Documenti di Didattica
Documenti di Professioni
Documenti di Cultura
*{}f l
,/*<e t/ L
SIIMMARY: Fourteen years have elapsed since the publication of an eariier paper(1) by one of the authors on'Estimating
Preliminary Dimensions in Ship Design', During this period there have been, almost certainly, greater changes in ships than
in aly previous period of the same duration.
There have aiso been substantial changes in ship design methods with the deveiopment of computer technology. The present
paper reviews the design methods presented in 1962,considers to what extent these have stood the test of time and suggests
some further developmenis in them. It considers how the relationships between dimensions, the coefficients and approximate
formulae quoted have changed and why,
Fina-lly,the scope of lhe paper is extended to consider some other aspects of design.
Since 1962 there have been four significant changes (and a The tanker fleet has expanded enormously to meet the stead-
great many minor ones) affecting, to varying degrees, the ily expanding demand for oil which grew at 5?; per annum
data and the methods presented at that date by pa1s6n (l ). untii the OPEC price increases in 1973/1974. The rendency
to site refineries in consuming countries in lhe years since
Firsrlv, there has been the enormous growih ilyg$d Worid War II led to the development of crude oii tankers as
lpryla-gg
of ships from 145 million rons in mid 1963 to a figure of a specialised class which has Ied the growth in ship size as
340 million tons gross in mid 19?5 accomparied by striking the economies of scale have become more apparent,aided by
changes in the composition of the fleet, the development of a such events as the closure of the Suez Canal. With crude oil
number of totally new types of ship ard a step change in borh being carried by ever larger ships, the developmentof a
the maximum and average size oi ships of a number of the second class of specialist tarker, lhe products carrier, be-
traditional types. came necessary and a large number of these vessels has
also been built.
There have been the changes in ships machinerg.-to_gqlp_|g
the power required for thtse aniine'Grob6o-irip types to Bulk carrlers, in thei.r infaacy in 1962, have grown both in
"eil
be attained. The output of both slow and medium speed numbers and size, tal<ing over the role of the tra-mp ship in
diesels has been increased by a factor of 2 or more. Steam the ore, coal and grain trades and now constitute the second
turbines have received a new lease of life, gas turbines have largest group, by tonnage, in the world fieet.
entered the picture and nuclear propuision may now be Container ships, a ciass which in 1962 existed onJ.yas a few
approaching commercial application. conversions by the Matson and Sea-Land companies, have
taken over the roie of the cargo liner on many of the world's
There has been a striking growth rg.!!e av3j_!1b-,ij1ia3lgl
principal trade routes. Sophisticated cargo liners represen-
capacity of computers. In t962 theie ,,rzereonlv-aboui-20
computers of arrli'significant size in the United Kingdom, and ted in 1962 by the recently completed BEN LOYAL achieved
in the next few years a peak of perfection in such ships as
four years were to elapse belore BSRA started their com-
Ocean Fleets PRIAM class and P & O's STRATHARDLE
mittee on the use of computers in ship design in 1966, Stide
class beiore container ships took over the cream o{ the
rules were therefore the norma.l toot in ship design offices
general. cargo trade.
ard ihe 1962 paper bears abundant evidence of this, althoueh
some of the more far-sighted contributors to the discussiJn Aithough it was not realised at the time, passenger liners
saw the methods presented in the paper as preparing the typified in 1962 by the newly compieted ORIANA, CANBERRA
way, to some extent, for the use of computers, and TRANSVAAL CASTLE were already becoming unecono-
mic in the world of the jei aircraJt and onJ.ythe comparative-
Finally, in 1962 we were still firmly in the era of Eliti-g| ly recent growih in the numbers of cruise liners ald cross
imperia-l units of feet, inches, tons and horsepower. This channel ferries has sustained naval architects' ability to
change alone necedditatedan'updaringof the'1g62 paper if it design these most interesting ships.
was lo continue to be of use.
Development has continued in the numbers, size and sophis-
Before seeing how the data and methods presented have tication of Ro-Ro ships.
stood the test of time, it is worth spending a moment re-
In 1962 the carriage of Iiquefied natural gas was represented
calling the state of the art as it rvas in 1962 and lookinE at
by the METHANE PRINCESS and METHANE PIONEER.
the changes which have taken place in the intervening y1ars.
There is now a considerable fleet of these vessels and
severaL entirely different desiga concepts.
Other ship types which have developed enormously in num-
+ Y-ARD Ltd., Consuiting Engineers, Glasgow
bers, in size, and in sophistication are those associated with
279
SQME SHIP DESIGN METHODS
l
General Cargo Ships 21,560 d1
II
Others 8,952 B
World Tota]s ao 7(1 145 63,724 342
Sources: Lloydts Statistical Tables
Fearnley & Egers Annual Reviews
offshore exploration work including supply vessels and increase in oil prices which followed the Arab/Israeli con-
drilling ships. flict of 19?3,reinforced the value of the fuel economv of the
A summary of the changes in shipping is presenred in Table L diesel engi-ne.
New contenders to the propulsion machinerv scene appeared
1.2 Tte Changes in Machinery in 1962 with the nuclear ship SAVANAH and in 196? with the
gas turbine ship ADMIRAL CALLAGHAN.
At ihe sa.me time as this development was taking place ia
ships, there was a parallel development,in the field of marine Nuclear power has only been fitted to three merchant ships
on oi n oa nin o so far,without apparent success,but recent developmenis
suggest that an economic case might be made for its applica-
In 1962 turbo-charging of diesel engines had oniy recently tion for high powered vessels if political objections,environ-
been introduced and the iargest engine which was in service mental worries and energy priorities can be resolved,
in any substantia.l numbers had a cylinder bore of ?60 mm
and developed a power of 1500 BHp per cylinder. By contrasr Gas turbines have moved very rapidly to a dominant position
today's diesel engines have bores of up to 1050 mm and can il warship machinery but so far only a comparatively small
provide a maximum continuous power of about 4600 BHp per number of merchant ships have this type of machinery. The
cylinder. gas generator part of marine gas furbine installations have
been developed from both aircraft engines and from industrial
Pielstick had started their successful run of medium speed machines. Characterisiics of the former are iightness, com-
engines and the biggest medium speed engine at sea pactness, limited Iife and repair by replacement. lndustrial
developed aboui 5000 BI{P. Today several major manu- derivatives are heavier arrd more robust for 1onger life and
facturers offer well proven installations with powers of uD to can run on high viscosity, cheaper fuels.
2?000 HP.
Power turbines in both cases are specially developed marine
In 1962,steam turbine installations were confined to the lar- uniis. The large increase in fuel costs of recent years ap-
gest tankers of that era which required a polver close to, or pears likely to delay the use of gas turbine propulsion gen-
beyond, the limit which could be obtained from a single screw elally lor merchant ships.
diesel installation and where advantage could be laken of
having steam available for tank heating arrd cleaning, and to 1.3 Design Starting Point
passenger liners where the power requi.red was beyond that One of the more fundamental changes which has occurred in
which could be obtained from a twin screw diesel installation the thinkiag of naval. architects during this period is con-
and where the advantage which the steam turbine has in re- cerned with the starting point of his work. The 1962 paperrs
spect of vibration and noise was of particr:Iar value. In lg62 opening statement that 'The first problem that a naval archi-
it appeared likeiy that the slow decline of the turbine reiaii.ve tect faces when he starts to design a ship is the selection of
to the diesel wou.Ldcontinue, However, the adveni of even main ciimensions suitable for the development of a design
larger tankers and of container ships whose reduced port meeting all the specified requirementsr was true in one
turn round time justified higher sea speeds Ied to a demand sense but now appears somewhat superficial. The require-
for higher powered installations in the years from 196b on- ments of deadweight or capacity, of speed and range, of cargo
wards. This demand, which could onl.y be met at that iime, handling facilitieb and of dimensional limitations have to be
in terms of proven technology, by the stearn turbine, led to a stated. From the view point of a shipyard's naval architect
strong revival of the turbine, which lasted until the massive these may come as specilied requirements, but for an
280
SOME SHIP DESIGN METHODS
ownerrs naval architect or for a consultant, establishing In the case of a deadweight carrier T is the maximum
these is the first stage in design. However well a design draught permitted by the geometric-freeboaiilfoi thri bhip's
meets a set of requirements it may result in an unsuccesslul dimensions and construction. It is noteworthy that the equa-
ship if these have not been well selected. The transportation tion does not involve the depth of the ship, except in so far
study to determine these should consider the economics of a as it is implicit in the draught. A small increase in scant-
number of solutions involving variations in ship numbers, lings, a small reduction in bulkhead spacing and a few altera-
ship sizes and speeds,against a scenario of changing freight tions in construction details may be sufficient to enable a
rates, Ioad factors and operating costs. The ship require- particular value of T to be obtained with a reduced depth D
ments finally selected should be a compromise between those with the resulting design having a reduced cargo capacity and
which would mu(imise profits in the fat years and those stowage rate.
