A Ship Design Procedure

By Thomas Lamb1

The small number of published articles on the subject of practical ship design suggests that naval architects are reluctant to discuss this most important part of the overall ship production sequence. It is felt that constant discussion of all aspects of ship design would enable progress to be made in what, at the moment, is an empirical art. A ship design procedure is therefore presented in the hope that it will provide a basis for discussion. Each stage in the procedure is discussed in detail in separate sections and both standard forms and data are given. An example is included to illustrate the use of the forms and data.

Introduction AT PRESENT there is no generally accepted ship design procedure in existence. Individual naval architects would probably set about the task o designing a ship in a nu!ber o di erent ways. Naturally" the !ethods they would use are the ruits o their own experience or perhaps that o so!eone else who gave away the in or!ation in a !o!ent o weakness. This is said because" although there have been a nu!ber o papers on ship design techni#ue $%&'() over the past decade" the nu!ber is very s!all considering how !any people are engaged in ship design. This suggests that naval architects are reluctant to discuss the design !ethods and data they use" which is !ost un ortunate" as the design o a ship is the !ost i!portant part o the overall production se#uence" and constant review and discussion o all aspects o design can only result in bene it to the shipbuilding industry as a hole. *ith this in !ind" a ship design procedure detailing the calculations re#uired ro! the ti!e o receiving a shipowner+s re#uire!ents through the preparation o the bidding docu!ents is presented in the hope that it will provide a basis or worthwhile discussion. There is also a sel ish reason. ,ost o the work re#uired or the paper has been collected and arranged in the author+s ree ti!e during the past ew years and he has been unable to ind the ti!e to keep as up to date as he would have liked. There ore" it is his hope that naval architects engaged in the !any specialist areas used by ship designers will co!e orward and suggest i!prove!ents to the proposed procedure or his bene it i or no one else. ---------% Assistant .hie Naval Architect" ,aryland Shipbuilding / 0rydock .o!pany" 1alti!ore" ,d. ) Nu!bers in brackets designate Re erences at the end o paper.

Presented at the Septe!ber %234 ,eeting o the .hesapeake Section o T5E S6.IET7 68 NA9A: AR.5ITE.TS AN0 ,ARINE EN;INEERS.

The use o co!puters or certain ship calculations is co!!onplace today and it !ay there ore appear to be behind the ti!es to discuss techni#ues which do not utili<e co!puters. 5owever" as ar as the author is aware" there is no co!plete design progra! in use at the !o!ent" although there are !any people working on co!plete design through production progra!s or co!puter application" and the ti!e !ay co!e when every ship will be produced in this way. It is possible to use co!puters to exa!ine !any solutions to a given set o re#uire!ents #uickly= there ore" existing design progra!s are usually o the opti!i<ation type. They are o the or!" at the !o!ent" that even a ter the opti!u! particulars are deter!ined it is still necessary to carry out all the calculations in the proposed procedure. Also" be ore progra!!ing a co!plete design procedure" it is necessary to re&exa!ine the !ethods used to per or! the calculations involved and the relationship between the!. It is hoped that the paper will be a step in this direction. The use o the proposed procedure would provide the naval architect with all the in or!ation re#uired to con idently prepare the contract design docu!ents. I the ship should be built" no urther design calculations would be necessary and the engineering depart!ents could co!!ence preparation o the working drawings and ordering o !aterials as soon as the contract is signed. I !odel resistance tests are desired" a air lines plan could be #uickly drawn ro! the preli!inary body plan. It would still be necessary to prepare the detailed hydrostatic" stability particulars and capacities during the building o the ship. 5owever" the >usti ication" i any is needed" or considering all the ite!s proposed in the design stage is that it would ensure that the ship as de& signed would satis y all the speci ied conditions" i built.

