CAPT. JAMES W. KEHOE, JR. USN (RET.
),
THE DEEP- VEE HULL FORM -
IMPRO VES SEAKEEPING AND
COMBAT SYSTEM PERFORMANCE
THE AUTHORS
Captain James W. Kehoe, Jr., USN (Ret.) is well known for
his work in comparative naval architecture studies of U.S. and
foreign warship design practices, for which he received the
American Society of Naval Engineer’s Gold Medal f or 1981
and the Legion of Merit in 1982. He received the ASNE “‘Jim-
mie” Hamilton Award f or 1983. He is currently a partner in
Spectrum Associates Incorporated, Arlington, Virginia. Prior
to his retirement in 1982, his naval career included sea duty
aboard three destroyers and three aircraft carriers, including
command of a destroyer and engineer officer of an aircraft
carrier.
Kenneth Brower is a partner in Spectrum Associates Incorpo-
rated, a naval engineering firm which he founded in 1978,
which is currently engaged in the design of naval ships, com-
parative naval architecture studies, and the development of
ship design synthesis computer programs. A graduate in naval
architecture from the University of Michigan, he has contrib-
uted to the design of numerous warships and merchant ships,
as well as several frigate designs f or foreign military sales. Mr.
Brower has been the author or coauthor of numerous technical
studies and articles. He received the ASNE “Jimmie” Hamil-
ton Award fo r 1983.
Erbil Serter is the director of Hydro Research Systems S.A.,
Geneva, Switzerland. He is a graduate in naval architecture
from Sunderland College and the Imperial College of Science
and Technology of London University in England where he
earned a D.I.C. in aeronautics. Mr. Serter is a Fellow of the
Royal Institution of Naval Architects and a member of the
Royal Society of Aeronautics. His interest in deep- Vee hull
forms began with his involvement in the early investigations of
fast patrol boat design concepts. In the early 1970s, he devel-
oped a 200-ton FPB design with a deep-Vee hull form called
the SAR-33, fourteen of which have been built for Turkey.
Since 1974, Mr. Serter has been developing deep- Vee hull form
designs between 600- and 7 , W t o n s .
ABSTRACT
A unique deep-Vee hull form has been developed and model
tested in Europe for use in the design of corvette and frigate
sized ships. The seakeeping performance of this new deep-Vee
hull form, whose proportions are suitable for ship operations
in a displacement mode at conventional speed-to-length ratios,
exceeds the performance of ships with more conventional
round-bilge hull forms. It promises to provide a 4,5004011 frig-
ate with the speed, course selectivity, and combat system per-
formance equivalent to that of larger destroyers when opera-
ting in the high latitudes of the North Atlantic, especially dur-
ing the winter season.
The authors describe and compare the seakeeping perfor-
mance of two 4,5004011 frigates, one with a deep-Vee and the
other with a round-bilge hull. They discuss the impact of dif-
ferences in seakeeping performance on combat system availa-
bility.
KENNETH S. BROWER & ERBIL H. SERTER
From the standpoint of incorporating a deep-Vee hull form
into a ship design, certain features of a deep-Vee hull form af-
fect ship proportions, calm water resistance, hull structure
(particularly hull girder bending moments), stability, deck
area, arrangements, propulsion plant configuration, light ship
weights and centers of gravity, and acquisition and life cycle
costs differently than a round-bilge hull form. Based on a
comparative feasibility design study of two frigates of about
4,500-tons, one with a deep-Vee and the other with a round-
bilge hull, the authors quantify the impact of these differences
on a ship design.
INTRODUCTION
T h e seakeeping performance of naval ships, and its
impact on their combat system performance, is a critical
operational issue for all navies. Advances in antiship
warfare technology, including nuclear powered subma-
rines and long-range, all weather weapons and sensors
have made it vital that warships be able to maintain high
speed, maneuver freely and be able to use their weapons,
sensors and aircraft under the most severe sea conditions
[I].
Like all navies, the U.S. Navy faces a major problem
in trying to provide more seaworthy replacements for
existing frigates without incurring the large cost in-
creases associated with monohull type ships that may be
even larger and more expensive. Such cost increases tend
to result in a reduction in the total numbers of ships that
a navy can afford to acquire and operate.
In response to the requirement for better seakeeping
performance, naval engineers have improved the sea-
keeping performance of the familiar round-bilge hull
form. A round-bilge hull form that provides improved
seakeeping performance has been incorporated in the
design of the DDG-51 Burke class destroyer [2]. In addi-
tion, several new ship design concepts have been devel-
oped in the last two decades in response to the require-
ment for naval ships with better seakeeping perfor-
mance and the ability to achieve higher speeds in rough
seas. In general, these new ship design concepts, which
include small waterplane area twin hull (SWATH)
ships, hydrofoils, air cushion vehicles and surface effect
ships, provide significantly better seakeeping perfor-
mance and higher speeds in rough seas than monohull
type ships with round-bilge hull forms [3]. Unfortunate-
ly, these new ship design concepts also introduce new
elements of technical risk and high costs. In the case of
the SWATH, which is often perceived as being suitable
for use in the design of large-size frigates, a recent study
indicated that an increase of about 30% in full load dis-
placement is required if the ship is to be capable of ac-
complishing the same mission as a ship with a round-bilge
Naval Engineers Journal, May 1987 39
 DEEP-WE HULL FORM
IU ‘ =
~
Figure 1. Deep-vee hull form.
hull, i.e., carry the same payload of weapons and sensors
and provide similar calm water speed and endurance [2].
In addition to improvements in the round-bilge hull
form and the introduction of new concepts, there is a
new and unique hull form which, based on model test
data, promises better seakeeping performance and higher
speeds in high sea states than any existing round-bilge
hull form. Test data indicates that this new hull form ex-
hibits less heave, pitch and yaw, experiences lower verti-
cal accelerations, has comparable roll motions and lateral
accelerations, and has a lower probability of slamming
than a round-bilge hull. This new design is the HRS
deep-Vee hull developed by Hydro Research Systems
S.A., Geneva, Switzerland, hereafter referred to as Hull
Form V, or imply as the “deep-Vee hull form” [4].
Unlike the hard-chine hull form used in planing craft,
the deep-Vee hull form is designed for operations at
speed-to-length ratios associated with displacement type
hulls. As shown in Figure 1, the deep-Vee hull form has a
unique and synergistic combination of design features,
which include:
- The bow extending below the keel line,
- After sections with constant deadrise that increase
in the area immediately adjacent to the transom,
- Reverse keel drag, with parallel buttock lines,
- A stern skeg that acts like a bilge keel, and
- Partial bilge keels located aft, in way of the chine.
The deep-Vee hull form, under development for the
past 15 years and for which a patent is pending, is based
on an evolutionary series of model tests conducted by the
British Hovercraft Corporation and the model test basins
in Hamburg, Duisburg, and Paris. A series of models,
HRS Hull Forms I through VI, have been constructed
and tested with the objectives of:
- Studying the development of a deep-Vee hull form
with proportions typical of displacement type hulls,
- Reducing calm water resistance at relatively low
speed-to-length ratios ( V / n , and
- Improving seakeeping performance at all speeds.
This paper is divided into four areas. Initially reported
is the seakeeping performance of the deep-Vee hull form.
A comparison is made with the seakeeping performance
of a round-bilge hull form. An estimate is made of the
combat system performance of a 4,500-ton frigate with a
40 Naval Engineers Journal, May 1987
KEHOE/BROWER/SERTER
I
deep-Vee hull compared to a frigate with a round-bilge
hull.
Secondly, the paper reports on several design features
of a deep-Vee hull that can have a significant impact on a
ship design. Then, to quantify and compare the impact
of a deep-Vee hull form on ship characteristics, the third
section reports the results of a comparison of a deep-Vee
and a round-bilge frigate.
The paper concludes with a discussion of the findings
and the authors’ conclusions. Included is a prognosis of
ways in which lessons learned from the ship design
studies may be used to improve the deep-Vee hull form.
SEAKEEPING PERFORMANCE
OF DEEP-VEE HULLS
EARLYDEVELOPMENTAL
WORK
The original investigations associated with the develop-
ment of a deep-Vee hull form for use in the design of
ships with displacement type hulls involved models with
hull forms derived from Hull Form I, which was used in
the design of the Turkish Coast Guard SAR-33 patrol
craft. Seakeeping model tests of Hull Form I1 and a
round-bilge hull, based on the Leander class frigate, were
conducted separately in the open waters off the Isle of
Wright using large radio controlled models of frigates
[ 5 ] . This is the only occasion in which a deep-Vee hull
and a round-bilge hull have been model tested in open
waters under similar conditions. The models were fitted
with identical autopilots, rudders, propellers, brackets,
and shafting. In addition, the round-bilge model was fit-
ted with bilge keels, a skeg and fin stabilizers (which were
not operated).
The full scale characteristics of the models used for
these tests were as follows:
Deep-Vee Round-Bilge
Length, LBP 352.9 ft. 360.8 ft.
Beam, B 50.8 ft: 39.4 ft.
Displacement, A 3,042 L.T. 3,000 L.T.
A comparison of the results of early model tests are
summarized in Figure 2, in terms of significant single
amplitude ship motions and ship speeds of 12-14 knots in
 k\.\,:
KEHOE/BROWER/SERTER DEEP-WE HULL FORM

