The dimension was selected as per the parentship analysis as shown above graphs.

Were the data were collected from the ongoing ship. After the regression from the
above graph, the dimensions has been fixed as shown in Table 3.3.

Table 3.3: Principal Data from Graph

Items Value Units
LOA 333.34 m
LBP 319.28 m
B 58.901 m
D 30.377 m
T 20.504 m
V 15.6329 m/s
L/B 5.2388 No Units
B/T 2.7791 No Units
T/D 0.6588 No Units
B/D 1.9615 No Units

The coefficient calculations were done as per the formula available from the literature
and also from the book Ship design. The calculation of the different form coefficient
was shown in the Table 3.4. The coefficient manual equations were shown in the
Table 3.4 were equations are from the research paper.

Table 3.4: Form coefficient calculation

C B=C−1.68 F n
Ayre’s
C is taken as 1.06 0.821
Block Formula
F n is taken as 0.142
coefficient (CB) V
Barras
Formula
C B=1.20−0.39
( )
√ L pp
0.808

Selected CB 0.810
Kerlen
Midship area C M =1.006−0.0056 C−3.56
B 0.993
Formula
coefficient 1
(CM) HSVA CM= 0.997
1+ ( 1−CB )3.5
Selected CM 0.997
Primatic CB
coefficient CP= 0.812
CM
(CP)
Selected CP 0.812
C WL= A+ B . C B
Water lane Torroja A=0.248+0.049 . G 0.878
coefficient B=0.778−0.035 . G
(CWL) CB
Parson C WL= 0.883
0.471+0.551 .C B
Selected CWL 0.886

24
The dimensions were fixed as per the requirements were shown in the Table 3.5. First
dimensions were interpolated from the graphical method then dimensions were fixed
as per the requirements and also for the calculation.

Table 3.5: Final dimensions and form coefficients

Items Value Units
LOA 333.58 m
LBP 320.00 m
B 58.00 m
D 28.00 m
T 20.80 m
V 15.50 Knots
L/B 5.51 No Units
B/T 2.85 No Units
T/D 0.74 No Units
B/D 2.07 No Units
CB 0.81
CM 0.997
CP 0.812
CWL 0.886
Volume of Displacement 312698.9 m3
Displacement 320516.4 Tons

 Comparative design parameters

The starting guess is usually obtained by comparing existing ships to the new design.
Some typical ship parameters used for comparison

1. Deadweight Coefficient
Load that can be carried Deadweight
CD= = = 0.869
All up weight Displacement weight
Deadweight in this context comprises all those items that are not part of the fabric of
the ship, i.e. cargo + fuel + stores + ballast + etc. Please note that Displacement
Weight = Lightweight + Deadweight, where Lightweight comprises all those items
that are part of the fabric of the ship, i.e. structure, machinery, outfits, superstructure.
Typical values: Deadweight coefficient is frequently used to obtain a first estimate of
the total weight or displacement weight corresponding to a given cargo-carrying
capacity.

2. Slenderness Coefficients
From the book Basic Naval Architecture Ship Stability by Philip A Wilson. There are
several alternative parameters used to express the relation between displacement and
hull length. The most frequently found are:
25
 Displacement Mass ( tons )
Taylor Displacement-Lenght Ratio Length ( ft ) 3 = 277.01
( 100 )
Displacement volume
The ITTC Vilumetric Coefficient C V = 0.0095
( Length )3
Length
Froude Displacement Coefficient 1 = 4.71
( Displacement volume ) 3

3.3 LIGHT WIGHT AND DEAD WEIGHT CALCULATION

For the LWT and DWT, calculation has been carried out to check the weight of the
steel mass, outfit mass and Engine plant mass. Calculation of this mass formula where
used, for Steel mass Watson and Gilfillan formula is used, Outfit mass Schneekluth
formula is used as shown below. The equation for steel mass was given by Watson
and Gilfillan was given in the Equation (3.1) to (3.3). The other formula is the outfit
mass was given by Schneekluth formula is given in the Equation (3.4). And the
equation for the engine plant mass was given in the Equation (3.5) and (3.6).

 Steel mass (Watson and Gilfillan Formula)

0.8 × D−T
C B8=C B +(1−C B ) × [ 3T ] (3.1)

∆ SE7 =k × E1.36 (3.2)

∆ SE=∆ SE 7 1+ 0.5 ( C B8−0.7 )

[ ] (3.3)

 Outfit Mass (Schneekluth Formula)

∆ ou=k × L × B (3.4)

 Engine Plant Mass

2
∆ 3 ×V 3 (3.5)
PB =
AC

∆ Eq=0.102× P B (3.6)

As per the formula each mass were calculated using the equations and the values were
shown in the Table 3.6. Lightweight estimation and deadweight estimation were

26
calculated as per the formula were given for steel mass, outfit and engine plant mass.
The final dead weight was estimated as shown in the Table 3.6.

Table 3.6: LWT and DWT Calculations for Main Dimensions

Parameters Values Units Remarks
LOA 333.58 m
LBP 320.00 m
B 58.00 m
D 28.00 m
T 20.80 m
V 15.50 Knots
No
L/B 5.51
Units
No
B/T 2.85
Units
No
T/D 0.74
Units
No
B/D 2.07
Units
No
CB (Assumed) 0.81
Units
Volume of Displacement 312698.9 m3
Displacement 320516.4 Tons
E 27520 Equipment number
Cb8 Cb at 80% depth
0.029-0.035 for oil
Steel Mass, ∆SE k 0.029
tankers
∆SE7 31646.07 Tons
∆SE 33463.69 Tons
Mou1 0.370 For oil tankers
Mou2 -0.001 For oil tankers
Outfitting Mass, ∆OU
Mou 0.170
∆OU 3155.20 Tons
AC 500.000 Admirality Coefficient
Engine Plant Mass,
PB 34881.23 Shaft Power
∆EP
∆EP 3557.88 Tons
∆LS
Lightship Weight 40176.78 Tons
W
∆DW 280339.5
Deadweight Tons
T 6

3.4 INITIAL STABILITY CHECK

Initial stability check was estimated to know the ship can be able to pass the IMO and
other stability criteria. Main stability parameters calculation were done using the

27
manual calculation as shown in the Table 3.7. The main stability parameters include
Vertical centre of buoyancy (KB), Metacentric height (MB) where in both transverse
and longitudinal axis of the ship.