A S5IP 0ESI;N PR6.E0?RE General Appraisal of Design Problem The design o a ship by a naval architect is not the initial action in this evolution. 1e ore the actual design calculations can be started" it is necessary to know what type" deadweight" capacity and speed o ship are re#uired. These are chosen by the shipowner a ter exa!ination o the trade in which the proposed ship is to operate. This exa!ination !ay only be an analysis o existing ships in the trade in order to deter!ine where i!prove!ents could be !ade. 6n the other hand" it !ay be a co!plete ship operating econo!ics investigation. Although it should be the ai! o every ship designer to deter!ine the opti!u! design or a given set o re#uire!ents" this is not done at present to any large extent. This is because !ost ship designers do not have su icient ti!e to exa!ine" by !anual !ethods" the nu!ber o design co!binations necessary or opti!i<ation. 0epending upon his position and place o e!ploy!ent" the unction o a naval architect can vary ro! the design o ships ro! the !ini!u! o speci ied re#uire!ents to the checking o a co!plete design prepared by so!eone else. In either case" the order in which the work can be carried out is the sa!e" the only di erence being that the values are either to be deter!ined or checked. 8or e ective control and planning" it is essential that a standard design procedure be adopted. As ship design involves !any repetitive calculations" !uch ti!e can be saved by the use o standard calculation or!s" even or the si!plest calculations. The use o standard or!s also ensures adherence to the adopted procedure and enables the average ti!e taken or each calculation in the procedure to be deter!ined. This" in turn" enables the naval architect to esti!ate the ti!e re#uired to co!plete the pro>ect. The proposed procedure is as ollows@ Preli!inary 0esign Adeter!ination or check o di!ensions" power" deadweight" capacity" stability and seakindnessB 0etailed Resistance and Propulsion Esti!ate Sketch ;eneral Arrange!ent Aincluding preli!inary subdivision i considered necessaryB Preparation o Preli!inary 1ody Plan 0isplace!ent and :.1 .heck Preli!inary 5ydrostatics Preli!inary .argo and Tank .apacities Preli!inary :ight Ship *eights and .enters Preli!inary Tri! and Stability Preparation o ;eneral Arrange!ent Tonnage Esti!ate Preparation o Scantlings Plans 0etailed *eights and .enters Revised Tri! and Stability A including cross curves o stabilityB :ongitudinal Strength Preparation o Speci ications

:A,1 Presentation o Technical 0ata I the co!plete design is to be prepared by one designer" the oregoing se#uence could be adhered to. 5owever" it is usual or a tea! to work on the pro>ect= there ore" the irst three ite!s would be calculated by the naval architect and the re!ainder o the work divided between three designers as shown in 8ig. %" which is a low diagra! o the proposed procedure. Each stage in the design procedure will be urther discussed in separate sections. An exa!ple is given to illustrate the use o the or!s and the data. The outline speci ication or the exa!ple is given in the Appendix.
OWNER'S PART !"LARS D#$ %s d e$c 1 PREL & NAR' DES (N 0 L B D d !b Po#er Ligh$#$) 1 DETA LED RES STAN!E - PROP"LS ON EST &ATE 1 S.ET!* (ENERAL ARRAN(E&ENT 1 PREL & NAR' BOD' PLAN or / S* P E!ONO& !S !argo Po$en$ia+ ,reigh$ Ra$e %oyage Dis$ance TO DETER& NE OPT &"& PART !"LARS

1 !AR(O - TAN. !APA! T'

1 *'DROSTAT !S 1 / PREL & NAR' TR & - STAB L T'

1 & DS* P SE!T ON




*"LL EN( NEER N( - &A!* NER' WE (*T

Fig. 1. Flow diagram of design procedure

Preliminary Design Calculations It is the purpose o the preli!inary design calculations to deter!ine di!ensions" hull or! and power to satis y given speed" capacity" deadweight and endurance re#uire!ents. The purpose o the detailed design calculations which ollow the preli!inary design calculations is to check that the particulars deter!ined in the preli!inary stage satis y the speci ied re#uire!ents


A S5IP 0ESI;N PR6.E0?RE and also to develop" in detail" a design capable o !eeting the special re#uire!ents desired. The preli!inary design stage is thus the CcornerstoneD o the whole procedure. I this stage does not consider all the i!portant ite!s or i the data on which the calculations are based are inade#uate or the purpose" it is

:A,1 probable that !odi ications to the preli!inary deter!ined values will be ound necessary as the detailed design progresses" The a!ount o repetition o detailed design calculations" and there ore wasted ti!e" will depend on the stage in the design procedure at which the inade#uacy is discovered.

Fig. 2. Diagram showing interdependence of parameters in preliminary design

The calculations !ade in the preli!inary design stage can be #uite co!plicated due to the interdependence o the various actors involved" as shown i 8ig. ). To avoid ti!e&wasting repetition" the order o the calculations !ust be arranged so that each step logically ollows the previous steps and only uses values deter!ined in these steps. It is o great assistance to have a su!!ary sheet on which the speci ied particulars are entered be ore the design co!!ences and" as each stage in the design

calculations is co!pleted" the relevant values deter!ined are entered on the sheet. The su!!ary then acts as a re erence" co!parison and progress sheet during the period o the design. 8or! I is a su!!ary sheet suitable or this purpose. AAll the or!s re erred to appear in the Appendix.B. It is possible to derive suitable di!ensions or a design by considering only three sets o para!eters" but it is not possible to say ro! such an exa!ination that the resulting design is the opti!u! design.