which would result in the smallest losses in the lean years,
the weighting between these depending on an assessment of
2.2 The Capacity Carrier
which regime wouid predominate in the years of the ship's
Iife which discounted cash flow methods show to be most For the volume carrier the dimensions are determined by
important. the equations:
The large number of outline ship designs, capital and opera- . fv- - v,,)
ting cost estimates required for such a study makes this a V h =C b o L B D '- - - - : - - - - i +V m Q)
suitable subject for computer modelling. Indeed, whilst it (1-S)
could, in principle, be done by hand calculation methods, it
where
was not unti-l the advent of computers that the shipowner's
hunch,based on operating experience with his existing ships, D1 = Capacity Depth in metres
gave way to a rational approach.
nl - Tr +'- m
^ + sm
1.4 Design Methods D - Depth moulded in metres
Many excellent papers on preliminary design have appeared c- = Mean camber in metres =2/3c for parabolic
in the last few years and some oI these are given in the camber
References. Preiiminary design by its very nature is per-
haps the most subjective aspect of naval architecture relying sm : Mean sheer in metres = 1/6 (sf + sa) for para-
as it cloeson the accumulated experience and data of each bolic sheer
practi.tioner. Whatever means are used to make these cal-
Cbo = Block coefficient at the moulded depth
culations, the methods on which they are based must be of
sound principle, and must reflect established characterisiics V6 = total volume in m3 of the ship beiow the upper
for the iype of vessel which is being investigated. One of the deck, and between perpendiculars.
aims of this paper is to restate these principies, The Vr = Total cargo capacity (m3) required.
methods presented therefore are generally suitable for use
either with the slide rule or calculators, or in computer pro- Vu = Cargo capacity (s13) available above the upper
grams, and we do not wish to argue the case for one method deck
or the other at this stage. Both have their place with the = Deduction for structure in cargo space expressed
S
balance of advantage Iying with the computer when frequent
as a proportion of the moulded volume of these
repetition of a type of design is likely and with slide-rule
spaces.
when the design required has a high degree of novelty neces-
sitating the exercise of judgemeni in choosing reiationships Vm = Volume required for machinery, tanks etc. within
and approximate formulae. However, as we shall suggest the volume V6
later, the use of the computer to male a iarge number of
repetitive calculations may not be the best'ray to use this h this equation, it is significant to note the absence of the
valuable tool. draught T as a factor, although it is implicit as a second
order term in the difference between the value of C5o and
the value of C6 at draught T which is established by the
2. THE TEREE SEIP DESIGN CATEGORIES form required to suit the speed length ratio of the ship.
From the aspect of choosing appropriate main dimensions,
ships divide into three main categories: 2.3 The Linear Dimension Ship
(i) The deadweightcarrier The linear dimension ship is distinguished by the fact that
(ii) The capacity carrier its dimensions are primarily fixed by considerations other
and (iii) The iinear dimension ship than those of deadweight or of voiume.
An example is the St. Lawrence Seaway ship where the bea.m
2.1 The Deadweight Carrier Iimit of 22'86 m can lead to a very long slim ship with a high
The cieadweightcarrier is distinguished by the fact that its L/D value and ior which the economic advantages of carrying
dimensions are determined by the equation: a large deadweight or capacity of cargo through the canal
offsets the penalties resulting from constructing a ship
a = c bL BTx1.0 25 (1 + s ) = W D+ wL (1) whose proportions are not economic for other services. The
Panama Cana-Iexercises a similar influence with a beam
where L Length BP in metres limit of about 32'2 m and a draught limit of about 13 m de-
- pending on season. The distortion from normal ship pro-
B = Breadth mld.in metres
portions has not been as great as that caused by the St.
T = Load draught in metres Lawrence Seaway locks, but there is the same trend.
Cb = Moulded block coeflicient at draught For the Iargest tankers, the depth of the ocean itself in some
T on Length BP of its shaLlower areas such as the Dover and Malacca Straits
a =
Full displacement in tonnes limits the draught of such vessels to about 23 m resulting
in lower L/B ratios than would have been considered if this
s = Shell, stern and appendages displace-
limitation had not applied.
ment expressed as a fraction of the
moulded displacement In addition to ships influenced by external factors, there are
Wu = full deadweight in tonnes a number of ship types whose dimensions are determined
primarily by the unit size of the cargo they carry. Container
WL = lightship weight in tonnes ships are probably the most obvious example. For this type
281
SOME SHIP DESIGN METHODS
of ship the beam and depth are the first dimensions to be lines which enable these reductions in hull cost to be obtained
fixed, determining the number of containers whieh can be with only a small acceptable penalty in powering.
carried in the midship section of the ship, and the lengih of
However the extent to which beam can be increased for a
the ship is then adjusted to accommodate the total numbers.
given length of ship is siill. limited to ensure that the ship
As ihere is within limits, an optimum lengthlbeam relation-
does not require excessive horsepower in relation to its
ship, steps develop in the numbers of containers for which
displacement and speed, and also to ensure that the ship is
optimum ships can be designed.
directionally stable.
The breadths of car ferries and of train ferries are similar-
Fig.1 shows a plot of beam against length for recent ships of
ly iailored to accommodate a number of lanes of vehicles,
a variety of types.
with the result that there are fairiy distinct steps in the
beam of ships of those types. As each beam value is associa-
ted with appropriate va"lues of depth and length there tends
to tre optimum and non-optimum car numbers.
to toaao" {o 50 30
- ,ar*a*
+ Br.u<cAFRrERsl
Fig.2 o cNERAt CARGO
I ] -]
,
i_ i :, ^.qj "t,
_
TABLE tr
283
SOME SHIP DESIGN METITODS
depth and beam are therefore independent variables. For I(atsoulis'equation and constants to ca-lculate the block coef_
these ships, control of the value of D is exercised by the
ficients of a wide variety of ships for which .*,ehad good data-
ratio L,/D which is signi{icant in relation to the structural we did not obLain satisfactory agreement with the actual
strength of the ship and particularly to the deflection of the block coefficients, particularly for the ships at the extreme
hull girder under the bending moments imposed by waves ends of the range of dimensions (crude carriers of over
ald cargo distribution. The largest L,/D values are used on
250 m and ships of 100 m or less).
tankers which of all ships have the most favourable structural
arrangements-longitudinal framing on bottom deck. ship We therefore decided to plot the block coefficients of as
sides and longitudinal bulkheads and the minimum of haich many ships for which we could obtain the data-against a
openings. suitable base-the obvious one being Fn or V/Ji, (Fig. S(a)).
IMhenhigher tensiie steel is used to save weight, it is This presupposes that the many naval architects concerned
with these designs managed somehow or other to fix values
generally desirable to use a smaller L/D value in order to
of block coefficient for their designs which were not too far
limit the deflection of the hull girder.
away from optimum. With a few exceptions all the values
Fig..4 shows L/D ratj.os for a variety of ship types. were found to be within a band of 10'025 from the main Cx
line whilst a majority of the points lie within much closei
3.6 The Draught,/Lengtl relationship T = l(L) limits.
This is essentially a secondary relationship resulting from
erither of the foll.owing combinations of relationshios:
T = f(D)l or T = f(D))
a n d D= f ( L) J P= t(B )l
a n d B -f(L ).r
3. ? fiie Draugtt,/Beam relationship T = f(B)
Again a secondary relationship, resulting in this case from
either of the following combinations of reiationships:
T= f ( D) l o" T = f(D ))
andD=f(B)J e = i (L ) |
a n d D = f(L ),
r:?RrEs
The numerical. values of these reiationships are different ob
+ ?rl
cl 5 o.p q?5
for different types of ship, for a number oi . r& F" eF
some of
q'hich have already been mentioned, and some "easons,
of which will
become apparent later. Fig. 5(a)
We 2
3.8 Block coelficient
lnlqslUg noted
T'he only remaining factor required to obtain the relationship
between dimensions and displacement is the block coefficieni
which has a complex relationship primarily with length and .
speed and also with beam and draught. appi ie s t o bwin s cTew pr-ripulsiornvE ich-G gGierally c on-
fired to high speed cargo liners, passenger ships and ferries.
