Estimation Methods for Basic Ship Design

Prof. Manuel Ventura Ship Design I

MSc in Marine Engineering and Naval Architecture

Summary

Hull Form
Lightship Weight
Deadweight Components
Propulsive Coefficients
Propulsive Power
Subdivision and Compartments
Capacities

M.Ventura Estimation Methods 2

1
 Introduction

At the beginning of the basic design there is no sufficient data to proceed with accurate comp
It is necessary to use estimate methods which with the few information available or assumed w
These methods are generally based in statistical regressions with data compiled from existing

M.Ventura Estimation Methods 3

Hull Form Coefficients

2
 Block Coefficient (CB)

C = 1.08 (single screw) C = 1.09 (twin screw)

CB  C  1.68  Fn C = 1.06

0.14 L B  20
CB  F 
n 26 0.48  CB  0.85 0.14  Fn  0.32
0.23 L B  20
CB  2 
Fn 326

CB  4.22  27.8  Fn  39.1 Fn  46.6  Fn 3 0.15  Fn  0.32

Barras (2004)
 V  V [knots]
CB  1.20  0.39  

 LPP  LPP [m]

M.Ventura Estimation Methods 5

Block Coefficient (Cb)

Alexander (1962)

CB  K  0.5V Lf
with:
K  1.12 » 1.03
 1.32 » 1.23
p / navios mercantes
p / navios de guerra

V : velocidade knots
LF : comprimento da linha de flutuaçao  ft
Van Lameren
CB  1.37  2.02VL f

M.Ventura Estimation Methods 6

3
 Block Coefficient (Cb)

Ayre
CB  1.06  1.68VLf

Minorsky
CB  1.22  2.38VL f

Munro-Smith (1964)
dCB  Cw  Cb
dT T

M.Ventura Estimation Methods 7

Block Coefficient (Cb)

Townsin (1979)
CB  0.7  0.125  tg 25  0.23  Fn
1

Schneekluth (1987)
L
0.14 B  20
CB  Fn  PP

26
0.23 B  20 p / 0.48  CB  0.85
CB   LPP
Fn 3
2 0.14  Fn  0.32
26

M.Ventura Estimation Methods 8

4
 Block Coefficient (Cb)

Katsoulis
CB  0.8217  f  LPP 0.42
 B0.30720.17210.6135
T V
In which f is a function of the type of ship:

Ro/Ro Gen. Cargo Containers OBO Bulk Gas Products Ferry

Reefers Tankers Chemicals
0.97 0.99 1.00 1.03 1.04 1.05 1.06 1.09

Kerlen (1970)
CB  1.179  2.026  Fn
p /CB  0.78

M.Ventura Estimation Methods 9

Midship Section Coefficient (CM)

Midship Section Coefficient

CM  1  2.33 B RT2
Kerlen (1970)
CM  1.006  0.0056  CB
HSVA Where:
1 3.56 R= Bilge radius [m] Fn = Froude Number

CM 
1  1  CB 
3.5

Meizoso
CM  1  0.062  Fn 0.792
RO/RO ships and Container-Carriers

M.Ventura Estimation Methods 10

5
 Midship Section Coefficient (CM)

Parson (2003)
 0.4292  R2 
CM  1   
 BT 

M.Ventura Estimation Methods 11

Waterline Area Coefficient (CWL)

Schneekluth
CWL  0.95  CP  0.17  3 1  CP U shape sections

CWL  1 1  2  C B Intermediate shape sections

3
V shape sections
WLB

C  C  0.025
1  CB 
C1
WL  3
2
 C M 

A  0.248  0.049  G
Torroja B  0.778  0.035  G
CWL  A  B  CB G  0U shaped sec tions
 1V shaped sec tions
Estimation Methods
M.Ventura 12

6
 Waterline Area Coefficient (CWL)

Parson (2003)
CB
CWL
0.471  0.551 CB

M.Ventura Estimation Methods 13

Buoyancy Center Ordinate (KB)

 5 1 CB 
KB  T 6  Normand
WP  3 C

KB  T 0.9  0.36CM  Normand

KB  T 0.9  0.3 CM  0.1 CB  Schneekluth

 C  Wobig
KB  T  0.78  0.285 B 
 CWP 

 0.168  C WL  Vlasov
KB  0.372  T
 CB 

M.Ventura Estimation Methods 14

7
 Buoyancy Center Abscissa (LCB)

As a first approximation, the abscissa of the buoyancy center can be obtained from the follow
A- recommended values B, C – limit values

M.Ventura Estimation Methods 15

Buoyancy Center Abscissa (LCB)

Schneekluth
lcb  8.80  38.9  Fn  / 100 [% Lpp AV MS]
lcb  0.135  0.194  CP
(tankers and bulkers)

M.Ventura Estimation Methods 16

8
 Transverse Metacentric Radius (BMT)

The Transverse Metacentric Radius is defined by

BMT  I XX

The transverse moment of inertia of the waterplane (IXX) can be approximated by the expressi

XXr
I k  B  L3
In which the values of the factor kr are obtained from the following Table:

CWL Kr CWL Kr CWL Kr

0.68 0.0411 0.78 0.0529 0.88 0.0662

0.70 0.0433 0.80 0.0555 0.90 0.0690

0.72 0.0456 0.82 0.0580 0.92 0.0718

0.74 0.0480 0.84 0.0607 0.94 0.7460

M.Ventura 0.76 0.0504 0.86 0.0634 0.96 0.7740

E timation eth 1

Transverse Metacentric Radius (BMT)

f CWP   L  B3 f CWP  B2
BMT   
12  L  B  T  CB12T  CB

Reduction Factor:
f CWP   1.5  CWP  0.5
Murray

f CWP   0.096  0.89  CWP

2
Normand

f  CWP   0.0372   2  WP
C  13 Bauer

f CWP   1.04  CWP N.N.