n:
g 2.6
,,,/,-- o6
.+

0.26
-

-
n
'.
180 90 0 180 90 0 180 90 0

i'v-.I"i--
Headlng Headlng Heading

PITCH B O W V E R T I C A L ACCELERATION YAW

b 10
-DEEP-VEE AT 12 KNOTS
n 6 / ---- LEANDER AT 14 KNOTS
0.1

180 90 0 180 90 0
Headlng Headlng
ROLL LATERAL ACCELERATION

Figure 2. Seakeeping performance.

waves with a significant height of 22 feet, i.e., low sea of 455.33 feet, operating at speeds of 15 to 25 knots in a
state 7. The sea spectra used for these tests were selected Pierson-Moskowitz sea spectrum with a significant wave
to ensure that the sea conditions would be similar to a height of 16.07 feet, i.e., sea state 6 [6].
Pierson-Moskowitz spectrum. At 25 knots, Figure 3 indicates that the significant
As shown in Figure 2, the deep-Vee model generally single amplitude pitch was about 2.6" and the vertical ac-
exhibited better seakeeping performance than the celerations midships were about 0.19 Gs. These values
Leander model. The deep-Vee model experienced less are well within the limits of the U.S. Navy seakeeping
pitch and lower bow vertical accelerations, significantly limiting criteria for full power operations, which are:
less yaw in following seas and, hence, much better course
keeping ability than the Leander model. However, a Roll 8"
separate analysis of Leander's full-scale characteristics Pitch 3"
suggests that it's yaw performance is, in fact, better than Vertical acceleration (Bridge) 0.4 Gs
Lateral acceleration (Bridge) 0.2 Gs
that reflected by model test data. The roll angles and Slamdhour 20
lateral accelerations of the deep-Vee model were lower in
beam seas, although it was not fitted with fin stabilizers,
bilge keels, or skeg.
I
COMPARISON WITH A HULL
ROUND-BILGE - 5.0
VERTICAL

m o
yI 0.5 - V ELOCITY
MIDSHIPS

" A (ZM). I t / s e c
In recent years, a series of model tests have been con- AI:
> :> 0.4 -
:N -4.0 HEAVE
ducted of resistance and seakeeping in head seas with the - m
m 0z
2
(Zrn). 11.
objective of modifying the earlier deep-Vee hull form in
order to reduce its calm water resistance and improve its
P 5 0.3 - -30
'U PITCH
U W
U W
J A
seakeeping performance. These objectives have been 80 Y 0.2 - - 2.0
("1, d e g r e e s

met. Additional modifications and tests are continuing to

/
'
'
a
be made. XI
g2 0.1 - ZM -10
I
Head Seas Performance

I
10 15 20 25

Figure 3 shows the seakeeping model test perfor- Speed. K n o t s

mance in head seas of improved H-15 HRS Hull Form V.

The model represented a 4,500-ton frigate with a length Figure 3. Head seas performance.

Naval Engineers Journal, May 1987 41

DEEP-VEE HULL FORM KEHOE/BROWER/SERTER

50
DEEP-VEE
\
I / 1001 \ -- - - - - ROUND-BILGE

- / I -Deep-Ye0 \
40
- - - - Round-Bilge \
' I \
U
3
0
' I ;8 0 - \
$ Z \
5
30- ' I 4
I-
4
-I
rn
I / 5 /

/
I?
(I)
W
I I /
[r

n 60-
20 - I / /
w
n
n
4
/ Sea State I-
z
W
0
5 40-
n H 1/3=

19.7 11.

20 -
10 20 30 9.8 ft.
SPEED, KNOTS

Figure 4. Probability of slamming in head seas. 2.5 11.

I
There was very limited evidence of slamming during 10 2b 30
these extensive model tests in head seas. SPEED, KNOTS

Slamming Figure 6. Added drag versus sea state.

Based on available data, the probability of slamming
was calculated for deep-Vee and round-bilge frigate de-
signs of similar length and a displacement of 4,500-tons.
The slamming calculations were based on the prediction
methodology developed by M.K. Ochi at the David Tay-
lor Naval Ship Research and Development Center [7].
The results are shown in Figure 4 [ 8 ] .
The round-bilge hull form used in these calculations
was based on the hull form of an existing frigate, which
was fitted with a stern wedge to improve its powering per-
formance. The lines incorporate hull flare above the
waterline and a full waterplane area and Vee-shaped sec-
tions forward. Model tests have shown that this round-
bilge hull form, which is shown in Figure 5 , has excellent
seakeeping and powering characteristics.
As shown in Figure 4, the results of which are consis-
tent with observations of seakeeping model tests in head
seas, a ship with a deep-Vee hull has a much lower prob-
ability of slamming than a comparable size ship with an
excellent round-bilge hull. This results from the lower
ship motions of the deep-Vee ship and its relatively deep-
er bow immersion.
Speed in Rough Seas

I Because it exhibits lower motions, less yaw, and bet-

Figure 5. Round-bilge hull form.
42 Naval Engineers Journal, May 1987
ter course keeping ability, the added wave making resis-
tance in high sea states is less for a deep-Vee hull than
for a round-bilge hull. Figure 6 shows the comparative
results of the best available model test data, which is for
early Hull Form 111, scaled to reflect 4,500-ton frigate
characteristics [9]. This figure shows the estimated added
resistance caused by waves with a significant height of 2.5
to 19.7 feet, i.e., sea states 3 through 6 , on 425-foot long
round-bilge and deep-Vee frigates.
As reported in Reference [l], the commanding of-
ficers of frigates indicate that they generally reduce
speed and/or change course after they experience only a
few successive slams in a short period of time. This ob-
servation indicates that if the onset of slamming with a
deep-Vee hull occurs later (or in higher sea states) than
with a round-bilge hull, the deep-Vee hull should be
capable of maintaining a higher maximum speed in
rough seas.
KEHOE/BROWER/SERTER DEEP-VEE HULL FORM

- Deep-Vee
The data in Figure 7 indicates that the speed of the
____- Round-Bilge
deep-Vee frigate is only limited by resistance when op-
erating in waves of up to about 30 feet i.e., high sea
state 7, not by ship motions; whereas, the speed of the
round-bilge frigate is limited by slamming when opera-
ting in waves higher than about 13 feet, i.e., higher than
sea state 5. Therefore, a deep-Vee frigate should be cap-
able of maintaining significantly higher speeds in moder-
ate to high sea states than a comparable round-bilge frig-
ate because the commanding officer will not have to re-
duce power in order to reduce slamming.