___________________________________ Nomenclature ___________________________________
The sy!bols listed herein are used in the paper without urther description. 6thers abbreviations and sy!bols which are not given in the No!encaleture are identi ied elsewhere in the paper. :1P E length between perpendiculars : E length between perpendiculars in or!ulas 1 E breadth !olded o ship 0 E depth !olded to upper!ost continuous deck dwt E deadweight :.1 E longitudinal center o buoyancy ehp E e ective horsepower K E resistance coe icient E ')L.% x ehp M 9sN x O)MN

.% E ship correlation actor Fp E propulsive e iciency dhp E delivered horsepower or power delivered to propeller shp E sha t horsepower
.b E block coe icient shp!c E !axi!u! continuous sha t horsepower ;,T E transverse !etacentric height ENs E e#uip!ent nu!eral or superstructures E H.4I x JAls x hsB ls and hs E superstructure total length and height respectively 9.1 E vertical center o buoyancy ENd E E#uip!ent nu!eral or deckhouses E H.LI x JAld x hdB

1,T E 5eight o transverse !etacenter above 9.1 A E area Ai.e." waterplane areaB kT E transverse radius o gyration o waterplane
d E dra t G: E longitudinal radius o gyration o the ship+s !ass s E speci ic gravity o salt water G,T E height o !etacenter above keel or baseline .v! E coe icient to take account o added !ass in heave .PP E controllable&pitch propeller c E coe icient to take account o added !ass in pitch




9s E service speed" knots O E displace!ent" long tons A))'H lbB ∇ E volu!e o displace!ent

ld and hd E deckhouse total length and height respectively ! E !ass o the ship

N or rp! E revolutions per !inute o propeller

Fig. 3 - Design guidelines for open shelter deck vessels

To opti!i<e a design using !anual !ethods" it is esti!ated that the preli!inary design calculations would need to be !ade or about )I3 di erent co!binations o the para!eters involved. The advantages to be gained by using a co!puter or preli!inary design calculations are obvious. 5owever" although the existing !anual !ethods could be progra!!ed" this would not take ull advantage o a co!puter+s capabilities. It is necessary to re&exa!ine the calculations involved and their relationship to each other. *hen the opti!u! design particulars have been deter!ined ro! a co!puter progra!" it is prudent to check the!. The sa!e or!s that are proposed or the !anual preli!inary design calculations can be used or such a check. 8or! II is used or the preli!inary design calculations with 8or! III or 8or! I9 N deter!ining the !ini!u! reeboard" depending on the ship type. The use o these or!s and the data presented will be described in the ollowing sections. Selection or Check of Dimensions

The !ini!u! speci ied re#uire!ents on which a naval architect can base a design are deadweight" cargo capacity" endurance" and trial or service speed. I either the deadweight or the cargo capacity is not speci ied" he !ust select a suitable stowage actor to derive the un& speci ied para!eter. Table % gives stowage actors or recent ships o di erent types. I " on the other hand" a co!plete design is to be checked" it would be necessary to co!pare the di!ensions given with usual good prac& tice unless there is a given reason why this will not be so. As an aid to !aking such a check and also as guidance or original design" it is worthwhile to plot LBP on a base o deadweight or di erent types o ships as shown in the top le t hand diagra! in 8igs. N&L. In the case o re rigerated ships it is !ore use ul to plot LBP on a base o net bin re rigerated capacity such as 8ig. 4. The advantage o this or! o recording ship data is that it can be easily kept up to date" as only the deadweight or cargo capacity and LBP are re#uired and these are usually given or every ship described in technical literature.


A S5IP 0ESI;N PR6.E0?RE To co!!ence a design or which the a ore!entioned speci ied data has been given with no restrictions on di!ensions" !axi!u! and !ini!u! values o LBP are li ted ro! the appropriate curves and entered with a suitable !ean value in the colu!ns on 8or! II. The

:A,1 breadth B and the depth D can be selected ro! the ratios L/B and L/D or B/D as given in the diagra!s in 8igs. N&L. ---------N 8or! I9 Ao!ittedB is si!ilar to 8or! III with the tables changed as necessary.

Fig. 4 - Design guidelines for full scantling vessels

Table 1 – Typical Ship Stowage actors
0R7 .AR;6 S5IPS
8ull scantling" cu tMton .................................................... II !ini!u! Shelterdeck or co!plete superstructure" cu tMton ............ 4H to %IHa

'4 cu tMton based on existing ship+s !axi!u! cargo deadweight. 5owever" these vessels always operate at a restricted dra t when carrying re rigerated cargo" giving na actual stowage rate varying ro! 3H to %NH cu tMton.

