Stability and Buoyancy Criteria for U. S.

Naval
Surface Ships
By T. H. Sarchin, ~ Member a n d L. L. G o l d b e r g , 2 Visitor

Stability and reserve buoyancy are considered of basic importance in U. S. Naval ships.
Considerable attention is given to these characteristics from the very inception of a new
ship design. Various criteria have been developed to establish and define the capabili-
ties of each ship type and to determine the power of survival of the ship when subjected
to the effects of wind, sea, special operating conditions and flooding due to damage.
These criteria are discussed at some length. In the case of the damaged ship several
causes of damage are discussed. Liquid loading procedures for maintaining adequate
stability and for reducing the effects of flooding are outlined. The purpose and applica-
tion of transverse bulkheads, longitudinal bulkheads and decks as watertight boundaries
are considered and the advantages and disadvantages associated with the different
arrangements are mentioned. The criteria for compartmentation and stability are
governed by the military importance of the ship, the number of personnel carried and the
size of the ship. The criteria established as guides for U. S. Naval ships are essentially
empirical in nature and result from war-damage experience, model and full-scale caisson
explosion tests and general operating experience. The criteria, in general, represent
higher standards than employed in commercial practice.

THE United States Navy, as the world's largest
ship designer and fleet operator, has more than a
passing interest in ship buoyancy and stability.
The safety of naval ships: and to a large extent,
the ability to continue military operations after
"damage, are dependent on their stability and
buoyancy characteristics.
The purpose of this paper is to present the
Bureau of Ships design stability and buoyancy
criteria for surface ships. I t is assumed that the
reader is familiar with the naval architectural
calculation methods for intact and damage
stability and, therefore, references to calculation
methods are limited to illustrating application of
the criteria.
1 Head, Hydronmehanics Section, Preliminary Design center weights.
Branch, Bureau of Ships, Department of the Navy. Wash-
ington, D. C.
Head, Stability Section, Hull Design Branch, Bureau
of Ships, Department of the Navy, Washington, D. C.
Presented at the Annual Meeting, New York, N. .,
November 15-16, 1962. of THE SOCIETYOF NAVALARCH>
TECTS AND M A R I N E E N G I N E E R S .
Naval ships are subject to the same type of
external influences and hazards which affect
stability and buoyancy as are pleasure and com-
mercial ships. However, the degree of such haz-
ards m a y be greater in the case of naval ships.
These hazards m a y be thought of as:
((~) Applying to the intact ship.
(b) Causing flooding of the ship as a result of
underwater damage.
(c) Applying to the ship in the flooded condi-
tion.
Examples of external influences a n d hazards
for each of these cases are:
(a) For the intact ship:
1 Beam winds combined with rolling.
2 Lifting of heavy weights, particularly off-
3 Crowding of passengers to one side.
High-speed turning.
5 Topside icing.
(b) Damage to the ship resulting in flooding:
1 Stranding involving moderate flooding.

418
 2 Bow collision.
8 Collision or stranding resulting in extensive
flooding.
4 E n e m y explosive action causing extensive
flooding.
(c) For the flooded ship :
1 Beam winds combined with rolling.
2 Progressive flooding.
The design criteria discussed in this paper
represent the Bureau of Ships' approach as to
the minimum stability and reserve buoyancy a
ship should have in order to withstand the afore-
mentioned hazards. The criteria are practical
in t h a t they represent standards which are
reasonably attainable for new designs and con-
versions and can be m e t by m a n y older ships in
service.
I t would be desirable, if practicable, to provide
every ship with the capability of withstanding
each type of hazard under the most extreme
conditions which are likely to arise; however,
this cannot be done.
The loss of the USS Benevole~,~ce (AH 13) as a
result of collision in San Francisco harbor in 1950
is an examI~le of extreme underwater flooding.
For survival, it would have been necessary to
provide a capability to withstand flooding from
total shell openings equivalent to about one half
to two thirds of the ship's length. Although
Benevolence more than adequately met the Bureau
of Ships' stability criteria, the ship was lost be-
cause the extensive damage required a degree of
stability far in excess of t h a t which could be
provided.
Generally, the stability and reserve buoyancy
required to withstand the extent of underwater
damage specified in the criteria for a particular
ship type, will satisfy the requirements for over-
coming the hazards to the intact ship even under
extreme conditions.
The underlying philosophy in establishing
. s t a b i l i t y standards is t h a t 'as the ship becomes
larger, or more i m p o r t a n t from a military stand-
point, or carries large numbers of personnel, the
degree of the hazards to which it m a y be ex-
posed is considered to increase, and adequate
stability and b u o y a n c y are provided accordingly.
As mentioned previously, this approach is both
logical and reasonable since the personnel carrier
or militarily i m p o r t a n t ship is usually of sufficient
size to permit extensive internal subdivision
which enhances its ability to survive underwater
damage. The detailed description of criteria,
which will be presented later in the paper, will
illustrate the variation of stability requirements
and standards with ship size and function.
Stability and Buoyancy Criteria for U. S. Naval Surface Ships
A brief history of the Bureau of Ships' prac-
tice (and t h a t of its predecessor, the Bureau of
Construction and Repair) with regard to stability
and buoyancy criteria from pre-World War I I
days to the present will bring into sharper focus
the extent to which stability and reserve buoy-
ancy have become military characteristics. As
a military characteristic, its effect on other design
and operational features must be taken into
account.
The stability of ships in the N a v y has been an
i m p o r t a n t design factor for m a n y years. Early
considerations of stability were based primarily on
intact ship requirements rather than on the
effect of flooding. Stability studies included
righting-arm as well as G M calculations. World
War I demonstrated the significance of damage
control in limiting flooding and resulted in the
establishment of regular procedures for t h a t
purpose. These damage-control procedures, how-
ever, treated the patient after the injury. T h e y
did not provide the health benefits to assure
survival of the patient. Investigation of damage
stability for naval ships did not appear on the
scene until the 1930's. Largely through the
efforts of J. C. Niedermair and the late Vice
Admiral E. L. Coehrane, damage-stability studies
were initiated for new c o m b a t a n t ships. These
studies were based on the required G M method
and provided a measure of the residual stability
and heel for selected lengths of flooding throughout
the ship.
The advent of World War I I sparked an in-
tensive investigation of the stability capabilities
of existing naval ships and of merchant ships
available for naval auxiliary conversion. Some
of the Bureau people who contributed to the
development of standards during this hectic
period were: Mr. J. C. Neidermair, Lt. A. K.
R o m b e r g (now Capt., USN Ret.), Messrs. T. H.
Sarchin, T. L. Soo-Hoo, M. St. Denis, C. L.
Wright, Jr.
Liquid loading procedures for optimizing sta-
bility after damage were developed for naval
ships. Each ship type was examined and fuel
t a n k usage and sea-water ballasting, procedures
were established. Merchant ship conversions
were analyzed, bulkheads were strengthened,
made watertight or added, and solid ballast was
added where found necessary. During this
period, the use of righting-arm calculations for
damaged ship was initiated, thus providing
a more complete picture of the stability character-
istics of the ship. Extensive investigations of
structural damage due to underwater explosion
were carried out particularly on the ship types
with torpedo side-protective systems. Tests in-
41 9
 eluded both scale models and full-size sections of
ship structure. The concept of length of damage
anywhere along the ship replaced the compart-
mentation concept as the basis for measuring
the power of survival. As an outgrowth of the
structural model explosion tests and war-damage
reports, specific damage patterns for ships with
and without side-protective systems were de-
veloped. These patterns now form a basis for
relating underwater weapon attacks to the power
of survival of naval ships.
The effects of wind heel, lifting weights, and
heel in turns had been investigated more or less
on a case basis prior to the end of World W a r II.
As a result of the destroyer typhoon experience in
South E a s t Asian waters in December 1944,
Com. C. J. Pahner, USN (now Rear Admiral),
then head of the Stability Section in the Design
Division, Bureau of Ships, began to investigate
and codify some standard criteria for wind heel,
heel due to lifting weights and heel in turns, and
effects of damage. These criteria were later ex-
panded and formalized as the Bureau of Ships
Design Division Stability Criteria by C. S. Moore
and the authors. I t is of interest to note t h a t
m a n y of the V~rorld W a r I I merchant ship con-
versions to AGC, AKA, APA, and other auxiliary
types, are still operating as active ships and
meet current stability and buoyancy criteria.
The practical considerations of providing suitable
bulkhead arrangements and controlling the center
of gravity in order to meet stability and buoyancy
criteria were capable of solution even on existing
hull forms although at the price of solid ballast
and less than o p t i m u m bulkhead arrangement.
For new designs, a naval architect is presented
with a set of ship's characteristics, m a n y of which
present conflicting demands. For naval ships
the stability and b u o y a n c y standards which are
detailed later in this paper are among the pre-
scribed characteristics. Those features which
generally favor stability and reserve buoyancy
such as a low center of gravity, adequate beam,
o p t i m u m bulkhead arrangement and watertight
integrity, absence of off-center compartments, and
adequate freeboard are in conflict with the de-
m a n d s of other characteristics. Beam is in-
fluenced by speed requirements and seaworthiness;
bulkhead spacing is affected by size of machinery
plant and other arrangement requirements; the
a r m a m e n t and electronic installations are high
weights; below decks fore-and-aft access and
ventilation system penetrations are in competi-
tion with . watertight integrity requirements;
liquid tank arrangement and the need to protect
vital spaces present problems of potential off-
center flooding. Consumption of liquid load
420 Stability and Buoyancy Criteria for U. S. Naval Surface Ships
generally causes a rise in the center of gravity.
In the case of oil, compensation by sea-water
ballasting is possible if the problems associated
with such ballasting and deballasting can be
overcome.
As part of the development of the stability
and buoyancy criteria, certain practices have
evolved regarding subdivision, watertight in-
tegrity, c o m p a r t m e n t arrangement, liquid loading
and liquid ballasting which now form the ground
rules for the designer. A brief discussion of the
current design practices in these areas is in order
before presenting the specific criteria.
Watertight Subdivision, Watertight Integrity, and
Compartment Arrangement
There are numerous considerations involved in
determining the o p t i m u m watertight subdivision
of a naval ship. The principal factors are:
((,) Ability to survive underwater damage.
(b) Protection of vital spaces against flooding.
(c) Interference of subdivision with arrange-
ments.
(d) Interference of subdivision with access
and systems.
(e) Provisi,ons for carryingliquids.
(f) Stranding.
(g) Bow collision damage.
I t has been noted already t h a t design features
which favor stability are often in competition
with other phases of the design. Similarly, in the
case of watertight subdivision, there m a y be
certain conflicts among the various factors listed.
Where such conflicts occur, the relative importance
of the conflicting factors are evaluated in deter-
mining the best arrangement.
"
Ability to Survive Underwater Damage
N a v a l ships m a y be classified as hc~vi~zg c~ side-
protect.ire sz~bdivision system or ~zot hc, v.i~zg such a
system. Both types usually have an inner b o t t o m
which in addition to serving as tankage for liquids
m a y provide some protection against under
b o t t o m near-miss explosions. Aircraft carriers
are examples of ships with a side-protective sys-
teln. Such a system consists of outboard layers
of longitudinal bulkheads forming c o m p a r t m e n t s
which contain liquids or are voids which can be
flooded readily. Numerous transverse bulk-
heads form the fore-and-aft boundaries of these
compartments. The system extends about two
thirds of the ship length and is intended to mini-
mize flooding of vital spaces inboard of the system
which otherwise might result from enemy torpedo
action. Generally, a side-protective system is not
feasible on smaller ship types so t h a t most naval
ships are in the category of nol: having a side-
protective system.
For ships without a side-protective system,
transverse watertight bulkheads are the most
effective form of internal subdivision from the
standpoint of developing the ship's overall
resistance to flooding. Longitudinal bulkheads
generally have an unfavorable effect on damage
stability unless the off-center spaces formed by
these bulkheads are cross-connected to ensure
rapid cross-flooding, or unless these spaces are
kept full of liquids. Each transverse bulkhead is
extended watertight to a height which is above
the expected flooding water level on this bulkhead
when the bulkhead acts as an intact flooding
boundary. Bulkheads are normally carried water-
tight to a deck referred to as the bulkhead deck.
The bulkhead deck on most designs coincides
with the weather deck and may be a continuous
main deck as in the case of cargo types or a stepped
deck as in the case of some destroyer types.
Decks and platforms, other than the weather
deck, m a y have either a favorable or an unfavor-
able effect. If damage occurs below a watertight
deck and the space below the deck floods com-
pletely, the effect is definitely favorable because
high flooding is prevented and free surface of
flooding water is eliminated. On the other hand,
if damage occurs above a watertight deck and
flooding of spaces below is prevented, the effect
of the watertight deck is unfavorable since low
flooding will not be obtained. Because of the
uncertainty as to the location of the damage
relative to the deck, and the probability that all
or most decks will be ruptured in way of damage
except on the largest ships, no reliance can be
placed on watertight decks and platforms below
the weather deck in evaluating a ship's resistance
to underwater damage. A watertight weather
deck throughout the ship's length is desirable to
prevent flooding into undamaged spaces when
the weather deck is permanently or temporarily
submerged. Considerations other than reserve
b u o y a n c y or stability after danlage determine
whether other decks or platforms are made
watertight.
Protection of Vital Spaces Against Flooding
Vital spaces are defined as those spaces which
are manned at "general quarLers" (ready for
action) and those umnanned spaces that contain
equipment essential to the prilnary mission of the
ship. I t is obviously desirable to surrouud each
of these spaces within the h.ull by a completely
watertight envelope since such protection might
prevent flooding of the space from nearby damage,
thus preserving the function of the space. The
Stability and Buoyancy Criteria for U. S. Naval Surface Ships
damage-control deck, on which damage-control
equipment and stations are located, is also con-
sidered to be a vital space boundary and is made
watertight on as many ship types as feasible.
The damage-control deck is located high in the
ship and is usually the covered deck having fore-
and-aft access through watertight openings in the
main transverse bulkheads.
The subdivision fitted as protection for vital
spaces involves decks and longitudinal bulkheads
and m a y reduce the overall resistance of the ship
to underwater damage. I t is, therefore, necessary
in the overall design to provide sufficient stability
to overcome this adverse effect. The disadvan-
tage is minimized, insofar as possible, by so locat-
ing vital spaces as to avoid unsymmetrical
flooding.
Interference of Subdivision with Arrangements
The spacing of transverse watertight bulkheads
which is necessary to develop resistance to under-
water attack will often interfere with obtaining
the most favorable arrangenmnt of ship compart-
ments. Since all of the main transverse bulk-
heads should, if possible, extend continuously from
the keel up, without steps, all compartments on
the various levels between two main transverse
bulkheads are restricted to the same length,
whereas the optinmm arrangement might require
compartments of different lengths. The most
favorable location of bulkheads from the stand-
point of resistance to underwater damage may
make it ditticult to obtain the desired length of
main compartments from the arrangement stand-
point. Generally the desired locations and lengths
of the machinery spaces and magazines establish
the approximate location of the adjacent trans-
verse bulkheads and influence the number and
spacing of the remaining bulkheads. As men-
tioned before, necessary miuor longitudinal sub-
division is arranged to minimize the possibility of
unsymmetrical flooding. There is a great deal of
give-and-take in the early stages of the design to
satisfy both the interests of subdivision and of
arrangement.
Interference of Subdivision With Access and Systems
Penetration of watertight subdivision by piping,
electric cable, ventilation ducts, and access
openings involves considerable weight, effort, and
expense since watertight fittings must be provided.
Additional disadvantages are that the access and
ventilation closures nmst be set, throughout the
life of the ship, in accordance with the various
damage-control material conditions, and rapid
access is hindered by the necessity for opening and
securing doors in the process of passing through.
421
Therefore, there is a definite advantage to be
gained if bulkheads which contain a considerable
number of such penetrations can be made non-
tight.
The bulkheads which have the greatest number
of penetrations, and through which rapid access
is most often required, are those between the
weather deck and the deck below in the midship
region. On most ships this corresponds to the
main and second decks with the second deck
ser,Ang as the previously defined damage-control
deck. If some of these bulkheads are nonwater-
tight below the weather deck, they cannot serve to
confine flooding water above the openings in the
bulkhead and flooding would continue fore and
aft until watertight bulkheads are reached.
On some ships having a relatively high freeboard
and large intact stability, investigation m a y show
that the damage stability and reserve buoyancy
will be adequate with some of the main transverse
bulkheads considered nontight above the second
deck (or first deck below the weather deck).
In Such a case it is essential to make the second
deck watertight in way of the nontight bulk-
heads, at least in the outboard areas which m a y
be submerged after damage, to avoid progressive
flooding below.
On most ships, however, it is necessary to take
advantage of the b u o y a n t volume below the
weather deck in order to meet the criteria for
resistance to underwater damage. Even in
these cases, there are inboard areas in the upper
levels of some bulkheads which will be above the
final level of flooding water, taking roll and wave
action into account. Penetrations through these
bulkhead areas m a y be nonwatertight without
introducing appreciable danger of progressive
flooding into intact spaces. As a practical matter,
however, to permit periodic air testing of water-
tight compartments, ventilation ducts without
permanent closures are the only nonwatertight
penetrations permitted through the bulkheads.
The periphery of the vent duct at the penetration
is watertight, of course', and temporary closures
are installed in the duct for compartment testing.
Since ventilation ducts which penetrate bulkheads
below the permissible nontight areas would re-
quire permanent watertight closures, vent-duct
bulkhead penetrations are generally limited to
levels between the weather deck and the deck
below. This practice is based on the recognition
that some vent-duct watertight closures which are
required to be closed m a y be left open. By limit-
ing bulkhead penetrations to an area between the
weather deck and the deck below, it is reasonable
to predict t h a t the a m o u n t of progressive flooding
through vent ducts will be small.
422 Stability and Buoyancy Criteria for U. S. Naval Surface Ships
Penetrations through watertight decks are
controlled in a manner similar to that for trans-
verse bulkheads for the purpose of preventing
progressive flooding into otherwise undamaged
spaces. Of particular interest are the weather
deck and the bulkhead deck if different from the
weather deck. These serve as the ship's water-
tight envelope for reserve-buoyancy considera-
tions. Ventilation ducts which terminate in the
weather are carried watertight to a level above
the calculated external waterline for the damaged
ship, allowing for ship rolling and wave action.
If not feasible to extend ducts to this level,
watertight closures are fitted. Vent ducts serving
vital spaces below decks are fitted with water-
tight closures at tbe boundary of the vital space
to prevent flooding through the ducts if these
spaces are otherwise undamaged. The water-
tightness of the damage-control deck (usually the
second deck) is protected against vent-duct
flooding from below. This is done by extending
the ducts vertically to about 6 ft above the dam-
age-control deck. The foregoing are examples of
the attention that must be given to accesses and
systems which could jeopardize the watertight
integrity of the main subdivision of the ship.
There are m a n y other controls of this nature
which are covered in the "General Specifications
for Ships of the United States N a v y " and are
included in the detail specifications for each ship
design.
Provision for Carrying Liquids
Subdivision of tankage, by its very nature, is of
watertight or oil-tight construction. The vertical
location, size and shape, arrangement, and usage
of tanks significantly, affect the ship's stability in
both intact and damaged conditions. The verti-
cal location affects the height of the ship's center
of gravity; the size and shape determine the free-
surface effect; e m p t y off-center tanks are a
potential source of unsymmetrical flooding in the
event of underwater damage; tank usage de-
termines whether e m p t y tanks can be ballasted
with sea water. From a stability standpoint, an
example of a favorable tankage system would be
one in which:
1 There were clean ballast tanks, low in the
ship, which could be filled as oil and fresh water
were consumed.
2 There were no off-center oil and fresh water
tanks.
3 The athwartships dimensions of the oil and
fresh-water tanks ~ere small to reduce free
surface.
Such a tank arrangement is not feasible on
most ships because of limited space. The more
 ,/BULKHEAD
~ DUCT
INNER BOTTO
SECTION A-A
Fig. 1 Cross connection for double-bottom tanks
common t a n k arrangement locates oil tanks low in
the ship and equips them with ballasting facilities.
Standard liquid loading instructions require
ballasting of e m p t y oil tanks. A discussion of the
practical aspects of sea-water ballast follows later
in the paper. Cross connections are employed in
off-center double-bottom oil tanks where necessary
to reduce potential unsymmetrical flooding. An
example of a cross-connecting duct is shown in
Fig. 1. T h e baffle is carried sufficiently high to
prevent transference of oil during normal rolling
of the ship. Appropriate venting is provided.
If these tanks were e m p t y at the time one t a n k
was bilged, automatic rapid coun terflooding would
occur. Where diesel oil is the fuel, a sea-water
displacement system is often employed. This has
the advantage of maintaining a constant low
weight and reducing potential unsymmetrical
flooding.
On several recent destroyer designs, the damage-
stability criteria could not be m e t for certain
groups of c o m p a r t m e n t s owing to unsymmetrical
flooding in off-center deep oil tanks. A solution
to this problem was to redesign the offending
wing tanks to U-shaped tanks thus eliminating
the possibility of unsymmetrical flooding in the
critical group of compartments. I t was necessary
to establish t h a t the resulting free surface of the
intact U-tanks did not cause some other group
of c o m p a r t m e n t s to become critical in damage
stability. T h e large added free-surface effect was
also evaluated in the intact stability cases of
beam winds and high-speed turning before a final
decision was made.
Stranding
The most effective subdivision for protection
against the hazard of stranding consists of a
complete inner b o t t o m over areas which are
Stability and Buoyancy Criteria for U. S. Naval Surface Ships
.BAFFLE CROSS-CONNECTI/ON
7
[
LA
subject to damage throngh grounding. Where
no inner bottonl is fitted, the lowest platform in
t h a t area is made watertight. I t should be noted
t h a t where damage from stranding is sufficiently
extensive to rupture the inner bottom, subdivision
considerations described under "Ability to Survive
Underwater D a m a g e " apply. For other dam-
age, an unfavorable situation can arise in the
case where the double b o t t o m consists of voids
or e m p t y tanks. This would occur from ex-
tensive flooding resulting from a shell opening
above the inner bottom, with the inner b o t t o m
remaining intact. As previously noted under the
discussion of tanks, e m p t y double-bottom oil tanks
should be kept few in n u m b e r through the use
of seawater ballasting or a displacement system.
'Collision Damage
The case of collision damage involving con-
siderable side-shell opening is covered under
"Ability to Survive Underwater D a m a g e . " For
the case where only bow damage is involved,
survival is not in question and considerations of
minimizing flooding govern. With this in mind,
one of the forward main transverse bulkheads
serves as a collision bulkhead for purposes of
limiting flooding to the bow compartment. A
collision bulkhead is carried watertight to the
weather deck and no access is provided through
the bulkhead. I t is located at least 5 percent of
the ship's length a b a f t of the forward perpen-
dicular.
Liquid Loading Instructions Practice
As mentioned under "Provision for Carrying
Liquids," the general arrangement requirements of
naval ships have relegated oil and water tanks
to low-level locations in the ship. Even with the
advantage of the low center of gravity of liquids
423
there is usually insufficient margin to pernfit a
significant reduction in stability, particularly in
the case of damage stability. I t is, therefore,
necessary to compensate for the loss of low weights
as fuel and water are consmned. In addition to
causing a substantial rise in the ship's center of
gravity, e m p t y off-center tanks are potential
sources of unsymmetrical flooding. The practice
is to issue liquid loading instructions which
generally specify t h a t oil-storage tanks shall be
drawn down one pair at a time and refilled with
sea-water ballast before drawing from another
pair. Service or settling tanks shall not fall
below 50 percent capacity. Fresh-water tanks
are to be maintained as full as practicable by
evaporator make-up. There m a y be variations
to the foregoing general outline. For example,
in the case where unsymmetrical flooding in one
large off-center t a n k of a port and starboard pair
might result in unsatisfactory damage stability
in the minimum operating condition (when the
ship has been operating for an extended period),
the liquid loading instructions would specify
using oil from this pair first and ballasting before
drawing from another pair. The ship near full
load generally has better stability to withstand
the unsymmetrical flooding. Special instructions
govern the use of liquids in ships with side pro-
tective systems so t h a t m a x i m u m resistance to
the effects of explosion will be maintained.
Practical difficulties arise in the use of sea-
water ballasting. Deballasting of oily ballast
water must be accomplished at sea (about 100
miles from port) unless facilities are available in
port to receive the oily ballast water. A ship
which has deballasted at sea is in a poor condition
to withstand underwater damage. W h a t is
needed is an oil-water separator, capable of
producing a sufficiently oil-free effluent to satisfy
port regulations, and of sufficient capacity to
permit deballasting in port.
Another problem which must be overcome is the
reluctance on the p a r t of the operators to ballast
oil tanks, particularly double-bottom tanks.
There is a fear t h a t sufficient water will become
mixed with fuel oil to put out the fire. Properly
designed settling and service tanks, in association
with good operational engineering practice, have
reduced to a nfinimmn the possibility of losing a
fire from water contanfination.
A price is paid, maintenance-wise, however, in
more rapid deterioration of fire brick as a result
of sea-water ballasting of oil tanks. I t is neces-
sary to accept this disadvantage in the interest
of maintaining the .greatest practicable resistance
to underwater damage.
424 Stability and Buoyancy Criteria for U. S. Naval Surface Ships
Summary of Subdivision and Liquid Loading Practices
. A s u m m a r y of the subdivision and liquid
loading ground rules would include the following:
(a) The watertight envelope for intact stability
extends to the weather deck. For damage sta-
bility the bulkhead deck, if different from the
weather deck, is the upper boundary of the water-
tight envelope.
(b) Bulkheads. Sufficient and adequately
spaced main transverse watertight bulkheads pro-
vide the ability to withstand underwater damage.
These bulkheads extend vertically to levels
necessary to prevent flooding into undamaged
compartments. Longitudinal bulkheads are
avoided except in ships with side protective
systems.
(c) Decks. Horizontal watertight subdivision
is limited to the weather deck, the bulkhead deck,
the damage-control deck, t h a t p a r t of a deck which
m a y connect stepped bulkheads, and the first:
deck or platform above the shell bottom.
(d) Vital spaces are bounded by watertight
boundaries.
(e) Tank boundaries of necessity are bounded
by watertight or oiltight structure.
(f) Design Heads. Watertight subdivision i:~
designed to withstand a hydrostatic head cor-
responding to the level of assumed flooding water
which m a y be loaded on such structure.
(g) Protection of Watertight Integrity. Ac-
cess through main watertight-subdivision bulk--
heads is limited to levels above the damage-
control deck. W a t e r t i g h t trunks are provided
to vital spaces. Ventilatiou penetrations of
main transverse bulkheads are limited to levels
above the damage-control deck, and watertight clo-
sures are fitted where necessary to limit flooding
into undamaged compartments. Vent ducts which
terminate in the weather are carried watertight
to a level above the expected external waterline,
allowing for ship rolling and wave action. Water-
tight closures are fitted if it is not feasible to carry
the weather openings to the required level.
Vent ducts serving vital spaces are carried in-
dividually watertight to just under the bulkhead
deck and are provided with closures at the bound-
ary of the vital spaces.
(h) Cross connections are provided in off-
center spaces and, if necessary, in double-bottom
tanks, to reduce potential unsymnaetrical flooding.
(i) Liquid loading instructions specify t a n k
sequences and liquid ballasting as necessary.
A sea-water compensating system m a y be in-
stalled on diesel-fueled ships if required to provide
the necessary stability.
(j) Subdivision limiting drafts are assigned
to each ship as guides against overloading.
 Table 1 Loads in Minimum Operating Condition
Crew and effeel s . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Same as full load
Ammunition . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . One third of full-load ammunition wP.h maximum
quantities in ready-service stowages and remainder
in magazines. For guided missiles, least favorable
quantity and disposition is assumed.
Provisions and general stores . . . . . . . . One third full load
Lube oil . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . One third full load
Reserve feed and fresh water . . . . . . . Two thirds full load
Diesel Oil (other than for l)ropul-
sion) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . One half full load on ships below destroyer size; one
third full load on larger ships
Aviation or vehicle fuel . . . . . . . . . . . . . One third of full load. Compensating sea-water bal-
last (or ballast water in empty tanks) is taken as
remainder of the load.
Fog oil . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . One third of full load
Airplanes and ;tviation stores . . . . . . . . Same as full load
Cargo . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . No cargo for ships whose normal function requires
t h a t they unload all cargo. For ships such as
tenders and replenishment ty:Jes which do not
normally unload completely, a;sume m-m third of
full load cargo
Fuel Oil and Sea-Water Ballast
Case f Case 11
(Noncompensating system)
In both cases, total fuel oil is about one third of ftfll
load
Service or settling tanks . . . . . . . . . . . . . Half full Half full
Wing storage oil tanks . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Filled to approximately Same as for Case l ex-
the external waterline cept that when a
with oil or sea water, double-bott o,n oil
except for one pai," tank is assu reed empty
which is taken empty~ ill w a y of d a m a g e , no
if it occurs within as- wing tank is assumed
SUuled u n d e r w a t e r empty
damage
Centerline deep tanks . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Full of oil or seawater Same as for Case I
Dotd)le-bottom tanks . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . A m a x i m u m of one third 13,~ttoul tanks full of oil
of bottom tanks full of or ballast water except
~dl or seawater. for one pair which is
Other bottom tanks assumed empty i f the
empty resulting intact or dam-
age stability is worse
than with an empty
wing tank
NOTE: "Full oil tanks" means filled to 95 percent capacily. "Full water tanks" means
filled to 100 percent capacity.

