On the Design of Offshore Supply Vessels'

B y Y i n g k e i M o k = a n d R. C. Hill a

The offshore supply vessel came intobeing in 1954 to meet the demands of a rapidly
growing offshore oil industry. The authors give a brief history of this development and pre-
sent the arrangement and profile of a typical supply vessel as well as a complete table of
characteristics on a number of vessels. It is shown how the demand to carry large quantities
of cargo on deck resulted in a hull form that is unique in some respects. Two particular
areas of design are stressed: stability and powering. The question of stability is examined
in detail, including development of the current U. S. Coast Guard stability criteria. The
difficulty in estimating power requirements for the low speed~length ratios associated with
supply vessels is discussed. Data for estimating power requirements are presented.

Introduction It is the purpose of this paper to provide designers and

WReN the first offshore oil well was drilled in the Gulf
of Mexico at the end of World War II, the need for de-
livery of supplies such as drill pipe, casings, drilling mud,
cement, etc. produced a new type vessel--the offshore
supply vessel.
Among the first offshore supply vessels were the war
surplus LCT's, primarily because they were readily avail-
able. T h e y were adequate for the early offshore drilling
sites close to shore. When new vessels were built, they
were designed closely to the LCT's with the pilothouse
aft. Then in 1954 a new type of supply vessel came into
being which was to set the pattern for the offshore supply
vessels that were to come. These vessels had all of the
crew quarters forward, leaving a large deck area aft for
carriage of deck cargo. Connection between the for-
ward quarters and the engine room aft was through an
underdeek passage.
During the past fifteen years, because of the rapid
worldwide development of offshore oil fields, we have seen
not only bigger, faster, and more seaworthy supply vessels
built, but have also witnessed the use of these vessels in
many different roles. Offshore supply vessels have been
used as seismographic exploration ships, oceanographic
research ships, tenders for deep-diving submarines, tele-
phone cable-laying vessels, eontainerships, anchor-
handling vessels, and seagoing tugs. This paper, how-
ever, will limit discussions only to the vessels that carry
supplies.
The views expressed in this paper are those of the authors
and do not necessarily represent, the official view of the
American Marine Corporation or the U. S. Coast Guard.
Chief Engineer, American Marine Corporation, New Orleans,
La.
3Commander, USCG; Chief, Merchant Marine Technical
Branch, Eighth Coast Guard District, New Orleans, La.
Presented at the October 3, 1969 meeting of the Gulf Section
Of THE SOCIETY OF NAVAL AgCHIT~:CTS AND MARINE ENGINEERS.
operators with a better understanding of the stability
characteristics of offshore supply vessels, and to contrib-
ute some information concerning preliminary design,
structural design, and powering requirements, all of which
have been lacking in this fast-growing field.
Proportions and Arrangement
The characteristics of twenty offshore supply vessels
are given in Table 1. For quick reference, the average
values of some of the particulars are plotted in Fig. 1.
Two of the more prominent identifying characteristics are
the low LOA-to-beam ratio, and the high beam-to-depth
ratio. Also, the average displacement-length ratio at
full load is considerably higher than for the more con-
ventional vessel.
For preliminary calculation, the light ship weight of a
supply vessel can be estimated by multiplying the block
number L X B X D/100 by a coefficient of 0.55. Length
overall is used in the block number as it is more easily
determined during the preIiminary design stage than are
the other lengths.
Arrangement
Profile and arrangement plans of a typiea] offshore sup-
ply vessel are given in Figs. 2, 3, and 4. Cargo-carrying
deck area is at a premium. As much of the main deck
as possible should be retained for this purpose, yet suffi-
cient space should be ]eft on the main deck for a forecastle
big enough to accommodate tile crew comfortably. The
average length for forecastles of supply vessels is 25 per-
cent of the overall length.
A good arrangement of tanks below the main deck is es-
sential to sueeessful operation. Modern supply vessels
have wing tanks around the engine room and the stee>
ing gear compartment to protect these vital areas. Op-
eration around drilling rigs is hazardous in rough we~ther.

:278 MARINE TECHNOLOGY

At least one vessel without this protection was lost be-
cause of puncture of the side shell.
Loading "~ supply vessel presents two somewhat con-
flicting requirements. When loading drill water in bal-
last tanks, the vessel tends to trim by the bow. When
leading deck cargo, the vessel tends to trim by the stern.
The engine room should be lock,ted as far forward as
possible without resorting to shaft tunnels and compli-
cated shafting systems. This will move the light ship
LCG forward, but will move the combined centroid of all
available ballast tanks aft. This has two beneficial ef-
fects, both of which more than compensate for the addi-
tional forward trim when light. First, the large ballast
tanks aft can be used to provide good propeller submer-
gence in the light condition. Second, this will enable the
vessel to carry more drilling water in the ballast tanks
without trimming by the bow.
When a vessel is equipped with bulk tanks for mud or
cement, these tanks should also be located as far forward
as practicable. The bulk tanks will occupy some of the
ballast tank spaces forward and cause the combined
centroid of the ballast tanks to be further aft. This will
help when carrying drilling water as discussed previously.
But of more importanee, the weight of bulk mud or
cement when carried forward, as well as the struc-
tural weight of the bulk tanks themselves, will offset
earriage of more deck cargo---the eentroid of which is
aft--without causing the vessel to trim excessively by the
stern.
Structural Design
To meet the requirements of the American Bureau of
Shipping arid the U. S. Coast Guard, structure of off-
shore supply vessels should be designed according to the
American Bureau of Shipping offshore barge rules [1].4
Where a design problem is not covered by the offshore
barge rules, the steel vessel rules, reference [2], should be
referred to.
While some of the offshore supply vessels are trans-
versely framed, a large number are built with a combina-
tion longitudinal and transverse framing system; a sys-
tem with transversely framed bow and stern sections and
longitudinally framed midbody of barge construction.
With the latter framing system, care should be taken to
insure continuity of structure between the sections of
different framing systems. Tapering brackets beyond a
transverse bulkhead are often necessary where large
longitudinal girders or longitudinal bulkheads terminate
at the bulkhead.
Bottom, side, and bulkhead framing members inside
integral liquid tanks that extend from the bottom to the
main deck are designed to the offshore tank barge rules.
The head is measured to 4 ft above the main deck for ves-
sels up to 200 ft in length.
When a hull tank is vented above the forecastle deck,
or other super-structure deck, the design head should be
* Numbers in brackets designate References at end of paper.
JULY 1970
measured from the member to a point located two-thirds
the distmme from the top of the tank to the top of the
overflow.
The requirement of deep tank bulkheads in paragraph
9.7.4. of reference [1 ] applies only to tanks independent of'
the hull and deep tanks that do not extend from the bot-
tom of the hull to the main deck.
Structural members in hull compartments which are
not tanks are designed to the offshore dry cargo barge
rules.
Structural members supporting deck cargo areas are
designed for a head of 12 ft, based on storage factor of 50
eu ft per ton. This is a loading of 540 psf.
Deck structural members for decks not carrying deck
cargo should be designed according to paragraph 6.11.2 of
reference [1], and forecastle deck members should be de-
signed to paragraph 6.19.16 of reference [1 ].
Transversely framed hulls should be designed to the
rules for offshore barges with transverse framing. The
American Bureau of Shipping will give credit to reduction
of spans of frames at the chine where a well-defined chine
is shown.
Where the stern tubes penetrate the hull inside the
engine room, watertight boxes are fitted around these
penetrations. Other hull penetrations such as strut
arms and rudder trunks should be reinforced by doubler
plates, headers and girders.
Welding details are to be designed to Section 26, Part I,
of reference [2J.
Certain structural members of an offshore supply vessel
should be designed over and above the minimum require-
ments of the American Bureau of Shipping rules. For in-
stance, deck plating in way of cargo-carrying area should
be increased in thickness, or frame spacing reduced, which
amounts to the same thing. Deck beams and girders
should be increased in size. This is due to the nature of
the cargo carried and the rough treatment to which the
deck scantlings may be subjected in ordinary usage.
It is recommended that both plating thickness and
framing of the shell forward be designed over the rule re-
quirement because of constant contacts between this area
of a supply vessel and the offshore drilling structures.
H e a v y insert plates, or fenders made up of formed
plates or half pipes, should be provided all around the ves-
sel near the gunwale and near the bilge at the side.
Because of the high horsepower engines installed in an
offshore supply vessel, the stern sections should be rein-
forced to minimize vibration. Bottom plating in way of
propellers should be increased in thickness and reinforced
with panel breakers. In addition to the longitudinal
bulkheads forming the passage to the steering room, there
should be additional longitudinal members to stiffen the
stern, such as longitudinal swash bulkheads a n d / o r longi-
tudinal trusses. Heavy skeg or skegs often help in this
respect.
Stability
An offshore supply vessel is lypified by a broad beam
279
 Table 1 Characteristics of
Stop 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 b;
Length OA, it-in . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 78-0 80-0 101-2 127-0 129-0 130-0 131-6 142-0
Length B P , it-in . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 74-4 77-6 96-0 117-1.0 121-0 119-10 123-7} 132-3
Beam, molded, B, it-in . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 33-0 33-0 36-0 32-0 32-0 32-0 32-0 33-0
Depth, molded, D, ft-fn . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9-0 10-4 10-4 9-6 124) 9-6 11-9 10-4
LOA/B ............................... 2.36 2.42 2.82 3.97 4.03 4.06 4,11 4.30
B/D .................................. 3. 667 3. 194 3. 484 3. 368 2. 667 3. 368 2. 723 3.194
Lightship Data
a. Displacement, LT . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 106.6 147). 0 185.9 198.7 239.5 213.5 262.0 278.5
b. K G . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10.04 9.00 9.33 8.29 10.22 8.08 11.00 9.28
c. A / ( L o A B D / 1 0 0 ) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0.460 0.531 0.49;3 0.515 0.484 0.540 0. 530 0. 575
Fuel Oil Capacity, gal . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10400 19800 20400 20600 23825 19545 18154 25600
Potable Water Capacity, gal . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1050 996 800 1200 1200 1200 1200 1200
Ballast Capacity, bbl . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1503 1483 2240 2968 3450 2832 1921 3506
Length of Afterdeck, it-in . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 62-0 52-0 71-6 92-0 92-6 92-0 93-0 104-6
No. of Dry Mud Tank.~ . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . None None None None None None 4 @ 1000 None
cuft
Gross Tonnage . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 72.95 96.46 182. !)6 176.64 194.25 193.03 1(,16.63 199.50
Load Line D a t a
a. Draft, d . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7-7} 8-9} 8-11 8-0~ 10-21 8-0} lO-3i. 8-8~
b. Length, W L . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 77-9} 77-8 99-81 122-7 126-6 125-2 a 128-81 137-7
c. l)isplacemenl,, inolded, LT. . . . . . . . . . 345.3 392.7 566.0 715.0 840.0 695.0 735.3 828.5
d. Block coefficient . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0.620 0.612 0.620 0.791 0.733 0.750 0. 615 0. 734
e. Prismatic coefficie~tt . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0. 724 0. 697 0. 707 0. 791 0. 792 0. 849 0. 656 O. 802
f. Midship section coefficient . . . . . . . . . . 0. 857 0. 878 0. 877 1. 000 0. 926 0. 883 0.938 0.915
g. 5/(0.01 Lwz,) ~. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 733.0 837.0 572.0 388.5 415.0 354.1 344.8 318.1
h. LCB from amidships, ft . . . . . . . . . . . . 4.77 Aft 3.05 Aft 2.80 Aft 2.50 Aft 1.70 Aft 0.014 1.19 Aft 1.098
Fwd Fwd
i. B i d . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4.316 3.756 4.104 3.974 3.144 3.964 3.116 3.794
j. d i D . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0. 850 0. 850 0. 850 0. 850 0. 845 0. 850 o. 872 0.842
Maximum Deck Cargo Condition
a. Deck cargo, LT . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 135.1 165.0 306.0 318.0 336.4 305.0 242.1 330.0
b. Displacement, LT . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 288.8 381.1 566.0 596.0 658.0 587.1 540.0 699.7
c. Fuel oil, LT . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 41.4 65.2 65.6 68.0 78.6 59.8 28.0 83.2
d. Potable water, LT . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3.9 3.7 6.0 5.3 4.4 4.4 4.4 4.4
e. Ballast, LT . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
f. Draft, mean, ft . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6.75 s:o25 7Z63
g. Freeboard, ft . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2.25 1.64 1.42 2.62 3.75 2.48 3.50 2.70
h. d i D . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0. 746 0. 840 0. 860 0. 725 0. 688 0. 739 0. 702 0. 739
i. KG, fg . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10.63 10.97 11.47 10.26 12.74 10.38 12.84 10.95
j. GM, fl, . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11.1.7 8.13 9.33 6.10 4,00 7.07 4.46 6.77
Shp, total . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 670 670 880 670 67/) 670 760 1530
Trial Run, Speed, Knots . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9.55 10.84 . . . . . . . . . 11.07 10.56
Trial Run, Displ, LT . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 186.0 256.0 320.0 450.0
Wetted Surface, net, sq fg . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2800 2840 4128 54:3~ 5345 5i92 5112 5830
Wetted Surface, lotal, sq ft . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2965 3231 4322 5584 5716 5361 5361 611(,I