Including upper wing tanks" cu tMton ............................... II Excluding upper wing tanks" cu tMton ............................... 'I Recent large bulk carriers only have a stowage actor o 'N cu tMton.

6RE .ARRIERS" cu tMton ................................................... )I TANGERS
.rude oil carrier" cu tMton ................................................ ''.I .lean oil carrier" cu tMton ................................................ IH


Special ship types.

Note@ .apacities or dry cargo" bulk and ore carriers are grain= re rigerated vessels are net bin= and tankers are ull cargo tank. *eights are in cargo deadweight tons in all cases.

Hull Form The hull or! can be co!pletely de ined by our actors= na!ely" block coe icient" !idship section coe icient" and longitudinal and vertical centers o buoyancy. ?sually the latter actor is not selected as such" but is very !uch decided by the choice o section shape" that is ?" !oderate ?" !oderate 9" and so on. 6n the other hand" the selection o the other actors is le t to the designer. There have been !any papers $I&%H( dealing with the choice o hull or! and" un ortunately" so!e o these papers give con licting guidance. In !ost cases the selection o the block coe icient and !idship section coe icient is based on the speedMlength ratio. The lengthMbreadth and the breadthMdra t ratios are o ten considered in the selection o the block coe icient. The selection o the block coe icient is also in luenced by the econo!ics o the intended ship operation" as indicated by the act that the block coe icients or recent tankers" bulk carriers and cargo liners have been


A S5IP 0ESI;N PR6.E0?RE noticeably larger than previously accepted good design practice. In so!e cases this increase is o set by itting large bulbous or ra! bows" particularly in the lower speedMlength ratio ship types. 1ecause o this it is necessary to exa!ine a range o block coe icients P not >ust one value" no !atter how it was selected. 8or preli!inary guidance" 8ig 2 AaB can be used to select block coe icient and !idship section coe icient. The selection o the longitudinal center o buoyancy is based on both the speedMlength ratio and the block coe icient. 8ig. 2 AbB can be used to select the :.1. This igure is based on a si!ilar diagra! given in re erence $%L(. As a inal check on the selection o the actors de ining the hull or!" the displace!entMlength ratio is derived a ter the displace!ent is calculated and co!pared with the good design practice range given in 8igure 2 AaB. There have been a nu!ber o papers presented on bulbous bows $%%&%3(" but relatively ew o the! are suitable or direct resistance reduction esti!ates using the in or!ation available at this stage in the design. It is possible to derive diagra!s such as those given in 8ig. %H ro! so!e o these papers but they !ust only be used or preli!inary esti!ates until !ore data are available to con ir! their validity. Freeboard, Draft and Displacement Estimate 8or each co!bination o L" B and D to be considered the reeboard is deter!ined using 8or! III or 8or! I9 Asee ootnote NB or Type 1 or Type A ships" respective& ly. So!e atte!pt !ust be !ade to consider such ite!s as extent o sheer" ca!ber and superstructure. 5owever" it is better to do this than to esti!ate the dra t on the basis o dra tMdepth ratios" and the e ect o any changes can be taken into account i!!ediately they are !ade. *hen the !ini!u! reeboard is derived" the !olded and extre!e dra ts can be deter!ined and i necessary !odi ied i the dra t is to be restricted below that deter!ined. The !olded displace!ent is derived and the ull displace!ent deter!ined by adding to the !olded displace!ent" the displace!ent o the shell" cruiser stern" and other appendages. This additional displace!ent varies ro! H.N to H.4 percent o the !olded displace!ent" depending on the si<e and type o ship. Resistance and Propulsion Estimate In order to esti!ate the ehp at the service speed" a value o K is deter!ined using the ollowing or!ula derived by *atson $%L(@

:A,1 itting bulbous bows can be deter!ined ro! the data given in 8ig. %H and" i advantageous" the reduction in K is subtracted ro! the derived value o K. The ehp is then calculated using a ship correlation actor" . %" li ted ro! the line designated C,oor / S!allD in 8ig. %%. The propulsive e iciency" F p" is esti!ated ro! the well&known or!ula derived by E!erson and *hitney $%4( or single&screw ships@

