Ucl 2016

Ship Design Procedure
April 20, 2016

Ship Design Procedure 1
Table of Contents
1 Nomenclature 14
2 Design Procedure 15
2.1 Introduction - The Phases of the Design 15
2.2 Investigation of the Concept 16
2.3 Initial Estimates of Size and Cost 19
2.3.1 Ship Synthesis Procedure 19
2.3.2 Step-by-Step Procedure for Monohull Synthesis 20
2.4 The Parametric Survey 25
2.5 Development of the Design Solution 27
2.6 MSc Naval Architecture Ship Design Data Book 30
2.7 References 30
3 Weight and Space 31

3.1 Introduction 31
3.2 Initial Estimate of Total Enclosed Volume (V) 31
3.3 Initial Estimate of Deep Displacement (∆) 32
3.4 Sub-Group Summation of Weight and Space 32
3.5 Initial Space Breakdown for Warships 33
3.6 Margins on Weight and Space 35
3.6.1 Design Margin 36
3.6.2 Board Margin 36
3.6.3 Growth Margin 37
3.7 Weight and Space ‘Driven’ Design and its Relationship to Density 37

3.8 Space Constraint and its Relation to Density 37
4 Resistance & Propulsion 39

4.1 Initial Estimates for Speed and Power 39
4.2 Speed and Power with Variation in Form Parameters 41
4.2.1 Appendages 42
4.2.2 Draught and the Propeller 43
4.3 Design for Minimum Power 43
4.4 Resistance Prediction 44
4.4.1 Andersen 44
4.4.2 BSRA - Sabit 44
4.4.2.1 MEDIUM 45
4.4.3 Holtrop & Mennen 45
4.4.4 Mercier 46
4.4.5 NPL Round Bilge 46
4.4.6 Oortmerssen 47
4.4.7 Series 60 47
4.4.8 Series 64 47
4.4.9 SSPA 48
4.4.10 Takashiro 48
4.4.11 Taylor-Gertler 49
4.4.12 Triplet ISO-(K)ITriplet 50
4.5 Hull / propeller interactions methods 50
4.5.1 Andersen 50
4.5.2 BSRA – Parker 50
4.5.3 Holtrop & Mennen 50
4.5.4 NPL Round Bilge 50
4.5.5 Oortmerssen 50
4.5.6 Schoenherr 50
4.5.7 SSPA 51
4.6 Propeller Series 51
4.6.1 AEW 20” Series 51
4.6.2 Wageningen B Series 52
4.6.3 Gawn Burrill Series 52

4.6.4 JD-CPP Series 52
4.6.5 Useful References 53
5 Propulsion 54
5.1 Introduction 54
5.2 Resources 54
5.3 Procedure 55
5.4 Propulsors 55
5.5 Number of Shafts 56
5.6 Main Prime Mover Types 56
5.7 Main Propulsion System Type 57
5.7.1 Direct drives 57
5.7.2 Indirect Simple Drives 57
5.7.3 Indirect Complex Drives where engines may be used together 57
5.8 Auxiliary Systems 58
5.9 Conclusions 59
6 Complement 60
6.1 Introduction 60
6.2 Estimation of complement 61
6.2.1 First Estimate of Warship Complement 61
6.2.2 First Estimate of Merchant Ship Complement 62
6.2.2.1 Passenger Ship Crew Numbers 63
6.2.2.2 Cargo Ship Crew Numbers 64
6.2.3 Margins 67
6.3 References 68
6.4 Calculations of Warship Complement 68
6.4.1 Introduction 68
6.4.1.1 Operations Branch (Seamen) 69
6.4.1.2 Weapons Engineering Branch 70
6.4.1.3 Marine Engineering Branch 71
6.4.1.4 Fleet Air Arm (and Air Engineering Branch) 72
6.4.1.5 Supply and Secretariat Branch 74
6.4.1.6 Miscellaneous Groups 76

6.4.2 Communal Duties 77
6.4.3 Complement Constraint 78
6.4.4 Margins 78
6.4.5 Quarter Bill 79
6.4.6 Breakdown of complement by Branch 79
6.5 Calculations of Merchant Ship Complement 79
6.5.1 Introduction 79
6.5.2 Deck Department 80
6.5.3 Engineering Department (including electrical) 80
6.5.4 Catering Department 81
6.5.5 Margins 81
7 Stability & Trim 82

7.1 Introduction 82
7.1.1 Intact Initial Stability 82
7.2 Intact Stability at Large Angles 85
7.2.1 Warships 85
7.2.2 Commercial Ships 85
7.3 Damaged Stability, Subdivision and Freeboard 86
7.3.1 Warships 86
7.4 Margins for Stability 87
7.4.1 Warships 87
7.4.2 Margin Diagram 88
7.4.3 Allowable KG against Displacement 88
7.5 Management of Trim/Calculation of Tankage Position 89
7.6 References 92
7.7 Definitions 93
7.7.1 Definition of Light Condition 93
7.7.2 Definition of Worst Seagoing Condition 93
7.8 Minimum Merchant Ship Intact Stability Rules 93

8 Seakeeping 95
8.1 Introduction 95
8.2 A logical approach to specifying seakeeping requirements and evaluating
performance 95
8.3 Missions And Support Activities 96
8.4 Specifiying The Environment 97
8.5 Ship Motions And Related Phenomena 97
8.6 Design Criteria 97
8.7 Operability Assessment 97
8.7.1 Operability Assessment in the Ship Design Exercise 98
8.8 Effects Of Design Changes 98
8.9 References 98
8.10 Background Data 99
8.11 Parameters used to define seakeeping performance 107
8.11.1 Simple Measures of Ship Performance 107
8.11.1.1 Accelerations 107
8.11.1.2 Slamming 109
8.11.1.3 Deck Wetness 110
8.11.1.4 Propeller Emergence 111
8.11.1.5 Roll and pitch angle 112
8.11.2 Measures of Ship Performance which relate to human physiology. 112
8.11.2.1 Subjective Magnitude (SM) 112
8.11.2.2 Motion Sickness Incidence (MSI) 113
8.11.2.3 Lateral Force Estimator 113
8.11.2.4 Motion Induced Interruptions (MII) 114
9 Structure 115
9.1 Weight Estimation 115
9.2 Estimation of Primary Loading 116
9.2.1 Still Water Loading 116
9.2.2 Wave Induced Loading 116
9.2.3 Most probable Extreme Values 117
9.2.3.1 Design Extreme Loading (Wave Induced) 117

9.2.3.2 Combined Design Extreme Loading 117
9.2.3.3 Design Extreme Shear Force 117
9.2.3.4 Distribution of Extreme Loading along Ship 118
9.3 Criteria for Design of Midship Section 118
9.4 Effect of Superstructure Proportion in Structural Weight 119
9.5 L/D ratio of Main Hull 120
9.6 Primary Structure Design of SWATHs 120
10 Estimates of Cost 122

10.1 Introduction 122
10.2 Initial Estimate of Warship Cost 123
10.2.1 ‘Platform’ Cost 123
10.2.2 Payload Cost 123
10.2.3 Propulsion System Cost 123
10.2.4 First of Class Costs 123
10.2.5 Cost Basis for Choice of Dimensions and Machinery Installation 124
10.2.6 Life Cycle Costing 124
10.2.7 Ship Datum Costs 124
10.3 Initial Estimate of Merchant Ship Cost 124
10.4 Example of life cycle cost assesments 125
10.5 References 126
A Appendix 128
A.1 Computer Programs for the Ship Design Exercise 128
A.1.1 Initial Sizing 128
A.1.1.1 Sizing Calculation 128
A.1.1.2 Powering Calculation 128
A.1.2 Parametric Survey 129
A.1.3 Detailed Design. 129
A.1.3.1 Hull Form Development 129
A.1.3.2 Intact Stability 129
A.1.3.3 Damage Stability 129
A.1.3.4 Structure 129
A.1.3.5 Propeller Design 129

A.1.3.6 Seakeeping 129
A.1.3.7 Layout 129
A.1.4 User manuals 129
A.1.5 References 130
A.2 Parametric Survey 130
A.2.1 Introduction to Parametric Survey 130
A.2.2 Parametric Definition of Monohull Form 130
A.2.3 Constraints/Requirements imposed on Parametric Survey 131
A.2.4 Parametric Survey Strategy 131
A.2.5 Major Parametric Survey 132
A.2.6 Upper Deck Length driven Designs 138
A.2.7 Selection of Median Values of Block Coefficient and Waterplane Area Coefficient
for Major Parametric Survey 138
A.2.8 Minor Parametric Survey 139
A.2.9 Limits and Constraints on Dimensions and Form Parameters 141
A.2.10 Section Areas and Area Coefficients 142
A.2.11 Selection of Length 142
A.2.12 Selection of Prismatic Coefficient Cp 149
A.2.12.1 Effect of Cp on Block Coefficient Cb and Dimensions 150
A.2.12.2 Resistance and Fuel Consumption 150
A.2.12.4 Choice of Prismatic Coefficient (Cp) 152
A.2.13 Selection of Midship Section Coefficient Cm 153
A.2.14 Selection of Waterplane Area Coefficient Cw 155
A.2.15 Beam/Draught Ratio (B/T) 156
A.2.16 Weight and Weight Breakdown 156
A.2.17 Cost and Cost Breakdown 158
A.2.18 Volume Formula for Non-Wall Sided Forms 159
A.3 Design Procedure for SWATHS 160
A.3.1 Introduction 160
A.3.2 Outline of Initial Synthesis 160
A.3.2.1 Notes on Initial Synthesis at UCL 161
A.3.2.2 Definition of Dimensions, Volumes and Displacement 162

A.3.3 Form Parameters required for Initial Synthesis 163
A.3.4 Calculation of Dimensions from Displacement for Initial Synthesis 164
A.3.5 Concept of Design Balance 165
A.3.5.1 Alternative Iteration Procedure 166
A.3.6.1 Hull and Strut Dimensions/Input Variable (A) 168
A.3.6.2 Box Dimensions/Input Variable A 174
A.3.7 Other Design Considerations 176
A.3.7.2 Natural Frequencies of Heave, Pitch and Roll 181
A.3.7.3 Pitch Instability with Speed 182
A.3.7.4 Resistance 184
A.3.7.5 Management of Trim and Draught 185
A.3.7.6 Damage Stability Consideration 192
A.3.8 Background references 193
A.3.9 Estimation of GML 193
A.3.9.1 Criteria for GML 193
A.3.10 Seakeeping Considerations For SWATH Design 195
A.3.10.1 Nomenclature 195
A.3.10.2 Dynamic Response of a Single Degree of Freedom System 196
A.3.10.3 Concept of Subcritical & Supercritical 197
A.3.10.4 Application of Subcritical (Contouring) and Supercritical (Platforming)
Behaviour to SWATHs 200
A.3.10.5 Frequency Content of Sea States 203
A.3.10.6 Sea State/Speed/Heading conditions to cause Platforming or Contouring
Behaviour 204
A.3.10.7 Selection of Natural Frequencies to ensure Platforming Behaviour in the
maximum Operational Sea State and minimum Speed 205
A.3.10.8 Relationship between Heave, Pitch and Roll Natural Frequencies 206
A.3.10.9 Geometric Factors which affect Heave Natural Frequency (ω30) 207
A.3.10.10 Geometric Factors which influence Pitch Natural Frequency (ω50)
207
A.3.10.11 Geometric Factors which influence GML 209
A.3.10.12 Geometric Factors which influence Roll Natural Frequency ω40 209

A.3.10.13 Estimation of Maximum Heave Acceleration in the Operational Sea
State 210
A.3.10.14 Estimation of Required Box Clearance at Bow 211
A.4 Design Procedure for Merchant Ships 211
A.4.1 Investigation of Concept 211
A.4.2 Calculation of Required Freight Rate 213
A.4.3 Passanger Ship Standards 218
A.5 Design Procedure for Trimarans 218
A.5.1 Introduction -- Trimarans and “Pentamarans” 218
A.5.2 Initial Sizing 219
A.5.3 Major Design Issues 220
A.5.3.1 Cross-Structure/Box Length 221
A.5.3.2 Superstructure 221
A.5.3.3 Main-Hull Configuration 222
A.5.4 Resistance 222
A.5.5 Seakeeping 224
A.5.6 Parametric Survey Strategy 225
A.5.7 Trimaran Research and References 226
A.5.9 Trimaran Geometry Model 229
A.5.9.1 Definition of Sub-Volumes and Dimensions 229
A.5.9.2 Definition of Set Dimension Ratios and Form Parameters 229
A.5.9.3 Definition of Stability Parameters 231
A.5.9.4 Displacement Volume Relationships 231
A.5.9.5 Volume Relationships 232
A.5.9.6 Determination of Draught, Freeboard and Box Wet Deck Clearance 233
A.5.9.7 Volume Fractions 233
A.5.9.8 Calculation of Beam Overall, Main and Side Hull Beams and Hull
Separation 234
A.5.9.9 Determination of Length Dimensions 235
A.5.10 TRISWACH Geometry Model 235
A.5.10.1 Definition of Sub-Volumes and Dimensions 235
A.5.10.2 Definition of Set Dimension Ratios and Form Parameters 236
A.5.10.3 Definition of Stability Parameters 238
A.5.10.4 Displacement Volume Relationships 239
A.5.10.5 Volume Relationships 239
A.5.10.6 Determination of Draught, Freeboard and Box Wet Deck
Clearance 240
A.5.10.7 Volume Fractions 241
A.5.10.8 Calculation of Beam Overall, Main and Side Hull Beams and Hull
Separation 241
A.5.10.9 Determination of Length Dimensions 243
A.5.11 Marine Engineering Aspects of Trimaran Design 243
A.5.11.1 References 244
A.6 Design Procedure for Surface Effect Ships (SES) 244
A.6.1 Introduction 247
A.6.2 Description or SES Concept 247
A.6.3 SES Synthesis Procedure 250
A.6.3.1 Typical SES Weight and Volume Parameters 252
A.6.3.2 SES Geometry Definition of Dimensions 253
A.6.3.3 Form Parameters selected in Sizing Iterations 253
A.6.3.4 Cushion Parameters 254
A.6.3.5 Calculation of Dimensions in Sizing Iterations 259
A.6.3.6 Estimation of Propulsive Power 262
A.6.3.7 Estimation of Lift Systems 268
A.6.3.8 Lift Power (PL) 268
A.6.3.9 Weight and Volume 277
A.6.3.10 Estimation of Personnel Group (including Outfit & Furnishings) 278
A.6.3.11 Estimation of Ship Services 278
A.6.3.12 Estimation of Electrical System 279
A.6.3.13 Estimation of Stores. 279
A.6.3.14 Estimation of Fuel 279
A.6.3.15 Determination or Structural Weight 279
A.6.3.16 Concept of Design Balance 280
A.6.5 Other Design Considerations 289
A.6.5.1 Side Hull Deadrise Angle/ Dynamic Stability 289
A.6.5.2 Seakeeping Considerations (Ride Control Systems) 290
A.6.5.3 Ride Control Systems 294

A.6.5.4 Wave Pumping Action 295
A.6.7 Appendix 1 303

Figures
2-1 Typical Steps in the design process 16

1 Nomenclature
Symbol Description Units

A Number of Anchors -
B Beam On Waterline m
C Number of Chief Petty Officers men
Cb Block Coefficient -
Cm Mid-ships Coefficient -
Cp Prismatic Coefficient -
Cw Waterplane Coefficient -
D Depth m
Hd Deck Height m
J Number of Junior Rates men
Kb Beam / Draught Ratio -
L Length On Waterline m
N Total Design Complement men
P Number of Petty Officers men
R Number of Ratings men
S Stores Endurance days
T Draught m
V Volume m3
Y Number of Officers men
∇G Gross Volume (i.e. Total enclosed volume of hull and m3
superstructure)
∇N Net Volume (∇G - Volume of machinery and tanks) m3
ns Superstructure Proportion -
Circ M Length / Volume of Displacement Ratio -
or �
® Number of Rudders -

2 Design Procedure
2.1 Introduction - The Phases of the Design
The process of ship design is complex and there is no universally agreed procedure. The following
procedure aims to simulate that followed in modern ship design including the initial portion of
feasibility. It is necessary, in the relatively short timescale of the design exercise, to restrict and
simplify the procedure. Figure 1 gives an explanation of the Ship Design Process in the form of a
sequence of steps. This is a generalized description but indications are given on the right hand side
of the diagram of the comparable stages in the UCL ship design exercise
The phases of the Ship Design Exercise will not be considered in turn and in each case the use of
direct guidance information in the rest of the procedure will be indicated. In view of the fact that
the main text is directed towards the design of naval monohulls Annexes have been written giving
indications of the differences for SWATHS, Merchant ships, and Surface Effect Ships (SES) and
Trimarans.

Figure 2-1: Typical Steps in the design process
2.2 Investigation of the Concept
To a large extent the first three steps shown in Figure 1 are not realistically dealt with in the Design
Exercise. Although the Outline Requirements for each design are given to the teams in reasonably
generalised terms, the fact that the solution has been circumscribed by the initial description (e.g.
ASW Frigate, Container Ship) means these steps are curtailed.
In order to get insight into the issues that predominate in this phase, students are advised to read the
relevant data packs in the NAME Office which hold recent articles published on various topics that
bear on these issues.
To produce the Baseline Staff Target from the Outline Requirements for presentation at the 1st
Design Interview each Team should consider the following:
1. Understand the Staff Concept behind the Outline Requirement.
2. Clearly identify the issues in Role Definition. (In actual naval ship design this is a task led by
the Naval Staff but fully involving the Concept Design Team. Role Definition is discussed in
Andrews & Brown ‘Cheap Warships are Not Simple’ (Ref. 2) where it is emphasized that in
this phase of design the major decisions are made). The Team should produce and agree a
Supporting Paper to the Baseline Staff Target.
3. A suitable approach to defining the Staff Target is to consider each of the Primary and
Secondary Tasks separately and to decide the Payload and Platform capabilities required for
each. When this has been carried out for all the tasks a merge process is required to derive
suitable Payload and Ship Characteristics which can perform all the tasks (see Fig. 2). In this
process it is necessary to consider:
1. Task Priorities.
2. Task Overlap.
3. The extent to which capabilities are Essential, Desirable or merely ‘Nice to Have’.
Figure 2 Definition of Staff Target

This will enable the ‘essential’ Baseline Staff Target to be defined with additional capabilities
included in other Options. These options can subsequently be sized and costed so that a
spectrum of capability and cost can be achieved.
4. Although costing of the various Options will only be carried out in the 2nd Phase – Initial
Estimate of Size and Cost – a preview/overview is probably appropriate here.
The assessment of capabilities can, in the absence of Operational Analysis, only be carried
out in qualitative terms, but should yield a series of ‘capability plateaus’ around the Target
Cost. (See Fig. 3).
It can be argued that a cost-effective solution would be positioned toward the left of a low
gradient or plateau region. It is the responsibility of the designer to identify these ‘cost
effective’ points and to argue if necessary for an adjustment up or down of the Target
Cost. (This will at the outset be an arbitrary figure indicated by crude Budget/Hull Number
considerations, or even political dictate). Given the necessary flexibility this should ensure
that value for money is achieved around the Target Cost. The revised cost will then become
the Budget Cost for the subsequent Design and Build phase.
5. (e) Identify the considerations/criteria which will be required subsequently to analyse and rank
the designs likely to emerge from the engineering studies (i.e. know what you will ‘looking
for’).
6. The ‘Investigation of the Concept’ - the largely qualitative assessment of the role and tasks
of the ship, the tentative selection of payload and ship equipment (including disposition of
major items) and the selection of major Ship Characteristics (e.g. Speed, Range) - should
lead to a broad understanding of size and possible constraining dimensions of the likely
platform. There should be the minimum of calculation and a maximum of sketching of
alternative configurations.
7. This phase of the Design Exercise is very important but will appear somewhat ‘woolly’ in that
it lacks a convergent procedure - in this it is not unlike real life.