W A V E HEIGHT, F E E T Roll Motions and Lateral Accelerations

SEA S T A T E
Figure 7. Speed versus sea state.
The estimated maximum speed versus sea state of
4,500-ton frigates with deep-Vee and round-bilge hulls
is shown in Figure 7. The data for Figure 7 was derived
from the slamming and added drag data shown in Fig-
ures 4 and 6 and is based on a conservative limiting cri-
teria of ten slams per hour, compared to the U.S.
Navy's criteria of 20 slams per hour. The criteria of ten
slams per hour results in a curve for the round-bilge
frigate that is very similar to the actual experience re-
ported by the commanding officers of U.S. Navy frig-
ates and destroyers of about similar size, like the
FF-1052 and DDG-2.
----- 1 1 KNOTS
Deep-Vee ship designs generally have substantially
more stability (GM) than comparable round-bilge de-
signs, i.e., a GM/beam ratio of 15-20%, compared to
8-10%. Figure 8 shows the roll angles and lateral accel-
erations of deep-Vee and round-bilge frigates of com-
parable length (418.6 feet) and displacement
(4,500-tons), measured at a point 19.9 feet above the
waterline. Data is shown for frigates operating on
various headings and at speeds of 10-30 knots in a
Pierson-Moskowitz wave spectrum with a significant
height of 15.2 feet, i.e., low sea state 6 [lo]. The roll
motions and lateral accelerations shown in Figure 8
were analytically predicted based on the use of a six-de-
gree of freedom seakeeping computer program used by

--- 22 KNOTS

33 KNOTS

MOTIONS EXCEED
U.S. NAVY CRITERIA

g1
Y

ACCELERATIONS
0 : I I I I I i
180 150 120 90 60 30 0 180 150 120 90 60 30 0
HEADING, DEGREES HEADING, DEGREES
DEEP-VEE ROUND-BILGE

Figure 8. Roll angles and lateral accelerations.

Naval Engineers Journal, May 1987 43
DEEP-VEE HULL FORM KEHOE/BROWER/SERTER

the HSVA model test basin in Hamburg. The roll damp- IMPACT OF DEEP-VEE HULL
ing factors for the unappended deep-Vee hull form were DESIGN FEATURES
based on yoll damping model test data. The deep-Vee de-
sign was fitted with short bilge keels (that are integrated There are several features, inherent in a deep-Vee
into the after chine), spray rails, and a stern skeg. The hull, that can have a significant effect on a ship design.
round-bilge design (Figure 5 ) incorporated a displace- The influence of these design features was determined
ment skeg and bilge keels. For the purposes of the through an analysis of the deep-Vee hull form using first
analysis neither design had active fin stabilizers. principles and by conducting feasibility design studies of
The U.S. Navy's limiting design criteria is 8" of roll a 1,200-ton corvette and a 2,400-ton frigate with deep-
and 0.2 Gs of lateral acceleration. The model test data Vee hull forms [12, 131.
shown in Figure 8 indicates that the roll motions and
lateral accelerations of the deep-Vee and round-bilge CALMWATERRESISTANCE
frigates are generally comparable. The data indicates that
the deep-Vee frigate will not exceed the U.S. Navy criter- A deep-Vee hull form has more wetted surface than a
ia when operating at speeds of about 22 knots or more on comparable round-bilge hull form; hence, it has more
any heading; whereas, the round-bilge frigate will not ex- frictional resistance. It also has a relatively higher
ceed the criteria when operating at speeds of about 20 prismatic coefficient (C,) and a relatively higher im-
knots or more on any heading. At speeds below 22 knots, mersed transom area.
the deep-Vee frigate will be limited only when operating Figure 9 shows the estimated shaft horsepower (SHP)
within about +30" of beam seas. At speeds below 20 curves of two comparable deep-Vee and round-bilge
knots, the round-bilge frigate will be limited when frigates in calm water, calculated using U.S. Navy prac-
operating within about f60" of beam seas. tices for applying the Taylor-Gertler Standard Series.
The roll motions and lateral accelerations predicted As shown in the following tabular data, these SHP
by the HSVA seakeeping computer program for the curves reflect frigates of equal displacement and length.
deep-Vee hull form are larger than the roll motions and However, as shown in the tabular data, the frigates have
lateral accelerations that were measured during earlier different beam-to-draft ratios, reflecting the different
deep-Vee seakeeping model tests in head seas at similar proportions of deep-Vee and round-bilge hull forms.
speeds and sea states. These differences in performance
are due to the inability of the computer program to ac-
count for the dampening effect of the added mass of the
deep-Vee hull form operating in waves. Figure 8,
therefore, may predict somewhat higher roll motions and 70.000
lateral accelerations for the deep-Vee hull form as com-
pared to those of the round-bilge hull form. DEEP-VEE
The use of a fin stabilization system would allow the 60,000 ROUND-BILGE
deep-Vee frigate to conduct unlimited operations on all
headings and speeds in waves of 15 feet or higher, i.e.,
low sea state 6. Because of its high GM and its hull
e
form, the size of the fins used in a deep-Vee design a 50.000
I
would have to be larger than those used in a convention- v)
v
al round-bilge frigate of comparable size. However, a U
W
recent computer study, that was based on the HSVA roll
40.000
damping model test data, indicates that a deep-Vee hull a
W
form can be effectively fitted with fin stabilizers [ll]. v)
a:
The new rudder roll stabilization system that is currently 0
I
under development would be particularly attractive for + 30,000
deep-Vee frigates. LL
a
r
v)

Directional Stability
20,000
During the previously noted HSVA roll damping
tests, it proved possible to qualitatively assess the direc-
tional stability of Hull Form IV. As noted in Reference 10.000
[ 101, the model was free-running and hand-operated by
an experienced helmsman. The model was connected to
the carriage only by flexible cables and could carry out
motions in all six degrees of freedom. The tests were MI I I I I I
conducted at speeds corresponding to 0, 10, 20, and 25 .6 .8 1.0 1.2 1.4 1.6

knots. Following the tests, the helmsman reported that

the self-propelled model could be steered easily and that
"/K
its course-keeping ability was above average. Figure 9. Calm water powering.