and shallow depth. C h a r a c t e r i s t i c a l l y , all s u p e r s t r u c - Casualty Statistics

t u r e is in t h e f o r w a r d q u a r t e r l e n g t h , l e a v i n g a b o u t t h r e e -
I n N o v e m b e r 1959 t h e M V N a t i o n a l P r i d e , :ffter
q u a r t e r s of t h e d e c k clear for d e c k c a r g o . T h e n a m e
being reported overdue, was found floating bottornside
B o - T r u e ( B o a t - T r u c k ) is q u i t e a p p r o p r i a t e .
u p in t h e G u l f of M e x i c o . A l l e l e v e n c r e w m e m b e r s were
T h e s e w o r k h o r s e s of t h e offshore oil i n d u s t r y are d e -
lost. I n A u g u s t 1960 t h e M V B o r i c o u t b o u n d f r o m
s i g n e d to c a r r y h e a v y d e a d w e i g h t l o a d s o n deck. E v e n in
H a r v e y , L o u i s i a n a , l o a d e d w i t h drill p i p e casing, drill
a m o d e r a t e s e a w a y , t h e s e h e a v y d e c k l o a d s c a n l e a d to
t u b i n g a n d chain, c q ) s i z e d s h o r t l y a f t e r p a s s i n g t h e j e t t y
relatively large heeling moments. Hence the broad beam
at t h e e n t r a n c e to S o u t h w e s t P a s s . The weather was
t o d e v e l o p large, c o u n t e r a c t i n g r i g h t i n g m o m e n t s . T h e
clear, w i n d l i g h t w i t h 3 - 4 ft seas. O n e of f o u r c r e w
s h a l l o w h u l l d e p t h h e l p s k e e p t h e v e r t i c a l c e n t e r of g r a v -
m e m b e r s died. I n J a n u a r y 1963, t h e M V D i v e r s i t y ,
i t y of d e c k c a r g o low. C o n c u r r e n t l y , h e a v y d e a d w e i g h t
i n b o u n d f r o m a drill rig a f t e r a t t e m p t i n g t o of}toad drill
l o a d i n g a n d s h a l l o w depth, l e a d t o low freebo~trd. W i t h
m u d , c a p s i z e d in h e a v y w e a t h e r . All five p e r s o n s o n
low f r e e b o a r d , t h e (leek e d g e g o e s u n d e r at low a n g l e s of
b o a r d w e r e lost.
heel. O n c e t h i s h a p p e n s , t h e b r o a d b e a m no l o n g e r p r o -
A l l t o l d b e t w e e n 1956 a n d 1963, C o a s t G u a r d c a s u a l t y
duces increasingly greater righting moments. With fur-
r e p o r t s [3] r e v e M t h a t e i g h t vessels c a t e g o r i z e d as offshore
t h e r heel, r i g h t i n g e n e r g y r a p i d l y d i m i n i s h e s to t h e v a n -
s u p p l y vessels c a p s i z e d in t h e G u l f of M e x i c o . A n y w a y
ishing point. In other words, these vessels have a very
s h o r t r a n g e of p o s i t i v e s t a b i l i t y w h e n f u l l y l o a d e d . T h e i r y o u l o o k a t i t t h i s is a n e x t r e m e l y p o o r r e c o r d . In many
g o o d s t a b i l i t y a t low a n g l e s of h e e l is d e c e p t i v e . A d e - of t h e s e cases, s h i f t i n g d e c k c a r g o w a s a c o n t r i b u t i n g fac-
q u a t e f r e e b o a r d is critical. C a s u a l t y r e p o r t s beat" t h i s tor, something over which the designer has little control.
out. H o w e v e r , i m p r o p e r l o a d i n g , or j u s t p l a i n o v e r l o a d i n g , w a s

280 MARINE TECHNOLOGY

Offshore Supply Vessels
9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20
146-0 150-0 150-0 155-0 165-0 165-0 165-0 166-0 166-0 166-0 168-0 176-0
136-6 141-3 147-7 145-7} 156-0 157-2 157-3 156-4 156-4 157-7 159-0 167-4
36-0 35-0 36-0 36-0 39-0 36-0 38-0 38-0 38-0 38-0 38-0 38-0
10-0 12-0 12-0 12-6 14-6 12-6 12-6 13-0 13-0 14-0 13-6 13-0
4.06 4.29 4.16 4.30 4.23 4.58 4.34 4.37 4.37 4.37 4.42 4.63
3. 600 2. 917 3. 000 2. 880 2.690 2.880 3.040 2.922 2.923 2.714 2.815 2. 923

294.4 332.7 328.3 367.5 371.5 381.8 469.0 440.9 444.0 492.0 466.0
7.56 10.27 11.45 10.12 10.32 10.06 10.63 10.77 11.53 10.77
O. 560 O. 528 O. 505 O. 526 0. 500 0. 487 0. 572 0. 538 0. 5024 6:~71 0. 537
31420 35186 32100 31407 4i6oo 31407 33143 33300 38070 31915 43723 45608
1200 1200 600 1200 1600 1200 1200 1200 1200 1200 2352 1200
4229 4567 5080 5249 3217 7129 6563 6227 6811 4335 6260
108-6 110-0 112-0 113-0 98-0 113-0 123-0 ii5-0 113-9 123-0 100-0 123-10
None None None None 2 @ 1025 None None 2 @ 1000 2 @ 1000 None None 2 @ 1000
cuft cu ft cu ft cuft
186.65 198.24 183.46 194.08 188.47 194.60 172.06 179.20 271.47 635 193.03