A s m e n t i o n e d e a r l i e r in t h e p a p e r , t h e r e is t i m c r i t e r i a , will h a v e a c o n s i d e r a b l e c h a n c e of
c o n s i d e r a b l e g i v e a n d t a k e i n t h e c o u r s e of t h e s u r v i v a l c o n s i s t e n t w i t h the: p r a c t i c a l l i m i t a t i o n s
design in order to obtain the optinmm ship from of size a n d a r r a n g e m e n t . As previously men-
the standpoint of a r r a n g e m e n t , stability and t i o n e d , t h e e x t e n t of t h e h a z a r d s t o w h i c h t h e
reserve buoyancy, and other features. Hope- s h i p is s u b j e c t e d v a r i e s w i t h s h i p size a n d f u n c -
f u l l y , t h e s h i p a s d e s i g n e d will h a v e s u f f i c i e n t tion. This reflects the plfih3sophy that the more
s t a b i l i t y a n d b u o y a n c y m a r g i n s , c o m p a r e d to t h e important ship type, and the larger ship in a given
criteria, to permit moderate weight and vertical t y p e , s h o u l d b e a b l e to w i t h s t a n d a g r e a t e r e x t e n t
moment i n c r e a s e s d u r i n g t h e l i f e t i m e of t h e of h a z a r d s a f f e c t i n g s t a b i l i t y t h a n t h e less i m -
ship. portant and smaller ships.
I n t h e 13ureau of S h i p s , t h e s t a b i l i t y c r i t e r i a a r e
Criteria considered as attainable "floors" rather than
The historical development, general philosophy, c e i l i n g s , a n d wh.ere o t h e r c o n s i d e r a t i o n s s u c h as
and p r a c t i c e s r e l a t i n g t o s t a b i l i t y c r i t e r i a of n a v a l arrangement, speed, and cost pernait, the govern-
ships have been discussed. The following material ing criteria are exceeded.
covers the specific criteria as applicable to the
ship in the intact condition and the ship after Conditions of Loading
underwater damage. The reader should bear in Certain standard c o n d i t i o n s of l o a d i n g a r e
m i n d t h a t a s h i p w h i c h m e e t s t h e c r i t e r i a is n o t p e r t i n e n t in a p p l y i n g t h e s t a b i l i t y c r i t e r i a . The
an unsinkable ship. However, a ship which meets o p e r a t i n g r a n g e in w h i c h t h e s h i p is e x p e c t e d t o

Stability and Buoyancy Criteria for U. S. Naval Surface Ships 425

meet the criteria is between full load and minimum
operating condition for ships without side-protec-
tive systems, and between full load and optimum
battle condition for ships with side-protective sys-
tems.
Full Load
As the name implies, the full-load conditiou
corresponds to a departure condition with full
allowance items of all ship's variable loads and
cargo. In the stability analysis, the full load is
Ammunition . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Provisions and General Stores . . . . . . . . .
Lube oil, diesel oil, aviation fuel . . . . . . .
Fuel oil and sea-water ballast . . . . . . . . .
: cept that service tanks are half full, and one pair
modified by assuming that settling tanks are half
full, o n e pair of storage fuel tanks is empty,
potable and reserve feedwater are reduced to
two thirds of full load. This reflects a condition
after a few days steaming. For diesel-powered
ships with a compensating system, only the water
is modified.
Minimum Operating Condition
The minimum operating condition describes the
ship after an extended period at sea and is usually
the lowest stability condition consistent with
following the liquid loading instructions. I t was
mentioned earlier that sea-water ballasting of
e m p t y fuel-oil tanks had certain disadvantages,
and noncompliance with liquid ballasting instruc-
tions could occur. Since there is better separa-
tion of oil and water in narrow deep tanks than
in shallow wide tanks, ballasting of deep tank
from a practical viewpoint has more of a chance of
being carried out than ballasting of bottom tanks.
Two combinations of fuel-ballast loading in the
minimum operating condition for conventionally
fueled ships are considered in order to cover both
strict observance of ballasting instructions and the
case where ballasting instructions are not fully
observed. A typical breakdown of loads in the
miriimum operating condition is given in Table 1.
It.should be noted that Case [ reflects the possibility
of nonballasting of bottom tanks. Case I I assmnes
adherence to liquid loading instructions, allowing
for one pair of e m p t y oil tanks which would cor-
respond to the time just prior to ballasting the
e m p t y tanks.
In applying the criteria, only Case I I is as-
sumed for wind criteria in intact conditions.
There will be sufficient warning of impending
bad weather or sea conditions to permit optimmn
426 Stability and Buoyancy Criteria for U. S. Naval Surface Ships
sea-water ballasting. The incentive to ballast
for stability in heavy weather is stronger than for
assumed damage due to attack or collision. In
other intact criteria and damage stability criteria
both Case I and Case I I are considered.
Optimum Battle Condition
This condition applies to ships with side-pro-
tective systems and is similar to the minimum
operating condition for ships without side protec-
tive systems, except for the following differences :
Same as full load
Two thirds full load
Two thirds full load
In accordance with liquid loading instructions ex-
of storage oil tanks per machinery box assumed
empty
Intact Stability Criteria
The stability of the ship in the operating range
is expressed by the intact stability curves for full
load and minimum operating conditions or
optimum battle condition if applicable. I t is
recognized that certain conditions will be en-
countered where stability is poorer than for the
standard conditions. The ship deballasted, in
preparation for refueling, is not expected to
withstand all the hazards, as in the case of un-
restricted operations. If at all possible, refueling
is carried out under relatively favorable wind and
sea conditions in areas considered safe from enemy
action.
The decrease in stability that occurs in the
intact condition as a result of the previously
mentioned hazards, is compared with the initial
intact stability for the standard operating condi-
tions as outlined in the following paragraphs.
Beam Winds Combined With Rolling
(a) Elect of Beam Winds and Rolling. Beam
winds and rolling are considered simultaneously
since a fairly rough sea is to be expected when
winds of high velocity exist. If the water were
still, the ship would require only sufficient righting
m o m e n t to overcome the heeling moment pro-
duced by the action of the wind on the ship's
"sail area." When the probability of wave action
is taken into account, an additional allowance of
dynamic stability is required to absorb the energy
imparted to the ship by the rolling motion.
(b) Wind Velocities. The wind velocity which
an intact ship is expected to withstand depends
upon its service. A distinction is also made
between new designs and ships in operation to
allow for the decrease in stability which usually
 Table 2 Wind Velocities
Minimum Minimum
wind velocity acceptable
for design wind velocity
purposes, in service,
Service knots knots
1 Ocean
(a) Vessels which m u s t be expected to w e a t h e r
full force of tropical cyclones. T h i s in-
cludes all vessels which will m o v e with
t h e a m p h i b i o u s a n d s t r i k i n g forces . . . . . . . . . . . . 100 90
(b) Vessels w h i c h will be expected to avoid
c e n t e r s of tropical d i s t u r b a n c e s . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 80 70
2 Coastwise
(a) Vessels wlfich will be expected to w e a t h e r
full force of tropical cych)nes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 100 90
(b) Vessels which will be expected to a v o i d cen-
ters of tropical d i s t u r b a n c e s , b u t to s t a y
a t sea u n d e r all o t h e r c i r c u m s t a n c e s of
weather ................................... 8O 70
(c) Vessels which will be recalled to p r o t e c t e d
a n c h o r a g e s if winds over Force 8 are ex-
pected . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 60 5O
3 H a r b o r . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 60 5O

WIND
- - ~ = . .

d=DRAFT

d
___2

Fig. 2
S
occurs with age. The wind velocities used in Wind Heeling Arm
determining whether a ship has satisfactory intact A g e n e r a l f o r m u l a w h i c h is u s e d t o d e s c r i b e t h e
s t a b i l i t y w i t h r e s p e c t t o t h i s h a z a r d a r e g i v e n in u n i t p r e s s u r e o n a s h i p d u e t o b e a m w i n d is a s
T a b l e 2. follows :