Fp E H.43 & NR:M%4"HHH
As ar as the author is aware" there is no si!ilar or!ula to predict the propulsive e iciency or twin& screw vessels= however" the single&screw or!ula reduced by %H percent gives a reasonable esti!ate or twin&screw vessels. The dhp is derived ro! the ehp and the propulsive e iciency. This dhp corresponds to that re#uired to propel the ship at the service speed when ully loaded in trial conditions. A suitable service !argin !ust be applied to take account o ouling and weather. The !axi!u! continuous service sha t horsepower AshpmcB is deter!ined by applying a sha ting e iciency to the dhp. The type o propelling !achinery to be installed is noted and the length o the !achinery space and the !achinery weight li ted ro! 8igs. %) and )%" respectively. Cargo Capacit At this stage in the design" a good esti!ate is all that is re#uired and the ollowing approach is proposed or all ship types except tankers@ .argo capacity E Atotal volu!e o hull P volu!e o peaks P volu!e o double botto! tanks P volu!e o !achinery spaceB × capacity coe icient

LB$ D +

S f + Sa 3






) + Cr (C b K % N

9olu!e o peaks E l p B A D + 9olu!e o A L −l p B BDtt C b K N 9olu!e o

S f + Sa )

BC b K )
tanks E E

double&botto! !achinery

l er B A Der − Dtt BC b K '


9olu!e o sha t tunnel E l t bt A Dt − Dtt B 9olu!e between tunnel lat and tank top E l t B A Dt − Dtt BC b K I

K E H.2HL P H.HHH%): Q %HAG P %.HB) P H.)LI.b This value o K !ust be corrected i the proportions o
L/B and L/d are di erent ro! the standard values o L.)L and %I.'" respectively. An esti!ate o the e ect o


A S5IP 0ESI;N PR6.E0?RE 9olu!e o bulk carrier botto! wing tanks above tank top E l bwt bbwt hbwt C b K 3 9olu!e o bulk carrier upper wing tanks E l uwt buwt huwt C b K L


Fig. 5 - Design guidelines for tankers





- Design guidelines for !ulk carriers

Fig. " - Design guidelines for coasters




Fig. # - Design guidelines for refrigerated cargo ships

Fig. $ % Form parameters

where S E Sa E .r E G% E lp E G) E 0tt E GN E ler E 0er E G' E lt E 0t E bt E GI E lbwt E bbwt E hbwt E luwt E buwt E huwt E

sheer orward sheer a t ca!ber on upper!ost continuous deck hull capacity coe icient co!bined length o ore and a t peaks peak capacity coe icient depth o double botto! double botto! capacity coe icient length o !achinery space depth to top o !achinery space !achinery space capacity coe icient length o sha t tunnel depth to tunnel top tunnel breadth tunnel capacity coe icient length o botto! wing tanks breadth at tank top level" one side only height o botto! wing tank above tank top length o upper wing tanks breadth o upper wing tank at deck" one side only height o botto! wing tank above tank top

G3 E botto! wing tank capacity coe icient GL E ?pper wing tank capacity coe icient 8or tankers" a good esti!ate o tank capacity can be obtained ro! the ollowing or!ula@ Tanker cargo capacity E A.b PH.HHIB:10 PH.3Iler10 9alues o the oregoing coe icients and overall capacity coe icients are given in Table ). Table ! – Capacity Coefficients
5ull capacity coe icient ....................... G% E %.HN at .b E H.IH G% E %.%N at .b E H.4H Peak capacity coe icient ...................... G) E H.NL 0ouble&botto! capacity coe icient ...... GN E H.3H or .b E H.II GN E H.2H or .b E H.4H ,achinery space capacity coe icient a!idship position .............................. G' E %.NI or .b S H.LH T a t position Aa t bulkhead station )B G' E H.2IM.b or .b ≥ H.LH a t position ........................................ G' E H.4I Tunnel capacity coe icient a!idship !achinery space ................ GI E H.LN T a t !achinery space ...................... GI E H.3H


1ulk carrier wing tank capacity coe icient botto! wing tank ............................. G3 E %.%H upper wing tank ............................... GL E %.'H 6verall capacity coe icient grain ................................................. H.24 bale ................................................... H.2H re rigerated net bin .......................... H.L)


Fig. 1& - 'eduction in resistance coefficient for !ul!ous !ows

Fig. 11 % (hip correlation factor Fig. 12 % )ength of machinery space Fig. 13 % *ull net steel weight+e,uipment numeral coefficient Fig. 14 % (teel weight reduction for reduced draft