44 Naval Engineers Journal, May 1987

KEHOE/BRO WER/SERTER DEEP-VEE HULL FORM

Deep-Vee Round-Bilge STABILITY

Item Frigate Frigate
Because of its Vee-shaped lower sections, the ver-
Length between perpen- tical center of gravity of a ship with a deep-Vee hull is rel-
diculars, LBP 400 ft. 400 ft. atively higher than that of a ship with a round-bilge hull
Beam at design waterline, B 50.39 ft. 48.55 ft.
and the same depth amidships. However, as compared to
Draft amidships, t 15.67 ft. 15.81 ft.
Full load displacement, a round-bilge hull, the deep-Vee hull has a wider beam
AFL 4,194 L.T. 4,196 L.T. and a much fuller waterplane area, which provide much
Beam-to-draft ratio, B/t 3.22 3.07 more transverse inertia. Deep-Vee designs, therefore,
Length-to-beam ratio, L/B 7.94 8.24 have much more stability than round-bilge designs, i.e., a
Prismatic coefficient, C, 0.737 0.617 GM/beam ratio of 15-20%, compared to 8-10%.
Midship sectional area The following is a comparison of the hull form fac-
coefficient, C, 0.617 0.759 tors that affect stability, using Hull Form V and the
Block coefficient, c b 0.455 0.468 hull form shown in Figure 5 as representative of
deep-Vee and round-bilge hull forms:
The deep-Vee curve shown in Figure 9 is based on
model test resistance data for Hull Form V with stock Item Deep-Vee Round-Bilge
propellers and non-optimized propeller brackets [6]. The
round-bilge curve is based on resistance data for the hull Ratio of the vertical center
form shown in Figure 5 , which has unusually good bare of buoyancy to draft, KB/t 0.656 0.626
hull powering performance and a very high propulsive Prismatic coefficient, C, 0.737 0.617
coefficient. At speed-length ratios of 0.6 t o 1.6, the Midship sectional area
following table shows the wetted surface of a Taylor coefficient, C, 0.617 0.759
Inertia coefficient
Standard Series ship of equal dimensions, the residual (I = CiLB3), Ci 0.062 0.049
wave making resistance of the ship compared to the Waterplane area
residual resistance of an equivalent Taylor Standard coefficient, C, 0.855 0.760
Series ship, and the ratio of resistance to propulsive
power (EHP/SHP), i.e., the propulsive coefficient. DECKAREAAND ARRANGEMENTS
Wetted Inferiority/
Speed/Length Surface Superiority Propulsion The full waterplane area of a deep-Vee hull design
Ratio, V / f i Adjustment Curve Ratio Coefficient provides more useful deck area than a comparable
round-bilge hull design. However, experience to date
0.6 3.39 0.690 indicates that since the main machinery spaces of a
0.8 2.37 0.690 typical 4,500-ton deep-Vee frigate design may have
1 .o 1.083 1.275 0.690 to extend up to the main deck because of the Vee-
1.2 0.850 0.688 shaped lower hull sections, the potential benefits of
1.4 0.725 0.682 the full waterplane area on available deck area will
1.6 0.740 0.671 be partially offset. Therefore, the superstructure of
a deep-Vee frigate design should generally be com-
As shown in Figure 9, the calm water power re- parable in size to the superstructure of a round-bilge
quired for the deep-Vee hull compares t o that of the design of similar dimensions.
round-bilge hull as follows:

Speed-Length SHP, Deep-Vee HULLSTRUCTURE

Ratio, V / f i SHP, Round-Bilge A deep-Vee hull, with its fuller sections forward
0.6 0.93
and aft, has more buoyancy at the bow and stern
0.8 1.12 than a round-bilge hull. Therefore, a deep-Vee hull
1 .o 1.22 has higher hull girder bending moments than a
1.2 1.39 round-bilge hull when balanced on a 1 . l f l trichoi-
1.4 1.23 dal wave. The hull girder bending moment coeffi-
1.6 1.08 cient for a 4,500-ton deep-Vee frigate is estimated to
be about 16.5, compared to a bending moment coeffi-
Model tests have also been performed to measure cient of about 23 for a round-bilge frigate [ 131.
the resistance of a deep-Vee hull in shallow waters. The effect of the differences in hull girder bending
The results indicate that as speed is increased a moments on structural weight increases with ship
ship with a deep-Vee hull trims down by the stern size. The impact on a ship of 4,500 tons was identi-
less than a ship with a round-bilge hull. This sug- fied by developing midship sections for deep-Vee
gests that the resistance of the deep-Vee hull should and round-bilge frigates of comparable displace-
not increase as much as speed is increased and, con- ment, length, beam, and depth, but with different
sequently, may be able to achieve higher speeds in hull forms, drafts, and hull girder bending moments.
shallow waters than a ship with a round-bilge hull. The differences in the calculated weight per foot of
Naval Engineers Journal, May 1987 45
DEEP-VEE HULL FORM KEHOE/BRO WER/SERTER

these midship sections were used to estimate the COMPARISON OF A DEEP-VEE AND
light ship structural weights of the deep-Vee frigate ROUND-BILGE FRIGATE
design.
The midship sections developed for comparative In order to quantify and compare the impact of a
estimating purposes were based on the following de- deep-Vee and a round-bilge hull form on the light
sign characteristics: ship and full load displacement, fuel load, and speed
of a large frigate of about 4,500-tonsYtwo feasibility
Item Deep-Vee Round-Bilge designs were developed. The designs were devel-
oped as modified repeat follow-ons of the FFG-7
Full load displacement, L.T. 4,500 4,500 class frigate. The designs had the same length, re-
Displacement-to-length ratio, quired deck area, combat system, number of accom-
~/(~/100)3 55 55 modations, propulsion systems, design practices and
Length-to-depth ratio, L/D 13.5 13.5
Block coefficient, C, 0.46 0.48 criteria, margins, and endurance cruising range.
Beam-to-draft ratio, B/t 3.18 3.21 One study used Hull Form V and the other, the
Hull girder bending moment round-bilge hull form shown in Figure 5 . The designs
constant, K 16.5 23.0 were not developed, or expected, to have the same
Calculated primary stress, seakeeping performance.
tons/in.2 8.5 7.5 Both designs include the combat system of the
FFG-7, except that a 29-cell VLS launcher, in a type
The midship section of the round-bilge hull was based A module, was substituted for the Mk-13 launcher.
on the use of mild steel (MS). The use of mild steel is The combat system of the FFG-7 was selected only
consistent with the historical parametric weight data because it provided a typical budget of payload
which is available for weight estimating purposes. High weights, vertical centers of gravity, deck areas, and
tensile steel (HTS) was used for the midship section of electrical loads.
the deep-Vee frigate. The two simplified midship sec- Both designs include a twin screw gas turbine pro-
tions are shown in Figure 10. Based on this data, as pulsion plant consisting of two LM2500 gas turbines
compared to existing ships of comparable size, the in- rated at 22,500 BHP each, with a mechanical cross
crease in hull structural weight associated with the use connection between the shafts to permit cruising op-
of a deep-Vee hull form is estimated to be about 115 erations on one shaft. The machinery box arrange-
tons, or about 3.5% of the light ship displacement of a ment of the FFG-7 was used for both designs. In rec-
4,500-ton round-bilge frigate. ognition of the Vee-shaped lower hull sections, the

Dimensions in Inches

0.50 $ 0.025 .$ 0.75 0.50 $ 0.025

I I

0.025
O.?5

0.25 0.25
5 4A I *
0.025 0.50
e
DEEP-VEE
0.50
ROUND-BILQE *
I -b+ 0.375

1.00 $

Figure 10. Midship section.

46 Naval Engineers Journal, May 1987
KEHOE/BRO WER/SERTER DEEP-VEE HULL FORM

depth of the forward auxiliary machinery room was

increased in the deep-Vee design. The endurance
cruising range of both designs was set at 4,500 n.mi.
at a speed of 20 knots. Both designs were developed
with 185 accommodations.
Both design studies were conducted using conven-
tional U.S. Navy design criteria and practices, as re-
flected in the FFG-7 class frigate and the new
DDG-51 class destroyer. In general, U.S. Navy design
margins were used, except that as modified repeat
designs, the light ship design and construction Deep-Vee
weight margin was reduced from 12.5% to 8% of the cal-
culated light ship displacement, and the vertical
center of gravity (KG) margin for design and con-
struction was reduced from 10% to 6.5% of the calcu-
lated light ship KG.
To reduce displacement, both designs incorporate
an HY-SO/HSLA hull girder, with a calculated pri-
mary hull girder stress of 9.5 L.T./h2. Both designs
have a steel superstructure. The light ship weights
and vertical centers of gravity were calculated
based on those of the FFG-7, modified to reflect the
configurations, dimensions, and hull forms of the de-
signs. Round-Bilge

Figure 12. Inboard profile and plan view.