Stability and Buoyancy Criteria for U. S. Naval Surface Ships 427

 1 7 0.

p = Cp 2g
where 9(

C = d i m e n s i o n l e s s coefficient for ship t y p e

p = air d e n s i t y ( w e i g h t p e r v o l u m e )
g = gravity acceleration
V = wind velocity 8c
T h e r e is c o n s i d e r a b l e u n c e r t a i n t y r e g a r d i n g t h e
v a l u e of C. S i m i l a r l y , t h e v a r i a t i o n of t h e w i n d
v e l o c i t y a t different h e i g h t s a b o v e t h e w a t e r l i n e
is n o t e x a c t l y defined. T h e m o s t widely used
v a l u e for p, in E n g l i s h units, lb per sq ft, has rc
been p = 0.004 I/''-'.(where l/i s in knots). H e e l i n g
0.004 "K2 AI cos 2 0
a r m due to w i n d =
2240 X d i s p l a c e n l e n t
where sc

A = p r o j e c t e d sail area, sq ft
l = lever a n n f r o m half d r a f t to c e n t r o i d of
sail area, f t
V = nominal wind velocity, knots _i
(see Fig. 2.) ~ 50
R e c e n t w i n d - t u n n e l tests a t t h e D a v i d T a y l o r o
M o d e l Basin on m o d e l s r e p r e s e n t i n g different <
ship t y p e s a n d s u p e r s t r u c t u r e f o r m s h a v e i n d i c a t e d (D
t h a n an a v e r a g e coefficient of 0.0035 r a t h e r t h a n ,7,
0.004 s h o u l d be u s e d in t h e foregoing f o r n m l a ~4o
which a s s u m e s a c o n s t a n t w i n d g r a d i e n t . In -
o r d e r to a c c o u n t for a c t u a l full-scale v e l o c i t y -
g r a d i e n t effects, t h e B u r e a u of Ships has d e c i d e d to
use an a v e r a g e coefficient v a l u e of 0.01)4 in con-
3o
j u n c t i o n w i t h t h e v e l o c i t y - g r a d i e n t curve, Fig. :3.
T h i s c u r v e is a c o m p o s i t e of v a r i o u s v a l u e s de-
s c r i b e d in t h e l i t e r a t u r e . T h e n o m i n a l v e l o c i t y is
a s s u m e d to occur a t a b o u t 33 ft a b o v e t h e w a t e r -
line. Use of Fig. 3 for d e t e r m i n i n g V in t h e
20
f o r m u l a for heeling a r m d u e to wind, p r o p e r l y
f a v o r s t h e s m a l l e r ships which n o r n m l l y w o u l d
be affected b y t h e v e l o c i t y g r a d i e n t a n d would
also be s o m e w h a t s h e l t e r e d f r o m t h e w i n d b y t h e
a c c o n l p a n y i n g waves. T a b l e 3 has been pre- Io
p a r e d for a n o m i n a l 100-knot w i n d as an a i d in
d e t e r m i n i n g w i n d - h e e l i n g m o m e n t s for v a r y i n g
h e i g h t s a b o v e t h e waterline. F o r o t h e r wind
velocities, the v a l u e s ifi T a b l e 3 are m u l t i p l i e d b y
(V/100) 2. o]
T h e m o s t a c c u r a t e m e t h o d of d e t e r m i n i n g 60 80 IOO 120
VH-KNOTS
w i n d - p r e s s u r e effects w o u l d be to c o n d u c t wind-
t u n n e l t e s t s for each design. T h i s is n o t g e n e r a l l y Fig. 3 A c t u a l w i n d v e l o c i t i e s at v a r y i n g h e i g h t s a b o v e
done since d a m a g e - s t a b i l i t y c r i t e r i a are u s u a l l y W L for a n o m i n a l 1OO-knot w i n d at 33 ft a b o v e
governing. WL
Cr'iteria for Adequate Stab,ility, T h e c r i t e r i a
for a d e q u a t e s t a b i l i t y u n d e r a d v e r s e wind a n d
sea c o n d i t i o n s are b a s e d on a c o m p a r i s o n of t h e S t a b i l i t y is c o n s i d e r e d s a t i s f a c t o r y if:
s h i p ' s r i g h t i n g a r m c u r v e a n d t h e w i n d heeling (a) T h e heeling a r m a t t h e i n t e r s e c t i o n of t h e
a r m curve, Fig. 4. r i g h t i n g a n n a n d h e e l i n g - a r m curves ( p o i n t C)

428 Stability and Buoyancy Criteria for U. S. Naval Surface Ships

 (.n 4.
rr I I I I
CURVE A=INTACT RIGHTING ARM CURVE
CURVE B:WIND HEELING ARM CURVE
-i 3
hi
ILl
'1-
//~=z / ~/~/-cURVE A
O
Z 2
,,~

I-- 0
UJ p----'----- 2 5 --
LLII
~///F.,. .!~OVo ~a ///."%evA.l,4,Y/~//~/.
/ //~/7 / ,*
ORE ,-"--.

) IO 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 9O
7--'-, \ e, ANGLE OF INCLINATION-DEGREES

Fig. 4

is not greater than six tenths of the maximum
righting arm; and
(b) Area A1 is not less than 1.4A2 where area
A 2 extends 2,5 deg to windward from point C.
The foregoing criteria for adequate stability
with respect to adverse wind and sea conditions
are based on the following considerations:
(a) A wind heeling arm in excess of the ship's
righting arm would cause the ship to capsize.
The requirement that the heeling arm be not
greater than six tenths of the maximum righting
arm is intended to provide a margin for gusts, and
for inaccuracies resulting from the approxinmte
nature of the heeling-arm caletdations.
(b) In the second criterion, the ship is as-
sumed to be heeled over by the wind to point C
and rolling 25 deg from this point to windward,
the 25 deg being an arbitrary, but reasonable roll
amplitude for heavy wind and sea conditions.
Area A.. is a measure of the energy imparted to
the ship by the wind and the ship's righting arm in
returning to point C. The margin of 40 percent
in A1 is intended to take account of gusts and for
calculation inaccuracies.
Lifting of Heavy Weights Over the Side
(a) Effect of Lifting' Weights. Lifting of
weights will be a governing factor in required
stability only on snmll ships which are used to
lift heavy items over the side. Lifting of weights
has a double effect upon transverse stability.
First, the added weight, which acts at the upper
end of the boom, will raise the ship's center of
gravity and thereby reduce the righting arm.
The second effect will be the heel caused by the
transverse moment when lifting over tlm side.
(b) HeelingArms. For thepurpose of applying
the criteria, the ship's righting-arm curve is
modified by correcting VCG and displacenlent to
show the effect of the added weight at the end of the
boom. The heeling-arm curve is calculated by
the formula :
I,Va
Heeling arm = - - cos 0, ft
A
W = weight of lift, tons
a -- transverse distance from center-
line to end of boom, ft
A = displacement, tons including
weight of lift
0 = angle of inclination, deg
Criteria for Adequale Stability. The criteria
for adequate stability when lifting weights are
based on a comparison of the righting arm and
heeling ann curves, Fig. 5.
Stability is considered satisfactory if :
(a) The angle of heel, as indicated by point C,
does not exceed 15 deg.
(b) The heeling arm at the intersection of the
righting a n n and heeling arm curves (point C)
is not more than six tenths of the maximum
righting arm; and
(c) The reserve of dynamic stability (shaded
area) is not less than four tenths of the total area
under the righting-arm curve.
The criteria for adectuate stability while lifting
weights are based on the following considerations:
(a) Angles of heel in excess of 15 deg will
interfere with operations aboard the vessel.
(b) The requirements that the heeling arm be
not more than six-tenths of the nmximum righting
arm and that the reserve of dynamic stability be
not less than four tenths of the total area under

Stability and Buoyancy Criteria for U. S. Naval Surface Ships 429

o

Table 3 Heeling Moments (ft-tons) per Square Foot for a Nominal 100-Knot Wind
~" Height
above C e n t e r of lateral resistance below waterline, ft
W L , ft 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19
o 0-5 0.04 0.05 0.06 0.07 0.07 0.08 0.09 0.10 0.11 0.11 0.12 0.13 0.14 0.15 0.16 0.17 0.18 0.19
~. 5-10 0.11 0.12 0.14 0.15 0.16 0.18 0.19 0.20 0.20 0.22 0.23 0.24 0.26 0.27 0.28 0.29 0.31 0.32
c~ 10-15 0.20 0.21 0.23 0.24 0.26 0.27 0.29 0.30 0.32 0.33 0.34 0.35 0.37 0.38 0.40 0.41 0.43 0.44
o 15-20 0.30 0.32 0.33 0.34 0.36 0.37 0.39 0.41 0.42 0.44 0.45 0.46 0.48 0.49 0.51 0.53 0.54 0.56
"
Q 20-25 0.40 0.41 0.43 0.45 0.46 0.47 0.49 0.51 0.53 0.54 0.56 0.58 0.60 0.60 0.62 0.64 0.66 0.67
-, 25-30 0.50 0.52 0.54 0.55 0.57 0.59 0.60 0.62 0.64 0.65 0.67 0.69 0.71 0.73 0.74 0.75 0.77 0.79
"~ 30-35 0.61 0.62 0.64 0.66 0.68 0.70 0.72 0.73 0.75 0.77 0.79 0.80 0.82 0.84 0.86 0.87 0.89 0.91
35-40 0.72 0.73 0.75 0.77 0.79 0.81 0.83 0.85 0.86 0.88 0.90 0.92 0.94 0.96 0.98 1.00 1.01 1.03
"~. 40-45 0.83 0.85 0.86 0.88 0.90 0.92 0.94 0.96 0.98 0.99 1.01 1.03 1.05 1.07 1,09 1.11 1.13 1.15
45-50 0.95 0.97 0.98 1.00 1.02 1.04 1.06 1.08 1.10 1.12 1.13 1.15 1.18 1.20 1.22 1.24 1.26 1.27
F," 50-55 1.06 1.08 1.10 1.12 1.14 1.16 1.18 1.20 1.22 1.24 1.26 1.27 1.30 1.31 1.34 1.36 1.38 1.40
55-60 1.18 1.20 1.22 1.24 1.26 1.27 1.30 1.32 1.34 1.36 1.38 1.39 1.41 1.43 1.46 1.48 1.50 1.52
60-65 1.30 1.32 1.34 1.36 1.38 1.39 1.41 1.44 1.46 1.48 1.50 1.52 1.53 1.56 1.58 1.60 1.62 1.64
65-70 1.41 1.44 1.46 1.48 1.50 1.52 1.54 1.56 1.58 1.60 1.62 1.65 1.66 1.68 1.70 1.72 1.75 1.77
70-75 1.54 1.56 1.58 1.60 1.62 1.65 1.66 1.68 1.70 1.73 1.75 1.77 1.79 1.80 1.83 1.85 1.87 1.89
75-80 1.66 1.67 1.70 1.72 1.74 1.76 1.79 1.80 1.82 1.84 1.87 1.89 1.91 1.93 1.95 1.97 1.99 2.01
Z 80-85 1.79 1.80 1.82 1.84 1.87 1.89 1.91 1.93 1.95 1.97 1.99 2.02 2.04 2.06 2.07 2.10 2.12 2.14
Q 85-90 1.91 1.92 1.94 1.96 1.99 2.01 2.03 2.06 2.07 2.09 2.11 2.14 2.16 2.18 2.20 2.22 2.24 2.26
90-95 2.02 2.05 2.06 2.08 2.11 2.13 2.15 2.18 2.19 2.21 2.23 2.26 2.28 2.30 2.32 2.34 2.36 2.39
95-100 2.14 2.17 2.18 2.20 2.23 2.25 2.27 2.29 2.32 2.33 2.35 2.38 2.40 2.42 2.45 2.46 2.48 2.51
NOTE : To obtain t h e total heeling m o m e n t f r o m this table, p r o c e d u r e is as follows:
(a) Divide sail area into 5-ft layers, s t a r t i n g from waterline.
g (b) D e t e r m i n e n u m b e r of s q u a r e feet in each layer.
(c) M u l t i p l y area of each layer b y a p p r o p r i a t e figure from table a n d add p r o d u c t s . T h i s is heeling m o m e n t f o r a 100-knot wlnd.
(d) F o r wind velocities o t h e r t h a n 100 knots, n m l t i p l y m o n l e n t b y (17/100) 2.
 ....... I I I I I U--
~1~ C U R V E A : A D J U S T E D INTACT R I G H T I N G ARM CURVE
D- CURVE B = H E E L I N G ARM C U R V E

(~ RVE A
z
-J 2 _ _ _ _

~ - CURVE B
z /=~,r.AN 04 A t O Z % ~ p ~ . /

I0
i 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90
~, ANGLE OF INCLINATION-DEGREES
Fig. 5

}- I I I I
CURVE A : INTACT RIGHTING ARM CURVE
u_ CURVE B = H E E L I N G ARM CURVE DUE TO
~1 O F F - C E N T E R PASSENGER LOAD

I ?CURVE

c , d_ uRvE

0 IO 20 30 40 SO 60 70 80 90
ANGLE OF I N C L I N A T I O N - D E G R E E S

Fig. 6

t h e righting-arm curve are intended to provide a a = distance from centerline of ship

margin against capsizing. Thi,; margin allows
for possible overloading of the boom.
Crowding of Passengers to One Side
(a) t~[~ect of Crowding of Passengers. T h e
m o v e m e n t of passengers will have an i m p o r t a n t
-effect only on smaller ships which c a r r y a large
n u m b e r of passengers. T h e concentration of
passengers on one side of a small ship can produce
a heeling n l o m e n t which results; in a significant
reduction in residual d y n a m i c stability.
(b) breeling Arms. T h e heeling a r m pro-
duced b y the transverse m o v e m e n t of passengers
is calculated b y
Heeling a n n = - -
Wa cos 0, ft
k (b) T h e heeling arm at the intersection of the
-where
W = weight of passengers, tons
to center of g r a v i t y of passengers,
ft
A = displacement, tons
0 = angle of inclination, deg
In determining the heeling m o m e n t produced b y
the passengers, it is assumed t h a t all passengers
have m o v e d to one side as far as possible. T h e
passenger occupies 2 sq ft of deck space.
(c) Criteria for Adequate Stability. T h e criteria
for a d e q u a t e stability are based on the angle of
heel, and a comparison of the ship's righting-arm
and the heeling-arm curve, Fig. 6.
Stability is considered satisfactory if:
(a) T h e angle of heel, as indicated b y point
C, does not exceed 15 deg.
righting arm and heeling a r m curves (point C) is
not more than six tenths of the m a x i m u m right-
ing arm, and

Stability and Buoyancy Criteria for U. S. Naval Surface Ships 431

 4
I I
LLpI-'- CURVE A : I N T A C T RIGHTING &RM CURVE
LU CURVE B=HEELING ARM CURVE DUE TO
LL H I G H - S P E E D TURNING
e7o
I0
c
20 30
"e', A N G L E
(c) T h e reserve of d y n a m i c stability (shaded
area) is not less than four tenths of the total area
under the righting-arm curve.
T h e criteria for a d e q u a t e stability to resist the
heeling effect of an eccentric passenger load are
based on the following considerations :
(a) An angle of heel of 15 deg is considered the
m a x i m u m acceptable from the s t a n d p o i n t of
passenger safety.
(b) T h e requirements t h a t the heeling a r m be
n o t more t h a n six tenths of the righting a r m and
t h a t the reserve of d y n a m i c stability be not less
t h a n four tenths of the total area under the
righting-arm curve are intended to provide a
margin against capsizing. This margin allows
for possible overloading.
High-Speed Turning
(a) Heeling Arms Prodztced by Turning. T h e
centrifugal force acting on a ship during a turn
m a y be expressed b y the formula,
l,Vv2
Centrifugal force - gR ' tons
W = weight of ship, tons
v = linear velocity of ship in the turn, fps
g = acceleration due to gravity, ft/see 2
R = radius of turning circle, ft
T h e lever a r m used in conjunction with this
force to obtain the heeling m o m e n t is the vertical
distance between the ship's center of g r a v i t y and
the-center of lateral resistance of the u n d e r w a t e r
body. This lever will v a r y as the cosine of the
angle of inclination. T h e center of lateral resist-
ance is taken vertically at the half draft.
If the centrifugal force is multiplied b y the
lever arm and divided b y the ship's displacement,
432 Stability and Buoyancy Criteria for U. S. Naval Surface Ships
t I
F
pfC~RVEA .
40
~/lie
50
, ,
60
/I e , i l l / /
~
70
EB
80 90
OF INCLINATION-DEGREES
Fig. 7
an expression for heeling a n n is obtained.
u2a
Heeling a r m = ) - ~ cos0, ft
where
a = distance between ship's center of
g r a v i t y and center of lateral resistance (half
draft) with ship upright, ft
0 = angle of inclination, deg
For all practical purposes R m a y be assumed to
be one half of the tactical diameter. If the tacti-
cal diameter is n o t available from model or full-
scale data, an estimate is made.
(b) Criteria for Adequate Stability. T h e cri-
teria for a d e q u a t e stability in high-speed turns are
based on the relationship between the righting
a n n curve and the heeling arm curve, Fig. 7.
Stability is considered satisfactory if:
(a) T h e angle of s t e a d y heel, as indicated by
point C does n o t exceed 10 deg in the case of a
new design or 15 deg for ships in service.
(b) T h e heeling a r m at the intersection of the
righting a r m and heeling arm curves (point C)
is n o t more than six tenths of the m a x i n m m
righting arm.
(c) T h e reserve of d y n a m i c stability (shaded
area) is n o t less than four-tenths of the total area
under the righting-arm curve.
T h e criteria for a d e q u a t e stability with respect
to high-speed turns are based on the following
considerations :
(a) An angle of heel of 15 deg is considered
the l n a x i m u m acceptable from the s t a n d p o i n t of
comfort. Personnel a b o a r d would become ap-
prehensive if the angle of heel were greater than
15 deg.
(b) T h e requirements t h a t the heeling arm
be not more than six-tenths of the m a x i m u m right-
 Table 4 Icing-up Chart for Wind-Class Icebreakers

