This action might not be possible to undo. Are you sure you want to continue?

BooksAudiobooksComicsSheet Music### Categories

### Categories

### Categories

Editors' Picks Books

Hand-picked favorites from

our editors

our editors

Editors' Picks Audiobooks

Hand-picked favorites from

our editors

our editors

Editors' Picks Comics

Hand-picked favorites from

our editors

our editors

Editors' Picks Sheet Music

Hand-picked favorites from

our editors

our editors

Top Books

What's trending, bestsellers,

award-winners & more

award-winners & more

Top Audiobooks

What's trending, bestsellers,

award-winners & more

award-winners & more

Top Comics

What's trending, bestsellers,

award-winners & more

award-winners & more

Top Sheet Music

What's trending, bestsellers,

award-winners & more

award-winners & more

Welcome to Scribd! Start your free trial and access books, documents and more.Find out more

by

**Kai Oscar Torkelson
**

M.S., Mechanical Engineering Virginia Tech, 1998 B.S., Mechanical Engineering Virginia Military Institute, 1991 Submitted to the Department of Ocean Engineering in Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for the Degrees of Master of Science in Naval Architecture and Marine Engineering and Master of Science in Ocean Systems Management

at the

Massachusetts Institute of Technology June 2005 © 2005, Kai O. Torkelson All rights reserved The author hereby grants to MIT and the United States Government permission to reproduce pies of this thesis document in whole or in part. and to distribute publicly paper and electroni

Signature of Author ..................................................................

Department of Naval Architecture and Marine Engineering

May 6, 2005 C ertified by ..............................................................................................................................................

David S. Herbein Professor of Naval Architecture and Marine Engineering Thesis Supervisor

Crtied

Certified b y .........................

by;.......................

;..

**....................................................................................... , Henry S. Marcus Professor of Ocean Engineering Thesis Supervisor
**

........... MASSACHUSET .............

f

A ccepted by ..........................

.....

.................................

an

MASSACHUSETTS INSTITTE OF TECHNOLOGY

Michael S. Triantafyllou t . I. Chairman, Department Committee tor CGraduateStudents

**Professor of Ocean Engineering
**

44 C. 0

SEP

1 2005

LIBRARIES

**Comparative Naval Architecture Analysis of Diesel Submarines
**

by

Kai O. Torkelson Submitted to the Department of Ocean Engineering in Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for the Degrees of Master of Science in Naval Architecture and Marine Engineering and -Masterof Science in Ocean Systems Management

Abstract

Many comparative naval architecture analyses of surface ships have been performed, but few published comparative analyses of submarines exist. Of the several design concept papers, reports and studies that have been written on submarines, no exclusively diesel submarine comparative naval architecture analyses have been published. One possible reason for fewv submarine studies may be the lack of complete and accurate information regarding the naval architecture of foreign diesel submarines. However, with some fundamental submarine design principles, drawings of inboard profiles and plan views, and key assumptions to develop empirical equal-tions,a process can be developed by which to estimate the submarine naval architectural characteristics. comparative naval architecture analysis creates an opportunity to identify new technologies, review the architectural characteristics best suited for submarine missions and to possibly build more effective submarines. An accurate observation is that submarines designed for different missions possess different capabilities. But are these unique capabilities due to differences in submarine naval architecture? Can mission, cost, or other factors affect th-le architecture? This study examines and compares the naval architecture of selected diesel submarines from data found in open literature. The goal is to determine weight group estimates and analyze wvhether these estimates provide a relevant comparison of diesel

submanrine naval architecture.

Thesis Supervisor: Professor David S. Herbein Title: Professor of Naval Construction and Engineering Thesis Supervisor: Professor Henry S. Marcus Title: Professor of Ocean Engineering

2

Acknowledgements

"I can answer for but three things: a firm belief in the justice of our cause, close attention in the prosecution of it, and the strictest integrity." - George Washington "Better to dare Mighty Things and fail, than to live in a gray twilight where there is neither victory nor defteat." - Theodore Roosevelt "Be an opener of doors for such as come after thee." - Ralph Waldo Emerson The work of a thesis brings together the efforts of so many people besides the author. I am therefore thankful to the many individuals from several organizations that provided invaluable background, technical assistance, and contributed time and support to this endeavor. I would like to acknowledge the contributions and advice from these people with sincere appreciation. On the technical and writing side of the thesis, I recognize those that have had a direct contribution to the work. Rear Admiral Paul E. Sullivan, NAVSEA\ Deputy Commander for Integrated Warfare Systems (SEA-05), served as the thesis sponsor and provided the initial topic for the study, as well as making his staff available for data and reviews. My advisors, CAI)' L)avid S. Ierbein and Professor Hank LMarcus, were of great assistance in regular meetings to discuss the scope, direction and expected outcomes of the study. I also gratefully acknowledge the assistance of Electric Boat Corporation of General Dynamics in supplying photographs and drawings of many of the submarines studied. The willingly offered help of

Mr. Carl Fast was especially appreciated.

On the support side, I recognize those that provided me with encouragement, prayers and growth. My fimily and friends are too numerous to list here, so I will mention a few representative of the rest. I give the most thanks to my mom, who's had the added respolnsibilits of illing in for my dad's support since his death, but she has always been there to give this support. The many friends I have come to know through St Paul Lutheran Church, the Lutheran Episcopal Ministry at MIT, the brothers of SSJE, the monastery in Harvard Square, Big Brothers of Mass Bay, the cabin 'up north', and the opportunities in the area and elsewhere they provided, were all supportive in my time away from the books. ITo the many athletes who helped add competition to workouts including running, swimming, cycling and hiking, I thank you for pushing me to relieve stress through my favorite sports. Last but not least of all, I want to pay tribute to the American taxpayers for ultimately providing the funding, and to the US Navy, the Submarine and the Fngineering Duty Officer communities, where I was able to achieve the breadth of experience necessary to perform a study of this kind. I also owe a debt of gratitude to MIT for providing the very favorable environment most conducive to this endeavor. I hope that this study will contribute to the Navy's pursuit of advanced submarine designs and assessment of foreign submarine capabilities. I dedicate this work to my parents: Leif O. Torkelson, M.D. and Betty K. Torkelson

3

......... 7 I Introduction '1................................................................ 3...............................................................................2.................................................. 43 4........................... 18 20 20 20 .............................................................................2 Problem ................................... 3........ Study............................................2 Procedure )escription ............................................ ........................................................................................................................................3 Weight Group Calculations .......2 Submrine l)esign ............................................................................................. 4.............................................4 Validation of TModel Outputs ................................................................................................................................4 General Approach/Methodology .................................. 3........................................ \ck lnowlledgem ........................................................ 34 35 42 45 49 49 50 51 3................................................................... .........5 Criteria for Success ............................................................... 3..............................2...............Table of Contents A bstract ................................1 lMajor Compartment and Space Calculations .................. 11 1............................ 18 3 Development of Procedure ................. ..... 1.............2.......................2 Math Model Development .............................................2.. 2............................. 13 14 2................................................................... 2................................4 C ost Effects . 21 3....................................4 Weight Estimates and VWeight Groups ............................5 I)esign Summary ................................................................................. 55 5..................................................................................................................................................... 3..............1 Submarines Selected for Analysis ......................................... 28 3.......................................................3 Design eiht to Space Relationship ..........................2 Area and Volume Calculation Error Checks........................................................................... 45 4..3 Background ............................................................................................................................................2.........................3 Discussion of Results ...........................................3 Overall Analysis Process ........................ 54 5 Conclusio s . 55 4 ................................................................... 31 3..................................................................2......................................... 53 4..........2...............2 M issi on E ffects ................................1 Sum mary of o rk ............. 4 List of Figures ............... 1...................2......... ents 2 3 Table of Contents .. 2 Submarine I)csign Process ........................................................................................... 8 10 12 12 urpose ofthe 1............................. ....................2................................................................... 4.......................................1 [listorica l T ren ds .....1 Approach .............................................................. 4.................................. 6 List of Tables ......1 IDesigrl I istory .... 1 .... 4 Comparative Naval Architecture ..3 Construction Effects ............................................................................1 D ata Presentation ..2...2 A nalysis of R esults . 2........................................2....................................................... 4............................. 12 13 13 2.............

..............................................................................................................2 Math Model ....................................................2.......................................................................... 5 ...1 Survey Size ........................2.......................... 79 90 Appendix E: Submarine Shape Factors .......................................................... 59 61 60 Appendices ...................................4 Advanced Technology ................................................................................2............. Appendix B: SS Design Flowchart ................. Appendix C: Mathl Model......................................................... 5......65 Appendix D: Submarine Profile and Plan Drawings ................................................................ 5................2............. ...... 56 5............................. ......... Appendix A: EDesign Spiral ..................2 Future Work and Recommendations ................3 Reserve Buoyanc y . 5.................................................................. 56 56 57 5...........................58 57 References .........3 Closing......................................................................................5..................................................

....................................................................... Operating Depth ........................ 38 46 50 Figure 3: W\eight Group Percentages of NSC Compared to Published SSK (5) ............................................................................List of Figures Figure 1: Group 1 WVeightvs................................................... Figure 4: Group 6 Trend Shown as Space per an ........ Figure 2: W\eight Summary as Percentage of A-1 ......48 6 ................

........................ 17 Table 3: Submarine WVeight Breakdown and Estimating ........................................................................................... 44 Table 7: lodel Results Measure of Accuracy ........................... ariation .. 4...... 7 ..............................................................List of Tables Table 1: Specific Gravity Typical Values........................................................................................................................................................................................... Talble 10: VWeightGroups/ A-1 V\ 46 47 Table 11: Weight (Groups /- 47 Variation Without AGSS 569 ......................... 45 Table 8: Math iMfodelSubmarine Characteristics Output .................. Table 9: Weight Groups as Percentage of A-1 .. 16 Table 2: W\eight/Space Relationship oflTypical D)ieselSubmarines................................................... ........ Table 6: Published l)imensions of Selected Submarines .............................. 36 JTable Group 4 Weight (from measured volume) as Percentage of NSC ..............40 4: 41 Table 5: Group 5 & 6 -Weight Summary as Percentage of NSC ...........................................................................

Over that time period. to the advent of nucle:ar propulsion and its adaptation to the submarine in the 1950s. This study focuses on diesel submarine naval architecture from the end oft the nineteenth century to present day. was well over 2500 (2). The urgency of submarine development. automation and submerged endurance. submarines have advanced to highly complex.Germany wvasproducing over 35 diesel submarines per month. not including Japan. over 1000 undersea boats and diesel submarines were built by Germany alone (1). weaponry. systems-intense machines. From the first to combination ot gasoline engines and energy-storing batteries in the UV HollZald. -Althoughthe focus was on rapid development and construction during XAVI and WW\TII. submarine designs improved. During periods of NXVAI. safety.1 Introduction Several design c:oncept papers. the development otf the true diesel submarines of the first half of the twventiethcentury. In fact. review the architectural characteristics best suited for submarine missions and to possibly build more effective submarines. demanding improvements in acoustics. and recently to Air Independent Propulsion (AIP) systems. was driven by the World Wars and Cold War. several significant technologies have vastly improved the capability of submarines. \Vith the advent of the Cold War and the need for longer submerged endurance. especially in weapons and communications systems. as with other military systems. the total number of' world submarines constructed during AVII. A comparative naval architecture analysis creates an opportunity to identify new technologies. In the years leading up to and during World War II. the focus shifted to nuclear submarines. books and studies have been written on submarines but no exclusively diesel submarine comparative naval architecture analyses have been published. causing an explosion in submanrineproduction over the next 30 8 .

here are about 400 diesel submarines in the world today. The basic submarine shape includes ellipsoidal or parabolic end caps.. even when comparing two similar ships? Capability differences exist. 'Ihe world diesel submarine production rate is predicted to reach eight per year between 2004 and 2023 (4). there are only approximately 160 today. China. the production rate of nuclear submarines is only projected to be one per year over the next ten years. From a high Cold War world count of 400 nuclear submarines in 1989. Germany. acoustic 9 . With such systcms.years. Additionally these predicted diesels possess advanced technology as evidenced by the spread of diesel electric with AIP systems. Japan. But. Building of nuclear submarines is limited to the ULTnited States. In the US. Netherlands. diesel submarine designs tend to be of the single hull version. While the nuclear submarine production rate has decreased recently. Italy. which would increase the world diesel submarine count above 500 in the next twenty years. as nuclear submarine production has experienced a significant slowdown worldwide (3). France. diesel submarine production rate today is growing. Builders of diesel submarines include Sweden. Generally. From 1)55 to 1989 the Soviet Union and United States alone built over 350 nuclear subtnarines (3). Russia. diesel submarines may be suitable for more than coastal defense type missions and operate in more blue-water type scenarios. such as propulsion. is either a hull of revolution or contains a parallel midbody in the center. Spain. and has various appendages attached along the body. England. India and China. Diesel submarine architecture seems quite similar at first glance from country to country and mission to mission. are there differences in the naval architecture of diesel submarines? Can distinct differences be noted. and Australia. Russia. France. with a singular pressure hull over most of the midbody length and outer hulls at the ends used to create the ballast tanks and provide a hydrodynamic fairing for any other gear ttached to the outside of the pressure hull.

