin screw torpedo boat, to be tried shortly, they had a ratio as high as 1.64. In the case of the Inflexible it was found, owing possibly to the position of the screw, that the whole of the plates immediately over the screws were damaged. Mr. Beckett Hill had been using, during the past three or four years, the twin screw steamers the Ludgate Hill, Richmond Hill, and Tower Hill. These were all over 4,000 tons register, and indicated, when at work at full speed, 2,500 h.p. Before he and his friends built these steamers, they built some very large tug boats on the twin screw principle. At the present moment, four of the fastest steamers building for the Atlantic service were to have twin screws. The great obstacle to the extension of the twin screw in the mercantile navy had been the fear that the projection of these screws would make the vessels very difficult to handle, but he had found no such difficulties. He had found it an advantage to put the point of the propeller as near the deadwood as he could, without actually touching it, and in the large steamers, as well as in the tugs, the distance was a few inches. As to the point of safety, he thought it a great advantage to have twin screws, and on two occasions twin screw vessels had met with accidents which, but for the twin screws, would have necessitated their putting back to New York for repairs. The Richmond Hill, on one occasion, met with an accident to her machinery two days after leaving New York; but she was able to come on with the second set of engines, and was only one day late in the passage. No difficulty had been found in the docking and undocking of these vessels, either in London or Liverpool, and while with single screw vessels they had sometimes to employ one or two dock boats to dock and undock them, they never had to do so with the twin screw vessels. These vessels were 400 ft. long, with 48 ft. breadth of beam—a very large size to handle in a river like the Thames. He noticed in the paper a propeller with a diameter of 15 ft. 6 in. to indicate 11,110 h.p., so that a great Atlantic steamer, which should indicate 11,000 or 12,000 h.p., and have a beam of about 65ft., would have her screws very well protected.
Mr. White said that as soon as it was found that with twin screws they lost nothing in efficiency, ship owners generally were contemplating their adoption, an admirable example of which had been set in the vessels of the Hill line. In adopting twin screws, the question whether they should overlap was one that deserved very serious consideration, and it was interesting to know, from experience gained by the vessels of the Hill line, that there was no difficulty in the way of the projection of the screws. With a moderate power, and with vessels of considerable size, the screws were well sheltered: but in the large ships which were contemplated, where there must necessarily be larger screws, this might be different, and become a difficulty.
Mr. Linnington, in reply, said there was no reason to think that the twin screw at sea might not be as satisfactory, in comparison with the single screw, as it appeared in smooth water. As a matter of fact, one of the great advantages of twin screws was that at sea the condition of weather which would bring the single screw out of the water, and make it extremely inefficient, would have no appreciable effect on the twin screws. In vessels of deep draught especially, they were well immersed, and they were really more efficient at sea than in smooth water. In ships of full form, the longitudinal position of the screws was of importance; but in the ships referred to in this table the run was very fine, and the screws were well covered by the hull. He did not think, in such a case, any small difference in longitudinal position would affect the performance. If any alteration were made, it would probably be better to put the screws farther off. When the rudder was hard over, the blades of the screw should be about a foot clear of the rudder.—Industries.
A paper recently read before the Institution of Naval Architects, London.