2

f CWP   0.13 CWP  0.87  C2

WP
 0.005 Dudszus and Danckwardt

M.Ventura Estimation Methods 18

9
 Transverse Metacentric Radius (BMT)

Xuebin (2009)

B2
BMT  0.085  BC  0.002 (bulk-carriers)
T  CB

Xuebin, Li (2009), “Multiobjective Optimization and Multiattribute Decision Making Study of Ship’s Princ

M.Ventura Estimation Methods 19

Longitudinal Metacentric Radius

The Longitudinal Metacentric Radius is defined by

BML  IYY

The longitudinal moment of inertia of the waterplane (IYY) can be obtained approximately by th

3
IYY  kR  B  L
In which the values of the factor kR are obtained from the following Table:
CWL Kr CWL Kr CWL Kr
0.68 0.0332 0.78 0.0450 0.88 0.0588
0.70 0.0350 0.80 0.0475 0.90 0.0616
0.72 0.0375 0.82 0.0503 0.92 0.0645
0.74 0.0400 0.84 0.0532 0.94 0.0675
0.76 0.0425 0.86 0.0560 0.96 0.0710
M.Ventura M
Estimat eth 2

10
 Stability Parameters

Metacentric Height KM

 C  C 2 C 3 
KM  B  13.61  45.4 B  52.17  B   19.88 B  
 CWP  CWP   CWP  
 

Applicable to ships with 0.73 < (CB/CWP ) < 0.95


0.08 B0.9  0.3 C  0.1 C 
Schneekluth
KM  B   C  MB 
 CM T B 
 T 

If CWP is unknown:
C 1 1  2  CB 
3 C  1.0
C M 
WP,N

M.Ventura Estimation Methods 21

Period of Roll

An excessively high value of GMT implies a very small period of roll and leads to high accelerations, which a
A maximum value of GMT should therefore be assumed based on na acceptable value of the roll period (T =
The period of roll (T) can be estimated by the expression:

 0.43 B
TR GMT [s]

where:
B [m]
GMT [m]

M.Ventura Estimation Methods 22

11
 Wetted Surface (SW)

Denny
em que:
S  1.7  L  T   SW: wetted surface ft2
W PP LPP: length bet. perpendiculars ft
T
T: draught ft
: displacement volume ft3

Taylor
SW  0.17  c    LWL

em que:

SW: surface m2

: displacement volume  m3
: LPP
length on the waterline m
: cf(CM, B/T)
M.VenturaEstimation Methods
23

Wetted Surface (SW)

Holtrop and Mennen (1978)

SW  Lwl  2  T  B   CM 

0.453  0.4425  C B  0.2862  CM  0.003467  BT  0.369  CWP 

2.38  ABT C
B

In which:
ABT – transverse section area of the bulb on FWD PP

Schneekluss and Bertram (1998)

 1
SW  3.4 3 0.5 LWL  1
3

M.Ventura Estimation Methods 24

12
 Cylindrical Mid-Body

Lindblad (1961)

LE  1.975  2.27  C p/ Cb < 0.75

B
L
LR  1.12  C
B
L Le = length of entry Lr = length of run
Lx = length of parallel body
LX  L  LE  LR

Lindblad, Anders F. (1961), “On the Design of Lines for Merchant Ships” , Chalmers University Books.

M.Ventura Estimation Methods 25

Cylindrical Mid-Body

Approximate extent of the cylindrical body:

Full shape (CB > 0.80)LX = 30%  35% LPP
Full shape (0.70  CB  0.80)LX = 15%  20% LPP
Slender shape (CB < 0.70)LX decreasing to 0

In alternative, the length of the cylindrical body (LX) and the proportion between the entry and the run bo

M.Ventura Estimation Methods 26

13
 Freeboard

Tabular Freeboard (ILLC)

The tabular freeboard can be approximated by a parabolic curve regression of the tabular value
Ships of Type A:
FB  0.027415  Lfb2  21.007881 Lfb  562.067149[mm]

Ships of Type B:
FB  0.016944  Lfb2  22.803499  Lfb  691.269920[mm]

where Lfb = ship length according to the rules [m]

M.Ventura Estimation Methods 28

14
 Tonnage

Gross Tonnage

The Gross Tonnage can be estimated as a function of the Cubic Number (CN = Lpp x B x D), by the followin
GT  k  CN

Type of Ship K
Tanker, Bulk Carrier 0.26 – 0.30

Product Tanker, Chemical Tanker 0.25 – 0.35

Multi-Purpose 0.25 – 0.40

Fast Container Carrier 0.25 – 0.33

M.Ventura Estimation Methods 30

15
 Net Tonnage

The Net Tonnage can be estimated as a fraction of the Gross Tonnage, as follows:
NT  k  GT

Type of Ship K
Container Carrier 0.3 – 0.5
Others 0.5 – 0.7

M.Ventura Estimation Methods 31

Compensated Gross Tonnage (1)

Compensated Gross Tonnage (CGT) is related to the amount of work required to build a ship and
Its definition and calculation procedure are set down by the OECD (2007).
CGT is used to measure and compare the capacity or production of a shipyard, a group, a country

M.Ventura Estimation Methods 32

16
 Compensated Gross Tonnage (2)

CGT can be estimated by the following expression:

CGT  a  GT b

Where:
GT: Gross Tonnage
Shipthe
a, b: coefficients that can be obtained from Type
Table as a functiona of the type
b of ship
Bulk Carrier 29 0.61
Oil Tanker 48 0.57
Chemical Tanker 84 0.55
Product Tanker 48 0.57
General Cargo 27 0.64
Coaster 27 0.64
Reefer 27 0.68
LPG 62 0.57
Container Carrier 19 0.68

M.Ventura Estimation Methods 33

Lightship Weight

17
 Lightship Weight Estimate

Components of the Lightship Weight

Structure
Machinery
Outfitting
Centers of Gravity
Longitudinal distribution of the lightship weight

M.Ventura Estimation Methods 35

Displacement and Weights of the Ship

The displacement is computed by:

   . LBP . B.T.Cb
The displacement is equal to the sum of the fixed and variable weights of the ship:
  DW  WLS
in which:
DW WLS

CDW
deadweight
DWs
lightship weight
DW  CDW  DWS
cargo deadweight
ship’s own deadweight
Estimation Methods