In the i962 paper the block coefficient was obtained from the
Alexander relationship of the form: The types of ships used in the plots are indicated showing
the areas in which they predominate. We believe ship iype
c u- K- o.sv/.8 has some significance in relation to selection of C6 tiecause
with Kvarying from 1.12 to 1.08 dependingonV/.14. of the variation in practice relating to service spe6d, margins
and engine derating adopted in different classes of ships. -
In the discussion oi that paper, Conn suggested a number of
al.ternative formulae which appeared to have meri.i _notably For bulk carriers for example it is usual to quote a service
Telfer's proposal which broughi in L,/B as a variable and speed based on the maximum continuous power which the
Troost's which made a useful distinction between single and machinery develops with only a small margin for weather
twin screw ships. and iouling. Cargo liner owners, however, take a much more
conservative view and quote speeds .ffhich can be obtained
Tlhe receni significant reduction in L/B ratio together with with a quite large margin for weather and fouling and with
the increase in the average size of ships seems, however, to the power limited to a service rating which may be only
make a new approach to the block coefiicient relaiionshio
85% or 90% MCR.
dersirabie. it was therefore with great interest that we
studied the ideas presented by Katsoulis(2). The line corresponding to ihe 1g62 variant of the Alexander
formula (equation(4)) is shown on Fig. b(a) for comparison
s.uggestedthet Cb, as well as being a function of purposes and indicates the extent to which bulk carriers
51tP"ljt
v,/vrJ.snoulo arso be a function of.L/B and of B/T, since both
have fuller block coefficients than were anticipated at thai
of these alfect the resistance of the ship and the flow of
time, whereas the change for other ship types'has been less
water to the propeller (and hence both the epC and the like_
striking. Whilst part of the explanation oiihis no doubt lies
lihood of avoiding propeller induced vibrations). He suggests
in the considerable development of tank tested forms in
arl exponential formula for C5 of the form: the 0'?5 to 0.80 C5 range, it is suggested that the different
C g:KfL aBb TcVd (5) attitude to speed on the part of bulk carrier owners is nrob-
ably at least as significani a factor.
where
K = constant 3.9 Displacement
f = correction factor for a particular ship iype. In order to obtain the full displacement at the desired
draught, it is necessary to make a small correction to the
He then shows tha! this can be transformed inio: moulded displacement to allow for shell and appendages.
cu = t r (v/lL)d, |[-r 1- 6- . l- p' l- -.
+[-"-" l+l
-----.-'-- -"
aa+b+c+dt2 (6) Whilst this-is.a comparativeiy smaj.l iactor in the displace_
L IJJ L I'J ment calculation, it can be important in ships where the
From a regression analysis letsoulis deduced values
of the deadweight is small and margins are tight [o have a good
constants in the equation. UnJorhrnately when tve used
approximation for these items, at least in the iater sfaees
284
SOME SHIP DESIGN METHODS
when the design is being refined. If this can be done easily,
there seems every reason to use L\ese same approxirnations RELATIONSHIPEETVEEN SLOCKCOEFRCIENT
ANO LOM! CENTREOF BUOYANCY
in the preliminary design stage. EFFECT OF V8 RATIO; EFFECT OF oR^FT; EFFecT oF TWIN scREwS
For a single screw ship with an all welded sheil, the simplest SLGK a t t -' @
n
tl
t.oI
Again ii draught is limited then keel thickness should be t.o fr
allowed for in ary comparison bebweenthe derived moulded
draught and ihat permitted for the design.
0.95 (
3.10 Appendages
fr
[l
_f
o.90
If a more exact estimate of appendagedisplacement is re- 3wrM SERI
quired, the various appendages should be considered qTO
o:eo FO& Afl LINES b
.J
individua.lly. EsrA*rS &OO D
rcPLLE ^d LINE!
FORW^RO
t
/ar, (7) o ,55
ro JU Allaw
Dlv
lEqs
EsA&r3HEo
to uxES nrco
e3ftME
t
l.= 1
.tou o -65 L C .8 . cornusarEu(r6
( T
'61
j
::'>
t = merul shell thickness (mm) 6m
o.55 -
(ii) Stern displacement t^d5
o ffi
Em
= f /T\ x -' i A Fq flE 3^aE v(t a
ll-l -rl sHrP WdH A U6E !/l <.:=1---
t \ H/ | 1000 MNO CA UVE A ruLLE' -Y FFEC T d
&ocK coFfftENl tu! L /E u Tro
lxrt YriH A 3SALL L,/c
<---]----.i
^
where x = 2'5 for 'fine' sterns ------)
x = 3. 5 f or ' f uI I ' s t er ns (B) vt
H = height of cor,rnter toR ffa seq V.E
*rt wfH a suaLL ^fft
wsr HAv a tEuTrvLY
(iii) Twin screw bossing displacement Flrg c!. oN! wrTx a
oEEF OUff CAr r^VE
a etullvElY F*L cb
= 1'1 0d 3 (9)
where d - propeller diameter Fd tu sM6 y/"( a il'd
sw gNre oN u a EFFECI ff
Constant can vary from 0. ? for fine bossinss to ruuEa
FU'THER A'I
cb a|o n(
il^I
Lc!
A
1'4 for very fu-il bossings. l r r cl E sR a w sh r p
285
SOME SEIP DESIGN METEODS
simpler thart that normally used, but is substantially K to 0'84. This formula has frequently been found by the
accurate, can be applied. authors to give as good an estimate of the QPC as would be
obtained from the synthesis of the various components. As a
,a\ /A\ = q ( Lz - Lt ) 10- a
qQL r (9l^ (12) result of this experience we have often extended the use of
the formula for length of ship and propller RPM substantially
,1.2 AdopHon of IITC Notation beyond the range of these parameters used in its original
ds3iyafisn(10);we would also extend its use to twin screw
A change not yet universally adopted is the formulation of
ships after adjusting the value of constant K from suitable
@ attd through it PE and P, on an ITTC basis in lieu of tank test data. For controllable pitch propellers a reduction
Froude basis. Whilst the ITTC basis has, in the opinion of
in 4o of about 0'02 appears appropriate.
the experts, a better scientific base and its use is expected
eventually to lead to better power predictions, there is no The Emerson formula incidentally shows quite clearly that
dor,rbtthat a far greater amount of avallable data is in the the best way to improve the propulsive efficiency is to re-
old Froude notation. We have therefore a-llowedin our duce the RPM and it is therefore somewhat surprising that
calculation sheets for its continued use iJ desired. it has taken so long for this idea to be tal<ento the logical
conclusion recently proposed by Burmeister and Wain and
{.3 Appendage Resistance others.
Additional allowances, usually expressed as a percentage of
the nal<edPr must be added for appendages,such as twin 4. 6 Transmission Rfficiency
screw bossings or 'A' brackets, twin rudders, bow rudder, The reduction in the length of shafting, and therefore in the
bow or stern thrusters, stabiliser fins or recesses. Each number of bearings with the change from machinery amid-
of these needs to be carefully assessed in relation to its ships to machinery 3q aft or all aJt, together with the im-
design and the extent to which it is laired into the lines of provement in stern tube lubrication has reduced the frictional
the ship. The allowances which we would use for well losses and we would now use a figure of 1% for aft end in-
designed appendages are: stallations and 2"L for others, compared with a value of 3%
Twin screw bossings 8-10% assumed in 1962. When appropriate, a further 3-4% would be
'A' brackets allowed for gearing losses in medium speed diesel
Twin rudders installations.
Bow thruster t- 4o/
Q P C =4o = K _N fi (13) The lightship weight W" is composed of steel weight + ouEit
10, 000 weight + machinery weight.+ margin.
As the answers from the original formula are a little low The following paragraphs deal with methods of estimating
for modern propeller designs, we have changed the constant each of these.
286
SOME SHIP DESIGN *TETHODS
5.1 Steelweight-Ws The calculation of C51 at 0'8D from the known value of the
load draught may be made using the empirical formula:
In the 1962 paper the use of Lloyd's equipment numeral was
advocated as a basis for a graph of steelweight in preference ,n.8D- T)
to the numerals L x B x D or L * (S + D) in more common Cbt = Cb + (1- C6) Lil ( 16)
use at that time. The reasons given for this were that the
equipment number introduced allowances of approximately There is some ambiguity in our treatment of block coefficient
the correct order for changes in draught and in the extent of in various sections of this paper. Previously we have used a
erections, and avoided the choiee of the deck to which 'Dr was C6, which is measured at the moulded depth of the ship
measured being critical as it was in the other numerals. and had intended to use it throughout the paper, bo& for
uniformity and because it has a better theoretical basis.
The Lloydrs Equipment numeral ol 1962 no longer takes any
However, we found ourselves committed to the use of C5 at
part in the determination of ships anchors and cables,
0'8D in this section because our accumulated data was on
hawsers and warps having been replaced for this function in
this basis.
1965 try a new numeral, which was agreed by the Classifica-
tion Sociehies to be a more rational measure of the wind, The great increase in size which has taken place in VLCCs
wave and current forces which might act on a vessel at has necessitated the extension of the steel weight graph to
anchor. The new numeral may have merit for its primary E values almost 3 times greater than those plotted in 1962.
role, trut ii is not a suitable parameter against which to piot At the same time, we have found our interest extending to
ship steelweights. ships much smaller than were dealt with in the earlier paper.
Since 1962 several numerals have been suggested as a basis A convenient solution to the problem of achieving reasonable
for calculations of steelweight. Some of these numerals have accuracy in the figures for small ships, whilst at the same
a scientific basis and give good results for the ship types for time accommodating the largest vessels in the one graph, is
which they were developed, particulariy if they are used as provided by the use of a log-Iog scale, as shown in Fig.6.
a proportioning parameter applied to the known steelweight
of a basis ship. None of these formulae, however, seem to be
as suitable as E as a parameter applicable to a wide range
: 0.?0 aI 0.8 O
SIANoARo BLOCKCoFFICIENT
of ship types.