Dist.
cent
Area, ice t~
- - - - - - T h i c k n e s s of ice, in. in ship's
Iced area of ship 1 2 3 4 5 6 8 12 24 sq ft Kg, ft CL, ft
Tons of Ice"
Main dk fwd of bkwtr . . . . . . 1.1 12.2 3.4 4.5 5.6 6.7 9.0 13.4 27,0 525 43.7 0
Main dk bkwtr to fr 66 ". . .. 1.6 ;3.2 4.7 6.3 8.0 9.5 12.6 19.0 38.0 738 43.1 12
Main dk fr 66 to 127 ". . . . . . . 2.4 4.3 6.4 8.6 10.7 12.8 17.0 25.6 51,0 1000 41.1 20
Main dk fr 127 to aft". . . . . . 3.6 7.3 10.9 14.6 18.2 21.8 29.1 43.6 87.0 1700 41.2 18
Lifelines, etc., f r 6 6 f w d " . . . . 0.6 1.3 2.0 2.6 ,3.2 3.8 5.1 7.6 15.3 300 44.{) 15
Lifelines, etc., fr 66 aft% . . . . 1.0 :2.1 3.1 4.1 5.2 6.2 8.2 12.4 24.7 48/} 44.0 20
Breakwater . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0.6 l. '3 1.9 2.6 3.2 3.8 5.1 7.6 15.3 301) 44.0 (1
5 in. m o u n t (all sides) . . . . . . 0.9 1,.7 2.6 3.4 4.3 5.1 6.4 10.2 20.4 400 48.0 (1
Bhd (main dk) f r 6 6 fwd " . , . 0.7 1.5 2.2 2.9 3.7 4.4 5.8 8.8 17.6 340 46.0 15
Bhd ( m a i n d k ) f r 6 6 aft " . . . . 2.4 .4.7, 7.1 9.2 11.6 14.l 18.4 28.2 56.0 1100 44.0 18
Flight dk (plus netting) . . . . . 6.4 12.8 19.2 25.6 32.2 38.4 51.2 77.0 144 3000 50.1 f)
2 0 M M (fwd&lifelines) " . . . . 0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0 2.6 3.7 4.1 6.l 12.0 240 50.2 9
01 deck ~. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1.3 2.6 3 8 5.1 6.4 7.7 10.2 15.4 31.0 600 50.1 20
Bhd (0I dk) fr 61 to 92 ~ . . . . 1.0 1.2 2.9 3.9 4,8 5.8 7.7 11.5 23.0 450 53.0 10
Sky lookout ( d k & b h d ) ~ . . . . 0.8 1.5 2.3 3.1 3.9 4.6 6.2 9.2 18.(I 360 57.0 15
Open bridge ( 4 0 1 n n l ' s ) " . .... 1.0 1.9 2.8 3.8 4,5 5.8 7.7 11.5 23.0 450 61.1 23
Bhd (open bridge)", . . . . . . . 0. ,5 1.0 1.5 2.0 2,6 3.1 4.1 6.1 12,0 240 64.0 9
Top of pilot house . . . . . . . . . . 1.4 2.7 4.0 5.4 6.7 8.1 10.8 16.2 29.0 630 68.0 I1
Main bat director . . . . . . . . 1.4 2.7 4.0 5.4 6.7 8.1 10.8 t6.2 29.0 630 72.0 0
02 deck ~. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0.3 0.7 1.0 1.4 1.7 2.0 2.7 4.0 8.0 160 57.1 11
Misc fr 66 fwd ". . . . . . . . . . . . 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1.0 1.2 1.5 2.0 4.0 80 43.0 10
Mist fr 66 aft '~. . . . . . . . . . . . 0.4 (I. 9 1.3 1.7 2.2 2.6 3.5 5.2 11.0 200 46.0 15
Bhd (01 dk) fr 62 fwd ~. . . . . . 0.6 1.2 1.8 2.4 3.0 3 6 4.8 7.2 14.0 280 53.0 15
Indicates identical areas port and starboard.

i n g a r m a n d t h a t t h e r e s e r v e of c l y n a m i c s t a b i l i t y
b e n o t less t h a n f o u r t e n t h s of t h e t o t a l a r e a u n d e r
the righting-arm curve are intended to provide a
margin against capsizing. This margin allows
f o r t h e a c t i o n of w i n d a n d w a v e s , a n d f o r p o s s i b l e
inaccuracies resulting from the empirical nature
of t h e h e e l i n g - a r m c a l c u l a t i o n s .
Topside Icing
T h e c r i t e r i o n f o r t o p s i d e i c i n g is n o t as d e f i n i -
tive as the other criteria. T h e r e a s o n f o r t h i s is
t h e i n a b i l i t y t o e s t i m a t e a n u p p e r l i n f i t for a c c u -
m u l a t i o n of ice. O n c e ice h a s s t a r t e d t o f o r m , i t
will c o n t i n u e t o a c c u m u l a t e u n d e r f a v o r a b l e c o n d i -
t i o n s a n d t h e o n l y r e c o u r s e is t o i n s t i t u t e i c e - r e -
moval measures or leave the area. High winds are
l i k e l y t o o c c u r d u r i n g p e r i o d s of i c i n g a n d i t is a p -
p r o p r i a t e t o c o n s i d e r c o m b i n e d i c i n g a n d w i n d ef-
fects. A n e w s h i p of d e s t r o y e r size, w h i c h is ca-
p a b l e of w i t h s t a n d i n g a 1 0 0 - k n 0 l b e a m w i n d w i t h -
o u t ice, c a n w i t h s t a n d a b e a m w i n d of o n l y SO k n o t s
w i t h a n ice a c c u m u l a t i o n of 2 0 0 t o n s . A cruiser
type in service, which can withstand a 90-knot
b e a m w i n d w i t h o u t ice, c a n w i t h s t a n d a b e a m w i n d
of o n l y 78 k n o t s w i t h a n a c c u n m l a t i o n of 600 t o n s of
ice. T l m f o r e g o i n g ice w e i g h t s c o r r e s p o n d r o u g h l y
t o a 6-in. c o a t i n g o n h o r i z o n t a l a n d v e r t i c a l s u r -
f a c e s w h e r e ice w o u l d b u i l d u p . An actual build-
u p of ice w o u l d of c o u r s e b e n o n u n i f o r m , b u t t h e
ice w e i g h t s d e t e r m i n e d o n t h e b a s i s of a u n i f o r m 6-
in. c o a t i n g m a y b e u s e d i n e s t i m a t i n g m a x i m u m
bean>wind velocity for which the stability criteria
will b e m e t . F o r d e s t r o y e r sizes a n d a b o v e , t h e
c r i t e r i a will b e m e t f o r a 7 0 - k n o t w i n d in c o m b i n a -
tion with topside icing. For smaller ships, topside
i c i n g r e s u l t s i n a m o r e s i g n i f i c a n t r e d u c t i o n in
righting arms and the allowable beam-wind
v e l o c i t y is a c c o r d i n g l y less. F o r e x a m p l e , a
180-ft patrol ship, which can meet the wind criteria
f o r a 7 5 - k n o t b e a m w i n d w i t h o u t ice, will h a v e t o
a v o i d b e a m w i n d s i n e x c e s s of 50 k n o t s if t h e r e h a s
b e e n s u b s t a n t i a l ice a c c u m u l a t i o n . In the case
of a s m a l l e r m i n e s w e e p e r ( L = 140 f t ) , 50 t o n s
of t o p s i d e ice r e d u c e s t h e m a x i m u m r i g h t i n g a r m
f r o m 1.2 f t t o a b o u t 1).7 f t w i t h a r e d u c t i o n i n
r a n g e f r o m 90 t o 55 deg. The maximum allowable
w i n d is r e d u c e d f r o m 85 t o a b o u t 40 k n o t s .
T h e d e s i g n a p p r o a c h t o t o p s i d e i c i n g is t o
determine the maxinmm allowable beam winds
combined with icing for a ship whose stability
has been established from other governing criteria.
T h e d e s i g n w o u l d b e c o n s i d e r e d s a t i s f a c t o r y if t h e
a l l o w a b l e w i n d a t t i m e of i c i n g w a s i n e x c e s s of
winds which are likely to be encountered in the
intended service.
T h e U . S. D e p a r t m e n t of C o m m e r c e P u b l i c a -
tion "Climatological and Oceanographic Atlas
f o r M a r i n e r s , " v o l u m e 1, N o r t h A t l a n t i c O c e a n
( A u g u s t 1959) p r o v i d e s a g u i d e f o r e x p e c t e d w i n d s
in combination with icing. Winds up to Beau-

Stability and Buoyancy Criteria for U. S. Naval Surface Ships 433

fort 9 (41-47K) are very likely to occur off the
west coast of Greenland. H e a v y to severe icing
is expected to occur from 5 to 15 per cent of the
time in F e b r u a r y based on simultaneous occur-
rence of winds equal to or greater than 34 knots
and air temperatures equal to or less than 28 F.
The Coast G u a r d recently reported t h a t one of
its ships on station in the same area, experienced
70-knot winds with severe ice accumulation.
A guide for estimating weight of ice accu-
mulation is shown in Table 4 prepared for ~Vind-
class icebreakers.
Weights of ice for various thicknesses on topside
areas are shown and these m a y be used to ap-
proximate ice weights on other types of ships.
Conditions of Loading for Intact-Stability Analysis
The intact-stability criteria are al6plied to the
ship for operating conditions between the pre-
viously defined full load and minimum operating
conditions. The ship is expected to meet the
standards for the loading condition which has the
poorest stability in the foregoing operating range.
An exception to this is the case of beam winds
combined with rolling (with and without ice).
In this case the ship is assumed to be liquid bal-
lasted in accordance with liquid loading instruc-
tions (Case II, m i n i m u m operating). The fore-
going assumption is reasonable since there will be
sufficient advance storm warning. The effects
of bad sea and weather conditions should be so
evident to the operating personnel t h a t they will
initiate ballasting procedures.
Damage Stability Criteria
Design Versus Operational Criteria
Considerations for underwater damage stand-
ards fall into two categories; i.e., design and opera-
tion. Design requirements are based on an eval-
uation of the ship's power of survival; t h a t is,
the ability of the ship to withstand a major
a m o u n t of damage, and still be sufficiently sea-
worthy and operational either to proceed under
its own power or be towed to a safe area. Design
requirements are established early in the design
development and influence the selection of
dimensions, form, subdivision, and arrangement.
Operational requirements are based on a mini-
m u m degree of offensive or defensive capability
such as the ability to continue to operate weapons
or aircraft in the case of aircraft carriers. This
includes the capability for a carrier of quickly
correcting list to a value which wilt permit limited
operations to continue.
Separate standards are used for ships such as
aircraft carriers which have side protective
systems and the smaller types which do not.
434 Stability and Buoyancy Criteria for U. S. Naval Surface Ships
This is due to the marked difference in the a m o u n t
of damage which these two types can withstand,
the nature of the flooding, and the means pro-
vided on ships with side-protective systems to
counteract rapidly the effects of damage.
Underwater Damage--Ships With Side-Protective
Systems
Effects of Damage
The outstanding feature of ships with side-
protective systems is the inherent source of un-
symmetrical flooding contained in the void
layers. This flooding, being a considerable dis-
tance from the eenterline of the ship, produces a
large heeling moment, the effects of which are to
cause the ship to list and to diminish the righting-
arm curve throughout its significant extent.
Counterflooding of similar voids on the opposite
side of the ship can diminish greatly or eliminate
the resulting list at a relatively small expense of
reserve buoyancy.
From an operational standpoint, list due to
flooding is of p r i m a r y concern. This can inter-
fere with ship and flight operations, and m i g h t
lead to the. abandoning of the ship long before
there is any danger of foundering or capsizing.
A large angle of heel will also place the side-
protective system in a poor position to resist
further torpedo attack since the ship is exposed to
damage below the side-protective system on the
high side and above it on the low side. The ship
should, therefore, be capable of removing such
list rapidly.
If the ship continues to receive damage, it will
eventually be lost. Loss m a y occur through cap-
sizing as a result of unsymmetrical flooding com-
bined with overall loss of stability, or b y founder-
ing after reserve b u o y a n c y has been expended
through the combined effect of flooding and coun-
terflooding. The ideal design is one in which the
list could be held to a moderate value to the point
where the reserve b u o y a n c y is expended. The
three characteristics which have a major effect
on the ship's ability to survive extensive damage
are transverse stability, reserve buoyancy, and
provisions for avoiding unsymmetrical flooding.
In making calculations of ,the effect of extensive
underwater damage, a large n u m b e r of variables
are involved such as:
(a) Locations of hits,
(b) Size of charge,
(c) Condition of ship at time of damage
(stability, liquid loading, freeboard, etc.)
(d) Effectiveness of damage control measures.
For design purposes, criteria are established for

(a) through (c) based on test data, war damage
reports and design experience. For operational
considerations, (d) is included.
Condition of Loading. For the purpose of
applying the criteria for adequate stability and
reserve buoyancy, ships with side protective
systems are assumed to be in tile optimunl battle
condition.
Criteria for Structural Damage for Determination of
Flooding
Information on the effectiveness of side-pro-
tective systems against explosive damage is of a
classified nature and, therefore, cannot be out-
lined in this paper. I t is sufficient to say t h a t
information exists on the extent of damage from
various explosive charges on different types of
b o t t o m and side-protective systems. Because
of the inherently large initial stability and reserve
buoyancy, aircraft carriers can withstand multiple
explosive hits. A pattern of nmltiple hits is
selected which results in the greatest danlage for
the cases where the holding bulkhead remains
intact and where it fails.
Criteria for Heel After Damage
T h e General Specifications for Ships of the U. S.
N a v y specify t h a t equipment and machinery
shall be designed and installed to operate satis-
factorily with a p e r m a n e n t list up to 15 deg.
This requirement is for continuous operation with
no resulting damage or excessive wear. Under
emergency conditions such as would occur when
considering the power of survival of the ship, it
can be assumed with a good probability t h a t
equipment would continue to function for some
time at an angle of 20 to 25 deg. In the event
t h a t all equipment should cease to function as a
result of structural damage, flooding, and so on,
the ship could be towed to a safe area with a list of
20 deg. W a r - d a m a g e reports record cases where
a list of 20 deg or more did not prevent damage-
control efforts and salvage of ships. For purposes
of establishing a criterion for survival, an accept-
able upper limit is considered to be 20 deg list.
This applies to design investigations.
For operational purposes an angle of heel of 20 deg
is considered too great; therefore, the ship m u s t
have a means for quickly correcting the angle to
one which will permit operations to continue.
T h e term "quickly correcting" precludes consider-
ation of possible sources of list correction such
as transfer of fuel oil or jettisoning weights from
the low side and virtually restricts the methods
considered to counterflooding from the sea. For
design purposes a ship with side-protective system
would m e e t the standards after multiple hits if:
Stability and Buoyancy Criteria for U. S. Naval Surface Ships
-..~_ -.-
(a) Heel does not exceed 20 deg as a result of
rapid flooding caused by:
(i) Simultaneous and separated hits on one side
which just fail to penetrate the holding bulkhead;
and
(ii) Hits which penetrate the holding bulkhead.
(b) Arrangements exist for rapidly correcting
list from damage outlined above to less than ,5 deg.
Damage-stability curves are prepared which
represent the foregoing cases of flooding before
and after counterflooding. As previously men-
tioned, carriers have large reserve buoyancy, so
t h a t the angle of heel rather than the range of
the damage-stability curve is governing. How-
ever, by inspection or actual calculation, the
damage-stability curve is examined to establish
t h a t there exists a sufficient reserve of dynamic
stability to withstand wind and rolling action.
The method employed is similar to t h a t outlined
in the later section, "Ships Without Side Pro-
tective Systems."
Underwater Damage--Ships Without Side-Protective"
Systems
Effects of Damage
On ships which do not have a side-protective
system, underwater damage usually produces an
immediate and substantial decrease in both sta-
bility and reserve buoyancy. Unlike the ships.
with side-protective systems, the principal con-
sideration immediately after underwater damage is
survival of the ship rather than continuing in
action. Wind and sea conditions are more
i m p o r t a n t factors in survival after damage than
in the case of the larger ships. Since the smaller
ships do not have the relatively fine subdivision
found on carriers, judicious spacing of the main
transverse bulkheads has a major effect on the
ship's ability to survive extensive underwater
damage.
I t was noted earlier t h a t in the case of a new
design, there is an opportunity to approach the
most advantageous location of main transverse
bulkheads, subject to the limitations imposed
by internal arrangements. On converted ships
which were originally designed for some other
service, the existing bulkhead locations are
often not favorable from the standpoint of
resisting extensive damage, and from a practical
viewpoint, i m p r o v e m e n t is generally limited to
the installation of additional bulkheads. As a
result, the resistance to underwater damage
which can be achieved in converted ships does not.
usually compare favorably with t h a t in new
designs.
435
Criteria for Compartmentation
The basis for determination of the extent of
flooding is the length of damage to the shell at any
point along the ship's length resulting from weapon
a t t a c k or collision. In small ships, however,
because of practical limitations, the criteria are
based on the number of c o m p a r t m e n t s flooded
rather than on the length of shell opening.
The Bureau of Ships' philosophy regarding
ability to withstand underwater damage has been
described as one whereby the more i m p o r t a n t
ship (mission and size) is expected to survive a
greater a m o u n t of damage than the less i m p o r t a n t
ship (mission and size). Ships are thus grouped
by length and type of mission.
Criteria for New Designs. New designs without
side-protective systems shall meet the following
criteria for adequate subdivision to resist under-
water damage:
(a) Seagoing craft less than 100 ft in length
shall be capable of withstanding, as a minimmn,
the flooding of any single main compartment.
(b) Ships between 100 and 300 ft in length shall
be capable of withstanding, as a minimum, the
flooding of any two adjacent main compartments.
(c) Ships over 300 ft in length are divided into
two categories:
Category I - - C o m b a t a n t types and personnel-
carriers such as hospital ships and troop trans-
ports.
Category II--AI1 other ship types.
Category I. Ships over 300 ft in length shall
withstand the following: (a) Rapid flooding fi:om
a shell opening equal to 15 percent of the ship's
length, at any point fore and aft or (b) If
practicable, rapid flooding from a weapon attack
(largest charge) 3 at any point along the ship's
length if such an opening exceeds 15 percent LBP.
Category II. Ships over 300 ft in length shall
be capable of withstanding the flooding from a
shell opening equal to 12.5 percent of the ship's
length at any point fore and aft.
The value used for ship's length in these cri-
teria is the length between perpendiculars, except
that, in unusual cases where there is a marked
difference between the L B P and length on the
waterline, the latter shall be used.
Criteria .for Conversions .from Merchant Types.
For converted merchant ships it m a y not always
be feasible, even though possible, to bring the
ships up to the standards set for new designs. The
following relaxations from the new design stand-
ards are acceptable, if it is not feasible to meet
the standards for new designs:
3 Classified information.
436 Stability and Buoyancy Criteria for U. S. Naval Surface Ships
(a) Post World W a r I I ships intended pri-
marily for carrying cargo such as AE, AF, and A K
will be satisfactory if they meet the two-coin-
p a r t m e n t standard. For World W a r I I ships, a
one-compartment standard is acceptable.
(b) M e r c h a n t ship conversions to amphibious
force flagships, tenders, repair ships, minecraft,
aircraft carriers and personnel carriers such as
AH, AKA, AP, and APA will be satisfactory if
they can withstand an opening in the shell equal
to 121/~ percent of the ship's length.
Reserve Buoyancy Requirements
Limiting Drhfts. The standard floodable-length
curves are used early in a design to assist in es-
tablishing transverse bulkhead spacing and esti-
mating the limiting subdivision drafts. As the
design progresses, and the arrangement becomes
finn, allowable subdivision limiting drafts (for-
ward and aft) are determined b y trim line calcu-
lations. The investigation is narrowed to flooding
those groups of adjacent c o m p a r t m e n t s forward
and aft for which there would be the greatest
combination of sinkage and trim as a result of the
extent of damage described in preceding para-
graphs. The ship is assumed to be in a full-10ad
condition, with all tanks full. Shell-to-shell
flooding is taken, using appropriate permeability
factors. The final trim line shall not be above
a margin line which is 3 in. below the bulkhead
deck.
Limiting drafts are assigned on the basis of
reserve buoyancy unless strength or speed re-
quires a lower draft. In rare cases, damage
stability m a y be the basis for establishing a
limiting draft.
Where the limiting drafts based on allowable
reserve buoyancy are considerably deeper than
the expected full-load drafts, limiting drafts below
the m a x i m u m allowable m a y be selected in order
to relax some of the watertight closure require-
ments for bulkhead penetrations and weather
openings.
Calculation of Flooding Water Levels. For a
a given ship arrangement and a set of limiting
drafts, it is possible to determine a final trim line
after flooding of any group of adjacent compart-
ments. The ship is assumed to start at the
limiting drafts with full loads including full
tanks, and to experience shell-to-shell flooding.
Trim lines are determined for each group of
c o m p a r t m e n t s which could be flooded b y a shell
opening specified in the criteria.
(a) Flooding Water Levels on Bulkheads. For
any boundary bulkhead, such as in Fig. S, the
trim lines after the specified damage are de-