!eight Estimate The deadweight o a ship is the di erence between the displace!ent and the light ship weight. The light ship weight is the total weight o all the ite!s necessary to construct and e#uip the ship ready or sea" but excludes the weight o uel oil" resh water" crew and e ects" stores and provisions" which are considered as !iscellaneous deadweight. The total deadweight is the su! o the cargo deadweight" dunnage" i carried" and the !iscellaneous deadweight already !entioned. The light ship weight is divided into convenient groups" the !ost co!!on being net steel" wood and out it and !achinery weight groups. 5owever" the syste! presented divides the light ship weight into net steel" wood and out it" hull engineering" and !achinery weight groups. A detailed de!arkation o the groups is given in Table N. Table " – #ight Ship $eight System
% Net Steel  5ull structural steel" superstructures and deckhouses" stern ra!e" rudder and rudder Net Steel  post" !asts and !asthouses.   ) Hull Wood and Outfit  Uoinerwork" carpenter work" s!ithwork" rigging" steel hatch covers" special !asts"  cargo gear" deck !achinery including steering  gear" insulation Ather!al and acoustic in  casing and acco!!odation" re rigerated *ood and 6ut it  co!part!ents" *.T. doors" etc  N achiner! Outfit  Re rigerating !achinery Astores and cargoB air  conditioning" heating and ventilation" ire  detection and extinguishing e#uip!ent.  

 ' Hull "n#ineerin# Outside achiner! Spaces  Piping" heating coils" sanitary syste!" scuppers and discharges" electrical  installation.  5ull Engineering  I Hull "n#ineerin# in achiner! Spaces Pu!ps" piping" loose tanks" electrical  installation" boilers in !otor ships" gratings  and ladders" unnel.   3 achiner!  ,ain propelling !achinery" boilers with water in stea! ships" auxiliaries or !ain ,achinery  !achinery" generators" sha ting" propellers. 

The basis or esti!ating the net steel" wood and out it" and hull engineering weights uses :loyd+s e#uip!ent nu!eral given by LAB Q dB Q H.4IAD$ P dB Q H.4IAls × hsB Q H.LIAld × hdB" in the ollowing ways@ or the net steel esti!ate" the e#uip!ent nu!erals or the hull" superstructure and deckhouses are kept separate. .urves o net steel weight coe icients on a base o LBP are given in 8ig. %N or ull& scantling ships" bulk carriers" and tankers. The curves are drawn or a constant standard block coe icient or each ship type. The basic hull net steel weight is deter!ined by !ultiplying the hull e#uip!ent nu!eral by the hull net steel weight coe icient. This basic weight !ust be corrected i the design block coe icient di ers ro! the standard at the rate o V percent o the hull net steel weight or each H.H% di erence in block coe icient. I the design is to be o scantling dra t type" it is necessary to correct the hull net steel weight deter!ined or a ull& scantling type. This scantling correction can be derived ro! 8ig. %'. It is also necessary to apply the corrections given in Table ' where they are appropriate. I a co!plete design is being checked" corrections or di erences in the nu!ber o bulkheads or decks can be deter!ined ro! the data given in 8igs. %I" %3 and %L.


A S5IP 0ESI;N PR6.E0?RE These corrections can also be !ade or a new design i such di erences are visuali<ed at this stage. The net steel weight o the superstructure and deckhouses can be deter!ined ro!@ Superstructure Ano internal steelB E H.HH) × 1 × ENs Superstructure and deckhouses Awith internal steelB E H.HH)N × 1 × AENs or ENdB To co!plete the net steel weight" na esti!ate o the weight o !asts and !asthouses is re#uired. This can be derived ro! data given in 8igs. %I" %3 and %L. The wood and out it and the hull engineering weights can be deter!ined ro! 8igs. %4 and )H" respectively" which are plots o these weights on a base o e#uip!ent nu!eral. 8ig. %2 can be used to deter!ine the additional wood and out it weight or re rigerated cargo co!part!ents" i itted" on the basis o net bin capacity. The weights or net steel" wood and out it" hull engi& neering" and !achinery are added together and a suitable !argin applied to give the design light ship weight. Table % – Di&erse Corrections to 'ull Steel $eight


ITE, .6RRE.TI6N All ship types or Ice .lass I or A ............................................................. Q4.H or Ice .lass II or 1 ............................................................ Q'.H or Ice .lass III or . ........................................................... Q).H 0ry&.argo Ships or heavy cargos in holds ................................................... Q%.I or each deck strengthened or heavy cargos ..................... QH.I 1ulk .arriers high tensile steel Ausing approxi!ately )IW steel weightB ........................ &3.H high tensile steel Ausing approxi!ately NIW steel weightB ........................ &4.H or strengthing or heavy cargos ........................................ QN.H or strengthing or heavy cargos" alternate holds e!pty ... Q'.H or strengthing or ore cargos ............................................ Q'.H or strengthing or ore cargos" alterante holds e!pty ....... QI.I Tankers high tensile steel Ausing approxi!ately NIW steel weightB ....................... P4.H use o an approved corrosion control syste! .................... P'.H corrugated bulkheads in place o plane bulkheads ............ P%.L Fig. 15 % (teel weight data sheet