. IAIKERS
287
SOME SHIP DESIGIV METHODS
Iength, but larger beam and depth than a 1962 ship with AB = Area of bottom plating * bottom longls + other
the same E. longl matl below 0'1D
The reduction in the extcnt to which 'Or.rners Extras' are ns = Area oi sheil * iongls plus area of longl blds +
specified for modern ships. longls between 0'1D and 0'9D
The reduction and simplification of internal structure in AT - Wt of transverse material per metre of ship's
modern ships-fewer decks in cargo ships, fewer buik- length
heads in tankers.
The simplification of superstrucfure, resulting in the
elimination of the overhanging decks which were a
regular feature in the ships of fifteen years ago.
The rationalisation of Classification Society Rules and
the reduction in scantlings which have followed. t_I T'' I
i
Changes in demarcation of work. Patent steel hatch
covers were at one time commonly manufachired in [-
shipyards and therefore included in the steelweight.
In more recent years they have invariably been manu-
factured by specialists and as 'bought' items are now in
U -I
shipyard ou$it.
Mention has been made of alternative steelweight estimating Fig.7
procedures and it may be appropriate to comment on some
of these which are usefully summarized by Fisher(l1).
Most of the formulae quoted appear to have been derived The deck modulus of the hull girder is:
by regression analysis techniques and the indices allotted to
the various dimensions of L, B, D and C5 vary widely. in Aoh62+ A"h62 + Lh2 ts (0.eoo)s (1e)
many cases the resultant figures appear to have little physical ,^o
significance.
l e t h d : k 6 D ; h 6 =l $ D
TABLE Itr Then
2
ea*\*a- i A6+A,("+q)' : q z
/ Iq.\
No. of D (20)
ships in
Type Value of K for sample
If we approximate = kd = 0'50
\
Tankers 0 .029-0.035 1500<E<40000 I3
then:
Chemical tanker 0. 0 3 6 -0 .0 3 ? 1 9 0 0 < E < 2 5 0 0 2
Bulk carrier 0. 0 2 9 -0 .0 3 2 3 0 0 0 < E< 1 5 0 0 0 13
AD+AB.*=*[3] (21)
Open type bulk
Conlainer
I
!
0 .033-0.040 6000<E<13000 a Hence steel weight per metre =,("(3)
*f o.+ A.\ (22)
288
SCME SHIP DESIGN METHODS
ws=c ; / 2LB
[","'3+IqDI
-)
(27) olq
0
which has one modulus related and one volume related term.
The similarity which this bears to Sato's expression wiil be
noted:
289
SOME SHIP DESIGN METHODS
. IAIKERS
+ BTI-KCARRIERS
O PASSENGRSHIPS
O GENERALCARC -&,-rdc'
eP'
CONTAINER
'
O OPEN TYPE
O RESEARCH
+ XETKb
S SUPRY
] TUGS .1
* TRAWLER
1 .2
OUTFI' WT d reRrv
1 .8
.. t.0
,a'
0-8
TRAWLEF
uo
o
D CARC
0'{ o a
!o
t
o.2 o .-8UrX
CARflers {xcRAtsr
r50 200
LENGIHBP {MEIRES)
F ig. 9
The choice of method ior calculating the outiit weight in the limited number of passenger ships. The line entitled 'high
preliminary design stage depends on the information available speed diesels' (today's medium speed engines) tailed off at
for tie basis ship and the relative importance of the outfit 3,500 sHP.
weight in the total weight of the iightship.
Turbocharging was so novel that ihe machinery weights for
In the absence of detailed information the best method this type of engine were plotted on a base of the po"ver they
remains that of selecting a suitable basis ship and pro- would have developed iJ not turbocharged. Machinery was
portionhg its outfit v/eight in relation to the square number usually fitted amidships and a reduction in weight was
(L x B ). suggested for the cases where the machinery was fitted aft.
In using this method, any known unusual features, such as Although metrication strictly requires the abandonment of
insulation and refrigerating machinery should be subtracted horsepower in favour of kilowatts, we find this rather
from the basis ship before proportioning and/or added to the pedantic and have opted for metric horsepower which is still
estimate arter proportioning. the usual power figure quoted by engine manuiacturers.
The ralio between outfit weight and square numbers (L x B) The formulae for machinery weights quoted in 1962 for
varies w'ith ship type and size (FiS.9). For volume carriers diesels and turbine machinery were both of the y = mx + c
such as passenger vessel.s, etc.for which the outfit wei.ght is type;whilst this gives the decrease in specific weight per
spread more or less homogeneousiy throughout the ship and unit of power as the power increases which one woul.d expect,
is ttrerelore proportional to volume, the ratio increases it is a t]?e of formula which necessarily has a limited range
linearly with ship's length. For deadweight carriers such as and we now prefer a formula of the type y - rnxn.
tankers and buik carriers. for which some items of outfit
The various types ol engine which have to be considered
such as accommodation weight, vary only slightly with ship
include:
size, the ratio reduces slowly with increase in ship length.
The ratio for general cargo ships is about 0'39 and this (i) Direct drive slow speeds diesels
corresponds to a value in imperial rmits of about 0'036 which (ii) Geared medium speed diesels
when compared with the ratio of 0'033 guoted in the 1962 paper,
represents an increase of about 10% in outfii weight since (iii) Geared steam turbines
that date. (iv) Dieselelectricinstallations
When the outfit weight is a significant proportion of the total (v) Turbo electric installations
weight of the lightship, it is preferable to mal<ea more
detailed estimate and this need not be a lengthy process if (vi) Geared gas turbines:
data are zealously gathered, carefully filed and when appro- (a) Aero type
priate, plotted against suitable parameters. (b) trdustrial type
It is useful to have a standard grouping of outfit weights (vii) Gas turbo electric instaliations
which can be used for more detailed assessments. One such (viii) Nuclear power.
grouping comprising 32 items is given in Table IV.
Alter the choice of the main engine, the three factors which
5.4 I'Iachinery Weight appear to come next in importance in their effect on machin-
ery weight are:
An inspection of the formulae and graphs presented in 1962
paper shows how many changes there have been in machinery (a) The type of ship and cargo carried, which deter-
since that date. The maximum power shown was 15,000 SHP, mine to a large extent the auxiliaries fitted;
a figure which at that date had only been exceeded on a passenger ships and refrigerated cargo ships
290
SOME SHIP DESIGN METHODS
generally having additional generating capacity and Two possible abscissae occurred to us:
refrigeration machinery, whilst oil tankers have
boilers to provide steam for oil heating and tank - the Maximum Continuous Rating of the main engines,
cleaning. and
(b) The number of propellers-single - once again the quotient, MCR/RPM
or twin screrr.
(c) The p_ositionof the engine room in the shi5amid- The argument for the first of these parameters is that cool-
ship, 37naft, or 'all' aft. ing water and lub. oil piping and auxiliaries, exhaust gas
boilers, uptakes, shafting and propellers should be related to
As u'ith wood and outfit weights, accurate machi.nery weights MCR. The argument for the second parameter is that a
are best obtained by a synthesis from a number of group medium speed engine will require a much smaller engine
weights and a suggested system for this is included in room with corresponding reductions in the weight of piping,
Table fV. floorplates, ladders and gratings, and spare gear.
A simplified treatment divides the machinery weight into We tried both plots, together with a compromise abscissa of
two groups-tle main engine which for diesels and gas MCR t-^ 't
120 . .
turbines at all events, can be obtained from a manuJacturer's * before deciding that the lines which could
?- L3 ffiJ
cata.logue and a remainder, which can be proportioned on a be drawn on a base of MCR gave the best 'fit' to our data. We
suitable parameter from the weight of this portion of the found that it was possible to identify separate llnes for such
machinery weight of a similar installation. different ship types as: Cargo Ships and Bulk Carriers;
The selection of a suitabie base against which to plot main Tankers; Passenger Ships.
engine weight proved reasonably simple, as we found that Although Fig.11 shows a nice series of lines, it must be
the rveight was a function of maximum torque rating, repre- recorded that there was a considerable scatter in the data
sented in this case by MCR/RPM. What was somewhat less points from which these lines were derived. This scatter
erpected was the closeness w.ith which most current engine reflects wide divergence in machinery superintendents' views
types conformed to the pattern. Only two makes of medium
on desirable installations and on various manufacturers'
speed engines did not conform closely to the mean line, one design and construction techniques.
being heavier because of ma-ximum use of castings and the
other being lighter because of maximum use of welded To make best use of Fig. 11 we recommend the use of a line
construction, paraliel to those reproduced, through a data spot wNch the
user hnows to represent the standard of machinery fit
llq.t9 shows a plot of main engine weights agai.nst speciiied. This technique can incidentaliy be applied with
MCR/RPM for a large number oi engin6s in iurrent pro-
duction. From this the main engine weight can be detir- advantage to all of the graphs given in this paper.
mined in the first instance. A similar plot of engine weights
from 1962 shows that there has been a reduction in weglt of
approximately 147"for a given power since that date. Fiom
Fig.10 the following equation was derived:
o'tn
Dry weight of main engine (d.ieser)- 9.38 [.$.l (29)
\uv
LRPMI '
This equation gives a weight which is 5.7.higher than that
represented by the iine through the data spots to allow for ?
t
the fact that the graph really ought to be a stepped line
corresponding to cylinder numbers with approximately 10.7.