a method is proposed to calculate these wveightgroups for any submarine. based on drawings. These weight groups are defined as tfollows: Group Group Group Group 100 200 300 400 Hull Structure Propulsion Machinery Electric Plant Command and Surveillance Auxiliaries Group 500 Group 600 Group 700 Outfit and Furnishings \Weapons Systems Furthermore. as will be seen in chapter 3. much of the work was done by estimating volumes from drawings. 'the information researched and gathered was all collected from open literature and therefore is not technical source data from countries or manufacturers. it attempts to determine if diesel submarine architecture varies from country to country. First.performance. Do tactors such as mission. or tradition 10 . and fromr previous work in references (5). and weapons systems. similar submarine data bases. is that standard i'xpanded Ship Work Breakdown Structure (.SV'BS) weight groups are determined for each submarine included in the study and will be used throughout this report. D)ue to this open literature approach. pictures. cost.1 Purpose of the Study The purpose of this study is twvofold. (6) and (10). Do these capability differences affect the naval architect's approach to submarine design? What new construction techniques have been used xvorldwide? Wlhat shipyards have been most effective/efficient in submarine design and construction? 1low have submarine construction methods changed due to new shipyard methods or technology? T'his study attempts to answer the questions posed above. C)ne distinct difference from previous submarine comparative studies. historical design databases and equations included in the appendices. 1.

so that a satisfactory weight/buoyancy balance is attained. The goal of the designer is to accurately estimate weight groups. possibly to better assess the attributes of a particular design. one must be ftamiliar -with submarine design process and terminology. and perhaps more importantly for the author. Desigin in general begins with definition of requirements and progresses to performance characteristics.e naval architecture? An in depth comparison is performed of six diesel submarine designs from four different countries to measure and compare any differences that may exist in their naval architecture. and finally to achieving the final level o-t detail for structure. to determine the basic weight groups that make up a completed submarine is no easv task.affect submarin. systems and hydrostatics (5). a significant benefit in taking on such a study is to gain a better understanding of submarine design and construction. the This understanding of submarine design will also provide possible advantages or spawn novel concepts by future designers. arrangement. 11 . 1. hydrodynamics. Secondly. Similarly. To start with a blank sheet of paper and produce volumes and weights required for submarine design is a monumental task. In order to determine if the submarine naval architecturc differs from class to class and/or country to countr-y. The outcome of these comparisons will also provide some tools to current and future submarine designers.2 Problem Submarine design is a complex engineering systems process. to concept studies. to feasibility studies. This study shares the goal of estimating submarine weight groups but differs from initial design by starting with the finished product and working "backvwards" to accurately estimate the naval architectural characteristics that the submarine designer used to create the initial design.

Stenard's significant contribution was the initial parameterization of dicsel submarine data and the development of equations to determine volume estimates for various submarines. known submarine databases. and estimates to "reverse engineer" the design characteristics of the submarine being studied. Stenard. developed equations. 1. hat study included a comparative design review :. Submarine weight groups were determined using measured volumes. As mentioned this study differs from the previous work by actually calculating the standard weight groups of diesel submarines. based both on hand-measured values from published drawings and relationships developed with the assistance of several references as described in subsequent chapters.13 Background Previous work was completed in this particular area by John K. conventional and nuclear-powered fast attack submarines.4 GeneralApproach/Methodology An open literature search was accomplished to find sufficient characteristics on a selected number of submarines to provide a useful comparison. The weight group and naval architectural results of the selected submarines were then compared and analyzed. reference equations from previous work. in NMay 1988 (10). 1.5 Criteria br Success Iwo areas to measure success: 1) Is the reverse engineering method valid? Does it produce accurate results? 2) Does the data produced allow for a relevant comparison of naval architecture of the various platforms? 12 . Cornpatulile NazZi/ Ar:itectifze oflfodemi Fore~izl Sldtinirnes.

The liollald 1 '. that. foreshadowed several significant design features like low length/diameter ratio. single screw propeller and a small superstructure. \rentzen and P.A.2 Submarine Design Process 2. this chapter focuses on some key aspects of the design process. R. E. Rather than attempt to cover submarine design to an equivalent level of detail. Robert Fulton's Natills in 1800 and John Holland's lHo/laid 11in 1899. a practice still present today in the iterative methods to develop a reasonable design thlat meets the design requirements. this chapter is devoted to explalining the submlrine concept design process.2 Submarine Design The most accurate one word description of submarine design is "iterative". In all of these early trials. History is rich with attempts to design and build successful submarines. Starting with a definition of requirements.S. Rydill. w-illassist in the reverse engineering methodology of the study found in subsequent chapters. once understood. H. several such designs were D:avid Bushnell's Tfrtie in 1775. works through many calculations 13 . proposes a set of estimates. axisymmetric circular form.1Design History Before proceeding to the analysis of comparative naval architecture. Burcher and L. the designer creates a concept "cartoon" (a broad-brush description of a possible design). These features have proven effective in achieving near optimum contiguration of a submarine (5). Mandel have written very comprehensive and technical descriptions about submarine design history and methods. 2. Jackson. the designlers returned to the drawing boards many times to modify and improve their designs. built and tested in 1899 by the US NaDv.

The process described can be summarized by the design spiral. i. These estimates are applied to the celsigncr's initial submarine "cartoon". and derives an answer which often does not match the initial concept cartoon (6). If the power is increased in order to meet the speed requirements. he skill and experience of the designer is put to a crucial test in making a satisfctory design. Along with the design spiral. moreaccurate assumptions.A-. a flow chart shown in Appendix B is used to visually illustrate a conventional diesel (SS) submarine design process. and rework the calculations. If more volume is mandatory. but this will increase the amount of lead to be carried and reduce the speed if the same power is provided." (6) This statement is representative of the interrelated character of submarine design where changes to one 14 . and meets the owncer's requirements. Next the process is iterated until the design balances. Finally the selected feasibility study is developed to sufficient detail for production drawvingsto be produced (5). Using math models to parameterize tle design. The new answer should be close but may require further iterations. shown in Appendix A. the submarine will grow even larger. where the buoyanc)y created by volume supports the weight of the submarine. "''The volume of the hull of the submarine is fixed by the weight of the submarine.e.by computer or by hand in feasibility studies. The designer must then go back with new. Duc to the complexities of submarine design.Jackson stated in a submarine design paper. often used in U'S Navy ship designs. 2. a database of volume and weight characteristics of previous designs is often used to obtain initial estimates. it can only be provided by making the submarine larger.3 Design WFeight Space Relationship to I I. feasibility studies are then performed to check the results against the owner's requirements and mission areas.

Because of the limits on maximum diameter. For instance. the submarinc draft. depending on the port of cperation and the desired submarine missions.may be too deep for many ports and harbors. The volume of the hull submerged compared to the total hull volume determines a vessel's reserve buoyancy (ItB). in which the total enclosed volume is greater than the displacement. a significant amount of the designer's time and effort is devoted to the weight and splace relltionship. which is the amount of excess buoyancy available in the event of an emergency or 15 . This terminology of volume limited is common in ship design and simply means that the designer must creatively assess how to fit all of the structural and payload requirements into the volume of the hull. I full volume determines several significant properties of a vessel. this limitation may change over the course of the design process. This maximum hull diameter in turn limits internal volume of the submarine.parameter cause others to be adjusted and attempting to hold fixed many group of parameters is most difficult. submarines have practical limits regarding diameter. as much as 90 percent of the submlrine hull could be below the water surface. consider the hull volume ats the also limiting feature of design but as will be pointed out later. Although this draft would not present a problem in the open oceman. the resulting limited hull volume of a submalrine. For now. as well as impact coastal operations. Design books mn-ay use the term "space driven". Unlike surface ship designs. But there ~are fixed external limits to the size of the submarine. lnd the required strength of the hull to withstand submergence pressures at deep depths. significantly more than most surtfce ships. submarine designs start as "volume limited". the maximum draft could be 27 feet. TWhen considering a submarine diameter of 30 feet. Therefore the designer is limited to some practical limit of dialmeter. Even when on the surface.

A surface vessel has an RB due to the freeboard of the main hull and any superstructure which is watertight.ravity of the vessel relative to sea water.9 1. Another useful comparison is the weight to space relationship for typical diesel submarines.8 0.casualty which allows the sea to enter a portion of the submerged volume.= Specific . A submarine that is completely submerged does not have a freeboard and therefore does not have texcess RB. Ship Frigate Aircraft Carrier Bulk Cariers/Tankers Surflaced Submarine Submerged Submarine Percentage of total volume above waterline 70 80 20 10 0 1 + RB 0. Table 1: Specific Gravity Typical Values Specific Gravity.3 0. i. the submerged submarine is therefore the densest of all marine vehicles. shown in ''able 2 developed from reference (5). 16 .( From lable 1. The total volume of the vessel is larger than the volume underwater. (2) which provides a measure of the overall density of the vessel..e. Table 1 shows typical values of specific gravity for surface ships and submarines. The ratio of displaced volume to total volume can be used to develop some characteristic properties of ships shown in the following ratio (5): Ratio of the volume of displacement to the total volume = (I) 1+ RB Because the buoyancy of volume displaced must equal the weight of the vessel by Archimcdes' law.2 0. 1+RB . the volume of water displaced.

the less dense the item (5). the lack of RB in a submarine requires the designer to increase size. The reason for transition from volume to weight limited is because once the volume is set. As can be seen in Tab)le2. In addition. which in turn. which could result in a reduction of hydrostatic stability (5). If this result is unity. Unlike a surface ship. or reduce the amount of permanent ballast. this volume must be able to support the weight of the submarine. as mentioned above. this process of increasing weight and expanding volume may soon exceed the size restrictions of the design. the design may evolve into one limited by weight rather than volume. where a higher than estimated weight only results in a deeper draft.Table 2: Weight/Space Relationship of Typical Diesel Submarines Cormponent Payload eight Percentage 9 Space Percentage 28 56 11 5 l)ensitv Relative to Seawater (unity) < I Structure \[Main and Auxiliary 43 35 4 I >> 1 » < < 1 < 1 Machinery Accommodation and C)utfit Stores Pecrmanr-cnt Ballast 8 > I Structure and ballast take up relatively very little space 'lable 2 may be used as a guide to densities by considering for each item the ratio of its weight percentage to its space percentage as shown in the far right eolumn. buoyancy must be increased by expanding the volume. In other words. according to the space required to enclose all of the requirements. If excess weight is present. As a result of the high density of submarine structures. while the lower the ratio. the potential volume 17 . causes weight to increase. As can be imagined. Archimedes' principle of buoyancy matching weight must be met. the high overall submarine density is not due to payload or cargo but rather due to structure and the fact that in most cases the submarine needs to have a heavy pressure hull structure to enable it to achieve owner-specified depth requirements. the item would be as dlense as seawater.

5 Design Summary This chapter has given a brief introduction to submarine design and will be referred to in subsequent chapters as the dissection of submarine designs is carried out. WVithoutthe use of weight data tables from previous designs. maneuvering and control. Iaramet-ric relations have been developed from previous submarine designs and are very useful in developing the initial weight group values.. The overall submanne concept design is a complex systems engineering process which utilizes many design tools to solve. There are many requirements that may affect the volume and arrangement of the designer's concept submanrine. 'Lhe goal of the weight estimating process is developing design values for the weight groups of the submarine. Some of these requirements are speed. crew size.ssessment would increase significantly. Thus the criticality in submarine design of achieving accurate weight assessment cannot be overstated. i.expansion has the effect of creating an upheaval in internal compartment arrangements and an impact on many other aspects of design including structure. the rest of the design process (per Appendix B flowchart) can proceed.4 Weight Estimates and Weight Groups As seen in the section above. the buoyancy supports the weight and the ship balances longitudinally and transversely. and a concept "cartoon". the work involved in weight a. 2.e. Once the revised the weight estimate is complete and the ship balances. These initial values can be adjusted t-for new requirements in refining the weight groups to a specific design. 2. and propulsion. Recall the starting point involved weight tables from previous designs. endurance (both submerged and 18 . parametric relations to calculate new values. weight assessment is a tedious but critical portion of submarine design.

number of weapon stowage positions. and a balanced ship. The product of the concept design should provide initial weights. number of torpedo tubes.surtflced). dditionally. special features such as lockout trunks or special warfare interfaces. 19') . the owner may place special emphasis on one specific design factor. initial hull shape. and acoustic performance or quieting. such as the acoustic performance over the other requirements. The concept design will then be analyzed under feasibility studies. cost constraints. diving depth. initial volumes. model testing and finally be refined to give sufficient detail for production drawings (5).