Fig. 1 % (teel weight data sheet

Fig. 1" % (teel weight data sheet

Stabilit Check The stability o a ship can be unsuitable in two ways" too little and too !uch. Insu icient stability will restrict the operation o the ship and too !uch will cause the ship to be unco! ortable to the crew and !ay even cause da!age to the cargo due to excessive !otions at sea. Suitable ranges o a stability criterion" % &/B" are given or di erent ship types in Table I. These data are based on a diagra! prepared by Roorda $%2(. 5owever" 1ruhl $)H( proposed that or ships with a breadth greater than 33 t the value o % &/B should not exceed H.HI" based on the relationship between the !otions o a ship in a seaway. Table ( – )ormal *ange of G+T,S5IP T7PE ;,TM1 Passenger ships ........................................................ H.H'H&H.HIH :arge cargo ships ..................................................... H.HNI&H.HI) S!all cargo ships ..................................................... H.H'H&H.HII Tankers .................................................................... H.H3H&H.H2) 8erries ...................................................................... H.H2H&H.%H) .oasters ................................................................... H.HII&H.H4H Tugs ......................................................................... H.H3H&H.H4H

The initial stability is exa!ined by deter!ining the B & ro! a or!ula o the type '()&*+/∇ and adding to this an esti!ate o the height o the center o bouyancy above the baseline to give K &. An esti!ate or the height o the center o gravity o the ship in the condition to be considered is deducted ro! K & to give the % &. This can be co!pared with any speci ied value or" i there is none" the value can be divided by 1 and co!pared with the values o this ratio given in Table I. Seakeeping In a seaway" a ship will roll" pitch" sway" heave" yaw and surge. These !otions are usually considered independently but it is known that coupling between so!e o these !otions does take place. The coupling between roll and pitch or heave gives rise to !axi!u! !otions" but coupling between pitch and heave can be used to give !ini!u! !otions at a particular point in the ship. 5owever" this could not be done using the design data already deter!ined in the preli!inary design calculations. It is not likely to be atte!pted at even a later stage or nor!al !erchant ships but it could be o interest in the proble! o locating the reactor in a nuclear& propelled ship.


A S5IP 0ESI;N PR6.E0?RE There does not seen to be any si!ple approach which considers ship !otions and their coupling using only the di!ensions and other design para!eters. It is elt" however" that as the di!ensions are to be ixed on the basis o the preli!inary design calculations it is essential that at least the roll" pitch and heave characteristics be exa!ined during the preli!inary design. The approach proposed allows the e ect o changes in di!ensions to be exa!ined. To do this" the natural periods o roll" pitch and heave are deter!ined ro! the ollowing or!ulas@ Natural period o roll Tr E )π$!AkTB)M∆;,T(%M) E )π$AkTM1B)1)Mg;,T(%M) Tr E %.%H4 $!AkTB)M;,T(%M) ?sing a !odi ied or! o Gatu+s expression $)%(@ AkTM1B E H.%N×$.bA.b Q H.)B