Figure 11. Frigate characteristics.

Item Deep-Vee Round-Bilge

The design of the two 4,500-ton frigates was con-
Length overall 451 ft. 451 ft. ducted using a unique ship design synthesis comput-
Length between perpendiculars 425 ft. 425 ft. er program [14]. This computer program can calcu-
Beam at design waterline 52.5 ft. 47.7 ft.
Draft amidships at full late the characteristics of a ship with a deep-Vee
load displacement 16.3 ft. 15.4 ft. hull form, which has a fixed beam-to-draft ratio that
Length-to-beam ratio, L/B 8.1 8.9 is associated with a preselected deadrise angle. The
Full load displacement 4,836 L.T. 4,266 L.T. beam and draft of the deep-Vee design were set by
Light ship displacement 3,693 L.T. 3,298 L.T.
Cubic numJer, the buoyancy needed to equal the calculated light
LXBXDX~O-5 7.323 x low5 6.655 x ship and load weights. By comparison, the beam-to-
Fuel load 873.6 L.T. 694 L.T. draft ratio of the round-bilge design was not similar-
Sustained speed, calm water 26.1 Knots 28.6 Knots ly fixed. The beam of the round-bilge design was set
Endurance cruising range 4,500 n.mi. @ 4,500 n.mi. @ to provide a GM-to-beam ratio of 10% at the full load
20 knots 20 knots
Accommodations 185 185 displacement, and the draft was set by the required buoy-
Propulsion plant Twin Screw, Twin Screw, ancy.
Gas Turbine, Gas Turbine, Preplanned alternate override values in the com-
45,000 BHP, 45,000 BHP, puter program allowed the parametric data base to
CPP Propellers CPP Propellers
Electrical plant 4 x 1,000kW 4 x 1,000kW be adjusted to reflect the use of conventional U.S.
D-G Sets D-G Sets Navy ship design criteria and practices, margins,
and the impact of the deep-Vee hull form on all ship
Combat system - SQS-56 Hull Mounted Sonar design characteristics, including weights, vertical
- SQR-19 Towed Array Sonar
- 2 LAMPS Mk 111 ASW Helicopters/RAST
centers of gravity, stability, resistance, deck area,
- 2 Mk32 Torpedo Tubes etc. In general, light ship and load weights and verti-
- 1 CIWS cal centers of gravity were estimated using conven-
- 32 Cell VLS Launcher in SSES ‘A’ Module tional parametric relationships [ 151.
w/29 Missiles
- 176mm Gun
- Mk92 Fire Control System w/STIR FEASIBILITY
DESIGNCHARACTERISTICS
- SLQ-32V(2) ECM
- NIXIE The characteristics of the deep-Vee and round-
- 2 SRBOC Chaff Launchers bilge frigate designs are summarized in Figure 11.
- SPS-49 Air Search Radar
- SPS-55 Surface Search Radar
Comparative inboard profiles and plan views are
- FFG-36 Command, Control, Communica- shown in Figure 12. The machinery arrangements
tions used for the deep-Vee design are shown in Figure 13.
Naval Engineers Journal, May 1987 47
 DEEP-VEE HULL FORM KEHOE/BRO WER/SERTER

LIGHTSHIP AND LOAD WEIGHTS

The light ship and load weights of the two designs

are shown in Figure 15. This data indicates that the
light ship displacement of the deep-Vee design, with-
out margins, is about 365 L.T., 11.9% more than that of
the round-bilge design. Most of the increase is in weight
group one, structures. The greater light ship weight of
the deep-Vee design is primarily a function of its wider
148'.0'
beam, which was set by the required buoyancy.
An increase in light ship weight is usually asso-
ciated with an increase in cost. However, experi-
ence in the construction of the Turkish Coast
Guard's SAR-33 class patrol boats suggests that the
platform fabrication cost per ton of a deep-Vee frig-
ate should be lower than that of a comparable
round-bilge frigate because of its developed sur-
I I I I faces and largely rectangular compartments that fa-
I
cilitate construction. Based on experience to date,
1 - Propul8lon Ga8 Turblne the overall fabrication cost per ton of a deep-Vee de-
2 - Reduction Gear sign is estimated to be about 7.5% less than that of a
3 - DIe8el Generator Sat
round-bilge design. Therefore, it is estimated that, based
Figure 13. Machinery arrangement. on the cost per ton of the FFG-7, the total platform ac-
quisition cost of a deep-Vee design will be about 1070 less
than that of the round-bilge design.
The machinery arrangements of the round-bilge de-
sign differ only in that the forward auxiliary machin- SPEED IN CALM WATER AND ROUGHSEAS
ery room extends up to the first platform vice the second
deck, the reduction gear and gas turbine are located The SHP curves for the deep-Vee and round-bilge
somewhat lower in the hull, and the shafting rake angle is designs are compared in Figure 16. This figure
slightly less. shows the SHP curves in calm water and the esti-
A conventional flush deck configuration was used mated curves when operating in waves with a signif-
for both designs. The depth amidships was set equal icant wave height of 9.8 feet, i.e., sea state 5.
to that of the FFG-7. For comparative purposes, the As shown in Figure 16, the deep-Vee design re-
length between perpendiculars of both designs was quires more power than the round-bilge design. The
set at 425 feet. Figure 14. Internal deck area.
Foreshortening either design would result in a de-
crease in speed and an increase in the required fuel Required Deck
load. In the case of the round-bilge design, it would Space Area, Sq. Ft.
also lead to a small decrease in light ship and full
load displacement. In the case of the deep-Vee de- Military Mission:
sign, the light ship displacement would decrease, but
the full load displacement would not change appre- Comm., Detec. & Eval. 3,910
ciably because of an offsetting increase in the re- Weapons 2,047
Aviation 4,275
quired fuel load.
Both designs could be lengthened somewhat to Subtotal 10,232
achieve an improvement in seakeeping and an in-
Ship Personnel:
crease in calm water speed, but with an associated
increase in light ship displacement and a decrease Subtotal 8,954
in the required fuel load. The full load displacement
of the round-bilge design would increase, but that of Ship Related:
the deep-Vee design would not change appreciably
because of an offsetting increase in the required Ship Control 3,200
fuel load. Main propulsion machinery 3,510
The required deck area for both designs was the same. Auxiliary systems 4,476
It is summarized in Figure 14. The volume in the Maintenance 3 97
superstructure of the deep-Vee design is 85,448 cubic Stowage 1,985
feet, compared to the volume in the superstructure of the Passageways and access 4,963
Future growth margin 1,985
round-bilge design, which is 108,467 cubic feet. In part,
this reflects the fact that the deep-Vee design has a wider Subtotal 20,516
beam and, hence, relatively more internal hull deck area. Total 39,702

48 Naval Engineers Journal, May 1987

KEHOWBROWERBERTER DEEP-WE HULL FORM

Deep-Vee I migate Round-Bilge ‘ r i g a t e

Weight Groups Weight L.T. % Total Weight, L.T. X Total
Structures 1710.0 46.3 1436.5 43.5
Propulsion P l a n t 347.4 9.4 347.4 10.5
Electrical Plant 204.3 5.6 202.1 6.2
Surveillance &
E l e c t r o n i c s Systems 131.1 3.5 129.9 3.9

