Documenti di Didattica
Documenti di Professioni
Documenti di Cultura
Submarine Design
By Capt.
:E. S.
Arentzen, USN, 1
Summarized in this paper are the basic naval architectural aspects of recent attack
submarine designs. In a brief historical section each submarine discussed is placed in
its proper chronological setting. It is shown that volume and deck-area considerations
are even more important than those of weight in establishing dimensions of current submarines. The over-all favorable aspects of single-screw body revolution submarines
with particular regard to improved propulsive characteristics, smaller size and enhanced
maneuverability submerged are demonstrated. Volume and weight requirements of
diesel-electric versus nuclear power are discussed along with the large space demands
made by improved electronic equipment and by present-day habitability standard~.
The vital function of permanent fixed ballast needed for stability, space requirements,
allowance for design error and allowance for future growth is clarified. An attempt is
made in the structural section to develop a measure of the relative efflciencies of different
designs. Considerable discussion is devoted to the stability and control of present-day
high-speed submarines and it is concluded that excellent motion stability characteristics
can be made to be quite compatible with rapid entry and exit from radical maneuvers.
Finally, a limited look into the future with respect to the relatively incompatible features
of reducing submarine size and increasing operating depths is undertaken.
1 Introduction
622
Historical
I n t h e l a s t d e c a d e of t h e 1 9 t h c e n t u r y t h e H o l land Torpedo Boat Company initiated the cons t r u c t i o n of a. s u b m a r i n e , i n c o r p o r a t i n g c h a r a c teristics that the company believed important,
that was destined to be the first successful American military submarine.-: This submarine, comp l e t e d i n 1898 a n d n a m e d H o l l a n d , h a s b e e n d e s c r i b e d in c o n s i d e r a b l e d e t a i l i n m a n y p a p e r s a n d
p u b l i c a t i o n s a n d is m e n t i o n e d h e r e b e c a u s e n o t
o n l y d i d i t i n c o r p o r a t e v i r t u a l l y all t h e p r i n c i p l e s
f o u n d in p r e s e n t - d a y c o n v e n t i o n a l l y p o w e r e d s u b m a r i n e s b u t i t also p o s s e s s e d m a n y f e a t u r e s o p t i mizing submerged performance.
These features
were later rediscovered during the research and
d e v e l o p m e n t l e a d i n g t o t h e d e s i g n of t h e A l b a c o r e
in 1950.
Nomenclature
B ffi position of center of buoyancy
Ct -- frictional resistance coefficient -- R I I ( p l 2 ) S I n "
Cp =- prismatic coefficient of entire submarine -4V
ITD~L,
AR~/(p/2)SW
ru
623
II
400~
tO
350
9
s- l
7
300
w
~
w
250
~6
-~--
.
200
z S
150
IOO
50
~695
tStS
19t9 .
t920
IS30
BOaT
1940'S
5S576
SS580 SStNJ57t"
~
SS(N}578 $5(N}585
"
"~%r~-NUCLEAR SUBS
SS(N)S93
_ __,.~1
302
291~
2500
15.8
7.7
625
.....
sss63
.....
Fig. 2
.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
....
---~7._.2
merged power coupled with a large, highly resistful submerged hull form they reached a new low
in submerged performance and maneuverability.
Later U. S. submarine development resulted in
the famous Fleet Boats that fought the war in the
Pacific. Referring to Fig. 1, one can note that
this design approximated the dimensions of the
German cruiser-type. Except for a considerable
increase in surface speed the remaining principal
characteristics of the early Fleet Boats were nearly
identical with those of the German cruiser-type.
~IcKee [113 has described this design in considerable detail and has noted that the fleet submarine's
surface performance took precedence over submerged performance whenever the two conflicted.
With little consideration having been given to submerged speed, the submerged resistance was
extremely large. Fortunately for U. S. submariners the Japanese never mounted sustained ef3 Numbers in brackets designate References at the end
of the paper.
626
f ~
CLASS
~;--
7!/E
SSlN)593
.. B , ~ _
.....
ifTn n i i r T T - T . . _ . 2 ~ Z Z 2 E Z Z - 2 1 ~ 2 _ ~ .
.....
~................
II
627
Darter.
A very recent submarine, the Thresher, SS(N)
593, is also shown in Fig. 3. Thresher, now nearing completion at Portsmouth Naval Shipyard
has some additional capabilities, not possessed by"
Skipjack, which require additional volume inside
her pressure hull. To provide this additional
volume the best compromise solution was to increase her length, as shown.in Fig. 1, while holding the same diameter as that of Skipjack.
It should be noted that this historical discussion and in fact the whole paper are largely limited to submarines with almost identical primary
missions; i.e., attack submarines. Special purpose submarines such as those developed to carry
the Polaris missile or large surface radars (USS
Triton) are not included, since their missions impose such requirements that comparing them with
attack submarines would not give a true indication
of the trends in submarine design.
3
Speed'and Power
KEY
L/0i4
4-L x, =0
0
IJ.
~)iO0
L/O =5
/
LX'= O ' - ~ ' ~ ' * ~""
w
I1:
s
s
~ s
o~
LID=6
Lr-'.,',
/
~ s
,.
-/
~ - - - 4
.--
/L"=O~I
I1:20
I,
.50
Fig. 4
.60
l =I
:x..LL,o.,o
~Lx,=.30
.../-'V,~,
~'(l
~L/O=7 I
L,O.,
' 'Lx1~285
~ ~r'"
L/O=IZ5
. xl=.60
~ .x'=.60
_'t~l_~--.--~.,...p,r l//H.ii:,/~
"IC-L,O->,o:
" x ' VAR,',NG
--,,'~'_2"~L~1:3,:'2~.
%ART,RG
1
k l=VAR....s
Is/
--I/
-~
L/D= 5
~.6o
~O4o
"~
-- -iL/O=IO
LxI=O
.70
PRISMATIC COEFFICIENT, CP
.80
90
deeply submerged bodies. In fact for deeply submerged bodies, the residual resistance in nondimensional form is almost entirely shape depende2at. There is theoretically a small dependency on
Reynolds number, so small, however, that it is
usually ignored in submarine resistance work. It
is, therefore, possible to present a fairly complete
picture of total submarine submerged resistance
in compact form with its universality only impaired by the slight dependency of the viscous
drag coefficient, Ct, onspeed and length.
The current utilization of fairly streamlined
bodies of revolution for submarines further simplifies the matter of presentation. The body of
revolution shape parameters that appear to be significant as far as resistance is concerned are very
few in number. Two of the parameters that
strongly influence submarine size, hull costs and
arrangements, namely, the length-diameter ratio
and the prismatic coefficient, are also happily the
two most significant parameters for resistance.
Furthermore, since the majority of the appendages
on body of revolution submarines are easily distingnishable and separable from the basic body for
model test purposes, separate treatment of the
drag of the basic bare hull is both possible and
logical.
Several current submarines conform approxi-
mately to the body of revolution shapes described in [3]. In that reference a sixth-degree
polynomial is used to describe Useful streamlined
shapes for submarine applications. With these
polynomials, independent selection or variations
of such shape parameters as nose radius, tail radius, position of maximum section, prismatic
coefficient, and length/diameter ratio can be
made. Submerged bare-hull resistance data for
several series of body of revolution models incorporating single-parameter variations have been
reported by Gertler. Later work by Larson reported resistance data for several of the original
models split at the maximum section and incorporating various lengths of parallel middle body.
This later work forms a very useful extension of
the series and permits some interesting comparisons of the effect of sectional area curve shape
which will be made subsequently.
The shape parameters of the body of revolution
models used in this paper are shown in Table 1.
Comparative residual resistance data for these
models are shown in Fig. 4. The symbols used are
defined in the nomenclature given at the beginning of the paper. From these definitions the
following useful relationships can be derived:
L/D = LJD - ( 1 - L/)
(1)
629
p=.7(~
I!