8-1~- 10-0~- 10-5 10-4} 12-9 10-4} 10-3} 11-1} 11-1} 11-8 11-4 11-0~
141-6 146-10 146-7} 151-6 t61-6 161-5 161-7 161-5 161-6 160-0 1.71-4
917.0 1028.5 967.5 1114.0 i4~5.0 1195.5 1248.0 1335.0 1376.5 1300.0 1325.0 1466.0
0.776 0.696 0.615 0.686 0.664 0.690 0.691 0.685 0.705 0.635 0. 674 0.716
O. 777 O. 752 O. 697 O. 740 0.697 O. 744 O. 746 O. 743 O. 757 0. 687 0.751 0. 769
0. 999 0. 925 0. 882 0. 928 0.952 0.928 0.927 0.921 0.931 0.925 0. 897 0.931
324.2 324.9 307.3 320.4 284.0 296.5 316.3 327.3 309.0 323.2 291.0
0. 828 2. 875 5. 355 3. 365 6:670 3.90 2.45 2.325 3.37 3.96 0.46 3.40
Fwd Aft Aft Aft A% Aft Aft Aft Aft Aft Fwd AR
4.436 3.482 3.456 3. 459 3.059 3.459 3.696 3.412 3.412 3.257 3.353 3. 451
0811 0.837 0869 0.833 0.878 0. 833 0. 825 0. 856 0. 856 0. 833 0. 839 0. 848

432.0 435.0 410.0 460.0 576.3 575.0 550.0 550.0 610.0 590.0
845.0 895.5 852.4 937.6 1058.6 1144.5 1208.5 1228.9 1207.5 1360.0
105.4 119.2 106.0 102.0 102.7 106.8 111.3 110.9 96.0 :t52.4
lO.7 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5
73.6 57.1 119.7 50.0 144.2
~i,%o 6i)o 6~2 6.:27 "-0".67 9.61 10.23 10.18 11.11 10.36
2.50 3.00 2.48 3.23 2.83 2.89 2.77 2.82 2.89 2.64
0. 750 0. 750 0. 793 0. 742 O. 774 O. 769 O. 787 O. 783 O. 794 O. 797
10.34 12.35 12.80 12.60 12.71 12.36 12.6!) 12.51 13.86 12.30
9.40 5.81 6.62 590 5.72 7.10 6.77 6.64 5.65 6.66
1000 1530 1530 1530 i~60 1530 1700 1700 2250 2900 2250
... 1131 12.13 11.50 11.40 12.36 11.77 12.25 13.50 11.86
456.0 702.0 589.2 728.0 753.0 645.0 705.2 ,, 810.5
6382 6602 61.94 6895 7341 7550 7834 7858 6969 8373
6712 6913 6396 7226 g2~0 7672 7903 8168 8201 7362 ~i4o 8721

also a strong contributing factor in five casualties. The
designer can and should be concerned with this problem.
He can provide the operators with sutfieient stability in-
formation to enable them to load in a safe manner. There
is a trade-off between deck cargo tonnage, below-deck
tonnage, and freeboard which should be presented to the
operator in a simple straightforw-u'd manner for his
guidance.
A closer look at two of these casualties as reported by
the Coast Guard Marine Boards of Investigation is re-
vealing:
MV National Pride
The National Pride was a 135 X 32 X 10 ft vessel of 197
gross tons. At the time of the casualty, she was en-
route to a dumping area carrying a deck load of 392 long
tons of obsolete ammunition. Her mean draft was
8 ft-4 in., leaving a freeboard amidships of 20 in.
The weather at the time of this casualty was bad.
Reports from the area indicated a wind of force 5-6 and
with rough seas. Apparently the vessel was under ac-
tion of the helm at the time of the capsizing, as tile rud-
ders were full left and the starboard engine control was at
full ahead while the port control was in neutral or slow
astern. There was evidence that the freeing ports were
partially blocked by the deck cargo. This undoubtedly
contributed to the casualty, but as we shah see even
without considering trapped water on deck the vessel
was loaded in an unsafe manner.
There were other contributing factors. After being
found, the vessel was towed into port and righted. An
inspection revealed the following:
1. The crossover valve between No. 1 port and star-
board ballast tanks was open
2. The scuttle through the hatch leading to the after
steering gear room was open.
3. The engine room access doors were open.
Open crossover lines between tank pairs greatly in-
creases free surface. But after correcting for all free-sur-
face effects, including the cross-connected ballast tanks,

JULY 1970 281

 3500__ 40 1400
O
c
<
k)
3000__ 35 1200
P ,(
W <)
W hJ
5_ C3
2 5 0 0 _ _ ~30 t000 CE
O
5_
_~co
"l-
2000__ ~ 25 8O0

0 T ~-

I J Z
1500 __ ~ 20 60O
W Z
t~J

IO00_ ~ 15 i 400 tad

k)
W <

5_
500__ !0
~~-~--~ l 2oo5 09

I I I
60 80 100 120 140 160 180 200
LENGTH BETWEEN PERPENDICULARS., FEET

Fig. 1 Average particulars of offshore supply vessels

the initial GM of the National Pride as loaded was still 4.2
ft. B y conventional standards this would be more t h a n
adequate. I t took a dynamic stability analysis to reveal
just how inadequate it really was. With ballast tanks
cross-connected, her full range of positive righting mo-
ments was only 28 deg, and her m a x i m u m righting arm
was a meek 0.46 ft at a very low 13-deg heel angle.
MV Borie
The Boric was 125 X 32 X 12 ft, similar in overall di-
mensions to the National Pride. She had a conventional
rounded hull form, however, as opposed to the barge-
shaped midship section more common to offshore supply
vessels--including the National Pride. Loaded with 259
long tons of deck cargo and 271 tons of below-deck liq-
uids, she departed on a voyage from Harvey, Louisiana
to drilling rigs in the Gulf of Mexico. The trip downriver
was uneventful. The weather was dear, wind light with
a southerly sea of 3-4 ft. After clearing the river en-
trance, she turned to port to avoid drill rigs in t h a t area.
While in this turn, she developed a port list of 4 to 5 deg.
The engineer was requested to remove the list. He
proceeded to the engine room, but b y the time he reached
the manifold the heel had increased to a dangerous
degree. On deck the mate, realizing the vessel was going
to capsize, abandoned ship. The remainder of the crew
realizing the danger, followed suit; at this time the deck
cargo shifted and very shortly thereafter the vessel
capsized. The engineer was trapped in the engine room,
but was later rescued. (The master died of an apparent
heart attack.)
From the w a y in which the vessel capsized, it, did not
take a dynamic stability analysis to know that this vessel
lacked sui~eient stability. Again it was a eombint~tion
of overloading and improper operation. The vessel had
three slack fuel oil tanks and three slack ballast tanks.
It was also quite probable, although not conclusively es-
tablished, that her forward ballast tanks were cross-con-
nected and possibly also her forward fuel oil tanks. Her
mean draft was approximately 9 ft-9 in., resulting in a
h'eeboard of 2 ft-3 in. She had a 6-in. trim by the stern.
Her G21~r corrected for free surface in the ballast tanks
was 2.8 ft.
The stability curves at the time of capsizing for these
two vessels are shown in Figs. 5 and 6. These casualties,
which were extensively analyzed by the Coast Guard,
made it quite apparent that initial GM is not an accept-
able measure of intact stability for these broad, shallow-
depth vessels. W h a t then is an acceptable method[ for
judging their stability?
Rahola Stability Criteria
I n 1939 a paper, referenee [4], was published in Hel-
sinki, Finland by a young graduate student completing
his doctorate. The title was " T h e Judging of the Sta-
bility of Ships and the Determination of the Minimum
Amount of Stability." The author was J a a k k o Rahola.
Rahola first analyzed the various methods of judging sta-
bility. Among other things, he gave the pros and cons of
using initial metacentric height as a criterion. But he
along with m a n y other established stability experts of his
day believed t h a t stability could best be judged by con-
sidering the statical stability or righting moment curve.
The problem was to determine criteria for judging the ac-
ceptability of a vessel's righting moment curve.

282 MARINE TECHNOLOGY

In
-<

'.0
0

PR~MOIPA~ ~IMEH S / Q M A

Fig. 2 Outboard profile

NO
.0
 i .............