Table 3.7: Initial stability calculation

Normad
KB=T ¿) 11.24 m
Formula
Vertical Schneekluth KB=T (0.9−0.3 .C M −0.1 .C B ) 10.82 m
Centre of C
Buoyancy
(KB)
Wobig (
KB=T 0.78−0.285 B
C℘ ) 10.86 m

Normad 5 CP
Formula
KB=T − (
6 3.C ℘ ) 10.99 m

Average KB 11.09 m
D'Aracangelo IT
C T=
Transverse L B3 0.067 m
Metacentric (schneekluth) C 1=0.1216 .C ℘−0.041
Radius IL
D'Aracangelo C 1 L=
(BM) L B3
Longitudinal 0.062 m
(schneekluth)
C 1 L=0.35. C 2℘−0.405 . C℘ +0.146
IT 4166818.11 m4
IL 115933184 m4
BM T 13.32 m
BM L 370.75 m
Longitudinal
Centre of LCB=−0.135+ 0.194 ∙C P
Schneekluth 1.962 m
Buoyancy
(LCB)

The centre of gravity of the ship was checked using the formula which was mentioned
in the Table 3.7. Additional to the other mass like fuel and ballast was added to check
the displacement and also the longitudinal and vertical centre of gravity were shown
in the table.
Table 3.8: Initial center of gravity
Items Mass (T) VCG (m) V.Mom (T-m)
Steel 34919.80 12.82 447946.48
Machinery 3645.20 11.10 40461.74
Outfit 3155.20 31.20 98442.24
lightship 41720.20 14.06 586850.45
Cargo DWT 230000.00 13.00 2990000.00
DO+LO 109.30 10.20 1115.11
HFO 1243.20 2.00 2486.33
FW 3.50 2.00 6.93

28
 Ballast 46000.00 2.00 92000.00
DWT 277356.00 11.12 3085608.37
Displacement 319076.164 11.510 3672458.828

As per the IMO regulation, the GM value should be mandatory for the stability check,
so for this, the GM height was checked after the LCG and VCG estimation. From this,
it can be concluded that GM values are satisfying the IMO regulation. Where the GM
is calculated as per the Equation (3.7). Where KM can be found using the hydrostatic
table and KG were calculated using the vertical centre of gravity of each component
in the ship.
GM =KM −KG (3.7)
For the GZ calculation there should note that the value of KN were shown in the
Equation (3.8).
GZ=KN −KGsinɸ (3.8)

Table 3.9: KN and GZ value at different angle

ɸ (Degree) KN KG GZ
0 0 18.200 0
10 4.286 18.200 1.126
20 8.370 18.200 2.145
30 11.743 18.200 2.643
40 14.261 18.200 2.562
50 15.991 18.200 2.049
60 17.073 18.200 1.311
70 17.399 18.200 0.296
80 17.347 18.200 -0.577
90 15.882 18.200 -2.318

29
 Figure 3.11: KN versus angles

The calculation has been carried out for different angles (0 to 90 0) and find the value
of KN using the method followed in the literature. KN curve calculation has been
calculated using the literature. The KN and GZ graph were shown in the Figure 3.11
and Figure 3.12.

Figure 3.12: GZ at different angle

For the GZ there should be checked that rules which followed by the IMO. According
to the International Code on Intact stability, 2008, the following criteria are
mandatory for passenger and cargo ships constructed on or after 1st January 2010:

30
1. The area under the righting lever curve (GZ curve) should not be less than 0.055
mete-radians up to 30° angle of heel.

2. The area under the righting lever curve (GZ curve) should not be less than 0.09
meter-radians up to 40° angle of the heel or the angle of down flooding if this is less
than 40°.

3. The area under the righting curve between the angles of the heel of 30° and 40° or
between 30° and the angle of down flooding if this angle is less than 40°, should not
be less than 0.03 meter-radians.

4. The righting lever GZ should be at least 0.20 m at an angle of heel equal to or

greater than 30°.

5. The maximum righting arm should occur at an angle of heel preferably exceeding
30° but not less than 25°.

6. The initial metacentric height GMo should not be less than 0.15 m.

The stability checked has been done using the GZ curves and from that it can be
understand that all the criteria’s were passed as shown in Table 3.10.

Table 3.10: Initial IMO stability criteria check

IMO Criteria Rule Value Actual Value Complied

GM 0.15 12.806 YES
Area upto 30o 0.055 0.815 YES

Area upto 40o 0.09 1.276 YES

Area bw 30o & 40o 0.03 0.461 YES

GZ (m) at 30o 0.2 2.643 YES

Angle at GZmax 25 30 YES

3.5 CHAPTER SUMMARY

This chapter mainly focuses on the data finding the particulars of the ship for the
design process. Where the particulars where find using the parent ship method which
would be a regression analysis to find the particulars from the parent ship. Were the
main particulars including length, breadth and depth etc. were find using this method.
There would be another method which is an empirical method, using these other
factors which are coefficients were estimated. Before the designing of the ship, the
31
initial stability check was done to check the ship is stable or not. So the literature
proposes the method for the stability check which were taken care in this chapter. 

32