1.0
X1=.185
e---'-' CpE = ,6515
/CSE=.759
, \ k~ =.8o3
\
.s
Cp:.70 "]
Lx~:O ~
CpE :.70
.Cs=.sos)
t//
//
/
I.O
F--"
.4ii:
z
.N
.9
.8
.7
.6
.5
~
.3
DISTANCE AFT OF NOSE + LENGTH, X/L
.2
Fig. 5 Comparative sectional-area curves for different body of revolution forms with Cp = 0.70
Cp = C~ (1 - L~') + L~'
(2)
c , = G . (t - L / ) + L='
(3)
L = (L/D)21'(4V/~G)~I, =
(4)
S = G(TrL/D)lls(4V/Cv) 218 =
3.69 C,(L/D)lt3(v/C~,)'/a
(5)
,40
6
120
I00
80
t~ 6 0 :
40
20
Fig. 6
8
I0
L E N G T H / D I A M E T E R , RATIO
14
16
Table 1
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
12
L/D
4
5
5
5
6
6
7
7
7
7
7
7
7
7
7
7
8
8
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
11.67
14
17.5
" Cp
0.65
0.55
0.60
0.65
O. 55
0.65
0.55
0.55
0.60
O. 65
0.65
O. 65
O. 65
O. 65
0.70
O. 753
O. 55
O. 65
O. 55
O. 60
O. 65
O. 685
O. 720
O. 755
O. 790
0.76
O. 80
O. 84
Model Characteristics
to'
rl'
0.50
0.50
0.50
0.50
O. 50
0.50
0.50
0.50
0.50
O. 50
0.50
O. 50
O. O0
1. O0
0.50
O. 50
O. 50
O. 50
O. 50
O. 50
O. 50
O. 50
O. 50
O. 50
O. 50
.0.50
O. 50
O. 50
0.I0
0.10
0.10
0.10
0
0.10
0
0.10
0.10
O. 10
0.10
O. 30
O. 10
O. 10
0.I0
O. 10
0
O. 10
0
O. 10
O. 10
O. 10
O. 10
O. 10
O. 10
0.10
O. 10
O. 10
x,~'
0.40
0.40
0.40
0.40
O. 36
0.40
0.36
0.40
0.40
O. 52
0.40
O. 40
O. 40
O. 40
0.40
O. 29-0.57
O. 36
O. 40
O. 36
O. 40
O. 40
O. 28-0.58
O. 28-0.58
O. 28-0.58
O. 28--0.58
0.24-0.64
O. 20--0.70
O. 16-0.76
L~'
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
O. 285
0
0
0
0
0
O. 30
O. 30
O. 30
O. 30
0.40
O. 50
O. 60
. L.Io
C~
0.789
For models
0.701
with L=' .4- 0
0.743
0.781
O. 694
0.777
0.692
0.695
0.737 "
O. 775
0.774
O. 779
O. 769
O. 774
0.809
0.65
5
O. 8435
O. 690
O. 773
O. 689
O. 730
O. 772
0.55
7
O. 787
0.60
7
O. 816
0.65
7
O. 842
0.70
7
O. 867
0.60
7
0.843
0.60
7
O. 8685
O. 895
O. 60
7
.(.
631
['C, ".SO',
350
Z4
LENG' . l C p :.'r6~
LC~,:.8,I.-~
zz
300
250
2OO
IuJ
I/d
U.
z 150
~IOO:
50
Fig. 7
SURFACE
i4 ~
6
B
I0
LENGTH/DIAMETER RATIO
12
14
t6
Variation in length and wetted surface with L/D and C~ for submarine
forms o f 1 0 0 , 0 0 0 cuft volume
c,
c,.
L/
C,
G,.
L='
0.00
O. 68
0.70
O. 84
0.000
O. 025
0.652
O. 682
0
O. 143
0.311
O. 495
0.64
O. 72
0.80
O. 88
0.012
O. 038
0.007
O. 70
0.068
O. 225
0.40
O. 60
632
,sg
12
4
"
/./
KEY
BOW (SAIL) PLANE DRAG
BRIDGE (SAIL) DRAG
STERN PLANES, RUDDER, STABILIZERS,
SHAFT a STRUT DRAG
ADDITIONAL ROUGHNESSDRAG (~CF=JOOt2|
-(ACF =L)O04I
PROPULSION LOSSES WITH ACF,JOOl2
17"7] PROPULSION LOSSES WITH ACF=~OO4
o
t~
,<
OU
I.-z
7.4
7.6
8.0
r
9.8
I0.0
LENGTH/BEAM RATIO
102
r 11,4
11.6
Fig. 8 Comparative appendage resistance, roughness drag, and propulsion losses for
submarine forms of 100,000 cuft volume
revolution. The bare hulls of the last three submarines (which are all twin screw) incorporate
extensive deck structure and some unseparable
integrated hull appendages t h a t add appreciably
to their resistance. It is important to note t h a t
such extraneous protuberances can change the
submerged drag of submarines by larger amounts
than large changes in hull proportions and coefficients, a reflection of the fact t h a t we are dealing with very low drag forms.
Appendages
As a corollary to the last statement it follows
t h a t items such as control surfaces, bridge fairwaters, shafts, struts o.r additional hull roughness
are of tremendous importance to submerged drag.
T h e relative magnitudes of these added resistances
are shown in graphical form in Fig. 8, for the six
submarines previously considered. Two separate
versions of the USS Albacore, AGSS 369, are ineluded in these data designated I and II. Albacore I utilizes a large structure both forward and
around the single propeller to support a set of rudders and stern planes aft of the propeller, Fig. 2,
while Albacore I I has a set of rudders and stern
633
I. o,.Lo,o,,ol
2__
i
._~.,~ ~//, :
:
'~c
30
AO
.50
.60
.30
.40
.50
PROPELLER DIAMETER+SHIP DIAMETER
.60
635
40
~:~:....~...
I
I
I
I
I
(
~
I:~::~.
....."":"~:":":'......
:,:.'..
I "
~ m m l
G~
TWO - L E V E L S
,0
~'L
I.
Fig. 12
I
16
I
16
I
20
THREE-LEVELS
I
t
I
22
24
26
HULL DIAMETER IN FEET
I
I
30
FOUR-LEVELS
I
3: )
I
34
636
I
28
.J
o
GUPPY
Fi~. 15
DARTER
sss?s
BARBEL
ss~o
NAUTILUS
ss~)sT~
SKATE
SStNm~
SI(IPJACK
SS0~SeS
Volume is only one measure of space in a submarine I n most cases effective deck area is
more important, particularly throughout the
living, berthing, and control spaces Since most
military submarines are "volume limited," arrangements that provide more deck area "per unit
of volume will result in smaller submarines. Fig.
12 shows the results of an area study for two, three,
and four-level submarines. This study assum.~
t h a t the area is boun
" "
ressure
h u l l with in.ternal framin~ in each case. The
'tween deck heights were proportioned ifi a manner t h a t would generally provide for the maximum
effectiveness in space utilization. In all cases
only deck areas where at least 5 ft 6 in. of clear
height was available were counted. T h e chart
has been divided to indicate what might be considered to be appropriate ranges of hull diameters
for two-level, three-level, and four-level ships.
T h e minimum diameter for each case would pose
some rather difficult arrangement problems since
the 'tween deck heights in these cases are definite
minimums Two possibilities are shown in each
situation, namely the case where the lower level
is not available for arrangements, and the alternative where the entire lower level is available for
arrangements. T h e submarines previously dis:
cussed in this section are between these two possibilities. With two-level submarines a reasonable
percentage of the lower level is available for
arrangements. With the four-level submarines
the lower level is devoted almost entirely to variable tankage.
The chart clearly shows discrete gains in useful
deck area per unit of volume with each increase
in number of levels as well as the expected loss in
deck area per unit volume when the diameter is
increased appreciably over the minimum required
in a particular situation. Further gains in this
respect could be obtained by going to a five-level
arrangement. However, two important considerations militate against and perhaps even preclude
such an arrangement in a military submarine:
(a) An increase in diameter beyond t h a t shown on
the chart would complicate the structural design
and might not be structurally feasible for deep
operating depths. (b) The diameter-to-draft
ratios for submarines in the surface condition are
necessarily quite low, ranging from about 1.20 in
low reserve-buoyancy ships to 1.80 for high reserve-buoyancy ships designed primarily for good
surface performance. A submarine with a diameter of 36 ft, the largest diameter shown on
the chart, would, if designed to maximize submerged capabilities, have a mean draft of 30 ft.
With a normal a m o u n t of trim by the stern such a
ship would be unable to enter m a n y harbors.
Hence 36 ft appears to be near, if not the upper
limit for the diameter of submarines of the military
type.
In Fig. 11 the payload volumes for several
attack-type submarines are compared graphically. It is interesting to compare the total
effective deck area t h a t is available for arranging
this same payload, Fig. 13. The Guppy t y p e and
the Darter are two-level submarines while the
Barbel is a three-level submarine having about the
minimum possible diameter of pressure hull
(Barbel has a double hull) for this number of
levels. N o t only does the Barbel have considerably more deck area available for arrangements
but the increase is also much greater proportionately than the minor increase in volumes With
this additional area it was possible to improve
considerably the habitability and workability
of a diesel-electric attack submarine. T h e additional level was also helpful in separating various
ship functions and placing m a n y of these in the
most efficient location well out of all n o r m a l '
traffic, paths.
The Nautilus and Skate are three-level submarines and the "former's hull diameter is considerably greater than the minimum required for
three levels. T h e Skipjack is a four-level sub-
637
I
'
,~
WWll
FLEET GOAT
GREW
[]
OFFIG[RS
GUPPY
"'
[[
DARTER
SSST6
BARBEL
SS580
v"
DIESEL-ELECTRIC SUBMARINES
Fig. 14
SKATE
SS(N)578
SKIPJAGK
SS(I~J85
NUCLEAR SUBMARINES
638
NAUTILUS
SSU~571
Growth in SpaceRequirements
Referring again to Figs. 11 and 13 the growth
in volume and deck area employed for arrangements is easily discernible. Much of this growth
has been required to accommodate new facilities
that are required in this age of complexity.
O n e could list many items that have encroached
upon the limited volume within a submarine but
this paper will confine itself to an over-aU survey
of personnel accommodations and the growth in
communication and fire-control-type electronics,
two of the more important factors iff any presentday submarine. In Fig. 14 the deck areas assigned for berthing, messing and washroom
facilities for the officers and crew on various
diesel-electric and nuclear submarines are shown
relatively. The fleet boat's complement increased considerably during World War II with a
resulting reduction in the ship's over-all living
standards. In converting fleet boats to Guppies
additional space was required to contain the
larger battery and in the resulting rearrangement
s o m e space f o r m e r l y u s e d for b e r t h i n g a n d m e s s i n g
t h e crew was lost. B a s e d on t h e h a b i t a b i l i t y
s t a n d a r d s e s t a b l i s h e d for U. S. s u b m a r i n e s in
1956 t h e Guppy w o u l d be c o n s i d e r e d i n a d e q u a t e .