WI~DOW~:

,4

FOrECAStLE DEC~'A~GEMg~T

\_o s \
. . . . . . - ~ ; . . . . . _!L--i- - :~--- _ I _ ~ \ ; L _ _
I ,

i [ I - -
I . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . I
[ O O '
*
I

i [ I i i
I i
t . .o,. ~,.=. //
[ i . . . . .
I .....
i I
l k "
I i '
. . . . . . . . . ,. . . . . . . . . j j

Fig. 3 General arrangemen

z
m

.-I

"I-

Z
0
t-
O
0..<
 Figure 7 shows a typical righting arm curve for a con-
ventional cargo vessel. This is simply a plot of a vessel's
righting arm versus heel angle. The righting m o m e n t is /
the product of the lever between the two equal forces
~cting on the vessel in calm water as it heels times the
magnitude of the forces. The two forces are of course the
g r a v i t y force acting downward through the vessel's cen-
J \
ter of gravity and the b u o y a n t force acting upward
through the vesset's center of buoyancy. I t is common
to convert the righting m o m e n t eurve to a righting arm
curve by plotting only the lever, or righting arm, versus
angle.
Rahola discussed the various criteria for judging right-
ing arm curves t h a t had been proposed down through the
years. A t t e m p t s had been made to establish minimum
values for:
M a x i m u m righting arm
Angle of m a x i m u m righting, 0m .....: ~
Angle of vanishing stability, Olc
Looking at Fig. 7, these values are: 5.2 ft, 43 deg, and 90
deg. The range of minimum values t h a t had been sug-
gested prior to Rahola's work were generally as follows: ii
M a x i m u m righting arm, 0.6-0.8 ft
Angle of m a x i m u m righting arm, 30-40 deg
Minimum range of positive stability, 55-60 deg
These values seemed reasonable enough. The reason
they had not generally been accepted is t h a t some vessels
with proven stability had values for these criteria t h a t
fell below the minimum limits proposed.
Rahola reasoned that perhaps the area under the right-
ing arm curve might be the best overall criterion. This
area is a measure of the vessel's righting energy or dy-
namic stability. Basic minimums of the other limits
might still be needed, but they could be less conservative.
Rahola then did a statistical study of vessel casualties.
Most of the vessels studied ranged in length from 100-300
ft. As a result of his study, he arrived at certain conclu-
sions as to the dynamic stability necessary for vessel sur-
vival. He proposed t h a t for seagoing vessels the area
under the righting arm must equal 15 ft-deg up to the
least of the following angles :

40 deg
angle corresponding to m a x i m u m righting arm
angle at which openings immerse (downflooding)

Figure 8 shows a typical righting arm (RA) curve for an

offshore supply vessel. This is a good exampIe of an R A
curve which indicates satisfactory stability, but fails to
meet two of the three minimum values suggested earlier
for acceptable stability. I t does satisfy Rahola's 15
ft-deg criterion. Also plotted in Fig. 8 is a typical large
cargo vessel R A curve. The initial G M of the supply ves-
sel is more t h a n twice t h a t of the cargo vessel, yet the
shocking contrast in area under the two curves vividly
demonstrates why the magnitude of initial G M can be
totally misleading when used to judge stability.

JULY 1970 285

 15
BALLAST TANKS
~ ~ / ~ ~ N O T CROSS
L0 ~7 o I
~ CROSS C O N N E C T E D
p2
b.. S
/ I / ~ ~-- BALLAST TANKS
N"
~y" ~ CROSS CONNECTED

1 _1 \1 \ I 1 t
o .O o I0 20 30 40 50~ X 60
eo x~\
-.5
\ \
-5 \

Fig. 5 National Pride, statical stability curves Fig. 6 13orie, statical stability curves

5.0

4.0

3.0

h-

~ 2.0

1,0

o ~o 20 30 4o 50 60 7o 80 oo
eo

Fig. 7 R i g h t i n g arm curve for a c o n v e n t i o n a l c a r g o v e s s e l , 5 0 , 0 0 0 d w t

5.0

4.0

OFFSHORE @@//

3.0 _ VE.SE. /W/ _+;h ~ \

ta-

~2.0

1.0

" 1 I I IX, i i I I XI
IO 20 30 40 ~o 50 60 70 80 90

Fig. 8 C o m p a r i s o n of r i g h t i n g m o m e n t arm c u r v e s - - c o n v e n t i o n a l cargo vessel

w i t h typical offshore s u p p l y v e s s e l

286 MARINE TECHNOLOGY

 Figure 9 compares the RA curve of the typical supply |
vessel which just meets the 15 ft-deg criteria with the z.0
previously shown RA curves of the National Pride and
Boric at time of capsizing. This speaks for itself.
1.5 __ TYPICAL SUPPLY VESSEL

Coast Guard Criteria

The poor casualty record of offshore supply vessels ~ i.o

m a y be attributed to a lack of appreciation for their short ff/~ ~ "k ~ E ~ B A L L A S T TANKS
range of stability. Their high initial GM led to at least ~ .s
two pitfalls. First., it covered up the need for a more
complete stability analysis. Second, it very likely caused
poor operating practices. Vessels which capsized were o
2o 30\ )o\ so\\oo 7o
commonly found to have had m a n y slack tanks and open
,o
oo ,\\
cross-connections. This very possibly was a deliberate
a t t e m p t by the operators to produce a more comfortable -.s _
ride. As is well known, high GM results in a stiff, un- Fig. 9 Comparison of righting arm curves--typical supply
comfortable vessel. vessel with National Pride and Borie
In 1961, primarily as the result of the National Pride
tragedy, the Coast Guard began requiring that all in-
spected offshore supply vessels undergo a complete
stability analysis based on an inclining experiment.
The criterion applied was Rahola's. Cross curves of
stability were necessary to obtain righting arm curves.
The analysis determined a m a x i m u m allowable KG for a
particular displacement. I n practice KG was converted
to GM and a plot of required GM versus draft or displace-
m e n t was used to determine loading restrictions. This
was a time-consuming and costly analysis to be performed A. B/D = 2.67
on each vessel, especially since at t h a t time computers
were not yet widely used. Since hull characteristics of
offshore supply vessels were fairly standard, the Coast
Guard technical staff at Headquarters undertook a proj-
ect to see if a simplified method for determining required
GM could be developed which would give sufficiently re-
liable results. One of the authors participated in this
study. B B/D- 3.20
A basic hull was selected, and righting arm curves were
prepared. A curve of required GM versus draft was cal-
culated. The depth (D) was then varied by two feet
either way, keeping the b e a m and deadrise constant.
Required GM curves were developed for the resultant
hulls. This gave three curves of required GM versus draft,
one for each depth. These three hulls had constant
C B/D = 4.00
beam, constant deadrise, and depths of 8, 10, and 12 ft.
Six additionalhulls were studied by taking two additional Fig. lO M i d s h i p section on hulls used in Coast Guard study
values for beam (B). The depth and deadrise of these to d e v e l o p required G M curves
hulls were determined b y using the same B / D and
B/deadrise ratios as in the first three hulls. This pro-
dueed three sets of geometrically similar hulls, one set for Table 2 Characteristics of Hulls Used to Develop
each B / D ratio, as shown in Fig. 10. The characteristics Required GM Curves
of these nine hulls are given in Table 2. Hull B,% D, ft DR, in. B/D B/DR
T h e result was a series of nine curves which it was 1 32 12 12 2.67 25.6
hoped could be used to obtain reliable estimates of the 2 32 10 12 3.20 25.6
GM required to meet Rahola's criteria. A simple correc- 3 32 S 12 4.00 25.6
36 13.5 14.1 2.67 25.6
tion to draft and depth for variations in deadrise was in- 5 36 11.25 14.1 3.20 25.6
eluded. Preliminary cheeks of the reliability of the 6 36 9 14.1 4.00 25.6
curves were encouraging. In late 1962 the Coast G u a r d 7 24 9 9.4 2.67 25.6
8 24 7.5 9.4 3.20 25.6
began accepting data taken from curves for vessels with 9 24 6 9.4 4.00 25.6

JULY 1970 287

 hull forms very similar to the hulls used in their develop- acteristics used in deriving the curves. Based on cheeks
ment. The curves were not released for general use made since, the authors believe the limits can be ex-
pending a more thorough reliability check. B y 1964 panded slightly to include the larger vessels being built
sufficient data had been collected to make such a check. today. Thus the restriction on beam was increased from
The required G M obtained by analysis of righting arm 36 to 38 ft and the restriction on depth was increased fi'om
curves on several vessels was compared with the esti- 13.5 to 14 ft. Also the restriction on B / D was lowered
mated required GM from the curves. The vessels se- from 2.6 to 2.5.
lected for the check ranged in length from 65 to 146 ft. The basic Coast Guard stability criterion is still as
The hull form varied from a straight barge shape with no follows: I n all loading conditions there must be a mini-
flare to a normal rounded hull form. Table 3 gives char- mum of 15 ft-deg of area under the righting arm curve
acteristics of the hulls used. Table 4 shows the results up to the limiting angle. The Coast. Guard will, how-
of this cheek. ever, generally accept required C M data from the curves
shown in lieu of a complete Rahola study. R a n d o m
cheeks have been made to test the accuracy of the curves
Table 3 Characteristics of Vessels Used in Reliability Check since they were first distributed in 1964. I n all eases, the
on Curves of Required GM comparison has been quite dose, particularly at the criti-
Dead- cal maximum deck cargo condition.
L XB XD rise
Name (ft) (in.) Hull Form Stability Analysis
National Pride 135 X 32 X 10 15 Barge-shaped with flare
Boric (Tioga) 125 X 32 X 12 3 ]~ounded, no chine, An inclining experiment is necessary to determine
normal hull form
Rapides 127 )< 32 X 9.5 0 Barge-shaped, no flare light ship weight and centers unless data are available
M. L. Levy 146 X 36 X 10 0 Barge-shaped, no flare on a sister ship. This should be conducted ~hen the
East Harbor 65 X 24 X 8.5 24 Barge shaped with flare vessel is complete. As an aid to persons involved in con-
Vantide 130 32 X 9.5 12 Double chine, with flare
Cheramie Bo 101 X 36 X 10.3 28 Barge-shaped, no flare ducting inclining tests, the Coast Guard has prepared a
Truc #7 useful guide entitled "Stability Tests--Preparations and
Vel,ma 64.5 X 23 ;4 7.5 12 Barge-shaped, no flare Procedures." This was distributed as an enclosure to
Navigation and Vessel Inspection Circular No. 1-67,
dated March 17, 1967. Additional copies are available
Table 4 Results of Reliability Check from the Coast Guard technical oifiees.
Percent Sample loading conditions based upon the light ship
. -----Error, ft-~ ~Jrror at data are necessary to establish loading restrictions. I n
Vessel d/D = d/D = d/D =
0.75 0.80 0.75 all conditions the available G M must equal or exceed the
National Pride --0.1 0.0 --1 required G M . I n order to establish realistic assumed
Boric --0.4 --0.1 --7 loading, the Coast Guard has specified the following:
Rapides +0.3" +0.4 ~ +5~
M. L. Levy --0.5 --1.2 --6 1. The assumed LCG of the deck cargo should be
East Harbor --0.4 --1.2 --7 near the geometric center of the deck area available for
Vantide +0.5 ~ 0.6 ~ +7 ~
Additional Data Com- cargo. In no ease should it be assumed more than 7
puted Later percent of the cargo deck length forward of the geo-
Cheramie Bo Truc #7 -0.6 -0.1 -6 metric center.
Velma -0.2 -0.15 -3
2. The freeboard at the stern should n o t be less than
~ Plus indicates required GM from curves exceeds that required the following:
by Rahola analysis.
WAqJERLINE LF.NGTH~ FT ~Pl~EI]BOAI~I)
AT ~TI,;I~N~ IN.
65-99 15
100 129 18
130-154 20
Prior to the final check on reliability, the original data 155-Up 22
were plotted in dimensionless form. This reduced the
3. The assumed VCG of deck cargo should normally
nine curves to three, one for each B / D ratio. The tell-
be taken at 3.0 ft above the deck.
ability data presented in Table 4 are from the final three
curves. I n 1964 these curves were made available to de- Loading conditions meeting the foregoing criteria should
signers and builders upon request to the U. S. Coast establish:
Guard technical o~ees.
For convenience the authors have replotted the curves, 1. The maximum deck cargo that may be safely
carried.
Fig. 11. As an aid to interpolation, the three curves have
been expanded to five, with evenly spaced B / D ratios. 2. Safe combinations of reduced deck cargo and
The data obtained will be the same as that obtained from below-deck cargo or ballast.
the curves distributed by the Coast Guard. This information can then be furnished to the owner and
Another minor change is also noted. The original master for their guidance in loading and operating the
limits on beam and depth reflected the range of hull char- vessel.