DAMAGE AFT
OF BULKHEAD A
CROSS HATCHED COMPARTMENTS ARE FLOODED
Fig. 8
termined. This establishes the maxinmm height
to which water will rise on bulkhead A assuming
the ship settles without heeling as a result of
shell-to-shell flooding. Allowances for heel due
to unsymlnetrieal flooding, roll and wave action
are applied in the manner outlined in Fig. 9.
Margins to allow for probable ship behavior and
sea conditions are:
1 Ship is assumed to have a static heel of 15
deg as a result of unsymmetrical flooding.
2 Ship is assumed to be rolling an angle 0 of
the magnitude given in Fig. 10.
3 A rise of 4 ft is assmned to represent the wave
action.
Waterline D E corresponds to the deepest trim-
line on bulkhead A and includes the 15 deg static
heel, the roll angle 0, and the 4: ft of wave action.
Segment H F is part of the waterline due to roll
on the opposite side corresponding to DE. The
cross-hatched triangle, or V, FGH, is the area on
bulkhead A which would be above the flooding
water level and through which nontight pene-
trations would be acceptable. As a practical
matter, nontight penetrations are linfited to vent
ducts without permanent closures. The periph-
ery of the vent-duct penetration is watertight
to permit air testing when temporary closures are
installed.
The curve in Fig. 10 is the source of roll angle,
0 to be used in determining flooding water levels
depicted in Fig. 9. The 0-values, plotted against
ship displacement, are not the result of theoretical
calculations. T h e y simply represent reasonable
roll amplitudes which ships of varying displace-
ments, damaged or intact, are likely to exhibit in
Stability and Buoyancy Criteria for U. S. Naval Surface Ships
A
DAMAGE FORWARD
OF BULKHEAD A
A
moderate seas where the wave action is 4 ft or
less.
The determination of areas on tile weather deck
(or bulkhead deck, if different) where nontight
penetrations are acceptable, is carried out in a
nlanner similar to that employed for bulkheads.
There is one difference to keep in mind. In the
case of bulkheads, the bulkhead in question is
serving as an intact flooding boundary. The
greatest height of water over the deck area in ques-
tion m a y result from flooding a group of compart-
ments not adjacent to that area. This waterline
becomes the basis for applying the 15-deg initial
list, roll angle O, and the 4-ft wave action as shown
in Fig. 9. Where ventilation penetrations occur
outboard of the \r-lines for the deck, the penetra-
tion may be made watertight by installing a water-
tight closure at the deck or by carrying the ventila-
tion duct watertight up to its intersection with the
V-line. The weather deck (and bulkhead.deck, if
different) is otherwise watertight as discussed
earlier in the paper.
Summary of Reserve Buoyancy Requirements-for Ships
Without Side-Protective Systems
The limiting drafts for underwater flooding are
based ori Shell-to-shell flooding with a criterion
that the final static waterline be below the mar-
gin line. In a few rare cases, unsymmetrical flood-
ing rather than shell-to-shell flooding could re-
sult in a deeper final waterline at the side.
However, if such were the case, damage stability
probably would be the governing condition. I t
should be noted that the groups of compartments
which establish the limiting drafts are usually at
the third or quarter points of the ship's length.
As such, the trim effect of additional flooding in
437
 jE
j ' ~ 4 ' jC
"~F Gj " ..Y

J;H .J:
A

.J
POINT'A' CORRESPONDS TO THE
INTERSECTION OF THE DEEPER
TRIMMED WATERLINE OF
FIGURE B WITH BULKHEAD A

BULKHEAD A
Fig. 9

the shell-to-shell assumption usually results in

greater sinkage at the side than would result from
unsymmetrical flooding.
The effect of unsynunetrical flooding, as well
as rolling and wave action, are taken into account I0
t~
in determining the flooding levels on b o u n d a r y
bulkheads and over the bulkhead deck. The g
i
8
roll-angle values and the 4-ft wave action recog-
o
nize the fact t h a t the ship after damage is not
6 _ _
expected to withstand the same degree of sea and
weather hazards as the undamaged ship.
4
Damage-Stability Criteria--Ships Without Side-
Protective Systems
2 _ _ _ _ _ _
Extent of Damage
(a) Lonu2udinal Extent. T h e c o m p a r t m e n t 01
standard or the length of hit as described pre- 0 I0 20 :30 40 50 60 70 80
DISPLACEMENT-TONS-THOUSANDS
viously determines the longitudinal' extent of
Fig. lO
flooding. In the c o m p a r t m e n t case, flooding
from bounding bulkhead to bounding bulkhead for
the group of c o m p a r t m e n t s considered, measures penetration to, but not including, a n y centerline
the extent of the flooding. In the case where bulkhead. A lesser transverse penetration of
length of hole applies (percentage of length or damage is assumed where it would result in poorer
specific weapon attack) flooding extends to the damage stability than for the centerline condi-
nearest bounding bulkhead at each end of the tion. This could occur where considerable low
damage. intact b u o y a n c y remained after flooding.
(b) Transverse Extent. T h e m a x i m u m extent (c) Vertical Extent. In regard to vertical
Of flooding is assumed to be t h a t caused by damage extent of damage, it is assumed t h a t all decks and

438 Stability and Buoyancy Criteria for U. S. Naval Surface Ships

 LONGITUDINAL EXTENT-EXAMPLES OF SHELL OPENINGS
AND EXTENTS OF FLOODING
(A) COMPARTMENT STANDARD
SHIPS LESS THAN I00
FEET LONG
ICOMPARTMENT STANDA
SHIPSBETWEENIOOA N D ~ L p
300FEET INLENGTH
COMPARTMENTSTAD -
NA R ~
2 [///////////~//////i///////~
IB) LENGTH OF HIT STANDARD
SHELL OPENING=% LBP
4- %LBP IL
Fig. ll(a)
platforms in way of the damage are opened be-
cause of the m a r k e d adverse effect of the resulting
high flooding, free surface, and possible unsym-
metrical flooding. Although there have been
cases where decks have held after torpedo damage,
it is considered unduly optimistic to assume t h a t
any will hold. Therefore, all decks and plat-
forms in way of damage to the shell are assumed
to be ruptured. D a m a g e to the inner b o t t o m
m a y be favorable because of the low flooding
involved or unfavorable because the unsymmetri-
cal flooding produced outweighs the gain due to
additional low weight. The less favorable as-
sumption as to the condition of the inner b o t t o m
is used, Fig. 11.
Loading Conditions in Damage Stability Evaluation
T h e standard loading conditions for ships with-
out side-protective systems have been described
previously as the "Full-Load Condition" and
the " M i n i m u m Operating Condition." Two
cases for the m i n i m u m operating condition have
been outlined. Case I assumes t h a t full coin-
pliance with liquid loading instructions does not
occur. Case I I assmnes full compliance with
Stability and Buoyancy Criteria for U. S. Naval Surface Ships
liquid loading instructions. Stability curves after
damage are developed for the full-load condition
(modified for slack or e m p t y tanks) and the
m i n i n m m operating condition (Cases I and II).
In all cases, the slack and e m p t y t a n k s are so
distributed as to result in the least favorable
damage stability.
For new designs, damage-stability criteria shall
be m e t in full-load and m i n i m u m operating (Cases
I and I I ) conditions.
For conversions, the criteria shall be m e t in
full-load and m i n i m u m operating (Case I I ) condi-
tions.
Damage Stability Curves
Curve A in Fig. 12 is a statical stability curve
for the damaged ship with the assumed damage
previously described for the full-load condition
and the mininmm operating condition (Cases I
and I I for new designs, Case I I for conversions).
A reduction of righting arm equal to 0.05 cos 0 is
included in curve A to account for unknown un-
symmetrical flooding or transverse shift of loose
material.
Curve B is a bean>wind heeling-arm curve
which has been calculated b y the m e t h o d out-
lined in the section "Wind Heeling Arms." Wind
velocity for curve B is obtained from Fig. 13.
Wind velocities in Fig. 13 have been selected
arbitrarily and are intended to represent reason-
able wind velocities which might occur at the
time of extensive underwater damage and which
the damaged ship could reasonably be expected to
withstand.
Criteria for Adequate Damage Stability
Two factors are considered in evaluating .ade-
quate damage stability.
(a) Angle of Heel A flat Damage. Referring
to Fig. 12, damage stability is satisfactory if the
initial angle of heel, point C, does not exceed
15 dog for operational requirements, and does not
exceed 20 dog for design requ,irements.
(b) Wind lied Combined With Rolbing. The
dynamic stability available to absorb the energy
imparted to the ship b y moderately rough seas
in combination with beam winds is a measure of
adequacy of the stability after damage. Again
referring to Fig. 12, stability after damage is con-
sidered satisfactory if the available dynamic
stability beyond point D and up to angle 0 (shaded
area in Fig. 12) is not less than the a m o u n t indi-
cated in Fig. 14. Angle 0 is 45 deg or the angle
at which unrestricted flooding into the ship would
occur, whichever is less.
The energies shown in Fig. 14 are considered
to be representative of the energies normally de-
439
 TRANSVERSE EXTENT-EXAMPLES OF TRANSVERSE
PENETRATIONS AND EXTENT OF FLOODING

2-COMPARTMENT FLOODING ;>-COMPARTMENT FLOODING

WHEN INTACT BUOYANCY

T CASE

]~ % LBP =!
2- COMPARTMENT FLOODING LENGTH OF HIT STANDARD
Fig. 1 l ( b )

veloped b y intact ships of various displacements.
For a ship of given displacement, with an assumed
intact GM, Fig. 15, the dynamic stability was
calculated b y determining ' t h e area under the
righting-arm curve up to the assumed angle of
roll shown in Fig. 10. T h e righting-arm curve
was assumed to be linear for this range.
Since the energy required to heel a damaged ship
to a particular inclination will be less than for an
undamaged ship, the use of the foregoing energy
values is conservative. This is reasonable in view
of the great variety of possible damage conditions.
I t is difficult to establish a typical damage case,
therefore, the more conservative approach of
using the intact ship as a measure of energy has
been adopted. For most ship designs, the cri-
terion of angle of heel will be governing. On some
smaller types, the reserve dynamic-stability cri-
terion m a y become governing. T h e required
stability for this case, however, would not be
significantly greater than for the case of angle of
heel.
To simplify the comparison of the shaded area,
Fig. 12, with the required energy (Fig. 14),
Fig. 16 has been prepared to show the required
area in square inches when the damage-stability
curve, Fig. 12, is drawn to a vertical scale of
1 inch = 1 foot and to a horizontal scale of 1
inch = 10 degrees.
Summary of Stability and Buoyancy Criteria for Intact and
Damaged Ship
I t m a y be useful at this point, to summarize
briefly the criteria which have been presented.
1 For the intact ship, criteria have been
developed for:
(a) B e a m winds combined with rolling (wind
velocities depend on intended service of ship).
(b) Lifting of h e a v y weights over the side.
(c) Crowding of passengers to one side.
(d) High-speed turning.
(e) Topside icing.
Conditions of loading which determine the
available stability have been defined.
The adequacy of stability is measured b y com-
paring the intact righting-arm curve with the
heeling-arm curve. The static heel angle, the
associated righting ann, and the reserve dynamic
stability are the factors which are examined.
2 For the case of underwater damage, the
extent of the assumed damage varies with the size
and function of the ship. Another distinction is

440 Stability and Buoyancy Criteria for U. S. Naval Surface Ships

 VERTICAL EXTENT- EXAMPLES OF VERTICAL PENETRATIONS
AND EXTENT OF FLOODING

\
,{ % LBP =1
y
L E N G T H OF HIT STANDARD

A L L DECKS, INCLUDING WEATHER

DECK ARE A S S U M E D RUPTURED,
EXCEPT IN CASE OF INNER
B O T T O M WHICH MAY BE ASSUMED
INTACT IF LOW BUOYANCY RESULTS
IN POORER S T A B I L I T Y

Fig. l l ( c )

F-
I.O
LL
i
CO
t~

(9
Z
/
LU O
w 20 30 40 50
r~ ~ ANGLE OF INCLINATION-DEGREES
Z

z
I- DAMAGED SHIP
-r
(9--LO

Fig. 12

whether a ship does or does not have a side-protec-
tive system. Ships with side-protective systems,
such as carriers, usually have considerable reserve
buoyancy so t h a t the extent of damage is meas-
ured in terms of multiple torpedo hits. The
limiting criteria are the static heel after damage
and the heel after counterflooding. For ships
without side-protective systems, the longitudi-
nal extent of damage is expressed as the n u m -
Stability and Buoyancy Criteria for U. S. Naval Surface Ships
ber of c o m p a r t m e n t s flooded for smaller ships,
or the flooding which results from a shell opening.
The shell opening is expressed as a percentage of
length between perpendiculars, or as a specific
length determined b y a weapon attack. T h e
governing stability criteria are the angle of heel
after damage and the reserve dynamic stability
to withstand beam winds and rolling in the
damaged condition. Reserve-buoyancy calcula-
441
 50 J
J-
.f E X T E N D S TO
6 5 K AT

09 f 8 0 , 0 0 0 TONS

0
Z
v40 J
J
I
)-
I-
G
o
_/
/
Ill
> /

20
0 I0 20 30 40
INTACT DISPLACEMENT-TONS-THOUSAN DS
Fig. 13

/
28

24
EXTENDS TO

~2o / 9 FEET AT
80,000 TONS
J
Q

~o IE
/ J

J J
E t2
a
J f
J
f
METACENTRIC HEIGHT (GM)

/
0 I0 20 30 40 50 60 70 80
DISPLACEMENT-TONS-THOUSANDS
o
Fig. 14 o IO 20 30 40
DISPLACEMENT-TONS-THOUSANDS
Fig. 15

tions for the assumed damage lead to the estab-

lishment of limiting drafts (subdivision drafts)
forward and aft.
Consideration is given to the stability required
for survival of the ship, and for the case where
limited operations can be continued. Righting-
arm curves after damage are used in making the
foregoing determinations for adequacy of sta-
bility after damage.
Calculation Methods
Although the purpose of this paper is limited to
criteria, a brief reference to thee stability caleula-

442 Stability and Buoyancy Criteria for U. S. Naval Surface Ships

 0.50
~ 0.40
z_
~O.30
g Future Modifications and Amplification of Stability
~:0.20
J At the present time there are no specific sta-
OJO
8 ensure o p t i m u m ship motion in a seaway. Fin
0 installed to improve ship comfort and for func-
0 I0 20 30 40 50 60 70
DISPLACEMENT-TONS-THOUSANDS
Fig. 16
tion methods employed b y the Bureau of Ships
m a y be of interest.
C o m p u t e r programs have been developed for
calculating upright displacements and moments
(for curves of form and bonjean curves), and for
heeled displacements and m o m e n t s (for cross
curves of stability). Cross curves of stability
after damage are prepared from which the right-
ing-arm curves after damage are derived. For-
ward and aft subdivision limiting drafts are ob-
tained from trim-line calculations. T h e foregoing
calculation methods for damaged conditions are
described in "NavShips 250-300-1 Technical
M e m o r a n d u m No. 1, Subdivision of Ships and
Stability After Extensive Flooding (Section II,
Article 8 for Limiting Drafts; Section IV, P a r t A,
Article 7 for Cross Curves of Stability after
Flooding).
I t should be noted t h a t at present, trim is not
included in the cross curves of stability after
damage. The calculation of cross curves with
trim b y conventional methods is a long and tedious
process. Extensive model tests described in
Technical M e m o r a n d u m No. I indicated no sig-
nificant difference in stability after damage as a
result of trim for those flooded groups of compart-
ments, which for other reasons, involve the great-
est stability loss. With the completion of a new
computer in the Bureau of Ships, trim can be
handled easily and will, therefore, be included in
the computer-stability program.
I t should be noted also t h a t the case of partial
flooding is not included in the calculations or in the
criteria. For the large extent of damage assumed
in naval ships, flooding will be rapid, and the
final stage, with the assumed unsymmetrical
flooding, represents the worst stability case.
Criteria
bility criteria t h a t the Bureau of Ships uses to
stabilizers and passive antiroll tanks are being
80
tional reasons as on tracking ships, oceanographic
ships, and survey ships. The free-surface effect
m u s t be considered in damage stability and
is a penalty for antiroll tanks. Modification
of ship lines for better seakindliness m u s t
be compatible with the intact and damage-sta-
bility requirements. For a total analysis, a
calculation method is needed which will embrace
the parameters of ship motion, stability on a wave
slope, and the required stability to withstand
hazards discussed in this paper.
Underwater damage as related to the stability
criteria has been assumed to result from collision,
torpedo impact, depth charge, or a near-miss
explosion. As new data become available re-
garding expected shell openings from explosive
damage, a review of the stability criteria will be
necessary. Additional information on flooding-
which m a y be expected from nuclear weapons
beyond the lethal range will have a bearing on
the damage-stability criteria.
T h e criteria presented in this paper have beert
developed over a period of time for guidance in
the design and operation of naval ships. T h e y
are empirical in nature owing to the number of
variables involved and the complexity of the.
problem. These criteria are the present guide:
lines for examining ship stability and survival.
T h e y are, however, subject to review and modifica-
tion as more information is accumulated, better
design techniques devised, and new concepts de-.
veloped.
Acknowledgment
T h e authors are indebted to ~[r. C. S. Moore,
of the Bureau of Ships for his helpful c o m m e n t s
and assistance in reviewing the manuscript.