M.Ventura 36

18
 Lightship Weight

For the purpose of estimate, generally the lightship weight is considered to be the sum of thre
WLS  WS  WE  WM
in which:
WS - Weight of the structural steel of the hull, the superstructure and of the outfit steel (m
W S  W H W SPS

WE - Weight of the equipment, outfit, deck machinery, etc. WM – Weight of all the machinery

M.Ventura Estimation Methods 37

Weight Estimates

A reasonable structure for a generic expression to compute the weights of the ship can be as fo
W  k.V a.b
in which:
k -constant obtained from similar ships V -service speed
 -displacement
a, b - constants depending from the type of weight under consideration, obtained from statistica

M.Ventura Estimation Methods 38

19
 Weight Estimate

Hull Weight
WH  k V 0.5  

Equipment Weight
WE  k V 0.9  3/4

Machinery Weight

W
M
k V 3  2/3

M.Ventura Estimation Methods 39

Methods to Estimate the Hull Weight

Methods that consider the weights as function of the main characteristics of the hull
Appropriate to be used in processes for the optimization of the main dimensions
Methods based in the existence of data from existing ships
More precise estimates
Results not satisfactory when dealing with new types of ships
Methods based in surfaces.
When the hull form, the general arrangement and the subdivision are already roughly known
Methods based in the midship section modulus.
Based on the scantlings of the midship section

M.Ventura Estimation Methods 40

20
 Estimate the Hull Weight

NOTES:
Most estimate methods consider separately the weights of the hull and of the superstructure
For the purpose of cost estimation, the hull weight should be subdivided into:
Weight of structural steel (hull structure)
Weight of outfit steel(foundations, ladders, steps, etc.)
Each of these components should be subdivided into:
Weight of plates
Weight of stiffeners
For the purpose of cost estimation, and due to the waste resulting from the cutting process, s
Gross Steel Weight = 1.08 ~ 1.12 x Net Steel Weight

M.Ventura Estimation Methods 41

Hull Weight

Quadric Number
WH  k L   B  D 
Cubic Number
WH  k   L  B  D 
In both expressions, k is a constant, obtained from similar existing ships
Limitations
The draught is not considered
The cubic number gives the same relevance to the three hull dimensions, which is not realistic
M.VenturaEstimation Methods42

21
 Hull Weight

Quadricubic Number (Marsich, Genova)

WH  k  Nqc

 3  1/ 2
N qc  L4/3 . B. D1/ 2 .1 Cb
 4 

Sato (tankers with 150 000 t< DW < 300 000 t), 1967

 Cb   3L2B 
3
2
WH  10  0.8  5.11 2.56  L  B 2 D  
5

  D 

M.Ventura Estimation Methods 43

Hull Weight

Some methods take advantage of the knowledge of the weight distribution from a similar existin

LRS Method
W W f sl  1.133 LBP  LBPp  LBPp
1 f f f f 
f sb  0.688 B  B B
HHPslsbsdsc
pp

f sd  0.45 D  D
pp
D
f sc  0.501   f sl  f sb  f sd Cb  Cbp 
DNV Method
f sl  1.167 LBP  LBPp  LBPp
WH  WHP 1  fsl  fsb  fsd  fsc  fst 
f sb  0.67 B  B
pp
B
f sdpp 0.50 D  D D
f scpp  0.17 Cb  Cb  Cb
f st  0.17 T  T  T
pp
M.Ventura Estimation Methods 44

22
 Hull Weight

From statistical analysis regression (d’Almeida, 2009):

WH  k1 LS k 2  Bk3  Dk 4

k1 k2 k3 k4

Oil Tankers 0.0361 1.600 1.000 0.220

Bulk Carriers 0.0328 1.600 1.000 0.220

Container Carriers 0.0293 1.760 0.712 0.374

General Cargo 0.0313 1.675 0.850 0.280

M.Ventura Estimation Methods 45

Hull Weight

Cudina et al (2010)
(Tankers and Bulk-Carriers)

 f1  1.36  0.8D  T  
WH   1 100 0.0282Lpp  B  0.85D  0.15T  1  0.5
 CB  0.7 1  CB  3 T  450
  

f1 – reduction of the hull weight due to the use of high-tensile steel

Cudina, P.; Zanic, V. and Preberg, P. (2010), “Multiattribute Decision Making Methodology in the Concept Design of Tanke

M.Ventura Estimation Methods 46

23
 Hull Weight Correction

The hull weight estimate can be improved by considering some particular aspects such as the usage of specia

Correction [%]
HTS (about 60% of total) -12.0
HTS (about 35% of total) -8.0
Systems for corrosion control (tankers) -4.0
Corrugated bulkheads -1.7
Reinforcements for Ore Carriers +4.0
Reinforcements for heavy cargo in alt. holds +5.5
Reinforcements of holds (general cargo) +1.5
Reinforcements of decks (general cargo) +0.5
Ice Class I +8.0
Ice Class II +6.0
Ice Class III +4.0 47
M.Ventura Estimation

Weight of Superstructures

Can be obtained as a function of the hull weight (Pc) and the type of ship:
Cargo liners-Wsps = 10 ~ 12 % Pc
Tankers-Wsps = 6 ~ 8 % Pc
Bulk carriers-Wsps = 6 ~ 7 % Pc
When the arrangement of the superstructures is already known, a criteria based in the average weight per unit ar
WSPS  WU  A
with:
A – covered area of decks Wu = 190 kg/m2 (castles)
Wu = 210 kg/m2 (superstructures amidships) Wu = 225 kg/m2 (superstructures aft)
M.VenturaEstimation Methods48

24
 Machinery Weight (1)

The weight of the machinery can be obtained from a similar ship, by alteration of the ship’s sp

WM  K V32/3 

with:
K - obtained from similar ships V – ship’s service speed [knots]
 - Displacement
The variation of the weight is obtained by deriving the previous expression:

dWM  3. dV  2 . d 
WM V3 
Estimation Methods
M.Ventura 49

Machinery Weight (2)

From statistical analysis regression (d’Almeida, 2009):