I
weight steps for the addition of each cylinder.
3
We then tried to find an equally satisfactory plot for the
! REUAN0RWElGHf= 0 !6 IMCRIDD
rema-ining component of machinery weight. ReMArlRWEEHT: o s9 {McRlo7o
I REMAiORWEIGHI= 065 {MCRIOD
-
:-
O- cLFvE FoR surx caRRtERsl
clRco vEssEls.
@- TANXRS
@- elssercen/renev
t
9
t'
-/
NETI Wt6Ht: 9.
/ Fig.11
t {5% A8@E I4EAN LINE}
g
/' I
9E
=!
;i
iilb.lg?iii!l?Ft['. The simplified two group treatment can also be used for
,;/ steam turbine ships with the main furbines(s),gearing
ge boiler and condenser weights constituting one group ana tne
.r./ remainder a separate gloup. However, the weights-of fur-
\2 //..'
bines, gearing,boilers and condensers are much less readily
\ obtainable than are the weights of diesel engines, and the
/... ".:
Y
'a '
procedure is not, therefore, such a convenient one to use.
.//.2 l
I Accordingly, in Fig.12 we have plotted the totat machinery
./l weight against shait horsepower. We have not attemoted in
/ this case to draw a series of curves for the variousihip
types because the data availa-ble to us were not sufficienflv
ffitale*."cnr extensive to enable us to distinguish befween the factors
F ig. 10 involved.
291
SOME SEIP DESIGN METEODS
Although we have dealt only with three out of the eight ercised when estimating the machinery weight and in particu-
machinery types listed this probably covers 98'7.of all lar when the estimate is for a more specialised vessel
machinery installations built. We regret that lack oI data detailed group v/eights should be established at the earliest
has inhibited us from making similar generalisations for the possible opportunity.
other machinery types, and ean only say that if anyone would
like to let us have more data we will gladly analyse them ! 5.5 ldargin
The methods of estimating machinery weights ouilined above The final item reguired to make up the lightship is a marg"in.
are thoqht to be reasonably accurate for the more usual The purpose of a margin is to ensure the attainment of a
ship/machinery types, However, care should always be ex- specified deadweight even if there has been an underestimate
of the light weght or an over-estimate of the load displace-
ment. The size of the margin must reflect both the uncer-
tainty in t}te designer's mind in relation to these and the
severity of the penalties which may be exacted for non-
compliance. Whether it is a sign of increasi.ng caution or of
the greater variety that there is today in ships and their
equipment, rr'e are not sure, but we would today recommend a
rather larger margin than was suggested in the 1962 paper and
our practice is now to allow 2'7. of the lightweight, if possible.
7. CAPACITY CARRIERS
MrN Ere$ 9#t roRS pOl,VERl@tr hG0
LENG' g
z6 arswproNg v!.6.5
8.215
g
d
I
o
:)
292
SOME SHIP DI'S/CIf METI{ODS
PAGE No.
REF. SKETCH No.
metres ST E EL O U T F I T WE I G H T tonnes
DIMENSIONS
Length OA L (B+ T ) StructuralCastings
L Length 8P - T)
0 .8 5 L (D S mal l C asri ngs
for Super- S h e e tl r o n j
D Depthto
Depih to structures C arpenter
A
2/3 6@= 4( 122 - L\ 1 0 - 4 N auti cal Inst.
\/3 g= O r z z * 6@ S t o r e s& S u n d r i e s
p- APPENDAGE RES IS T. YO S oeci al l tems
,lt T win Ru d d e r . e tc ur es el ul l
Day s a t S e a Be m a in d e r N et V ol ume
293
SOME SEIP DESIGNMETHODS
Passengers'
C a b i n sa n d P r i va teT o ile ts
assages,
Foyers, Entrances, = 457oI(1 to 4)
P u b l i c L a v a t o r ie s,Pa n tr ie s,L o cke r s
Total of 10 to 16
P . O s ' a n d C r e w' sCa b in s
Total of '17to 21
W h e e l h o u s eC, h a r tr o o m . Ra d io Ro o m
Totaf o{ 22 to 25
26 | Fan Rooms = 2\.o/oln @ 251
L i n i n g a n d F l ar e = 3%9/os(1
to 26)
Total of 28 to 30
Oil Fuel to n n e s@ SG t- ) +0 . 9 8
D i e s e lO i l to n n e s@ SG r+ )+ 0.98
F r e s ha n d F e edWa te r to n n e s@ I.0 00 S G { t +1 . 0 0 0 ) +0 . 9 8 I
W a t e rB a l l a s t to n n e s@ 1 .0 25 S G t +1 . 0 2 5 ) +1 . 0 0
AssociatedCofferdams. Pipe Tunnels = 'l 57oX(31to 341
Solid Ballast
Total of 31 to 36
RefrigeratedStores metres' ( mj )+0.68
GeneralStores and StoresPassaqes metres ( m3)- O.E 8
Total of 37 to 38
M a c h i n e r VS p a ceto Cr o wn o f En q in eRo o m
Total of 39 to 41
P l a n t ,Sta b ilise r s,
T h r u st Un ir s
G e a r ,W in d la ss& Ca p sta nM a ch in e r y
S w i m m i n gP o o l, T r u n ks.e tc
Total of 42 to 49
TOTAL VOLUME
294
SOME SHIP DESIGNMETHODS
RE F . S K E T CHNo. PAGENo.
Hull fr vet T ( M l d) m otr 6
I L {B P }
O e c kO l f i c e r s C
' a b i n swir h T o ile ts
Officers' Cabins wirh Toilets
Pil o t ' sC a b i nw i t h T o i le r
E n g i n eR a t i n g s ' C a b in s
C ate ri n g S ta ff C a b i n s
Total of 1 to 12
' i n i n gF l o o m& Du r y M e ss
O { f i c e r sD
Total ot 13 to 20
P.Os'& Crew'sMesses
P.Os'& Crew'sToilets
2 4 | C r e w 's L a u n d ry & Dryi ng Rooms
Total of 21 to 25
Ho s p i t a lB
, a t h & 0 i s p en sa r y
Total of 26 to 40
295
re
SOME SHIP DES/GIV METHODS
namely, cargo ships carrying light cargoes with a high stow- The change in the manning of cargo ships since 1962 appears
age rate and passenger ships. to have come about as a result of a felicitous conjunction oi
For cargo ships, a graph was developedwhich enabledthe motive and means-the growing pressure for cost reduction
dimensions to be obtained from the required capacity and and a mass of new technology,respectively.
speed. A number of changes have rendered this graph obso- Tables VII and VIII list some of these factors.
Iescent; capacities are now quoted in cubic metres, the space
required for machinery has been reduced; the use of standard TABLE VII TABLE VIII
sheer and camber is now rare; and finally, the proportions of
the main ship dimensions have changed. A revised graph, Cost reduction motives Cost reduction means
and the revised assumptions on which it is based,is given in
F ig.13. Competition f rom aeroplanes Improved machinery, re-
The design method suggested lor passenger ships has proved to passenger ships quiring less attention, less
to be an effective way of designing many different ship types, maintenance
Competition from land
including factory trawlers, research vessels, and small war- routes to container ships Automation o{ machinery
ships such as frigates and corvettes. An adaptation of the
method has also proved useful in the design ol accommoda- Competition between Use of self-lubricating fittings
tion blocks on cargo ships, bulk cartiers and tankers, shipping companies as many
Cargo gear requiring less
enabl.ingthe designer to plan the deck on which he prefers new nations enter the field
attention
to locate each room belore starting drawing. Desirable for All of these leading to rela-
all f orms of arrangement, this becomes almost essential Patent hatch covers with
tively if not, actually, lower
when the aim is a 'block of flats' type of accommodation. push- button operation'
freighi rates
At the end of the section of the 1962 paper which deait with Self-tensioning winches,
Better job opportunities
the areas requirbd for each type of room, the author 'feit universal fairleads, thrust
ashore leading to the
bound to apologise for giving a succession of figures. many units
necessity of paying higher
of them common knowledge and ail of them easily obtained
wages and providing better Modern paint systems,
from a study of ship plans', and explained that 'he was faced
conditions for seagoing modern plastic accommo-
with alternatives of either presenting the bare idea of a
personnel dation linings
volume calculation (which might well have been dismissed
as impracticable) or of supporting this thesis with suitabie The enormous growih in Electric galley gear
data to prove its practicability'. shipping making the accept-
The use of work study
The authors feel that they do not, this time, have to prove the ance of reduced manning
practicability or the value of the volume method,and it politicail.y acceptable The use of general purpose
seems unnecessary to re-write several pages of text pureiy crews
io metricate it and incorporate relatively minor revisions.