T h e h a b i t a b i l i t y of t h e Darter is t h e m o s t satisf a c t o r y f o u n d in a t w o - l e v e l diesel-electric subm a r i n e . Barbel h a s a p p r o x i m a t e l y t h e s a m e
v o l u m e a v a i l a b l e for t h i s p u r p o s e as Darter b u t
d u e to t h e b e t t e r efficiency of h e r t h r e e levels h a s
s o m e w h a t m o r e d e c k area. As a r e s u l t Barbel,
Figs. 15, 16 a n d 17, is t h e m o s t h a b i t a b l e diesel
s u b m a r i n e in t h e U. S. N a v y . Skate a n d Skipjack
h a v e t h e s a m e c o m p l e m e n t while Nautilus m u s t
b e r t h a n d mess m o r e of b o t h crew a n d officers.
All t h r e e n u c l e a r t y p e s h a v e m o r e t o t a l d e c k a r e a
assigned for t h i s p u r p o s e t h a n a n y diesel-electric
submarine.
I n Fig. 18 t h e d a t a f r o m Fig. 14 a r e shown on a
p e r - m a n basis. A g a i n Barbel is m a r k e d l y s u p e r i o r
to p r e v i o u s diesel s u b m a r i n e s , a n d in so f a r as t h e
crew is c o n c e r n e d is t h e e q u a l of t h e Nautilus a n d
Skate. Skipjack h a s t h e m o s t a r e a p e r enlisted
m a n of a n y n u c l e a r - a t t a c k s u b m a r i n e to d a t e . All
these ships a r e far b e t t e r t h a n t h e i r fleet b o a t
predecessors. L i k e w i s e t h e i n c r e a s e d d e c k a r e a
per officer h a s allowed for m u c h b e t t e r a c c o m m o d a t i o n s . I n all cases t h e s e b e t t e r a c c o m m o d a tions h a v e c o n t r i b u t e d m a t e r i a l l y t o w a r d s imp r o v i n g t h e efficiency of t h e crew a n d w i t h it t h e
fighting efficiency of t h e ship. W i t h o u t t h e s e
i m p r o v e m e n t s i t is d o u b t f u l t h a t t h e v e r y long
continued periods submerged that the nuclear
s u b m a r i n e s h a v e a c h i e v e d w o u l d be possible.
L e s t one m i g h t m i s c o n s t r u e this t r e n d a n d ass u m e t h a t an u n d u e a m o u n t of space h a s been
Fig. 15
639
Fig. 17
USS Barbel--control
room
CRE*
~ ' 7 ~ OFFICERS
WW II
~FLEETBOAT
GUPPY
DARTER
~RBEL
NAUTILUS
SS576
SS580j ,SSIN)571
v'
DIESEL-ELECTRIC SUBMARINES
Fig. 18
640
SKATE
SKIPJACK J.K.TAUSSIG
SS(N)578 SSIN)5~B5 ; DELOS0
V"
NUCLEAR SUBMARINES
A v e r a g e d e c k area p e r m a n
i]ii.
i
i
FLEET BOAT FLEET GOAT G U P P Y
1940
1945
DARTER
SS57G
BARBEL
SS580
DIESEL-ELECTRIC
~. Naval
NUCLEAR
I
I
NAUTILUS SKIPJACK THRESHER
S S ( N ) 5 7 1 SS(N)585
SS(N)593
Quarter-Scale Mockups
Being volume limited, submarines have always
presented difficult arrangement problems b o t h
for large and small items of equipment as well as
the numerous ventilation, hydraulic and highpressure air piping runs, electrical cable runs and
other items t h a t compete for the same location
in the ship. In fact the a t t e m p t at building the
first submarine for the U. S. Navy, the Plunger,
was abortive and the submarine was never p u t to
test, because among her m a n y other faults the
installation of a t t h a t time enormous steam power
in a very limited space rendered her practicall.y
uninhabitable [5].
T h e success of a submarine design depends to a
great measure on operability of equipment and
accessibility to it for maintenance and repairs.
T o assist in this m a t t e r full-scale mockups have
been used for m a n y years for the most important
areas; namely, machinery spaces and control
rooms. In some cases mockups have been constructed for the entire ship. Besides assisting,
design personnel in arriving at solutions to their
various problems, they have been of considerable
assistance to production personnel who have made
use of them for varied purposes ranging from
instruction of new workers to construction of
piping jigs.
Full-scale mockups have been expensive. Generally the space they occupy requires some location t h a t is distant from both the drafting room
and the building ways which reduces their use
t o a considerable extent: In m a n y cases they
have taken so long to build or change that they
have lagged well behind ship construction, par-
ArchitecturalAspectsofSubmarineDesign
641
Fig. 20
Fig. 21
t i c u l a r l y w h e n a s h i p ' s c o n s t r u c t i o n is b e i n g exped i t e d , a n d so q u i t e often h a v e been m o s t ineffective. I n m a n y cases t h e i n e v i t a b l e i n t e r ferences t h a t r e s u l t f r o m t w o - d i m e n s i o n a l d r a w ings c o m p l e t e d in different sections of a design
r o o m h a v e r e q u i r e d r e s o l u t i o n in a m o s t difficult
a n d e x p e n s i v e m a n n e r ; i.e., a f t e r a n i n s t a l l a t i o n
h a s b e e n f o u n d to be u n w o r k a b l e a b o a r d ship.
642
T o m i n i m i z e these v a r i o u s p r o b l e m s M a r e
I s l a n d N a v a l S h i p y a r d , in d e v e l o p i n g w o r k i n g
p l a n s for t h e Grayback, SS574, d e v e l o p e d as a
design tool, a o n e - q u a r t e r scale m o d e l of t h e entire i n t e r i o r of t h e ship. T h e s h i p y a r d selected
t h e q u a r t e r scale as a n o p t i m u m b e c a u s e it prod u c e d a m o d e l w h i c h e n a b l e d one to visualize a n
a r r a n g e m e n t r e a l i s t i c a l l y a n d b e c a u s e i t could be
SUBMARINE TANKS
SUBMARINE TANKS
MAIN BALLAST TANKS,
DIESEL OIL SYSTEM
SURFADE
NEGATIVE TANK
COMPENSATINGWATER SYSTEM
FWO
g~%ANN
AUXILIARY TANKS
~" ' "
"
LJGHT OVERALL
Fig. 23
FULL
Fig. 22
643
I00 -
=~
ao-
Nml~ll
BI
Divlnq
Trlm
G2
. 60
i
4-O-WBT
Sutm
Fig. 24
40-
,N
20-
._:,_
Moment balance
644
o
o
tO00
IO00
Aft MOmlmt
2000
3000
Ff~d M o m e n t - Ft Tons
4000
50OO
(6)
(7)
No matter what the shape of the upper part of (HA) and for two different water densities (64.3
the ship nor where the center of gravity of the pc/and 63.6 pc/). These conditions of loading are
main ballast tanks is located, the submarine must detailed in reference [8] and have been derived
take a surface trim down by the head or by the from operating experience with diesel-electric
stern such that the vectors VaB and Wbt lie in the submarines. When sufficient nuclear submarines
same vertical line. Surface trim is changed by a are operating, a reaualysis may disclose the need
shift in volume,s, rather than by shifts in weights. to readjust these arbitrary loading conditions.
Therefore, in a submarine the surface trim can be The means by which the ordinates and abscissas
controlled only by regulating the shape of the for these points are determined can be reduced to
upper buoyant part of the ship and the shape and simple word equations:
1 The weight of variable ballast to add to any
fore-and-aft position of the main ballast tanks.
For body of revolution type submarines the arbitrary initial condition equals the submerged
shape of the upper part of the ship is subject to displacement in water of specified density minus
very little change. For a particular shape of the the ship's condition A weight (ship complete,
upper part of the ship shifting the center of volume ready for service in every respect, includivg lead
of the main ballast tanks forward will bring the ballast, liquids in machinery at operating levels,
bow up in the surface condition. Alternatively air in banks at full charge, electrolyte in storage
shifting the center of volume of the main ballast batteries at minimum operating level, with emertanks aft will push the bow down in the surface gency rations and water but without any item of
consumable or variable load), the weight of the
condition.
variable load for the arbitrary initial condition
Equilibrium Pelygan
and the weight of the water in the main ballast
The equilibrium polygon is a design tool which tanks.
2 The moment of variable ballast to add to
provides a graphic representation of the changes
in weight and moment which are possible by any arbitrary initial condition equals the moment
varying the amount of liquid in the variable of the submerged displacement about the esballast tanks. References [6], [7], and [8] treat tablished reference point minus the moment of
this matter in some detail. A brief description is the ship's condition A weight, the moment of the
included here to permit a better understanding of weight of the variable load already aboard in the
the margin lead discussion that follows in this arbitrary initial condition and the moment of the
weight of the water in the main ballast tanks,
section.
Fig. 25 shows a typical equilibrium polygon about the same reference point.