288 MARINE TECHNOLOGY

Application of Stability Criteria OFFSHORE SUPPLY VESSELS
BASED ON RAHOLA'S CRITERIA

The foregoing stability criteria are n o w applicable to all

offshore supply vessels. Before leaving stability it may
0.8 --
be of interest to review this development. o
b-
The National Offshore Operations Advisory Panel was <

formed in 1959. Its objective was to consider matters I 0,7 _

pertaining to construction, inspection, lifesaving appli- m d

Ld
ances, firefighting equipment and special operating re-
quirements relating to offshore drilling projects, and sub- L 0.6 -- / WiTFA%E
<
mit recommendations to the Coast Guard Merchant g
Marine Council. The panel first met in February 1960,
just three months after eleven lives were lost on the 0.5 __ I J I _ I I l
.02 03 .04 05 .06 .07
National Pride. Naturally, stability of supply vessels .01

GMrd
was discussed. A special subcommittee was formed to K

study offshore supply vessel stability and manning. GM REQUIRED- DIMENSIONLESS FORM

Although all mechanically propelled vessels of over 15
gross tons which carry freight for hire are subject to
Coast Guard inspection, many offshore supply vessels
were operated under bareboat charter arrangements.
NOTES: ( I ) The use o f these curves is r e s t r i c t e d to offshore supply vessels which
have the f o l l o w i n g c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s :
a. They must have a w a t e r t i g h t f o r e c a s t l e o f a p p r o x i m a t e l y .25L.
b. B must be ~ i t h i n the range o f 24 to 38 f e e t .
C. D must be a i t h i n the range o f 6,0 to 14 f e e t .
d. The B/D r a t i o must be w i t h i n the range o f 2.50 to 4.00.
of g/O = 2.40 i s i n c l u d e d as an a i d to i n t e r p o l a t i o n .
The curve

Such arrangements were subject to much controversy.
Suffice it to say that if properly done, the charterer be-
comes temporary owner and may carry freight for himself
without becoming subject to inspection laws. Thus,
even though the Coast Guard began requiring a stability
analysis early in 1961, its applicability was limited.
The criterion was given wide circulation within the
offshore industry through the efforts of the special sub-
committee on stability of the National Offshore Opera-
tions Advisory Panel. Subject to much discussion and
some disagreement, the criterion was generally accepted
as being reasonable. Then in January 1963 tragedy
struck again. The uninspeeted supply vessel Diversitz/
capsized in heavy weather with loss of all five crew mem-
bers. The Diversit~d was found to have been operating
under an illegal bareboat charter. This was the clincher.
B y late 1964, the majority of the offshore supply vessels
being constructed in the Gulf were being built under
Coast Guard inspection. Stability was no longer a major
issue. The operators were being guided by loading re-
strictions b~sed on a Rahola stability analysis even
though many of them surrendered their certificate after
construction. Rahola had become a household word.
The last phase of this development came as a result of
the 1966 International Load Line Convention. The new
international regulations, ratified by the United States,
require that the master of all new vessels over 79 ft in
length be supplied with necessary stability information
in a form approved by the Administration prior to is-
suance of a load line certificate. New U. S. Coast Guard
load line regulations, implementing the International
Convention, became effective on July 21, 1968. The
Coast Guard stability criterion presented in this paper is
now applicable to any offshore supply vessel that re-
quires a load line.
Conclusion
The Rahola stability criterion was relatively un-
known in the Uaited States prior to its application to off-
(2) It is assumed t h a t there is no d o w n f l o o d i n g up to the a n g l e o f maximum
righting arm.
(3) A c o n s t a n t beam to deadrise r a t i o equal to 25.6 was used i n d e r i v i n g
the c u r v e s . For vessels h a v i n g a lessen d e a d r i s e , the curves may be used by e n t e r i n g
w i t h d r a f t s and depths c o r r e c t e d by adding to each, h a l f the d i f f e r e n c e between a
deadrise nqual to [~/25.6 and the a c t u a l d e a d r i s e . For vessels h a v i n g a g r e a t e r dead-
r i s e the reverse a p p l i e s .
Fig. 1i Curves of required G2,l
shore supply vessels. It was, however, widely known in
Europe. It is now widely known internatioaally. In
1968 as a result of casualty studies undertaken by mem-
ber nations, the International Maritime Consultative Or-
ganization (IMCO) recommended a stability criterion for
cargo and passenger vessels under 328 ft in length which is
based primarily on the area under the righting arm curve.
IMCO has also published a recommended stability cri-
terion for fishing vessels using similar criteria. The
United States does not regulate fishing vessels, but the
IMCO recommendation for fishing vessels was given wide
circulation by Navigation and Vessel Inspection Circular
No. 6-68. Thus the basic criterion being used to judge
the stability of offshore supply vessels is gaining wide
applicability.
To the knowledge of the authors, following the loss of
the Diversity in January 1963 no offshore supply vessels
capsized in this country for almost six years. Then on
November 25, 1968, the 160 ft supply vessel Triple Crown,
while engaged in picking up anchors and chain for a drill-
ing rig off Santa Barbara, California, capsized with the
loss of nine crew members. Results of the Coast Guard
investigation were published on September 11, 1969, but
were not available. It is known that the vessel had little
freeboard at the stern, and that flooding of the engine
room occurred through a weather door that was blocked
open by an anchor.
This latest casualty once again points out the obvious.
Almost any vessel can be overloaded to such a degree, or
operated in such a manner, that stability will be critical.
Offshore supply vessels because of their design and fume-

JULY 1970 289

 5.5

5.0 _ RESIDUARY RESISTANCE

5.0 RESIDUARY RESISTANCE
COEFFICIENTS OF T H E
COEFFICIENTS OF THE
PAULLING AND SILVERMAN'S
PAULLING AND SILVERMAN'S
4.5
MODELS AT I100 TON
MODELS AT 950 TON
4.5 DISPLACEMENT COMPARED
DISPLACEMENT COMPARED
TO WEBB'S SERIES
TO WE~3B'S SERIES
4.0
4.0

MODEL 3 ~,,
MODEL I Cp- .74
Cp =,786 35
3.5
e0 MODEL I
0 MODEL 4 % Cp = .792
X Cp " .75
MODEL 2 X 3.0
L 3,0 FOR ALL P. AND S. MODELS
Cp=.742 1_ ,&/('0. OI LWL)3 =301 / F MODEL 2
U F O R ALL P. AND S, MODELS
U Cp = .77
A/(0.01 LWL)3- 260
MODEL 3
2.5 F MODEL 4
2.5 Cp=.719
Cp=.76

