Ocean Engng. \'oI. 6, pp. 58 1-592.

Pergamon Press Ltd. 1979. Printed in Great Britain

C'Rs-DIAGRAMS FOR DESIGN CALCULATIONS OF THE

STABILITY OF SHIPS
H. E. GULDHAMMER
Department of Ocean Engineering, The Technical University of Denmark, Lyngby, Denmark
AbstractThis paper describes the development of a fast diagrammatic method to determine
the geometric part of a ship's stability lever, the MS. Additionally, diagrams are given of the
contribution to the stability of erections: deck houses and superstructures. The methods are
intended for use in the design work.

LIST OF SYMBOLS
Li,,, Length for calculation. Length between perpendiculars, but defined here as 0.97 length of waterline.
For the merchant ship area the definition in the International Convention on Load Lines may be
used.
The stability lever is independent of L, but the definition influences the size of 6 and a.
L- Length atLWL
B Breadth moulded atLWL
D Depth moulded, from BL to lowest point of calculation deck at side
D1 Depth corrected for sheer. D1 = D ± (S + Si.)
D11 Depth corrected for sheer and erections. D11 = D1 ± + D'8
LD Basis correction for deck-houses. D =
L8Bcz
D'H Correction for deckhouses at heel .-D'ff =
h8!8 ± h
iD8 Basis correction for superstructures. D8 -
aD'8 Correction for superstructures at heel p. D'8 = k3fD
EV Total volume of deck-houses considered
h, I, Height and length of poop iTo be measured ;it hin
h,, F,, Height and length of forecastle Jperpendiculars only
kH Correction factor for deck-houses. From Fig. 3
k8 Correction factor for superstructures. From Fig. 4
BL Moulded Baseline. Defined in the figures
Definition of L Definition of BL.
PP Tk.T 0gB
CL
Midship section K
LWL IWL
Calculation WI

1/2
Lpp:O.97 1WL

L wL

581
 -

582 H. E. GULDHAMMER

T Draft to BL of calculation waterline

T Draft to BL of LWL
T15 Draft for calculating coefficients D, 1.5
LWL Design load waterline
5A Sheer aft lat side
S, Sheer forward fat side
Note The term "moulded" will be piain only in the case of steel ships. For wooden ships the
above definitions should all be to outside of planking.
y Displacement volume
& Block coefficient
LB-T
&g Block coefficient at T = T (at LWL)
ö Block coefficient at T = T15 DJl.S
'i Waterplane coefficient at T = Tif; a
- (at LWL)
U "Waterplane" coefficient of calculation deck
(3 Midship section coefficient
= B7' pres
(3 Midship section coefficient at T = T (Lft'L)
(3 Midship section coefficient at T = T15 = D1/l.5 leve
Note The (3 is defined here by means of midship section area, and not by largest secdonal area. kno
T/B Draft-breadth ratio
D11,8 Depth-breadth ratio j Main parameters in the diagrams
Angle of heel dete1
GM Metacentric height seve
BM Metacentric radius
GZ Stability lever coe
)
MS Residury stability lever 1GZ = Gi1sin + MS
C33 Residuary stability coefficient by 'J
CR3 = i'.'ÍS/BM = C,' ± m [(3, -- 0.75) - b (I - (3) (8 - 0.50)]
C'38 Value of C33 for standard conditions. From diagrams Fig. 6
ni i
Correcting factor for deviation of 3 from standard. From diagram Fig. 7
b Correcting factor for deviation of b from standard. Printed in calculation fonn.

INTRODUCTION 1.
STABILITY of ships is as important as ever. In spite of recent research involviug modern here
theories for ship movements, the f'act remains that classical stability ideas still exist and
that the results of any such research has to refer to the classical idea of GM and the stability
curve.
In spite of the fact that the calculation necessary to determine these parameters will be
no problem today thanks to modern computer techniques, there will still be a need for Il!
rapid diagrammatic methods for use in the design stage of a ship. Some of these methods
so io
viJl be mentioned below, one of which will be the main theme of this article.
j.c. bi
THE "47-METHOD" I'
In 1947 Professor C. W. Prohaska published a paper, "Residuary Stability". Here the Tech:
a met.
stability lever GZ was proposed divided as follows:
ii
After
GZ = MS + GM. sin p only s.
as illustrated in Fig. I.
The advantage of this is that GZ is split into a purely geometric part MS, and a part
Tu
containing the familiar stability parameter GA'!. The stability data of a ship could now be
metho