W
M k1 Pk MCR
2
PMCR: Propulsive power [bhp]
The coefficients k1 and k2 are characteristic of the type of propulsive plant:

k1 k2

Diesel (2 stroke) 2.41 0.62

Diesel (4 stroke) 1.88 0.60
2 x Diesel (2 stroke) 2.35 0.60
Steam Turbine 5.00 0.54

M.Ventura Estimation Methods 50

25
 Weight of the Propeller (1)

Some authors suggest formulas for the estimate of the weight of a propeller as a function of i
Schoenherr

W 1.982 
PROP t D   A A    R
0
E 3

with:
- specific weight of the material (ref. to table)
R- hub radius
t- blade thickness ratio
WPROP – weight of the blades, without the hub

M.Ventura Estimation Methods 51

Weight of the Propeller (2)

Lamb

W 0.004  A 3 (fixed pitch propellers)

PROP  E AD PROP
0 

W 0.008   AE 3 D (controllable pitch propellers)

0  A
PROP PROP

where:
DPROP - propeller diameter [ft] 1 ft = 0.3048 m
WPROP – total weight [ton] 1 ton US = 0.91 t

M.Ventura Estimation Methods 52

26
 Weight of the Propeller (3)

Gerr (2001)
W  0.00241D3.05
(3 blade propellers)

W  0.00323 D3.05 (4 blade propellers)

where:
D – propeller diameter [ft] W – propeller weight [lb]
1 ft = 0.3048 m
1 lb = 0.454 kg

Gerr, David (2001), “Propeller Handbook: The Complete Reference for Choosing, Installing and Understanding Boat Pro

M.Ventura Estimation Methods 53

Propeller Material

Specific Weight
Material
[t/m3]
Bronze Manganese 8.30
Bronze Nickel/Manganese 8.44
Bronze Nickel/Aluminum 7.70
Bronze Copper/Nickel/Aluminum
Bronze Manganese/Nickel/Aluminum
Cast steel 7.85
Stainless steel 7.48 ~ 8.00
Cast iron 7.21

Composite materials are already being used in propellers for military ships.

M.Ventura Estimation Methods 54

27
 Equipment Weight

From statistical analysis regression (d’Almeida, 2009):

WE  k1  L  B  D  K 2

k1 k2

Oil Tankers 10.820 0.41

Bulk Carriers 6.1790 0.48
Container Carriers 0.1156 0.85
General Cargo 0.5166 0.75

M.Ventura Estimation Methods 55

Equipment Weight

Cudina et al (2010)

W   0.28  Lpp   Lpp  B (Tankers and Bulk-Carriers)

E  1620 
 

Cudina, P.; Zanic, V. and Preberg, P. (2010), “Multiattribute Decision Making Methodology in the Concept Design of Tanke

M.Ventura Estimation Methods 56

28
 Equipment Weight

Munro-Smith

W  W . 1  1 L B 
EEb  2 2L B 
 b b 
WEb = weight of the equipment of the parent ship

Fisher (bulk carriers)

W  W . 1  3 L B 
EEb  4 4L B 
 b b 

Parker (tankers)

W  W . 2  1 L B 
EEb  3 3L B 
 b b 

M.Ventura Estimation Methods 57

Equipment Weight

Lee and Kim

The weight is the result of the average of the 3 values obtained by the following expressions:
WE  WE1  WE2  WE3  /3
WE1  fE1  L  B
WE2  fE2  L  B  D 

WE 3  fE 3  L1.30.80.3
B D

with:
fE1, fE2, fE3 - constants of proportionality obtained from similar ship
M.VenturaEstimation Methods

58

29
 Ordinate of the Centers of Gravity

Steel (Kupras)

KGS1  0.01D 46.6  0.135  0.81  Cb  L D 2   0.008D  L B  6.5 L  120 m

 

KGS2  KGS1  0.001D 1   L  60  / 60L < 120 m

Equipment (Kupras)

KGE  D  1.25 p/ L  125 m

KGE  D  1.25  0.01L  125 p / 125  L  250 m
KGE  D  2.50 p /L  250 m
Machinery (Watson and Gilfillan)

KGM  hDB  0.35D  hDB in which

hDB – height of double-bottom
M.VenturaEstimation Methods59

Lightship Weight Distribution (1)

Ships with Parallel middle-body

Defining the unit hull weight (wH) by:
 WH
wH
LFF
The distribution of the hull weight, in a ship with parallel mid-body, can be represented in accor
with:
b = 1.19 wH
a = (0.62  0.077x).wH
x = LCGH % Lff

M.Ventura Estimation Methods 60

30
 Lightship Weight Distribution (2)

Ships without parallel middle-body

The distribution can be considered as the sum of a rectangular distribution with a parabolic di

with:
a = wH/2 b = 3wH/4
x = value of the required LCGH shift
M.VenturaEstimation Methods
61

Trapezoidal Distribution

Na approach quite common is to assume a trapezoidal distribution of the weight components.

The weight is represented by the area of the trapezoid that is given by:

W abL lcg  b  a  L
2 ab 6

Knowing the weight and the LCG of the component, the trapezoid is defined by:
W6 W  lcg
a 
L L2
b  W  6 W  lcg
L L2
M.Ventura Estimation Methods 62

31
 Deadweight Components

Deadweight Components

The deadweight is the sum of all the variable weights on board and is generally assumed to have
DW = CDW + DWs

The first approximation, when almost everything is unknown or undefined is to assume:

DW = 1.05 x CDW
As the knowledge about the ship characteristics and systems increases the 5% DW approximati
DWs = WFO + WLO + WSPARES + WFW + WCREW

M.Ventura Estimation Methods 64

32
 Deadweight

The Deadweight Coefficient is a concept useful in the first steps of the design process and is de

 DW
C DW

Typical values of the Deadweight Coefficient for different types of ships are presented in the t

Ship Type CDW Ship Type CDW

Oil Tanker 0.800 - 0.860 Container Carrier 0.600

Ore Carrier 0.820 Passenger Liner 0.35 – 0.40

General Cargo 0.700 Ro/Ro Vessel 0.300

LNG/LPG 0.620 Cross-Chanel Ferries 0.200

M.Ventura Estimation Methods 65

Cargo Capacity

When dealing with cargo holds (solid cargoes) it is common to use different measures of the volu
–
– Moulded capacity – gross volume computed directly from the moulded lines of the hull
– Grain capacity – net volume, discounting the volume occupied by the hull structures
Bale capacity – net volume, discounting the volume occupied by the hull structures and irregular sha
Insulated capacity – discounting all the above plus the thickness of the insulation, if any, which can
–