Auxi 1i a r y Systems 573.1 15.5 508.9 15.4

Ou tf it t i ng 342.5 9.3 319.3 9.7
Weapon Systems 111.3 3.0 111.3 3.4
Design & C o n s t r u c t i o n
Margin 273.5 7.4 244.3 7.4

L i g h t Ship Weight 3693.2 100 .oo 3299.7 100.00

Load Items
Crew & E f f e c t s 21.8 21.8
Stores & Provisions 41.1 41.1
Po t a b l e Water 41.2 41.2
Lube O i l 19.4 17.1
Ammuni t ion 63.3 63.3
A v i a t i o n Loads 82.0 82.0
Fuel O i l 873.6 699.9
F u l l Load Displacement 4835.6 4266.1

Figure 15. Weight data.

additional calm water power requirement is the re-
sult of:
(1) The inherently higher calm water resistance of
the deep-Vee Hull Form V, and
(2) The higher full load displacement of the deep-Vee
design, which is caused by:
a. The impact of the higher resistance on the re-
quired fuel load,
b. The impact of the deep-Vee hull form on struc-
tural weights, and
c. The impact of the greater beam of the deep-Vee
hull on light ship weights.
Compared to a round-bilge hull, the deep-Vee hull
has less added resistance in high sea states because
it has better pitch, heave, and yaw motions. There-
fore, as shown in Figure 16, the two designs will
have more equal resistance when operating in high
sea states.
In order to identify the impact of the calm water
resistance of the deep-Vee hull form on annual op-
erating costs, the data shown in Figures 6 and 16 was us-
ed to estimate an annual fuel bill for a deep-Vee and a
round-bilge frigate. The estimated fuel bill was based on
the speed and operating profile shown in Figure 17 for
frigates operating in the various sea states encountered in
the North Atlantic over the period of a year. Based on
this data, it is estimated that the annual fuel bill for a
deep-Vee frigate will be about 15% more than that for a
round-bilge frigate. This is less than would have been the
case had the fuel bill been estimated for frigates
operating in calm water for a year, in which case it would
have been 26% greater.
DISCUSSION O F THE FINDINGS
A deep-Vee hull form can provide a frigate size
ship with substantially superior seakeeping and
combat system performance than a round-bilge hull
form. The comparative design study indicated that
compared to a round-bilge frigate, a deep-Vee frig-
ate has higher calm water resistance, higher light
Naval Engineers Journal, May 1987 49
DEEP-VEE HULL FORM KEHOE/BRO WER/SERTER

- 30
90, SPEED vs. TIME
DEEP-VEE
I
70. I-
z 20-
W

15-
60 n
J
I-
50
5-

- I I I I I I I I 1
40 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45
n
I
v) SPEED, KNOTS
Speed Operating Profile
30

20 301
25-
V NORTH ATLANTIC - WINTER
z
W

10.
g 20-
3
0
0
0 15-
I-
z
1 " " 1 " " I ' $10-
10 20 30
IT
SPEED, KNOTS w
a
-~ ~~
5-
Figure 16. SHP curves.
ship and full load displacement, and lower speed in calm
water.
I . I 4

I I I 1
1 4 ' 5 6 7 8
CALMWATERRESISTANCE SEA STATE

The difference between the calm water resistance Sea State Operating Profile
of the large baseline deep-Vee and round-bilge frig- Figure 17. Frigate speed and sea state operating profile.
ates is greater than has been identified in previous
studies of a 1,200-ton corvette and a 2,400-ton frig-
ate [12, 131. This increase in the difference in calm Navy frigate hull form. In this case, the round-bilge
water resistance is thought to reflect the fact that: FFG-7 hull form, as well as its appendages and propul-
sion train were used. Compared to a round-bilge hull, a
(1) The round-bilge hull form used in the study, deep-Vee hull is better able to accommodate a free
which also incorporates a stern wedge to im- flooding transom extension. Model tests have shown that
prove its powering performance, has excellent there is clean separation of the flow aft of the transom
calm water resistance characteristics. when a deep-Vee hull is operated at low speed-to-length
(2) The previously developed deep-Vee corvette and ratios. The deadrise angle of the improved deep-Vee hull
frigate incorporated a short, free flooding, trans- form was also increased somewhat in order to reduce the
om extension; and, prismatic coefficient. The calculations were performed
(3) This study emphasizes resistance characteristics
at lower speed-to-length ratios than the previous
for frigates with the following characteristics:
studies, which were based on shorter, relatively Improved FFG-7
higher speed ships.
Deep- Vee Round-Bilge
Item Frigate Frigate
In order to quantify the impact of factors (1) and
(2), above, on differences in calm water resistance, the Length between perpen-
performance of an improved version of Hull Form V, diculars, LBP 400 ft. 400 ft.
with a short, free flooding transom extension added, was Beam at design waterline, B 48.76 ft. 50.73 ft.
compared to a round-bilge frigate with an existing U.S. Draft amidships, t 16.64 ft. 15.94 ft.

50 Naval Engineers Journal, May 1987

KEHOE/BROWER/SERTER DEEP-VEE HULL FORM

Full load displacement, As previously noted, it may be feasible to reduce

AFL 4,193 L.T. 4,203 L.T. the impact of the calm water resistance on the dis-
Beam-to-draft ratio, B/t 2.93 3.18 placement of the deep-Vee frigate design by:
Length-to-beam ratio, L/B 8.20 7.88
- Reducing the prismatic coefficient and increasing the
The results of the comparison are as follows: length-to-beam ratio,
- Incorporating a free flooding transom extension,
Speed/ and
Length SHP, - Incorporating other calm water powering im-
Speed, Ratio, Improved SHP, FFG-7 SHP Deep-Vee provements currently under investigation.
Knots V /& Deep-Vee Round-Bilge SHP Round-Bilge
Experience also indicates that if the beam-to-draft
12 0.6 2,010 1,922 1.05 ratio (B/t) of Hull Form V were reduced slightly, by
16 0.8 5,664 5,071 1.12 increasing the deadrise angle and/or the immersion
20 1.0 12,409 10,650 1.17 of the chine, the light ship displacement of the deep-
24 1.2 23,377 20,166 1.16 Vee design would be reduced.
28 1.4 41,475 42,017 0.99
32 1.6 63,974 72,195 0.89
POTENTIAL
IMPROVEMENTS
TO THE

When this data is compared to that shown in Figure 9, DEEP-VEEHULLFORM

it indicates that the resistance of an improved deep-Vee
hull form with a short, free flooding transom extension
is still higher than that of an equivalent round-bilge
FFG-7 type hull form at speed-to-length ratios below
about 1.2, but is less at higher speeds. Model test results
have indicated that a slight increase in the angle of the
reverse keel drag would reduce powering requirements by
about 5% with only a limited impact on seakeeping per-
formance. It also appears that the calm water resistance
of deep-Vee hull forms could be further reduced if addi-
tional reductions were made in the prismatic coefficient
of the hull. Therefore, our assessment'is that it may be
feasible to further reduce the calm water powering penal-
ty associated with a deep-Vee hull form t o within about
10% of that of a low-drag, round-bilge hull form with a
stern wedge.
LIGHTSHIP AND FULLLOADDISPLACEMENT
The higher light ship and full load displacements
of the deep-Vee frigate compared to the round-bilge
frigate are the result of:
- The higher calm water resistance of the deep-Vee
hull form, which increases the fuel load,
- The impact of the deep-Vee hull form on hull gir-
der bending moments, and
- The impact of the larger beam of the deep-Vee de-
sign on light ship weights.
In order to illustrate the cumulative effect of the
improvements discussed above, the deep-Vee frigate
design was modified to reflect:
- A slightly lower beam-to-draft ratio, and a slightly
lower prismatic coefficient,
- A short free flooding transom extension,
- A reduction in shaft horsepower by 5% to reflect
the anticipated impact of other powering im-
provements currently under investigation, and
- A 5% reduction in the light ship weight groups that
are not linearly affected by an increase in beam.
All of the other factors which were used for the
initial design studies were not changed. The effect of
these changes are summarized in Figure 18. As
shown by the data in Figure 18, the differences be-
tween the light ship and full load displacement, fuel
load, and speed of the deep-Vee and round-bilge de-
signs were substantially reduced by these changes.
Figure 19 shows the SHP data for a frigate design
using the improved deep-Vee hull form and the SHP
data for the baseline round-bilge frigate in calm wa-
ter and in waves with a significant height of 9.8 feet,
i.e., sea state 5 . When this data is compared to that
shown in Figure 16, it indicates that the calm water
power required for the improved deep-Vee design
was reduced by about 9-16070 in comparison to the
Figure 18. Frigate characteristics with improvements.