W EBB'S SERIES WEBB S SERIES

2.0
2.0 A / (O.Ol hW L~3--2 6 0
A/(O.OI L B P ) = 2 8 6
A/(0.o, LWL)~ : 30~
A/~O.OIBPL') = 331
Cp=.70 ON LBP Cp=.70 O N LBP
Cp=.679 ON LWL Cp=.679 O N L W L
1.5
1.5

l.O L
L0 ~ / I/ I I I I __ .5 .6 .7 .8 .9 1.0 ]. [
.5 .6 .7 ,8 .9 I.O I.I
v K/J~-w~
VK ~',/EWU

Fig. 12 Residuary resistance coet~icients--950-ton model com- Fig. 13 Residuary resistance coefticients--ll00-ton model
pared to Webb's Series compared to Webb's Series

tion are particularly vulnerable. This makes it manda-
tory that the designer identify situations that should be
avoided and provide guidance on how to avoid them.
The rest is up to the operators.
Power, Speed, and Hull Forms
Because cargo is being carried on the deck, the de-
signe~ of offshore supply vessels have developed a form
that is quite different from other types of vessels. A high
beam-to-draft ratio is necessary for stability and a square
afterdeck is desired for maximum deck area. This
unique and relatively new hull form has left supply boat
designers with very little data for design, not to mention
a systematic series such as the Taylor's Standard Series
[6, 7] or the Webb's Trawler Series [8].
Hull Form
marie coefficients greater than 0.70. One reason for this
is that many offshore supply vessels were built with bow
and stern sections added to a barge-type midsection for
easy construction. Another important reason is that
owners are reluctant to sacrifice cargo-carrying capacity
for speed and seakeeping qualities.
The questions most often asked about a supply vessel,
other than the question of cost, are usually in the follow-
ing order :
1. H o w big?--usnalty referred to length.
2. H o w much cargo?--usually referred to tons of deck
cargo permitted by the U. S. Coast Guard.
3. H o w many horsepower?
4. H o w much deck area?--usually referred to after-
deck length.
5. H o w fast?

Offshore supply vessels are too full for their horsepower.
These vessels run at speed-length ratios between 0.9 to
1.1. Optimum prismatic coefficient for this speed range
is around 0.55 to 0.60 according to references [6, 7, 8,
10, 11]; while a large number of supply vessels have pris-
The trend is, however, for finer vessels because of :increas-
ing interest in speed as drilling sites continue to move fur-
ther offshore. Perhaps a good compromise between
cargo capacity and speed is a prismatic coefficient of
0.65.

290 MARINE TECHNOLOGY

 The vast majority of offshore supply vessels are of
18,0 FT. S U P P L Y VESSEL~
chined form. A well-designed chined vessel will have as A/(00L LWC)3=2se
80
good a resistance quality as a vessel of the molded form. Cp = . 6 4 5
This is shown b y the investigation of Paulling and Silver- ff /
wE~Us SER,ES~ ~ /
man in reference [9]. The chined form is superior in roll 7.0 __ ~/(00' "W9~=266 ~ . J / ,'
damping. This latter quality plus easy construction ex-
plain the popularity of chined forms.
6.0
Speed and Power
When estimating speed and power, offshore supply yes- s.o
sel designers are faced with a scarcity of published data.
Most published resistance data are for normal ship forms
which do not cover the proportions of the offshore supply - 40
vessels and the speed-length ratio in which they operate; x
i.e., vessels with displacement-length ratios of 300 and u
length-to-beam ratios of 4.0 operating at speed-length 30
ratios from 0.9 to 1.1.
The Webb Institute Trawler Series, published b y
2.0 _
iWL72;TL
Cp=.SaS ~ / J
Professor Cedric Ridgely-Nevitt, and the Tug Series
data, published by C. D. Roach [10], and D. A. Argyria-
dis [11], have helped fill this gap in the high displace- ,.o
-- ~ ~-~'N~f'- Cp='58
ment-length ratio area, even though these forms are dif-
T A Y LO R'S STANDARD SERIES
ferent from those of the offshore supply vessels. A/(0.OI LWL) 3= 153 Cp=.59
Paulling and Silverm&n published effective horsepower
,7 .8 .9 I,O I. I I. 2 :.3
( E H P ) curves of four supply vessel models in reference
[9]. Residuary resistance coefficients of these models
were calculated from these curves and, in Figs. 12 and 13,
Fig. 14 :Residuary resistance of supply and related vessels
are compared to residuary resistance coefiqeients of
Webb's Series models of the same proportions. I t should
be noted that the highest prismatic eoetfieient used in the
Webb's Series Model was 0.679 calculated on waterline Table 5
length.
I n Fig. 14, the residuary resistance eoetticient of a 1sg-ft 226-ft 175-ft
Supply Trailer Seismic
180-ft supply vessel is compared with Webb's Series and Vessel Ship Ship
Tug Series models of the same proportioi~s. This supply LWL,rft-in ............. 170-0 217-6 175-0
vessel has a double-chined hull with keel drag since she Beam, ft-in . . . . . . . . . . . . . 38-0 44-0 32-0
Mean Draft, ft-in . . . . . . . . 11-10 10-3 9-0
was designed for towing in addition to being a supply Displacement, Tons . . . . . 1305 1570 728
vessel. Block Coefficient . . . . . . . . 0. 595 0. 560 0. 506
Also plotted in Fig. 14 are residuary resistance eoeffi- Prismatic Coefficient . . . . . 0. 645 0. 588 0.581
Midship Coefficient. . . . . . 0. 923 0. 953 0. 871
d e n t s of two vessels which are not supply vessels, but are A/(0.01 LWL) a. . . . . . . . . 266 153 136
similar to this group. The 226-ft trailer ship has a Shp . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4300 3200 2400
double-chined form quite similar to an offshore supply
vessel. Her waterline b e a m is as wide at the transom as
it is at midship. The 175-ft seismographic ship de-
signed by Breit Engineering C o m p a n y of New Orleans, Vk = speed, knots
Louisiana, has a very fine molded form. The charac- One of the reasons for the high resistance of the offshore
teristics of these vessels are as given in Table 5. supply vessels is their large wetted surface due to the
The data of the latter two vessels are given here to repre- squared stern. Average wetted surface coefficients of
sent the fine vessels. The 180-ft supply vessel represents these models and a number of supply vessels are shown
a medium-fine hull while the Paulling and Silverman's in Fig. 16, where:
models represent the fuller hulls.
For those who prefer the British system, the C coeffi- S
Wetted surface coefficient -

cients of these models, corrected for 100-ft length, are ~/V X LwL
plotted in Fig. 15 for comparison, where:
and
( ehp
(~) = \ ~ a J 427.1
V = volumetric displacement, c u f t

and S --- wetted surface, net, sq ft

JULY 1970 291

 WEB'S SE yS / / 3.10
,,/co.o, LW0
Cp=.70 / /
// /
180 FT. SUPPLY BOAT--)... / / 3.00
22 A/(0.0I LWL)3= 266 /~/ /'
Cp=.645
2.90
2.0_ A/(0.01 LWL)3=266f 3. 5
Cp=.645 ~ //

1.8 PAULLING AND SILVERMAN'S f~// / / 2.80 ~ \ s~,~ ~ o~.o~

-- MODELS ,,2,3,~4 /,/ /? \ ~ o ~ ~/>G~
a/(O.Ol LWL)3=3Ol I / / / 2.70
1.6 -- MODEL
cp=.76 4 ~ k)3/~/ / -- ~ "--WEBB~S SERIES
g
226 FT
@ MODEL 3 ~ TRAILER 2.60 I __ I I _ I I
1.4 -- Cp =,74 SHIP .55 .60 .65 .70 .75 .80
MODEL 2 ~ . ~ A/(O.Ol LW
=15~ / Cp
Cp--.77 Cp~.588 //"
-- MODEL I ~ / Fig. 16 Wetted-surface coefficients o f supply vessels
Cp=,792 // 175 FT SEISMOGRAPHIC
SHIP
/ A/(O.OI LWL.)3= 136
,.o _ / cp=.58,

curves represent vessels with keel coolers, underwater

formed plate or half pipe fenders, and norln'~l amount of
anodes.
I I__ I I I I I
.6 .7 .8 .9 1.0 I.I 12 1.3 Propeller Rotation
VK~/,/L W L.
With only a very few exceptions, offshore supply vessels
Fig. 15 ~100o f supply vessels have twin screws and twin rudders. A question often
asked is : Which way should the propellers turn?
Model tests have shown t h a t vessels with wide square
sterns, such as the offshore supply vessels, are in most
eases slightly more efficient with inboard tm'ning pro-
No a t t e m p t is made to draw conclusions from these
comparisons as the data available are insufficient. I t is pellers; i.e., when going ahead the starboard propeller
turns counterclockwise and the port propeller turns clock-
suggested t h a t a designer m a y use Webb's Series or Tug
Series for ehp estimation, keeping in mind that these hull wise viewed from the stern.
In the ease of the 226 ft trailer ship, the outboard turn-
forms are different, and make allowance for the differ-
ing propellers required 9 percent more developed horse-
enees at his own discretion.
power than the inboard turning propellers with the ship
Hull resistance computed by use of the published data
tutoring at the same speed. For the 175 ft seismographic
is for bare hull only. I t is suggested t h a t for a vessel with
streamlined rudders and normal appendages such as strut ship this difference was only 1 percent more for the out-
arms and underwater fenders, the folIowing allowance board turning propellers and for the 180 ft supply vessel
the difference was insignificant.
be added to the bare-hull resistance :
Because of the interest of some owners in the ability to
"walk" a vessel, self-propelled tests were carried out to
Allowance Allowance
without keel with keel determine the influence of propeller rotation on "walk-
V#~/L cooler, percent cooler, percent ing." The t e r m "walking" means to move a vessel lat-
0.9 15 19 22-26 erally, say to the starboard side, by putting the port en-
1.0 11-14 17-20
1.1 9-11 12 14 gine ahead and starboard engine astern with the rudders
I .2 8-10 10 12 turned to port.
Figure 18 shows the result of walking tests for the out-
D a t a h'om self-propelled tests of some models and trial board turning screws and Fig. 19 shows the result of the
run results of a number of offshore supply vessels are tests for the inboard turning screws. I t should be noted
plotted in Fig. 17 in the form of Admiralty Coefficient that the negative F in these figures means the lateral
versus speed-length ratio for several prismatic eoeffi- force is to the starboard side. I t can be seen t h a t the
dents. This data m a y be used for rough speed and power vessel with inboard turning propellers will have higher
estimation in the preliminary design stage. These lateral force F while the turning moment M can be kept