350 mm (refrigerated spaces)

These capacities can be approximated as follows:
Grain Capacity = 0.985 x Moulded Capacity
Bale Capacity = 0.90 x Moulded Capacity
Insulated capacity = 0.75 x Moulded Capacity

M.Ventura Estimation Methods 66

33
 Fuel Oils

Fuel Oils
The total capacity of fuel oil on board is a function of the required autonomy, the service spee

 Autonomy  P
WFO CSR  SFOC 106 t
V S

The daily consumption is computed by the expression

Daily Consumption  PCSR  SFOC  24  6 106 t 
with a tolerance of 6 hours and:
SFOC  Specific Fuel Oil Consumption g  kW  h1 

M.Ventura Estimation Methods 67

Fuel Oil Tanks

The fuel oil system includes the following types of tanks:

Storage tanks(Tanques de armazenamento)
Settling tanks(Tanques de decantação)
Daily tanks(Tanques diários)

M.Ventura Estimation Methods 68

34
 Fuel Oils - Storage Tanks

VT – volume total do tank (90%) [m3]

NP – number of ports
Fs – specific FO consumption factor (1.03) Cc – aux. Boiler consumption
Fe – expansion factor (0.96) Qup – consumo de vapor em porto [kg/h]
– máx. power ofTCS
ρOP – specific weight of the HFO BHP [t/m3] the –main
timeengine
for load/unload
Cs – specific FO consumption
A – autonomy QUM – steam consumption manoeuv. [kg/h]
NMCA – number of Aux. Engines Tman – time for manoeuv. [h]
[g/kW/h]
[horas]

M.Ventura Estimation Methods 69

Fuel Oils - Daily Tanks (Settling and Service )

Settling Tank
T – time for settling (24 + 6 hours)
Cs – specific FO consumption fs – service factor (margin) fe – FO expan
Ρ – FO density

Service Tank
Capacity identical to the settling tank.

M.Ventura Estimation Methods 70

35
 Deadweight Estimate (2)

Lubricating Oils

The weight of the Lub.

WLO  0.03 WFO  WDO  Oils can be estimated as
a function of the FO, DO
WBO  and BO weights

Spares
For the purpose of its maintenance there is onboard the ship a
set of spare parts of the main machinery and of other
equipment of the engine room, whose weight can be assumed as
proportional to the machinery weight

Wspar  0.03WM

M.Ventura Estimation Methods 71

HFO, DO, BO and LO Densities

For the weight estimates the following values can be used:

Specific Gravity [t/m3]

Heavy Fuel Oil (HFO) 0.935 ~ 0.996

Diesel Oil (DO) 0.86 ~ 0.90

Boiler Fuel Oil (BO) 0.94 ~ 0.96

Lubricating Oil (LO) 0.90 ~ 0.924

M.Ventura Estimation Methods 72

36
 Fresh Water

There are different types of fresh water onboard, associated to different systems:
Cooling Water Systems(Main, aux. engines, central cooling)
Feed Water Systems(Main and aux. boilers)
Sanitary Water Systems
Drinking Water Systems

To estimate tank capacity of the Sanitary and Drinking Water systems, a typical consumption of about 20

In passenger ships, due to the high number of people on board, the capacity of the FW tanks

M.Ventura Estimation Methods 73

Crew and Passengers

Crew and belongings

The total weight of the crew and their personal objects on board can be estimated by the expre

WCrew  NCrew  500 kg  NCrew = number of crew members

Passengers and belongings

The total weight associated with the passengers can be estimated using a smaller vale for the lug

Wpass  N pass  200 kg  NPass = number of

passengers

M.Ventura Estimation Methods 74

37
 Propulsive Coefficients

Wake Fraction (w)

Definition
Va = 1 - wV
w= 1 - Va
V
Taylor
w= -0.05 +0.50 Cb

Telfer

3 CWL B T - ZP   3  DP 
w= -  0.9 - 
C-WLP
C 2 LWLT 2B 

M.Ventura Estimation Methods 76

38
 Wake Fraction (w)

Schoenherr
4.5  CB  CP  B
CLpp 1  ZH D 
w = 0.10 + WL
+ 2  TT-- 0.175  k 
 6  CB   
7-   2.8 - 1.8  CP 
WL C
with:
Zh = average immersion of the propeller shaft
K = 0.3 (ships with normal bow)
Holtrop and Mennen (1978)

w  BS CV  0.0661875  1.21756 CV  
TA D TA  D 1 CP 
0.24558B
 0.09726  0.11434
L 1 CP 
0.95  CP0.95  CB

M.Ventura Estimation Methods 77

Wake Fraction (w)

Holtrop and Mennen (1982)

LWL  CV
w  c9VC 0.0661875  1.21756  c  
Taft  11 1  CP1 

B  0.09726  0.11434 
 0.24558
LWL  1  CP1  0.95  CP 0.95  CB
0.75  Cstern  CV  0.002  Cstern

where: C P1  1.45  CP  0.315  0.0225  lcb

c  B  SW
8
if B T 5.0
AFT
L AFT
DT
S   7  B  25.0
W  T 
c  AFT if B T 5.0
8 AFT
 B
LWLP D  3.0
 TAFT
Cstern  10.0
M.Ventura
Estimation Methods 78

39
 Wake Fraction (w)

Bertram

Linear interpolation in the following table, as a function of CB and the number of propellers.