In Fig. 25 all arbitrary conditions plot just
for a nuclear submarine. The abscissa is the
moment of variable ballast water about a refer- within the polygon and hence the submarine
ence point in the middle of the auxiliary tanks should be able to dive under all the assumed
near the center of the ship, and the ordinate is conditions which do represent extreme conditions.
the weight of the variable ballast water. Start- However, if this polygon is based on calculations
ing with all tanks empty, if the forward trim completed at a certain stage of design, errors will
tank, auxiliary tanks, and the after trim tanks undoubtedly exist in the assumed locations of
of the submarine were filled in that order, the the variable load and changes will inevitably
moment and weight plot would progress from occur during the long subsequent construction
A to B to C to D. Likewise if water were first period. Therefore, it would be desirable to inadded to the after trim tank and then pro- crease the size of the variable tanks a small amount
gressively forward, the moment and weight plot at this stage of design so as to increase the width
would progress along A-F-E-D. The polygon and depth of the polygon to take care of the inthus determined then circumscribes all possible evitable contingencies. Changes in the position
weight and moment conditions that can be recti- and amount of fixed lead ballast aboard also
fied by the variable ballast tanks. Experience permit some adjustment in the position of the
has proved that if certain arbitrarily determined points within the polygon.
On completion of the ship, an inclining experioperating conditions can be plotted within this
polygon, the submarine will be able to dive satis- ment and a stop trim dive provide sufficient iufactorily for any condition of loading or water formation to determine the ship's exact displacedensity. These conditions are plotted in Fig. 25 ment and position of center of buoyancy and with
for arbitrarily assumed conditions of loading: it whether or not a shift in amount and position
Two light conditions (L-1 and L-2), two heavy of the ballast lead is required. W h e n a change in
conditions (H-l, H-2), two heavy forward condi- ballast lead is required to place all condition
tions (HF-1, HF-2) and one heavy aft condition points within the polygon, it can be seen from the
645
POSITION OF "M~r
CONDITION"A"
SHIPWEIGHT--'-~
SURFACE NORMAL
DRAFTS
Fig. 26
Static Sfabil'ity
Submarine static stability can be discussed in
three general areas; namely, surface, during submerging or emerging, and submerged. In the
days of the diesel-electric submarine considerable
attention was paid to static stability in the surface condition. This was appropriate since these
submarines spent by far the greater part of their
operating time on the surface and, in general,
surface stability was also more critical. The
typical submariue form with its narrow waterline
beam and pronounced tumblchome is not conducive towards large metacentric heights. Submarines operating on the surface do, however,
have a relatively low vertical center of gravity in
relation to the vertical position of the center of
buoyancy. In addition, when the submarine
puts to sea its topside is closed up and watertight
except for relatively small openings required for
air induction and bridge access which are located
well above the waterline. As a result submarines
generally have a large range of stability. In the
body of revolution submarines with wrap-around
tanks, the metacenter is at the axis of symmetry,
and vith the center of gravity below the axis of
symmetry this range extends to 180 deg in the
surface condition.
From World War I to Barbel (SS580) all U. S.
646
BGv
The firm establishment of a lower limit on
acceptable submerged metacentric heights (BG,
and BG~) is a difficult task. Submarines have been
operated with metacentric heights as low as 3 in.
in the submerged condition. As of today one
could not establish a definitive criterion for.the
submerged metacentric height. To limit the
heel in turn (discussed in Section 7) it would be of
considerable assistance to have a high metacentric height, much higher than could be obtained reasonably in practice. A high value also
contributes towards motion stability in the vertical plane particularly at low speeds. This also
will be discussed in Section 7. However, high
values can cause control problems at low speeds
when control surfaces are inadequate to overcome
the ship's metacentric stability. Further study
is required before a more reasoned analysis of the
Weight Margins
In Section 4 it was noted that military submarines have generally been volume-limited.
Under these circumstances lead ballast must be
added to permit the submarine to submerge.
In such circumstances it would appear at first
glance inconsistent to require a weight margin
in a new design. It might appear more appropriate to insert a volume margin in a new design.
There is, however, no practical method for providing a volume margin that could be parceled
out at various locations throughout the ship.
Furthermore in a submarine whose arrangements
are always austere compared to surface ships a
small volume margin would be occupied rapidly
and lost forever. A weight margin on the other
647
LOCATION OF
/
MAXIMUM LEAD
/
STORAGE , F T . - - - ~
/
/
'I,
API
AFT-x
. . . . . . .
TOTAL LEAD
I I
o
~
I;}
it
~l
O.STA
CE. .
!j
I
~
C
LOCATION OF
MAXIMUM LEAD
STORAGE FORWARD
FORWARD
~
\
/,<
-.L~.
#~--CENTER
"O~'~LE~E~TER
O ML-
OFSTASILITYLEAO" ~ I] [I\ ~
O,STA
CE
i
!
' FP
+ (ML-X) . c
(8)
Structure
649
Fig. 2 9
An extensive discussion of submarine structures is included in a 1958 NAS-NRC report by E. Wenk, Jr.
F (L/2 R)211/4(o-y~1,2
;"=L~R)~/ W]
'
1 , 3 - -
1.2
l,l
~+
++++
+~
~o(~.%..~. ,%.oM
1.3.
1.2.
IL u .
II
'~
0.t -
o~
o.I
0.!
e e
0.9
~
0.8,
o.
<
0.4
Fig. 31
,1,
0.6
0.8
1.0,
o.I
1.0
1,2
,I ,I
1.4
h6
1,8
>
I
M.S.
2,0
Fig. 52
1940
1950
144
HTS
1960
~
HY-80 - -
I'
651
12--
i~~/__
1.1|
iO. m
:t=i"t
0.6
i
I
1940
1950
1960
YFARS
T
HI"S
q.
>lYe0 - -
1940
1950
IS60
YEARS
I.I
LC
O . $ - O
o5
I) O e
0.7
0.6
0.7
0,0
0.9
I I
1.0
I. |
1.2
THINNESS FACTOR
( ~0 = 104cv_W ] '
(0.1 -- 0"2) 2 +
(0"2 -- 0.,)2 +
(0.1 -- 0.,)2
(9)
i Figs. 32-35 inclusive developed from data from compre- 6 First appears in DTMB report prepared by Weak,
hensive DTMB report prepared by Stenwiek, Wenk and Stark and Peugh. This report has strongly influenced
authors.
Pulos.
653
it can be seen that there will be certain combinations of hull diameter, required operating depth,
and steel employed that preclude low values for ~,.
Transverse Bulkheads
Transverse bulkheads have been installed in
submarines to prevent structural failure by over-all
instability, to divide compartments, to limit
flooding in special cases, and to provide end
refuge compartments. During the period when
bulkheads were installed mainly to limit flooding,
they were spaced to permit the ship to remain
afloat with any single compartment and one adjacent main ballast tank flooded and hence some
degree of safety in the event of a surface collision
was attained. To be effective this concept also
required a very large amount of ballast tankage,
in excess of 30 per cent, of the surface displacement, with a most deleterious effect on submarine size. Furthermore, there is little possibility that this concept would be of real assistance
in the event of the flooding of any main compartment while submerged to any appreciable
depth. With the increased size of main compartments on nuclear submarines, the greatly decreased need for external tankage and the emphasis on submerged characteristics, and the realization that nuclear submarines will spend little
time on the surface, it would be wasteful to adhere
"to the older concept. Hence nuclear attack
submarines are incapable of withstanding complete flooding of any main compartment either
on the surface or submerged. Transverse bulkheads are still installed so as to provide forward
and after refuge compartments in the event that
the submarine is sunk in water of considerably less
depth than that associated with collapse on the
hull.
As in the case of transverse bulkheads in surface ships, submarine bulkheads are designed on a
single use basis and hence would be expected to
exceed yield and be worked well into the pIastic
range at their maximum expected holding pressure. These bulkheads are of the flat-plate type
with an extensive stiffening system which in the
past has been designed with the use of standard
beam formulas and assumed loads. Generally
one .main (primary) horizontal girder is installed
at the axis and has been assumed to withstand an
elliptical load totalling one half that applicable
to the entire bulkhead. Vertical (secondary)
stiffeners are installed and collectively have been
assumed to withstand the entire load on the bulkhead. Finally, tertiary intercostal stiffeners have
654
655
/~
t i J "" ~
]ll;il|hL[
411 ii!
~m
OO0
|i
~1,,- m
19EE
.(..
ma
mid
XZO~
z_m~- m
-q~z
Illl ~!!!Jill~
I-llmn
OO0
.~
Fig. 38
1940
1950
YEARS
"
1960
then, as it is now, an extremely desirable characteristic for a submarine. Hence the weight devoted to pressure-hull structure on the first of
these submarines was increased in order to obtain
a further increase in collapse pressure. With the
later different configurations it was possible to
make some slight reductions in the pressure-hull
envelope weight per unit volume and still retain
the same collapse depth.
High-tensile steel was a most satisfactory material for small-diameter-pressure-hull submarines constructed during World War II. It
was still reasonably satisfactory for the dieselelectric submarines constructed subsequent to
World War II. Nuclear submarines, however,
necessitated a large increase in pressure-hull diameters and still larger diameters were required
to provide the best arrangements. With these
increases in diameter the shortcomings of hightensile steel as a pressure-hull material became
more obvious. Among these shortcomings were
loss in tensile strength in thicker plates, reasonably wide range in physical properties, and less
than desired notch toughness.. HY-80 steel was
developed to overcome these shortcomings as well
as to provide a material that would enable the
designer to consider still greater operating
depths. The last bar in the figure shows the reduction in pressure-hull envelope weight made
possible by the use of HY-80 steel while retaining
almost the same collapse pressure for the structure.