A summary of the revised and metricated data is given in
the Appendix. The effect of these changes on the manning of some typical
As mentioned briefly in the previous section, the calculation ships is shown in Table D(.
of the required volume or area for a design is best done
TABLE D(
using standard calculation sheets. Table V is intended for a
calculation of the total volume of a passenger ship, whilst Ship Type 1962 19?6 Futur e +
Table VI is intended to help in the design of a cargo ship or Typical Typical Automated Automated
tanker and deals wlth the allocation of accommodation be-
tween the various decks of the ship in order to produce a
General Cargo or
neat and convenient arrangement.
BuIk Carrier 30 26
I
7.1 Crew Numbers Sophisticated i tr
A part of the volume design section of the 1962 paper dealt Cargo Liner or I
with crew numbers for passenger ships, but we wouid now Container Ship JO 28
Iike to deal rather more generaily with manning requirements. Tanker JO zo
For passenger ships, the addition of daia for recent ships to
those presented in 1962 shows that ihe passenger/crew ratio " Figu.res for possible future crew numbers are taken from
has changedlittle. We found this somewhat surprising when Ref.14.
considered against the significant reduction in the crews of
cargo vesseis which has occurred in this period. The ex-
planation may lie in two factors:
(i) The higher standard of hotel services now being
provided.
and (ii) The fact that passenger shipping, unlike cargo
shipping,has been declining, so that the reduction
in manning which has proven poiiticaliy and socially ShipI Small% of erection
acceptable in cargo shipping has met with resist-
ance in passenger shipping.
Modern ships appear to group into passenger/*ew ratios of
about 1'? to 2'2 for ships aiming for the upper end of the
cruise trade wi.th ratios of 2.5 to 3.0 appiying to ships cater-
ing for the more popular section oI the trade. In both cases
the lower figures apply to the smaller ships,and higher ones ShipII Largeo/oof erection
to the larger ships. Withthe exceptionof the dottedpart, shipsI and II
Although total crew numbers may not have changed the dis- are identicalbut D and the proportionof
tribution by departments has altered with reduction in deck
?rectionvolumeto total \olurneare obviously
and engine departments corresponding generally to those
made in cargo ships being offset by increases in the hotel widelydifferent.
service department. Fig. 14
296
SOME SHIP DESIGIV METHODS
Increasingly national and international agreements are fixiag 8. TEE 'LINEAR DIMENSION'SHIPS
officer and crew numbers. Table X has been constructed
from a study of Re{.15, and represents a simplification of We mentioned earlier that there are now a number of ship
much more complex regulations, but its use will in most types in which the design process proceeds directly from the
cases enable a synthesis of required crew numbers to be Iinear dimensions oi the cargo, an item or items of equip-
made to a reasonable degree of accuracy. II the design and ment, or from constrictions set by canals, ports, etc, and
specification of equipment and systems is directed towards ior which the deadweight, volume and sometimes the speed
labour saving, a reduction in crew numbers can generally be are determined by the design instead of being the main
negotiated. factors which determine it.
TABLE X The design processes for these ships are essentially non-
standard and give the naval architect a chance to exercise
Deck Officers Engineering Officers his ingenuity.
including Master including Electrical
8.1 Container Ships
Coasters Coasters
up to 200 tons gross I up to 500 BHP I As the design deadweight of most container ships can be ob-
200-?00 tons 4 over 500 BHP 2 tained at a draught less than that obtainable with a Type B
?00-1600to ns Foreign Trade freeboard, deadweight cannot be used directly to determine
over 1600 tons 4 up to 5000 BHP 3 the main dimensions.
A d ditionallo r2cad ets over 5000 BHP 4 As container ships usually carry a substantial percentage of
c a rried in larg er vesse is. Additionally 1 or 2 junior their cargo on deck, it is not possible to base the design on
engineers carried in higher the required cargo volume as this is indeterminate, In these
powered vessels. circumstances, stability considerations take over the primary
Radio Officers Refrig. Engineers role in the determination of the main dimensions.
Up to 500tons 0 A specialist refrig. engineer For maximum economy in the design of any container ship,
Over 500tons 1 is usuaily carried on ships containers will be stacked up in tiers to the limit permitted
with'a large refrig. capacity. by stability. To maximise the numbers, the upper tiers are
reserved for relativeiy lightly loaded (or even empty) con-
Deck Ratings Engine Ratings tainers, whilst heavier containers are directed to the lowest
incl u d i n gP . O . ' s inc luding P. O , ' s
levels, and ballast, either water or permanent or both, rnay
0 ns gr os s
700 -2 5 0 to 6 Coasters be carried even in the load departure condition.
250 0 -5 5 00t ons gr os s 7 Foreign Going 4-5
For each number of tiers of containers carried there is an
55 0 0 -1 5 ,000t ons gr os s 8 (automated) J -'I
associated breadth of ship which will provide the KM neces-
ove r 1 5 ,0 00t ons gr os s 1 0
sary to ensure adequate stability. Whether the tiers are
Catering Stewards enclosed below deck or carried on deck is a second order
effect.
For total crew up to 45 2 For 6 officers
For total crew up to 60 For ?- 9 of f ic er s 3 Longitudinal and torsional strength considerations then re-
For 10- 12 of f ic er s quire a proportion of the breadth of the ship thus determined
to be devoted to structural decks, the balance of the 'open'
ship providing space for a number of container ceils with
Numbers of crews recruited from some Asian and African their guides. Thus the number of container tiers determines
countries may require to be 207,to 507"higher but the area the number oI container rows in the breadth.
required for accommodation will remain substantially the
same. The length of ship, and very largely the number of container
rows in the length, is then determined by the economically
7.2 Dimensions of Volume Carriers and technically desirable length,/beam ratio.
To arrive at the main dimensions,it is necessary to divide
Of course, speed affects these numbers, both because of its
the total volume which has been calculated into main huli and influence on the block coefficient and its inJluence on
a superstructure volume. This seems best done by assuming machinery power and thus on the engine room dimensions,
that the superstructure volume is a certain percentage of the
but these may also be regarded as second order effects.
total. That this percentage can vary considerably is illus-
Fig.15 shows container numbers which give economic con-
trated by the diagram in Fig,14, The use of a percentage
tainer ships for various speeds. It also shows the tier x row
derived from a suitable basis ship seems the best procedure
numbers for which the midship section should be arranged.
but if these data are not available it may be reasonable to
assume that 25'2.of the volume will be provided by the erec-
tions. This will give a ship with a relatively high uppermost
conti.nuousdeck and the minimum amount of erections.
With the volume of the main hull known, the dimensions can
be obtained by calculating the volume for three trial ships in
a similar manner to that described ior the deadweight calcu-
lations. For this calculation a beam,/depthratio of 1'55 car
be used. 525
297
SOME SHIP DESIGN METHODS
8.2 Multi PurPose Ships LCB as input. Alternatively, approximate values of KM can
be obtained from the diagrams given in Ref.16.
The design process which Ied to the development of the
CLYDE class, by the ill-fated Upper Clyde Shipbuilders, is Again the capacity of holds and tanks can be obtained very
an interesting variation on this theme. It was decided to easily from bonjean data produced by an extension ol the
design a ship which would be capable of carrying a wide computer program systems mentioned above. Altrnatively
range of cargoes-eneral break bulk cargoes, bulk cargoes an estimate of capacity can be made from Fig.13 or from data
such as grain or ore, timber ard containers. for particular ship types, such as those given for bulk carriers
in a paper by Giliillan ( 17). At this stage it is assumed that the
It was realised that, although general cargo and the smaller designer has made a rough sketch of his design from which
bulk cargoes would be those most frequently carried, the the centres of the major items of deadweight can be estl-
cargo which shouid be given most consideration in the deter- mated.
mination of the design should be the only one which always
The only item remaining for which the centre oi gravity is to
came in the same large unit size, namely, coniainers. To
be estimated is the lightship, and unfortunately this is the
maximise the container numbers, it was decided to fit twin
area of greatest uncertainty.
hatches and make these capable of taking three containers in
the width. This necessitated a breadth of about 22 m and it 9. 1 Volume Density Method for Lightship KG
was decided to increase this to 22'86 m, lhe St. Lawrence
In 1962 a method of analysing and calculating the lightship
Seaway limit. With this beam it was possible to provide a
KG-the Profile Stability Method-was described, and this has
depth of 13'?2 m enabling 5 tiers oi containers to be accom- proven to be satisfactory in practice provided that a
modated below deck, and two tiers of containers to be carried generally similar design to that under consideration is used
on deck. The length ol each main hatchway was then
as a basis, A Iogical development of this method, and one
arranged to accommodate three rows of containers in the which would be less sensitive to choice of basis ship, would
length. be to incorporate the relative densities and diflerence be-
It was decided to have three main holds and a short No. 1 tween centres of voiume and gravity of each component o{
hold. The stovage space required for hatch covers and the the volume calculation.
space required for the cargo handling gear then determined If the volume of each individual space is multiplled by the
the iength of the cargo spaces. appropriate density factor and the height of its centre of
Up to this stage in the design, no decision had been taken on volume is corrected by an appropriate factor which relates
the deadweight or the speed'of the ship. the centroid to i.ts VCG, the calculations would, in fact, be-
come a weight calculation, which would be completely accu-
To complete the dimensions, a {ore peak, engine room and alt rate-if the factors used were accurate. So far as the
peak of approximately correct lengths were added. Various accuracy of the finai centre of gravity is concerned,it
alternative speeds were then considered, Ieading to a variety is the accuracy of the relative values of the densiiy factors
of block coefficients, deadweights,cargo capacities, powers which matters, noi their absolute values.
and machinery fits-ail around the same basic cargo arrange-
Notes on this type of calculation-the VolumeDensity method-
ment. These possibilities were then examined against market
and a standarC sheet for it are presented to Table XI. The
research indications before fixing the final specification.
accuracy of the calculation depends on the correctness of the
Looking back now, the design can be faulted (advanced though
va-Iueof ps, Ks, ps, Ks used.
it seemed at the time) for not being bold enough. The concept
even then probably merited development to a bigger and p" for accommodation constructed in steel and fitted out to
faster ship, such as the type now being buiit by Govan Ship- n5rmal cargo ship standards appears to have a fairly con-
builders for Kuwait Shipping. Fig.16 shows the various cargo si.stent value of about 0'13 tonnes,/m3.
alternatives for which the CLYDE class was designed.