- -.
 Cdiagrams for design calculations of the stability of ships 583

Fio. 1. Definition of the MS.

presented in a very practical way, making possible a direct reading of the size of the stability
lever at any angle of heel, if only the displacement and the metacentric height GM were I
known, see Fig. 2.
However, the major part of the paper from 1947 described an approximate method to
determine MS. The method was based on a large number of stability calculations from
several shipyards and from different countries. The results were presented as diagrams of a
coefficient on the "residuary stability lever" MS.
The "residuary stability coefficient" CRS is defined as the MS made non-dimensional
by division by BM, the metacentric radius, thus:

MS
BM

The only parameters besides the heel p are the draft ratio T/B and the depth ratio D1/B
here depth corrected for sheer thus:

D1 = D ± SA 4-SF
6

In spite of the very simple construction this diagram gave relatively excellent results
so long as the ships examined were ordinary merchant ship types having not too fine lines,
i.e. block coefficient ought to be larger than say 0.65.
At the Shipbuilding Department (now Department of Ocean Engineering) of the
Technical University of Denmark, responsible for the 47-method, work on development of
a method to cover finer shipforms was attempted using systematically varied forms.
The work appeared, however, much more difficult than expected and was suspended.
After the introduction of electronic computation, the research was revived to include not
only simplified forms but a new systematical series of "real ship forms".

STABILITY DIAGRAMS FOR FINER SHIP FORMS

This work resulted in a new approximate method, the "61-method", or
method", or more precisely the coordinate-method. The method was published in
 584 H. E. GULDHAMMER

o 10° 20' 30° 40° 50° 60° 700 800 P 900

+ 1.0
MS H w
[m] GZrM5#GM.sinço h

L4j!!!!
I

0,5 Q5
H
ve
0
o
k
., ,
--

kIil
'J N 47
-0.5 *q5 re
GM. sin '.p
(m]
a
-1,0 * 1,0 wi
, ___u of
' -'
I

-1,5 .1,5
13

-2,0 +2,0
'

-2,5 2,5
the
FIG. 2. Stabiflty-diagram for ship's use. by

Prohaska (1961). The method allows a much safer determination of the MS for finer ships
However, this improved accuracy has to be paid for by a substantial enlargement of the
work involved. wh
The 47-method allows the determination of a complete stability curve in only a few Cor
minutes. The 61-method will, even if enlarged to last a few hours, still give a relatively fast eq u
determination. also

STABILITY DIAGRAMS FOR FISHING SHIP FORMS

Since the investigations described, work on stability problçms has continued constantly
in the department. In 1972 results were published from work based on an extension at the asto
61-method intended to cover the fishing vessel area (Guldhammer et al., 1972). reali
However, the attraction of the ultra-fast 47-method still persisted and this paper con- I
tains the results of research on an extension of this method too. Furt
The work was based on results from practical stability calculations, as was the original
47-method, but now based on fishing vessels. Only calculations carried out on electronic
computer were employed. The material involved consisted of commercial calculations and
the spread in ship size and type was considerable.
The variation included size and type of erections too. The initial work, therefore, largely
consisted in "cleaning" the material influencing these erections. The investigations princi-
pally involved the development of a method to divide the actual MS-value in two parts, the
one from the hull proper, and the other from the erections. Based on these "cleaned"
stability data a new version of the 47-diagram was constructed, covering the fishing boat
area.

THE FINAL VERSION OF THE c3-DIAGRAM

In 1974-75 a revision was made adding a lot of new material. The material now corn-
 4L..-;; :
C',-diagrams for design calculations of the stability of ships 585

prises a total of 8 flush deck vessels, 13 vessels having poop and/or forecastle, and 35 vessels
with deck houses. Additionally there are 14 ships with poop/forecastle as well as deck
houses.
Naturally, to get the accuracy required, it proved necessary to deviate from the original
very simple version. Some dependency ori fineness had to he employed, and the dependency
was on both S and 3. -

This double-dependency has given difficulty ever since the first attempts to expand the
47-method. Here the problem was solved by giving a simple set of C$-diagrams cor-
responding to standardized values of S and f3, combined with another set of diagrams giving
a correction factor in allowing for the variation with f3. Very fortunately the variation
with S could without appreciable error be rated proportional to the mfor any constant angle
of heel. However, the influence of S has to be diminished with increasing f3, being zero at
f3 = I as will be seen in the formula below.