%'. %I. Troost" :." CA Si!pli ied ,ethod or Preli!inary Powering o Single Screw ,erchant ShipsD" S.N.A.,.E." %2IL" p. LNL. ,inorsky" 9." CA No!ograph or the Preli!inary Powering o ,erchant ShipsD" International Shipbuilding Progress" 9ol. )" No. 2" %2II" p. ))3. 1ocler" 5." CThe Position o :ongitudinal .entre o 1uoyancy or ,ini!u! ResistanceD" I.E.S.S." %2IN&I'" p. %%. Allan" U. 8." CI!prove!ents in Ship Per or!anceD" I. ,ar. E." %2IN" p. %%L. ,unro&S!ith" R." CThe 0eter!ination o .argo .apacity and its .entroidD" The Shipbuilder and ,arine Engine&1uilder" April %2I4" p. )HI. Arnott" 0." C0esign and .onstruction o Steel ,erchant ShipsD" .hapter IIAAB Powell" S. .." CEsti!ation o ,achinery *eightsD" S.N.A.,.E." %2I4. Tel er" E. 9." CThe Structural *eight Si!ilarity o ShipsD" N.E...I.E.S" %2II&I3" p. %)N. Robinson" 5. 8." Roeske" U. 8. and Thaeler" A. S." C,odern TankersD" S.N.A.,.E." %2'4" p. ')). 5enry" U. U." C,odern 6re .arriersD" S.N.A.,.E." %2II" p. IL. van :a!!eren" *. P." and Troost" :." CResistance" Propulsion and Steering o ShipsD. Taylor" 0. *." CSpeed and Power o ShipsD. Todd" 8. 5." Stunt<" ;. R." and Pien" P. .." CSeries 3H P The E ect upon Resistance and Power o 9ariation in Ship ProportionsD" S.N.A.,.E." %2IL" p. ''I. *ebster" ;." CSubdivision o Passenger 9esselsD" I.N.A." %2)H" p. )N'. ?. S. .oast ;uard C:oad :ine RegulationsD. ?. S. Treasury 0ept." 1ureau o .usto!s" C,easure!ent o 9esselsD. .o!stock" U. P." C.harts or :ight&0ra t 8or! .haracteristicsD" ,arine Engineering and Shipping Age" Nove!ber" %2)3" p. 3N2. 1aker" :" CSo!e 8actors in the Selection o ,achinery or .argo :inersD" I. ,ech. E." %2II" p. %L. Stewart" *. A." discussion o sy!posiu! CAdvanced ,achinery Installations 0esigned or the ,axi!u! Saving in *eight and SpaceD" I. ,ar. E." %2II" p. NNI. ST. 0enis" ,." C6n the Structural 0esign o the ,idship SectionD" 0avid Taylor ,odel 1asin Report .&III. Evans" U. 5." CA Structural Analysis and 0esign Integration with Application to the ,idship Section .haracteristics o Transversely 8ra!ed ShipsD" S.N.A.,.E." %2I4. Todd" 8. 5." CSo!e 8urther Experi!ents on Single Screw ,erchant Ship 8or!s P Series 3HD" S.N.A.,.E." %2IN" p. I%3.

%3. %L. %4.

%2. )H. )%. )). )N. )'. )I. )3.

& %.%A.b Q H.)B A%.H & .bBA).) P 0MdB Q 0)M1)( the oregoing or!ula beco!es

)L. 1I1:I6;RAP57 %. ). N. '. I. .o!stock" U. P." CIntroduction to Naval ArchitectureD" APart IIB. Ridgely&Nevitt" .." CThe develop!ent o ;raphics Aids to Preli!inary 0esignD" A.S.N.E." ,ay %2IH" p. NHN. 1ustard" E. E." CPreli!inary .alculations in Ship 0esignD" N.E...I.E.S" %2'H&'%" p. %L2. Schokker" P. .. A." Nuverburg" E. ,. and 9ossnack" E. U." CThe 0esign o ,erchant ShipsD. ,unro&S!ith" R." CShip 0esign P Preli!inary 0eter!ination o the 0i!ensions and other Technical .haracteristicsD" The Shipbuilder and ,arine Engine&1uilder" 6ctober %2I3" p. I4I. .alder" U. 0." CThe :engthM1ea! RatioD" Shipbuilding and Shipping Record" Septe!ber %3" %2I'" p. N32. *itte" N." C0ie Entwur rechnung ur 8rachtschi eD" Schi 5a en" ,arch %2II" p. %)N. und )4. )2. NH. N%. N).

3. L. 4. 2. %H. %%. %). %N.

NN. N'.

0iede" ;." CEntwur von :inienrissen ur ,oderne 5andelschi eD" Schi und 5a en" 8ebruary %2I3" p. 4I. 1en ord" 5." CEngineering Econo!y in Tanker 0esignD" S.N.A.,.E." %2IL" p. LLI. 1en ord" 5." C6cean 6re&.arrier Econo!ics and Preli!inary 0esignD" S.N.A.,.E." %2I4. ,unro&S!ith" R." CThe 0esign o .oastersD" Shipbuilding and Shipping Record" Uuly )'" %2'%" p. L2. Todd" 8. 5." CThe 8unda!entals o Ship 8or!D" I. ,ar. E". %2''& 'I" p. %. Ayre" *." CThe Propulsive E iciency o .argo ShipsD" I.E.S.S." %2N%&N)" p. %L2.


A11RE9IATI6NS A.S.N.E I.E.S.S. I. ,ar. E. I.N.A. Uournal o the A!erican Society o Naval Engineers Institution o Engineers and Shipbuilders in Scotland Institute o ,arine Engineers Institution o Naval Architects

I. ,ech. E. Institution o ,echanical Engineers N.E...I.E.S. North&East .oast Institution o Engineers and Shipbuilders S.N.A.,.E. Society o Naval Architects and ,arine Engineers