In other words.2 Procedure Description The evaluation procedure consists of working backwards through submarine concept design and reverse engineering diesel submarine weight groups and naval architecture from the open literature. this comparative naval architecture analysis of existing submarines starts at the opposite end ofl the design spiral from that of traditional submarine design. The use of computerized mathematical software wvithadequate mathematical solving capability allows the designer to proceed quickly and efficiently through the complex design process. For the study of existing submarines. measures the major areas ad volumes. incorporating several of the parametric equations from reference (9). 3. traditional submarninedesign begins with design requirements and ends with a finished submarine. and photographs. This math model was developed at NIT. The author's goal was to develop a procedure 20 . based on the submarine design process described in chapter 2 and draws heavily on notes from CAPT Harry Jackson's MIT' Professional Summer Course "Submarine Design Trends" (9). to determine standard weight groups starting from open literature submarine drawings. As stated in section 1.1 Approach The MathCAD computerized submarine synthesis tool entitled "MIT Math Model" was used initially to gain understanding of the submarine design process (11).3 Development of Procedure 3. estimates the standard weight groups and draws conclusions from those naval architectural characteristics. the method used in. the MIIT math model was modified. this study starts with the finished submarine.2. available drawings.

all of axisymmetric shape and single pressure hull design. 21 . and. 2) Parametric equations were developed from historical designs and other references which were then used to calculate volumes and weight groups. with a full description including pictures and drawings in Appendix 1).2. A brief description is given below for each submarine studied.to determine submarine characteristics that allow reasonable estimates to be made of submarine weight groups from the open literature information. 3. Two approaches were utilized in order to draw accuracy comparisons from the set of results: 1) Dimensions were obtained from inboard profile and plan drawings that were then used to calculate volumes based on geometric equations.1 Submarines Selected for Analysis 'Ihllisstudy compares diesel to diesel submarines.

SS 580 USS Barbel Surface Displacement: Submerged Displacement: I cngth: 2146 Ltons 2639 Ltons 67 m Diameter: Complement: 8.000 Nm 90 Days 6 18 Portsmouth Naval Shipyard 1959 Decommissioned 1989 Other: 22 .lcctrical Generator Capacity: Propulsion Motor Power: Mlaximum 1700 AK 4800 SHIP '14 Kts Surfaced Speed: Maximum Submerged Speed: 18 Kts l)iving l[)epth: 213 m Overall Endurance Range: Deployment Endurance: Torpedo 'l'ubcs: Torpedo Capacity: Builder: Year: 14.8 m 77 (8 officers) FI.

1)ecommissioned 1972 23 .AGSS 569 USSAlbacore Surface Displacement: Submerged Displacement: 1 ength:: 1692 Ltons 1908 Ltons 63 m Diameter: Complement: 8.000 Nm Deployment Endurance: Torpedo Tubes: Torpedoj Capacity: Builder: Year: 0 5 Dvs 0 Portsmouth Naval Shipyard 1953 Other: Expcrimental submarine.4 m 52 (5 officers) Flctrical Generator Capacity: 1634 KW Propulsion Motor Power: NIaxirnum Surfaced Speed: AMLximum Submerged Speed: 7500 SHI 25 Kts 33 Kts 183 m Diving ]l)epth: C)verall Fndurance Range: 10.

o I ubes: Torpedo Capacity: Builder: Year: 14 I lowaldtswerke-Deutsche W\erft Gmbl I ( I )A) 1993 Numbcr of ships: (.TIpe 209/1200 Surtacc l)isplacement: Submerged Displacement: I .)ther: 9 (one built at HL)V.500 Nm 50 Days 8 Deployment Endurance: Torped. remaining in South Korea) Possible AIP Backfit 24 .cngth: 1100 Ltons 1285 Ltons 56 m Diameter: (Complemcnt: 6.2 m 33 (6 officers) Electrical Generator Capacity: 2800 KWV Propulsion Motor Power: Maximum Surfaced Speed: 4600 SHP II Kts \MLimutmSubmerged Speed: 22 Kts l)iving 1)cpth: 250 m Overall Endurarnce Range: 7.

500 Nm 70 Days 6 22 Australian Submarine Corp.8 m 42 (6 officers) E:lcctrical Generator Capacity: 4420 K\V Propulsion Motor Power: N\Iaximum Surfaced Speed: 7344 SHP 10 IKts Maxim:lm Submerged Speed: 20 Kts l)iving I)cpth: 300 m Ovcrall Endurance Range: Deployment Endurance: T'orpedo 'l'ubes: Torpedo Capacity: Builder: Year: 11.cngth: 3050 Ltons 3350 Ltons 78 m Diameter: Complement: 7. Adelaide 1996 6 Number of ships: Othler: Kockums' Design 25 .Collins 471 Surface Displacement: Submerged Displacement: ] .

rpedo Tlubes: 8.Type 212A Surface Displacement: Submerged Displacement: 1 ength: 1450 Ltons 1830 Ltons 56 m Diametler: 7m 27 (8 officers) Complement: FI lcctrical Generator Capacity: 3120 KW Power: Propulsion NMotor M[aximum Surfaced Speed: 3875 SHP 12 IKts xLximum Submerged Speed: 20 Kts D)iving l)epth: 350 m Overall Endurance Range: Deployment Endurance: lo'-. Number of ships: Other: Siemens PEMI 306 KW Fuel Cell 26 .000 Nm 60 Days 6 12 Torpedo Capacity: Builder: YNealr: I lowaldtswerke-l)eutsche 2004 \'erft Gmb I (I [1)W..

6 m 40 (8 officers) Electrical Generator Capacity: 2805 KV Propulsion NMotor Power: MNlaximum Surfaced Speed: -Ma 4694 SHP 12 Kts imtum Submerged Speed: 20 Kts 350 m DIiving Depth: ()vrall F ndurance Range: Deployment Endurance: T'orpedo T'ubes: 7.IZAR S80/P650 Surface l)isplacement: Submerged Displacement: Lcngth: Diameter: (Complmrnent: 1744 tons 1922 Ltons 67 m 6. Cartegena Spain 2007 4 (plus 4 as an option) Number of ships: Other: MESL AlP 600kW Fuel Cell 27 .500 Nm 70 Days 6 18 Torpedo Capacity: Builder: Year: IZAR.

Volume Calculations Inherent relationships exist between the volume and the wveigt of an ocean vessel. This limitatior. by measuring volumes of a submarine. Submarine characteristics such as normal surfaced condition (NSC). such as NSC(i) where the 'i' identifies the specific submarine. But first. the weight of the vessel and that of the individual weight groups can be calculated. submerged displacement (A. An open literature search was performed to gather suffiicent data on selected submarines to input into the Excel files. As stated. and photographs.3.. A goal of the submarine designer is to design the subn-iarine to be neutrally buoyant when submerged. the volumes of each major weight division are needed.Archimedes sho~wedthat in order for a body to be neutrally buoyant. 'The procedure of volume measurements and subsequent weight estimation is the basis from which the final weight groups are derived. for The IMathCADmodel file is included in Appendix C.I).2 Math Model Development Characteristics Several data files were created in Excel to provide the necessary submarine characteristics to IfathC. ensured the report would remain unclassified and provided some useful parametric equations which may be used 28 . T'herefore. . the study was limited to information available in open literature drawings. the weight of the volume of water displaced must equal the weight of the body.2. These variables were ten used in a simple iteration loop within MathCAD) to calculate the results described belQvw each sublmarine. characteristic wvasassigned a descriptive variable name within the math model. length overall (LO) ) and diameter (D) were Then each read into NlathCA\D using an Excel read ile function of MathCAD.b). published submarine characteristics.

1 diesel submarines included for analysis contained only two compartments: 1) Engineroom (ERa) and. so a range of published drawvingswas used (as showrn in Appcndix D).in future diesel submarine analyses. Information sources ranged from historical records maintained in the MIITNaval Construction and Engineering library to internet websites to foreig shipbuilding company presentations on submarine designs. Ivowever. Control. 2) Operations (01S). and from these published dimensions along with the drawing measurements. Areas of tlhe major submarine spaces were then calculated and entered into \athC Nl). Lockers. a scale was determined from which to calculate the full size dimensions. Communications. B3asic characteristics such as LOA and D are available in a variety of resources. and Intelligence Functions Propulsion Machinery and Battery Spaces * *· Motor Generators and Electrical Switchboards *· uxiliary Machinery Spaces * * * Berthing and NMessing Spaces Storerooms Offices. locating detailed scaled drawings in the open literature was not always possible. Tlhe hull curvature and passageway factors were obtained from parametric diesel electric submarine data of reference (I11). a hull curvature factor and passageway factor were applied to calculate the space volume. The goal of the literature search was to obtain detailed inboard profile and internal deck plan view drawings. Laundry and Activity Spaces 29 . where deck height. Scales of drawings were not available. The overall method for calculating volume is summarized in the following steps: * Measure the deck area for the following spaces * Command.

These calculations are shown in the lMathCAD model printout of Appendix C. which required an accurate estimate of the pressure hull volume . his volume was calculated using offsets of a body of revolution.12 fPxvav 1. Several of the parametric equations base the volume calculation on percentages of total pressure hull (PI-) volume. For example. variable ballast tank measurements were not included in the drawing used. as presented in 'Submarine Concept Design (7).*· Armament/ Weapons Spaces * Tanks *· Multiply deck area by deck height * Apply Ftictors for hull curvature and passageway from reference (9) The following calculation provides an example of the basic procedure for a major space. parametric equations relying on historical databases and those developed by Jackson in reference (9) were used. or even estimated measurements. A ep(() = 77.934_m Curx'c -1. The method used to determine each major compartment area and volume is described in the next section. Where accurate measurements.331_m lI"Dep (0) = 3. 30 .08 Ve p li) :=IIDwep(i) tPay Ve (0 = 367973_m 3 Awep(i) fCe- p Some compartments and spaces were not clearly shown in open-literature drawings. could not be obtained.

2. Then from the VP calculation.opm). equations (3) and (4) from reference (9) were used to find auxiliarn tank and variable load volumes. aft battery (except Barbez and A/bacore). the location of these batteries may not be divided between the forward (OPS) and aft (ER) compartments. NT(i) 0 04 I-VPH(i)+ . Forward Battery (and aft battery for Barbeland Alla. Niore recent foreign diesel submarines locate the aft battery in the ER and the forvwardbattery in the OPS compartment. A.both forvard and aft batteries are contained in the OPS compartment. equation (5). which were then added to the NopH..3. motor generators.).1 Major Compartment and Space Calculations Engineroom Propulsion machinery.and electrical switchboard areas were summed to obtain total FR area.52n (3) (3) Nr(i) = Complemlent VV. OPS Compartment OPS Compartment area was calculated by adding the deck areas for Command and (ontrol.Bcrthing and \Nessing. lthough most diesel submarines have both forward and aft batteries.. which was then used as in the example above to calculate ER volume.i) = 0.:ore).2. In older diesel submarines such as Bareland . 'L'hcrefore the IqR volume equations differ for older US and foreign modern diesel submarines. lounges.WVeapons and Other Spaces (offices. above to yield the total Vaux(i) = as in aV\. etc. Storerooms.0 64 VpH(i) (4) V ps ( i)= Vopsm(i)+ K + V(i) VB(i) (5) 31 .l/bacore.uxiliarics. This area was co(lnvertcd a volume as in the example above and designated as to 01S volume meastred (.

so calculating sonar array volume (. generally absent from open literature drawings. Everbuoyant Volume The verbuoyant volume (eb) is comprised of the pressure hull. their volume is estimated as a percentage of pressure hull volume. access trunks and fuel tank structure that displace water are considered outboard volume (\'ob) Due to t:le difficulty of measuring such items. 'The general conclusion was that sonar space water for a cylindrical array was significantly less than for a spherical array and in fact some sonar spaces may actually be free tlood areas. based on reference (9).Outboard Volume and Sonar Array All items outboard of the pressure hull but within the outer shell. measurements were taken of the submarines studied sonar and a factor of multiplication was determined for the array space volume. the bow sonar array was cylindrical. IToestimate the yl#lm/i/drca{ rarrayspace water volume. 'To be consistent.. Summing the volumes and multiplying by sea water density provides the everbuoyant Veb = V'l displacement Aeb). the submarines in the study were assumed to contain a certain volume oft dome water (Vl) surrounding the sonar array which was not counted as free flood. For all submarines studied. their volume is calculated.) was accomplished using the equation for a cylinder. Sonar Dome Water The water in the space around the sonar array would typically be given in new designs and may be easily estimated for sonar Jpheres based on historical data. 'Whecre major items such as bow sonar arrays are shown arld have measurable dimensions. the outboard items and sonar systems. such as air flasks. + Vob + Vsa + Vd (6) 32 .

and MBT displacement. and torpedo tube shutter doors.) is a given characteristic in open literature sources. "'mud tank" (area surrounding the shaft exit from the hull). 33 .. Seven percent was used for this study because it produced the minimum error when cross checks were done. appendages. which is specified in the owner's requirements. make up the free flood volume.. among a few others. Aebis equal to NSC. Another method used in submarine design to estimate MBT volume is to multiply the NSC by the reserve buoyancy (RB).. Main Ballast 'rank (MBT) Volume The difference in A.. Submerged Volume Submerged displacement (A.. and NS(C is equal to the MMBT displacement. These two values are compared as a check of model validation and can be viewed in Appendix C. Because the RB was not available in the open literature. Multiplying by the tactor 35 ft3/lton yields the MBT volume. superstructure.. Assuming the source to be accurate allows a validity check of the calculations and mea:surements used to this point by using the fact that A.Aebr = Vhpsw (7) In a balanced ship.... 'MBT volume was calculated from the given NSC and AS. free tlood volume encompasses all those areas that are open to the ingress and egress of water within the outer shell of a submarine... A value of four to seven percent of the envelope volume for single hull submarines is given to calculate free tlood volume in reference (9).. is equal to the sum of A. Areas such as the sail. Asb Aeb+ iLBT Free Flood (ff) (8) As the name implies.