The use of HY-80 steel in submarine pressure
hulls has provided the shipbuilder with a new
group of problems. Some of these problems such
as shaping and forming were solved relatively
early in the program although only with an increase in labor per pound of steel formed. Weldability turned out to be considerably more difficult. Problems that were thought to have been
solved in this respect in constructing the shell of
Albacore returned many years later when thicker
plates of HY-80 (the chemistry of this steel is
varied in thicker plates to retain the same .yield
strength) were welded under conditions of considerable restraint. These problems are now
under control but require extremely close adherence to specified processes that lengthen the
time to complete welds and considerably increase
the cost of construction. Despite these difficulties the new material is better and more efficient
than any previously employed in submarine pressure hulls and will permit a considerable increase
in operating depths in the future.
Prior to the incorporation of nuclear power,
submarines had to ration their battery power
carefully while submerged and hence rarely
Since the present-day submarine has capabilities for high sustained submerged speeds not possessed by its predecessors, it is only natural that
items which affect stability and control are perforce influential in developing the submarine's
shape and configuration. This is particularly so
for motions in the vertical plane where the submarine should be able to operate safely at ever
higher speeds within a relatively narrow vertical
band neither penetrating beyond its maximum
operating depth which can lead to certain disaster
nor broaching the surface of the water which could
lead to disclosure at an inappropriate moment.
Furthermore, merely sizing the control surfaces
on the basis of a previous design will not in itself
assure superior characteristics in this respect. It
is for these reasons that detailed consideration of
stability and control are of vital importance in the
early design stages of contemporary submarines.
657
Motion Stability
This discussion will first consider motion star
bility and later will combine it with the more vital subject of control. Numerous and sometimes
vague terminology has been associated with the
notion of stability and therefore it is first necessary to define the terms employed in this paper.
A body is said to be stable in any particular state
of rest or motion if when excited by an external
force or m o m e n t it ultimately returns to the same
initial state of equilibrium after release from the
disturbing force. The various kinds of motion
stability associated with submarines are classified
"by the attributes of their initial state of equilibrium that are ret/fined in their final path.
For example, in Fig. 39 in all cases, the submarine is initially assumed to be travelling in a
straight horizontal direction at a constant depth
below sea level. In Case I the final path after
release from a disturbance retains the straightline attribute of the initial state of equilibrium,
but the final path no longer has either the direction of the initial path or its depth. In fact, the
depth of the final path is changing at a uniform
rate. This kind of stability might be termed
straigkt-line stability. In Case II the final path
after release from a disturbance retains not only
the straight-line attribute of the initial path, but
also its direction. This is termed directional stability. Case I I I is similar to Case II except that
the submarine does not oscillate after the disturbance, but passes smoothly to the same final
path as Case II. The distinction between these
two cases will be discussed subsequently. Finally, in Case IV the final path of submarine not
only has the same direction as the original path,
but it is also at the same depth. This might be
termed positional motion stability.
It should be noted that the foregoing kinds of
stability have been defined in ascending order.
For example, a submarine that is directionally
stable must perforce also possess straight-line
stability. A submarine that possesses positional
motion stability must perforce possess both directional and straight-line stability. It will be
noted later that straight-line stability results from
a second-order differential equation, directional
stability from a third order and, although not
shown later, positional motion stability would result from a fourth-order differential equation.
Every ship and submarine must also possess
what was referred to ~[s static stability in Section
5. This is also termed metacentric stability. Here
the initial equilibrium condition involves no motion at all but simply the maintenance of an upright position while at rest. If a metacentrically
stable ship or submarine is disturbed from an ini658
Naval Aichitectural
(10)
A = (Mg - I/)(ZJ
- m')
B = (Mg - Z/)ZJ + (ZJ - m')Mg
C = Z . ' M g - (Zg + m ' ) M J
-
(J
m')
M, r
D = ZJM,'
659
I L,N'-~-E~'~I
ORIGINAL STRAIGHT
HORIZONTAL PATH
_~'
t ~,,,~'4(
CASE T
_
"O/v'~/~2'~.~
ORIGINAL HORIZONTAL" ~
-
CASE "iT
PATH
ALPATH,SAMED'RECT'OC
v
AS ORIGINALPATH BUT
DIFFERENT DEPTH
DIRECTIONAL STABILITY(WITH LESS THAN CRITICAL DAMPING)
ORIGINAL HORIZONTAL ' - ' ~
CASE 'm"
PATH
ORIGINAL HORIZONTAL-W~
PATH
"-
Fig. 59
660
~) - I
2-
i
Z
4 ~b
"
'50 50 15
20
Fig. 4 0
4.0
3.0
2.5
SPEED tN KNOTS
factor is (p/2)L s VL All of the hydrodynamic stability derivatives for a deeply submerged body are
sensibly constant with speed when nondimensionalized in this way (at least to the same extent that
Ct is constant with speed through the full-scale
speed range of submarines; see Section 3).
However, one of the stability derivatives Me,
which is also the metacentric stability index,
appearing in equation (11) is obviously not hydrodynamic in origin, in fact, it is a pure gravitybuoyancy couple. Therefore, the nondimensionalized version of the moment
MdO -
MoO
(p/2)LsV '
(note the absence of primes, indicating a dimensional parameter) and the ratio of actual damping
to critical damping C/C, bear a direct relationship to the stability indices. The existence of
complex values of a corresponds to C/C, < 1.0 and
the relationship is as follows:
(C/C,)'
[az.s(R) ]2
[al,3(I)1' + [oLsCR)] ~
(15)
661
CONTROL SURFACE
ANGLE FOR
LEVEL FLIGHT
FOR[]
--INITIAL CONTROL
/BI
PITCH vEL,
"it-
OEP' CTIO,
_l_
/
-r
o~ ,.GLE e, - t ~
'';'' /
/
OVE/,~OOT[
\
~
/Zo-OVENS.OOT
~NGLE--L . . . . . . . . ~ O E P T H ,
TIME TO
REACH
EXECU.TEte
I
r~
Fig. 41
I
I
I
]I
LTIME
TO
I
! CHECK PITCH, t I
TIME TO
I
CH'~ECK DEPTH, t t
PI
~8
PITCH
RIGHT
RUDDER ANGLE
,,.
LEFT
RUDDER ANGLE
Table 3
v, ~ , ,
t z o.
8PB~V~,
.68
.93 T.6
.93
.M
8j. VAR.TAR~
1~
20
15" 10"
1~ 10"
10
10
10
10
~" 10"
10" ZO*
1~" 10"
20* 10'
~i.oo
2.O8
1.~3
1.13'
3.12 2.28
Z . ~ LaB
1.B8 -93
~..15
.el~
L~O
lq*
.6~
1.z7
~.6T
:~.oo
1.01
1.~
.~6
.~
B"
].~* 10'
~o
1~;' 20'
o.8
~
.~9
.0~.
.o9
.o6
.3.9
.c,s
.~2
.~
.~6
.I.~,
.zB
.W
.~
.25
.~.
.19
.]~
.2g
.2~,
.19
.21~
.26
.~
.18
.15
.~.
.~
.~
.17
.~6
.SB
.~
.z8
.z9
0.~)
2.:;
3.$
,~.T
2.~
~.0
~.~.
-a.,i
~..2
~'.T
S.~
5.7
4.6
~c.~
7.1
6-9
.~2.
.~
."~
.68
.~
a.9
~.6
~.8
.06
.~9
T.6
~).1~
Oe
0.2
Z.O
2.1
3.2
Iz.mlz.mlz.zoll*.91
.gBJ
0
0.9
1.8
a.6
20 ,
20*' 20 ~,
I zo-I ~.~
.5].
-93
.~.7o a..~5
~.~ 1.~
x.oo z.~
1
].5
~j. ""q
1.9~ t,.g5
~ . ~ ~..~
z.tm .t.~B
]-.].7 ],38
20
3.9
~.7
5.8
5.g
I~.~l~a,
.39
.a3 . ~
T-T
Y.~
la.~ ]l
.7~
.~1
.~0
.'58
.R2
.~
.56 ].~1
.75 1.60
663
665
666
(~ ~
STRUCTURE
0 PreSs.u,, m ~ o ~
-~- MACHINERY
ONLY
.~.~
PRESSURIZEDWATER
I~
SUBMARINE NUCLEAR
POWERPLANTS
LIGHT SURFACE SHIP
STEAM PLANTS
LIGHT SURFACESHIP STEAM ~PLANTS PLUS FUEL
TYFIC~L
OlES~L-~,~-GTR:C
SUBMARINE
,T
NU~'l.[~
M.'+
Ma~'8,+ M ~ ' a +
MoO
- 0
(p/2 )L s V 2
Z , ' + Z~.'$. + Z d a = 0
(17)
(18)
"
667
,/
/
Table 4
Ship
A
B
C
D
E
--0.05
--0.04
--0.05
--0.03
Control index
MS,/I~
@10knots
--4.67
The ability to execute a steady-turning maneuver with minimum tactical diameter, advance,
transfer, loss of speed, and with minimum crosscoupled motions such as roll.
This criterion is important to submarines both
submerged and on the. surface. On the surface
additional criteria are applicable t h a t relate to the
submarine's ability to maneuver ahead and astern
in close quarters. However, this section will be
limited to maneuvering in the open sea and to
those items t h a t have not been treated adequately
in earlier sections.