2.3 Initial Estimates of Size and Cost
In this 2nd Phase, reasonably sound ‘ball park’ estimates of the displacement, volume, power
plant and cost are obtained for solutions corresponding to the Baseline Staff Target and the
other Options. A detailed logical procedure is recommended for those designs to which the Data
Base is applicable (i.e. Conventional Surface Monohulls and SWATHS in the 1500-12000 tonne
range). For Merchant ships or vessel based on merchant ship practice the procedure and design
guidance given in Annex E and Watson and Gilfillan (Ref. 3) is recommended as a general start
point but specific design guidance will be provided.
The principles of Initial Synthesis or Sizing are described below in the ship synthesis section.
Each Naval Architect in the Design Team is to achieve a balanced design manually using the
principles and procedure outlined.
If computer programs are subsequently used for sizing then the designer should acquaint himself
with the more specific procedures associated with each program – though the logic should not be
dissimilar.
Where it is appropriate computer programs (often in the form of a spreadsheet) can be used to
explore a wider range of variations. By so doing the Design Team will obtain further insights into
the sensitivity of their broad design solution to variation in the Staff Targets (e.g. Payload Demands,
Complement, Margins, Range, Speed etc). Annex 2A discusses the computer tools available.
2.3.1 Ship Synthesis Procedure
The ‘art’ of ship design is to achieve the correct balance between the Payload, Mobility and
Float/Platform functions within a given Cost Budget. This is determined principally by the Staff
Target which defines broad Payload and Ship Characteristics and secondly by the economy of the
engineering solution itself.
As an exercise in pure logic it is useful initially to consider the synthesis process as being driven by
the Payload, Mobility and Floating Functions as shown in Fig. 4.
However, the accounting system and hence data base for ships is based on Engineering Systems (i.e.
Group System), some of which collectively serve the Payload, Mobility and Float function. At UCL
the following Group system is used:
1. Hull.
2. Personnel.
3. Ship Systems.
4. Propulsion.
5. Electrics.
6. Payload.
7. Variable. (Stores and Fuel).
It is therefore sensible to size ships in terms of the Group system, while appreciating that Personnel,
Ship Systems, Electrics, Stores and Fuel are estimated collectively for the Payload, Mobility and
Floating functions. It is possible subsequently to attribute their contribution to the various functions
if the ‘efficiency’ of the design is to be analysed.
The sizing procedure is itemized below in a step-by-step approach for Surface Monohulls. It should
be read in conjunction with Fig. 5. An analogous procedure for SWATHS is given in Annex 2D.

Figure 4 Ship Sizing in terms of Function
2.3.2 Step-by-Step Procedure for Monohull Synthesis
The Sizing Procedure for a Surface Monohull is shown in Fig. 5. The individual steps in this
iterative approach and itemized on the figure, are outlined below:
(1) Find Space (Area and Volume), Weight, Electrical, Wild Heat, Chilled Water,
Complement Requirements of Payload.
[Group 6 - fixed, Group 7 - variable].
(2) From Payload Space Requirements estimate a value for Total Internal Volume (V) using
historical data. Typically V≅ (4-7)Vpayload.
This assumption is only required for the 1st iteration as in subsequent ‘loops’ V will be set
to the Total Required Volume (Vreq) calculated by the summation of individual Group
requirements.
(3) From the value of V, determine Displacement (∆) by assuming a value for Overall
Density (ρ). Use a median value from the Density Design Lane (see Chapter 3 Weight and
Space). Typically for Monohull Warships this will be 0.3 approx. Again this assumption is
only required for the 1st Iteration as in subsequent ‘loops’ ∆ will be set to Total Weight (W)
calculated from individual Group weights.
(4) Assume Form Parameters for Above Water and Underwater Form. These must be
sufficient to define Dimensions (Length, Beam, Draught and depth) based on values of V
and ∆ determined in Steps (2) and (3). These dimensions (and form parameters) are needed
in subsequent steps for the estimate of weight, space and power (e.g. Propulsion, Fuel, Hull
Structure).
A typical set of Form Parameters would be Circular M, Cp, Cm, Cw, B/T and superstructure
proportion Vs
(In the UCL Weight and Space Data Book (see section 6 below), most Weight and
Space Algorithms have been expressed as functions of Volume (V) that than explicitly
in terms of dimensions. While this simplifies the process it should be appreciated that
dimensions are implicit in this formulation and that a standard set of form parameters
has been assumed).
Armed with values of V, ∆, Form Parameters and Dimensions it is now possible to proceed
with Estimates of Weight, Space and Power for the various Groups.
(5) Estimate the Shaft Power required for Max Speed. Select Propulsion
Machinery. The Marine Engineer(s) should lead in the selection of suitable machinery
arrangements. Chapter 5 outlines typical arrangements, fuel consumption figures and
operating patterns. Consideration is to be given to the change over speed dictated by the
machinery arrangement and power requirements.
Find Weight, Space and Auxiliary Power Demand of Propulsion Machinery [Group 4].
(6) Estimate Complement and Complement breakdown based on Payload, Propulsion Fit and
general Ship Size (see Chapter 6).
Find Weight, Space and Power demand of Personnel Group [Group 2].
(7) Estimate Air Conditioning requirement for Payload and Personnel groups. Calculate Total
Chilled Water requirement (A/C and direct Chilled Water for Payload) and select suitable
Chilled Water Plant.
Find Weight, Space and Electrical Power Demand of Ship Services [Group 3].
(8) Estimate Electrical Load and Produce a first estimate ship load chart. The Electrical
Engineer should lead in this process. Select Generators with Margin.
Find Weight, Space of Electrical Systems [Group 5].
(9) Estimate Store requirements consistent with Mission Time and Complement.
Find Weight and Space [Sub-Groups 71 - 73].
(10) Estimate Tank requirements consistent with:
• Range and Cruise Speed for Dieso

• Aircraft endurance for Avcat
• Complement for Fresh Water and Sewage
Find Weight and Space [Sub-Group 74].

(11) Select Margins for Groups 2, 3, 4 , 5 and 6 Weight and Space.

(12) Add Access Space or Ballast to design if required by Overall Density or Space constraint
considerations. This should not be used until a balanced ‘Shoehorn’ Design has been
achieved, and its adequacy can be properly assessed.
(13) Determine Structural Weight/Hull Group Weight from values of Volume, Displacement
and Dimensions. Add Structural Weight Margin [Group 1].
(14) Add the Space and weight requirements of Groups 1 - 7 to give:
Total Required Interval Volume (Vreq)
Total Weight (W).
(15) Compare the values of Volume Required and Weight with the assumed values of
Volume and Displacement. [Steps (2) and (3)]. Three situations can arise:
(a) Design is balanced (‘Shoehorn’ fit)
Vreq = V
W=∆
Tolerance ± 2%
(b) Enlarged Hull
Vreq < V
W=∆
This is a viable design, but one with excess Access space. This may be a deliberate
policy in order to reduce Overall Density or internal congestion. It does not, however,
represent a ‘minimum material’ solution. It should not be considered in the first
instance.
Repeat steps (4)-(14) having set V to Vreq.
(c) Design is not balanced
Vreq ≥ V
And/or
W≠∆
Repeat steps (4)-(14) having set V to Vreq and ∆ to W.
(16) Finally if the Design is balanced it is necessary to consider whether the Overall Density
is adequate. This requires consideration of Stability and Seakeeping, and secondly a decision
related to Space Constraint within the hull. If density is to be altered repeat steps (12)-(14).
(17) Determine Cost of Ship in terms of Groups. This requires calculation of Payload Cost,
plus parametric costing of Platform using Group Weights (see Chapter 10).
From this breakdown it is possible to assess:
(i) Payload: Platform breakdown.
(ii) Payload, Mobility and Floating breakdown if required for analysis purposes in
comparing solutions to Staff Target Options. (See (18) below and Fig. 6).
(18) Carry out above procedure for Baseline Staff Target and the various Options around it
using computer sizing programs as time permits.
This should yield a matrix of Options with a Cost and Displacement changes as shown below.

Option Staff Wt Complement Cost
Target
Baseline Payload Wo No Co
Ship
Characteristics
Option (1) Baseline Wo No Co
+ Change + δ W(1) +δ N(1) +δ C(1)
(1)
Option (2) Baseline Wo No Co
+ Change +δ W(2) +δ N(2) +δ C(2)
(2)
etc etc etc etc etc
A summary of the selected Staff Target within the corresponding solution - Volume,
Displacement, default dimensions, Shaft Power, Complement and Cost, together with the
results of any sensitivity studies should be presented at the 2nd Design Interview.
(19) Proceed to Parametric Survey with Preferred Option.

* = Dimension Dependent
Figure 6 Typical Cost Breakdown of Frigate
2.4 The Parametric Survey
The initial estimate of size will yield values of Weight, Volume and Power. The likely choice of
propulsion plant and its demand on weight and size of machinery spaces should also have been
obtained.
The objective of the Parametric Survey is to obtain the principal dimensions and form parameters
which give a balanced solution meeting the constraints of stability, spatial disposition, efficient
propulsion etc.
Individual students are to conduct a major parametric survey manually (see below) once
through to establish the parametric/dimensional limits and to provide insight into the survey
process. Spreadsheets may prove a suitable medium to conduct a systematic search of the choices
and enable a considered selection of form parameters to be made. It is strongly recommended that
a hullform generation tool (see Annex A)be used both before the commencement of the systematic
search within the defined boundaries, and subsequently on the selected numerical solution in order
to ensure that the form selected is a physically sensible option.
The following steps are a suggested procedure with a more detailed outline in Annex 2B:
(1) Carry out Dimensional Survey varying Major Parameters
(i) Superstructure Proportion
(ii) Main Hull Depth (based on number of Internal Decks for Warhsips)
While meeting the constraints

V = const
∆ = const = W
GM = GMreq
This will yield ‘windows’ of consistent values of L, B and T in terms of superstructure
proportion and Main Hull Depth.
(Annex 2B provides more detail of this process).
Select a suitable set of Major Parameter (Vs, number of internal decks) and hence dimensions
around which a Minor Parametric Survey can be conducted. This selection should be based
on considerations of Layout, Speed, Seakeeping, Fuel Economy, Cost etc. (See (3) below for
further detail).
(2) Carry out further Dimensional Survey varying Minor Parameters Cp, Cm, Cw, Flare. This
survey will be based around the Major Parameters selected above.
The following constraints should be met:
V = Vreq
∆=W
GM = GMreq
Again a spread sheet approach may be appropriate. Two approaches are possible one in which
Volume and Displacement are held broadly constant the ship is then treated as a piece of
rubber. Alternatively if the mathematical model used for the parametric survey is based on
the initial sizing model then variations in displacement and volume will be included.
(3) For the ‘window’ of feasible dimensions and form parameters identified in (1) and (2) above
it is now necessary to consider the capabilities of each of the candidate designs from the following
aspects:
1. Absolute Dimensional constraints.

2. Feasibility of Upper Deck and Internal Layout.
3. Effectiveness of Payload.
For warships this will involve location of sensors such as radars and sonars, location of flight
deck etc.
For merchant ship it will involve ease of cargo handling, speed of transfer etc.
(iv) Max Speed from Power installed (or Power required for specified Max speed).
(v) Power required at specified Cruise Speed and hence Fuel weight.
(vi) Average Fuel consumption for speed operation profile. Examine the sensitivity of Fuel
consumption to small form parameter changes (in particular Cp) using an appropriate method
(see Annex A ).
(vii) Seakeeping - (Freeboard/Length) ratio
• (Draught/Length) ratio
• (B/T) ratio and hence deadrise angle forward
• Cw forward
(viii) Survivability - The effect of dimensions on Signature Reduction and Vulnerability

(ix) Structural Weight - Effect of length, depth and superstructure proportion
(x) Total Weight
(xi) Total Cost/Through-life Cost
(4) Once the range of technically feasible dimensions has been determined the final choice should
be made on the basis of comparative costs and the relative capabilities of the candidate designs
examined in (3).
(5) Determine Preliminary Layout in Block form. Upper Deck layout showing superstructure,
Payload disposition, Uptake/Downtakes etc., Internal Layout showing Ops Complex,
Accommodation, Machinery, Tankage. A detailed layout will be produced in the ‘Development of
the Design Solution’.
(6) Based on the parameters selected, decide upon a suitable Curve of Areas and obtain an
approximate line plan (i.e. Body Plan and Deck lines). It is suggested that hull form generation
program (See Annex A) If for any reason such a program is unavailable the form parameters
selected are outside the capabilities of the above programme guidance on the manual process is
included in Annex 2C.
(7) The position of major bulkheads should be decided on the basis of:
• Block Layout
• Position of Superstructure
• Damaged Stability consideration (see Chapter 7)
• Zoning considerations.
(8) Estimate C of G from Block Layout and Dimensions.

(9) Check Stability. Chapter 7 outlines the stability requirements.
(10) The basis and results of the Parametric Survey, with the resultant form and ship features
should be presented at the 3rd Design Interview.
2.5 Development of the Design Solution
On Completion of the Parametric Survey students will reform into their groups. The most
promising of the individual designs will be selected for progressing to Final Phase. Marine
Engineers in the groups will progress main machinery and electrical system design in parallel with
the rest of the ship.
At this stage each group should have estimates of Displacement, Volume, Power and Machinery
fit, together with the most suitable dimensions and hull parameters obtained from the parametric
Survey and if the sizing programs have been used, then a good definition of the internal space
requirement breakdown.
The final phase of the Design Exercise requires the working up of the design to a viable solution
and involves the following work, many items of which are interdependent. The designs will be
assessed by the Staff at two weekly intervals when all drawings and calculations appropriate to
the stage reached should be available for inspection. At the end of the exercise the designs will be
presented formally to the External Examiners.
(a) Layout/Architecture
(i) Profile and Deck Layouts of compartments with clear understanding /rationale for
architectural choices.
(iii) Upper Deck Layout to show consideration of following aspects:
Warship Payload
• Armament Arcs of Fire

• Flight Deck and Hangar arrangement (if fitted) see reference (7)
• Radar and E/M Sensor effectiveness
• separation of E/M Sensors (consult with Electrical Engineer)
• Sensor Blind Arcs
• Height of Sensors to achieve sufficient detection range against perceived
threat. Consideration of Range/Time diagram (consult with Electrical Engineers for Fire
• Control sequence/delays)
• Communication Aerial effectiveness
• Height/separation of masts to provide radio aerials of required length (consult with
Electrical Engineers for frequencies /wavelengths)
Merchant Ship Payload
• Cargo Handling arrangements

• Cargo Safety
• Vehicle embarkation and disembarkation
• Passenger recreation
• Passenger comfort
• Arrangement of Cabin
• Liferafts / Rescue
General
• Conning/Compass Platform/Pilotage Platform

• Air Intake and Exhaust arrangements (consult with Marine Engineers)
• Mooring arrangements
• RAS handling areas (warships)
• Access for personnel to Upper Deck
• Storing routes
• Small boat arrangements
(iii) Zoning arrangements, showing location of Zoned equipment (in consultation with Marine
Engineers). Example of systems requiring consideration are shown below:
• A/C Plants
• ATUs
• AFUs
• Fire Pumps
• Generators
• AIO

(iv) Line Diagram of Systems distribution (in consultation with Marine Engineers if time
permits).
(b) Hull Form Geometry
(i) Produce Curve of Areas and Body Plan.
(ii) Draw Hydrostatics and Cross Curves.
(iii) Prepare outline drawings of major appendages and critical sections.
(c) Weight, Space and C of G
(i) Assess Total Weight and C of G.
(ii) Produce Sub Group Audit of Weight and Space
(iii) Produce summary of Deep, Light condition.
(iv) Produce Weight and KG Margin Diagram (see Chapter 7).
(d) Stability and Flotation
(i) Determine waterline, trim, GMs, GMf and GZ curves for Deep and Light Displacement.
(ii) Assess Stability against Sarchin & Goldberg criteria (see Chapter 7).
(iii) Assess Damaged Stability including location of WT bulkheads.
(iv) Check propeller immersion, sonar immersion, freeboard.
(e) Propulsion
(i) Re-estimate speeds and fuel consumption of final form.
(ii) Estimate Appendage resistance.
(iii) Assess basic characteristics of propeller.
(iv) Estimate effects of rough weather on speed and fuel consumption.
(f) Seakeeping
(i) Assess ship motions of operational interest for Head Seas. Possible applicable analysis
includes:
• Relative Point motion at Bow

• Acceleration on Bridge, Accommodation area
• Velocity on Flight Deck
(ii) Define Permissible Speed envelope for ship.

(g) Maneuverability
(i) Size rudders based on required turning performance.
(ii) Estimate Steering Gear Power.
(h) Structure
(i) Design Midship Section, including Superstructure if effective.
(ii) Choose Frame spacing.
(iii) Choose Frame scantlings amidship and make approximate check of transverse strength.
(iv) Choose Upper Deck Beam scantlings and make check of grillage strength.

(v) Check shear strength of side grillage.
(vi) Design Main Machinery Space bulkhead (if time allows).
(vii) Design Areas of critical local loading e.g. Flight Deck, Slamming region (if time allows).
(viii) Re-assess Weight and C of G of Hull Structure.
2.6 MSc Naval Architecture Ship Design Data Book
The following data is contained in the Data Book
• UCL Weight Grouping System

• UCL Weight, Space & Power data Groups 1, 2, 3, 4 ,5 and 6
• Sample payload data
• Logistics Data
• Cost Data
More detailed information is held in the NAME Office database.

The sizing routine outlined previously should be used in conjunction with the Ship Design Data
Book.
2.7 References
1. Friedman N: ‘Modern Warship Design and Development’, Conway 1979. UCL/02.71.

2. Andrews D. J. and Brown D. K: ‘Cheap Warships are not Simple’, SNAME 1982 Cost Energy
Symposium 1982 (page ).
3. Watson D. G. M. and Gilfillan A. W.: ‘Some Ship Design Methods’, Trans RINA 1977. PART
1 (page ). PART 2 (page ).
4. Watson D. G. M Practical Ship Design Elsevier 1998. In the NAME Office - Ref 02.108/2.
5. R Taggart (ed) Ship Design and Construction SNAME 1980. In the NAME Office - Ref
02.69/2.
6. Gallin, Hievsig, Heiderich: ‘Ships and Their Propulsion Systems’, Lohmann & Stolterfoht
1983.
7. Smith D W: ‘Marine Auxiliary Machinery’, (6th Ed), Butterworth 1984.
8. MOD Design Guide ‘Helicopter operations from Naval Frigates - Optimisation of Air
Flow’ BMT Report.

3 Weight and Space
1. Introduction
2. Initial Estimate of Total Enclosed Volume (V)
3. Initial Estimate of Deep Displacement (∆)
4. Sub-Group Summation of Weight and Space
5. Initial Space Breakdown for Warships
6. Margins on Weight and Space
7. Weight and Space ‘Driven’ Design and Overall Density
8. Space Constraint and its Relation to Density
3.1 Introduction
The purpose of this chapter is to provide methods for the initial and necessarily approximate
estimates of the total space and weight of a student’s design needed at the start of the ship design
exercise. Later on in the exercise the total space and weight are calculated directly by sub-group
summation using the more detailed information on the design then available, guided by data on
previous similar ships contained in the Ship Design Data Book.
The methods described in the following are based on analyses of total space and weight for
past warship designs and although they require at first ‘ball park’ estimates for the new design,
convergence with iteration is remarkably rapid.
3.2 Initial Estimate of Total Enclosed Volume (V)
Calculate the Payload Volume to be fitted in the new design.