Baseline Improved
In addition, our experience indicates that the Deep-Vee Deep-Vee Round-Bilge
parametric equations used in the computer program Item Hull Form Hull Form Frigate
to estimate weights, by their inherent nature, func-
Length between perpen-
tion conservatively when two identical ships with diculars 425 ft. 425 ft. 425 ft.
different beams are compared. In this case the equa- Beam 52.5 ft. 49.5 ft. 41.1 ft.
tions unnecessarily overestimate the impact of an in- Draft 16.3 ft. 16.9 ft. 15.4 ft.
crease in beam on several light ship weight groups Length-to-beam ratio 8.1 8.6 8.9.
Full load displacement 4,836 L.T. 4,590 L.T 4,266 L.T.
by about 5% or more. In reality the difference in the Light ship displacement,
light ship weight of actual deep-Vee and round-bilge including margins 3,693 L.T. 3,566 L.T 3,300 L.T.
ships will be less than that calculated by the comput- Fuel load 874 L.T. 756 L.T. 700 L.T.
er program. Sustained speed calm water 26.1 kt. 27.1 kt. 28.6 kt.

Naval EngineersJournal, May 1987 51

DEEP-VEE HULL FORM KEHOE/BRO WER/SERTER

70.oon
i- DEEP-VEE

- - - -AOUND-BILQE
ROUND-
BILOE

I <.so0 L.T.
80.000 - DEEP-

-2 50.000-
I 4.000 L.1.
-_
u)
I

c
Y
_-
3
0
;40.000-
SWATH
-.
-,
u1
P-
O
I

IY
-
I I
1.000
..I. 8.000 L.T.

1.000
I 1
1.000
I
4.000
I
1.000
I
1.000
I
7.000
1
0.000
30.000-
v) DISPLACEYENT. L.r.
EOUIVALENT P A Y L O A D CARRYINQ CAPABILITY

2o.ono-

10,000 -

12 18 10 24
SPEED. KNOTS

CALM WATER
28 32
-12 18 20 24
S P E E D , KNOTS

9.8 FT. W A V E S
28 32 SWATH
.-
-
-<
.-_-
-

-.
----.=-
,-
..,. e.000 L.T.

Figure 19. SHP curves for improved deep-Vee hull form. ROUND-
BILGE

calm water power required for the baseline deep-

Vee design. The power required for the improved I ..I. 8.000 L.T.

o.000
deep-Vee design in calm water is still more than that i.000 2.000 1.000 4.000
DISPLACEYENT. L.T.
o.000 1.000 8.000

required for the round-bilge design. However, in 9.8-foot
waves, the improved deep-Vee design requires less power
than the round-bilge design at speeds less than 20 knots
or at speeds higher than 30 knots. It is estimated that the
annual fuel bill for the improved deep-Vee frigate design,
with its displacement reduced to 4,590 L.T., will be
within 1% of the fuel bill for the 4,266 L.T. baseline
round-bilge design.
COMPARISON
OF DEEP-VEE
WITH OTHERCONCEPTS
A previous study has shown that a SWATH frig-
ate, with the same payload as a round-bilge frigate,
has significantly superior seakeeping performance.
However, as illustrated in Figure 20, it is about 30%
larger in displacement than the round-bilge frigate,
requires about 30% more fuel load, and has about 6%
less speed. The study also has shown that a round-
bilge frigate, with equivalent seakeeping perfor-
mance to a SWATH, is about 30% larger in displacement
than the SWATH, requires about 10% less
fuel, and is 1 knot faster in calm water speed [2].
From the standpoint of the seakeeping perfor-
mance of frigates carrying the same payload, our as-
sessment is that a deep-Vee frigate:
- Provides seakeeping performance considerably
superior to a similar size frigate with a round-
bilge hull form, and
- Provides seakeeping performance that is general-
ly similar to a larger SWATH frigate.
Therefore, had the comparative frigate designs
reported on in this paper been developed not only to
52 Naval Engineers Journal, May 1987
EOUIVALENT SEAKEEPING CAPABILITY
Figure 20. Comparison of deep-Vee with other concepts.
carry the same payload, but to also have similar sea-
keeping performance as illustrated in Figure 20, the
round-bilge frigate would have been much larger in
displacement than the deep-Vee frigate, required
more endurance fuel, and had similar calm water
speed. Had a SWATH frigate design also been devel-
oped to carry the same payload and to have similar
seakeeping performance it would also have been
larger in displacement and required more fuel than
the deep-Vee frigate. Therefore, when seakeeping
performance is considered as the basis for compari-
son, a frigate with a deep-Vee hull should result in a sig-
nificant savings in size, acquisition, and life cycle cost,
compared to a round-bilge or SWATH frigate.
AND COMBAT
SEAKEEPING SYSTEM
PERFORMANCE
In a discussion of seakeeping, combat system per-
formance, and operational capabilities of frigate
size ships in Reference [l], it was hypothesized that
the maximum achievable speed of frigates in high sea
states would be reduced more than the speed of slower
but much larger merchant ships and naval auxiliaries.
This hypothesis was confirmed by the results of a subse-
guent seakeeping questionnaire sent to the commanding
officers of U.S. Navy auxiliary, replenishment, and am-
phibious ships.
As shown in Figure 21, a typical 20,000-ton merchant
ship or navy auxiliary ship, with a maximum calm water
speed of 21 knots, will be capable of achieving speeds of
KEHOE/BRO WERBERTER DEEP-VEE HULL FORM

DEEP-VEE
--- - - - - ROUND-BILGE
v) 6o
AUXlLiARY SHIP W
w
u 50
0
w
12 40
w'
n
2 30
7
4
-1 20

10

Speed of Advance 1 Speed of Advance

Determined b y Speed 01 Determined b y Seakeeping 0 20 40 60 80 100
Auxlliary Ships Performance of Frlgetes P E R C E N T O F TIME