One of the practical differences between motions in the horizontal and vertical planes is t h a t
full-scale motion stability is qualitatively evaluated by different means in the two planes. In
the vertical plane a simple test, called a meander
test, can be used to evaluate whether a ship is directionally stable or not. In this test the stern
planes are deflected to a specified angle for a very
short time and then returned to their neutral
angle. If the subsequent path followed by the
submarine in the vertical plane is a decaying oscillation, the submarine is directionally stable.
If the path is an increasing oscillation, the submarine is directionally unstable. No such simple
test applies to the horizontal plane because there,
as mentioned earlier, directional stability with
controls fixed cannot exist and only straightfine stability is possible. For this kind of stability
t h e Dieudonne spiral maneuver described in [28]
and shown in Fig. 42 is appropriate. If the rate
of change of course versus rudder angle is a single
continuous curve from right rudder to left rudder
and back as shown by the dotted line in Fig. 42
the ship is stable. On the other hand, if this relationship splits into two parts depending on
whether the ship is initially swinging to the left or
t o the right as shown by the solid curves in Fig.
42, then the ship is unstable. The degree of instability is indicated both by the height of the
"hysteresis" loop, measured in degrees/second
and by the width of the loop measured in de668
~,
stability
index
rates
@1o
knots
&'
Me
@20 knots
deg/sec 2
--1.69
--1.92
--2.25
--3.28
--Plane
--6.76
--7.69
--9.01
-- 13.1
--18.7
deg/sec
3
14
travel
ft-tons/deg
--31.4
7
6
28
24
14
12
-- 18.4
--81. i
15
7x/2
--33.2
15
71/,
--32.5
Table
Item
Dynamic s t a b i l i t y
Loop height,
(a) Stability
deg/sec . . . .
index
(submerged) Loop width,
deg . . . . . . . .
Loop bt and
(b) Stability
width . . . . . .
index
(surface)
Overshoot 'tests (submerged)
(a) Ship-lengths of travel to execute yaw angle, t,' . . . . . . . .
Rudder Execute
Speed, angle, yawangle,
knots
deg
deg
. . . .
0.6
1.1
1.7
. . . .
0.8
1.5
. . . .
0
Criteria from
reference [28]
10
15
20
15
15
15
20
20
20
10
20
30
20
20
20
15
15
15
10
15
20
15
15
15
20
20
20
10
20
30
20
20
20
15
15
15
12.0
15.0
22.0
10.5
15.0
20.5
35
35
..
..
14.5
7
~. W/O
sail)
/~
(model
(with sail) data only
1.32
1.39
1.60
1.60
1.18
1.04
i:71
1.21
1.17
...
...
...
1.30
...
i:46
1.29
I. 23
1.01
0.90
...
...
...
17.2
...
22.5
...
29.8
...
14:4
...
10.5
20.5
37.5
...
...
...
20
10
39
11.3
12.5
2.5
fi:~
..
2.0
2.0
2.0
6.3
8.0
10.0
669
2/)OO
,,
,~OO0
\
,O~OO
MEAN DEPTH
_z
64:0O
~, ,~o
~ ,o~o!
12,000
i*,jooo
0
I
I
I
iO
20
30
40
50
60
70
PERCENT OF OCEAN LESS THAN INDICATED DEPTH
80
I
90
io0
670
in both the horizontal and vertical plg.ues without extending the span 6f the stern control surfaces beyond the maximum block dimensions of
the submarine.
(c) Forward hydroplanes are far less effective
than stern planes for both control and stability
in the vertical plane. They are redundant for
high-speed operation. However, there is some
operational preference for them for slow-speed
control at periscope depth or in restricted shallow
waters. Forward hydroplanes are also needed
on submarines that are very unsymmetrical in
the vertical plane for adequate depth control at
low speeds.
(d) Forward hydroplanes located on the sail
offer several strong advantages over the more conventional bow location with no concomitant hydrodynamic difficulties.
(e) It has been shown that at least two of the
submarines discussed do not possess straight-line
stability in the horizontal plane whereas they are
direetionally stable in the vertical plane. As a
result their overshoot angles in the horizontal
plane are very large.
(f) The presence of the bridge fairwater (sail)
on submarines produces an uncertain effect on
stability in the horizontal plane, decreases the
diameter of the turning d r d e and causes a very
large snap-roll angle on tight-turning, high-speed
submarines.
(g) 1~emoval of the sail decreases the roll excitation in a turn, but also decreases the roll
damping. As a result the reduction in snap roll
caused by removal of the sail is not as dramatic as
might otherwise be expected.
Any discussion concerning trends in submarine design is bound to place considerable emphasis on displacement. Size has been a considerable fetish with submariners in part because they
have been accustomed to small ships which they
have customarily operated out of small relatively
shallow-water ports. Whereas surface-ship sailors associate maximum performance with large
ships because of their better speed-power relationships and their better seaworthiness, which
enhances their capabilities either as platforms for
launching missiles, handling aircraft or cargo,
submarine sailors associate small size with better
submerged maneuverability, and in the case of
battery-powered boats with better submerged
speed. In addition, smaller size generally connotes lesser shipbuilding costs.
L. Y. Spear [30] in 1902 was not a very good
prophet when he stated: "The development of
the best all-round boat to meet the conditions is
likely here also to lead to some increase in total
displacement, which, eventually however, will
probably not exceed 200 tons." Today there are
some who would like to see future attack submarines built to a size not much greater than
double that stated by Spear and who consider
that our latest high-speed attack submarines are
too large. The sacrifices that would be necessary to even approach such a size reduction today
without the benefit of a very elaborate and costly
research and development program would indeed
be formidable. For example, present-day sonar
equipment in itself requires more displacement
than the total displacement mentioned by some
as a desirable goal. If one considers all the equipment that it is necessary to install to obtain the
characteristics of today's high-performance submarines, one might rather wonder about not how
large these submarines have become but rather
how it has been possible to keep them so small.
This point becomes clear if one compares the size
of a Polaris submarine with that of a presentday destroyer. The entire volume of the Polaris
submarine is substantially less than that of the
destroyer and the former certainly packs a
greater "deterrent punch." This is not to say
that the submarine cannot be reduced in size.
With the benefit of hindsight one could almost
invariably rework the design of a completed submarine and either achieve the identical results on
a little less total displacement or improve the
ship's characteristics while retaining the same
displacement. However, if present characteristics are maintained, then it is highly unlikely
that a major reduction in size will be achieved
.2
\
\\
i1
Fig. 46
\
\
WEIGHT OF PRESSIJRI[HULk
WElaHT OF DISPLAGEMI[:NT
iNGREASING
671
face displacement as a determinant for the volume that must be buoyant when submerged, a
weight of pressure-huH envelope structure, admittedly tenuous, was determined and has been
plotted in Fig. 43 as a percentage of fight.ship
displacement.. It can be seen that total hullstructure weights are about double those for the
pressure-hull envelope alone. This is an important point since one is prone to look only at the
pressure-huH structure itself in assessing possibilities for increasing operating depth with new
stronger materials or for reducing the ship's size.
In such studies one is apt to neglect the many
items such as machinery foundations, pressuretank structures, nonpressure structure, internal
bulkheads, bridge structures, and others that in
total are equally important with the pressure-huH
envelope itself, at least at present operating
depths.
"Based on the relationships shown in the nomenclature the speeds for geometrically similar submarines deeply submerged possessing identical
propulsive coefficients vary in accordance with
the following:
V ~-, SHpZlS/v2/9
It can be seen that power is considerably more
influential on speed than is displacement. Doubling power while holding displacement constant
will increase speed submerged by about 26 per cent
whereas decreasing displacement to 50 per cent
of the original while retaining the same power will
only increase submerged speed by about 1 6 ~ per
cent. The first case while not always easy to
achieve has far greater engineering possibilities
than the latter. One is generally interested in
realizing gains in both these aspects; i.e., by obtaining more powe2 out of a lighter machinery
plant that can be installe.d in a smaller ship.
in such cases there would be no appreciable reduction in their specific weights. Furthermore,
the increased power would only be available on
the surface or at snorkel depth. Battery power
would still limit deeply submerged performance.
In so far as submerged endurance at high power
is concerned there is no present or prospective
competitor for nuclear power. It can be seen
from this chart that at the desired higher power
outputs the present pressurized-watcr nuclear
power plants are greatly superior to diesel-electric submarine power plants from a weight viewpoint. Also plotted is a band representing specific weights (without fuel) for light surface-ship
steam plants, obtained from the curve shown in
Fig. 2 of reference [31].
In determining what power level should be employed in a new design, one of the important considerations is the total weight. On this basis the
knee in the specific-weight curve is of importance.
The machinery plants for Nautilus and Skipjack
are well to the right of the knee in this curve and
hence are working in the optimum section. The
curves in the upper part of Fig. 44, representing
the first integral of the specific-weight curves or
total engineering weight, are also illustrative of
this point. Here it can be seen that the weight
of relatively low-power-output nuclear plants is
nearly asymptotic at a figure somewhat greater
than that for a typical diesel-electric submarine
without oil. With somewhat increased power
outputs (the range in which Nautilus and Skipjack are located) the slope of the total-weight
curve is virtually constant. As in the specificweight plot a total-engineering-weight plot is also
shown for light surface-ship steam plants.
Another range of total machinery weights has also
been shown for light surface-ship steam plants
which includes the fuel required to provide reasonable endurance. The gap between this curve
and that for present-day pressurized nuclear
plants is at least a crude means of showing desirable goals for possible machinery-weight reductions.