A. After obtaining required volumes and displacements. parametric equations from reference (9) were used to calculate certain areas.2. Therefore. For individual spaces.. these values may or may not be included. the majority of parametric area and volume equation results did not match the measured areas and volumes with any consistent level of error.Envelope Displacement The entire volume enclosed by the outer shell of the submarine is called the envelope.the following relationships can be expressed: AZen = Al 1 b + Aff v (9) Aff = 0.2./09)3 (1(0) A.b + 0..0)7 Therefore. These areas were then compared to the measured areas for a check of parametric equations. Ae. = A Envelope displacement is the final displacement value not including the sail and appendages such as rudder and control planes. as long as the convention is consistent throughout the hull design (9).. During initial design. as xould be done in initial design.. the next step is calculating the submarine weight groups. Using the estimate from above that free flood is seven percent of Ael. appendage volumes were not included in this studv..n = A. 34 .2 Area and Volume Calculation Error Checks For comparison purposes.. 3... Therefore. envelope displacement is the sum of submerged and free flood displacement.07 ... (11) (12) and Ae.. Estimating volumes of such appendages is tedious and their contribution to the overall displacement is generally quite small.

However the difference between whole-boat volumes of parametric results and the calculated volumes based on measured whole-boat dimensions were all within twenty percent. 3. the results were left as calculated. Rather than attempt to revise the detailed measurements or modify the parametric equations. inconsistencies in area measurements from inaccurate drawings or a combination of these.3 Weight Group Calculations Weight Definitions Standard weighl.groups were presented in section 1. 35 .2. This difference in the individual volumes but not the overall sum indicates a possible differcncc in designations of certain spaces. accepting a threshold error of twenty percent with a goal of ten percent comparison errors. The standard weight groups summed together account for a weight condition called A-1: Group 100 GCroup 200 Hull Structure Propulsion MLachinery Group 300 Group 400 G(roup 500 Electric Plant Command and Surveillance Auxiliaries Group 600 Group 700 Total Outfit and Furnishings Wealpons Systems Condition A-1 Table 3 provides a summary of the weight breakdown of submarines and what each group is dependent upon. Section V of the math model in Appendix C contains a summary of calculation error checks.

. + FF) A.2 above is the submerged displacement ( .) (6)... To condition A is added the variable load (L). NS(C Variable Load X (A + VL) NSC( NfBT AsLhb MNainBallast Tanks _ (?\fBT + NSC) Free Flood detiv C (... weight must be added to the submarine.dding the lead ballast to condition A-1 results in condition A (also known as the standard displacement ol the Washington Treaty. and this sum of condition A and VL is the NSC. Then adding the 1 FF to A.2. 36 .b). as shown in Table 3. which is done by filling large NlB3Ts external to the pressure hull with water from sea. In order to submerge..ub yields the A..Table 3: SubmarineWeight Breakdown and Estimating Group Number I IHlull Structure Name NSC Function of 2 3 4 5 Propulsion Machinery Electric Plant Command and Surveillance Auxiliaries StIIP & Battery Volume K\V NSC NSC 6 7 Outfit and Furnishings Vceapons Systems NSC Nvep NA1 xead A _ _ Y (1-7) Ballast (A-1 + Lead) \V'cightGroups A-1 I\.. which is the combination of all the weights that can change from day to day plus the variable ballast required for the submarine to remain in equilibrium. The result of NSC and MBT weight as shown in section 3.

the overall goal of this study is to compare the naval architecture of selected sutmarines. shipping companies and experts in the submarine desigl field.Weight Estimation As stated. MIodel validation with acceptable error levels is explained in section 3. gathering information from vendors. Using the known values for and Batbel. etc. The weight groups can be considered the basic building blocks of submarine architecture. Then these volumes alre used in parametric equations developed from a combination of references (6) and (9) along with historical databases. the USS Babe/l. Therefore developing accurate estimates of weight groups is the primary goal of the math model. However. the parametric relationships were checked for validitym in some cases parametric equations from reference (6) for nuclear submarines were adjusted for use with diesel submarines. cabinets.. A much more detailed time consuming search could be performed. T'he first step is taking measurements of areas and computing volumes of the major compartment groups.) that made up each group. steel plates.e. I'his study includes a hybrid method of estimating weights.4. even in initial concept design. but the lack of complete and accurate weight information in open literature sources would still require making some estimates. O course the most accurate method would be to add the known individual weights of all material and equipment (i. 37 . the material and equipment weights must be estimated and such weights are definitely not listed in the open literature of diesel submarines. The actual weight group breakdown was known tor at least one submarine included in the study. frames.

ParametricWeight Estimates Group 1 Hull Structure Reference (6) contains a parametric relationship based on NSC and hull material. Using Figure 1 from reference (6).50 Figure 1: Group 1 Weight vs.0.48 -r 0.34 r 0. NSC and hull material.46 .40 0.§ j 10 i 51i 0 0 0. a factor of GR I to NS(Cw-eight is determined and equation (13) is used to estimate GR Lweight.0.42 % of NSC --0. \Vhereas many of the reference (6) relationships are based on nuclear submarine databascs. Q . group I (GR 1) weight is less dependent on type of propulsion system and more dependent on diving depth.44 0.36 --. Wlest W lfac'NSC (13) 25 20 o i 15 9.38 0. Operating Depth 38 .

To determine GR 2 alone. f Iowcver. W\eight Groups 2 and 3 are functions of S lP and KW.KWi ( 5) K3 = 0. AIthough both Barbeland A/lbave designs are over 50 years old.ssumes that power densities have not changed significantly because diesel engines and lead acid batteries are still in use.11/acore. the study a. technology of the equipment that makes up the group is rapidly changing and the magnitude of the group strongly depends on the submarine's mission (9). Mission components that make up the group weight include 39 .Group 2 Propulsion Machinery and Group 3 Electric Plant As shown in l'Table 3. to avoid double counting the battery volume. a different parametric equation would have to be developed.est = 1. both weight groups 2 and 3 are also functions of battery volume. a factor was again determined from Barbelknown weight groups and electric plant generating capacity in 1KW'.005- ~ ~ hp(SHP -(14) VBa t = Batte7_ Volume To determine GR 3. it was only included in the GR 2 parametr:ic relationship. Battery volumes were measured from drawings and arbeldand equation (14) was developed: Iton Iton W. equation (15). In a diesel submarine. respectively. If future submarines use new types of engintes or newC batteries. W 3 cst = K3.759n VBat + 0. a parametric equation 1was developed from the known propulsion wCeig*hts of .0126I- Iton kW KW i = KWinstalled Group 4 Command and Surveillance The estimation of GR 4 weight is complicated.

sonar.042 (16) Group . sonar. This error may be due to inaccurate drawings or of counting all of the arrangeable volume in addition to that taken up by equipment. The GR 4 weight from Table 4 is greater than 30 percent higher than the published Gl 4 weight for Barbld 48. Therefore another method had to be used. GR 5 and 6 weights calculated from volume measurements were unexpectedly high.nav igation. Table 5 contains CGR and 6 weights as a percentage of NSC( for four 40 .9 P 650 9.2% 209 6. W4cst = NSC 0.8 67.8 ILtons. the weights of groups 5 and 6 are proportional to the total weight of the submarine (9).8% r 212A 8. fire control and radar areas) was converted to displacement in Ltons and then compared to NSC.3% AGSS 569 8.0 The percentages of GR 4 to NSC and the GR 4 weights in Table 4 are higher than expected. the volume of command and control (including all navigation.2% 471 6. equation (16) was used for all submarines studied.8 207. 4 weights more consistent with expected GlR 4 weights. Table 4: Group 4 Weight (from measured volume) as Percentage of NSC r I -I I I · SS 580 GR 4 as WcC/NSC 6.0 I GR 4 Weight (Ltons) 134. In order to obtain GE. a database of US diesel 5 submarines was used. In new submanrinedesigns. a database of historical percentages for CR 5 and 6 is used to obtain the approximate percentage of NSC. Results are shown below in 'l'Table 4. Because a database of recent diesel submarines was not available.2 percent of NSC.2% 161. the general formula fior GR 4 weight estimate from reference (9) of 4. tire control and radar systems.7% 125. :Asnoted with the initial attempt to calculate GR 4 weight from volume measurements.7 138.SAuxiliaries and Group 6 Outfit and Furnishings Similar to GR 4. To initially calculate this weight group.

21% D 7.7 percent of condition A--1as shown below.99% C 9.66% 3.12.US diesel submarines. eight percent of standard displacement (condition A) is generally allocated to permanent ballast (5).002ton = l't' 7est -. Therefore lead ballast will make up 8.5 Pb (21) 41 .67% 3.12% 3.+ Pb = \(20)) Pb:= .13% AVG 7. The following parametric equation (19) was modified from reference (10): W = ---- 0.52% B 8. the number of torpedo tubes and handling systems. For a diesel of axisymmetric toirm and single hull configuration.72% 2.08'A A . 5 a:nd 6 weights for the submarines studied. A\.20% 4.46% Group 7 Weapons Systems \\capons systems weight depends on the volume of the weapons spaces. W5est = W5frac NSC (17) W st = W6frac NSC (18) Table 5: Group 5 & 6 Weight Summary as Percentage of NSC Submarine Group 5 6 A 5. The average percentages are used in equations (17) and (18) as an initial estimate of GR.V vep + TT-6 ('19) TT = Torpedo_tubles Lead and VariableLoad (VL) Lead is used as permanent ballast in diesel submarines.

includes fluid and gas stowage (auxiliary loads). weapons and variable ballast (9).Substituting (21) into (20) yields: Pb = 0.. Displacement Ltons Surf Subm Barbel :. the published dimensions are shown again in l'able 6 below. the perccntages of NSC were calculated for auxiliary loads and variable ballast volumes. adding these averages yielded eleven percent of NSC for VI. To determine the fraction for this study. Therefore. Storerooms.7 2639. estimates.2 LOA m Diameter m :: -: .': 66 G. For all submarines studied. personnel and weapons were included in these percentages and not identified individually. A.. personnel.4 56 6.6 42 . respectively.. It can be calculated as a percentage of NSC.0871A-1 V\I. storerooms..b.11 WVL(i) = WLfacNSC(i) (22) Finally.1.6 8. lead and VL estimates allows the NSC and be calculatcd and compared to published values of NSC and described in the next sections.3 OverallAnalvsis Process From the six selected submarines presented in section 3.2 77. iac = 0. AS. SS581 AG(SS 569 '1692 1908 bacore Tpe / 1200 1100 1285 CollinsR 471 3)50 335 e 1450 183(! S80/P65 1744 1922 2145. knoxwingthe weight group. Table 6: Published Dimensions of Selected Submarines Class.8 56 7 67 6.:nd variable ballast were five and six percent.8 8.8 7. average percentages of NS(Cfor auxiliary loads .2.: . to The analysis process is 3.. WvI.8 G62.

Then using these dimensions along with published properties such as surftaced and submerged displacement.4 Validation ofModel Outputs Two methods were used to validate the results of the method used to derive naval architecture characteristics in this study.. model results of A-1 and envelope displacement can be compared with derived values of A-1 and envelope displacement.2 above were completed. D. which is described following the equation. The actual weight groups are known for the Baellrand the A/lbaore.Manual measurements were taken from the open literature drawings. 3. The athCAD model results were output to tables where the results could be easily compared. IIhe calculated characteristics and comparisons will be discussed in chapter 4. For cases where the actual weight groups are not known. First. a measure of accuracy can still be performed by comparing the model results of NS( and Aub with the published values of NSC and A. if the actual weight group values are known for a particular submarine. Xdditionallv. The envelope displacement accuracy check is shown below.o. eA _c tD. the calculations in section 3.Iton Aenv 140 ltt t ft 3 IOA I) _ KI) ) Cpf = fonrvardprismatic_coefficient Cpa = al'terprismatic_coefficient (23) ilf = Entrance_factor 'la = RLm_ actor 43 . Equation (23) relies only on LOA.so their model weight group estimates and published weight group values are compared directly to obtain a measure of accuracy. and a shape factor KtI. the calculated weight groups can be compared directly to the known values.