The standardized values chosen are:

S = 0.50 and f = 0.75,

these being near the average values for the examined material. The CRS now is determined
by the equation:

C'RS = C'RS + in {(f3 - 0.75) - b (I - f3) (S - 0.50)},

where C'RS is the value from Fig. 5, ¡n is the correction coefficient for f3 from Fig. 6. The
corresponding coefficient for the variation with S is -
in.b.(1 - f3), thus giving the above
equation. The values of b are fixed for every p and are stated on the in-diagrams, but will
also be found printed in the calculation form.

THE RANGE OF THE NEW Ç,DIAGRAM

As the new method was developed from results in the fishing boat area, it was quite
astonishing to find that in spite of the very big extrapolations required the method still gave
realistic results for merchant ships.
In fact, comparison with values froin the 47-diagram gave only small differences.
Further control analysis with forms from Prohaska (1961) disclosed that with only a few

0 r

o
02 03 04 05 VB 06
Ftc. 3. Correction factor k for deck-houses.
586 H. E. GULïHAMMEI

2
k5

-----HH---
t I
-
7
______ I

60°

o
02 03 04 05 T/B 06
Fio. 4. Correction factor k3 for superstructures.

corrections the new diagram would give even better results than the 47-diagram, which has
to cover a large area without any dependency on the form coefficients.
The new C-diagram with fineness corrections thus seems to be able to replace ail
other approximative methods including the 47- and 61-methods.

CORRECTIONS FOR ERECTIONS C

The development of the corrections for erections was to a large degree based on the
analysis of calculations for ships with deck houses as these ships formed the largest group.
The relatively small number of flush deck vessels were used afterwards as a control.
Analogous with the correction for sheer is the correction for erections applied as an
addition to the depth D. The following definition is used:

D11 = D1 + ± ¿Ds. C

I
Here D11 is the depth to he used as parameter in the C-diagram. D1 is the depth
corrected for sheer (D1 = D ± (Sf1 + SF)!6). t1
The D11 and ¿D are corrections for deck-houses and superstructures (poop and fore-
castle), respectively. These corrections are defined as IDH = k11. ¿0D11 and D = in
k. ¿ODH, where 0D,1 and 0D are basis-corrections and the k11 and k are factors which
are functions of the heel as well as draft, and are presented as diagrams in Figs. 3 and 4.
The basis-correction for deck-houses is

= EV
. B.

This definition corresponds to the increase in depth caused by distributing the volume of the
deck-house over the whole deck area. The E, is the total volume of the deck-houses etc. (l
considered, and D is the "waterpia!e" coefficient of the calculation deck (upper deck). I
This D may seem a little inconvenient; it is not generally known beforehand but is very th
easy to determine on a design, where the upper deck plan is always drawn and the area may
be measured. al
 C',-diagrarns for csign calculations of the stability of ships 587

The basis-correction for superstructures is

¡ ¡f
I0D = h,, - H-

- Here h,, and and Iij and !.- are height and length of the poop and forecastle, respec-
tively. The lengths are measured within the perpendiculars only.
The absence in this case of 0 is purely empirical. No gain in accuracy was obtained by
including such a coefficient.
Only poop and forecastle are presented in the above formulation. The material examined
did not contain ships with a midship superstructure, but if such a superstructure should be
present it must naturally be included. The weighting of such a superstructure relative te a
poop forecastle is a little doubtful, however.
It may be surprising that the correction factors may exceed 1. But the effect of an
erection will, at large angles, be greater than of the same volume distributed over the whole
L
deck, thanks to the height of the erection.
REMARKS ON THE CALCULATION
The calculation form Fig. 7 may be used at the calculations. A sample calculation ;
shown (Fig. 8). The resulting MS-curves are shown in Fig. 9. The corresponding computer
calculated curves are plotted for comparison.
The block coefficient and midship section coefficient to be used in the calculations will
in principle be those at the design load draft TK, and not at the actual draft.
This may however introduce calculation errors in cases where Dl'TK is substantially
different from 1.5 which is the standard value of the method. In such cases the values of
6 and at a draft corresponding to DI/T = 1.5 ought to be used, even if only roughly
calculated or estimated values may be obtained.
The definition of the main dimensions will seldom be essential for merchant ships.
Troubles and quite unnecessary errors may arise with fishing boat forms however if the
designer does not use main dimensions in accordance with the definitions demanded by
the method.
Length is not a parameter in the stability calculation directly, but the definition has
influence on the size of 6. The depth and draft are moulded dimensions but here too the
definition of the base line must be correct in relation to the method.
The symbol list explains the definitions to be used in the method.