While there is little basis in fact for believing
that such a reduction in machinery weight with
present type plants is possible, it is naturally quite
intriguing to consider recognizing the improvements in submarine performance or reduction in
submarine size that could be made if a sizable
portion of this gap could be eliminated. The authors fullyrecognize that they could be in the same
position today concerning these statements as was
Spear in 1902 when in [30] he stated: "The storage
battery and motor are admirable in some respeets~
but exceedingly inadequate in others, the principal
objection being the well-known one of excessive
weight and space in proportion to the power developed. When it is stated that a weight of 370
pounds per horsepower hour is a fair average for
a suitable installation it is readily seen that there
is much room for improvement."
The authors do not know precisely what items
Spear considered in establishing his weight figures
but believe that at best a reduction in weight of
35 per cent is the most that has been obtained
in this type power plant in nearly 60 years. In
short, the present-day pressurized-water nuclear
power plant represents a tremendous achievement
and has made possible the true submarine with
characteristics barely dreamed of 20 years ago.
Nevertheless incentives for step increases in power
fdr the same weight and with it large gains in
speed or for reductions in ship size and costs are
still extremely great. Hence, every reasonable
approach towards radical reductions in powerplant specific weights should be investigated exhaustively.
greatly compounding detection problems. However, among the disadvantages of deeper depths
the following should be recognized:
1 Present lack of suitable materials in sufficient quantity to exploit all reasonable depths.
2 Rapid growth in size with increased depth
unless drastically decreased capabilities in other
respects are accepted.
3 Increased costs associated with more costly
construction materials and further increased fabrication problems.
The first disadvantage may be subject to solution bY a materials development program. It is
certain that the other two disadvantages will be
serious but just how much depends in part on the
outcome of development programs associated
with materials and other submarine components.
How deep might one eventually want to go in a
military submarine? Fig. 45, a plot of the percentage distribution of the ocean depth is of interest in a qualitative sense. Here, one notes that
a submarin~ capable of 15,000 ft could reach the
bottom in 60 per cent of the ocean and 18,000 ft
could blanket all but 10 per cent of the ocean. It
would appear that 18,000 ft might represent the
deepest depth of real interest to a military submarine
673
674.
References
1 A. 1. McKee, "Recent Submarine Design
Practices and Problems," TRANS. SNAME, vol.
67, 1959.
2 If. A. Schade, "German Wartime Technical Developments," TRANS. SNAME, vol. 54,
1946.
3 L. Landweber and M. Gertler, "Mathematical Formulation of Bodies of Revolution,"
DTMB Report 719, September 1950.
4 E. Wenk, Jr., R. C. Dehart, P. Mandd,.
and R. Kfissinger, Jr., "An Oceanographic Research Submarine of Aluminum for Operation to
15,000 ft," RINA, March 1960.
5 A. I. McKee, "Development of Submarines in the United States," S N A M R Historical Transactions, 1943.
6 A. I. McKee, "Buoyancy and Stability of
Submarines," Bureau of Construction and Repair
Technical Bulletin No. 8-29 of November 1929.
Acknowledgments
7 A. I. McKee, "Submarine Naval ArchiThe matter of acknowledgments in connection tecture," New England Section of THE SOCIETYOF
with a work of this kind is of more than usual im- NAVAL ARCHITECTS AND MARINE ENGINEERS~
portance. The authors have utilized the work of April 1948.
8 Chapter 29, Bureau of Ships Technical.
many individuals and in many instances proper
reference was not made because the original work Manual (NavShips 250-000).
9 D. F. Windenburg and C. Trilling, "Coltaken as a whole was classified. The efforts of
the following individuals are in. this category and lapse by Instability of Thin Cylindrical Shells
are hereby gratefully acknowledged: Louis J. Under External Pressure," EMB Report 262,
Belliveau, J. L. Beveridge, G. D. Brown, James June 1930.
10 K. Von Sanden and K. Gunther, "The
W. Church, P. C. Clawson, Morton Gertler,
A. J. Giddings, Alex Goodman, Franklin Hawk- Strength of Cylindrical Shells Stiffened by Frames
ins, James A. Heffner, W. Kepke, E. R. Lacey, and Bulkheads under Uniform Pressure on ALl
Naval Architectural Aspects of Submarine Design
675
Discussion
Cdr. S. R. Heller, Jr., USN, Member: The authors
have done an admirable job in providing such
broad coverage on a timely topic. Asmight have
been expected because of the backgrounds of the
anflaors, the presentation is a happy marriage
of techniques used in the design office and in the
classroom.
Under ordinary circumstances in discussing a
paper of this breadth I would confine my remarks
676
Fig. 47
677
678
679
"
service," there has been a corresponding stillness in the technical literature concerning the
design of the submarine itself. The recent paper
by A.I. McKee and this current paper are thus
exceedingly welcome contributions, and are substantial landmarks in illuminating the complex
relationships that underlie the design of selfbuoyant submersibles.
On the m a t t e r of hull strength, the authors have
provided a clear exposition of fundamental principles and of the mechanism of failure underlying
rational design. Consequently, this discussion
will be confined to the broader concepts of structural analysis within the scope of the paper r d t h e r .
than to the supporting mathematical:yand e x - "
perimental r e s e a r c h . . - .
In essence, the discussion focuses on one question: W h a t would the authors propose in the way
of a basic concept or philosophy that would guide
proportioning of hull structure ?
In this regard, the authors strike a melancholy
note in stating, "there has been little real gain
in structures .in the past two decades and t h a t in
fact in one recent case there was a considerable
reduction in the modified pressure factor."
This statement suggests either an unduly conservative design procedure, or the absence of
necessary research data. While the writer would
agree t h a t at times progress seemed slow, still
facts in the paper itself show that by no means
were these two decades so unenlightened.
Perhaps the authors are unnecessarily dismayed
in this regard by their own unexplained prediction t h a t about 30 per cent improvement in structural efficiency is possible. Such would be the
case if the phi value of 0.89 for 1954 vintage submarines were evaluated in terms of the authors'
assertion t h a t "one can establish a theoretical
maximum .value for phi . . . . of 1.16."
The writer has strong doubts t h a t the efficiency index, phi, can be as high as 1.16, except
as noted later, for deep-diving submarines.
On the first point of slow progress, the authors
themselves note a gain in efficiency factor, eta,
accompanying the transition from H T S to H 8 0
steel. Also, though somewhat blurred by the
authors' selection of scales, Figs. 34 and 35 suggest a further "high-phi" benefit b y designing for
"Iow-lambda." In fact, the phi increased from
0.78 in 1940 to 0.89 in 1954. This improvement
of about 12-15 per cent contradicts the authors'
contention t h a t little real gain occurred. On
the other hand, the authors would be correct,
if they are referring to the 1959 design having a
phi of 0.73 in contrast to the 1940 value of 0.78.
This retrogression is rather striking and deserves
amplification by the authors.
680
L W A T E R i SURFACE
THESE
- t STRUCTURES
FLOAT
2000
THESE
STRUCTURES-kSINK
"~4000
4540
,o,o
\A
~ 6000
E
''
"-18200
sooo
,.oo
12000 I
1.0
0
0.8
20
0.6
0.4
0.2
0
-0. Z
-0,4
COEFFICIENT OF EXCESS BUOYANCY, p
40
60
SO
I00
120
140
PRESSURE HULL WEIGHT AS % OF SUBMERSED DISPLACEMENTI IJ
-0.6
160
-0.8
~300'
180
Fig." 49
Displacement,
phi-0.85
500
i000
Reduction in
Disdisplacement
placement, with improved
phi-1.10
design
1000
1000
1000
1000
0
2000
1172
1103
69
4000
2027
1596
431
6000
8333
2777
5556
Assume: Hull of HYO0; basic design of 1000 tons,
with volUme-limited design changing to weight-limited
at 1000 psi collapse.
~.
681
683
684
Capt. H. A. Jackson, USN, life Member: 2"his interesting paper on submarine naval architecture
is unusual in that it provides some basic design
information rather than items of general or historical interest as has been the case with many
previous papers. Historical information is important, however, and the authors recognize
that fact when they devote the first part of their
paper to laying the background by recalling the
development of submarines.
Early in the paper they imply that the Skipjack and the B~rbd were constructed at the same
time. Because of the emphasis being placed- on
nuclear submarines, this is true; however, the
preliminary design of the Barbd @as completed
some time before that of the Skipjack. Many of
the concepts and arrangements that have now
become standard on our modern submarines were
worked out for the first time on the Barbd. The
Barbd has outstanding submerged performance
characteristics. The conclusion of the official
BUSHIPS trials is that the submerged performance is near optimum.
Under the heading of deck areas the authors
make a very good case for the multiple-level type
of arrangement. If the width of the upper deck
level is restricted to a certain deck height there
will be a triangular space at the edges which is
ideal for ventilation, pipe ways and wire ways
on the outside.
Deck space is very important, as it is a fundamental requirement for arrangement; however,
bulkheads and the overhead are equally important
as they are both utilized to support equipment
which must be operated or seen. In addition,
great skill is ~equired hi arrangement of equipmeat to accommodate all of that required i n ' a
modern-day submarine and still have it habitable and maintainable. One of the primary
reasons for building quarter-scale mock-ups is to
insure that all of the equipment will fit into and
can be maintained in the submarine.