For warships use the Payload Data sheets provided and where necessary convert deck areas to
volumes by multiplication with a suitable deck height; typical deck heights are 2.4-2.7 metres. Note
that for helicopter hangars the deck area is included twice to give the total hanger volume.
For merchant ships cargo volume can be assessed directly from an economic analysis of the
required capacities. Comments similar to warships apply to Ro-Ro ships concerning the conversion
of payload areas to volumes using standard ‘tween deck heights.
Using the Ship Synthesis Procedure outlined in Chapter 2-3 it is necessary in the 1st Iteration
to make an estimate of Total Volume based on Payload Volume. For this purpose Fig. 3.1 gives
Payload Volume Fraction for various warship and merchant ship types.

(Note: It is advisable to err on the high side of each Payload Volume fraction band, as this will
ensure that the iterative process does not become ‘self generating’).
Payload Volume Fraction for Ship Types
Ship Type Payload Volume Total Enclosed Volume Density (Tonne/m^3)
Fraction (x10^3 m^3)
Frigates 0.16 – 0.22 5 - 40 0.27 – 0.33
Destroyers 0.16 – 0.22 5 - 40 0.27 – 0.33
Cruisers 0.16 – 0.22 5 - 40 0.27 – 0.33
Aircraft Carriers 0.27 – 0.31 60 – 500 0.21 – 0.25
Ro-Ro’s 0.53 – 0.57 50 – 140 0.33 – 0.37
Container Ships 0.8 – 1.1 50 - 140 0.42 - 0.47
Tankers 0.65 – 0.7 100 - 500 0.7 – 0.75
3.3 Initial Estimate of Deep Displacement (∆)
Fig. 3.2 is a plot of overall density (ρ) against Total Enclosed Volume V, derived from previous ship
types.
Using the value of V determined in the previous step, and the appropriate value of density (ρ) ,
determine an estimate of Deep Displacement for the 1st Iteration i.e. ∆=ρV. In subsequent iterations
this will be replaced by the summation of Group Weights.
3.4 Sub-Group Summation of Weight and Space
As described in the Ship Synthesis procedure (Chapter 2.3) the foregoing approximation will be
rapidly overtaken by the direct calculation of Weight, Space and Power for the various Sub-Groups.
This procedure is not linked to any one ship type; however it must be used in conjunction with an
appropriate Data Base.
(Note: Major items of equipment such as Payload, Propulsion Plant, Chilled Water Plant,
Generators (and Fuel) can be determined directly, but residual Sub-Groups comprising
Accommodation, System Distribution, Stores and even Hull Structure need initially to be scaled
from a similar appropriate design).
For Warship designs Data books are provided for Weight and Space estimation. It is suggested that
these are used in the first instance. However the data does tend to over-estimate weight, and for
some areas specific design data may be preferred.
For Merchant ship designs an appropriate weight breakdown and G/A will be provided from which
scaling of residual items may be performed.
Standard Format Forms are available for Weight and Space summation.

3.5 Initial Space Breakdown for Warships
In some instances it may be helpful to have an idea of the Space Breakdown of Total Volume
before Sub-Group summation is completed. This allows some initial bulk layout options to be
examined.
The exercise has been carried out for some RN Frigate designs and is shown below and in Fig. 3.4.
Area Analysis in Type 21 Type 42 Type 22
% of total area
Hull 30.2 23.3 28.3
Payload 18.24 18.1 15.9
Personnel 24.9 25.6 22.5
Propulsion 13.9 17.1 16.6
Services 12.7 15.9 16.7

3.6 Margins on Weight and Space
Margins for Weight, Space, Stability and Power need to be applied to a new design for three basis
reasons:
(i) Uncertainties related to the accuracy/applicability of Design Estimates. This is known as the
Design Margin or design Contingency. The ship as completed should not exceed the Basic Estimate
+ Design Margin.

(ii) An allowance for the addition of further items of Payload by the owner. In the RN this is
known as the (Admiralty) Board Margin.
(iii) An allowance for future growth in weight. In warships this covers such items as cosmetic
painting and the accumulation of personal effects and fittings by the crew. This is known as the
Growth Margin, and is particularly relevant to stability assessment (see Chapter 7).
(Note: There is a ‘school of thought’ which considers that growth is discouraged by Space
Constrained design).
Recommended values for the above margins concerning Weight and Space are given
below. Information on Stability Margins is given in Chapter 7.
3.6.1 Design Margin
The way to proceed is to consider each Main Group separately as regards the likely degree of
accuracy/applicability, taking account of the extent to which the new design resembles/departs from
previous similar designs, and judge the individual margins accordingly.
The following table indicates typical margins appropriate to the Main Groups of a warship design
not very different from its predecessors. If for the new design there are reason to believe that
novelty in some respect could increase the uncertainty about a particular Main Group then a higher
margin should be applied to that Group.
Main Group Margin (per cent)
Weight Space
1. Hull 5 0
2. Personnel 0 5
3. General Services 5 2
4. Machinery 4 0
5. Electrics 5 0
6. Payload 7 10
7. Variables 4 4
Weight margins should be positioned at the c of g of each Group. Space margins should be located,
where possible, in specific compartments or geographic areas of the ship.
3.6.2 Board Margin
The standard figure for a frigate/destroyer/cruiser related to deep Displacement is 2% on weight on

No 1 Deck amidships. (Although out of place in this chapter, a Board Margin of 5% on electrical
power is also typical).
Space requirement should also be considered in relation to the existing payload volume fraction
and whether Upper Deck or Internal space is likely to be a problem. A Deck Area margin of 5% is
consistent with a 2% Weight margin.
Designs which are based on the concept of modularity should already have catered for future
Payload additions - hence the Board Margin should be nil (or at least much reduced).

3.6.3 Growth Margin
A typical current figure for a long life ship, appropriate to achieved design standards after 10 years
growth in service is 5% on Total Weight. The issue of short life/long life policy is pertinent.
3.7 Weight and Space ‘Driven’ Design and its Relationship to Density
For each individual vehicle type i.e. Monohull, Swath, S/M etc. it becomes evident from experience
that a certain Overall Density is necessary for satisfactory characteristics. For example in a S/M this
is clearly 1.025t/m .
In the case of monohulls this required or acceptable density is variable (as is shown in Fig. 3.2)
with the range of variation increasing with ship size. However for each type of monohull a certain
grouping is evident.
A design may be said to be ‘weight driven’ if design studies indicate that density would naturally
tend to be above an acceptable figure; it is ‘space driven’ if density falls below the same figure. In
other words Weight and Space ‘Control’ is a question of relative rather than absolute density. It is
dependent on vehicle type, size and role.
This may be illustrated by comparing S/M design with World War II Battleship design. S/M designs
are often said to be ‘space driven’ (though not always) as the designer struggles to increase density
to 1.025 tonne m- for neutral buoyancy. World War II Battleships, with lower densities of around
0.4 - 0.45 tonne/m were always regarded as ‘weight driven’ as the densities tended to be somewhat
higher than desirable for a monohull.
A more example is that of SWATH and Monohull frigates. While the SWATH may typically have
a lower density than the monohull, it is usually regarded as ‘weight driven’ while the higher density
monohull is ‘space driven’.
A ‘weight driven’ design will require an increase in dimensions to increase volume and reduce
density, while a ‘space driven’ design may need to resort to the addition of high density ballast for
‘salvation’.
3.8 Space Constraint and its Relation to Density
A balanced design is one where

Vreq = V
W = ∆
Where Vreq is made up of the ‘Size Demand’ of the equipment and systems, plus a provision for
Access Space.
i.e. Vreq = V = Vsize +Vaccess.
A convenient set of parameters when considering the relationship of Space Constraint to Overall
Density are:
(i) Size Proportion or ‘packing density’
μ=Vsize/V
(ii) Access Proportion
η=1-μ=Vaccess/V
(iii) Overall Density
ρ=W/V
Clearly the relationship between Overall Density and Size/Access proportion are related by the
‘Size Density’
ρs=W/V
Hence Size Proportion
μ=P/Ps
Access Proportion
η=1-P/Ps
The Space Constraint or Access Proportion in a design is determined by the relationship between
Overall Density (ρ) and Size Density (ρs) rather than an absolute value of Overall Density as
such. Indeed Access Proportion is likely to be high on Weight Governed designs which have had
space ‘injected’ to reduce density. On the other hand a Space Governed design may well have head
Access Space '‘squeezed’ in an attempt to increase density. In the above examples the indication of
Overall Density, after correction, could well lead to erroneous conclusions on Space Constraint.
The above point leads to a very obvious conclusion. Overall Density is an acceptable indication of
Space Constraint where there is confidence that is constant – i.e. there exists a similar balance
of systems within a design, and that (ρs) a technological plateau exists. Within each of the Ship
Type bands of Fig. 3.2 it is reasonable to assume that higher densities correspond to greater Space
Constraint.
e.g. Of recent RN FF/DD designs
Type 42 ρ = 0.31 tonne/m
Type 22 ρ = 0.27 tonne/m
These figures correspond well with a subjective assessment of Space Constraint on these particular
ships (i.e. T22 is ‘roomier’ than T42).

4 Resistance & Propulsion
4.1 Initial Estimates for Speed and Power
In order to size the ship in the first instance, it is necessary as described in Chapter 2, Section 3, to
get shaft power Ps based on a crude initial figure of deep displacement and speed.
Strictly this is only possible with assumed values of form parameters (i.e. Cp and Circ M or Cv)
together with assumptions on propellers, appendages, roughness etc. The guidance produced as
Figures 4.1 & 4.2 either have these assumptions or are based on a range of achieved values for
extant designs which will not be necessarily propulsively excellent. For ships not covered by Figs
4.1, 4.2 an initial rough estimate may be possible by comparison with similar existing ships using
publications such as RINA significant ships.
It is unlikely that any actual ship will be optimised for propulsion solely. For example modern
warships tend to be beamier with larger appendages (e.g. fins, sonar domes, fuller transoms)
than designs 40 years ago; merchant ship hulls will have to pay due regard to cargo stowage
considerations etc.
Approximate estimates of this type are required to break into the size estimate but the answers must
be treated with due reservation. As soon as possible more accurate estimates as detailed in the rest
of the chapter (and hydrodynamic course notes) must be undertaken.
The other propulsive estimate that is required at the commencement of the parametric survey to
establish a minimum draught, is minimum propeller size. It is suggested that
Min Diameter = 0.15 (Ps/V)0.5
where Ps is in KW
V in Knots
and Diameter in metres
For merchant ships direct recourse to Bp - δ charts will be necessary.

Fig 4.1 Plot for Initial Shaft Power for a Frigate Form
Valid for
Cp = 0.6
Cv = 2.0 x 10-3 (ie Circ M = 7.94)
Prop Dia = 0.275 ∆1/3 m
6 months out of dock

Fig. 4.2 Plot for Initial Power / Speed Relationship
4.2 Speed and Power with Variation in Form Parameters
During the development of a design, estimates of power will be required. Initially, a quick estimate
will be required of sufficient accuracy to indicate the likely choice from standard machinery
units. In the second stage, the variation of power with hull form (size and shape) will be needed so
that a rational choice of form can be made. The final form will usually be tested to ensure that the
approximations introduced in the earlier estimates have not caused any serious errors.
To estimate the resistance and hence power it is necessary to calculate both the skin friction and
residuary resistance. Skin friction is easily evaluated using a standard skin friction line such as
the ITTC line. Residuary resistance however is more problematic & modern ship design software

frequently will contain more than one method of performing this calculation, the various methods
corresponding to various model test series or curve fits to ship data. The following table lists the
methods available at UCL, details of each together with the range of parameter values over which
each is valid is given in Annex A
Method Ship Type
Andersen & Guldhammer Merchant Hulls
BSRA - Sabit Trawlers & ocean going vessels
Holtrop & Mennen Regression analysis covering the following data
sets:-
Tankers, Bulk Carriers
Trawlers, Coasters, Tugs
Container ships, Destroyers
Cargo Liners
Ro/Ro’s, Car ferries
Mercier Transom stern vessels in the non planning
region
NFL Round bilge Small patrol boats, small naval ships, heavily
loaded workboats
Oortmerssen Trawlers & tugs
Series 60 Merchant ship forms
Series 64 Frigates with transom sterns
SSPA
Takashiro
Taylor-Gertler Cruiser forms
Triplet Extrapolation of parent ship resistance for small
changes in dimensions
Using these tools it is possible to select a form which has a desirable powering and fuel
consumption characteristic, (ie maximum top speed or maximum endurance at cruise speed or a
combination of the two.)
4.2.1 Appendages
Larger underwater sensors together with improved noise signatures have demanded larger
appendages consequently appendage drag has had a tendency to increase in recent years.
Some examples are:
1. Larger propellers demanding bigger shafts and brackets

2. Controllable pitch propellers which, because of their extra weight, need even larger shafts and
brackets.
3. Larger sonar dome which may not retract.
4. Fittings such as stabiliser fins and bow thrust units.

Appendages are now adding 10-15% to the resistance of the naked hull.
4.2.2 Draught and the Propeller
The most efficient propeller will be the largest which can be fitted under the stern running at the
slowest speed which the marine engineer can provide. The maximum diameter is governed by the
draught aft and for the typical frigate:
Maximum propeller diameter = Mean draught amidships.
This suggests that an increase of draught will enable a more efficient propeller to be fitted. While
this is true, provided that r.p.m can be reduced to match, there are other, adverse effects on
resistance. At the deeper draughts there is a very much smaller feasible range of length and and an
increase of draught will usually add more to the resistance than is gained in propeller efficiency.
Propeller selection can be made using a number of propeller series:-
• AEW 20” Series

• Wageningen B Series
• Gawn Burrill Series
• JD-CPP Series
Details of these and of methods of evaluating hull efficiency elements etc are included in Annex B
&C
4.3 Design for Minimum Power
1) Decide what power is to be reduced:

(a) Minimum power at top speed
(b) Minimum power at one particular cruising speed
(c) Minimum power at ‘Change over speed’
(d) Minimum average power over an operating pattern.
If you are not clear what is required, find out. The answers to (a), (b), (c) and (d) are
different.
2) Decide if hull/propeller interaction can be used to reduce . The answer will usually be a good
propeller on a hull of minimum resistance.
3) Define the feasible range of hull form parameters which are compatible with other features of
the hull.
4) Explore the possible combinations of length, L/∇1/3, Cp and draught and decide on an economic
compromise.
The following stages are suggested:-
Select appropriate values of L/∇1/3 and Cb dependent on F∇
Explore the value of changes to Cp and Cm for a given value of Cb.
5) The analysis of (3) and (4) above implied a ‘good’ form. It may be possible to improve on
this. Consider the effects of

(a) Bulbous bow
(b) Transom stern
(c) Position of centre of buoyancy
(d) B/T ratio
(e) Angle of entrance and waterline shape
(f) Appendage, number, size and position
If any changes made at this point are significant it will be necessary to repeat sections (3) and
(4).
6) The most efficient propeller will be of large diameter with a low shaft speed. Any gains must be
balanced against the cost in money and weight of slow running machinery.
Annex A Resistance and Propulsion calculation methods.
(The following notes are extracted from the PCG (Goddess) reference guide)
4.4 Resistance Prediction
4.4.1 Andersen
The Andersen & Guldhammer (1986) power prediction method has been updated from design
diagrams developed over 9 years of compilation of Resistance data. In 1974 these were transformed
into algebraic empirical formulae.
The method is valid for merchant ship forms where Fn<0.33 and is based on a standard hull with
corrections to the residuary Resistance coefficient for other B/T ratios, LCB correction, appendages
and hull shape. There are also corrections for bulbous bows to include the wetted surface area of
the bulb and an additional residuary Resistance coefficient increment.
The results are for trials conditions, i.e. smooth hull and flat water, so it is suggested that an
increase would be relevant for service operation. Ships when built tend to have a Resistance slightly
lower than that predicted by this method, and this may cancel out a service allowance. The most
accurate results are obtained for a ship in full load condition and with no trim.
The limitations on parameters are as follows:
Fn<0.33
Merchant Ship Forms
Single /Twin Screw
U/V/Normal Bow and Stern Shapes
Full Load Condition (Ballast Condition and ships
with considerable trim may yield less accurate results)
4.4.2 BSRA - Sabit
This method is based on the regression analysis performed by Sabit (1971), on the BSRA ship
Resistance series of trawler forms and ocean going vessels. There are three equations relating to
different ranges of vessel parameter. The ranges are as follows:

DEEP
4.232 L/∇ 1/3
6.36
2.12 Bwl/Tmean 3.96
0.65 Cb 0.8
-2.0 LCB 3.54
4.4.2.1 MEDIUM
4.594 L/∇1/3 6.927
2.62 Bwl/Tmean 4.87
0.623 Cb 0.784
-1.56 LCB 3.96
LIGHT
5.1 L/∇1/3 7.717
3.44 Bwl/Tmean 6.39
0.592 Cb 0.766
-1.12 LCB 4.35
4.4.3 Holtrop & Mennen
This is a power prediction method based on a regression analysis of random model and full scale
test data.
This method allows for various appendages and bulbous bows and various transom configurations.
The recommended parameter limits are given below. The parameters must fit into one of these data
sets.

Ship type Fn Cp LWL/BWL BWL/Tmean
Max Min Max Min Max Mm Max
Tankers, 0.24 0.73 0.85 5.1 7.1 2.4 3.2
Bulk
Carriers
Trawlers, 0.38 0.55 0.65 3.9 6.3 2.1 3.0
Coasters,
Tugs
Container 0.45 0.55 0.67 6.0 9.5 3.0 4.0
ships,
Destroyer
types
Cargo 0.3 0.56 0.75 5.3 0.8 2.4 4.0
liners
Roll on/ 0.35 0.53 0.67 5.3 8.0 3.2 4.0
roll off
ships, Oar
ferries
4.4.4 Mercier
This is an analytical procedure developed by Mercier and Savitsky (1973), for predicting Resistance
of transom stern hulls in the non-planning region (volume Froude numbers between 1.0 and 2.0).
The regression analysis is based on seven transom stern hull series totaling 118 hull forms. These
include NFL, Nordstrom, DeGroot, SSPA, Series 64, Series 63, all round bilge and Series 62 which
is hard chine.
The parameter limits are:
0.38 < CB < 0.6
0.56 < CM < 0.87
0.59 < CP < 0.81
0.72 < CWP < 0.82
1.8 < BWL /Tmean < 5.0
3.3 < LWL/BWL < 15
1.0 < Fnvol < 2.0
Note that the values assigned to Tmean and BWL should be maximum values.
4.4.5 NPL Round Bilge
This method, which was developed by Bailey (1976), is applicable to craft such as small patrol
boats, small naval ships or heavily loaded workloads. The series consists of 22 models. The method
is dependent on linear interpolation of a number of graphs.