K, for accommodation of the same type generally has a
value of 0'6.
pH varies not only with ship type, but also with ship size and
t- t.+ -t
should be assessed with care.
Where the hull below No.1 deck and the supelstructure both
contain accommodation as on a passenger ship, it may be
reasonabie to make ps = pH : 1'00 at lines 1 and 8 and apply
a correction factor to the weight obtained at line 10 to give
-- -
ios-
9ec aEt Fs Y o . F l l s 5lw(.|gx.is the 'corrected huII weight' at line 12.
With p", K, and P11known the value ol Kr f or a suitable basis
Fi g. 16 ship caln be determined by analysis starting at both top and
bottom of the table.
Using a suitable value of Ko from a good basis ship the light
9. STABILITY AND TRIM ship VCG of a new design can be calculated.
Having made a first estimate of the dimensions, weights and The method can also be used for the calculation oi the LCG,
power requirements for the design it is then necessary to with the LCG of the hull to No.1 deck being established
make a preliminary assessment of the trim and stability be- through the relati.onship which it bears to the LCB at, of
fore proceeding with any further development. Generally at course, the moulded depth D, (or a fixed proportion oI this
this stage the stability check can be Iimited to the calculation dimension).
of the metacentric height GM, which requires a knowledge of This relationship is discussed in the next section and is
the helghts above base of the metacentre and centre of sho\Mnin Fig.22 for the bare steel hull. The hull to No.1
gravity. Eventuaily the former will be obtained from hydro- deck used in the volume/density method also inciudes ouUit
static calculations and the latter from detailed analysis of wiihin the hull and deck machinery and gear mounted on
weights and centres using the detailed plans of the vessel, No. I deck. This may modily the relationship LCG to LCB
neither of which are available in the preiiminary design somewhat from Fig.22 but the trend that the LCG will follow
stage. It is there{ore necessary to develop procedures which the LCB, but stay somewhat nearer amidship as indicated by
can be easily applied, but which also reflect the wider range Fig.20 seems highly probable.
of designs which have to be considered.
In the design office, prelimi.nary hydrostatics can be obtained 9.2 Weight Distribution and Centre cd Gravity
very quickly from forms generated by computer programs In an earlier section we digressed to discuss shipsr lines
which require only the ma.in dimensions, block coefficient and and the position of the longitudinal centre of buoyancy.
298
SOME SHIP DES/CNMETHODS
m
I
) C(HOUS! AN O SUPEASTRUCTUF
vCG dt
Fft-T*;;-l
1 ,e v.8 .sr M o 6 .a '
LCG
ti 'o m Q I
Lo.9{d,^.1 Moo..t
'AFTICUL AFS | I l
l ui ' )l l
tr* T;;;;
ErE n @@N o -l O*i I I r--_---l--1 r0
Er<h@ on No 2 Odl
r<1 6o No.JO* t
EEr'od
:16r@
o.
on No.
No. . Oek
5 O6k
l----r-
l -l
!2
r3
Er<rm
Er6r@
on No .5 O er
on No. 7 Drcr F-r+=
l-------t----.--l
r-------i-----l
I O.t. Source or to,dui. F& fim
D'r@/<r'6 'o ' l-
-. .l
ffi IE
r9
20
--l;* tr __Fj_. 2l
-- --l--------l ,---T--l
ri{
- g u o va n cyF rdo. LCB, , - L
22
l**
l--.'*.* ---__l-----r
px Fr on o.a' our r ^D
2a
r,. F. om o' ^, ouir h, d !ai-. - !.8. I -
vccr VCBq I (H F r om c oi 8 !{ | I
tl
ffi 25
:6
m
z
FC,
' O.l.r. rh. d.r. blrcd ad to.nul& w^(! do nor .oorv
There now seems some merit in a parallel digression to distribution with a correct total weight and correct centre of
discuss weight distribution and the longitudinal position of gravity. The method of construction for ships with parallel
the centre of gravity--drawing on some early work of one of middle body is shown in Fig. 18. For this type of ship it is
the authors, hitherto only published as a FSRA report(18). necessary also to know the ertent of parallel middle body,
A plot of the weight per foot of the main huil steel for a F i g . 2 0 a n d t h e p o s i t i o n o f i i s c e n t r e , F i g , 2 2 . T h e m e th o d o f
number of sNps was {ound to give diagrams rvhich were very construction for ships with no parallel middle body is shown
in Fig. 19. For this type of ship the mid-entrance and mid-
similar to these ships' sectional area curves, indicating that
run factors must be derived Irom Fie.21.
block coefficient and centre of buoyancywere the prime
factors involved (Fig. l7). In order to eliminate the effect of
the diflerent draught,/depthratios to be found in different
classes of ships, the block coefficient and LCB position used
relate to a fixed proportion (0'8) of the depth to the upper- Fo R q i Fo R FI N A I AftSsaR .,
FO FO
most continuous deck, rather than to the draught.
An analysis ol the plot in Fig. 1? showedthat quite simpie
formulae could be derived for synthesising a main huII weight
ii" " a i*l
,i\
| ./2 1 -l
tti .t.'
ll
i-+ or pa"/ -
cexree il
rs Db o FAN r o $ 6 -
,,, l
F& ld u^ L 5 HrE a W RE 60
oERrvr|cFrGSES r ll
rr
l;_ ]
I
5 I
55
s
I to I x
to o
SOME SHIP DESIGN METHODS
c0 Ftcr x I
I j 6 r r fr c xr o - 5 !cr r 0 ci 6 cE|ta
o F Fr i ^ tr r rol sr
It Rt6r^Nl Drloi f tc6 s a^{ x4t
F ig. 19
Fig.22
300
SOME SHIP DESIGN METITODS
Of the large number of alternative dimensions and coeffi- 11. FINAL REMARKS
cients which would be considered when using a computer,
many could, and in iact, often are eliminated as impracticable This paper concerns itself with the naval architect's basic
or obviously uneconomic on the basis of relationships estab- stock-in-trade. Much of it will therefore be familiar to ex-
lished by previous design. perienced practitioners, and we apologise to them for some
of the statements of the obvious which we have included for
If this process is carried further so that each of the basic the sake of ccrnpleting our arguments, and would explain that
relationships used is an optimum one, it becomes possible to we have been encouraged to do this by the extent to which the
produce a design using a slide rule or calculator as quickly 1962 paper has been adopted as a text book for students'
as by computer. If the faciiity for exercising judgement im-
plicit in slide rule technology is exercised with skill it can We would like to repeat the final word of warning given in
be argued that the slide rule design may be closer to the true the 1962 paper-before any of the data or approximate {ormu-
optimum than that produced by the computer. Iae quoted in the paper are used, they should be checked
against the user's own data.
Ii is however also fair to say that the number of designs
that can be produced and fully tested by slide rule tech-
niques is extremely limited, and there is always the darger
ACKNOWLEDGEMENT
that the designer is not working in the region of the opiimum
combination of dimensions.
The authors would like to acknowledge the help they have
What is needed therefore is a comparativeiy simple framework received from many iriends in British shipyards who have
oi generalised interactive programs, which make all the supplied data which has contributed substantially to the value
necessary calculations very rapidly, but also allows the de- of this paper. They would aiso Iike to acknowledge the help
signer to choose the equations to be used, the level of detail they have received from many past and present colleagues.
and data required and to generally guide the deveiopment of The authors would like to thank the Directors of Y-ARD Ltd.,
his design towards the optimum. for permission to publish this paper, but they take complete
Instead of writing specialised preliminary design programs responsibility for the opinions expressed in it.
for speci-fic ship types and or with particular operations in
mind, it is suggested that such a program should concentrate
on broad methods leaving the desi.gner to make his run REFERENCES
specific by supplying the appropriate specialised data. It
sh'outd be possible using the sophisticated features of modern 1. Watson,D. G. M.:'Estimating Preliminary Dimensions in
computer programming Ianguages,to prepare a conversa- S h i p D e s i g n '. T r a n s . I E S S ,V o l . 1 0 5 ,1 9 6 2 .
tionai type program which permits an almost infinite permu-
tation of specialised blocks to be called as required to meet 2. Katsoulis, P. S.: 'Optimising Block Coefficient by an
each speciiied case. Exponential Formula'. ShippingWorid and Shipbuilder'
Feb.19?5.