292 MARINE TECHNOLOGY

 + 5;,000
180 - - RUDDER ANGLE

160
_J
0 F i-
W
t.) - 5,000
140
0
h MOMENT M ~ \ 4- 3

- - I0~000
T~ 120

U)
O
I00 Z 2OO
",d
RUBDER ANOLE / /

ZLLL
O
< 3o TO PORT ~ / / _- i o
CO 45 TO RORT ~ / / - - - 2 :~
<1 80 150

o % W
G:
U

:LZL> V/ :t
60 O3 I 0 0
d
133
F- //" PORT [ { STBD
4O o3 // SCREW I I I ] SCREW
b- 5 0 __ // AHEAD iT I BACKING
o // TURNING I I f I TURNING
OUTBOARD ~ INBOARD

20 EL.
L 1 J L~ 1 .......
0 .50 IOO 150 200
RPM OF P O R T SCREW RUNNING AHEAD
I I I I I I I Fig. 18 "Walking" test of 180-ft supply vessel--outboard
90 .95 1.00 1.05 1.10 1.15 1,20 1.25
turning
VK/,/L-~

Fig. 17 Average Admiralty Coefficients of supply vessels

I
+ 5~000

4
very close to zero and, thereby, lateral movement can CO FORC E F
be achieved. In the case of the vessel with outboard O

turning propellers it is difficult to keep the turning mo- L

+5 _J
ment down. W i
L) - 5 ~ 0 0 0 +4L
G:
Conclusion 0
b_ RUDDER ANGLE ~/ + 3
30 TO PORT / '0
A good deal of design and operating experience with - [O~O00 +2 X
these broad, shallow-draft vessels has been accumulated RUDDER ANGL :~
over the past fifteen years. JFuture vessels should reflect 45 + I
0
this experience. Certainly one of the most attractive Z 200 O 7
x-" W
features of offshore supply vessels is their simplicity in U RUDDER ANGL
<
both design and construction. Bug time spent in pre- 113
30 TO PORT __ I 0
4 5 TO P O R T - ~
liminary design may still reap large dividends. A simple 150
]
-- -2
thing like trim may give one vessel an advantage over W R PM - - - - ~ /..\
rY / - 3
another of the same proportions. L)
STBD. SCREW
/

This paper has discussed some of the problems relating 09 IOO

to trim, transverse stability, and powering. It is hoped ffl
that the information presented will be useful in the design I-- PORT STBD
o3 SCREW SCREW
of future vessels. LL 50 AHEAD BACKING
o TURNING TURN ING
INBOARD OUTBOARD
Acknowledgments
CL
El:: I J L i
The authors wish to acknowledge the work done in 0 5o ioo i50 2o0
1960 t h r o u g h 1962 b y Mr. W. E. L\.iagee and C D R W. P~. RPM OF P O R T S C R E W RUNNING AHEAD
Bleakley, Jr., USCG, in connection with the preparation Fig. 19 "Walking" test of 180-ft supply vessel--inboard
of the original curves of required (;M for offshore supply turning

JULY 1970 293

vessels. Mr. Magee and C D R Bleakley were then both
attached to the Merchant Marine Technical Division,
U. S. Coast Guard Headquarters, Washington, D. C.
The authors also wish to thank the American Marine
Corporation for permission to use data from their files;
a.nd Tidewater Marine Service and Breit Engineering
Company, both of New Orleans, Louisiana, for furnish-
ing much useful information.
References
1 Rules for Building and Classing Steel Barges for
Offshore Service, American Bureau of Shipping, 1967.
2 Rules for Building and Classing Steel Vessels,
American Bureau of Shipping, 1969.
3 U. S. Coast Guard vessel casualty files, Coast
Guard Headquarters, Washington, D. C.
4 Jaakko Rahola, " T h e Judging of the Stability of
Ships and the Determination of the Minimum Amount of
Stability," Thesis for Doctor of Technology, University
of Finhmd, Helsinki, 1939.
5 Principles of Naval Architecture, edited by John P.
Comstock, SNAME, 1967.
6 D . W . Taylor, "The Speed and Power of' Ships,"
U: S. Government Printing O~ice, 1943.
7 Morton Gertler, "A t~eanalysis of the Original
Test Data for the Taylor Standard Series," David W.
Taylor Model Basin Report 806, March 1954.
8 Cedric Ridgely-Nevitt, " T h e Resistance of a High
Displacement-Length Ratio Trawler Series," Trans.
SNAME, vol. 75, 1967.
9 J. R. Paulling, Jr., and Maxwell Silverman,
"Model Studies for an Oceanographic Ship Derived From
an Offshore Supply Vessel," Ma~,~E TECHNOLOGY,VO1.4,
no. 4, October 1967.
10 C . D . Roach, "Tugboat Design," Trans. SNAME,
vol. 62, 1954.
11 Dotes A. Argyriadis, "Modern Tug Design with
Particular Emphasis on Propeller Design, Maneuver-
ability, and Endurance," Trans. SNAME, vol. 65, 1957.

Discussion

R. H. Macy, Member: This paper is a valuable I0

addition not only to the knowledge of offshore supply
vessels, but of stability and powering in general. I t is
<
one of those uncommon, highly readable papers which is
at the same time directly applicable to practical design
work. The detailed tabulation of properties of supply
vessels is both complete and useful.
The discusser was involved in the modification of a
supply vessel, the Rio Haina, to carry containers for CALCUL~ED~/~ ~ '
Sea-Land Serviee, Inc. The dimensions of this vessel
are as follows :
Length overall, ft-in . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 166-0
Length on 9-ft waterline, R-in . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 160-0
Beam, R-in . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 38-0
Depth, R-in . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12-0 P" /
Draft, load libra, R-in . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10-1~ h. /
Draft, operating, R-in . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9-1
Since the containers are carried on deck, three-high
g /
forward and two-high aft, stability was the limiting
factor on loading. In addition to determining the re-
quired metacentric height (GM) by the Coast Guard
formulation described in this paper, direct calculations
were also made of the righting arms, from which were
produced required GM data to compare with the Coast
Guard basis. Both are plotted in Fig. 20, and it will be 5 6 7 8 9
noted that at the operating draft of 9 ft-1 in. the required REQUIRED GM, F i"E
values were equal. At deeper drafts the direct calcula-
tion indicated a very slightly higher required GM, while Fig. 2 0 M V Rio Haina--required GM
at lesser drafts, somewhat less.
The stability requirements outlined in the paper are
based on still water. A paper by J. R. Paulling, " T h e significant differences in righting levers occur, as a re-
Transverse Stability of a Ship in a Longitudinal Seaway," sult of the altered geometry of the immersed hull in
in Journal of Ship Research, !V[areh 1961, points out that waves, as well as a differing pressure distribution over the
in a wave moving in the same direction as the vessel, hull due to wave-induced fluid motion.