In addition to those items which the.authors
indicate one of the most effective areas in which
quarter-scale mock-ups serve the design program
is in the support of preparation of detailed working
drawings. This is done by design personnel developing their system arrangements such as
piping, wireways, and ventilation in the mock-up
from the schematic drawings. Rough sketches
dimensioned as necessary are then made from the
mock-ups for preparation of final working drawings. The mock-up thereby becomes a continuously growi..ng composite three-dimensionpictorial view of the progress of the design effort.
In this manner it furnishes up-to-date background
information as to the details of an area in which
the design personnel are to work. This prevents
design interferences by "locating some item in
a space which has been selected for some other use.
68.5
\\
I0
_z
12
14
la
IS
\
0
.S5
R .~d
FLOAT ~
.50
IS
SINK
WEI(IHT
Fig. 50
Cylinder
t / D - Pc
Hoop stress
t =
4 ~u
W
t / D = 6--w
3
w =TPc-
W -- weight
volume
P___~
g ~y
t
W
D = 4w
w
w = 2 P ~
0"//
-~
0"y
H = failure depth
R = -3H ~
2
ay
R -
W
O
R = 2 H wau
v = density of material
0 = density of water
The equations are the same except for the constants. If our submarine is very short, the constant would approach 3/2; if on the other hand
i t had a LID ratio of 3 or more, it would approach
2. Using the constant 2, a curve can be prepared
which indicates some interesting facts. Yig. 50.
The important physical properties of any subma-
686
687
Wit"h Foils
Wi'thou~ Foils
689
sion. However, for maximum speed, for fuel economy in straight-line running and for flight conditions where maneuvering efficiency is unimportant, the conventional nonfoil configuration
would probably be best. For any given craft,
the payoff between good maneuvering capability
and good cruise efficiency would have to be
studied carefully before any firm decision could
be made concerning the use of foils.
Incidentally, the addition of foils need not affect
the straight-line stability if the foils are located
so that their centers-of-pressure are located at the
center-of-mass of the submarine.
I t is interesting to note that the sail on a submarine such as Albacore contributes a lateral
maneuver force roughly of the same magnitude
as that provided by the hull. I t has been suggested that this structure should be removed in
order to eliminate the large roll cross-coupling
and lateral instability which it produces. While
this removal does have these advantages plus the
important one of reducing drag to a minimum,
it unfortunately eliminates the sail's considerable
contribution to maneuver force. To solve the rollcoupling problem alone, one might consider applying a keel to the submarine. This would reduce
or eliminate the roll cross-coupling, add further to
the available maneuverable force, and by proper
placement add to the static stability in yaw. It
might, however, increase drag so that this apprgach would have to be considered carefully.
In all of the foregoing discussion, no mention
has been made of the many size, weight, and
structural compromises and limitations which
must be imposed upon the submarine design and
consequently will temper the above remarks.
However, it is this writer's opinion that only by
carefully balancing these stability and control
considerations against their associated drag penalties and by weaving all these considerations into
the preliminary and detail design processes can
the optimum submarine design be achieved.
Suggested Criteria. With the submarine now
capable of operating at increasing speeds, it has
become a truly dynamic machine and there is
need for new and definitive criteria for evaluating
its stability, control, and performance requirements. I t is suggested that submarine control
systems be evaluated on the bases of:
1 Providing sufficient straight-line stability
to allow the submarine to maintain the specified
accuracy of holding to its flight path both during
straight-fine and in turning operations.
2 Providing the maximum required acceleration in a turn with a loss in speed no greater than
a specified value.
690
Authors' Closure
Commander Heller has noted that our appraisal of the "one-hoss shay" concept on the
design of pressure-hull structure coincides with
his own as presented in his discussion on Admiral
McKee's 1959 paper [1]. 1~ We consider this
discussion as well as Palermo's discussion on the
same paper [1] well worth rereading on the part
of those interesteci in this particular aspect.
Throughout Commander Heller's discussion one
can note the prevailing healthy attitude throughout all present-day submarine activities; namely,
that all submarine features are being re-examined
with the intent of providing improvements which
in most cases will be evolutionary but in some are
bound to be revolutionary. Commander Heller's.
as well as Captain Jackson's amplifying remarks
on the use of quarter-scale mockups at Portsmouth Naval Shipyard are also in this category.
They illustrate how it is possible to improve a
device, continually, even one .that is already
reasonably efficient.
In response to Captain Saunders, we adhere to
our brief statements in the paper concerning the
poor submerged performance and maneuverability
of the V-boats. It should be noted that this
class of submarine was not repeated but that, as
related in the paper, later development led to the
much smaller Fleet Boats that were so successful
in World W'ar II. As further support for our
statement, a quote from The Submarine, a manual
of the Submarine School in New London, Conn.,
concerning the V-boats is pertinent: "Their extreme size made them valuable for transport even
though it was a drawback in warfare because of the
sacrifice of maneuverability to size."
There is recognition in the paper of the point of
philosophy raised by Commander Baylis. Directional stability in the vertical plane with controls
fixed is not mandatory. The human or the automatic sensor in the control Ioop can and does
Rderences in the paper.
make a direcfionally unstable submarine w~.th spect. Rather we consider that some of the ship's
controls fixed, directionally stable with controls weight, that would otherwise appear as lead
working.
ballast in a strictly volume-limited submarine,
However, the viewpoint expressed by Com- should be proportioned to increasing scantlings
mander Baylis, that perhaps we have gone too and so provide a stronger pressure hull and one
far in building in controls fixed stability in sub- that could withstand a longer period of service
marines and that it might be wiser to throw more before requiring structural repairs.
of the burden on other elements in the control
Dr. Wenk has questioned the authors' position
loop, is an unusual and interesting one. For that on the "one-hoss shay" concept. Our views
reason we heartily welcome his discussion. More on this concept are identical with those of Heller
often, the submarine stability and control engineer and. Palermo, which are ably expressed in their
is remanded by the aeronautical engineer for not comments on Admiral McKee's paper [1 ]. These
providing enough controls fixed stability in sub- comments are too lengthy to repeat in this closure
marines as Mr. Crowell has done. In support of but are well worth rereading by any still in d o u b t : ,
his views Mr. Crowell says that if an airplane or an on this matter. Further, Wenk's closing state-automobile, possessed the stability and control ments in this respect are identical with thecharacteristies of a submarine, they would be liter- authors' philosophy; namely, to establish the
ally unmanageable on the airstrip or highway.
shell and general instability strengths for a perAt the same time Mr. Crowell's excellent dis- fect cylinder at a sizable percentage above yield.
cussion does go a long way towards reconciling
In establishing 1.16 as the maximum theoretical
his and Commander Baylis' points of view. Only value for ~ in Fig. 34 the authors did not intend
.on one point is there disagreement with his thesis to imply any interpretation similar to that taken
and that is his implication that drag considera- by Dr. Wenk; i.e., unexplained prediction that
tions have limited the size of control surfaces that about 30 per cent improvement in structural effisubmarine designers have been willing to accept, ciency is possible. The authors'concur with Dr.
whereas in reality the reluctance to extend control Wenk that this figure could only be approached
surfaces much beyond the block dimension of the in the case of deep-diving submarines.
submarine has been a major consideration.
Mr. Johnson has provided some valuable ampli
Mr. Crowell, though, makes a telling case for the lying comments in connection with the section
advantages of being able to maneuver tightly on structures. Of particular interest are his
with smaller hull angles of attack. In that regard comments concerning interframe buckling in
our acceptance of the traditional ability to change which the authors concur. In the structures
heading angle rapidly as a maneuvering criterion section the authors noted that a satisfactory
leaves much to be desired. Unfortunately, analysis for general instability failure was finally
precise flight-path data in the horizontal plane in achieved by Kendrick, whereas Mr. Johnson notes
the early stages of turn are usually not available so that a rigorous analysis in this case was carried .
that it is not possible to convert the data of Table out by Salerno and Levine while at Brooklyn
4 to change of flight-path angle rather than of Polytechnic Institute and in advance of Kenheading angle. In any event, Commander Baylis' drick's solution. This is new information to the
and Mr. Croweli's discussions reveal important authors who are pleased to have the record corproblem areas still deserving attention in the field rected. In his discussion concerning Fig. 34,
of submarine stability and control.
Mr. Johnson apparently did not notice that the
Dr. Wenk has requested the authors to state ~b-factors plotted were based on the yon Sanden
their basic concept for proportioning hull struc- and Gunther (92a) formulation. Because this
tures. Succinctly stated it is: "The optimum formulation is generally conservative most of the
design of the pressure hull is one of minimum C-values in Fig. 34 are lower than model tests
weight for the required strength." In this con- would indicate.
nection there will be occasions when the material
Mr. Uram takes the authors somewhat to
selected to provide the minimum-weight solution task for not dwelling more on the inaccuracies.
cannot be worked to a high efficiency because of inherent in the Froude method of extrapolating
fixed restraints of design depth and hull geometry. model data to full scale. We are fully aware of
A case of this nature was noted by the authors the inconsistencies and unreliable predictions that
in their discussion concerning Fig. 34.
arise from the use of this method in predicting
Dr. Wenk has asked the authors whether they the drag of vehicles like submarines that have very
don't agree that the alert designer will always seek small residual drag. However, the annals of
the lightest possible structure even in volume- the naval arc .hitectural societies are filled with dislimited cases? We do not fully agree in this re- cussions of this very subject so that we felt i t
~t
692