Discussion
C. L. Wright, Jr., Member: Since the time of the paper has become increasingly great. At the.
194S Conference on a Convention for Safety time of the 194S Conference, Rear Admiral C. J.
of Life at Sea, the desire for wide dissemination Palmer, USN, prepared a similar paper; but
of the kind of information contained in this only those people who had access to his man-.

Stability and Buoyancy Criteria for U. S. Naval Surface Ships 443;

useript were able to profit b y it. The booklet
"Ship Design Division Stability Criteria," issued
by the Bureau of Ships in 1957, made this in-
formation available to additional people, but its
distribution was still limited.
Methods for obtaining significantly accurate
values for righting arms for intact ships have been
available in recognized textbooks for m a n y
years. During World War II, practical methods
for calculating righting arms after extensive
flooding were perfected. But, righting-arm
curves, however accurately determined, have
little meaning until some relationship is es-
tablished between these curves and the heeling
forces a ship should be able to survive.
When this paper is published in the Trans-
act.ions, it is m y hope t h a t it will become required
reading for all students in naval architecture;
especially the opening pages of the paper which
contain an excellent discussion of the means for
providing ability to survive.
The criteria presented for characteristics such
as heel due to lifting of h e a v y weights over the
side, is readily discernible; b u t the criteria for
surviving beam winds with rolling, has a some-
what less scientific basis. These criteria are
logical, however, and are presented in a form so
t h a t they clearly suggest the nmdel tests and other
research b y which they could be perfected.
M a n y of the desired model tests were set up
at the time the criteria were established, b u t
because of the decreasing emphasis on this
type of work after the close of World W a r II,
the priority of these tests was relaxed before they
were completed. Apparently some of the tests
for the effect of wind on heeling have now been
conducted, and the results of these tests sub-
stantiate the original criteria fairly well.
[ am in hopes t h a t other discussions of this
paper will bring out additional developments
t h a t have been made in recent years. I am also
in hopes t h a t the presentation of this paper will
stimulate interest in further studies t h a t will result
in:
1 A better understanding of the relation
between the rolling forces of waves and the
righting characteristics of ships.
2 A modification to the criteria presented in
this paper, to simplify their use with respect to
their significance and to extend their application
to m e r c h a n t type ships.
This paper provides an excellent complelnent
to the paper on "Survival of Collision D a m a g e , "
presented b y Messrs. J. P. Con]stock and
J. B. Robinson, Jr., at the annual meeting of the
Society in 1961.
In applying these criteria, calculations for
444 Stability and Buoyancy Criteria for U. S. Naval Surface Ships
righting-arm curves and for the application of the
criteria can be started before the design is com-
pleted and before the conditions of loading have
been determined. As soon as the lines drawing is
developed, righting arms for the intact ship and
for the dmnaged ship after flooding can be cal-
culated for three or more drafts selected ar-
bitrarily spanning the range of operating drafts
to be expected. A height of the center of gravity
above the keel (KG) can be selected for each
draft such t h a t the righting-arm curve just meets
the controlling criteria. This value, known as the
ALLOWABLE KG BASED
d3 ON INTACT STAB. CRITERIA\@.~
---- /-/
dIMAXI_ ~B- ~ I / F U L I - LOAD COND.
I\-- ,~//~-TISFACTORY )
, j
;/ i r STABILITY CRITICAL
,-f[-BELOW T.,S DBA T
ALLOWABLE KG BASED
CRITERIA
4' //
dIM~NL MIN OP COND.
( NOT SATISFACTORY}
dI
KGa~ KGa2 KGe3 KG
KG(max) I KG (rain)
Fig. 17 Curve of allowable K G
"allowable K G , " can be plotted against the draft
selected, as shown in Fig. 17 of this discussion
and a curve of allowable K G values can be
drawn.
When actual conditions of loading are deter-
mined, the draft and K G value for each condition
can be compared with the allowable K G curve
and the acceptability of the condition with
respect to the criteria can be determined im-
mediately.
After such an allowable K G curve has been
prepared for any ship, the procedures used in
obtaining stability data from inclining experi-
ments could be simplified greatly. The inclining
experiment eould be conducted with the ship in
any operating condition of loading. The draft
and K G value obtained from the experiment
could be compared directly with the allowable
K G curve, and b y considering only the differences
between this and other operating conditions, the
probability of the ship conforming to the criteria
throughout the operating range could be eval-
uated.

James B. Robertson, Jr., Member: Since tank ar-

rangements m a y importantly affect the required
GM, it is surprising that they frequently seem
to be given little consideration. In Fig. t, the
authors show a means of cross-connecting double-
bottom tanks which is effective but which .does
not increase operational free surface. The same
duct arrangement may be used where the double
bottom is divided into three tanks athwartship
as shown by Fig. 1S of this discussion. Where Fig. 18
practicable, the three-tank arrangement is dis-
tincfly preferable. By makin~ the wing tanks
smaller than the center tank, the transient heeling
moment before equalization is reduced and the
possibility that the damaged-condition GM will
be improved by flooding the center tank is in-
creased.
Automatic cross connections sometimes may
be used advantageously when side-shell tanks are
also fitted. One way of doing this is shown by
Fig. 19. To be most effective, the tanks should
be proportioned so that the lnoment of tanks
1 and 5 about the centerline is the sanle as that 1
of tanks 2 and 4. The effectiveness of this and
of all other equalizing arrangements is dependent
upon the temporary heeled waterplane passing Fig. 19
above the far end of the equalizing duct so as to
provide a head.
Naval architects who deal with merchant standard. First, assuming that the wind heeling
vessels are familiar with the weather and pas- arm varies as cosine squared of the angle of heel,
senger-stability criteria given in Part 74 of the assumes, in effect that the ship has no breadth.
Coast Guard Passenger Vessel rules. These For actual ships the wind moment does not
simple criteria, based upon the freeboard and reduce to zero at 90 deg. Instead, it m a y be
tbe upright GM, are admittedly Inore empirical about
than standards based on calculated righting
arms. A comparison is thought to be interesting.
As an example, righting arms have been
estimated for a hypothetical vessel of day pas- in feet cubed. For relatively broad vessels with
senge_r type 25(} ft in length having a passenger little superstructure the nlaximum value, which
capacity of 2090, and just enough G M to meet will be at some intermediate heel angle, m a y be
the Coast Guard criteria, in each case. Using appreciably more than that at zero angle of heel.
the Bureau of Ships minimmn acceptable wind Second, the 25-deg roll to windward, or any other
velocity and passenger-heel standards given in the angle so used, needs to be recognized as quite
paper, heeling-arm curves have been calculated. empirical. This is because the actual righting
Fig. 20 shows that the hypothetical vessel, arms under rolling conditions in a seaway are a
with nfinimum G M for protected waters by Coast function of wave contour and roll-wave phase
Guard standards just about meets the Bureau of relationship.
Ship.,; standard for harbor waters. Although the Fig. 21 shows passenger heeling-arm curves for
ship would otherwise not be suitable for ocean both the Bureau of Ships standard and the Coast
service, it is also seen that if the GM is increased Guard standard. I t is plain that the Bureau of
sufficiently to comply with the Coast Guard Ships standard is much more severe and represents
ocean standard, the stability meets the Bureau of extreme passenger crowding along the rail. The
Ships; ocean standard. Coast Guard standard, on the other hand, reflects
A few remarks as to the Bureau of Ships wind the order of passenger asymmetry which is con-

Stability and Buoyancy Criteria for U. S. Naval Surface Ships 445

 / L N
la_

IA4 ~l,,/] r

A_L= 2.02 __ I
A2 1.40 "~-~'-~-- u .oi

/ A3
-A4
- = 1.39 --2.
O. Y~=
~6 0.2,2
I

20 I0 0 I0 20 30 40
I 50 60 70
Fig. 20

4.
I I I !
GZ FOR GM=3.76 FT FOR 2090 PASS,
AS PER 74.10-10
OF CG- 256
I

2090 PASS.
I \ BU, SHIPS
.,#1 ~ / q -~o4s pass.
//,,3 I - S

05 AI-3 =0.39
A I
I
0 I0 20 50 40 50 60 70
Fig. 21

sidered likely under average excursion conditions.
When excursion vessels are to be in spectator
service, recent practice has been to reduce their
passenger allowance to about half. This is
illustrated by curve (3) for 1045 passengers, which
just about meets the Bureau of Ships standard.
These comparisons show that, taking account
of the differences noted, the weather and pas-
senger-heel standards otherwise seem comparable.
I t none-the-less seems that further study of this
subject is indicated.
The compartmentation concept is similar to
that proposed by the United States at the 1960
Safety Of Life at Sea Conference but is more
severe. The U. S. proposals provided that a
300-ft vessel should be able to withstand holing
for 8.4 to 12.1 percent of her length, depending
upon her passenger density, while for a 600-ft
ship the corresponding percentages were 5.6 to
8.6. These values compare with the Bureau of
Ships figure of 15 percent for category I and 12 5
percent for category II. In 1961, the writer and

446 Stability and Buoyancy Criteria for U. S. Naval Surface Ships

Mr. Comstock, following along the lead initiated
by Professor Wendel, suggested that probability
analysis be utilized to determine the most effective
system of merchant vessel subdivision. Such
studies, based upon a statistical review of actual
damage cases, haw-~ now been started inter-
nationally through IMCO. It appears a similar
study for naval ships might also be of value.
John J. Nachtsheim, Member: An obvious truth in
ship design is that if a ship is larger it can have
greater resistance to the greatest peril it faces,
namely, sinking. The word "can" is underlined
because it is also a truth, much less obvious,
that much can be done to destroy this greater
resistance to sinking than a larger ship possesses.
hnproper location of weights, unsymmetry of
floodable volumes, and large sail areas of wind
resistance are ways to impair good stability. I t
can also be clone by a lack of willingness to trade
the cost of maximum resistance to damage for
other features such as convenience of access or
initial cost of an additional transverse bulkhead or
utilization of watertight closures. The choice
made in such inevitable conflicts in a given
ship design represents a basic difference between
naval ship designers and merchant ship designers.
The naval ship designer must obtain the maximmn
resistance to damage within the limitations
imposed by the size of the ship at reasonable cost.
Neither regulatory bodies nor shipowners compel
the rnerehant ship designer to do so and this is
indeed a puzzle. Whereas everyone is concerned
with cost implications, trade-offs in the cost of a
bulkhead against the high risk of losing the
entire ship and cargo seem incredible. As an
example of this in a recent ship design, a two-
compartment standard was achieved over a
one-compartment standard at an initial cost of
less than ,$20,000. 7?his cost is determinable and
must be weighed against the value of a two-
compartment standard over a one-compartment
standard. The unquestionable superiority of the
achievement of the: higher standard in ship
survival and safety of life are more than sufficient
value. The ability to remain on station and
continue to operate weapons is an added con-
sideration in naval ship design which further
enhances the value. Perhaps the stability-
conscious merchant ship naval architect should
take his case to the insurance underwriters rather
than to ship operators or regulatory bodies.
The paper clearly illustrates means, within
reasonable cost, whereby maximum resistance to
sinking can be achieved by careful attention to
details and to detailed design. I t also illustrates
the tools to measure this.
Stability and Buoyancy Criteria for U. S. Naval Surface Ships
Theodore L. Soo-Hoo, Member: It was indeed
fortunate that, at the beginning of U. S. par-
ticipation in World War II, we had for our use
C & R Bulletin No. 8, written by C o c h r a n e a n d
Niedermair, and published by the Bureau of
Construction and Repair in 1935. In this bulletin
was collected the available guidance on sub-
division and stability of merchant ships, and we
applied it assiduously for solution of our war-
time problems. Accumulated experience since
then has enabled the authors to add to the
precepts of this publication, and we are indebted
to them for having brought us up to date in this
subject.
The following comments are intended to clarify
certain points"
Ca) It is said that "as the ship becomes larger
the degree of hazards to which it m a y be exposed is
considered to increase. For the purposes of this
paper, I consider the principle expressed better
further on in the paper; i.e., "the more important
ship is expected to survive a greater amount of
damage than the less important ship."
(b) It should be noted that the linear velocity
of a ship in.a turn is iess than the speed of ap-
proach.
(c) The meanings of the terms "operational
requirements" and "design requirements" are
not clear.
The importance of providing enough stability
to prevent capsizing cannot be overemphasized.
If a ship must go down, let her go down so t h a t
the crew m a y be saved. I remember distinctly
a suggestion of early war days that ships' decks
have fore-and-aft cleats installed so that crews
could get to the ladders and escape even when
list was large.. The major objective, of course,
is to be able to bring the ship home. In this
connection, I refer again to C&R Bulletin No. S,
which reminded us that the survival of a ship at
sea depends not alone upon its material charac-
teristics but upon the abilities of the ship's
company, particularly the master.
William A. Baker, Member: In presenting these
few comments, I am aware that other discussers
will undoubtedly eow.'r the same points but in
view of the results of the 1960 SOLAS Con-
ference and the continuing investigations of ship
subdivision and stability, both damaged and
intact, under the auspices of IMCO, I believe
that they are worth repeating.
In perusing the cumulative index to the
Society's Tra.nsactions, one cannot help noting
the extensive and excellent contributions in the
field of subdivision and damaged stability by the
447
civilian and military personnel of various govern-
mental agencies. T h e present paper continues
the tradition. Although seemingly a simple
description of the present criteria of the Bureau
of Ships, the paper contains interpretations which
should affect the thinking of commercial naval
architects throughout the world and which will
reinforce the position of the present United
States SOLAS Working Group.
Because of the lack of background data, some
of them obviously classified, a commercial naval
architect cannot argue with the criteria set forth
in the paper. Whether for example, the length
of damage should be 1,5 percent of a ship's length
or more or less is not important. The concept
that a given ship m u s t withstand a specified
length of damage anywhere within its length is
i m p o r t a n t - - t h i s concept was a major point of the
United States proposal to the 1960 SOLAS
Conference. I t is and has been obvious for years
t h a t the striking ship in a collision at sea gives no
consideration to the position of the bulkhead in
the struck ship. Signs m a y be posted on the
stern of a ship stating "twin screws--keel) clear"
and one usually does b u t I doubt t h a t a sign
stating " b u l k h e a d - - d o not hit here" would be
respected.
Apart from the i m p o r t a n t consideration of the
saving of life at sea, some thoughts should concern
the values of lost cargo and the ship itself.
Arguments that more realistic standards for
subdivision might increase ship costs b y requiring
an additional bulkhead or another bilge p u m p
seem feeble in comparison.
Another important point in the paper is the
combining of the concepts of subdivision and
damaged stability. T h e simple standard t h a t
the vessel m u s t withstand a specified length of
damage anywhere within its length covers the
spacing of bulkheads and the vessel's ability to
withstand the loss of stability caused by damage.
There is no confusion between the standards
governing bulkhead spacing and those covering
stability after damage as in the 1961~ SOLAS
Convention.
The intact stability of merchant cargo and
passenger ships is not now controlled b y inter-
national agreement. I t has been considered
t h a t if a passenger ship has sufficient stability to
meet a certain damage, its intact stability
would be satisfactory. However, certain types of
vessels of foreign countries must meet severe
operating conditions which apparently require
more intact stability than t h a t presently required
for damage and definite proposals for intact
stability are being considered by I M C O com-
mittees. The standards for intact stability in
448 .Stability and Buoyancy Criteria for U. S. Naval Surface Ships
this paper will be useful in the deliberations of
the U. S. Group.
As a concluding point, it is interesting to note
t h a t the N a v y criterion for wind varies the
velocity with respect to height above the waters'
surface thus benefitting small vessels in heavy
waves. The U. S. Coast. Guard obtains the
same effect by using a constant wind velocity
which varies according to the length of ship.
CDR. R. E. Henning, USN, Member: M y purpose in
discussing this paper is not only to express m y
regard for the excellent work which the authors
have done in this most important field of naval
architecture but also to emphasize the need for
using all the criteria in examining the stability of a
ship. This is particularly important during a
period of rapid change in the design of ships.
To illustrate this, I would like to discuss some
pertinent aspects associated with our recent
cruiser conversions and new construction de-
stroyers. The major changes here are associated
with the replacement of guns by missile systems
and are roughly as follows :
1 Removal of heavy gun mounts or turrets.
2 R e m o v a l o f high-density ammunition loads.
,3 Addition of relatively low-density missile
loads.
4: Addition of detection and guidance elec-
tronics.
5 Addition of control spaces.
Because of the nature of these changes, their
tendency is to raise the ship's KG. Investigation
of this aspect is invariably one of the earliest steps
in any study and this is as it should be. How-
ever, owing to unfamiliarity with the criteria
presented in the paper, it is often the only check of
stability made during the feasibility study and
herein lies a danger.
For example, I would like to point out another
result of these same changes, the increase in the
lateral sail area and hence the possibility t h a t a
new limit is being approached; the limit of wind
heel acceptability. This has become a critical
consideration in m a n y types of ships.
Fig. 22 of this discussion illustrates m y point.
This illustration shows the profiles of three
cruisers; the first, a typical World War I I light
cruiser; the second, a recent conversion of
this same ship; and the third a still more recent
cruiser conversion. Stated below each profile is
the ratio of sail area to immersed eenterline
plane area. The increase percentagewise over
the typical cruiser of the early 1940's is significant;
13.3 and 53.1 percent, respectively, for the two
conversions.
Fig. 23 illustrates the same analysis applied to
 WW l r B/A = 1.73

1960 B / A = 1.96 + 13.3%

196:5 B/A = 2.65 +53.1%

Fig. 22 Growth in lateral sail area--cruisers

destroyer types of the same era. The results
show the same trend, with increases of 17.9
and 38.4 percent increases, respectively, for the
1956 and 1960 destroyers.
More data could be shown but I believe these
are enough to make the point t h a t changes in the
general proportions of certain ships are increasing
susceptibility to wind-heel effects.
Another point which should be mentioned is the
treatment of damaged stability. The criteria,
methods of calculation, and major critical factors
are treated thoroughly by the authors. W h a t
they do not mention is a common error made by
designers upon discovery of a deficiency in dam-
aged stability. The first tendency is to increase
the beam of the ship rather than to undertake the
nlore complicated task of rearranging bulkheads
or lowering the center of gravity. W h a t is often
overlooked is t h a t critical areas of damage most
usually fall within the beamier portions of the
ship. Since the effective gain in waterplane area
is limited to the remaining intact ship and since
these are usually the narrower portions, the
effective gains are invariably small. There are
even occasions when rather than an improvement,
we find the situation is made worse b y a b e a m
increase. When this occurs, it is usually found
t h a t there is significant unsymmetrical flooding
within the damaged area and t h a t the increases
in the harmful effects of this unsymmetrical
flooding due to b e a m increases outweigh the
gains in effective waterplane area.
One very minor suggestion to the authors is
with regard to their formula for heeling arms
produced by turning. I t will be noted that in
this expression V represents ship speed in feet
per second. In all other formulas in this paper
and in the literature in general, this symbol is
used to express velocity in knots. I suggest,
therefore, t h a t lower case v be used or t h a t a
conversion constant be applied to the expression
to avoid possible confusion.
William H. Garzke, Jr., Associate Member and
Ens. Robert O. Dulin, Jr., 4 Visitor: T h e a u t h o r s of
this paper have developed a useful, simple, and
USS Mzdlin, DD944, New York, N. Y.