Cb 0.50 0.60 0.70 0.80

w (1 propeller) 0.14 0.23 0.29 0.35
w (2 propellers) 0.15 0.19 0.19 0.23

M.Ventura Estimation Methods 79

Thrust Deduction Factor (t)

Definition
RT = (1 - t) TP
t = 1 - RT
TP
Schronherr
tkw
with:
k = 0.50 ~ 0.70 w/ hydrodynamic rudder
k = 0.70 ~ 0.90 w/ double plate rudder and stern post
k = 0.90 ~ 1.05w/ simple plate rudder
Holtrop and Mennen (1978)
L B D2
t  0.001979  1.0585 0.00524  0.1418P
B  B CP L B T

M.Ventura Estimation Methods 80

40
 Thrust Deduction Factor (t)

Holtrop and Mennen (1982)

t  0.001979 LWL 1.0585  c  0.00524 
10
B  B CP1
D2
0.1418  P  0.0015  Cstern
B T
where:
CP1  1.45  CP  0.315  0.0225  lcb

c10  B if LWL B  5.2

LWL
 0.25  0.003328402
c10 if LB  5.2
B  0.134615385 WL

LWL
Cstern  10.0
M.Ventura
Estimation Methods 81

Hull Efficiency (ηC)

Definition

 1 t
C
1 w

Volker
Linear interpolation in the following table, as a function of CB and the number of propellers.

Cb 0.50 0.60 0.70 0.80

C (1 hélice) 1.00 1.05 1.10 1.15

C (2 hélices) 0.96 1.00 1.03 1.07

M.Ventura Estimation Methods 82

41
 Propulsive Power

Propulsive Power

The propulsive power is given by:

P
PD  E [kW]
G M H R O    
where:
PE = effective power:
PE  RT V [kW] RT = Total hull resistance [kN]
V = Ship speed [m/s]

G Efficiency of the gear box:

R  1.01 Rotation relative efficiency
= 0.99 (non-reversible)
Open water efficiency of the propeller
= 0.98 (reversible)
O
Mechanical efficiency of the shaft line
M  0.995 Efficiency of the hull

 1t
H
1w
M.Ventura Estimation Methods 84

42
 Estimate of the Total Hull Resistance

At the initial design stage, the estimate of the total hull

resistance RT can be done mainly using methods based in
statistical analysis of results from towing tank tests.
• There are several published methods:
Oossanen (small high-speed displacement craft)
Keunung and Gerritsma (planing hull forms)
Savitsky (planing hull forms)
Sabit (Series 60)
Keller
Harvald
Holtrop & Mennen (1978, 1980), Holtrop (1982)
The method of Holtrop & Mennen has proved to give good results for merchant ships

M.Ventura Estimation Methods 85

Method of Holtrop & Mennen (1)

The total resistance is the sum of the following components

RT  RF  RW  RV  RB[kN]

The viscous resistance (that includes form + appendages)

1
RV   V 2 C F 
1 k Stot [kN]
2

The frictional resistance coefficient, CF is computed by

0.075
CF 
log Rn  2
2

M.Ventura Estimation Methods 86

43
 Method of Holtrop & Mennen (2)

The form coefficient (1+k) is the sum of the form coefficient of the naked hull (1+k1) with a c
S

1 k  1 k1 1
k2  1 1k   app
Stot

The form coefficient of the naked hull can be estimated by the expression:

1 k1  0.93  T L B LR  0.95  CP  1 CP  0.0225

0.22284 0.92497 0.521448 0.6906

The value of (1+k2) is obtained from the following table, in accordance with the configuration

M.Ventura Estimation Methods 87

Method of Holtrop & Mennen (3)

Configuration of the Hull Appendages 1+k2

Rudder (1 propeller) 1.1~1.5

Rudder (2 propellers) 2.2

Rudder + structs (1 propeller) 2.7

Rudder + boss (2 propellers) 2.4
Stabilizer Fins 2.8
Bilge Keels 1.4
Domes 2.7

M.Ventura Estimation Methods 88

44
 Method of Holtrop & Mennen (4)

The length of the aft body, LR, can be approximated by

LR L  1 CP  0.06 CP Lcb 4CP 1

When the wetted surface is still unknown, it can be approximated

S  L 2T  B  CM 0.453  0.4425CB  0.2862 CM  0.003467 BT  0.3696 CWP 

2.38 ABT CB
The wave resistance RW (generated wave + broken wave) is

RW
 1 2 1 n2

 c c exp  m F d  m cos  Fn2 
  d  0.9

M.Ventura Estimation Methods 89

Method of Holtrop & Mennen (5)

in which the coefficients are computed by the following expressions:

  1.446 CP  0.03 L B
α = semi-angle of

  
c1  2223105 B L
T 3.78613
B
1.07961
90  0.5 
1.37565
entrance of the load waterline [degrees]


c2  exp 1.89c3 
1
m 1 0.0140407 LT 1.75254  3 L  4.79323 BL  8.07981C
P

13.8673C 2P  6.984388C3
P

2  0.1 
m2  1.69385C Pexp 2
n  F
0.56 A1.5
c3 BT

BT 0.56 ABT  TF  hB  0.25 BTA 
M.Ventura Estimation Methods 90

45
 Method of Holtrop & Mennen (6)

When still unknown, the half-angle of entrance (α) of the design waterline can be estimated by

0.5  125.67B 162.25C  P234.32

2
C P3
L
3
 6.8 T  T 
0.155087  Lcb  AF  degrees
 T 

The bulb resistance RB is computed from the expression

i  TF  hB  0.25
ABT
cF 3
V
RB ni [kN] Fni 
1 Fni2 g i  0.15V 2V [m/s]

0.56 ABT
pB 
TF 1.5hB
M.Ventura Estimation Methods 91

Method of Holtrop & Mennen (7)

The bulb resistance RB is

RB 
 23
g
F  A 1.5
0.11 exp 3 pBni BT [kN]
1  Fni2

The model-ship correlation defined by

R
CA  A

1  Stot V 2
2
can be determined from the expression

LS
C A  0.006  LS  100
 0.00205  0.003 C B4  c2  0.04  c4 
0.16

LM

c4  TF L p/
TF  0.04
S LS

c4  0.04 p / TF 0.04
LS
M.Ventura Estimation Methods 92

46
 Subdivision and Compartments

Length of the Ship

Alternatives:
Formulas based in the economical performance
Statistics from existing ships
Procedures of control to define limits of variation

M.Ventura Estimation Methods 94

47
 Length of the Ship

Schneekluth and Bertram (1998)