3.33 < LWL/BWL < 7.5
0.5 < Fnvol < 3.3
4.5 < Circular M < 8.4
4.4.6 Oortmerssen
A mathematical model to predict ship Resistance based on random tank data from NSMB statistics
for trawlers and tugs by van Oortmerssen (1971).
0.5 < CB < 0.725
3.0 < LWL/BWL < 6.2
1 .9 < BWL /Tmean < 4.0
-8 < LCB < 2.8
0.1 < Fn < 0.5
4.4.7 Series 60
Series 60 consists of 62 models of merchant ship forms tested at DTMB in the early 1950s,
The limits on hull parameters are as follows:
5.5 < LWL/BWL < 8.5
2.3 < BWL /Tmean < 3.5
0.6 < CB < 0.8
-2.48 < LCB < 3.51
9.013 < Cr400 < 25.688
The residual resistance coefficients for 400 ft basic ship is represented by a regression formula
whose coefficients are given in Sabit (1972).
4.4.8 Series 64
Series 64 is an exploratory series for determining ship naked hull Resistance. The series is based
on 27 model tests of frigate type hulls with transom sterns as defined by Yeh (1965). A roughness
allowance may be included as an option. The classical method assumes a Ca value of .0004 for
paints in poor environments.
Regarded as suitable for estimates of trimaran main hulls.
0.35 < CB < 0.55
2.0 < BWL/Tmean < 4.0
15 < Displacement- < 55
length ratio

The Displacement-length ratio
15 < ∆' / (0.01 L')3 < 55
Where:
∆' = ∆ x 1009.654 / ρ
And
L' = Lwl / 0.3048
4.4.9 SSPA
This regression equation based method was developed by Sabit (1976), from a graphical prediction
method in 1976 after the inclusion of some extra models in the SSPA Series to fill in some of the
inconsistencies.
The method uses a coefficient based equation to calculate the residuary Resistance coefficient,
which includes, within the basic equation, the correction for B/T and LOB. The frictional
Resistance coefficient is based on the ITTC-57 line.
The classical method assumes a Ca value of 0.0004 for in poor environments.
Wetted surface area may be calculated using a regression equation.
The limits on hull parameters are as follows vary with CB
CB L/∇1/3 B/T LCB
0.525 5.63 to 6.89 2.1 to 3.0 -1.0 to -4.0
0.575 5.47 to 6.68 2.1 to 3.0 -0.5 to -3.5
0.625 5.32 to 6.50 2.2 to 2,8 1.0 to -3.0
0.675 5.l8 to 6.33 2.1 to 3.0 0.0 to -2.0
4.4.10 Takashiro
The Takashiro Power Prediction Method, for preliminary Effective Power calculations is based
on the Yamagata Resistance Chart. Produced in 1941, this chart gave values for the residuary
Resistance, based initially on Froude’s frictional coefficient. It included corrections for B/L and B/
T.
The method has been continually improved to give more accurate power prediction since the 1950s,
due to the increasing size and changing shape of vessels making the original method less precise.
Research to collect data regarding up to date ship forms and Powering information was an ongoing
process.
The basis of the frictional calculation was changed from Froude’s method to Schoenherrs method
in 1955 and a frictional correction added to allow for roughness and the conversion from riveted to
welded construction.
Later the flat plate calculation was altered to use the ITTC-57 line as it is simpler and gives accurate
values over Reynolds number range for which the method is applicable.
The updated version by Takashiro (1980), gives extra value of the residuary coefficient for fuller
ships (where CB> 0.8) and alters the original B/T correction. The method includes an additional
correction for bulbous bows based on CB, a stern correction based on the shape and an air
Resistance correction
30 < LWL < 400
0.12 < Fn < 0.44
If the wetted surface area is to be calculated, for single screw ships:
0.55 < CB < 0.8
For twin screw ships:
0.55 < CB < 0.65
If the wetted surface area is to be input, for single screw ships:
0.5 < CB < 0.8
For twin screw ships -
0.5 < CB < 0.65
Full load displacement. Further limitations may be applied according to the CB required for
interpolation.
4.4.11 Taylor-Gertler
Uses the 1954 re-analysis by Gertler (1954), of the original test data generated by Taylor in the
early 1900s.
The original Taylor test data used a series of models based on a cruiser parent with a 3% bulb, U
shaped bow and V shaped . The LOB was at amidships and the coefficient of mid-section area was
constant with varying longitudinal prismatic coefficients, length/displacement ratios and breadth/
depth ratios with graphically derived hull forms over 80 further models. The results were plotted
both for frictional and residuary Resistance against speed/length ratio for varying Cp. In following
years further experiments on other geometrically similar models were added to the initial results.
Gertler included corrections for water temperature in the viscosity calculation, turbulent flow over
the models and shallow channel effects. This method uses interpolation over the graphs plotted
for non-dimensionalised residuary Resistance and Schoenherr’ formula for the calculation of the
frictional Resistance.
The classical method assumes a Ca value of 0.0004 for paints in poor environments.
LCB at
amidships
0.48 < Cp < 0.86
2.25 < BWL/Tmean < 3.75
Cx = 0.925
0.0007 < < 0.000875

4.4.12 Triplet ISO-(K)ITriplet
This method predicts the Effective Power of warship forms. The Triplet technique was developed
to derive the hull Resistance for hull forms deviating slightly from a parent hull form for which the
hull Resistance is known.
4.5 Hull / propeller interactions methods
4.5.1 Andersen
It is recommended that this method is used in conjunction with the Andersen & Guldhammer
Resistance method (1986).
The single screw method is based on Harvald (1978) and the wake fraction is corrected from the
model to the ship value, the relative rotative efficiency uses the Holtrop method.
For twin screw ships, the thrust deduction fraction and wake fraction is based on Harvald (1967)
and the relative rotative efficiency is constant (1.0).
The formulae are valid for normal propellers with normal loading conditions. They should be used
with caution for special loading conditions (i.e.. towrope condition) or for nozzle propellers.
4.5.2 BSRA – Parker
This method is applicable to single screw merchant ships as presented by Parker (1966). It is
recommended that this method is used in conjunction with the BSRA-Sabit Resistance method.
4.5.3 Holtrop & Mennen
This method should be used in conjunction with the Holtrop & Mennen Resistance method,
Holtrop (1984).
4.5.4 NPL Round Bilge
The NFL Round bilge - Bailey method. It is recommended that this method is used in conjunction
with the NFL Round Bilge Resistance method. The method is for fast patrol boats, small naval
ships or heavily loaded work boats.
4.5.5 Oortmerssen
It is recommended that this method, van Oortmerssen (1971), is used in conjunction with the G
van Oortmerssen Resistance method.
This method is for single screw tug or trawler forms.
4.5.6 Schoenherr
This method is based on 1934 data, Comstock (1966). It is useful when comparing the effect on
the hull Interaction of using either struts or bossings or for obtaining initial design values. For good
correlation with Series 60, the block coefficient for single screw vessels should lie between 0.5 and
0.9.
4.5.7 SSPA
This method by Sabit (1976), is based on a regression analysis of a methodical series of hull forms.
It is recommended that this method is used in conjunction with the SSPA Resistance method.
The equations are assumed to cover the speed range for design, trial and service speeds, and no
variation of Froude number is accounted for.
4.6 Propeller Series
There are a number of propeller series’ to choose from, as given below:
• AEW 20” Series

• Wageningen B Series
• Gawn Burrill Series
• JD-CPP Series
4.6.1 AEW 20” Series
This series comprised a set of 37 three-bladed propellers covering a range of pitch ratios from 0.4
to 2.0 and blade area ratios from 0.2 to 1.1. They had a diameter of 503mm (20”) and hence the
scale effects are expected to be relatively small, as reported by Gawn (1953).
Each of the propellers has a uniform face pitch; segmental blade section; constant blade thickness
ratio, namely 0.060 and a boss diameter of 0.2. The developed blade outline was of elliptical form.
The entire series were tested in the No.2 towing tank at AEW Haslar within range of slip from 0%
to 100%: to achieve this the propeller rotational speed was in the range 250-500 rpm. No cavitation
characteristics are given for the series.
Blount and Hubble (1981) in considering methods for the sizing of small craft propellers developed
a set of regression coefficients of the form of equations presented by Oosterveld and van Oossanen
(1975), as for the Wageningen B-Series. The coefficients of the series are presented in tabulated
form by Blount and Hubble (1981) for the KT and K0 equation.
They suggest that the range of applicability of the regression equation should be in:
0.8<P/D<1.4
for
0.5< EAR<1.1
Although the regression study was carried out for a wider range of P/D, 0.6 to 1.6. Inevitably some
regression model test data tends to deteriorate towards the outer limits of the data set, in particular
J=0.
The AEW 20” propeller series and associated regression equations represent a valuable data
set, despite the somewhat dated propeller geometry, for undertaking preliminary design studies
for warships and other high performance craft due to the wide range of P/D and AE/AO values
covered.

4.6.2 Wageningen B Series
This series is perhaps the most extensive and widely used series which was originally presented
in a set of papers by Troost (1938, 1940, 1951) and, amongst many practitioners, is still referred
to as the “Troost Series”. Over the years the model series has been added to so as to provide a
comprehensive fixed pitch, non-ducted propeller series. From the analysis of the early results it
was appreciated that a certain unfairness between the various design diagram existed and this was
considered to result from the scale effects resulting from the different model tests. This led to a
complete re-appraisal of the series in which the differences in test procedures were taken into
account and the results of this work were presented by Van Lammeren et al (1969).
The results of the fairing exercise reported by Oosterveld paved the way for detailed regression
studies on the performance characteristics given by this model series. The open water
characteristics of the series, i.e. KT and KQ, at Reynolds number Rn=2x106 by two separate
regression equations based upon independent variables of the advance coefficient J, pitch diameter
ratio P/D, the expanded blade area ratio AE/Ao and blade number Z can be found in Oosterveld
and van Oossanen (1975)
B-Series regression equations are valid for slow to medium speed vessels with non-cavitating
propeller.
4.6.3 Gawn Burrill Series
The KCA series developed by Gawn and Burrill (1957), or it is sometimes known as the Gawn-
Burrill series, is a complementary series to the original Gawn (1953) series. The KCA series
consists of 30 three-bladed 406 mm (16”) models embracing a range of pitch ratios from 0.6 to 2.0
and blade area ratios from 0.51 to 1 .18. The series has uniform pitch, segmental sections over the
outer half of blade, and at the inner half radii the flat face is washed back at leading and trailing
edges. The blade thickness fraction of the parent screw is 0.045. The blade outline is elliptical and
the hub ratio is 0.2.
The KCA series was tested at the Emerson Cavitation Tunnel at the University of Newcastle
upon Tyne over a range of cavitation numbers = 0.5, 0.75 1.0 1.5, 2.0, 6.3 with a value of 6.3
corresponding to the atmospheric pressure.
For manual design purposes the results of the KCA series tests were represented in format by
Emerson and Sinclair(1978) for both at non-cavitating and cavitating conditions.
For the computer-optimisation design purposes the results of open water tests of the series
were represented in the format of regression coefficients by Blount and Hubble (1981), as well
Kozukharov (1986). However in the mathematical model of regression by Blount and Hubble
(1981), the cavitation number was not included and the cavitating condition was approached
separately by a simple formula which was not convenient nor accurate enough for computer-
optimisation. Kozukharov (1986) included the cavitation number in his mathematical model and
therefore the present design algorithm is based on Kozukharov’s (1986) regression coefficients.
4.6.4 JD-CPP Series
The JD-CPP (Jiao Da Control Pitch Propeller) series is a three-bladed controllable pitch series
comprising 15 model propellers, each having a diameter (0) of 267.9 mm and boss diameter of
0.280. The propellers are split into three groups of five having expanded blade area ratios of 0.35,
0.5 and 0.65. However only the data of two blade area ratios (0.5 and 065) are available at the
moment. Each blade area ratio has five initial pitch ratios of 0.4, 0.6, 0.8, 1 .0 and 1.2. The blade

design pitch distribution is constant from the tip to 0.6R but is reduced at inner region of the blade
near the root.
The JD-CPP series was tested at the Shanghai Jiao Tong University with various blade settings Θ.
The positive Θ means to increase the pitch from the initial pitch. The test results were presented
by Chu et al (1979) for thrust, torque, efficiency and spindle torque coefficients in tabulated and
graphical forms.
Chu et al (1979) also presented the thrust and torque coefficients in terms of regression equations
as functions of the independent variables of advance coefficient J, the initial pitch ratio (P/D)i and
blade area ratio AE/AO for the whole series by using the same format as for the Wageningen-B
series.
For a particular propeller in the series, the thrust , torque and hydrodynamic spindle torque
coefficients are also presented in terms of regression equations as functions of J and the effective
pitch ratio (P/D)e as given in Chu et al (1979).
4.6.5 Useful References
(1) Bertram, V & Sneekluth, H. Ship Design for Efficiency and Economy (page ).
Hardcopy in the NAME Office.

5 Propulsion
5.1 Introduction
This section is concerned with the main points that need to be addressed in the marine engineering
design stages of the ship design process. It is not intended that these should form a comprehensive
set of notes but rather that they are provided as a guideline.
5.2 Resources
The main resources to be employed during the propulsion design and selection are:
1. Conference proceedings and other learned journals available in the library of the Institute
of Marine Engineers, 80 Coleman Street, London, EC2R 5BJ.
2. The NES and Lloyds regulations available from David South in the Naval Architecture and
Marine Engineering library in the Department of Mechanical Engineering at UCL.
3. Data packs provided at the rear of the class room 119. This information is made available
to you from data that is provided by industry. There are packs on gas turbines, diesel engines,
electrical propulsion, propulsors, auxiliary machinery etc.
These packs are updated each year and students are requested to observe that the information
is there for your convenience and should be returned.
4. Journals and industrial magazines such as Marine Engineer’s Review and the Naval
Architect which are available on the bookstand in room 119.
5. Previous similar designs. Course log books and reports are available to you. It is not
intended to prevent you from using material obtained by previous course students rather it is
intended that you make yourself familiar with previous designs so that their experiences can
form a starting point for your own design. See David South who has lists of previous designs
and can obtain copies for you. Note: Under no circumstances should log books and reports be
removed from the Department.
6. The ‘Consultancy arrangements’ with MoD and Lloyds. This is a restricted service to
prevent their being too distracted by your requests. You will be given further details during
the ship design exercise. There are no restrictions on your contacting industry.
7. There is considerable information on the www. Most of the manufacturers of marine
equipment have web pages and requests for information can be sent by e-mail.

5.3 Procedure
The procedure is outlined within the series of ship design lectures and a resume is given here.
Marine engineering of a ship requires you to work closely with your naval architect colleagues to
produce a balanced design that meets the outline requirements and base-line staff target.
A good starting point is to obtain an operating profile of the vessel and a power-speed curve. These
can then be used as a starting point for your design.
The alternatives for propulsion of your vessel should be considered. These may be consists of a
number of important parameters which are common in all propulsion systems but are different for
different propulsion systems. (See lecture notes for greater details).
• Weight - Total weight of propulsion plant with/without fuel to meet the range and endurance
requirements.
• Size - The physical size of propulsion system and the space it occupies within the ship and
where these compartments are located
• Shock - Important consideration for vessels particularly military vessels. Consider mounting
requirements of engine systems.
• Signatures - Noise, magnetic and infra-red emissions. Appropriate mounts and acoustic
enclosures will be needed if low magnetic signatures are required.
• Maintenance - How much, how often and where does this take place?
• Manning - Manning is an important consideration for new vessels. Can Unmanned machinery
systems be used? Can cuts in manning be achieved and if so what impact on the whole ship
does such a reduction have (e.g. fire-fighting and damage limitation).
• Fuel - Common fuel is F76 for naval vessels and heavy residual fuel for merchant ships. The
fuel type has a direct impact on the exhaust emissions particularly SOx. Alternative synthetic
fuels are being developed for aircraft gas turbines. Are these appropriate for future vessels?
• Industrial Base - Who are the suppliers of the engines? Will there supply be guaranteed
during hostilities? What happens if there is no other demand for your plant and the item is
discontinued?
• ARM - Availability, reliability and maintainability are interrelated so should be considered
together. How long is the plant expected to be down? What is the probablility of an engine
failing? How will the plant be operated if an engine fails?
• Resistance to Change - Is there general support for new ideas? Requirement to set up support
services and to provide new training courses.
• Costs - Costs can be considered as unit production costs (UPC) and through life costs
(TLC). Can increased UPC be offset be TLC. The cheapest solution is not always the right
solution.
Comparisons between these different parameters must be weighed up for each plant being
proposed. A weighting table is one method that can easily be used in this way.
5.4 Propulsors
Propulsor types should be identified early in the design in consultation with your naval architect
partner. The power requirement and vessel speed are also important in deciding the most

appropriate method of propulsion. Where multiple shafts are provided then different propulsors can
be used. Some commonly used propulsors used in vessels today are given in the propulsor pack in
Room 119. A summary is as follows:
• Fixed Pitch Propellers – Most common type of propeller used in both merchant and military
navies. Propellers come in a wide range of diameters and blade numbers although four blades
is common for merchant ships and five blades common for naval vessels. Can be optimised for
low noise performance. Propeller revolutions must be reversed to provide reverse thrust.
• Contollable Pitch Propellers – Found in about a quarter of the world’s fleet both merchant and
naval. Controllable pitch propellers give advantages in terms that thrust forward or reverse can
be varied irrespective of propeller revolutions.
• Podded Drives – Recent invention where a podded motor drives a fixed pitch propeller. The
pod usually hangs under the vessel at the stern. Pods can tractor drive (the propeller is
forward of the motor or in a conventional drive arrangement, the propeller is behind the
motor. Propulsors are either fixed or steerable with the hydraulic actuators located inside the
hull.
• Waterjets – Popular in fast ships that operate above thirty knots. The waterjet is usually driven
by a gas turbine although diesel engines and electric motors may also be considered.
• Voith Schieder – Gives good manoeuvrability over conventional drives. The Voith Schneider
propulsor also removes the need for separate steering gear. The VT propulsor is essentially a
number of blades rotating about the vertical. Changing the angle of attack results in a change of
thrust.
• Azimuthing Propulsors – Gives good manoeuvrability over conventional drives. The
azimuthing propulsor also removes the need for separate steering gear. The stearable propulsor
is powered from either an electric motor or mechanical drive system via a z – shafting
arrangement. Direction control is provided by separate hydraulic gear. Thrust can therefore be
provided in all directions.
5.5 Number of Shafts
The number of shafts should be carefully considered at an early stage of the design. The important
factors to consider are the vulnerability of the vessel, the power transmitted through the shaft
(may become too great for large high speed vessels forcing the need for multiple shafts), and the
availability of space at the rear of the vessel (narrow hulled vessels may have difficulty in fitting in
two shaft lines). The method of operating the shafts needs to be considered at low speed. E.g. is
one shaft trailed or do both shafts operate at all times?
5.6 Main Prime Mover Types
Th main types of prime-movers used today are diesels and gas turbines. Both are used for main
propulsion and for generating onboard electrical power requirements. Large two stroke diesels are
used in merchant ships for main propulsion (up to 1,000,000 hp) whilst four stroke medium (up
to 20 MW) and high speed engines (up to 10 MW) are used for both propulsion and electrical
generation. See diesel engine pack in Room 119 for more details.
Gas turbines are used for propulsion. In recent years simple cycle gas turbines have been developed
into recuperated types some with inter-coolers (e.g. Rolls-Royce WR21 ICR GT). Gas turbines are

also being developed for the All Electric Ship – see All Electric Ship Documentation kept by David
South.
Exhaust gas emissions are an important consideration when choosing a prime-mover particularly for
a vessel that is to come into service in 10 years time. Students should refer to the latest and likely
future regulations both local, national and international (e.g. MARPOL).
5.7 Main Propulsion System Type
The propulsion packs provided in Room 119 gives details on propulsion arrangements. A summary
is provided here of the main propulsion arrangements used in today’s merchant ships and warships.
5.7.1 Direct drives
• Slow speed diesel engines - Usually suited to vessels that have a large power requirement but
an operating profile that means that they operate at full speed most of the time. Typical vessels
are container vessels and oil tankers.
• Slow speed electric motors - Usually suited to vessels that have a large power requirement
but an operating profile that means that they operate across a range of speeds and require
high reliability. Arrangements commonly used today is to integrate the electric propulsion and
service loads so they are fed from common generating units. Typical vessels are cruise liners
and all ocean going tugs with ice capability.
5.7.2 Indirect Simple Drives
• Medium and high speed direct drive - A single high or medium speed diesel drives a
propulsor via a reversing gearbox. Usually used in smaller vessels such as tugs.
• Gas turbine drive - A single gas turbine drives a propulsor via a reversing gearbox. Not
commonly used.
• Steam turbine - A single steam turbine drives a propulsor via a reversing gearbox or a steam
turbine with a gearbox and reversing turbine. Was commonly used in the past but steam now
less popular. E.g. Older very large oil tankers VLCCs.
5.7.3 Indirect Complex Drives where engines may be used together
These types of drives are suitable for vessels with a cruise drive and high speed requirement. These
arrangements are more useful to military vessels. They are two basic arrangements. In the Or
arrangement different prime-movers are used to power the vessel at its cruise speed and at full
speed. In the And arrangement the cruise engine is provided with supplementary power by the
boost engine at full speed. The advantages and disadvantages depend upon vessel type but it is
appropriate to consider flexibility, complexity, redundancy, reliability, and efficiency for each
design. Some of the typical drive solutions in common use are:
• CODAD/CODOG – COmbined Diesel and/or Diesel - Multiple diesel engines connected

through a reversing gearbox. The diesels may be the same power or type or they may be
different powers and type. CODOG arrangements preferred in military vessels in Brazil e.g.
E71 Corvette and the Thai, French and Malaysian Navies.