I 1
1'0 1'5
WAVE HEIGHT. FEET
21 3 1 4 1 5 I
SEA STATE
Figure 21. Improving the speed of advance of convoys.
about 16 knots in sea state 6, about the same as a
400-foot round-bilge frigate with a calm water speed of
28 knots. Therefore, since ASW frigates must have a
speed advantage over ships in company if they are to con-
duct ASW operations effectively, merchant ship convoys
and naval battle groups enroute to or from Northern
Europe could frequently be restricted to speeds of 12 to
15 knots in order to give escorting round-bilge frigates a
speed advantage. However, as also shown in Figure 21,
because of its superior seakeeping performance, a com-
parable deep-Vee frigate should maintain a speed advan-
tage up to sea state 7. Thus, the speed of convoys and
battle groups operating in high sea states could often be
increased by nearly 50% if deep-Vee frigates were used as
escorts.
Reference [l] also reported that the availability of
existing U .S. round-bilge frigates for conducting
ASW operations in the winter North Atlantic, using
hull mounted sonars and helicopters, was as follows:
Latitude (N or S)
60"
40"
20"
0"
As shown in Figure 22, it is estimated that this
availability could be significantly improved by the adop-
tion of an improved round-bilge hull form, like that of
the DDG-51 class, with roll stabilization fins, a towed
sensor, and a locally stabilized stand-off missile system
which can launch missiles under severe sea conditions.
As also shown in Figure 22, it is estimated that with the
use of the deep-Vee hull form, the availability of
frigates to conduct ASW operations in northern waters
would be about 95%, particularly if advanced hull
mounted sonars were used in conjunction with
helicopters.
- E x i s t i n g Round-Blige F r i g a t e
2'0
2'5 310
2 - Improved Round-BliQe Hull F o r m with Fins
6 ' 7 1 3 - I m p r o v e d Round-Bilge Hull Form with Fins.
T o w e d A r r a y a n d Long Range ASW MisSiieS
4 - D e e p - V e e F r i g a t e with A d v a n c e d Combat S y s t e m
Figure 22. Improving the ASW availability of frigates.
eep-Vee hull provides considerably better seakeeping
performance than a round-bilge hull. The data indicates
that, as compared to a frigate with a round-bilge hull, a
4,500-ton frigate with a deep-Vee hull should be:
- Capable of significantly higher speeds in moderate to
high sea states because of a delay in the onset of
slamming, and
- Capable of operating its combat systems and other
ship systems more effectively in higher sea states
while conducting such operations as antisubmarine
warfare, launching and recovering helicopters, and
replenishment-at-sea, because of lower ship motions.
From the standpoint of seakeeping performance, the
results of the study indicate that the 4,500-ton deep-Vee
frigate illustrated in Figure 23 should have the opera-
tional capabilities of a much larger round-bilge
Availability destroyer or cruiser. In practice, this means that if
future ships were designed with deep-Vee hulls they
15% should not have to be lengthened, or lengthened as
35% much, beyond the minimum length required for the
55 070 location of weapons, sensors, machinery, etc., in order
80% to achieve a specified minimum level of seakeeping per-
formance. It also means that it should be feasible to
design smaller, lower cost frigates in the future without
having to sacrifice seakeeping performance.
Based on the results of the feasibility design study of
two modified repeat designs of the FFG-7 frigate, one
with a deep-Vee and the other with a round-bilge hull
form, it has been determined that the frigate with a
deep-Vee hull would have:
- Higher calm water resistance and fuel costs,
- Higher light ship displacement, but nearly equal ac-
quisition costs, and
- Less speed in clam water.

CONCLUSIONS The study indicates that there are several modifica-

A comparison of seakeeping model test data for ships tions that can be made to the characteristics of the deep-
with deep-Vee and round bilge hulls indicates that a Vee hull form that should result in:
Naval Engineers Journal, May 1987 53
I 3
Figure 23. 4,5004011deep-Vee frigate.
- A substantial reduction in calm water resistance and
light ship displacement,
- An increase in calm water speed, and
- Nearly equal annual fuel costs.
Until now, navies have had the choice of procuring
either small fast monohull type ships with a single mission
capability, but limited seakeeping ability, or much larger,
more costly multimission ships with better seakeeping
ability. To break the relationship in monohull type ships
between seakeeping, ship size, and ship cost, new con-
cepts, such as hydrofoils, air cushion vehicles, surface ef-
fect ships, and SWATHS have been developed which
have provided improved seakeeping performance and
higher speeds in rough seas. Unfortunately, they have
also introduced new technical risks and high costs.
Model tests indicate that the deep-Vee hull form
should provide better seakeeping and combat system per-
formance and the ability to maintain higher speeds in
rough seas than any monohull type ship available. In ad-
dition, feasibility design studies conducted to date in-
dicate that the HRS deep-Vee hull form should also be a
lower cost, lower risk solution than any of the new ship
design concepts that are being considered. Equally im-
portant is the fact that the deep-Vee hull form, with all of
its advantages, can be used in the design of small patrol
craft and corvettes, as well as large frigates.
ACKNOWLEDGMENT
The authors gratefully acknowledge the technical
contributions of Herbert Meier and Kenneth Walker
and the typing and graphics support of Rose Lowstuter
and Joan Lively of Spectrum Associates Inc., Arling-
ton, Virginia, in the preparation of this paper.
REFERENCES
[l] Kehoe, J.W., K.S. Brower, and E.N. Comstock,
“Seakeeping and Combat System Performance -
The Operator’s Assessment,” Naval Engineers
Journal, Vol. 95, May 1983
54 Naval Engineers Journal, May 1987
[2] Kennell, Colen, Brian White and E.N. Comstock ,
“Innovative Naval Designs for North Atlantic
Operations,” SNAME Transactions, 1985.
[3] Ellsworth, W. M. (Ed.), “Modern Ships and
Craft,” Naval Engineers Journal, Vol. 97, Feb.
1985.
[4] Serter, E.H., “Deep-Vee and Round-Bilge Hull
Forms for Naval Applications,” International De-
fense Review, Vol. 17, April 1984.
[5] British Hovercraft Corp. Ltd. Report No.
X/0/3252, ‘‘Hydro Research System, Seakeeping
Tests on a 119.5m Deep-Vee Craft,” Jan. 1984.
[6] Blume, P., “Model Tests with the Hull Form V-A
(4,600-tons),” Report No. S225b/86, Hambur-
gische Schiffbau-Versuchsanstalt, October 1985.
[7] Ochi, M.K., “Predictions of Occurrences of Slam-
ming at Sea,” 5th Symposium of Naval Hydrody-
namics, ONR, Washington, D.C., 1964.
[8] Blume, P., “Prognosis of Slamming Probability in
Head Seas for Two Projects,” Report No.
S221/86, HSV Hamburg, April 1986.
[9] Direction, Technique Construction Navale, “Tech-
nical Report No. 2291/1,” 1983.
[lo] Blume, P., “Roll Damping and Roll Motions in Ir-
regular Sea Waves, Serter Hull Form IV-G,”
Report No. S218/B-6, Hamburgische Schiffbau-
Versuchsanstalt, April 1986.
[ I l l Brown Brothers, “Estimated Roll Motions for a
Deep-Vee Frigate Using Active Fin Stabilization,”
Letter Report ACFC/MA, March 7, 1986.
[12] Kehoe, J.W., K.S. Brower, and E.H. Serter,
“Deep-Vee Hulls - Improved Seakeeping for
Small, Fast Warships,” International Defense
Review, Vol. 19, November 1986.
[13] Kehoe, J.W., K.S. Brower, and E.H. Serter, “Im-
pact of Deep-Vee Hull Form on the Design and
Performance of Frigate Sized Ships,” ASNE
Destroyer, Cruiser, and Frigate Technology Sym-
posium, Transactions, Biloxi, MS, October 1986.
[14] Brower, K.S., and Kenneth W. Walker, “Ship De-
sign Computer Programs - An Interpolative
Technique,” Naval Engineers Journal, May 1986.
[I51 Straubinger, Erwin K . , William C. Curran, and
Vincent L. Fighera, “Fundamentals of Naval Sur-
face Ship Weight Estimating,” Naval Engineers
Journal, Vol. 95, May 1983.