CB  0.5
Lpp  0.3 V 0.3  3.2 
 0.145   0.5
Fn 
with:
Lpp – Length bet. Perpendiculars [m] V– Ship Speed [knots]
Cb – Block Coefficient Fn – Froude Number
g= 9.81 m/s2
V
Fn 
gL

Based on statistical analysis from the results of optimizations with economical criteria

Applicable to ships with

  1000 t
0.16  Fn  0.32
Estimation Methods
M.Ventura 95

Length of the Ship

The length of the ship can also be obtained from the Deadweight Coefficient (CDW) and some c

 L 2  B 
DW
  
L  3   CBB  CDW
T  [m]

where:
Ρ = 1.025 t/m3 CDW = DW/∆

M.Ventura Estimation Methods 96

48
 Relations From Statistical Analysis of Existing Ships (1)

Formula of Ayre
L
 3.33 1.67  V
3
1 L

Posdunine (Wageningen)
2
L  C   V   13
V 2
 
C  7.25ships with 15.5  V  18.5 knots Vknots
m3 
M.VenturaEstimation Methods

97

Relations From Statistical Analysis of Existing Ships (2)

Volker (Statistics 1974)

L V
1  3.5  4.5 1
3
 g  3

with:
V [m/s]
Applicable to cargo ships and container-carriers

M.Ventura Estimation Methods 98

49
 Validation/Comparison of Formulas

• Example: Container Carrier

Lpp = 263.80 m
“Capiapo”
B = 40.00 m
∆ = 91.187 t T = 12.00 m
V = 25.92’ DW = 50.846 t
Cb = 0.703
Source: “Significant Ships 2004”

Formulas LPP [m] Obs.

Schneekluth N/A Fn=0.55
Ayre 153.38
Posdunine 278.94* V > 18.5’
Volker 284.24

M.Ventura Estimation Methods 99

Limitative Factors for the Length

Physical Limitations
Shipbuilding
Length of the building ramp or of the dry dock
Ship Operation
Locks
Port limitations

Check the interference between the bow and stern wave systems, in accordance with the Froude
The wave resistance begins to present considerable values starting at Fn = 0.25
The intervals 0.25 < Fn < 0.27 and 0.37 < Fn < 0.50 shall be avoided (Jensen, 1994)

M.Ventura Estimation Methods 100

50
 Collision Bulkhead

The location of the collision bulkhead is established in the IMO Convention for the Safety of L

M.Ventura Estimation Methods 101

Length of the Engine Room

The length of the Engine Room <LER> can be estimated as a function of the power of the main m
With the current trend of the decrease of the length (LENG) of the Diesel engines used it is ac
LER = 2 ~ 3 x LENG

The resulting length should be rounded to a value multiple of the frame spacing in the Engine Ro

M.Ventura Estimation Methods 102

51
 Height of Double-Bottom

The minimum height of the double-bottom is established by the Classification Societies taking into c
For DNV the minimum height is:
HDB  250  20  B  50  T[mm]
with:
HDB – height of double-bottom [mm] B- breadth, molded [mm]
T- draught [mm]

The actual value of the double-bottom height must represent a compromise between the volume of ballast
HDB = MIN( B/15, 2.0 m)

M.Ventura Estimation Methods 103

Height of the Superstructure

The total height of the superstructure can be estimated based on the IMO SOLAS visibility requirements

 0.85  LWL 
HSPST
   D  T H  H
MDKDK  1.5
VISL

where:
Lvis = MIN( 2Lpp, 500 )
Hdk = average height of the superstructure decks Tm = average draught

M.Ventura Estimation Methods 104

52
 Estimate of Capacities

Cubic Efficiency Factor (CEF)

The CED is a useful ratio defined by CEF = CCRG/(LBD)

Typically presents values of [0.50,0.65] and it can be estimated for similar ships by the express
CCRG [

CEF  k1 Cbk 2  CRGMCR

Ck3 Pk 4 PMCR [Hp]

k1 k2 k3 k4
Oil Tankers 0.6213 0.80 0.094 -0.10
Bulk Carriers 0.7314 0.66 0.079 -0.10
Multi-Purpose 1.2068 0.60 0.077 -0.15
General Cargo (box-shaped) 1.9640 0.60 0.075 -0.20

M.Ventura Estimation Methods 106

53
 Capacities of Cargo Holds and Tanks

Knowing CEF from similar ships, the cargo capacity of a ship can be computed by
CCRG  L  B  D  CEF
The Depth required to obtain a certain cargo capacity can be obtained also with CEF by the expr

CCRG
D
L  B  CEF

M.Ventura Estimation Methods 107

Volumes of Cargo Holds and Tanks (1)

Volume of Cargo Holds

Can be estimated from the midship section geometry, deducting insulations
VH  f ps  AMS  LH  Cb
with:
fPS = factor obtained from a similar ship AMS = area of the midship section
LH = length of the cargo zone

M.Ventura Estimation Methods 108

54
 Volumes of Cargo Holds and Tanks (2)

Volume of Ballast Tanks

The volume of the ballast tanks in the cargo area can be estimated from a similar ship
VWB  f ps  AMS  LH
The volume of the ballast tanks in the aft and fore bodies can be estimated by the expression
VWBaft  0.13 f ps  B  T  0.5 Laft VWBfwd  0.35  T  B

M.Ventura Estimation Methods 109

Volumes of Cargo Holds and Tanks (3)

Hull Volume (excluding FWD Peak)

Vol  0.987  Lpp  B  D  CBD

C 0.086   D  1.0  0.0475  0.7  C   C

BD T  BB
 

Volume of Double-Bottom
Vol  0.987  Lpp  B  HDB  CBDB

 H 0.5  H
CBD  1.88   DB  1.364   DB   1.15  CB  0.7
 T  T

M.Ventura Estimation Methods 110

55
 Volumes of Cargo Holds and Tanks (4)

Volume of the Engine Room and Aft Peak

Vol  Lpp  B  D  CBm  dCBm

D  Lcm
C
Bm0.042  0.04
 T  C  B  Lpp  CB  0.02  0.08
 

 H DB 
dCBm   0.1   0.133 CB  0.048
 T 

Kupras, L. K. (1976), “Optimisation Method and Parametric Design in Precontracted Ship Design”, Interna