• COGAG/COGOG – COmbined Gas and Gas - Multiple gas turbine drives connected to the
shaft through a reversing gearbox. The gas turbines may be the same power or type or they
may be different powers and type. The Type 42 Destroyer is an example of a COGOG.
• CODAG/CODOG – COmbined Diesel and/or Gas - Gas turbine and diesel drives connected
to the shafting arrangement through a reversing gearbox. The gas turbines may be the same
power or type or they may be different powers and type. The Brazilian Mk 10 frigate is an
example of a CODOG.
• CODLAG – COmbined Diesel eLectric and Gas - Combined electric motor and gas turbine
using diesel generators. The electric motor usually provides for cruise power whilst the gas
turbine is used as a boost engine. The Type 23 Frigate is perhaps the best known of these
vessels.
• COGLAG – COmbined Gas eLectric and Gas - Combined electric motor and gas turbine
using gas turbine generators. The electric motor usually provides for cruise power whilst the
gas turbine is used as a boost engine. Not commonly used at present but may be appropriate in
the future when tough exhaust gas emissions must be met.
• CODGAL – COmbined Gas and Diesel eLectric - Combined single/multiple electric motor
and diesel and gas turbine generators. One electric motor usually provides for cruise power
whilst the other is used to provide boost power. Usual arrangement found in cable laying
vessels.
• COGES - Combined Gas Electric and Steam - Combined gas turbine and steam turbine
generators used to provide propulsion and hotel/service loads in ships. Usual arrangements in
gas powered generating stations and recently chosen to power cruise vessels.
5.8 Auxiliary Systems
Key auxiliary system design must also be considered for each vessel. It is important to realise that
these vary and depend upon the vessel type. Although the size and types of propulsion systems vary
from ship to ship, the main auxiliary systems that need to be considered include:
• Electrical System – The distribution of electrical power around the vessel. Number of

generators, switchboards, zoning of electrical equipment, the range of power requirements,
starting from a blacked out ship, battery requirements, load chart, split, parallel or ring
distribution systems.
• Air Systems – The main use of air in ships. Number of compressors and type of distribution
systems, main users of air on-board the vessel.
• Hydraulic Systems - The main use of hydraulics in ships. Size of plants and type of
distribution systems, main users of hydraulics on-board the vessel.
• Fire Fighting Systems - The main types of fire fighting systems? Types of compartment
flooding used? How is fire to be detected and how will it be combatted? Where are the pumps
located?
• Fresh Water Systems – The main use of fresh water. Size of cooling water systems and
number of plants. What are the main items in the system and what is the impact on the ship if
failure occurs
• Sea Water Systems - The size of the sea-water system. Where are the main pumps located?
• Uptakes and downtakes - The size of the propulsion plant will dictate the number and sizes
of the uptakes and downtakes. Where are the intakes and out-takes?
• Removal routes - How is machinery removed from the vessel? Are the engines removed as a
unit or are they broken down?
5.9 Conclusions
This section has been intended as a guide supporting the ship design lecture notes and information
packs provided in the library and not intended as a comprehensive set of notes.
It is more important to consider the aspects of your vessel’s marine engineering which is
substantially different to normal practise rather than reproduce current systems that are in use.
Dr Bucknall and Dr Greig will be available at regular times to assist with particular difficulties or to
answer questions you may have.

6 Complement
6.1 Introduction
The estimation of a ships complement is an aspect of the design process which is probably the least
amenable to an analytic approach. It is dependent among other things on the equipment fitted, the
degree of automation envisaged, the degree of task overlap and the support policy for the vessel
(i.e., maintenance at sea or in harbour) etc.
In some designs the ergonomic demands of engineering systems are allowed to 'drive' complement
using standard manning practices; in others the total complement is a constraint which demands
novel solutions in the automation of systems. A further area for discussion is the degree to
which automation which is available is rejected as being vulnerable under certain operational
conditions. (This is particularly relevant for Warships where Action Damage considerations may
dictate higher complements and a deliberate retention of manual procedures). Finally the traditions
of particular Navies/Commercial operators may have a bearing on manning policy. This can very
from the acceptance of automation mentioned above to the standards of catering.
Complementing is a subject where there are very significant differences between naval and
merchant ship practice. Most merchant ships - irrespective of size - operate with complements in to
order of 18-20 although these numbers are continually reducing with increased automation while
the smallest frigate currently requires of the order of 100 men rising to figures approaching 1000
or more for Aircraft Carriers. Life cycle cost implications continue to drive this figure lower with
complements as low as 50 being the long term aim.
The payload of a warship is extremely manpower and 'power demand' intensive. This requires both
operators and maintainers. In addition the equipment supporting the payload (Ship Systems and
Electric systems) itself needs surveillance and maintenance.
By contrast the payload of a merchant ship, being inert cargo, requires minimum attendance during
transit, nor does it require supporting power from auxiliaries. (The exception to this is where cargo
is refrigerated e.g., perishable produce, LNG). Any manpower attributed to payload is largely borne
by the ports of departure and reception.
Another type of payload which is exceedingly manpower intensive for warships is Naval
Aviation. A typical figure for the complement associated with a single aircraft for a VSTOL/
Medium helo mix is around 15. (This covers Technical and Non-Technical support.) Hence a small
Aircraft Carrier with 10 A/C has a Naval Aviation complement of 150 approx, a larger Aircraft
Carrier with 50 A/C would need 750.
Turning to the complement borne for the supervision and maintenance of the Propulsion Plant and
Auxiliaries, the manning levels for warships, though severely reduced in recent years, has to be
more cautious than for a merchant ship. This can be attributed to the need to give consideration to
effectively fighting the ship, NBCD requirements, the larger amounts of absolute Power installed

(*) and the greater number and more complex types of machinery with their consequently greater
maintenance load.
Finally the larger basic complement required for Payload and Mobility functions outlined above for
a warship will have a 'knock-on' effect on the support they require from the supply and Secretariat
Branches.
* A Frigate of 4000 tonne @ 28 kts requires 26 MW approx.
A Containership of 40,000 tonne @ 20 kts requires 16 MW approx.
6.2 Estimation of complement
There are two basic approaches to the estimation/calculation of complement:

(i) Empirical.
(ii) Analytic.
(i) Empirical Method. The Empirical Method is merely a plot of complement against a design
parameter such as displacement. While not defensible on scientific grounds it enables Initial sizing
to proceed before the manning requirements of individual equipments are known. As indicated in
the Introduction it is always open to the designer to make this arbitrary choice the constraint, and to
place the onus for a solution on the operator. In the case of a warship this may be needed to reduce
the 'politically visible' 1st Cost, but will lead to additional shore support costs and even jeopardize
the ability of a 'Ships Staff' to maintain an acceptable degree of cleanliness.
As a rough 'rule of thumb' marginal reductions in complement lead to marginal reductions in
displacement of 3-5 tonne/person for Frigate sized vessels.
In reality a good deal of 'give and take' is required between designer and customer in arriving at a
satisfactory complement.
6.2.1 First Estimate of Warship Complement
Figure 6.1 provides a plot of Warship complement excluding fleet Air Arm requirements. (These
are fairly readily obtained elsewhere as a function of Aircraft numbers (see Annex 6.A).
Two levels of complementing are shown: Standard and Constrained.
Around Frigate displacements the Constrained line corresponds to 1980's T23 manning philosophy,
without margins or personnel for Out of Area operations. The Standard Line represents a more
relaxed manning philosophy appropriate to longer Mission times.
In addition to the basic complement (i.e. Standard or Constrained) both complement margins and
complement breakdown need to be considered before Initial Sizing can proceed.
The margins to be considered are
• Training Margin 0-5%

• Advancement Margin 7% Senior Rates ~ 2% Total
• Board Margin 0-10%
Guidance on these margins is given in Annex 6A.

A broad indication of complement breakdown for warships and survey/research vessels is:

Warship Survey/Research
Officers (Y) 0.075N 0.15 (N-Ys)
CPOs (C) 0.110N 0.30 (N-Ys)
Pos (P) 0.140N
JRs (J) 0.675N 0.55 (N-Ys)
6.2.2 First Estimate of Merchant Ship Complement
The figures given in Table 1 (from Ref. 3 & based on ships in service in 1990-1) shows how crew
numbers vary with ship type and size:
Table 1 A Survey of Crew numbers for various types and sizes of ship (Ref 3)
Type of Parameter
ship
Crew
Tanker Dwt 3160 48966 113131 142000 275782 319600
Crew 9 20 (30) 32 26 30 31
L.P.G. m3 1600 4300 8237 57000 75208 125760
Crew 25 16 22 25 (30) 32 40
Bulk Dwt 61687 74000 77500 96725 69178
carrier Crew 26 28 25 (31) 33 (38) 29
Container Containers 976 1201 1315 1960 3568 4407
ship Crew 8 26 (34) 24 (26) 16(28) 19 (29)
Refrig. m3 5240 6332 21684
ship
Crew 8 16 9*>6
Multi- Dwt 12100 13150 17175
cargo Crew (19) 25 25
Cruise Passengers 100 584 960 1354 2604 2744
liner Crew 65 240 480 642 980 826
Passenger Passengers 600 2500
ferry Crew 248 264
Freight Containers 20 301 1388
ferry Crew 9 7(10) 18
Notes on Table 1
Where a number in brackets follows another number, this indicates “accomodation for” and
includes repair crew and spare rooms. Suez crew (generally 6 on large ships) are excluded.
* This crew is based on an “integrated ship control system. The present crew of 9 consists of
captain and 2 deck officers, 1 cook/steward and 2 g.p. ratings. It is intended that this crew be
reduced to 6 in the future.

Data abstracted from Signitficant Ships, 1990 and 1991
6.2.2.1 Passenger Ship Crew Numbers
Statistics of Crew size 'servicing' Passenger vessels yields the following ratio:
• Ferry 25 Passengers/1 Crew

• Cruise ships (Ref 3)
• Upper end of market 1.7-2.2 Passengers/1 Crew (data from 1976)
• Popular end of market 2.5-3.0 Passengers/1 Crew (data from 1976)
• Cruise Liner “Fantasy” 2.86 Passengers/1 Crew (data from 1992)
In the passenger ship market reductions in manning required to run the vessel are offset by
improvements in passenger comfort leading to roughly constant passenger/ crew ratio’s
Table 2 shows the crew list from QE2 (taken from Ref 3)

Table 2 Queen Elizabeth 2 “At Your Service”
Crew List
Asst. Barkeepers 16 Night Stewards 6 Doctors 2
Baggage Masters 2 Nursery Nurses 2 Deck Ratings 34
Beauticians 2 Philipino Staff 164 Engineer Ratings 53
Bedroom Stewards 26 Printers 4 Executive Chief 1
Bosun 1 Public Room 8 General Manager 1
Stewardesses
Captain 1 Security Petty Officers 7 Hotel Officers 44
Chefs de Cuisine 4 Shop Assistants 18 Laundry Staff 17
Chief Barkeepers 2 Staff Bedroom 3 Librarian I
Stewards
Communications 2 Waiters 218 Masseur Male 2
Assistants
Cruise Staff 14 Writers 5 Medical Ratings 2
Data Input Clerks 3 Asst. Restaurant 14 Nursing Sisters 3
Managers
Deck Officers 8 Bank Staff 4 Orchestra Staff 27
Engineering Officers 26 Bell Boy 1 Photographers 3
Entertainers 5 Bcdioom Stewardesses 59 Public Room Stewards 24
Fitness Instructors 4 Bosuns Mate 1 Radio Officers 1
Hairdressers 13 Casino Staff 11 Security Officers 3
Laundry Supervisors 1 Chefs 89 Storekeepers 4
Leading Wine Steward 1 Conimis Waiters 17 Staff Bedroom 2
Stewardesses
Masseuse Female 2 Crew Administration 1 Wine Stewards 16
Asst.
Medical Dispenser 1 Dancers 6
Grande Total - 1014
6.2.2.2 Cargo Ship Crew Numbers
Crew numbers on cargo ships are constantly reducing with most cargo ships in the mid 1990’s
having a crew of 18 – 20 (Ref 3). Table 3 (taken from Ref 3) shows the ongoing trend towards
reducing crew numbers and gives an indications of the breakdown.
Table 3 Alternative manning for handy-sized products tanker in 1986 (Ref 3)

Column: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8
Conventional
GP UMS No Altered Auto- No R/O No
(all Ratings C.P.O. catering steering Pumpman
manual) (normal
conditions)
Master 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1
Mates 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3
Chief 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1
Engr.
Engineers 6 6 3 3 3 3 3 3
R/O 1 1 1 1 1 1 - -
Pump 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 -
man
Bosun 1 - - - - - - -
Deck 6 - - - - - - -
ratings
Eng. 4 - - - - - - -
ratings
G/Ps - 7 7 6 6 4 4 4
Catering 6 4 4 4 2 2 2 2
Dual - - - - - - - -
purpose
Junior
officers
Dual - - - - - - - -
purpose
Senior
officers
Total 30 24 21 20 18 16 15 14
manning

Column: 9 10 11 12 13 14 15
C/E to 6 on 6 off Semi- Operator Matrix Polyvalent Combined
keep watches integrated maintainer manning or dual Master &
watch in Junior purpose Chief
emergency Officers Senior Engineer
manual Officers
mode
Master 1 1 1 1 1 1 1
Mates 3 2 1 - 1 - -
Chief 1 1 1 1 1 1
Engr.
Engineers 2 1 1 1 1 - -
R/O - - - - - - -
Pump man - - - - - - -
Bosun - - - - - - -
Deck - - - - - - -
ratings
Eng. - - - - - - -
ratings
G/Ps 4 4 4 3 3 3 3
Catering 2 2 2 2 1 1 1
Dual - - 2 2 2 2 2
purpose
Junior
officers
Dual - - - - - 2 2
purpose
Senior
officers
Total 13 12 12 10 10 10 9
manning
The complementing of Merchant ships can be considered in terms of the following departments:
(i) Deck Department.
(ii) Engineering Department.
(iii) Hotel Services Department.
By way of example the following gives a guide of the complement required for a modern
containership and is based on information obtained during 2000, modifications to these figures
would be required to allow for:
• Owner or Operating Company Requirements

• Flag State Requirements

• Government Requirements (In the UK MCA, Merchant Shipping and Crew Accommodation
Regulations 1997, (Ref (12)))
• The Requirements of the Seafarers Unions
Deck Department
• Captain 1
• First Mate 1
• Second Mate 1
• Radio Officer/Electronics Engineer 1
• General Purpose Able Seaman 3
• TOTAL DECK DEPT: 7
Engineering Department (including Electrical)
• Chief Engineer 1
• Second Engineer 1
• Third Engineer 1
• Engineroom Hand / Fitter 1
• TOTAL ENG DEPT: 4
Hotel Services Department
• Cook/Chief Steward 1
• Stewards 2
• TOTAL HOTEL SERVICES DEPT: 3
6.2.3 Margins
In addition to the above the following should be allowed for (as required):
• Suez/Panama Crew 6 (All in one cabin)

• Suez/Panama Pilot 1 (May use training berth)
• Repair Crew 2 to 6
• Deck Department Cadets 1 or 2
• Engineering Department Cadets 1 or 2
These are guidelines for a small to medium container vessel (Up to 1500 TEU), for very small
or larger vessels the Merchant Shipping and Crew Accommodation Regulations 1997, should be
consulted, or RINA Significant Ships reviewed to get a better estimate from in service ships.
(ii) Analytic Method. The Analytic Method proceeds on a Branch by Branch assessment of the
complement required, based on the systems to be operated, or in the case of the Supply Branch on
the total complement itself. Before a design can be considered feasible the total complement must
be justified in this manner, even if in the first instance it was arrived at in an arbitrary fashion. If

complement is found to be deficient it must either be increased or proposals should be forwarded
for automation. This, however, will usually cost money.
For warships a Quarter Bill is ultimately produced showing the task of each individual for the
various Operational States (see Annex 6.A).
Annex 6.A provides background for the Calculation of Warship Complement.
6.3 References
1. BR4017 - Complementing Instructions for HM Ships.

2. Taking Stock - Marine Technology and UK Martitme Performance. M Meek. RINA 1984.
3. Practical Ship Design, DGM Watson, Elsevier 1998
Figure 6.1 Estimate of Complement [Warship]

(ex Fleet Air Arm)
6.4 Calculations of Warship Complement
6.4.1 Introduction
The Complementing Branch system used in RN warships is summarized below. The principles

involved in determining the complement of each individual Branch is outlined in paragraphs
2-12. For further details refer to Ref. 1.
(i) Operations Branch (Seaman)

with Sub Branches
• Command and Navigation

• Rader
• EW
• Missile
• Sonar Communication
(i) WE Branch
(ii) ME Branch
(iii) Fleet air Arm (and Air Engineering Branch).
(iv) Supply & Secretariat Branch
with Sub Branches
• Writers
• Stores Accountants
• Catering Accountants
• Cooks
• Stewards
(i) Misc. Groups
• RM Detachment
• Regulating & Physical Training
• Medical & Dental
• Instruction
• NAAFI
6.4.1.1 Operations Branch (Seamen)
(i) Command & Administration

1 x Commanding Officer
1 x Executive Officer
(ii) Conning and Navigation
Function Watch System
Officer of Watch (1) x 3
Sea Quartermaster (1) x 2
Sea Bo'suns Mate (1) x 2
Navigating Officer (1) x 1
Navigating Officers Yeoman (1) x 1
(for D> 5000 tonne)
(iii) Operation of Payload

Radar & AIO ) x 2
EW ) as required x 2
Missile ) by x 2
Sonar ) Payload fit x 3
Communications ) x 2
Note: Operators of Missile Systems may be WE Maintainer/Operators who will be able to
contribute to maintenance effort when not at Defence Watch (see WE Branch).
6.4.1.2 Weapons Engineering Branch
The Weapons engineering complement is determined by the maintenance load at sea and in
harbour. The maintenance load can be met in part by the Maintainer/Operators with the balance
met by the WE Branch dayworkers.
(i) Management and Administration
1 x WEO
+ 1 x DWEO (for D> 5000 tonne)
rising to + 3 for small Aircraft Carrier
(ii) Maintenance/Administrative Load
The Maintenance Load can be broken down into:
(a) Preventive Maintenance.
(b) Defect Repair Load (Sea and Harbour).
(c) Admin Load.
The Preventive Maintenance Load can be assumed to be constant with time, while the Defect
Repair Load is a function of Mission time and the Availability required at the end of a patrol.
The cumulative Maintenance Loads (for sea and harbour) will be of the form shown in figures A1
and A2 below, made up from the maintenance figures for individual items of payload.
From this it is possible to calculate the average required maintenance effort.