D and measured length forward and aft. I -70/. The envelope displacement frorm equation (23) is then compared to that calculated in section 3.K = 6 .4Cpf ._ A I Parameter I I SS Paramatar~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ 1 I SS 580 _8 1664 1757 . 6 Cpa (24) K I = shape_coefficient C..3. respectively.2 from area measurements.: no0 .are calculated from the hull offsets.·_ _ 896 901 0% 2351 2497 -6% 1198 1187 1% 650 650 1316 1428 -8% ~ . the entrance and the run.. determined by the published LOA. A fairly accurate estimate may be made of qf and rli from Figure 18 in Appendix F (9). rlt and rl.2. and Cp. T'he cross checking of model output as a measure of accuracy is shown in Table 7. Therefore the only unknowns in equation (23) are the shape factors of the ends. with a threshold of fifteen percent. Refined measurements could be made to further reduce the error but the accuracies attained are considered sufficient for the comparative study to follow. 1 212A IP _. Table 7: Model Results Measure of Accuracy Parametr_ | SUBMARINES AGSS_ 59 A 1403 1385 1% 1 209 1 471 . Error -6% 1961 1692 3050 1744 1100 1450 1686 1084 3145 1457 1570 Error 9% 2639 2461 0% 1908 1868 I 1% 1285 1394 I -3% 3350 3409 .. In I ' O/ / I . I IN O/ I 2838 2778 I I Error 2% 2052 2248 1382 1375 I0% 3602 3154 112% 1968 1699 14% 2067 1861 10% 1 -10% 44 .."!:2146 ' i -. I 0% 1830 1731 II c/ In 10% 1922 1916 I/ n U /o I I r. The goal was to obtain differences within ten percent.

8 236.0 25% 71.9 2777.0 1316.6 1456.7 1205.3 1187.5 1348. 4.1 310.7 376.5 1394.4 264.0 3153.7 176.6 1916.1 Data Presentation From the calculations of chapter 3.0 1402.4 1427.8 10% Surfaced Displ MBT Displ MBT Vol (m3) Vol PH (m 3 ) (m 3) Submerged Displ Veb 1960.8 60.2 140.4 471.3 600.4 1198.4 256. Therefore a closer examination is made of the 45 .9 1868. the math model output is presented in Table 8.5 20.3 63.1 1457.8 1861.3 P 650 671.8 58.5 56.9 3409.2 62.0 297.7 182.4 1962.6 274.1 129..1 AGSS 569 651.5 10% 60.4 144.1 1732.3 896.0 15% 128.4 1059.4 Comparative Naval Architecture Data results are first compared on the basis of individual weight groups.6 212.2 1375.2 335.2 50.9 (parametric eqn) The output in Table 8 is difficult to compare without normalizing or relating each individual . Table 8: Math Model Submarine CharacteristicsOutput Weight Breakdown (Ltons unless noted) GR 1 SUBMARINES SS 580 826.9 3145.6 1084.9 2008.3 212A 558.6 121.5 471 1174.3 279.5 214.1 244.3.4 1756.4 209 423.6 1698.3 104.9 111.7 1499.2 84. Then the effects of differences in naval architecture are analyzed for factors of mission and cost in section 4.1 1742.2 133.2 159.0 21.5 28% 73.2 1685.6 74.1 164.eight as a percentage of an overall weight.2 900.6 1179.5 3098.1 2460.9 191.3 1569.1 2497.7 328.3 130.2 35.5 35.0 1664.7 55.2 3666.8 499.9 489.8 2351.0 91.4 1646.3 2477.2 Free Flood Env Displ Env Displ 2645.3 GR 4 GR 5 GR 6 GR 7 A-1 Parametric A-1 Var Load RB (%) 90.4 186.2 183.1 13% 46.7 185.7 346.5 0.8 2247.4 38.2 50.6 2060.4 GR 2 GR 3 426.1 39.0 1731.9 1385.7 1860.4 1518.1 56.

2% 9.6% 1.3% 100.0% 4.2% 4.4% 100.8% 100.9% 25.4% 10.9% 2.1% 9.2% 6.6% 10.0% 4.3% 23.2% 100.4% 471 49.weight groups as a percentage of A-1.7% 100. Table 9: Weight Groups as Percentage of A-1 SUBMARINES Weight Breakdown GR 1 GR GR GR GR 2 3 4 5 SS 580 49.3% P 650 51.3% 5.6% 1.0% 21.0% 4.5% 3.1% 9.0% 100.4% 212A 46.2% 2.9% AGSS 569 46.3% 209 47.7% 5.6% 4.7% 3.6% 2.4% 3.3% 5.9% 5.6% 25.4% 33.5% 5.2% 0.4% 5.0% 4. - V 25% 0% SS 580 AGSS 569 209 471 212A P 650 Submarines Figure 2: Weight Summary as Percentage of A-1 46 . Table 9 and Figure 2 showvthe results for the submarines studied.0% 3.4% 9.2% GR 6 GR 7 A-1 4.0% 100% 75% 'T c 50% c.6% 27.

47 .2% 0.3% 1.3% 0.0% 0.2% 0.7% 4.2% GR 2.9% 24.3% 1.The mean and standard deviation of the weight group percentages is shown in Table 10. Table 11 shows the mean ancl standard deviation without the AGSS 569 outlier values. Recall from Table 7 in section 3.2 and 2.5% 26. Table 11:Weight Groups/A-1 Variation WithoutAGSS 569 Weight Breakdown GR 1 GR 2 GR 3 GR 4 GR 5 GR 6 GR 7 Mean 48.0% 4.2% 2.8% 4.3% 9.5% 0.9% 2. respectively.0% GR 4 GR 5 GR 6 5. A.3% 9.5% 0.4% Another observation of the small deviations in weight group percentagcs is that all the weight groups are calculated from the same model. XGSS 569 was built without armament and therefore has a GR 7 percentage of zero.6 percent) devoted to GR 2 because it was an experimental ship built for speed. Table 10:Weight Groups/A-1 Variation Weight Breakdown GR 1 GR 2 GR 3 Mean 48. All group percentage variations over the submarines studied are dependent on the accuracy of the model-output A1. thcre is an added explanation for GR 2 and 7 standard deviations of 4. and 7 have standard deviations greater than two percent.2 percent. I lowevcr.2% 1.3% 4.3% St Dev 1. using the same parametric relationships. Additionally.7% 2.6% 2.7% 5.GSS569 had a relatively large percentage (33.2% GR 7 3.5% St Dev 2.4 that errors in A-1 varied from one to six percent.

However. 1001% 75% Z I . the parametric relationships were developed with the aid of measured areas converted to volumes of compartments and therefore do not degrade the accuracy of the results.L Lo 01 50%/ i 25% 0% SS 58( AGSS 569 209 Published SSK Su bmalines 471 212A P 650 Figure 3: Weight Group Percentages of NSC Compared to Published SSK (5) 48 . compare the weight group percentages of NSC with published desigrnnorms for diesel submarine design from reference (5). As further proof of this point. shown below in Figure 3. The published values are shown in the center of the figure.

49 .2 Analysis. The interesting aspect of GR 6 constancy is that the overall number of crewmembers has decreased on diesel submarines. SS 580 and AGSS 569 both have GR 3 percentages below 1. GR 6 weight (outfit and furnishing) can be analyzed from the perspective of space per man.1 Historical Trends As the submarines spanned a large number of years.2. requiring a greater generator k\V1 capacity.3 percent and standard deviation of 0. of Results 4. ° 40o. space per man (m3) was calculated and plotted for the corresponding year of cotmmissioning in Figure 4. This growth in GR.5% wvhilelater submarines reach nearly . GR 6 percentages have a mcan of 4. navigation and sonar. an historical perspective can be examined in weight group 3.4. Going beyond the standard weight group comparison. Possible explanations in this growth include: 1) equipment functions once performed with hydraulics or air systems are now performed with electrical-driven motors or actuators. 2) colmputer-based system increase in fire control.2 percent over the selected submarines. 3 can be attributed to the increased number of electrical components onboard. Using the equivalent volume from the GR 6 weight output and the complement. radio. electrical systems. radar.