Stability and Buoyancy Criteria for U. S. Naval Surface Ships 449

 WWE B/A=I.90

1956 B/A = 2.24 + 17.9%

1960 B/A = 2.63 + 38.4 %

Fig. 23 Growth in lateral sail area--destroyers

valuable discussion of buoyancy and stability.
The significance of such a discussion is obvious.
However, the paper is devoid of these criteria in
foreign navies, and well it might be, because such a
presentation would be voluminous. I t is our
purpose to compare and contrast the stability
criteria developed in the Imperial Japanese
N a v y as a result of the Tomoruzu disaster of
1934.
The torpedo boat Tomoruzu had no treaty
restrictions imposed on its design so that a very
heavy topside a r m a m e n t (three 5-in. single
mounted guns and two twin 21-in. torpedo tubes)
was combined with a high freeboard, for sea-
keeping qualities, and a 30-knot speed in a full-
load displacement of 700 metric tons. Thus, the
a r m a m e n t (plus its associated range-finding
equipment) and the propulsion machinery ab-
sorbed 50 percent of the total displacement.
Three ships were built to this design and all
three had very high centers of gravity and poor
stability characteristics. An inadequate estimate
of centers was responsible for an increase of 3{)
cm in the vertical center of gravity of one of the
sister ships after the inclining experiment was
concluded.
The indifference to stability was adroitly
shown during the maneuvering trials of the same
vessel. When a rudder angle of 15 deg and a
speed of 28 knots was executed, the torpedo boat
heeled to a list of 30 deg, indicating the lack of
sufficient stability. The trials were abruptly
ended and the ship returned to the shipyard for
some compensation for deficient stability. I t
was decided for all three ships to increase the
beam, to suffer a small loss in speed, but to in-
crease the metacentric height b y 1.3 m and the
range of stability to 50 deg. Some attention was
given to the problem of wind effects on stability
in this redesign, b u t the measures adopted were
not as extensive as those outlined in the paper
under discussion. The designers simply certified
t h a t enough stability existed in these ships so
t h a t they could operate safely in a storm of
intensity nine on the Beaufort scale.
On the final acceptance trials a 20-deg list was

450 Stability and Buoyancy Criteria for U. S. Naval Surface Ships

 Table 5 Stability Criteria for Imperial Japanese Warships
CG--center Ratio of area
of gravity above above waterline
Type of vessel waterline" GM" GM" Range of stability to area below
Kind Trial disp'ts Trial Light Trial Light Trial, deg Light, deg Trial Light
Special 400 1.28 1.64 2.46 2.46 90+ 90-t- 1.80 1.90
purpose3 700 1.90 2.79 2.30 2.46 90+ 90+ 1.90 2.00
craft
Torpedo 750 1.31 2.79 2.13 2.30 90+ 90+ 1.80 2.00
boat
Destroyer 1000 1.80 3.28 1.97 1.80 90 80 1.90 2.20
200(I 2.62 4.27 2.79 2.46 80 75 1.90 2.30
Mine 2000 2.62 2.95 2.95 3.61 80 75 1.90 2.20
layer 5000 0.66 5.57 4.27 2.62 80 70 1.30 t.85
Cruiser 6000 0.66 4.27 2.79 1.97 75 70 1.70 1.90

Battle-
ship
Aircraft
t10000
15000
35000
~40000
40000
0
0
0
0
0.98
4.59
4.92
6.56
6.56
8.20
3.28
4.27
6.56
6.56
6.89
1.62
3.28
4.92
4.92
4.27
85
85
70
65
65
75
75
60
55
55
1.50
1.50
1.20
1.00
1.60
2.00
2.00
1.50
1.40
2.00
carrier
" Figures are in feet.

e x p e r i e n c e d when t h e r u d d e r was p u t o v e r to its s t a b i l i t y criteria, listed w i t h i n this p a p e r , for

m a x i m u m angle of 35 deg. F u e l a n d w a t e r were
low; t h e free-surface effects were low; a n d t h e
a r m a m e n t was 10() p e r c e n t filled. E a c h of these
r e p r e s e n t e d a r e v e r s a l of t h e a f o r e m e n t i o n e d t r i a l
procedures; however, t h e y also r e p r e s e n t e d
figures w h i c h w o u l d h a v e been u n a c c e p t a b l e in
t h e U. S. N a v y b y definitions set f o r t h within this
paper.
E v e n w i t h these i m p r o v e m e n t s , t h e r e was still
a high c e n t e r of g r a v i t y a n d a low G M value.
T h e effect of these e l e m e n t s was shown in a
t r a i n i n g m a n e u v e r i n v o l v i n g t h e Tomoruzu a f t e r
her c o m m i s s i o n i n g . A severe s t o r m w i t h B e a u -
f o r t i n t e n s i t y of eleven was e n c o u n t e r e d w i t h a
v i r t u a l w a v e p e r i o d s y n c h r o n i z e d w i t h t h e free
p e r i o d of roll. T h e w a v e s were 4 m high a n d
t r i a n g u l a r s h a p e d d u e to t h e shallow d e p t h of
w a t e r in t h e a r e a of t h e m a n e u v e r s . T h e i n t e n s i t y
of t h e roll i n c r e a s e d in s e v e r i t y u n t i l t h e Tomoruzu
capsized.
A n a v a l i n q u i r y was b e g u n b y t h e J a p a n e s e
N a v y to d e t e r m i n e w h a t f a c t o r s caused a loss in
s t a b i l i t y in t h e Yomoruzu.. T h e i n v e s t i g a t o r s
u n c o v e r e d v a r i o u s e l e m e n t s which could h a v e
c o n t r i b u t e d to t h e capsizing a n d t h e n i n t r o d u c e d
g o v e r n i n g p r o c e d u r e s to p r e v e n t a n y reoccurrence.
A m o n g t h e i r findings on s t a b i l i t y were :
1 T h e Tomoruzu h a d too m u c h f r e e b o a r d
e x p o s e d to t h e w i n d a n d t h e lever f r o m half d r a f t
to its c e n t r o i d was too large. T h i s c o n t r i b u t e d to
t h e large list a n d t h e i n s t a b i l i t y . T o p r e v e n t a
r e p e t i t i o n of such c i r c u m s t a n c e s T a b l e 5 was
d e v i s e d b y the i n v e s t i g a t o r s as a suggested
s t a n d a r d for existing a n d f u t u r e w a r s h i p types.
T h e s i d e - a r e a r a t i o s of a r e a a b o v e to a r e a b e l o w
t h e w a t e r l i n e is a g r a p h i c c o m p o s i t e of t h e
v a r i o u s w a r s h i p t y p e s . P a r t i c u l a r e m p h a s i s was
given to t h e effects of wind. All J a p a n e s e war-
ships h a d to o p e r a t e w i t h i n l i m i t s s t i p u l a t e d in
T a b l e 5. If a ship d i d n o t m e e t these require-
ments, it was c o m p u l s o r y to a d m i t sea w a t e r b a l l a s t
until t h e criteria listed were a t t a i n e d .
2 S t r i c t a t t e n t i o n was to be given to weights
a n d v e r t i c a l c e n t e r s of g r a v i t y . If a ship ex-
h i b i t e d deficient s t a b i l i t y due to high centers of
g r a v i t y or excessive weights, then idle a n d non-
essential a r m a l n e n t or m a t e r i a l h a d to be r e m o v e d
oz" r e l o c a t e d so t h a t t h e c e n t e r of g r a v i t y would
h a v e been decreased a n d t h e G M increased.
T h e i m p o r t a n c e of s t a b i l i t y in a n y n a v y does
n o t need to be u n d e r s c o r e d in this era of ship
design. T h e Tomoruzu d i s a s t e r s i m p l y i l l u s t r a t e s
w h a t will h a p p e n when s t a b i l i t y is neglected.
Lester Rosenblatt, Member: T h e p a p e r is pri-
m a r i l y concerned w i t h s t a b i l i t y a n d b u o y a n c y
criteria for n a v a l vessels. T h e s t a b i l i t y a n d
b u o y a n c y criteria for n o n - n a v a l vessels is gen-
e r a l l y u n d e r t h e cognizance of t h e U n i t e d S t a t e s
Coast Guard. P u b l i s h e d U S C G rules a n d
r e g u l a t i o n s p r e s e n t l y in effect h a v e been p r e p a r e d
p r i m a r i l y w i t h p a s s e n g e r ships in m i n d . T h e r e
exists a wide c a t e g o r y of vessels for which no
specific p u b l i s h e d m a n d a t o r y s t a b i l i t y criteria are
established. F o r these vessels, it b e h o o v e s t h e
n a v a l a r c h i t e c t to a d v i s e t h e o w n e r of t h e im-
p o r t a n c e of s a t i s f y i n g certain n f i n i m u m s t a n d a r d s
of s a f e t y r e g a r d i n g s t a b i l i t y . I t has been t h e
p r a c t i c e of the w r i t e r ' s firm to use t h e N a v y ' s
u n p u b l i s h e d s t a b i l i t y criteria as t h e p r i n c i p a l
basis for e v a l u a t i n g t h e s t a b i l i t y of t h e vessels
n o t covered b y existing regulations. U p to now,