If it is assumed that a patrol of duration nS days (i.e. Mission time) is followed by a Base Support
Period (BSP) of MH days in harbour
Then the following Maintenance Effort is required:

At sea: ES = MS/nS
where ES means Average Daily Maintenance Effort at sea.
In harbour: EH = MH/nH
The required maintenance efforts must be provided by the WE complement at sea, and by WE
complement plus FMU staff in harbour. The actual numbers will be dictated by the man hours
available from each group.
(i) Maintenance Effort Available at Sea and in Harbour
At Sea Maintainer/Operators (x) 10hrs/week
WE Dayworkers (y) 40hrs/week
hence ES = 1/7 [x10 + y 40] (available)
In Harbour WE Staff (x + y) 20hrs/week
FMO Staff(z) 30hrs/week
hence EH = 1/7 [(x+y) 3- + z 20]
(available)
It is evident that a trade-off exists:
(a) Between Mission Time and WE complement for maintenance at sea.
(b) Between WE complement and FMU staff for maintenance in harbour.
A 'constrained' complement will usually dictate a reduced Mission Time so that the Maintenance
Load at sea remains manageable. It also implies that the WE complement is sized purely on the
requirement at sea and ignores the harbour load.
For Out of Area deployment (i.e. extended Mission time) the WE complement must be augmented
by FMU staff to cope with the increased defect load.
In the absence of precise figures the WE complement should be assessed relative to the Figures for
T22 and T23. These may be calculated from Figure A16 in paragraph 12.
6.4.1.3 Marine Engineering Branch
The Marine Engineering Branch is determined by a number of functions. It must man the Ship
Control Centre (SCC) and maintain adequate supervision of Propulsion, auxiliary and Electrical
Generating machinery. Additionally at Defence State NBCD surveillance must be provided from
the SCC. Finally the Maintenance Load at sea, and in part the maintenance load in harbour, must
be met by the ME branch.
1 x MEO
+ 1 x MWEO (for D> 5000 tonne)

rising to + 3 for small Aircraft Carrier
(ii) Supervision of Machinery/NBCD State
SCC surveillance (2) x 4
Machinery rounds (1) x 4
(for Frigate)
(additional nos if extent of machinery is large)
At Defence and Action Stations, the normal 4 watch system is converted to a 2 watch
system. For each watch one normal watch is closed up on propulsion, while another provides
NBCD surveillance and control.
It should also be noted that it is technically possible for a single person to provide SCC
surveillance, but that the additional security of a second person is preferred on Frigates and
above.
(iii) Maintenance Load
The Maintenance Load can be broken down into:
(a) Maintenance.
(b) Defect Repair Load (Sea and Harbour).
The principles outlined for the WE Branch are also applicable here. The Maintenance Load
can be assumed to be constant with time; the Defect Repair Load is a function of Mission
Time and the Availability required at the end of a patrol. The latter must be sub-divided into
Sea and Harbour Loads.
Finally the required Maintenance efforts must be met from the ME Complement at sea, and a
mixture of ME complement and FMU staff in harbour.
(iv) Maintenance Effort Available at Sea and in Harbour
At Sea ( Watchkeepers 15hrs/week)
( ME Dayworkers 40hrs/week)
In Harbour (ME Staff 30hrs/week)
(FMU Staff 20hrs/week)
For extended mission times the ME complement must be augmented by FMU staff if it has
been sized purely on the Sea Maintenance Load.
In the absence of precise figures the ME maintenance complement should be assessed relative
to the figures for T22 and T23. These may be calculated from Figure A16 in paragraph 12.
6.4.1.4 Fleet Air Arm (and Air Engineering Branch)
Fleet Air Arm (and Air engineering) complement on a warship is predominantly a function of the
type and number of aircraft embarked. For each Squadron or flight (i.e. 1 or 2 helicopters on a FF/
DD) the complement can be broken down into the following contributions.
(i) Non-Technical (i.e. Operations)
(a) Officers - Pilots and Observers
(b) Ratings

• FAA Ratings: Air handlers, Photographers, Met Observers, Survival Equipment
personnel
• Air Crew: Sonar Operators, Observers, Commando marshalling
• General Services: i.e. Supply & Secretariat 'tail' of Squadron (Writers, Stores
Accountant, Cooks, Stewards, etc.)
(ii) Technical (i.e. Air Engineering)

For each type of aircraft the above categories of personnel can be determined against the
number of aircraft (see figure A3/4 for general example). Details for individual aircraft types
are available in Ref. 1.
Care should be taken not to account twice for the General Service ratings. For the purpose
of the Ship Design Exercise it is suggested that the fleet air Arm (and Air Engineering
complement) is added to the basic ship complement and the Supply and Secretariat
complement calculated on the basis of the method outlined in paragraph 6. If the presence of
Naval Aviation is sufficiently intermittent it may be worthwhile to determine the additional
numbers which can be attributed to the presence of the FAA and a reduced number of
catering staff justified.
The character of the personnel support required for Aircraft is of some interest. In general
the Technical numbers exceed the Non-Technical. While the Technical contingent is largely
composed of Ratings the Non-Technical side contains a higher percentage of officers (i.e.
pilots, observers).
Figures A3 Type X (Non-Technical)

Figure A4 Type X (Technical)
(iii) Ship Based Staff
In addition to the complement which can be considered Squadron or Flight based, there
is a need on larger ships (i.e. aircraft Carriers or ships with flight Decks with 2 or more
landing spots) for permanent staff to manage Flight Deck operations. This is a relatively small
number; Ref. 1 can be consulted for further details.
In small ships flight Deck control is treated as a part-time activity and will not entail
additional staff. On Frigates it is traditionally assigned to the supply Officer.
6.4.1.5 Supply and Secretariat Branch
The Supply and Secretariat Branch provide Accounting, Catering and Administrative support to the
operation of the ship. To a large extent their complement is determined by the numbers required
for Operations, WE, ME and FAA Branches. As a rough rule of thumb the supply and Secretarial
complement is about 12-15% of Total Complement.
Frigate/DD 1 x SO
Cruiser 2 x SO
Amphib Ship 4 x SO
Aircraft Carrier
(ii) Writers
(a) Pay and Cash Duties (see Figure A.5).

Figure A5
(b) Technical Officer Duties
FF/DD 1
Cruiser 2
LPD/Aircraft 3
Carrier
(c) Front Line Squadron
per Squadron 1
(iii) Store Accountants
The number of Store Accountants will be a function of Line items in inventory and the
degree of computer aided Accounting (e.g. OASIS in RN). For the purpose of the Ship
Design Exercise the following simplified relationship, shown in Figure A6, can be used:
Figure A6
(iv) Catering Accountants (see figure A7)
Figure A7
(v) Cooks (see figure A8)

Figure A8
(vi) Stewards (see Figure A9)
Figure A9
6.4.1.6 Miscellaneous Groups
(i) Royal Marine Detachment

If a RM Detachment is to be embarked see Ref. 1 for guidance. For Assault ships RM
numbers will be defined in the Staff Target.
(ii) Regulating and Physical Training
(a) Regulators (see Figure A10)
Figure A10
(b) PT Staff
Minor Warships – nil

FF/DD/Cruisers – 1
Aircraft Carriers – 2 or more
(iii) Medical & Dental
Minor Warship – 1 rating
FF/DD – 1 rating
(except on foreign
deployment + 1 MO)
Cruiser – 1 MO + 2 ratings
LPDs/Aircraft Carriers – Medical Team concept
for Emergency surgery
(approx. 10)
(iv) Instructor Branch
On some ships consideration can be given to carrying an Instructor Officer as Education/
Resettlement/Scientific/Meteorology Officer.
(v) NAAFI/Canteen
Minor Warship – 1
FF/DD – 1-2
Cruisers – 2-3
LPD, Aircraft Carriers – 1 per 200 people
6.4.2 Communal Duties
In addition to the duties associated with the operation/maintenance of specific systems/equipment

(i.e. Ops, WE, ME and FAA Branches) and duties associated with the support, administration,
discipline and entertainment of these personnel (i.e. supply and Secretariat and Misc) there exist the
'so-called' Communal Duties.
These duties are characterised by their non-continuous nature, involving the serving of food at
meal times, the cleaning of dining halls/rec spaces, steward duties in S/R's messes, laundry duties,
ventilation cleaning, etc. (It should be noted that this does not include the cleanliness of individual
mess Spaces, which is the responsibility of the residents.)
The Communal Party does not require any specialist skills so is drawn on a pro-rata basis
from the complement of the various Branches already calculated. Provided there is sufficient
accommodation, a corresponding allowance is added to the complement of each Branch. (Ref. 1
can be consulted for more details.) Figure A11 provides a rough estimate of numbers.

Figure A11
6.4.3 Complement Constraint
Summation of the preceding Branch complements will lead to an objective calculation of warship
complement.
A decision then has to be made whether further reductions are justified, accepting that not all
items of payload will require simultaneous operation, some dual tasking is possible, and that the
communal Party allowance can be reduced.
For the purpose of the Ship Design Exercise the maximum constraint which can be applied to this
basic complement is a 15% reduction. Some degree of justification should be provided for such
cuts however.
6.4.4 Margins
The following margins should be considered in addition to the basic complement:

(i) Training Margin
Minor Warships – nil
FF/DD/Cruisers – 5%
LPD and Aircraft Carriers – 3%
(ii) Advancement Margin
The Advancement Margin is an accommodation margin for POs and CPOs to allow for L/S
who have been promoted during a commission.
7% of S/R's complement.
(iii) Board margin
The Board Margin covers:
(a) Approved alterations to material and equipment.
(b) Changes in complementing or accommodation policy.
Ideally this should be 10% of Basic Complement. However circumstances may dictate
otherwise. It will clearly be dependant on refit policy for vessel.

6.4.5 Quarter Bill
The structure of a Quarter Bill is shown in Figures A12-A15. Figures A12-A13 are summary
sheets. Figures A14-A15 are examples of some individual branch complement proformas. For each
Branch it is a question of defining the tasks to be performend, and selecting the number and rank/
rate of the people to carry out the task. For each Branch a prime State can be determined. This is
the state (i.e. Action, Defence, Harbour) which requires the largest complement. Usually this turns
out to be the Defence State. In the Action State the surplus of complement is assigned to NBCD
tasks.
6.4.6 Breakdown of complement by Branch
The percentage breakdown of complement by Branch is shown for T22 and T23 Frigates in Figure
A16.
Figure 16
6.5 Calculations of Merchant Ship Complement
6.5.1 Introduction
The complementing of a merchant ship can be considered in terms of the following departments
a. Deck Department
b. Engineering Department
c. Catering Department

The following method for determining the size of each department is provided to give an initial
estimate of complement at 1980’s levers. However modern mechant ships make great use of
automation to reduce manning and hence through life cost, you should therefore refer to Significant
Ships to get a better idea of the manning levels on similar modern designs, typically these will be
less than 20.
6.5.2 Deck Department
a. Officers (including the master)

Registered Tons (Gross) Number
<250 1
250 – 700 2
700 – 1600 3
>1600 4
b. Radio Officers
<500 0
>500 1
c. Ratings
<2500 6
2500 – 5500 7
5500 – 15000 8
>15000 10
Note: RFA’s would require additional personnel for RAS operations
6.5.3 Engineering Department (including electrical)
a. Officers
Shaft Power HP Number
Coastal <500 1
500 – 3000 2
Ocean Going 3000 – 5000 3
>5000 4
b. Refrigeration Engineers
For ships with a large refrigeration capacity - 1
c. Ratings

Number
Coaster 2
Ocean Going 4/5
(automated) ¾
6.5.4 Catering Department
Total crew Number

<45 2
<60 3
Stewards – 1 for every 3 officers rounded up
6.5.5 Margins
The following margins should be allowed for training on ocean-going ships

a. Deck department – 1 or 2 cadets
b. Engineering department – 1 or 2 cadets

7 Stability & Trim
7.1 Introduction
Hydrostatic stability, both initial and large angle and intact and damaged, has a significant part
to play in developing the form and arrangement of a new ship from the early stages of design
onwards. The issues that bear on form selection and arrangement are discussed in the lecture
notes on Stability Considerations in Ship Design and on weight and Space Considerations in Ship
Design. This chapter is concerned with how stability issues are taken into account in the various
phases of the Ship Design Exercise.
It should be borne in mind that intact stability importantly affects, and is affected by, the
geometry of the ship form together with the vertical positions of the CG. The latter is affected
by geometry, by weight margin policy, and by variations due to the working of oil fuel and
water ballast. Damaged stability is additionally affected by the disposition of the main transverse
watertight bulkheads.
7.1.1 Intact Initial Stability
At the start of the Ship Design Exercise is should be sufficient to limit stability considerations
to aiming for an adequate value of GM (solid) in the Deep (or fully laden) Condition based on
previous similar, and successful, designs. This approach is included in the Parametric Survey
Outline Annex 2B.
From an empirical/theoretical plot of GM(solid) in the Deep Condition against Depth the value of
GM(solid) req for a new design in the Deep Condition can be estimated. (See Fig. 7.1).
Values are for non-water ballast compensated ships. Where water compensation is used, values
approximately 70% of the above will probably be acceptable.
Such relationships assume an anticipated overall density, and specific stability criteria. Clearly a
similar analysis could be carried out for other ship types.
The next step is to estimate the value of GM (solid) achieved in the Deep Condition for a new
design using the relationship:
GM = KB + BM− KG
An initial estimate KB can be evaluated with enough accuracy from Morrish’s formula
KB = (5/6 - Cb / 3.Cw ) T
(where an approximate estimate for Cw is given by Cw = 2Cp/(1 + Cp)
BM can be evaluated from the formula

BM = I / ∇ =( LB3 / 12 ∇) Cit = [ Cit kb2 / (12 Cb) ] T
noiting that kb is shorthand for the ratio B/T
(where an approximate estimate for Cit is given by Cit = Cit = 6 Cw3 /[(2Cw + 1) (Cw + 1)] )
KG can be estimated from previous designs as a percentage of Main Hull Depth (D).
For warships the following empirical expression has been derived: (see Fig. 7.2).
( KG / D )mean = 0.455 + 0.18 vs +1.29 vs2
[1]
Coefficient of variance VKG = 0.05
Values of KG/D should be multiplied by (1 + n vkg) where:
• n = 1 for moderate flare

• n = 2 for heavy flare.
The requirement for equality between GM and GMreq therefore becomes

GMreq = (5/6 - Cb / 3.Cw ) T + [ Cit kb2 / (12 Cb) ] T - [KG/D] D
[2]
For commercial ship types it will be necessary to carry out a little bit of historical research to
estimate KG/D, although this type of data is not freely available. For ships with small superstructure
proportion it is likely that the KG/D of the Lightship will be close to 0.5. The KG/D in the deep
condition will depend also on the disposition of cargo (e.g. containerships, bulk carriers). Ferries
and cruise liners will have high values of KG/D due to the very large superstructure proportion.
Results from previous UCL student design exercises suggest the following typical values:
• Containership (4000 TEU -- 50%AUD:50% BUD) - 0.69

• FPSO - 0.51
• Cruise Liner (2300 Passengers) - 0.74*
(* depth measured to Deck 8 (the strength deck))

As explained in the Parametric Survey Outline (Annex 2B), the relationship between Depth (D)
and Draught (T) can be obtained from the value of Main Hull Density (ρ̅ m) derived from the sizing
process.
D/T = (Cb / Cw ) (1 / ρ̅ m - 1) + 1
[3]
for wall sided form
where ρ̅ m = ρ̅ / (1-vs) and ρ̅ = ∇ / V
Hence for an assumed Main Hull Depth (and in some designs this will correspond to a certain
number of internal decks), superstructure proportion and form parameters Cb, Cw, Cit it is possible
to determine:
(a) From Equation (3) the Draught (T)
(b) From Equation (2) the Beam/Draught ratio (k b ).
If Equation (2) is divided all through by (D) such that:
GM/D = const = (5/6 - Cb / 3.Cw ) T + [ Cit kb2 / (12 Cb) ] T - [KG/D] D
it helps to provide insight into the factors determining the value of kb. For a given value of GM/D
the following effects can be anticipated:
(a) kb increases with a decrease in T/D (i.e. with reduction in density).
(b) kb increases with an increase in KG/D being the relative depth constant for KG. This is
larger for smaller ships due to the relatively greater superstructure proportion (vs).
(i.e. 0.275 for Frigates, 0.175 Cruisers)
(c) kb increases with an increase in superstructure proportion (vs), mainly due to the
associated increase in KG/D. However it should also be noted that at constant volume an
increase in KG/D also leads to a higher main hull density and hence to higher values of T/D,
tending to reduce kb. Thus the primary KG/D effect is counteracted to some extent.
The above considerations manifest themselves in the typical kb values for Frigates and Cruisers (=
3.5 & = 3.0 approx. respectively). It is probable that the higher figure for the Frigate is due to a
lower overall density, a higher superstructure proportion and a relatively greater value of GMreq/
D. Another illustration of these trends can be seen in the kb of Aircraft Carriers. Here the very low
overall density (ρ̅ = 0.2) ensures that a high value of kb is required (typically 3.7 < kb < 4.2).
Typical values of kb i.e B/T for commercial ship types are:
Ship Type Typical Min and Max kb
Bulk Carrier 2.0 - 2.5
Tanker 2.5 - 3.0
Container Ship 2.7 - 3.1
Ro-Ro Ship 3.0 - 3.5
Ferry/Cruise Liner 3.5 - 4.0
For both commercial ships and warships, another useful guide to the selection of beam for stability
is the ratio of Beam to Depth (B/D) as this does not suffer from sensitivity to density which affects
B/T. (L/B is also unreliable as an indicator as the length of a ship can vary considerably dependent
on the volume to be enclosed for the same depth and beam) Values of B/D less than 1.5 are
unlikely to be acceptable. For commercial ships there is some useful data in “Practical Ship Design”
by D.G.M Watson (Ref 1). This suggests that volume carriers such as containerships have values
of around 1.65, whilst deadweight carriers such as bulk carriers and tankers have higher values of
around 1.9
As the new design proceeds, it is necessary to investigate the adequacy of GM in the worst
sea-going and light conditions as well as in the deep condition, allowing for free surface
effects. However, identification of the worst sea-going condition is best left until later on in the
design exercise as it requires decisions on how the oil fuel tanks are to be sized, located and worked
as regards water ballasting. For warships, the adequacy of GM can instead be carried out for the
light condition, i.e. the deep condition less 100% fuel, water and other consumables, 50% Naval
stores; although artificial, this is acceptable because the light condition usually provides a more
severe test than the worst sea-going condition. For commercial ships the ballast condition needs to
be assessed.
Although it is essential to provide sufficient Initial Intact Stability, it is also necessary to ensure that
GM is not too high from a Roll period point of view. An estimate of Roll Period is given by
τΦ = 2 πKx / √GM

where Kx = (I+A44 )1/2 / Δ
with I = hull dry inertia
and the added inertia A44 ≅ (0.35 B)2 Δ
Another determinant of GM is likely to be the allowable angles of heel under the action of beam
winds. This will be particularly relevant to designs with flare, where very low values of GM would
otherwise be acceptable. Calculation of the wind heeling moments brings into consideration the
windage of the new design and shows the price paid for large superstructures because of their high
wind heeling lever.
7.2 Intact Stability at Large Angles
7.2.1 Warships
The approach pioneered by Sarchin and Goldberg in Ref 2 is the basis for all modern naval stability
standards, such as Naval Engineering Standard 109 (Ref 3) This is to be applied to the intact
GZ curves for the new design in the deep, worst sea-going and light conditions using the various
software tools available. Early on the value of KG solid in the deep condition will have to be
taken from equation (1). Later, a direct estimate for the new design can be made when sufficient
information on the weight sub groups is available.
Allowance for free surface effects at large can angles be made as described in Ref 4 (Rawson and
Tupper).
The approach of incorporating flare all along the length of ships developed by Burcher at UCL,
(Ref 5), will improve both intact and damaged stability. Equally tumble home while offering
potential improvements to radar cross section has a large detrimental effect on stability (particularly
damaged). Some students will choose to adopt these approaches in their designs. If a tumble home
design is undertaken stability will be a major concern and care must be taken at every stage to
ensure that the stability (intact and damaged is adequate). To start with, however, it is preferable
to omit consideration of flare or tumble home as this will enable the use of data from previous
ships. Subsequently flare or tumble home could be added and the consequences determined by
direct calculation. In the case of tumble home although for the same waterline the GM will remain
unchanged there will be a significant reduction in shape of the GZ curve (max GZ, and range)
consequently consideration should be given from the earliest design stages to measures to try and
offset these anticipated reductions.
7.2.2 Commercial Ships
The basic minimum stability standards for commercial ships are defined for UK ships in the
Merchant Shipping (Load Line) Rules 1968 (Ref 6), based on the International Load Line
Convention (ILLC) of 1966. (For convenience of reference they are summarized at Annex B.)
These requirements define the magnitude and shape of the GZ curve; they do not consider the
interaction of disturbing moments caused by weather (e.g. wind heeling moment) on the GZ curve.
For some specialist ships which carry certain types of mobile cargo, there are higher standards
of intact stability. This concerns principally the carriage of grain in bulk and slurry carried by
dredgers. A good introduction to these requirements is provided by Watson in Ref.1. The actual
statutory requirements are to be found in SOLAS Chapter VI (Ref 7)