The procedures for calculating dimensions,checking dis-
3. Pattullo, R. N. M., and Wright, B. D. W.: 'Methodical
placement and stability and trim, provide a logi.cal basis for
Series Experiments on Single-Screw Ocean Going
computer programs for the design of both deadweight and
Merchant Shj.pForms'. BSRA Report NS333.19?1.
capacity carriers. The logical next step in this process is
the preparation of the outline general arrangement plan by 4. Guldhammer, H. E. and Harvald, Sv.Aa.: 'Ship
an interactive method and a flow diagram for this has been Resistance-Effect of Form and Principal Dimensions'
developed and is shown in Fig.23. (Revised). Akademisk Forlag Copenhagen,19?4.
5. Moor, D. I.: 'The Eff ective Horsepower of Single Screw
Ships: Average and Optimum Standards of Attainment
,l t pec lf y Dim ens ions o f D e s i {n
1 9 6 9 '. B S R A R e p o r t N o . N S 3 1 ? ,1 9 ? 1 .
6, Moor, D.I. and Pattullo, R. N. M.: 'The Effective Horse-
(?l Produce Bodt l)l$ power of Twin Screw Ships'. BSRA Report NS192,1968.
7. Dawson,J. and Bowden,B. S.: 'The Prediction of the
(3) Trssfer to t>DI,15
Performance of Single-Screw Ships on Measured Mile
Trials'. NPL Ship Report 165,March. 19?2.
({ ) Cener ale Dec k llnes
W . T. Bulk head6, e(c. B. Dawson, "r.and Bo"vden,B. S.: 'Performance Prediction
Factors for Twin-Screw Ships'. NPL Ship Report 1?2,
( 5) ( ' h@s e Dec k or Zo n e ro b
March 1973.
301
SOME SIilP DESIGTV METIIODS
16. Comstock, J. P. et alia.: Principles of Naval Architecture. Dining Saloon usually seats 100%Officers although some
C hap ter 11 , Fig s. 2 6- 28, p. 15- 71. may dine with passengers. Lounge usually seats about
60% Officers.
1?. Gilfillan,A.W.: 'The Economic Design of Bulk Cargo
Car riers'. Tran s. RI NA, VoI . 111, 1969. 1?-18. P.O.'s and Crew Cabins. Single berth cabins (usually
SeniiiF-sfT mr
18. Watson, D. G. M.: 'A Note on the Distribution of Steel
Two berth cabins (Junior POs, Deck and Engine Ratings)
Weighi in Ships' Hulls'. BSRA Report No.266,1958.
6 '5 m 2
19. Murphy, R. D., Sabat,D. J. and Taylor, R. J.: 'Least Cost Four berth cabins Stewards 10'5 m2
Ship Characteristics by Computer Techniques'. Marine
19. Passages,Stairs. 35% of 1?.
T ech no log y 19 65 ,Vol. 2, p. 14. ,
20. Crew Lavatories, Change Rooms. Sanitary fittings to
20. Mandel, P., and Leopold, R.: 'Optimisation Methods
DoT rules. WCs 1 per 8;shower 1 per B;washbasins
Applied to Ship Design'. Trans. SNAME, VoI. ?4, 1966.
1 per 6 (if not in cabins) area per fitting as in 6.
21. Gilfillan, A. W.: 'Preiiminary Design by Computer'.
21. Messes and Recreation Room.
T ran s. IESS,Vol. 1 10,1966- 6?.
ffi
22. Fisher, K. W.: 'Economic Optimisation Procedures in Deck and Engine Ratings seating for 1007.\ 1.1 m2/cecl
Preliminary Ship Design'. Trans. RINA, VoI. 144,1972, Messes for Stewards seating for 40?. | - - '- ' '-"
(Other Stewards eat in Saloon after passengers)
Recreation Room for Deck and Engine Ratings-seating
for 507" l'2 mz per seat
APPENDD(
22. Wheelhouse,Chartroom, Radio Room.
Areas/Volumes of Spaces
Radio Room B + 2'5 m2 per Radio Officer
1-4. Passenger Cabins (Exciuding bath or toilet) Cruise
Liners 23. Hosoital.
D6f-uxe Suites for two persons 1 6 g12 Number of berths all hospitals = 2 * 1 per 100 of total
1st Class Single 9m2 twrn 13 m2 complement. 35)" of these may be upper berths.
Touri.st twin 6 m 2 Thr ee 9 m 2 Area per berth one or two tier = 6 m2
Four 12 m2
Gallev.
Overnieht Accommodation Area per person served = 0'65 m2 for small numbers
1st Cla ss Sine le 3 '6 m z t win 5 mz Reducing to about 0'55 m2 ior 1000 or more total
Tourist 4 m2 T h re e 6 ' 0 m2 complement.
r o u r b ' b m"
25. Laundry including Ironing Room etc.
Private Bathrooms & Toilets. Bathroom 3'B m2 (50 + 0'0? complement) m2
Toilet 2' B m 2
26. Fan Rooms. 2'5"t" of.total ventilated volume 1-25.
( Passages,Foyers, Entrances, Stairs. About 45% of sum
2?. Lining and Flare. 3'4% of total ventilated voiume 1-25
of 1 -4 .
6. Public Lavatories. To serve public rooms and passenger 28-30. Cargo Spaces. As specified. Convert to moulded
G6Ciion; wTEouiEivate facilities. Space based on faci-
volumes as follows; Bale + 0'BB; Refrig.+0'?2
lities provided. Following rates allow also for necessary 31-32. Oil Fqel, Diesel Oil. Calculated for the required
access spaee: endurance at specific consumption rates corresponding
B at h 3'3 m2 . Sh ow er l' 7 m 2, W Cs l' 9 m 2, W as hb a s i n to engines selected. Allow for port consumphon and for
l'4 m2. Urinal 1 m2. Ironing Board 1 m2. Slop Locker margin remaining on anival at bunkering port. Allow
1' 5 m2. De ck Pa ntr y 4' 5 m 2. for fuel used for heating, distillation and hotel service
D U T D OSeS.
Dining Saloon. Base on number eating at one sitting.
1st Class fro m 1'5 m 2 Lar ge Num ber s t o 2' 3 m 2 S m a i l 1e Fresh,/Feed Water. With a distillation plant generally
Numbers. ilited-iresfr arxiTeea water storage capacity is arranged
Tourist from 1'3 m2 Large Numbers to 1'6 m2 Smail to provide ior emergency resulting from break down of
Numbers. distillation plant-and depends on voyage route.
B. Lounges,Bars. Base on aggregate seating required. 34. Water Ballast. Refers to tanks availablv onlv for water
Usually 1007"in Tourist and in excess of 100). in 1st Sanast--E6Gists of tanks required to maGli.n stability
Class. Area per seat. Lounges 2 m2. Libraries 3 m2. in burnt-out arrival condition plus tanks required to
provide flexibiliiy of trim to cope \rrith all required
9. Shops,Bureau, Cinema. Gymnasium.
loading conditions.
Shops,Bureau 15 m2-20 m2, Cinema 20 m2 Stage +
0.9 m2 pe r sea t Generally water ballast capacity will require to be
10-12. Capta-in and Officers Cabins (Excluding bath or toilet) between two thirds and three quarters of oil fuel plus
fresh water consumption from tanks.
Captain and Chief Engineei 30 m2 + Bath 4 m2 or
Toilet 3 m2 35. Cofferdams, Pipe Tunnels. 15% of volume of 31-34.
Chief Officer,2nd Engineer, Chief Purser 14 m2 +
JO. Solid Ballast. If required al.low necessary stowage space.
Toilet 3 m2
Other Officers 8'5 m2 (Sometimes + Toilet) en Refrig. Stores. Allow 0'04m3 pei person per day of
1 3 . Oifices. Captain, Ship, Engineers, Chief Steward each voyage.
about ?'5 m2. Large ships add Chef, Prorrision Master, 38. General Stores. Allow 140m3 + 0'1m3 per
Laundryman. person per oay.
Passages,Stairs. 40t of sum of 10-13. 39-41. Machinery Space Volume, Casings, Shalt Tunnel.
Officers Lavatories. Number of fittings usually in Having arrived at reasonably satisfactory methods {or
exdss oiToT;nEe Area per fittingls determining machinery weights in an earlier section of
in 6.
the paper it is suggested that these be used to determine
lo. Dining Saloon, Lounge. the required volume by dividing this weight by the
Dining Saloon about 1.3 m2 per seat appropriate density. Density values for machinery spaces
Lounge about 1'7 m2 per seat appear to be of the following order:
302