THE PROBLEM OF FORM-TYPE

The diagrams, the new as well as the old 47- or 61-diagrams are valid for "Normal-
form" ships, le. those having neither distinct U- nor V-shaped sections. The problem of
how to define this normal form-type is beyond the scope of this article.
e However, the form-type will influence the ship's stability and, according to Prohaska
(1961), the CRS should be changed by ± 0.04 sin q, plus for U-forms and minus for V-forms.
The U- and V-forms should be "moderate" and therefore the correction must be larger if
y the abnormality is extreme. The correction is valid for medium-full ship forms (i.e.
y 0.60 <6 <0.65). For 6 0.50 and S 0.75 the correction must be expected to reduce to
almost zero.
588 I-l. E. GULDHAMMER

02
02 0.3 06 0.5 02 0.3 0,4 0.5 02 0,3 04 05

0,5 0,8 0,8 C8

0.7
1p5 r:,. 0,7
---:1h--t:o:; 0,7
.LL
I/Jl 0,7 o.,

---
I

0.5 0,5
-H - 0,5 05
I I

I , _'6 -'r
0,5 0,5 45

0,4
15 0,4
30 0,4
45 94

02 03 04 T/ 05 02 03 04 T/ qs 02 03 0,4 T/ 05

FIG. Sa.

Is
02
02 03 04 0.5 02 03 04 às 0,2 0,3 Q4 0,5

i-1
ca

- -oA
0,8 0,8 0,8 0,8

01v 01/9
--L 47
0.7 0,7 0,7 0,7

0,5
0,5 C's 0,6 0,6

CM-
0,5 0,5 0,5

0,4 0,4
75 0,4 I1111 0,4
01.

0,2 0,3 04 T'5 0,5 02 03 04 1/9 05 0,2 03 04 V C4

FIG. Sb.

Fio 5. (a) and (b). C,-diagrams, giving the value C,, for the coefficient at the standard
conditions S = 0.50 and f3 = 0.75.
 C,,-diagranis for design calculations of the stability of ships 589

0,2 03 04 05 03 01. o 02 03 04

L
05

Ò'8
'I
'VB

0,7 0,7
005 0,7

m
0,6 0,6

02 03
b=:o.8
04 YB
5o
95
0,5

0,4

o
iì 03
rbrl.2
04 TÍ 0,5
0,4
0,5

02 03
52

b=,6
04 Vs
450
5

FIG. 6a.

92 03 04 05 03 O' 0.5 02 03 01. 05

I 'i
i «1IUU
r'
0,0 0.5

i I I

-I---

A
._I- m
0,7 0,7
0,7

0,6

0,5 'lAII 'ir' 0,5

0,5
0,6

0,5 J1iuII
-b--r,
O4

n" 93 0/.
6° b4,O
0,4
b,OO
0,5 03 04 T/ 95 0,2 03 04 0.5
1/s
Fico. 6b.

FIG. 6. (a) and (b) en-diagrams, giving the value of the midship section correction
coefficiext m.
The values of the fullness correction coefficient b are stated in the diagrams too. The coefficients
m and b to be used by ships differing from standard values 6 = 0.50 and 3 = 0.75.
590 H. E. GULuHAMMER

i Lpp a Ti
Sh9

2B a

OD : m 3,li lype Erections Date. Sigt

G IX a rn (i2a
ØJSA
a
rn r&18D,/BaZ)Oa .Tç:O/5: rn
a.
6 SF 14 I a m 5:
D, a D+(SA+ SF)/a.i5 h9 a m
m OI : m (1 -x-q5):
8 DI/Tx: 17 h1: ml

p T T/g kH i k5 D1VB CR5 bm CR5 Correct MS

-
Dçr. CaQr. Oiagr. Dic;r. ?
d.gr. ra .i Fr;.3 Fig.4 Fi.5 Ci.5 rit

-- m BM:

T1

Ui
mi
-
---__
45________
_Ululi
.