7.3 Damaged Stability, Subdivision and Freeboard
7.3.1 Warships
In warship design practice, the objective is that the ship should remain upright after flooding due
to underwater damage until flooding is so extensive that the reserve of buoyancy is overwhelmed
and the ship sinks. This will be by foundering, if flooding is symmetrical about amidships,
or by plunging if flooding occurs towards one end or the other. Capsizing can occur if the
loss of waterplane area due to flooding is sufficiently large for the reduction in BM to over-
ride the increase in KB, so that GM becomes negative. Even with a positive GM, if the GZ is
sufficiently impaired, the damaged ship could be vulnerable to capsize by rolling in strong beam
winds. However, the incorporation of moderate amounts of flare along the length will serve to
largely eliminate the risk of capsizing with damage centered on amidships, leaving plunging as the
main hazard (Ref.5)
A quick check on bulkhead disposition, which will have been undertaken in conjunction with
layout considerations in the initial sizing (see Chapter 2, Section 4), can be obtained by considering
the effect of the loss of 0.15L of the waterplane length. Ideally, bulkheads should be disposed to
avoid flooding more than three main compartments. Subsequently more extensive damage stability
calculations are to be performed in accordance with NES 109. For a warship - the main risks are
the large lengths of flooding associated with engine-room damage, and the large trim associated
with damage towards the stern of the vessel where the reserve of buoyancy may be limited. In the
extreme this could result in loss of the ship by plunging. As a general rule-of-thumb it is advisable
to treat No.2 deck as an unofficial margin line, so that there is some protection against excessive
stern trim.
Merchant ship requirements for freeboard, subdivision and damaged stability are governed by ILLC
66 and SOLAS 1974 (and its subsequent amendments).
Freeboard. Minimum freeboards are defined in ILLC 66 in terms of Type A (reduced freeboard
ships with no cargo hatches such as tankers) and Type B ships (applicable to majority of ships).
In addition there are some Type B concession categories for certain ships, if they can be shown
to survive specified amounts of damage. These are the so-called B-60 ships (1 compartment
damage) i.e freeboard is reduced by 60% of difference between Type A and Type B. In reality
these freeboards are to be considered as bare minima, which in the case of long bulk carriers have
been shown to be inadequate for good seakeeping.
Subdivision. In merchant ship design practice, concern is concentrated more on the retention of
some reserve of buoyancy, as represented by freeboard to the margin line, and this is the basis
of floodable length calculations. The approach leads to requirements for 1, 2 (and sometimes 3)
compartment standards according to the size and service of the ship - particularly as regards the
carrying of passengers. See References 1 and 6 for a description of the approach and damaged
stability requirements. SOLAS (Ref. 7) gives the various formulae for calculating the factor of
subdivision (F) dependent on ship type, service and number of passengers.
Damaged Stability. The calculation of damaged stability for merchant ships can be carried out using
a deterministic approach or alternatively using a probabilistic method.
The deterministic method is used in conjunction with the spacing of bulkheads dictated by
the factor of subdivision. SOLAS specifies an assumed amount of damage (3m + 3%L with a
minimum of 11m), and the required minimum GM and GZ characteristics after damage. (See Ref 1
for introduction and Ref 7 for actual rules)

In the probabilistic method, the designer is required to calculate a measure (the “Attained
Subdivision Index” A) representing the overall risk of loss of the ship, and to compare this with
a “Required Subdivision Index” R. The former is calculated by considering all the possible
compartment flooding combinations (either individually or in groups), and for each case calculating
the product of the probability (p) of flooding and the probability of survival (s) after flooding. The
factor A is effectively the summation of all the probabilities of the combinations (i):
i.e. A = ∑ pi .si
The values of p are determined using a formulaic procedure based on the subdivision arrangement,
whilst the values of s are determined by a formula using the magnitude and range of the GZ curve
for each damage combination. Ref.1 gives a good summary of the approach used.
The probabilistic approach has been available for many years for cargo ships and, recently, in 1990
was extended to passenger ships by IMO.
Whilst the probabilistic method has the virtue of logic and comprehensiveness, it has the demerit
of requiring a lot of work (to calculate all the GZ curves), and has an element of the “cook-book”
in the formulas used for the determination of (p) and (s). On the other hand the deterministic
regulations can be criticized for laying down subdivision requirements without reference to the
freeboard available (up to the bulkhead deck) and for anomalies such as the assumption that the
penetration of damage does not exceed a distance of B/5.
For the Ship Design Exercise it is unlikely that there will be sufficient time to carry out the
probabilistic analysis, and the student is therefore recommended to use the deterministic approach
in the first instance.
Ro-Ro Ferries. Students designing commercial Ro-Ro ferries or similar naval logistics ships with
large vehicle decks should be aware of the special SOLAS regulations which have come into force
as a result of the regrettable disasters which befell a number of car ferries in the 1980s and 1990s
(European Gateway (Ref. 8), Herald of Free Enterprise and Estonia) These regulations aim to
guarantee stability in the event of water entering onto the vehicle deck, with the consequential
catastrophic effect of large free surfaces. Ref 9 by Allen gives a good summary of these revised
regulations which were agreed in 1995 and the thinking behind them. The latest version of SOLAS
should be used for the actual rules. Students should also be aware of the considerable benefits of
flared hull-forms with buoyancy provided in longitudinal compartments outside of the vehicle deck.
Finally, although specific calculations are not required for the Ship Design Exercise consideration
should be given to the dangers of slow symmetric flooding. In the transitional state, before full
trim and sinkage has occurred, it is possible to incur a large free surface (in t5he machinery spaces)
before the beneficial ballasting effect of complete flooding has developed.
7.4 Margins for Stability
7.4.1 Warships
For naval vessels 3 types of margins are considered:

(i) Design (and Build) Margin
The Design Margin covers any increase in KG during detail design and the construction of
the ship.
A typical allowance is about 1.5% of KG in the Light Condition (i.e. 0.1m approx. for a
Frigate).
(ii) Board1 (or Customer’s) Margin

A Stability Margin is automatically included in the Board Margin as the additional weight is
placed on No. 1 Deck. For a Frigate a 2% Weight Margin represents a 1% KG Margin.
(iii) Growth Margin
The Growth Margin covers any increase in KG during the service life of the ship. For a
warship a typical allowance for 10 years in service is 3% on KG (light). This is assumed to
be coupled with a 5% increase in displacement over the same period (see Chapter 3.6). The
latter is significant for ships without flare as displacement growth causes a drop in KMt.
Alternatively, NES 109 provides the following guidance on through life margin policy:
"(1). Warships, 0.65 % p.a. increase in Basic Ship displacement and 0.45 % p.a. increase in
Basic Ship KG.
(2). RFA’s, 0.65 % p.a. increase in Basic Ship displacement, 0.40 % p.a. increase in Basic
Ship KG.
(3). Other auxiliary vessels which operate in coastal waters, 0.73 % p.a. increase in Basic
Ship displacement and 0.66 % p.a. increase in Basic Ship KG."
7.4.2 Margin Diagram
The Margins for Weight and KG, and their influence on GM in the Light Condition can be shown
on a Margin Diagram (see Fig. 7.3). This provides a useful indication of the effect of Displacement
and KG increase on Initial Intact Stability.
7.4.3 Allowable KG against Displacement
A more comprehensive analysis, using Sarchin ang Goldberg criteria, can be carried out to
determine Allowable KG against displacement (see diagram below). This will then provide
throughout the life of the ship an immediate check on the adequacy of the design against stability
criteria.
The situation on commercial ships appears to be simpler than for naval vessels with no equivalent
of the Board margin. Equally the literature is silent on the need for a Growth Margin of any sort.
(i) Lightship Design (and Build) Weight Margin
Watson (Ref 1) suggests a figure of about 2% should be assumed for the Lightship weight margin
in order to guard against erosion of deadweight capacity. This will affect stability calculations to
some extent.
(ii) Lightship VCG Margin

Watson (Ref 1) suggests that a figure of 0.1Ö D should be used for initial design.
7.5 Management of Trim/Calculation of Tankage Position
. In order to determine the length, location and usage of tanks, it is advisable to construct curves of
Cross Section Area distribution below:
(a) Lowest Deck (i.e. Double Bottom tankage).
(b) Lowest Deck + 1 (i.e. Deep tankage).
It is then possible to calculate the lengths of Double Bottom and Deep Tanks necessary to meet
volume requirements (see Chapter 5 for Dieso), and to balance their distribution about the LCB
such that trim can be managed as liquids are consumed. For commercial ships consideration must
be given to the quantity and position of segregated ballast tanks, to ensure adequate stability and
acceptable trim in the Ballast Condition.
Fig 7.1 Acceptable Standards for GM deep (Intact)

Fig 7.2 Initial Estimate of (KG/D Deep)

Fig 7.3 Margin Diagram

7.6 References
1. Watson D.G.M. “ Practical Ship Design” Elsevier 1998 ISBN 0-08-042999-8. In the NAME
Office Library - Ref 02.108/2.
2. Sarchin T. H. and Goldberg L. L. : ‘Stability and Buoyancy criteria for U.S. naval surface ships’,
SNAME Transactions 1962. (page )

3. Defence Standard 02-109 (NES 109) : “ Stability Standards for Surface Ships”.
www.dstan.mod.co.uk (page )
4. Rawson K. H. and Tupper E. C. : ‘Basic Ship Theory’, (Chapter 4), 3rd Edition, Butterworthss
London 2001. In the NAME Office Library.
5 Burcher R. K. : ‘The Influence of Hull Shape on Transverse Stability’, RINA Transactions Vol.
122, 1980. (page )
6. Merchant Shipping (Loadline) Rules. HMSO 1968 (Mandatory Codes in Schedules 4 and 7)
(Further details available from DOT (Marine Division) Library, Sunley House, 90, High Holborn,
London WC1).
7. SOLAS 1974 ( with consolidated amendments up to 2001), IMO London, 2001. In the NAME
Office Library.
8. SOLAS 2009. IMO London, 5th Edition, 2009. In the NAME Office Library.
9. Spouge J. R. : ‘The Technical Investigation of the Sinking of the Ro-Ro Ferry ‘European
Gateway’ RINA Transactions 1986 (page ).
10. Allen T 1997: The 1995 SOLAS Diplomatic Conference on Ro-Ro Passenger Ferries. RINA
Transactions 1998 (page ).
7.7 Definitions
7.7.1 Definition of Light Condition
The Light Condition of a ship may be defined as the Deep Condition minus:
1. 100% Fuel
2. 100% Fresh Water
3. 100% Provisions (Groups 721, 722)
4. 50% Naval Stores and Victualling Stores (Groups 71, 723 and 724)
5. Ammunition below KG (light)
7.7.2 Definition of Worst Seagoing Condition
The Worst Seagoing Condition is the Light Condition plus an amount of Fuel/Ballast water (to be
defined on a case by case basis) which the command would be instructed not to drop below.
It is generally not a situation which should be aimed for in Concept Design unless space exists for
dedicated Ballast Tanks.
7.8 Minimum Merchant Ship Intact Stability Rules
(Merchant Shipping Load Line Rules 1968)

1. The area under the GZ curve shall not be less than:
(a) 0.055 metre-radians (mrad) up to angle of 30 deg;
(b) 0.09 mrad up to an angle of 40 deg or the angle at which the lower edges of any
openings in the hull, superstructure or deckhouses, being openings which cannot be closed
weathertight, become immersed if the angle is less.
(c) 0.03 mrad between an angle of heel of 30 deg and one of 40 deg or such lesser angle as
referred to in (b)
2. The righting lever (GZ) shall be at least 0.20m at an angle of heel equal to or greater than 30
deg.
3. The maximum righting lever (GZ) shall occur at an angle of heel of not less than 30 deg.
4. The initial transverse metacentric height (GM) shall not be less than 0.15m. In the case of a
ship carrying a timber deck cargo which complies with sub- paragraph (1) by taking into account
the volume of the timber deck cargo the initial transverse metacentric height shall not be less than
0.05m
[1] For Navy Board
Notes
1. For Navy Board

8 Seakeeping
8.1 Introduction
The purpose of this chapter is to provide methods for the establishment of seakeeping assessment
criteria and the subsequent evaluation of performance. The approach described is closely based on a
methods advocated for warships by Crossland & Johnson (2000) with merchant ship criteria being
drawn from Khattub (2000) & Lloyd (1998).
Although seakeeping is evaluated late in the UCL ship design exercise its importance should not be
underestimated, it is a key element in distinguishing between good and bad designs. For example
the improved operational effectiveness of a large ship carrying the same weapon as a small ship
may only be apparent through the seakeeping analysis, furthermore poor seakeeping performance
may spell economic disaster for a passenger ship operator. Consequently seakeeping can be a vital
element of the cost effectiveness decision, and may well be a major influence in the decision on
platform type.
8.2 A logical approach to specifying seakeeping requirements and

evaluating performance
The approach adopted when setting and evaluating requirements should be a rational. Crossland,
Johnson (2000) have proposed the following logical steps:-

a) Mission What are the anticipated mission(s) of the ship? (either military or civilian). What
activities in support of the mission(s) will the ship be required to perform?
For a warship this may involve the operation of weapons, aircraft, sensors,
command and control, counter measures, ship systems etc.
For merchant ships the possibilities are highly diverse and may embrace highly
specialised activities eg cable laying, diving, through normal ship operation to the
leisure activities associated with cruising ie conveying passengers ashore in small
boats etc
b) What is the wind/wave environment in which the ship will operate (sea area and
Environment seasons)? What will be the mission speed profile of the vessel? Different activities
may be undertaken in different environments analysis should pay due regard to
these differences.
c) Motions Calculating the ship motions and related phenomena in the wave environment.
d) Criteria Applying ship systems performance criteria including the effects on personnel that
establish the link between ship motions and performing the required mission.
e) Condensing the large amount of information to produce measures of operability.
Performance
8.3 Missions And Support Activities
The key to assessing the seakeeping performance of any ship design is to establish a criteria set
against for the assessment. Crossland & Johnson suggest that the criteria set be assembled by
considering the mission and support activities the ship must perform. They consider specifically
naval missions and support activities see Table 1. The high diversity of activity found within
merchant ships makes the generation of a similar generalised table for all types of merchant ship
difficult. Table 2 shows one attempt at a similar approach, the mission activities have been split into
three types. Firstly those associated with transit between ports (typical of cargo vessels and ferries).
Secondly those associated with the leisure activities (typical of passenger ships) and thirdly those
associated with ships performing specified tasks at sea eg cable layers, diving support, FPSO’s,
drilling ships etc. The support activities are those normally undertaken in sheltered water / harbour
and include repair and maintenance or loading and unloading.
The activities, systems and tasks used for the mission must be defined before the designer can
select or define criteria for assessing the effects of ship motions and related phenomena on the
effectiveness of the ship. Additionally, each mission is also generally associated with a mission
speed profile representing the ships operation, in terms of the relative amount of time spent at
various ship speeds.
Table 3, reproduced from Crossland and Johnson (2000) shows the Mission / System Matrix
for a warship, which defines the systems that are used in the missions, and also emphasises the
interaction of these systems with the support activities. Table 4 shows a similar approach for
merchant ships. It should be noted however that Table 4 is not comprehensive and is included
to emphasis the need to consider the tasks the ship is required to undertake when determining
seakeeping performance. It is by establishing criteria associated with each activity / system that a
full criteria set can be assembled for use in any seakeeping assessment.

8.4 Specifiying The Environment
For a full seakeeping performance prediction, the designer will normally have to define sea area(s),
season(s), course(s)/heading(s), and wave spectra to be encountered. Furthermore in order to
ascertain that worst-case responses, investigations in long crested as well as short crested seas would
normally be performed. However time is limited in the ship design exercise and it may one be
possible to run one or two critical cases.
8.5 Ship Motions And Related Phenomena
The requirements for a new ship design identify what level of seakeeping performance is to be
achieved. Appendix 1 describes the various parameters used to describe seakeeping performance
and gives a range of limiting values used by previous designers.
8.6 Design Criteria
In most cases, merchant and naval ships have a variety of missions and support activities, many
of which are performed at the same time. It is useful to arrange the seakeeping criteria for these
different missions and activities in “mission criteria sets”. This approach provides a convenient way
to track seakeeping criteria through the performance assessment process. Crossland and Johnson
(2000) illustrate this for a frigate undertaking ASW operations, table 5 shows the mission criteria
set produced by Crossland and Johnson for the ASW mission, table 6 shows a similar set of criteria
produced for a cable laying ship by Khattab (2000) and table 7 a set for a trimaran by Anceriz
(2001). Tables 5,6 & 7 show both location-independent criteria (i.e. roll and pitch angles), and
location-dependent criteria
It is possible to reduce these sets by eliminating criteria that appear several times, leaving the lowest
set, ie. the most demanding. For example, the ASW operation in table 5 shows that the work of
personnel at the bridge, torpedo launch, and helicopter launch are all limited by roll: only the lowest
criterion, 2.5 degrees roll helicopter launch) need he used in calculations. Eliminating roll and pitch
angle criteria is easy to accomplish, as they are not tied to a particular location on the ship. It is
not a simple task to reduce location-dependent criteria, unless more than one is evaluated at the
same ship location. They should not be ‘ eliminated’ until preliminary motion calculations have
been made, as it is not always intuitively clear how variations in location will affect performance
predictions
8.7 Operability Assessment
Operational effectiveness in the context of seakeeping is a measure of the ability of the ship to put
to sea and achieve its mission under the environmental conditions encountered. This is defined
as the percentage of time the ship can perform in its allotted mission for a given combination of
environmental factors. Full operability calculations are rather complicated because they involve
predicting operability in all likely to be encountered wind and waves conditions and speed/heading
combinations. In this case there may be a trade off between meeting a specific seakeeping capability
and cost, based upon the probability of not being able to perform in some scenarios which occur
less frequently and are regarded as less important.