569] ,

.--

~

~

~

~

~

~~~ ~

~ ~ ~ ~ ~~p--j~

FAGSS 569]

195( 1950

1970 1970 Year

1990 1990

010 2010

Figure 4: Group 6 Trend Shown as Space per Man

There are at least two possible explanations for this result: 1) the living accommodations per man have steadily increased from 1950 to present day; 2) furnishings such as lounge and recreation areas have increased on board, so the space is not only allocated to people but to furniture as well. Additional data would be necessary to determine the actual use of the increased volume per man.

4.2.2 Mission Effects

ission effects on naval architecture are evident in the GR 2 and GR 7 results of AGSS 569 explained in sec-tion4.1 above. The AGSS 569 was designed as an experimental platform,

50

with a hull of revolution or "teardrop" shape, smaller appendages and no weapons systems, all of which clearly affect the respective weight groups. Additionally, an apparent distinction in individual comparisons is seen in GR 7 results of the remaining submarines. The Type 209 weight percentage of 6.3 percent, greater than any other submarine, is due to the increased number of torpedo tubes in the 209. A possible consequence is a reduction of RB of 15 percent in the Type 209, compared to its most similar hull class, the Type 212A which has a RB of 28 percent. The hull dimensions of the two hulls are similar but more volume was taken up by mission-related functions in the Type 209, leaving less volume for MIBTsand therefore smaller RB. This relatively large RB for Type 212A is unexpected. Most US submarines have RB values between ten and twelve percent, so a value twice that stands out. Possible reasons and future recommendations will be discussed in chapter 5.

4.2.3 Construction Effects

'Ihe leading submarine manufacturer is Thyssen Nordseewerke (fD'/TNSW, the newly-

formed combination of long-time manufacturers Howaldtsxverke-Deutsche WVerft GmbH (t I)\W) of [Kieland Fmden, Germany and Kockums of Karlskrona, Sweden. France operates Direction Construction National (DCN) and competes with TNSW for competing submarine contracts. Spain has recently started building submarines at Cartegena under the manufacturer IZAR, in collaboration with DCN. Other European countries building diesel submarines include Greece, Turkey and Italy, all under license of l IDW/TNS'. In Asia, Japan continues

to steadily produce diesel submarines and China is improving its submarine-building programs (14). But the submarines typically built by Japan and China are for their sole use.

51

The information found on submarine construction methods indicated a history of modular construction techniques, similar to the recent nuclear submarine lUSS f 'ilt'ia construction. A look at history shows this construction method to have been extensively used by Germany in W\V II, where the U-boat construction was parceled out to many assembly groups, each completing parts and subassemblies, termed modules. These modules were brought together in decreasing numbers of subassemblies and finally into one shipyard for final assembly (5). Prior to computer aided drafting (CAD) submarine designs would sometimes be tested for fit up using full scale mock ups. NMore recent diesel desigrls have used fifth-scale models rather than full mock ups, and CzkD programs have significantl y assisted

arrangements (5).

Alhat are nations looking for in submarine capabilities? With the exception of nations building nuclear submarines, nations seeking to obtain submarines are looking f-r inexpensive but effective diesel submarines possessing advanced design without the need for extended range (14). Specifications for bids include:

· · ·

Turbo exhaust gas blowers for diesels High lev-elof automation/computerization for minimum crew size

'ither a fuel cell AlP component or a closed cycle, external combustion AlP' engine such as the Kockums Stirling.

* ·

I lull construction of high carbon yield steel with non-magnetic, low field signature. Variable-speed motors and high efficiency alternators.

Diesel submarines should be suited for detection of hostile submarine intrusion into home waters, bottom mapping of shore regions, detection of mines, detection of electronic

52

how quickly they are required. P 650 appears to be a venr capable platform and may compete well with the German designs of HDW. Countries that sell diesel submarines do not list published prices of their submarines for the general public. is the total of the individual costs of the contents. submarine dcsigners and builders have moved toward functional costing or relating cost directly to the functional performance parameters of the design (5). and a cost per ton was normally determined to find the overall cost of the submarine. The only accurate data obtained was that of the Type 212A selling for just over $500 NI in 2004 (14). The price of a submarine is the amount a shipbuilder is willing to offcr to build the vessel to specification. However. Thus the price of a submarine can vary drastically. Overall nations are looking for minimum cost and stealth as priorities for their diesel submarine acquisitions (14). competition for hich was prices may be difficult. Price depends on the number of boats planned to be built. Cost is an inherent property of a submarine usually determined early in the design stages. Cost estimating has traditionally been based on weight group breakdown. Spain's P 650 built by IZAR. the accuracy of functional costing is difficult to predict because it is almost impossible to obtain a single valued function to cost relationship. one of w covercedin this study.4 Cost Effects Cost information is difficult to find in open literature. even with the same design requirements (5).2. the level of competition. 'Ihe cost. But the first 53 . Other builders are starting interesting programs. An important distinction must be made between price and cost. From the analysis.emissions and ability to carry unmanned submerged vehicles. the resources. TINS/ IDW. 4. But more recently. and the facilities. however. expertise of the shipbuilder. With onc major leading European manufacturer.

P 650 will not be commissioned until 2007, so competition with HDWX will have to be compared at that time. T'herefore, cost effects on naval architecture are largely qualitative due to the limited amount of data available. One conclusion that doesn't require quantitative data is that it is not fteasibleto put performance above all cost considerations and in most designs, the designer must carefully account for the mix between performance, cost and resources (5).

4.3Discussion ofResults

Reviewing again the results of Table 11 above, the lack of significant difference in standard deviation is not surprising when considering that the basics of ship design have remained the same. The basic law of Archimedes still applies, regardless of advances in technology, mission differences, cost factors or construction techniques. T'his result may have been shown for submarines of the same country before but never explicitly shown for submarines of different countries. Comrnparative studies of surface ships have found similar conclusions. For example, IKehoe and Gralham note that although the process of design for US and foreign surface ships varied, the average values of characteristics did not vary significantly (13). Submarine design is typically volume-limited, with a pressure hull structure as the limiting factor. Although technology and construction techniques have changed over the years of submarine design, the conclusion is that the changes have not been significant enough to alter the traditional submarine design process. Another possible reason for the similarity in results is what wvas mentioned in chapter 1, that initial design starts with previous submarine databases. FIstirnates are made early in the design from those databases that carry throughout the inal product, resulting in similar weight divisions. This result will be discussed in further

detail in chapter 5.

54

**5 Conclusions 5.1 Summar of Work
**

In conclusion, this study has presented a method to obtain volumes and weight groups of diesel submarines given dimensions normally found in open literature. Furthermore the weight group percentages were found to not vary significantly from one design to the next. The similarity in %weight groups may be attributed to using historical databases and borrowing from previous designs to develop the initial estimates for a new design. As Jackson notes, "Weight and volurne estimating depends on the accumulation of data from a great many sources in a systematic manner... It is the crux of the concept design phase as weights and unit volumes must be intelligent guesses while everything else is subject to rigorous mathematical analysis" (7). These intelligent guesses come from databases of previous designs and therefore are similar in proportion. Mission factors do have an effect on weight groups, itfthe mission factor is of a "large scale". Those factors found to be large enough in this study were the presence or absence of one tpe of mission, such as the lack of armament or the emphasis on speed in the mission. Cost does seem to have an implied effect of leveling the field of possible designs due to constraints on size, cost and arrangements of submarine designs, but no quantitative data was found for this conclusion. The fact that countries seek the least expensive, most capable submarines gives qualitative reasoning to this statement. No new or unusual solutions or concepts to make ships smaller, less expensive, or more effective have been revealed by this analysis of diesel submarines. Diesel submarine hull characteristics have grown beyond the ideal of Holailtdand therefore have become less hydrodynamically efficient than the hull of revolution design. It is difficult to reduce size

55

constraints once they have grown and been incorporated into new ships. Designers must resist the tendency of volume growth trend but the reversal of such a trend is contrary to the perception that a more effective platform must meet more capability based requirements.

**5.2 Future Workand Recommendations
**

In performing this study, the followxingareas were identified that xvould expand the scope of the comparative naval architecture analysis.

5.2.1 Survey Size Six submarines were selected and two of those were mainly included for the development of parametric equations. The two older US submarines provided a historical perspective but additional modern submarines would give a more comprehensive comparison of modem technologies.

-As

diesel submarine numbers increase, more data may be available and

therefore should ease the task of gathering that data. Additionally, more submarine data will enable refinement of the parametric equations used in the math model.

5.2.2 Math M:odel

The math model can be improved to output additional characteristics and therefore add to the comparisons available. Volumes and weight groups were the only naval architectural characteristics calculated. If more complete and accurate drawings are obtained, additional weights could be calculated of frames, plates and bulkheads for instance, which could yield more accurate estimates of structural weight. Additionally, more accurate measurements of internal areas culd be obtained to calculate more accurate volumes and to develop more precise parametric equations for cases where drawings were not available.

56

5 percent. the result is 26 percent as shown below.= (1830 . The RB was calculated in the math model by dividing the TMBT volume by the everbuoyant volume. new battery tec]hnology and weapon systems. Research of propulsion and weapons capabilities would provide a more thorough comparative analysis of the submanrinesstudied. 5. eb = NSC And Vbr = A.= 26 0°'o This result is over tice that of design-lane values of 10 to 12.2. If RB is calculated from published values. The possible causes were not researched further in this report but rather left to future work. IKnow that in a balanced ship.5. acoustics. RB = NlBTVo / Ne-b From Table 8 the math model output for RB was 28 percent.¢ub - NSC Published values: NSC:1.L . 1 = b / NSC_.3 Reserve Buoyancy An interesting result is the relatively large RB of Type 212A..ton Therefore RB.2. even when considering smaller submarine hulls will have larger RB values.1830 ]. = 1450 Lton Aul.4 Advanced Technology This study's focus was on the comparison of submarine weight groups but more detailed comparisons may be made of advanced technology in propulsion systems (AIP).1450) / 1450 RB13. 57 .