M.Ventura Estimation Methods 111

Volumes of Cargo Holds and Tanks (5)

Total Hull Volume (Lamb, 2003)

C C  1  C   0.8D  T 
BDB B
 3T 

Vol  Lpp  B  D  CBD

Engine Room Volume
Vol  LCM  B  D  CB  k
LCM  0.002  PD  5.5
with:
LCM – Length of Engine Room PD - Propulsive power
K = 0.85 (Engine Room aft)

M.Ventura Estimation Methods 112

56
 Volumes of Cargo Holds and Tanks (6)

Volume of the Double Bottom

Vol  LDB  B  HDB  CBDB

 H a a  CFF  1.0
CBD  CB   DB 
 T CB
CFF  0.70  CB  0.3 p / CB  0.75
p / CB  0.75
 CB
Volume of Peak
Vol  0.037  Lpk  B  D  CB
Lpk  0.05  Lpp

M.Ventura Estimation Methods 113

Volumes of Wing and Hopper Tanks

Kupras, L. K. (1976), “Optimisation Method and Parametric Design in Precontracted Ship Design”, Internati

Volume of the Wing Tanks

Vol  2  f  0.82  CB  0.217  LC

f  0.02  B  BW  0.5  WB2 tg  

Volume of the Hopper Tanks

Vol  2  f  0.82  CB  0.217  LC
f  0.02  B  BH  0.5  HB2 tg  

M.Ventura Estimation Methods 114

57
 Capacity of Containers (Ships with Cell Guides)

Containers in Holds
for Lpp < 185 m

NHOLD  15.64   NB  ND 
0.6589
MS
 NL0.55030.598
CB 126
for Lpp > 185 m

NHOLD  15.64  NB MSND  NL1.5553.505

1.746
 CB  704

with:
NB – Number of transverse stacks ND – Number of vertical tiers
NL - Number of longitudinal stacks

M.Ventura Estimation Methods 115

Capacity of Containers (Ships with Cell Guides)

The number of stacks can be estimated by the expressions:

NB   B  2  BDH  / 2.54
ND   D  HDK  HHA  HDB  HMRG  / 2.60
NL  LHOLDS / 6.55
with:
BDH – Breadth of the double-hull
HDK – Height of the deck (salto do convés) HHA – Height of the hatch
HDB - Height of the double-bottom
HMRG – Distance from the top of the upper container to the hatch cover LHOLDS – Total length of the cargo holds [m]

M.Ventura Estimation Methods 116

58
 Capacity of Containers (Ships with Cell Guides)

Assuming the margins between stacks of containers

∆bTEU = 100 mm(transverse direction)
∆lTEU = 900 mm(longitudinal direction)
∆hTEU = 13 mm(vertical direction)

From the statistical analysis of recent ships, the number of longitudinal stacks of containers in

N L  0.0064 Lpp0.414HOLDS
 L 0.806  4.22

M.Ventura Estimation Methods 117

Capacity of Containers (Ships with Cell Guides)

Containers On Deck

NB  B The number of vertical stacks depends on the stability and also fro
2.464
N L  LDK
6.55

In ships with Engine Room aft, the height of the bridge can be approximated by:

HBDG
0.22 L 0.28
PP
 D1.56  0.02  L PP
0.806  D1.1

The total number of containers on deck, based in recent statistics, can be approximated by the

N
DK145  L0.36
PP  B0.18  0.032 BHP1.18  1074

M.Ventura Estimation Methods 118

59
 Bibliography (1)

Alvarino, Ricardo; Azpíroz, Juan José e Meizoso, Manuel (1997), “El Proyecto Básico del Buque Mercante”, Fundo
Barras, C.B. (2004), “Ship Design and Performance for Masters and Mates”, Elsevier Butterworth-Heinemann.
Carlton, J.S. (1994), “Marine Propellers and Propulsion”, Butterworth-Heinemann.
Chen, Ying (1999), “Formulation of a Multi-Disciplinary Design Optimization of Containerships”, MSc Thesis, Facu
Fernandez, P. V. (2006), “Una Aproximación al Cálculo del Peso del Acero en Anteproyecto”, Ingenieria Naval, No
Gerr, David (2001), “Propeller Handbook: The Complete Reference for Choosing, Installing and Understanding Bo
M.VenturaEstimation Methods119

Bibliography (2)

Holtrop, J. e Mennen, G. (1978), “A Statistical Power Prediction Method”, International Shipbuilding Progre
Holtrop, J. and Mennen, G. (1982), "An Approximate Power Prediction Method", International Shipbuilding P
Holtrop, J. (1984), "A Statistical Re-Analysis of Resistance and Propulsion Data", International Shipbuildin
IACS (1999), “Requirements Concerning Mooring and Anchoring”.
Kuiper, G. (1992), "The Wageningen Propeller Series", Marin, Delft.
Kupras, L. K. (1976), “Optimisation Method and Parametric Design in Precontracted Ship Design”, Internati
Parson, Michael G. (2003), “Parametric Design”, Chapter 11 of “Ship Design and Construction”, Vol.I, Lamb (

M.Ventura Estimation Methods 120

60
 Bibliography (3)

Lamb, Thomas (2003), “Ship Design and Construction”, Vol.I, SNAME.

Lee, Kyung Ho; Kim, Kyung Su; Lee, Jang Hyun; Park, Jong Hoon; Kim, Dong Geun and Kim, Dae Suk (2007)
Molland, Anthony F. (2008), "The Maritime Engineering Reference Book: A Guide to Ship Design, Constru
OECD (2007), “Compensated Gross Tonnage System”, Council Working Party on Shipbuilding, Directorate

M.Ventura Estimation Methods 121

Bibliography (4)

Ross, Jonathan and Aasen, Runar (2005) "Weight Based Cost Estimation During Initial Design", Proceedings
Schneekluth, H. and Bertram, V. (1998), “Ship Design for Efficiency and Economy”, 2nd Edition, Butterwort

M.Ventura Estimation Methods 122

61