Stability and Buoyancy Criteria for U. S. Naval Surface Ships 451

 I RvE
ao/
, ANGLE
(.9
7
T
GO
rr
-I.0
Fig. 24 Damaged ship (Fig. 12 of paper, modified)
we have had to resort to informal data and
information depicting these criteria. I t is there-
fore most gratifying at this time to have available,
in an admirably clear-cut presentation, the N a v y ' s
stability criteria.
I t is interesting to note that the N a v y ' s stability
criteria presented in the paper are considered as
attainable "floors," rather than ceilings. This
approach is certainly appropriate, and all efforts
should be made to emphasize the importance of
exceeding these "floors" whenever possible. All
too often, whether it be the USCG criteria, or the
Navy's, efforts to improve ship's stability cease
when the criteria have been "just" met. Unless
sufficient margin is included in new designs, the
inevitable growth and changes experienced by a
ship during its useful life very frequently result in
insufficient stability and a need for ballast,
blisters, and so on.
In discussing collision damage, the authors state
that the collision bulkhead is carried watertight
to the weather deck, and no access is provided
through the bulkhead. Is this practice followed,
whether or not the weather deck is the bulkhead
deck? On vessels with raised forecastles, the
bulkhead deck is usually the deck beneath the
weather deck. W o u l d n ' t it be preferable to
decide, b y use of trim line and V-line calculations
for each individual design, whether or not a
door with a high coaming would be acceptable?
Not having such a door makes access to good
storage space in the forepeak very difficult.
Referring to Table 4, "Icing-up Chart for
Wind-Class Icebreakers," it would be interesting
to know how the information on the chart was
developed. I t appears that the ice density and
weight build-up vary nonuniformly, and the unit
weight per square foot per inch of thickness also
varies in a random manner.
452 Stability and Buoyancy Criteria for U. S. Naval Surface Ships
c A, LESS
B
OF I N C L I N A T I O N , DEG
It is noted that the N a v y has decided, when
calculating wind-heeling arms, to use a procedure
that accounts for the variation of the wind
velocity at different heights above the waterline.
The new procedure, as opposed to assuming a
constant wind velocity, also includes a modifica-
tion and increase of the wind pressure factor from
0.0035 to 0.004. I t is stated that this method
was adopted to favor smaller vessels. However,
by virtue of increasing the wind-pressure factor
to 0.004, the resulting lowering in the wind heeling
moment due to wind gradient is almost balanced
by the increase in the wind pressure factor. The
wind gradient procedure presented in the paper
attempts to include a more realistic determination
of heeling moments due to wind. If an attempt
to be more realistic is to be made, shouldn't the
effect of heel on location of sail area also be con-
sidered? T h a t is, by the time the vessel heels to
60 deg, the uppermost areas will be located in a
zone of lower wind velocity. I t is true that basing
the heeling moment on upright wind forces tends
to be on the safe side, but if this is done, why not
go back to the original simplified constant-velocity
approach using a pressure factor of 0.0035 and a
shape factor. By doing so, a great deal of extra
work will be eliminated, particularly when the
stability of the ship is being studied at a variety
of drafts.
In discussing the criterion for adequate damage
stability, the authors compare the energy available
after damage, for an assumed combination of wind
heel and rolling, with an empirical amount of
energy that should be available. The empirical
energy is determined from an assumed statical
stability curve and GM of the intact ship as a
function of displacement. The residual energy
after damage is required to be at least equal to
the energy needed to roll the intact ship to angles
of roll that could be reasonably expected in
moderate seas where the wave height is 4 ft. I t
appears to the writer t h a t the following alternate
approach should, perhaps, be considered. At the
stage in the design, when it is possible to produce
the damaged statical stability curve, most.of the
i m p o r t a n t principal characteristics will have been
d e t e r m i n e d - - a t least in preliminary form. I t is
possible to determine the significant wave height
associated with a fully arisen sea for the wind
velocity obtained from Fig. 13. Having deter-
mined the significant wave height, and referring
to data t h a t are readily available in the literature,
the rolling amplitudes for the vessel under con-
sideration can be estimated. Using the value, it
is now possible to utilize Fig. 12, without reference
to Fig. 14, to evaluate the damage stability of the
ship. For instance, referring to Fig. 24 of this
discussion (Fig. 1_, modified), if ~b is the rolling
amplitude associated with the sea state corre-
sponding to the assumed wind velocity, then using
procedure similar to t h a t for the intact ship, the
cross-hatched areas A,, and ..'1~ are to be eomparecl
in some reasonable manner.
Referring to the basic philosophy that larger
ships should be capable of withstanding greater
hazards, the authors indicate in discussing reserve-
buoyancy requirements, and in particular the
V-line calculations, t h a t a wave height (presulna-
bly wave amplitude) of 4 ft is assumed to represent
wave action. Since it is required t h a t the larger
ships withstand greater winds in the damaged
condition, would it not be valid to assume greater
wave action for the larger ship? In other words,
perhaps the wave-action allowance should be
proportional to ship size.
Capt. A. K. Romberg, USN (Ret.), Member: Our
N a v y has long made it a practice to have cross
curves for its ships so t h a t the curve of righting
arms can be determined. This is a wise, even
necessary, practice which should be followed more
universally because metaeentric height, GM,
never tells the whole story and sometimes leads to
wrong conclusions. A large GM does not always
insure adequate stability, particularly in ships and
craft of low freeboard a n d / o r high center of
gravity.
A difficult probleln with naval ships is the
accumulation of weight with time, resulting in a
gradual diminution of stability.. In their reply to
the discussion it would be interesting if the authors
would c o m m e n t on the present approach to con-
trolling this situation.
In looking at the plans of several small ships
(100 to 225 ft long) being built for agencies of the
Government, I have been surprised at the minute
Stability and Buoyancy Criteria for U. S. Naval Surface Ships
subdivision. Again, in this paper it is indicated
t h a t the t w o - c o m p a r t m e n t standard is applied to
ships down to 100 ft long. This is a n u n e c o n o m i c
extension of the virtues of subdivision.
CDR. K. P. Farrell, RCN, Member: This problem,
though long recognized as i m p o r t a n t has not
received the attention it rightly deserves in
Society papers. The reason for this is probably
because it is so difficult to support any such static
criteria theoretically. The same reason makes
the present paper all the more valuable as a
thorough s u m m a r y of the United States N a v y
past experience.
We in the R C N have been using rather similar
design criteria and have carried out an analysis of
our present ships against the USN criteria. Up
to this time we have found it possible to meet
these requirements withont resorting to water
ballasting of fuel tanks except for the provision of
a firemain connection for emergency filling. We
are making provisions in newer ships however for
ballasting JP-5 tanks to meet the problem of the
increasing difference b e t w e e n light and deep
conditions. Nevertheless we do not want to
accept ballasting as a routine requirement, and
we therefore intend to examine each design with
a view to meeting stability criteria b y controlling
the hydrostatic curves.
For conversion work we have found the heel
under full rudder at full speed exceeds the criteria
given in the paper. We m a y have to issue restric-
tions to cover this point and wonder if the USN
has faced the same problem.
Regarding the possibility of controlling the
hydrostatic curves, attention is called to a paper
given by Commodore Baker 5 in ] 9,54 in which he
developed criteria for assuring m i n i m u m heel
under damage. This theory of positive stability
up to the point of submergence should perhaps
receive further study.
The analysis of damaged conditions of the ship
has previously been a laborious business. We
have carried out checks on our designs b y ex-
perimenting with carefully made plastic models.
I t now appears t h a t both these expensive opera-
tions m a y be replaced b y computer programs
which will also account for the i m p o r t a n t trim
effects. Perhaps the computer also offers some
hope of evaluating stability in a dynamic wave
system.
One query we have regarding the terminology,
does "point of unrestricted flooding" correspond
with the intersection of the margin line or does it
refer to large openings on the weather deck ?
Roland Baker, "The Form and Stability of Ships,"
Eastern Canadian Section, SNAME, March 15, 1954.
453
 Capt. J. Andrew Brown, USN, Member: One strik-
ing thing about this discussion of stability is the
almost complete absence of the use of the term
"metacentric height." In fact, the only references
to metacentric height, GM, that I could find in
the paper is where the authors mention the pre-
vious work of Vice Admiral Cochrane and Mr.
Niedermair and where a reference is made to Fig.
15, a plot of intact metacentric height against
displacement. In the latter case the curve is used
only as a means of developing a curve of dynamic
stability, hence, the authors do not introduce it as
a criterion of stability.
The ability of a ship to remain upright in a
seaway in either the damaged or intact conditions
depends on its ability to withstand dynamic
forces. The only true evaluation of stability,
therefore, depends upon an analysis of dynamical
stability of a ship which is most easily derived from
the curve of righting arms.
G M is useful for comparing similar ships,
particularly in the preliminary design stage, and
it is closely associated with ship motion in a
seaway. It is an important characteristic of a
ship which a naval architect must determine but
it does not suffice to measure intact stability in a
seaway and it is of almost no use in measuring
damaged stability.
All naval architects are familiar with these facts
but there is a tendency to shift to the almost ex-
clusive use of G M in discussing stability. As a
matter of curiosity, I reviewed the Transactions of
the Society since 1942 and except for a brief
discussion of this subject in C. D. Roach's paper
on tugboat design, all the authors have discussed
stability using metacentrie height as the base.
I cannot find one instance where stability is
evaluated by a curve of righting arms.
While the authors suggest in their conclusion
the possibility of revising the specific criteria to
meet new conditions, it would appear that the
method of application of these criteria would be
similar and would be based on analysis of dy-
namical behavior of the ship.
I would like more discussion of the total analysis
of stability with some explanation of the events
or circumstances which indicate the necessity for
a calculation that includes ship motion, stability
on a wave slope combined with other hazards.
is this the result of working with the design of
hydrofoils and hover craft or is it considered
essential for more conventional ships. Have
present methods of calculation and current criteria
proved inadequate?
John C. Niedermaier, Honorary Member: There
has been considerable reference at this meeting
454 Stability and Buoyancy Criteria for U. S. Naval Surface Ships
and often during the past 30 years in regard
to using the metacentric height, GM, as a
measure of the required residual stability after
damage. I t has been argued that the only true
measure of stability lies in the value of the residual
righting arms. I feel that I have been largely
responsible for creating the idea that GM could
be a simple and adequate measure of the required
stability of a ship after damage. This seems to
have been brought about by m y suggestion, in
about 1930, that a GM-value equal to 0.06B,
where B is the maximum beam of the design
waterline, would be satisfactory from a standpoint
of a comfortable period of roll as well as providing
sufficient stability for the damaged condition. The
idea behind this suggestion was to provide a basis
for the discussion of damage-stability require-
ments, a sort of limit which.could be attained with-
out undue hardship in the development of a design.
Time has proven that this was a good procedure
and there has been much discussion on whether
0.06B was too much or too little in the way of
providing sufficient stability and an acceptable
period of roll. The evolution of this process has
brought about the development of methods of
calculating the residual righting arms after dam-
age by manual as well as by the use of electronic
computers.
Also, as every experienced ship design naval
architect knows, there is never enough time
available to do all the things that are suggested in
regard to ship performance in rough seas and
survival after damage. Much further research
and development effort needs to be expended to
provide the basic data required by the designer at
the beginning of a design.
I am pleased to see that the authors classify the
N a v y ' s stability criteria as "empirical in nature"
for this is really true for nearly all we do in the
manner and art of ship design. The defining of
an engineering procedure as "empirical," in this
so-called scientific and technical age could be the
"kiss of death" to a perfectly logical and sound
engineering procedure, particularly from the
standpoint of arousing interest and support for a
project. However, practical experience and ob-
servation have advanced the evolution of ship
design, step by step, to meet the requirements of
the sea and man. Stability has been one of these
step-by-step-by-step evolutions and this paper
does, indeed, provide a clear picture of a type of
empirical procedure which is, in fact, a funda-
mental element of ship design.
The authors have been very generous in giving
Vice Admiral Cochrane and myself credit for our
individual and joint efforts in promoting the need
for more attention to the stability of ships par-
ticularly in connection with damage-stability
studies of c o m b a t a n t ships. However, I doubt if
we could take full credit for bringing this subject
on the scene in the 19;~0's. This subject had been
under study and consideration for m a n y years;
certainly since the loss of the T'itc~nic in 1912, the
damage control work t h a t had been done for tile
World War I G e r m a n c o m b a t a n t ships, and I
believe the work done b y m a n y others before us
k e p t the subject in the limelight. I t was,
however, our good fortune to again bring new
emphasis to the subject of damage stability at a
time when interest in ships was at a low ebb during
the 1920's after World W a r I. This, of course,
turned out to be a timely effort in preparation for
World W a r II, which was not too clearly in the
picture as yet, for then we were better prepared to
face the hazards of a war.
Ralph A. Miller, Member: Although this interest-
ing and informative paper applies primarily to
naval craft, the data given in Table 2, and Figs.
3, 10, 13, 14 and 15 are generally applicable to all
water craft. The great a m o u n t of work in getting,
consolidating, correlating and distilling these data
is appreciated.
Perhaps the proposed least G M of :~ ft, Fig. 15,
for the smallest craft is a little high, and should
be reduced somewhat for small tugs, patrol craft,
and so on.
A table similar to Table 4 would be helpful to
commanding officers as a guide to the dangers
resulting from icing on their ships. Such tables
are, however, of but little help to the ship's
designer. The designer needs to know the prob-
able weight of ice likely to accunmlate on a given
type ship. Obviously, a yacht, fishing boat or tug
will accumulate more weight of ice in proportion
to its displacement than a much larger ship, and
the relative CG of the ice will be much higher on
the small craft. T h e writer considers that some
of the fishing vessels lost during winter storms off
our N o r t h East Coast, were lost because h e a v y ice
accumulations top-side caused them to capsize.
The writer hopes t h a t those in a position to do so
will observe h e a v y ice accumulations, and make
reasonably accurate estimates of ice weights for
various parts. Such data could be given in
p o u n d s / f o o t for hand rails, life lines, shrouds and
stays; for different diameter masts; and in
pounds/square foot for lee sides 'and for weather
sides of decks and of deckhouses, and bulwarks;
various sizes of deck machinery and deck gear.
Although vessels should t r y to head into storm
winds, winds and waves do not always come from
the same direction, with the result t h a t one side
Stability and Buoyancy Criteria for U. S. Naval Surface Ships"
is likely to accumulate more ice than the other,
thus creating a possibly dangerous situation.
Thus, whoever can furnish the foregoing data will
not only earn the gratitude of the designers of
small craft, but the much greater gratitude of
those "who go down to sea in small craft in freezing
weather."
Authors'" Closure
Mr. Wright is well qualified to discuss the
subject of stability based on his experience in this
area. Bureau of Ships Technical M e m o r a n d u m
no. 1, "Subdivision of Ships and Stability After
Extensive Flooding," was prepared under his
direction when he was attached to the Bureau of
Ships. As chief design engineer of the Boston
N a v a l Shipyard he has had ample opportunity to
observe the practical effects on ship construction
of the criteria outlined in the paper.
With regard to the discussion on allowable K G
it is important to emphasize t h a t a ship must
meet the criteria in all operating conditions. The
operating condition having the least stability,
based oll the damage analysis, governs the accept-
able KG-values in all the other operating condi-
tions.
Fig. 1 of the paper illustrates a method of
cross-connecting low tanks and is not limited to
only two athwartship tanks. We use the system
illustrated in Fig. 18 of Mr. Robertson's com-
ments. The selection of the number of athwart-
ship tanks would depend upon t a n k size, capacity
and free-surface effects. Fig. 19 illustrates a
method of cross-connecting high wing tanks. I t is
understood t h a t the suctions exist only ill t a n k s
2 and 4; therefore tanks 1 and 5 are drawn down
by taking suction on 2 and 4. This scheme would
be effective where no sea-water ballasting is used.
In this case, only one wing tank in the ship is
susceptible to unsymmetrical flooding. T h e r e are
lilnitations which appear to be :
(a) No automatic counterflooding capability
is available until tanks 2 and 4 have been drawn
down to below their full capacity. When com-
pletely emptied, full cross-connecting capability
exists.
(b) On ships where ballasting of low tanks is
required to maintain stability, the foregoing sys-
tem would be nearly equivalent to a conventional
arrangement where each t a n k would be ballasted
as soon as it becanm empty.
We recognize the method for calculating wind
heel as given in the paper does not specifically
take into account the effects of shape and sea
conditions to which Mr. Robertson refers.
Neither does it account for other second-order
455
effects such as the specific drag of the multitude of
individual exposed shapes in the ship's silhouette.
The method given in the paper does represent the
gross effects and provides a useful design compari-
son. hnproved criteria which account for the
second-order effects in a precise manner is a
desirable goal and should be pursued.
Flooding resulting from an enemy attack, with
rare exceptions, involves a greater loss in reserve
buoyancy and stability than would result from
collision. Statistical and probability studies of
expected types and extents of enemy attack can
be useful in the process of refining present criteria.
This would be part of the review process men-
tioned in the concluding remarks of the paper.
We agree with Mr. Baker's and Mr. Naeht-
sheim's premise that higher standards for com-
mercial ships more than offset the limited cost of
an additional bulkhead. The probability of colli-
sion on a bulkhead m a y not appear to be high in a
statistical sense but the consequences in loss of
life, cargo, and ship even in one instance are great
indeed. I t is recognized that there are cost con-
siderations beyond, say, the cost of an additional
bulkhead. Such costs as additional personnel,
which nmy be required because of limited ac-
cesses, are factors which eommel, cial operators
must take into account. The use of closed-circuit
television or other types of instrumentation, could
minimize the need of personal inspections and
thus offset any personnel increases associated with
a higher subdivision standard.
As Mr. Soo Hoo points out, the term V in the
equation for heel in turns is the velocity of the
ship in the turn, not the approach. This will be
corrected in the final printing of the paper.
The meanings of the terms "operational re-
quirements" and "design requirements" under
" D a m a g e Stability Criteria, Design versus Opera-
tional Criterias." "Design requirements" refers
to the survival capabilities of the ship where the
prime interest is in saving the ship; therefore list
is governed principally by stability. The term
"operational requirements" applies to the ship's
capability to perform her basic function to a
limited degree, such as continuing to operate
weapons. The maxinmm acceptable angle of heel
for operational purposes is necessarily smaller
than for the design or survival condition.
Commander Henning's comments are especially
welcome because his recent tours of d u t y have
enabled him to apply the criteria in the design
process as well as to observe the effects of these
criteria on operating ships. His illustrations of
recent cruiser conversions and destroyer designs
clearly indicate the significant effect on required
stability of the increased sail areas. For these
456 " Stability and Buoyancy Criteria for U. S. Naval Surface Ships
types, the required stability to meet the intact
beam-wind criteria is about the same as the sta-
bility required to meet the damage-stability
criteria.
Commander Henning's point oi1 the benefits of
increasing beam as a means of improving damage
stability is well put. While a significant improve-
ment in intact metacentric height (GM) can be
demonstrated for, say, a ;5 percent increase in
beam, the improvement in damage stability will
often be much smaller than expected.
Commander Henning is correct in criticizing
our use of V rather than v to represent velocity in
feet per second and this will be corrected in the
final printing of the paper.
The account of the Japanese torpedo boat by
Mr. Garzke and Ensign Dulin emphasizes the
importance of ship stability and the consequences
of neglecting it. Disasters such as the one cited
and collision disasters such as the Titanic and the
A ndree Doria are indeed a severe and unfortunate
means of testing the validity of providing ade-
quate stability and buoyancy for surface ships
I t would be of benefit to the field of naval archi.
tecture in general if the stability criteria of other
navies were published. The vast experience rep-
resented by these different sources would enhance
progress in a vital area of ship performance.
The stated increase in GtXi of 1.3 meters is not
clear since this would have required a considerable
beam increase in the nature of a blister. Perhaps
the GM was increased to 1.3 meters or perhaps
the GM increase was (1.13 meter.
The Japanese ratios of lateral areas given in
the table evidently represent pre-World War I I
values. The trend in modern ships is towards
higher ratios with the need for improved initial
stability to meet wind-heel criteria.
Our statement that no access is provided
through the collision bulkhead was intended to
serve as a goal gather than an absolute limitation
and each design is handled on a case basis.
The table on ice accumulation was developed
from photographs and other reports of icing of the
Wind-class.
In reply to the question on the wind-pressure
factor, the I).1)1~35 did not take into account the
full effect of the wind gradient. Since the 0.004
value is a widely used constant, we felt that the use
of 0.004 with the wind-gradient adjustment was a
reasonable procedure. There are m a n y other fac-
tors involved, which also must be considered,
shape being one such example. The table we
have included is intended to simplify the calcula-
tions when wind-gradient effects are considered.
On many ships, a first approximation using the
following:
 0.0035 V2A/ cos'-'
2240 X displacement
without allowance for wind gradient, establishes
that wind heel will not be governing and no
further calculations are required.
The proposed alternate approach for evaluating
the power of survival of a damaged ship in rough
sea and heavy wind conditions would impose a
severe requirement, far in excess of the criteria
which have been established. For example, for a
10,000-ton ship, a 37-knot wind is assumed. A
fully arisen sea, indicating a storm of several days
duration, could result in wave heights of up to 45
ft. The associated rolling of the ship would
probably exceed 25 deg, a very severe assumption
for a damaged ship. The criteria have assmned
the bean>wind effects, but have considered more
moderate seas at the time of damage. It should
be noted that the treatment of an undamaged
ship, for a 90-knot beam wind, assumes a maxi-
mum roll of :25 deg.
The foregoing connneuts regarding sea states at
time of damage apply also to the question of using
greater wave action for larger ships. The 4-ft
wave action (about 8 ft wave height) is considered
to be a reasonable sea state in association with
damage. In effect, using the same value of wave
action for all ships imposes a greater requirement
on the small ships.
Mr. Rosenblatt is correct in assuming that we
meant amplitude rather than 4 ft of wave height.
This will be stated as "wave action" in the final
printing of the paper. I t will include the effects
of any 4 ft of wave rise above the static waterline.
Wre agree with Captain Romberg's statement
that a large G M does not always insure adequate
stability. A case in point is a recent naval aux-
iliary design whose service required a large nmnber
of off-center watertight compartments. In this
design the G M after damage was in excess of 5.ft,
but the list resulting froln off center flooding was
15 deg, which just met the heel criterion.
I t has long been recognized in naval shipbuilding
and operation that ships tend to accunmlate
weight, generally above the center of gravity,
whose overall effects reduce reserve buoyancy and
stability. For ships in service, limiting drafts in
association with liquid loading instructions are
issued as a guide against overloading. Each
active ship is placed in a "Status" which indicates
the nature of weight and moment compensation
that is required for proposed weight changes as
follows :
Status I Sufficient margins exist to permit moder-
ate weight and vertical moment in-
c r e a s e s w i t h o u t compensation
Stability and Buoyancy Criteria for U. S. Naval Surface Ships
Status 1i Full weight and vertical llloulellt eoul-
pensation are required
Status 111 Weight margin exists, but full vertical
111(HllCllt cc~irlpensatioil lllUSt be ob-
tained. The addition t,f st)lid ballast
may be used t,~ obtain vertical moment
eolnpensati~,n
Status IV Vertical moment margin exists, but full
weight compensation is required. Re-
mowd of weights from any level is sat-
isfactory as weight compensation
Sufficient representative class inclining experi-
ments are conducted upon completion of construc-
tion and at specified intervals during the service
of the ships which provide current data on the
actual weight and center of gravity of the ships.
Remedial measures are taken as necessary on the
basis of the results of these experiments. The
most important ingredient in controlling weight
and moment on active ships is the human factor.
Publicity in the form of correspondence to ships
and Force Commanders, issttance of stability and
loading information as part of the damage control
book, aud indoctrination at danmge-control
schools serve to emphasize the importance of the
subject.
Recently the Bureau of Ships has improved on
the weight and moment control procedures exer-
cised during the detail design and construction
periods. The burden of responsibility to a large
extent has been placed on the shipbuilder b y
contractual requirements for delivering the ships
within specified limits of displacement, trim, heel
and vertical center of gravity. By a system of
weight control and weight reporting to the Bureau
of Ships, a close check is kept on the situation.
In answer to Captain Romberg's comments on
the two-colnpartment subdivision for ships be-
tween 1(10 and ;31Ill ft in length we would like to
point out that designs have been developed to
these criteria without undue penalty on arrange-
ment and cost. Some examples are two recent
small ship designs of under 170 and 1411 ft in
length, respectively, where the permissible shell
opening throughout the length of the ship was of
the order of 1() percent LISP. In view of the
recognized marked advantage of a two-compart-
ment standard over a one-compartment standard,
we advocate that ships should be designed to the
higher standard wherever feasible.
~11 reply to Comlnander Farrell's question on
heel in turns, we have not experienced any dil'fi-
culty in meeting our criteria. Other criteria are
governing.
The answer to the question concerning "un-
restricted flooding" is that such flooding is through
large openings in the weather deck.
As noted by Captain Brown, GM is not used
457
as a criterion for determination of the adequacy
of stability in the intact or damaged conditions.
GM, alone, does not give a complete picture of the
ship's capability to withstand the dynamic effects
of upsetting forces in the intact condition, and
in the case of damage, G M tells very little of the
effects of unsymmetrical flooding and the dy-
namics of rolling due to wind and wave action.
G M is useful as an index of stability in the
early design stages in establishing the shape
factors such as beam and waterplane, i t is
visualized t h a t a computer program, which has
as its imputs such factors as hull coefficients,
length, required volume, and stability criteria,
will produce a satisfactory set of ship lines and
bulkhead spacing without reference to GM.
G M is useful in estimating the natural period of
roll
f._ cB
~GM
and conversely, from the observed period of roll
in light swells, the G M can be estimated to serve
as an index of stability. G M also serves as an
indicator of how a ship will respond to small
458 Stability and Buoyancy Criteria for U. S. Naval Surface Ships
upsetting forces; ships with low G M will exhibit
a greater reaction to such forces, and a feel of
"tenderness" will be associated with the righting
motions. Ships with large G M - t o - b e a m ratios
will be snappy rollers and in the case of m a n y ships
of the cargo type, large amplitudes develop as a
result of synchronous rolling.
G M is also used in the inclining-experiment
calculation.
In none of the foregoing examples of G M appli-
cations in the final design process has a G M
criterion for adequate stability been established.
However, G M is used as a criterion b y the Coast
Guard and SOLAS in the final design.
Our concluding remarks regarding the inclusion
of ship-motion factors in stability criteria are
related to the displacement condition of ships
rather than to any flying condition such as in
hydrofoil or skimmer types. The ship-motion
characteristics which we had in mind include
things such as reported hanging at the end of a
roll b y ships which meet our criteria, and the
reduction in stability on the wave in a following-
sea condition as described b y J. R. Paulling in the
M a r c h 1961 issue of The Journal of Ship Research.