294 MARINE TECHNOLOGY

 NO CHANGEINWATERPLANE.
DUETO VERTICALSIPES7
/ 2
~I:)UE TO WATERPLANEL O S T PUg
T'~O
EMERGENCE OF STERN SLOPING SIDES.
Fig. 21 Lost waterplane of ship in wave
I t is apparent t h a t in a wall-sided vessel with long
parallel sides, and with a wave crest at midships, there is
no gain in waterplane m o m e n t of inertia near midships.
However, at the bow, where the sides are sloping, there
is a loss of waterplane. Aft, the stern m a y actually be
out of the water, resulting in a further loss in waterplane
m o m e n t of inertia. This situation is shown in Fig. 21.
While the Paulling paper provides a method of esti-
mating this effect, direct calculations were made for the
Rio Haina, using a wave 160 ft long and 8 ft high, with
the crest at midships. Figure 22 shows the comparison
of the righting lever curves in still water and in this
wave, and it will be seen t h a t there is a great reduction in
the m a x i m u m value of righting lever, and some reduction
in the range of positive stability.
The Paulling paper also deals with dynamic effects
which were not considered. F r o m a practical point of
view, we were not greatly concerned about the loss of
stability in the L / 2 0 wave, as such a wave, travelling
along with the ship, would have a speed of about 17 knots,
which is above the speed capability of the ship. There-
fore the wave would be in the crest-midships position
only momentarily, and would pass on. Shorter or
longer waves would be less critical.
Perhaps the reason why there is not much apparent
concern about the loss of stability in waves m a y be t h a t
Rahola had it in mind when he selected the 15 ft-deg
criterion, which was adopted after a study of vessel
casualties, which m a y have taken this into account.
Would the authors comment on this point?
M. Kawasaki, Member: The authors deserve con-
gratulations for presenting an excellent paper in a field
where technical papers are scanty. Following are some
comments and questions:
1 The history of how the U. S. Coast Guard arrived
at the present criteria is another example of their eompe-
tenee I come to appreeiate more as years go by.
2 I n Fig. 11, why is limitation imposed on B and D?
With dimensionless presentation, I wonder, should not
the criteria hold true regardless of the size as long as
geometrical similarity is maintained?
3 Regarding the choice of propeller rotation based
upon efficiency, I agree with the author# conclusion from
JULY 1970
.STILL WATER
t~
// \\
Z.\
/WAVE
'
I0 20 30 40
HEElm DEGREES
Fig. 22 MV Rio Haina righting levers, still water vs. wave
m y own experience. However, for the expression "vessels
with wide square stern" m a y I suggest substituting
"vessels with flat b o t t o m shell in way of propeller."
The following expression is also valid: "Vessels with
V-shaped stern in way of outboard4urning propellers
are in most eases slightly more efficient than those with
inboard-turning propellers." These expressions are
quoted from a testing tank authority.
4 I n addition to "walking," clarification m a y be
needed for "twisting." I n maneuvering a vessel be-
tween parallel and angled positions along a pier, "twist-
ing" m a y be more important than "walking" because
m o v e m e n t of one end of the vessel from or to the wharf
in reference to the other end is critical. I n such cases
would not outboard-turning propellers be preferred?
In "twisting" or "walking" a long flotilla or barge
ahead of a towboat or tug, it really means between the
two since the center of twisting is far ahead of the vessel.
R. E. Schuller, Member: Mr. M o k and C o m m a n d e r
Hill have made an important contribution to the in-
dustry b y the publication of this paper, whieh for the
first time gives offshore supply boat designers and opera-
tots a collection of data t h a t can be of inestimable use in
the preparation of' new designs.
As an interesting comparison, in Fig. 23 the discusser
has selected some 15 designs from his files and plotted
average curves of' proportions and weights and eompared
them with the "average" particulars depicted in Fig. 1 of
the paper.
Generally speaking, the vessels were narrower of
beam t h a n "average," but of greater depth. I n all
eases the S & A vessels over 120 ft in length were double-
chined and those less than 120 ft in length were single-
chined.
This eomparison shows several reasonably i m p o r t a n t
differences. I t is noted that in most eases the light ship
is some 50 tons less t h a n the averages shown in Fig. 1.
This can be related back to a coefficient of 0.49 as op-
posed to the coefficient of 0.55 given early in the paper
295
 MOK ~. HILL AVERAGF- / .

35 /- --IZoo ;z

l-
b.
<

c~

o
J
/

/
l
-- tooo ~.
g

r-

25 / ~oo g
/
/
/
ZO -- ~ 600

/ LI6HTSNIP " ~

60 80 IO0 I'ZO 140 160 1~,0 2o0

LENGTH BETWEEN PERPENDICULARS (FEET)

Fig. 2 3 Comparisons of averages of 15 Schuller & Allan designs with averages of 20
designs in Fig. 1

for a preliminary estimation of light ship weight in the
formulaL X B X D/100 X coefficient.
It is also noted that because the depth of the S & A
vessels is greater than the Mok & Hill averages, the
draft is somewhat greater. Probably the greatest
difference, however, is the beam, and consequently the
displacement.
It was at first thought that the prismatic coefficients
would also be less because of the great difference in dis-
placement; however, checks of several of the S & A
prismatic coefficients showed them to be in excess of
0.70.
The cargo carrying capabilities of the S & A designs are
somewhat less than the average shown in the paper due
mainly to the decrease in beam; however, because of the
extra depth, the difference is negligible and seakindliness
is improved.
There is a new breed of supply vessel developing which
will probably have characteristics somewhat different
from those discussed in the paper. This group is the
combination supply vessel towing vessel.
The offshore oil operators desire a vessel working
around their rigs that can both supply the rig and move it
from location to location. This requires even more
horsepower than is normal for supply vessels, and, due to
the large wheels required, the after body is cut away, thus
moving the LCB forward. These vessels are usually
equipped with two-speed gears with some 30 to 60-rpm
differential between the low and high shaft speed. The
development of this type of vessel will be interesting to
follow.
M y compliments again to the authors on an excellent
paper.
Authors' Closure
The authors thank all of the discussers for their kind
comments.
The information offered by Mr. Macy provides a
valuable addition to the paper. The loss of stability
with a wave crest amidship was investigated by the
Coast Guard following the Natiortal Pride casualty. In
still water as loaded, with ballast tanks cross-connected,
the Natiorta[ Pride had about 5 ft-deg of righting energy.
With a wave crest amidships, theoretical calculations
showed this was reduced to zero. This certainly leads
one to hypothesize that this factor contributed to the
casualty. Initially, the Coast Guard imposed an addi-
tional 0.4 of a foot of GM because of this. In the finnl
analysis, however, we did reason as Mr. M a e y suggested
that the possible loss of righting energy while on a wave
crest is inherent in Rahola's criterion. Very simply
he (Rahola) decided that vessels with a minimum of
15 ft-deg of righting energy had a very high probability

296 MARINE TECHNOLOGY

of survival under all conditions to which they might be
subjected, except for shifting cargo. Mr. M a c y ' s dia-
gram showing the loss of righting energy on the Rio
Haina due to a wave crest amidship shows how significant
this factor can be. I n addition to the work done b y
Paulling, the Russians produced a method for estimating
this loss which they presented to I M C O a few years ago.
Their work is available at Coast Guard Headquarters.
The answer to Mr. Kawasaki's question on why the
limitation on B and D is one word--caution. I t is true
t h a t theoretieMly there is no limit on B and D, but only
on the B/D ratio. However, methods of shortcutting
stability cMeulations are fraught with danger. The
limitations were imposed to restrict the use of the curves
to cover only vessels with proportions in the range t h a t
had been checked.
Mr. Kawasaki is correct in his suggestion that it is the
flatness of the stern in w a y of the propellers rather t h a n
the squareness of the stern t h a t brings on the better
efficiency of inboard-turning screws.
The 226-ft trailer ship has a flat and wide stern in way
of the propellers which has shown considerable advantage
with the inboard screws. The 175-ft seismographic ship
has a rounded section stern while the 180-ft supply
vessel has moderate V-sections in way of the propellers.
These vessels do not show appreciable advantage with
the inboard-turning screws.
With regard to Mr. Kawasaki's comments on "walk-
ing" and "twisting," perhaps a theory for this m a n e u v e r
we called "walking" is in order. The lateral force t h a t
causes the vessel to move to one side comes from the lift
by the rudder behind a solid stream of water by the
ahead screw, or the port screw in this case. This lifting
force will be to the starboard side. The starboard rud-
der offers praetieMly no lift because it is in the suction
side of the propeller where the water is approaching in a
confused manner rather than a solid stream.
I n the ease of the vessel with outboard-turning screws,
the starboard propeller, which turns counterclockwise
when going astern, throws a stream of water to the star-
board side of the hull. This action creates a lateral force
which not only opposes the lift by the port rudder, but
also adds to the unbManee m o m e n t b y the screw action.
The starboard propeller of a vessel with inboard-turn-
ing screws when going astern will throw a stream of water
away from the hull. This m a y be the explanation of the
better "walking" ability of vessels with this arrangement.
JULY 1970
I t appears then, that the "wMking" quality of a vessel
often opposes her "twisting" quality. However, for a
twin-screw vessel with adequate spacing between the two
propellers and without unusual angularity between the
two shafts, "twisting" or maneuvering along a pier is
seldom a problem regardless which way the screws turn.
I n "twisting," the rudders can be turned to the opposite
direction to aid the "twisting" m o m e n t of the screw
action rather than in opposition as the case of "walking. '~
Mr. Schuller's comparisons of the average particulars
between the Schuller & Allan designs and d a t a shown in
Fig. 1 are very interesting. Engineers often benefit
from each other b y comparing notes.
As Mr. Schuller has pointed out, the Schuller & Allan
vessels are generally deeper in depth and narrower in
beam. This of course is a m a t t e r of choice.
The drafts given in Fig. 1 and Table 1 are load line
drafts assigned b y the American Bureau of Shipping.
These drafts usually amount to 85 percent of the depth
of the vessels. A check into the Schuller & Allan curves
gives draft-to-depth ratios of about 80 percent. Perhaps
design drafts have been used for the plotting. Should
this be the case, it will explain the lower displacements
shown by Mr. Schuller's curve.
Design drafts of offshore supply vessels are somewhat
less t h a n the load line drafts because these vessels do not
always operate at the m a x i m u m deck drafts assigned.
I t can be seen from Table 1 t h a t under the m a x i m u m
deck cargo condition an offshore supply vessel is per-
mitted to be loaded to approximately 75 percent of her
depth.
The larger beams shown by the authors' curve, par-
ticularly for the smaller vessels, are influenced by a
group of vessels between 60 and 100 ft long with "postage
s t a m p " proportions. These are the short and b e a m y
vessels such as ships 1, 2 and 3 in Table 1. These vessels
can carry a large quantity of deck cargo for their sizes
and have been favorites of some owners.
Regarding light ship weights it should be pointed out
that the weights shown in Table 1 and Fig. 1 are aetuM
light ship weights of the vessels as determined b y in-
clining experiments.
The 180-ft supply vessel, the characteristics of which
are given in Table 5 is one of such vessels as described
by Mr. Schuller designed for rig towing and equipped
with two-speed gears.
297