The overall conclusion is that submarine designlhas not changed significantly. and methods o comparative naval architecture. the weight groups. then adjust these to meet operational or owner requirements. foreign diesel submarine designs. Submarine designers must continuously make engineering estimates and rely on previous designs for volume and weight predictions.3 Closing This study covered in detail the submarine design procedure.5. 58 . with regard to the major components of naval architecture. math model was developed to estimate volumes and weight groups from open literature diesel submarine drawings.

" SNAME.October 2()()4. October 5 1988. 13 l)Deccmber 1994.w. CAPT USN (Ret)." I)ecember 2 9')9<http:/ /x-vv. "Bulletin 22. Massachusetts Institute of Technology. Frein S/N.. ubtmirineresearcll.James XW. "Naval Architectural Aspects of Submarine Design. and l ouis Rydill. Meier.. Glenn. Jackson. rentzen E.. P. Peter. Jale's Fihtiio 3'hips2002-2003. Lienau. P. and Herbert A. I lalry A. 14.References 1.A. 13. CAPT USN (Ret).I'/rdaiieResea. chief York: Simon and Schuster. 10.. editor.na-veapl)s. LT. "Fundamentals of Submarine Concept Design. 1992.om/ct/ww2europc/stats.L. AMI lntenatiollal. n_.. 2002. Oue H/lldred Fifth edition. Cann. Jane's Information Group Limited. 7. UI'. Commodore Stephen Saunders RN. Jackson. November 2003.x. 1978.. C. January 2004. Stenard. Coulsdon Surrey. 1960." SNA. consultant editor."5'b/atrile ResearchCeer. 12..\ v. UK.htm> 4..NeVw <bhttp:/ wx.'h (lte '. "Bulletin 2:75. Harry A. eds. Marshall.x . S. Colzceptsili Siubmaitl Deezsl. lclealr.lhtml> 59 . USN.com/index tech/tech-0h50. "Comparative Naval Architecture Analysis of NATO and Soviet Frigates.. "Submanine Concept Design. Cambridge: Cambridge 1994." Naval Engineers Journal. et al. <h ttp: //.alitues. October 1980.lhtm> 2. The Simon and Schuster encyclopedia of World War II / edited by Thomas Parrish. October 1992. 100. CAiPT USN. l\[ay1988.html> 3.I Iransactions. AMI lhtierllatio/la.. oJ'Mloderw 11.. Harry A. 1995 IAP Submarine Design Course notes. November 17-18. "Nuclear Powered Ships. Vol. Dept of Ocean Engineering.com/bulletins .E. .-APT' Design Trends". 6. pp 419-448. "The Working Environment for German Submarine Design During XlAtII. 8. Kenneth Brower." ASNE. and Philip Mandel.ulbmarincreserchl. USN. fKehoe. USN (Ret). Introduction to Submarine Design. MIT' Professional Summer Course "Submarine 9. John K.om/ ulletins. Copaatiil'e Na'aArhi///ecl Massachusetts Institute of Technology. 5. and Clark Graham.html> <http:/ /w.. .or/info/inf34. Burcher.world. <ht-tp: / /'x. CDR USN." [Ford N/Tl-learAssoiatiol. Roy." S'.S. Jr. Jackson.E. Capt. P.F.lne1fire.

Appendices 60 .

Appendix A: Design Spiral 61 .

Submarine Design Spiral Requirements olum( St Volume ucture Weigh )wer Dttltic Datlalnce Polygon Arrangement Professional Summer Program at tMassachusettsInstitute of Technology. 2004 62 .

Appendix B: SS Design Flowchart 63 .

Freefloods. "Cartoon- NO 64 .SS DESIGN GUIDE FLOWCHART Ever buovant Voltune M131.

Appendix C: Math Model 65 .

12 Iton := 1016. Torkelson.i knt Speed max submerged Vsubmerged(i):= 17. LCDR. i NT(i):= (Ncre Speed max surfaced oftficer(i) Ncrewvother(i)) + Vsurfaced(i) := 16. 4 10h1p t Curve factor f(r huIll1 -curvature fcurve obtained from 1994 SS design section of Introduction to Submarine Design Input excel file containingdimensions of submarines 0 through i: draws from a variety of input excel files which provide all necessarysubmarinedata that is The input excel file.such as NSC(i) or LOA(i). used throughoutthis model to calculate the the desiredoutput characteristics.1. USN. i m i m Normal Surfaced Condition= Surfaced Displacement Complement ( Ncrew officeri ) := 14 i Ncrewother (i) : I5. CHARACTERISTICS Surfaced Displacement SubmergedDisplacement Length Overall Diameter i := O.. Iton i Asub(i) := 11. dlavs 66 . CONSTANTS PSW 1020-m kg fCurve .i knt TT(i) := 18 i E(i) := 19i Numberof TorpedoTubes: Patrolendurance. Each input is read from the input matrixindividually and assigned a rangevariable. Mvlathcad_input. I. 6 May 2005 i.for the i-numberof submarines included as candidates. i ton LOA(i):= 1) D(i) := 13.Diesel Submarine ComparativeNaval Architecture Analysis Math Model Developed from the MIT Math Model Kai O.0ig NM := 185-n knt := INM I hr 3 kW := 1.5 NSC(i) := Io0.xls.

Diving Depth (m): Passageway Factor: Deck Height Measured: DD(i) := 1().08 1.08 as used in 1994 Intro to Sub Design for SS (diesel subs) HDeck ( i ) := I 1.ih p KWi(i) = 13 ikW ' 67 . i m SHP Installed: Electric Plant Poiwer Installed: SHP(i) := I2. m pwav.1.

based on input data from plan and inboard protile drawings. i ('):=A-~~i) Batt0 := ECR(i) fCurve.7ft2-NT(i)) Aosn(i) := 1 18 in 5..nilrltron Volume: r LUsing submarine profile drawings pictures. measure the area for tile Engine Room (ER): ER Area: 2 Aft Battern Area: ERK Volume: ALB3 := (i) 29 im HBatt(i) := 311i m 1.. Storerooms.Oi.in \FB(i) := AFB(i)-HBatt(i) 6. The subscript m indicates measured areas for various spaces. k. Weapons Handling: wep 19 i 2 HD)vCep(i) 20 im := i) := vwep(i) HDwvep( fPwva furv' i) Awvep( 68 .II. The Variables indicate the type of volume and the subscript indicates the location. Command & Control: Acc(i) := 15. etc) Olher Spaces lMeasured (offices. in' Xcc(i) := flva 'fCulrvo HDeck(i)Acc( i) 2. 1.3 ft Ei) m Asrm(i) := I17 in2 2 Aos(i) :=(100t2 + . Storerooms: Measured Storeroomls: 4. OPS (C'mpartnlent \Volume OPS Compartment will be calculated by a deck area analysis for Auxiliaries. fpwav (AER(i) HDeck(i)) 13. Berthing & Messing. Other Spaces (offices.4ft 2 T(i) Abmm(i) := I16i m Asr(i) := 8. as would be done in initial design. l. and Other Spaces. These areas can then be compared to the measured area for a check of parametric equations. Berth & Mess: Measured Berth & Nless:: 3. VOLUME CALCULATIONS This section calculates compartment and space volumes within the submarine. Forward Battery: AFB(i) := . For comparison purposes. etc ) -\bm(i) := 22. parametric equations have been used to calculate certain areas.

f (Vpops(i) + f wav Abm(i) + Asr(i) + Aos(i) + Awep(i)) + Batt(i)AFB()] <3 urve. fCurve. i Tlaph(i) :=3i Lph(i) := m Lfph(i) :=I37.ayfurve(Acc(i) + Ab(i) + Asr(i) + Aos(i) + Awep(i)+ AFB(i)) Apops(i) f:= Apops(i) := (Apops(i) + i flCPay.llBatt(i)AA(i)) if i< C'. not the overall hull shape Enrance: Run: lTphill :=134. Entrance & Parallel Mid-Body: rlfph(i) L ( 1 xi oDphi)D i) vfl~~(xl : L 1 - Ltph(i) Ifph(i) xl~ - Dnph(i) 69 .(Barbel and Albacore aft batteries are included in ops compartment) 7. Parametric-Calculated Ops Volumne: w. and length of parallel mid-bodv and forward & aft shape factors.Lfph() . Using the pressure hull measured values of L. in . Aops (i) := ni) Awep(i)) + Aos(i) + Am(i 3 (Aopsm(i) + fpwaN. AAB(i)) i turve <3 Apops(i) if 3< i Vpops(i) :=fp ayfCurveHDeck(i) (A(i) Vpops(i) := .im Laph(i) := I38 36 Ipmbphi) := Iph(i) . -\uxiliarl an(lPrecsture Hull Volume: I.aphi( ) chek: one(i) : Lfph(i) h) + Laph(i) ph(i) + Lpmbph(i) ph(i) 2. D.fC'LrveAAjj i)) if i< Aopm(i j if 3 i ) AFB(i) Vopsnmi)= fway-fCurve-lDeck(i)(Acc(i) + Abmmfi) + Asm(i) + Aosm(i) + Awep(i)) + 1PBatt(i) Vopsmli) := (Vopsm(i) + fpwav i Vopsm(i) if 3 < tfCurve. Measured Ops Volume:(Parbel and Albacore aft batteries are included in ops compartment) + (Acc(i) Abm := Aopsm(i) fPav.I. Batt(i-A AB(i)) iif Vpops(i) if 3 i< 8. Note: These filctors are for the pressure hull only.

_kL(i) 11I' pllp-l VpH(i) Aph(i) := 3 35-0.ph 0.calculateauxiliaryand variableballastvolumes: Vaux(VpH.(xl. Vaux(i) := Vaux(VpH.0283168 .i) := 1 xi (Lfph() + Lpmbph(i))l Laph(i) i '1 Dph(i) 2 4 Total PressureHull: oftph(xl. .rd olul.This includesauxiliarymachinery.i) if xl > L-. 'l mal )p.(i) + L.i) if xl < Lfph(i) p 5.10%ADJUSTYOUR HULLCHARACTERISTICS LOOK CLOSELYAT MEASUREDVOLUMES. etc.2I VpH(i) 0.. i) i).) := 064VpH(i) NT(i) Vaux equation fromHarry Jackson's notes. < If Err. thencalculatedvolumeis smallerthan that derivedfrom drawing measurements. VVB equation fromHarry Jackson's notes. •Lph(i)Lfph(i)+ Lpmbph(i) xl < I I va-.fit if .Volume of variable ballasttanks.h > 0. i'.tanks.i) := yflph(xl. n VVI4VPH.3. Run: yaph(Xl.1 imr)altilen: ( Vops(i) := Vopsm(i) + Vaux(i)+ VVBi) Vphm(i):= Vops(i) + VER(i) Aphm(i) := Vphm(i)p SW Errvph():= rr Vp(i) --Vphm(i) Vp I( i) If Err. := (041 VpHfi) + . i) VVB i) := VV ( V\PH.12 obtainedfrom Intro to Sub Design (SS) 1994 70 .me: Vob(i):= .Iton From PH volume. is IF ERROR> +/. PressureHull Volume Lph(i) 0. (Olboa. thenthat derivedfrom drawingmeasurements larger thancalculatedvolume.529 i) .

i m 321.luilne The everbouvant volume is used later to compare with NSC weight.nie: Vs(i) := Veb( i) + Vbt(i) AS(i) := Vs(i) SW K.'sa( i) (. I erb)lo ? Ilnt \-. Main Ba.. I. eI h).. Sonar l)DomneaIte: \\ Vd(i) := Vsa(i). (i) i) Aftfi) := Vf i). II.llast 'l. hsa(i) := I.lank olu me: Determinant of reserve buoyancy ftt Vbt( i):= (sb(i)Vbt(i) RZB(i) :=Veb(i) NSC(i))Iton ) 3 . \ olulue: V Vtt1 := p i). Veb(i):= VH(i}) + Vob(i) + Vsa(i) + Vd(i) Aebr(i) := Veb(i) p SW I. (i) check: K1(i) := I 42-i Iton fto i Envelope volume eqn trom IIJ notes in Submarine Concept Design _K.1 Vsa(i) := it rsa(i) .: Soi .imi elope \olurn:e p (i) := I 'i ]Enter submerged free flood fraction of envelope displacement.P SW 71 . r \rra s *Assumes a cylindrical bow sonar arrav* Measure radius and height of bow sonar array: rsa(i) := I..en. SuIl)blelr2e( olu. im 33.1.!i) - --)i Aenc(i) := i)(( e () := 140 LOA(i) IN ) -xe (i) := Venv i) P SW .

Run: La = function ya(xl.6Dl) atft end frac(i):= La(i) fwd end frac(i) =- Di) D(xi) LOD= function Ilpmb(i) := (I. ( V-olunme alculation for total ship: LOA(i) LOA(i) 1. then calculated volume is smaller than that derived from drawing measurements. 1 i) D(i) ) if Li) ya(xl..4 D(i) L = function (i) := 3. I Iull ( h. Entrance & Parallel Mid-Body: 1 qf(i) vil(xl.Lpmb(i) D(i) -( ot('xl. Entrance: Run: Measured values and calculations: (i ) :=41 4l .i) := I - -xl iI) ]Lf t1) ) D(i) 2 2. then that derived from drawing measurements is larger than calculated volume. i). IF ERROR .ft ot[(xl. 5-23) . If Err.10o ADJUST' YOUR HULL CHARACTERISTICS ./.L. Total Ship Volume .D: LOi) Lf(i) := 2.L(i) Vtot(i) := J O.v : 0.i) < xl < L i) + Lpmb(i) 3. LOA(i) = LO L(i) := LOA(i) h1ad) : Lti) Calculate L. D.6)D(i) check: one h( i) := IOA( i) La(i) OA Lpmb(i) A( 13. Total Ship: if xl > Lj i) + I. i) if xl < I. ..III.Venv(i) Vtot(i) If Er. 3-1 2:3.pTb(i) 4..i dxl Vtot = function Compare to envelope volume from above: Errenv(i)= Vtot(i) . 72 .OTXi) . and length of parallel mid-body and brward & aft shape t.i) := yfl(xl.i):= L ll It| +. ENVELOPE VOLUME BY PARAMETRIC EQNS \.LOOK CLOSELY AT' MEASURED VOLUMES.0.laract'rlisics: Using the volume requirements calculated in Section II and measured values of((Figures 2-1.actors.

Coefficients: Kl(i) := 6 . IF ERROR: +. CHARACTERISTICS .rea. Wetted Surface .0. i dxl Oft Cpf = fimction Cwsf = finction 7rD(i) 2. Envelope Volume Balance.6 D(i)) Cwsa(i) := .4 D(i) 4 JTI. i) dxl 0ftt Hull etted surface coefficient calculation from Gilmer and Johnson Eqn (12-24) from Gilmer and Johnson Cs(i) := 1.3.OOK CLOSELY AT KI ESTII.Ilton (LOA(i) Kl(i) 140 .6 Cpa(i) K1 = fiunction WS = function K2() = 6 2.4 Cpt{i) := | o flt ot'oft(xl.3 Csfi) .3 sa( i ) = .. t dxl 2 . Forward Prismatic and Wetted Surface Area Coefficients: Cp = fimction 4.dxl (L(i)-3.6D(i)) i- Cwsa = function 3. 4 D(i) 2 offl(xl.I latc i ('.jI I - - (L(i)O-3.'. If Err :.6 8. then that derived from K1 estinate is larger than calculated displacement._ -pa". i).cdaIf.S(i)'O (L= .i) .5.D(il) .O.03. r \. Note: llhe outboard volumes external to the main envelope of the submarine are not included in the hull sizin.100° AI)JI ST YOI R Hl TI. After Prismatic and Wetted Surface Area Coefficients: -L(i) 2offt(xli) .t i) 3 ~D(i) 140 ft 9.D(i) 4 3.ATE IN envc.6 i. 73 .: If Err .K2( (i) Ki2 fmction = WStot(i) := WStot = function J L(i) 2 7offl(xl.\. Total Prismatic Coefficient tot(i) p i) : 6.2.C 6 i) .then calculated displacement is smaller than that derived from K1 estimate. Envelope Displacement & misc. i)I 7n 7.pI lc:mncnt and lhat dcrixcd li(n) KI cs Istniatc .1.Cp(i)3 Aenvd -D(1i).4-Cpfi) . Aenvc = fimction Aenvd = fimction Err\env(i) := Aenvd () \ envc (i) ) * envd ( (-hck .(i) dxl offt(xl.