60

- --_- -- i

--- _-- -
-
75 4,O

go-
- -_--- --___
--- -...
FIG. 7. Calculation form.
lo_ J

T r*
 -

for design calculations of the stability of ships 591

Lpp $ttip
2Z,am 0,387 V r
ifljB ,7m (1Ofaa ,7oZ V
rOit
L - i n- /1 i .'o lype Erections Date. Si.
1J T a 2 f4' m Cii.'/er Foc'/e Deck/to'je
0,°//.7 w4ta. 7. 1975
OJSA û3Çm 13 'EVa Zf2 15) °:/9'LL'T 0,529 2IT"/: 2,3ro m
a 0,8/ 14LL - m - (22& o Ço
() D1 a D.(SA. SF)/5a 15 h0 a - m 0,072 '23 1350 0, fo
3,P/m iSt1 a SQm
[OJ°'/T

t
tJj T
I,o55 17h1:
(2 3 3

k5
2,fm
9
0073
/ '25-O,75: 4070

kH Dti/ CR5 b rn CR5 Correct- MS

degr. .ia5r. iCgr.
re ® a.®_

:___
--
ô,2;BM:2Tj9 O O o,62 0,05 .-,o/ -

_-
3oo n, /,ç.co o,io c.
15° Q8

''

-- - -
--
O 21 o 3g - o
O O
''
D 19 o 01/ 513 -
L o,44'gf Dog c'Ç6f ' li --0 13

____
O
-02o
1,2

!
V V

!,3 03g 002 -, , 47 4/Ç

It
C
t
Do/f' DD3 0,Ç. .
- _____
- ¿'o.c -
-c
lt
V

.0

o
o
o
li4111
o
C

-_--:. -
----liT.
to
9O0_
v c,o.3
03- 021 437
119 DO 1,/ .. 7o/ °37 022
10
Ui
o L

Fic. 8. Sample calculation.

-t'
 592 H. E. GULDUAMMER Ocean Eng,
PergamOn
o
MS
[m] Diagram - .. -
i,Computer
.1
'S
4
ME
- 0,5
r Computer
t Diagram

-S
S- -S

10 Abs
o 15 30 45 60 75.p90° con
FIG. 9. Comparison between values of MS from Fig. 8 and computer calculated values. to i
regt
co
A corresponding influence on the stability exists with variations in the ship waterlines: arb
the extra change in CRS will be about 0.015 sin cp, the plus and minus signs being valid pot
for waterlines hollow or full at the ends respectively. The area of coverage must be expected
to be the same as stated above, but only the shape of the design waterline is to be considered. con
tim
det'.
CONCLUSION of t
Use of the new C5-diagrams will not be quite so fast as the original 47-diagram due exa
to the dependency on f3 and 6, which is unavoidable. The corrections for erections will bar,
naturally also complicate the calculations but this will exist no matter what method is used. con
These complications vill however be insignificant. This new method really makes it test
possible to determine the stability curves of all ordinary ship designs very quickly, and with for
a reasonably high accuracy. The accuracy is in most cases better than necessary in relation
to the rather inaccurate determination of the meracentric height. Wa
spe
The principal question of whether the erections should be included in the calculations
or not, has not been treated in this paper.
AcknowledgementsThe work presented here represents the collected efforts of several people during
several years.
The work at the Shipbuilding Deptrtment (now Department of Ocean Engineering) for the MSc. thesis
of Mr. A. Agustsson and later of Mr. S. G. Ringsted has resulted in the method of allowing for erections, and
produced encugh material to allow construction of the new cRdiagran,..
REFERENCES
GULDHAMMER, H. E., AGUSTSSON, A. and RAGNARSON, E. 1972. Fiskefartojers Reststabilitet (in Danish
with English Summary). Tcch. Univ. of Denmark.
PROHASKA, C. W. 1947. Residuary stability. Trans. 1z.stn nay. Arc/i. 89, 342-375.
PROI-IASKA, C. W. 1961. Results of some systematic stability calculations. Trans. Insin Engrs Shipbldrs Scotl.
104, 211-253.
n
d/
m
s
so

dS
X
k, k
h