input the longitudinal location of the following bulkheads measured from fore to aft.ERat(i) 1:. ( )P1' li khiad := 126 im i) ) FWD MB' aft Bulkhead (FWD OtPS) location: OPS.fl R: ERivd(i) := im FWD FR Bulkhead location: 25 ER Stack length actual: EKength (i) := ERaft(i) + RER(i) . starting aft and working forward..OPSfvd(i)+ Rp(i) 74 .MUDfVd(i) ' im N[ud Tank Bulkhead location: I).d(i) OP1'S bulkhead ocation: fwd RopS( i) := offt(OPSf. d \IB 1' aft 13 ulikhead: FWD MBTL Bulkhead (FVWD aft OPS) location: FMBTalt(i) := 1. d It. i) PHaft(i) := ERat(i) + RER(i) PHaft = fimction fi.i) PHfI.\NMI3 (R AFT ER (. ora.2 im NOW.RoPS(i) PI'fd OPS Stack length actual: = function OPSIength = function OPSlngth(i) := ERvd(i) . A.\IBT Aft IMBT length: aft lBulkhead): ERaft(i) := I 2 4 m RER(i) := offt(ERaft(i)....d( R0 p(i) := otft(OPSfwd(i).vd)Bulkhead location: Nl Dt d(i) .IV. 1 ( '. n . I)one: Sonar Dome Bulkhead location: Domeaft(i) := i21. INTERNAL LAYOUT Based on Iit I l . r xx.ERtIvd(i) ERength = ftiction 1. L(i) .i l mlr as the basis input the following locations..lrd Bulkhead oIf. . still using 1ic 1. lNtarid Bulkhead o.d(i) := OPSfwd(i) . 13... rl a rd bulkhead f the mud tank: hMUDtf\d(i):= I. I. The. l d t 1. Starting forward and working aft. general methodology is to work from fore and aft towards amidships.

0. 0.0. measured envelope displacement -16.+. ph : 0.Y AT MEASIJRED VOI. B.I. If Err. then calculated displacement is smaller than that derived from KI estimate. then that. AD)JTJST YOJR IIJI. Overall total ship measured vs. IF ERROR -. C. then calculated volume is smaller than that derived from drawing measurements. Summary of Error Checks A. Overall parametric-denvedenvelope vs.OSEI.-\envc(i) ErrAenv(i) := ( \envd i ) Elr\env(i)= 0. total ship calculated volume Errv(i) crcnvl= tot(i) . then calculated volume is smaller than that derived trom drawing measurements.JMES. [-0. then that derived from drawing measurements is larger than calculated volume.717 -4444 13.172 -9. IF ERROR +/.265 I 10.Venv(i) Vtt i) Errenv(i) = 4.0.066 = 0 IfErrp.OOK CI.IJMES.Y AT MEASJRED VOI.224 18.22 r i) h( -19..V. calculated PH volume VpH(i).I.I.142 00 If Err .. Overall measured PH vs.016 75 ..394 -3.833 -10.297 IF ERROR 10° .10° o A)IJST YOIJR HIJI.OOK CI.156 envd(i) . .-11.575 If Err.014 0.o ADJUST YOUR HULL CHARACTERISTICS .12 -0.Vphl(i) Erk. derived from drawing measurements is larger than calculated volume..L CHARACTERISTICS . ') ~~~~~~~3.ph (i) ::= ~~~~~~~~~VPH(rrc'. then that derived from KI estimate is larger than calculated displacement.OSEI.v . If Er -.10°o. IlfEr. CIIARACTERISTICS .LOOK CLOSELY AT K1 ESTIMATE IN envc..0.88 16.

.0126 Iton kW 3.1 fraction of NSC: Al := 1 . .percentage of NSC: W4frac(i) := 43. i W5frac(i) := 144.::stimates to get A.385 W lest(i) := W lfrac NSC(i) VBat(i) := VFB(i) + VAB(i) Iton W2est(i) = 1.005 iton pSHIP(i) hp Input the Group 3 K3 (developed from SS580): K3 := 0.Vwep(i) + 6ton.t )et~):= K3-KW-(i) Input the Group 4.1: ) W6frac(i) := 45.1: WPBfrac := . WEIGHT ESTIMATION \. i O.VI.i W4est(i) := NSC(i)'W 4 frac(i) W5est(i) := Wfrac(i .087 WpB(i) := WpBfracA (i) Input the Variable Load 00of NSC: WVLfrac:= 11 WVL(i) := WVLfrac NSC(i) A.759 m3 3 VBat(i) + 0.819 Alc(i) := NSC(Qi)Alfrac W5est2(i) = A lc(i)W5frac(i) Write in terms ot' Surfaced Displacement to solve for NSC displacement in terms of weight: Vd(i) W6est 2 (i) := A lc(i)-W6frac(i) (I + Bfrac) lst( West(i) + W3est(i) + (I+Wp t~~~fmc)I5 3 + W7 est(i) Iton [surflest ( i) ( W v a (1+ +l~fr) PBfrac)'!Y W 1: ) W 1 A frac r +-WBraciwfAlcj] 76 .WVTfrac 1+ WpBfrac Alfrac = 0. Initi. NSC(i) Input the Group 5 fraction of NSC: Input the Group 6 fraction ofl'NSC: Calculate Group 7 Weight (Use modified Stenard parametric equation): Sum the w-eiht .TT(i) Al(i) :=Wlest(i) + W2est(i) + W3est(i)+ W4st(i) + W5est(i)+ W6est(i) + W7est(i) Input the lead fraction of A.OO0ton ft W6est(i) := W6frac(i) NSC(i) W7est(i) .ll \-1 \ eilt- Istimation: Input the Group 1 fraction of NSC (Fig 1): Calculate the Group 2 weight from parametric equation: Total batterv volume: = W frac : .

(4) A sr(5) A os(5) A os(0) Areas : = W opsm () WStot(() A os(1) A PSm(O) A opsm) WS tot (F) A opsm( 2 WS t..VII.t(2 A psm(3) WS tot(3) A Psm (4) A opSm(5) WS tot(4) WS ) t(') LB(5) L a(5) / .) Venv( 1) Vff( 1) Vob ( I) Venv(2) vf¢ 2) Vob(2) Vsa(2 ) Veb(2 ) /env( 4 ) Vff(4) Vob( 4 ) Vsa( 4 ) Veb( 4 ) Vbt( ) Vtot (4) VFB( ) V B( 4 ) A 4 Venv(5) Volumes := Vob(O) Vsa(O) Vob( 3 ) Vsa(3) Vcb( ) Vbt( ) Vtot(3) VFB( 3 ) 3 3 Vob (5) Vb(oh) Vebt() Vbt(5) Vsa(1) Veb() Vbt(0) Vbt(l) Vbt( ) Vtot (2) VFB( 2 ) 2 4 vtot(0 ) VFB(0) VAB(O) Vcc(O) Vtot(l) VFB( 1) Vtot(5) VFB( DS) VAB(5) VCC(5) VAB(1) VAB(2) Vcc(2) VAB(3 ) Vcc(4) ) A sr() A sr(1) A(2) A SI(2) A os (2) A Sr(3) A sr(4) A . OUTPUT f I VER(O) VER(l) VER(2 ) VER( 3 ) Vopsm(3) VER(4) V ropsm( 4 ) Vaux(4) VVB(4) VER(5) Vpsm( 5 Vaux(5) VVB(5) ) Vopsm(O) opsm(l) Vopsm(2) Vaux() Valux( 2 ) Vaux( 3 ) VVB3) Vpi (3) VV(2) VPI(O) VPHt(1) Vp i(2) Vs(2) Vs(4) vs(3) Venv( 3 ) Vft ( 3 ) Vpj( 5) Vs(5) Venv (0) Vft'0. f(() L a((D) L f( 1) L f(2) L a(2) L f(3) L a( 3 ) L pmb( 3) L f(4) L a( 4 ) L pmb ( 4 ) ER length ( 4) La(l) Lengths := L pmb( 0 ) ER length (0) L pmbt 1) ERlength( 1) L pmb( 2 ) ER length (2) L pmb ( 5) ER length (5) ERlength( 3) K OPS length (0) OPS length (1) OPSlength(2) OPSlength(3) OPSlength(4) OPSlength( 5 )) 77 .

s(4) Aff( 4 ) ~s(5) A ffS) env(0) envd (0) env1) Aenvd ( 1) env) Aend( 2 env(3 ) ) Aenvd(3 env) envd (4 ) Aenv((4 Aenvd(5) WV..(2) Errvph( 3 ) Errenv( ) 3 Errvph( 4 ) Errenv4) Errvph(5) Errenv() I Een(3) Eenv(4) env()) EiAenv Eenv(2) ErrAenv() en(4) Errenv(2) END 78 .(3) WvI (4) Wv(5) ) LOD(0) LOD(I) IlullForm:= C() C.(!O) WVl(1) WV.I wlestt>-) W2est(5) W3est(5) W4 est(5) W5est( W6 est(5) W7est(5) Al1(5) \surtlst (5) -I - W2est(3) W3est(3) W 4est(3) W est(3) W6 est(3) W7cst(3) Al1(3) \sLurfest (3) W2est( 4) W3est(4) W4est( 4 ) West(4) W6est( 4) W7cst(4) Alc(4) \surfest (4) ) W3est(2) W4est( 2 ) W5est) West(2) W est (0) 4 N5esWt(0 ) W6est(O) W7st() Weights := W4est(l) W 6est(l) W 6 est(2) W7) W7cst(1) W7cst(2) Alc (1) surfcst (I) Alc(0) 'surfest (() Alc(2) surTfst (2) -\s(2) Aft(O) Af( 1) Arf( 2 ) \ s(3) A f(3) . I Wlest(l) W2est() W3est ( ..\ I Wlest(') 2 W2est( ) - I i -I w -I / lst) wlett4) " .(2) WV.'V lest(()) 'V2est(O) 3est(O) I .(()) Cp Cp(1) Cs(1) LOD(2) Cp(2) Cs(2) LOD(3) LOD(4) Cp(3) Cs(3) Cp(4) Cs(4) LOD(5)' Cp(5) Cs(5) ) Errvph(l) Error checks :: Errenv(l) Errvph( 2 ) Erren...

Appendix D: Submarine Profile and Plan Drawings 79 .

SSBarbel Surtface Displacement: Submerged Displacement: Length: Diameter: Complement: 2146 tons 2639 Ltons 67 m 8.000 Nm 90 Days 6 18 Portsmouth Naval Shipyard 1959 Other: Decommissioned 1989 Plan and Profile dimensions obtained from Submarine SS 580 Booklet of General Plans. SS 580-845-1702763. NH r- - I J -Wd- bU 80 .SS 580 U. Naval Shipyard Portsmouth. BUSHIPS NO.8 m 77 (8 officers) Electrical Generator Capacity: 1700 K\T 4800 SHP Propulsion Motor Po-wer: 14 Kts l:tximum Surfaced Speed: Maximum Submerged Speed: 18 Kts 213 m Diving Depth: Overall Endurance Range: Deployrnent Endurance: Torpedo Tubes: Tlorpedo Capacity: Builder: Year: 14.

Decommissioned 1972 ratio of 7.AGSS 569 USS Albacore Surface L)isplacement: Submersg-ed Displacement: 1692 l.4 m 52 (5 officers) Electrical Generator Capacity: 1634 KW\ 7500 SHIP Propulsion Motor Power: 25 Kts Malximum Surfaced Speed: NIaximum Submerged Speed: 33 Kts 183 m Diving Depth: Overall Endurance Range: 10.5:1 low 1/DL) Counter-rotating propellers "X" Shaped Stern Lead-Acid produced 7500 SHP Silver-Zinc produced 15..tons Length: Diameter: (Complement: 1908 Ltons 63 m 8.000 Nm 50 Days 0 0 Deployment Endurance: Torpedo( Tubes: 'l'orp ed(o Capacity: Builder: Year: Portsmouth Naval Shipyard 1953 Other: Batteries: Experimental submarine.000 SIHP Scaled plan view dimensions obtained from SS 580 81 .

I1 0 r-l 1.U. O 0 U U. -4F el I- I r" L- 82 .

remaining in South Korea) Possible AlP Backfit 83 .2 m 33 (6 officers) Electrical Generator Capacity: 2800 KWi Propulsion Motor Power: 4600 SHP MNLximum Surfaced Speed: 11 Kts MaLximumSubmerged Speed: 22 Kts Diving Depth: 250 m Overall Endurance Range: Deployr-nent Endurance: Torpedo Tubes: Torpedo Capacity: Builder: Year: 7.500 Nm 50 Days 8 '14 Howaldtswerke-Deutsche Werft GmbH (HDXW) 1993 Number of ships: Other: 9 (one built at HDV.Type 209/1200 Surface Displacement: Submerged Displacement: Length: Diameter: Complement: 1100 Ltons 1285 Ltons 56 m 6.

C c A cm 84 .

Adelaide 1996 6 Number of ships: Other: liockums' t)esign -4M I Mr .500)Nm 60 Days 6 Torpedo Capacit: Builder: Year: 22 Australian Submarine Corp.I'L :- ' it 85 .Collins 471 Surface l)isplacement: Submerged Displacement: Length: Diameter: Comple-nment: 3050 Ltons 3350 Ltons 78 m 7.8 m 42 (6 officers) Electrical Generator Capacity: 4420 KW 7344 SHP Propulsion Motor Power: 10 Kts MLx:imumSurfaced Speed: 20 Kts MLximum Submerged Speed: 300 m Diving Depth: Overall Endurance Range: Deployment Endurance: Torpedo Tubes: 11.

__ cr Z: C 86 .

Type 212A Surface Displacement: Submerged Displacement: Length:: 1450 Ltons 1830 Ltons 56 m 7 m 27 (8 officers) D)iamctcr: Complement: Electrical Generator CapacitT: 3120 K\IN Propulsion Motor Powrer: 3875 Sl P MLximum 12 Kts aLximum Submerged Speed: 20 Kts Dliving l)epth: 350 m Surfaced Speed: Overall Endurance Range: Deployment Endurance: 'l'or~pcdo'Tubes: Torpedo Capacity: Builder:: 8.000 Nm 60 Days 6 12 Xear: Howaldtswerke-Deutsche Werft GCmbH(HDW) 2004 4 Number of ships: Other: Siemens PEN[ (Proton Exchange :Membrane) 306 KXV Fuel Cell Scaled plan view dimensions obtained from Type 209/1200 87 .

knots (1.500 nm with AIP) I loisting mechanism for 7 masts.MA(Module Energie Sans-Mannr . 9 m) 6. Cartegena Spain 2007 4 (plus 4 as an option) Number of ships: Other: Indiscre tion Rate: Diving lEndurance: \[asts: Batteries: \I[ES. only penetrating mast is the attack periscope Two Groups of 200 Battery Cells p M -ow 88 . 6.IZAR S80/P650 Surface Displacement: Submerged Displacement: Length: Diameter: Complement: 1744 Itons 1922 Ltons 67 m (AIP Add-on Section.5% o (-_ 4 knots SOA 4 400 nm (d?.6 m 40 (8 officers) Electrical Generator Capacity: 2805 KWL 4694 SHIP Propulsion Motor Power: 12 Kts Surfaced Speed: NLEximum 20 Kts MLximumSubmerged Speed: 350 m Diving Depth: Overall Endurance Range: Deployment Endurance: Torpedo T'ub)es: 7.500 Nm 50 Days 6 18 Torpedo) CapacitV: Builder: Year: IZ R.utonomc) AIP 600kr Fuel Cell 17" o ( 8 knots.

r.--· · . -ciirrL i-Fi I-.----------~---~ ~------- -~------ ----------1 .f i·:.-i- LI -ii-·· ·--- 89 .:-··.·.. i i i i i i Ii i i i i i s:r. ·-·I·rr·.il-·.-.-- . 1: L a_. C·.------~ ~-----.l·"-.~--------.----~---~--~-------..

Appendix E: Submarine Shape Factors 90 .

50 -~~~ _ _i . 4. 91 .75 Figure 18 contains profiles of submarines developed from equations in reference (9).00 - .00 rl = 2.00 qa = 3..75 ~~ ~ ~ -~ --. D ri = 3.Figure 18 from Reference (9) A rlf = 1.2. = 2.84 B rIf = 2.00 - E q = .50 il.00 - C rt = 2. = 2.50 rli = 2.I F I I rl . t lull A is near the optimum in the series 58 model basin tests (9).

weight analysis of diesel submarine

weight analysis of diesel submarine

Are you sure?

This action might not be possible to undo. Are you sure you want to continue?

We've moved you to where you read on your other device.

Get the full title to continue

Get the full title to continue listening from where you left off, or restart the preview.

scribd