8.7.1 Operability Assessment in the Ship Design Exercise
It is unlikely that in the limited time available during the ship design exercise such a comprehensive
exercise can be undertaken, however it should be possible to perform a more limited analysis to
give a good indication of the seakeeping limits on the design. One possible approach would be to
determine for a range of speeds and headings and a given mission the limiting wave height and
hence sea state using the various criteria in appendix 1 (see figure 1). From a knowledge of the
probability of occurrence of each sea state in the area of operation (using wave atlas data, see
table 8 for a simplified presentation) it should then be possible to show the mission percentage
operability for a given speed (see figure 2). As part of the machinery selection process the marine
engineer will have produced a projected speed profile through life (figure 3). This can be used
to combine the mean percentage operability for a given speed figures (see figure 2) to produce a
percentage operability through life plot for that particular mission (figure 4).
From these plots it should be possible to determine aspects of the design where an improvement in
seakeeping performance is desirable. For example figure 4 shows a poor availability at low speeds,
an examination of figures 1 and 2 could reveal the cause to be excessive rolling, in this case it might
be sensible to add bilge keels
8.8 Effects Of Design Changes
Although roll damping may be increased by the addition of bilge keels or fins it is generally true to
say that seakeeping performance can generally only be changed by a significant modification to the
main dimensions of the ship. Seakeeping performance should be therefore be considered at the very
initial stage of the design process rather than being left to the optimisation phase when an indicative
design has already been defined along with its essential characteristic
Furthermore, it is important to note that the seakeeping performance, of a ship is strongly affected
by the layout. An alternative location where the seakeeping performance criteria are to be
evaluated, as a consequence of a different arrangement, may result in a large difference in the
overall ship operability without any change in the hull form. Placing the flight deck at amidships
rather than at the stern, is an example of such a change
8.9 References
Andrew R N, Loader P R, Penn V E. (1984), “The assessment of ship seakeeping performance in

likely to be encountered wind and wave conditions”. Proceedings RINA Inter national Symposium
on Wave and Wind Climate Worldwide, London
Anceriz A “Seakeeping & Fast Ferries” MSc Dissertation UCL 2001 (page )
Bales S L, Lee W T, Voelkeri M, (1981), “Standardised wave and wind environments for NATO
operational areas”, DTNSRDC/SPD-09 19-01. (page )
Colwell, J.L. (1994), “Motion sickness habituation in the naval environment”, DREA Technical
Memorandum 94/123. (page )
Crossland P and Johnson M C (2000) “Specifying and verifying good standards of seakeeping
performance in new warship designs.”
Crossland P, Rich K J N C, Granshaw D. (l997),”Validating a model fir predicting Motion Induced
Interruptions to task performance using simulated motions from the FFG-8 and Type 23 frigate”,
DERA Customer Report DERAISS/I-IE/CR97 10] 7

Fryer D K, Johnson M, Hawkes P J. (1994) “Model testing in natural seas” Int. Shipbuild. Progr 41
No.425 pp5-23. (page )
Graham, R, Juszko B .A. (1 993), “Parameterization of directional Spectra and its influence on ship
motion predictions”, J. Ship Res. 37/2, p. 138.
Graham, R., Baitis, A.E., and Meyers, WG. (1992), “On the development of seakeeping criteria”,
Naval Engineers Journal (page )
Hirayama T. (1992) “Advanced experimental techniques”. ITTC Seakeeping Committee Meeting,
Osaka.
Hogben, N., Dacunha N.M.C. and Olliver G.F (1986), Global Wave Slalistics, Unwin Brothers Ltd.
for British Maritime Technology.
Johnson MC. (1999),”Patop98 user guide”. DERA Technical Report DERA/MSS/TR990530
Khattab O (2000) “Development of Seakeeping Design Criteria for Displacement Hull Forms”
Lloyd A J R M (1998), SEAKEEPING Ship Behaviour in Rough Weather published by the author.
ISBN 0 9532634 0 1. LOCATED IN NAME OFFICE LIBRARY.
Lloyd, A.R.J.M. (1992), “The Seakeeping Design Package (S1)P) a technique for designing hull
forms for a specified seakeeping performance”, RINA Transactions 1992. (page )
Montgomery P. Crossland P. (1995), “User guide for the PA] -95 suite of ship motion computer
programs”. DRAIS S/S S SHE/CR95 030.
NATO NG/6 on Ship Design, Specialist Team on Seakeeping. Compiled by P Crossland. (1998),
“A rational approach to specifying seakeeping performance in the ship design process”, RINA
international conference WARSHIP ‘98, London. (page )
O’Hanlon, J.F. and McCauley ME. (1974), “Motion Sickness Incidence as a function of frequency
and acceleration of vertical sinusoidal motion”, Areospace Medicine. (page )
Ochi M K, Hubble EN (1976), “On six-parameter wave spectra”. l5th International Conference on
Coastal Engineering, Honolulu. (page )
Ochi, M.K. (1964), “Prediction of occurrence and severity of ship slamming at sea”. 5th
Symposium on Naval Hydrodynamics, Office of Naval Research
Takezawa 5, Hirayama T. (1992), “New experimental techniques in directional spectrum waves”
19th Symposium on Naval Hydrodynamics. Seoul, Korea.
8.10 Background Data
Table 1, Summary of Naval Missions and Support Activities

NAVAL MISSIONS SUPPORT ACTIVITIES
TAP Transit and Patrol NAO Naval Air Operations
ASW Anti-Submarine RAS Replenishment at Sea
Warfare
AAW Anti-Air Warfare WRL Weapon Systems
Reload
ASuW Surface Warfare MAR Maintenance and
Repair
MCM Mine Countermeasures

Table 2, Summary of Merchant Ship Missions and Support Activities
MERCHANT SHIP MISSIONS SUPPORT ACTIVITIES
TR Transit MAR Maintenance and
Repair
PLA Passenger Leisure UL Loading & Unloading
Activity
WK Deck Working
Table 3, Warship Mission / System Matrix

Missions Support Activities
TAP ASW AAW ASuW MCM NAO RAS WRL MAR
CIWS * * * *
Guns * * * * * *
Missiles * * * * *
Torpedoes * * * * *
Mines * * * * *
Helicopters * * * * * * * * *
Fixed wing * * * * * * * *
RPV * * * * * * *
VSTOL * * * * * * * *
Surveillance radar * * * * * * * * *
Target / Guidance * * * *
radar
Navigation radar * * * * * * * *
Hull mounted * * * *
sonar
Towed array sonar * * *
Variable depth * * * * *
sonar
Dipping sonar * * * *
Sonobuoys * * * * *
Infra red sensors * * * * *
Lascr sensors * * * * *
Visual sensors * * * * * * * *
Decision making * * * * * * * * *
Communications * * * * * * * *
Data Fusion * * * * * * * *
Chaff launchers * * * * *
ECM/ESM * * * *
Torpedo decoys * * * *
Mine * * * *
countermeasures
Ship hull * * * * * * * * *
Propulsion * * * * * * * * *
systems
Auxiliary systems * * * * * * * * *
RAS gear * *

Table 4, Merchant Ship Mission / System Matrix
Missions Support Activities
TR PLA WK MAR UL
Deck Sports *
Swimming Pool *
Water Sports *
Health spa/gym *
Leisure Disembarkation * *
Activity Embarkation * *
Restaurant *
Bar *
Casino *
Cinema *
Passenger Cabins *
Work activity Deck Handling *
Activity
Workshop *
processing
Aircraft Helicopters *
Navigation radar * * * * *
Hull mounted *
sonar
Sensors Towed array sonar *
Variable depth *
sonar
Dipping sonar *
Command Decision making * * * * *
and Control Communications * * * * *
Ship Hull * * * * *
Ship Propulsion * * * * *
Systems systems
Auxiliary systems * * * * *
Dynamic *
Positioning
Table 5, ASW Mission Criteria Sets, RMS limitations

Location Location dependent
independent
Roll (deg) Pitch (deg) No MII / min MSI Vacc Lacc
(%) (g) (g)
Deck 30
wetness /
hr
Slamming / 20
hr
Personnel, 4.0 1.5 1.0 20
bridge
Propeller 90
Emergency /
hr
Personnel 1.0 0.2 0.1
at flight
deck
sonar 24
emergence /
hr
towed 0.5
array
launch
torpedo 3.8 3.8
launch
helicopter 2.5 1.5
launch
Table 6, Cable Laying Ship - Seakeeping Limits (Khattab 2000)

Location Location Dependent
Independent
Roll Pitch (Deg)Vacc Lacc (g) Slams / Wetness/100
SM MSI (%)
(Deg) (g) 100 pitches
pitches
Bridge 5 0.15 0.05
Area
Workshop 2 0.05 0.02
&
Intellectual
work
Heavy 3 0.15 0.06
deck
work
Cargo 0.15
spaces
Bow 0.15 3 7-8
Launching 0.1 0.05
&
Retrieving
equipment
at the
stern
Stern 2-3
Heavy 35
work
Intellectual 20
work
Everywhere 2 7
Table 7, Trimaran - Seakeeping Limits (Anceriz 2001)

Location Location dependent
independent
Roll Pitch Slam SM MII / MSI LFE Vvel Vacc Lacc
(deg) (deg) min (%)
/hr (g) (m/s) (g) (g)
Deck 30
wetness /
hr
Slamming / 20
hr
Personnel, 5 1.0 20 0.28 0.4 0.2
bridge
Fore 0.55
Perp
Flight 5.0 3.0 20
deck
Global 8.0 3.0
Table 8, Simplified Sea State Statistics
Sea State Description of Wave Height World North Northern
Code sea Observed Wide Atlantic North
(m) Atlantic
0 Calm 0
(glassy)
1 Calm 0 - 0.l 11.25 8.31 6.06
(rippled)
2 Smooth 0.l – 0.5
(wavelets)
3 Slight 0.5 – 1.25 31.68 28.20 21.57
4 Moderate 1.25 – 2.5 40.19 42.03 40.99
5 Rough 2.5 - 4.0 l2.81 15.44 2l.24
6 Very Rough 4.0 – 6.0 3.02 4.294 7.0l
7 High 6.0 – 9.0 0.93 l.497 2.69
8 Very High 9.0 – 14.0 0.12 0.23 0.43
9 Phenomenal Over 14.0 0.0009 0.0016 0.0035
Figure 1 Limiting Wave Heights for a Given Mission

Figure 2 Percentage Time Operable at a Given Speed for a Given Mission
Figure 3 Through Life Speed Profile
Figure 4 Percentage Operability Through Life performing a Given Mission

8.11 Parameters used to define seakeeping performance
The following sections describe the various parameters that are frequently used to describe
seakeeping behaviour. Mathematical definitions of the various parameters are to be found in Lloyd
(1998)
The parameters fall into two types firstly simple measures which seek to describe ship motion
directly ie acceleration, velocity, relative motion etc and more complex parameters which attempt to
describe the affect of motion on human physiology.
8.11.1 Simple Measures of Ship Performance
8.11.1.1 Accelerations
Vertical & Lateral acceleration

Human performance is highly affected by acceleration level and frequency the following table gives
an indication of the effects:-
Effect of Acceleration on Human Performance (Khattab (2000))
Vertical Acc rms Description and Reference
0.275g Tolerable only for short periods on high speed
Craft, Conolly (1974), Beukelman (1977).
Simple light work. Most of the attention to keep
balance.
0.2g Light manual work to be carried out by people
adapted to ship motions. Causes fatigue and not
tolerable for longer periods, Baitis et al (1984).
0.15g Heavy manual work, fishing and supply boats.
0.lg Intellectual work as scientists on research
vessels. Long-term tolerable for the crew
according. Th international Standard ISO
2631/3 (1985) for half an hour exposure period
for people unused to shi motions.
0.05g Passengers on ferry. The international standard
for two hours exposure period for people
unused to ship motions Causes symptoms of
motion sickness in approximately 0% o of
unacclimatised adults. Goto (1983), Lawther &
Griffin (1980).
0.02g Passengers on a cruise liner. Older People. Close
to the lower threshold below which seasickness
is likely to take place, Lawther & Griffin (1985).
Limiting acceleration criteria are given in Lloyds (1998) and Khattab (2000) the following table
gives indicates limiting levels used in the past
Vertical Acceleration

Ship Type rms (g) Location Reference
Cargo Liner 0 225 Bow Aertssen (1968)
Cargo Liner 0.21 FP SR 108(1975)
Container 0.215 FP Kitazawa ci al (1975)
Container 0.215 FP Kim & Nakamura
(1984)
Cross-channel 0 25 Bow Aertssen (1968)
Merchant 0.392 Cargo spaces Chryssostomidis
(1972)
Merchant 0.204 FP Yamamoto (1984)
Merchant 0.20 FP Bau et al (1981)
Merchant 0.163 Bridge Yamamoto (1984)
Merchant 0.158 Working area Lewis (1955)
Merchant 0.15 Bow Hoffman (1976)
Merchant 0.15 Any location Giannotti et al (1977)
Merchant (full draft) 0.20 Bow Ochi & Motter (1974)
Merchant (light draft) 0.20 Bow Ochi & Motter (1974)
Merchant (125 m) 0.275 Bow Aertssen (1968)
Merchant (190 m) 0.175 Bow Aertssen (1968)
Merchant (260m) 0.125 Bow Aertssen (1968)
Merchant and Naval 0.2 FP Chilo & Sartori (1979)
Tanker (large) & Bulk 0.125 Bow Aertssen (1968)
Carrier
Trawler 0.35 Bow Aertssen (1968)
Warship Probability of Bridge Yamamoto (1984)
exceeding 0.4 =0.05
Warship 0.2 Bridge Comstock et al (1982)
Merchant 0.15 Bridge Norforsk standard
Cruise Liner 0.02 Bridge Norforsk standard
Allowable Limits of Lateral Acceleration

Ship Type Lateral Acceleration rms (g) Reference
Merchant Ship 0.5g as maximum value Hoffman (1976)
US Navy Survivability 0.25 Johnson et at (1979)
Threshold
US Navy Survivability 0.20 Bales et al (1981)
Threshold
Cargo Ships (Main Deck) 0.15 / 0.20 Karppinen et at (1986)
Merchant Ship 0.15 Hoffman (1976)
Large Container Ship (Main 0.12 Hoffman (1976
Deck
US Navy (Bridge) 0.10 Comstock et at (1980)
0% Human Performance 0.10 Hosoda et at (1985)
Danger Level for Helicopter 0.08 Lloyd et at (1985)
Operations
Safe Level for Helicopter 0.05 Lloyd et at (1985)
Operations.
Cargo Ship Demanding Work 0.06 Karppinen et al (1986)
100% Human Performance 0.05 Hosoda et at (1985)
Demanding work 0.05 Draft Int. Standard 87
Passenger Ships 0.05 Karppinen et at (1986)
Merchant Bridge 0.12 Norforsk standard
Cruise Liner Bridge 0.02 Norforsk standard
8.11.1.2 Slamming
Slamming occurs when the relative motion exceeds the draught and the relative velocity at impact
exceed a given threshold. The effect is a transient shock load which causes the ship to vibrate.
There may also be structural damage (either local or global). The magnitude of the effect depends
on the local shape with “V” sections performing better than “U” sections.
Limiting criteria are given in Lloyds (1998) and Khattab (2000) the following table gives indicates
limiting levels used in the past
Allowable Limit Slamming

Ship Type No. of Slams per 100 pitches Reference
(unless stated otherwise)
Merchant 2 Yamamoto (1984)
Merchant 1 Ship Building Research Assoc
of Japan
Merchant 3 or 4 Aertssen (1963, 66, 68,72)
Merchant 3 Ochi & Motter (1974)
Merchant 1 Chryssostomidis (1972)
Container 1 Kitazawa et al (1975)
Tanker 6
Warship 3 Walden & Grundmann (1985)
Warship 20/ hour Comstock et al (1982)
Warship 60 / hr at 0.15L Kehoe (1973)
8.11.1.3 Deck Wetness
Deck wetness is normally considered to occur when the relative motion exceeds the freeboard. This
is however a somewhat simplistic view, in reality the behaviour is more complex with the shape of
the bow region significantly affecting the wave profile and hence wetness. Deck wetness may be
reduced both by increasing freeboard and by designing the bow shape with care. In general fine
lines with a sharp stem together with an flare will have the affect of reducing wetness, however care
is necessary as excessive flare may amplify the waves and increase wetness (Khattab 2000). Deck
wetness may result in damaged equipment and impared deck activity.
Allowable Limit of Deck Wetness

Ship Type Number of Deck Wetness per Reference
100 pitch (unless otherwise
stated)
7 - 8 (extreme value) Aertssen (1968)
5 (operational value) Aertssen (1968)
8 -9 (container ship) Wahi (1979)
5 - 10 (free board limit) Karppinen & Aitta (1986)
2 - 3 (good measure of green Karppinen & Aitta (1986)
water incidence)
Merchant Ship 2 Ship Building Research Assoc
of Japan
Merchant Ship 7 Ochi - Motter (1974)
Merchant Ship 2 at FP Yamamoto (1984)
Warship 3 Walden & Grundmann (1985)
Warship 36 / hour Lloyd & Andrew (1977)
Warship 90 / hour Lloyd & Andrew (1981)
Warship 30 / hour Comstock et al (1982)
Merchant Ship 5 Norforsk standard
Warship 60 / hour at FP Kehoe (1973)
8.11.1.4 Propeller Emergence
Propeller emergence is said to occur when the relative motion is such that a proportion of the
propeller emerges from the water, typically a quarter of the diameter. This simplistic model ignores
modification of relative wave motion due to deformation of incoming wave by radiation and
diffraction. The behaviour may result in propeller racing which may cause engine damage
Allowable Limit of Propeller Emergence
Ship Type No. of Emergences Reference
per hr (unless otherwise stated)
Cargo liner 5 SRI08 (1975)
Container 50 Kitazawa et al (1975)
Merchant 50 - 125 Aertssen (1968)
Merchant Probability of 0.01 Ship Building Research Assoc
of Japan (1975)
Merchant Probability of 0.25 Aertssen (1963, 66, 68,72)
Merchant and Naval 120 Lloyd & Andrew (1977)
Warship Probability of 0.02 at FP Comstock et al (1982)

8.11.1.5 Roll and pitch angle
Roll motion induces both lateral acceleration and gravity loads, large roll angles make some tasks
very difficult to undertake
Limiting criteria are given in Khattab (2000) the following tables gives indicates limiting levels used
in the past
Allowable Roll Angle (Khattab (2000))
Ship Type Roll Angle rms deg Reference
Cargo Liner 6-7 SR108 (1975)
Container 6-7 Kitazawa et al (1975)
Cargo Liner 5 - 5.8 Aertssen (1977)
Container 3.4 Wahl (1979)
Naval Mono-hull 9.6 Olson (1977)
Naval Mono-hull 4.0 Comostock et al (1980)
SWATH 9.6 Olson (1977)
Hydrofoil 1.25 Stark (1977)
2000-3000 SES 1.5 Mandel (1979)
Naval Helicopter 3.2 Olson (1977)
Naval Helicopter 2.5 Comstock et al (1980)
Naval Mono -hull 9.6 Olson (1977)
Cruise Liner 2 Norforsk standard
Merchant 6 Norforsk standard
Allowable Limit of Pitch Angle (Khattab (2000))
Ship Type rms Pitch Angle, deg. Reference
Hydrofoil 1.5 Stark(1977)
2000-3000 tonne SES 1.5 Mandel (1979)
Naval Mono-Hull Helicopter 1.5 Comstock (1980)
Operation
Naval Mono-Hull Sonar 2.4
Research
8.11.2 Measures of Ship Performance which relate to human physiology.
8.11.2.1 Subjective Magnitude (SM)
Subjective Magnitude is an acceleration based parameter indicative of the performance of well

motivated and acclimatised ships crews. Human performance depends not only on acceleration but
also on encounter frequency and at the worst encounter frequency of 1.07 rad/sec Lloyd gives the
following relationship between acceleration and SM:-

Limiting criteria are given in Lloyds (1998) the following table gives indicates limiting levels used
in the past
Suggested Limits of Significant Motion SM

Ship Type SM Reference
Warship 15 Lloyd & Andrew (1977)
Trimaran 5 Anceriz(2001)
Warship 12 Lloyd & Andrew (1981)
8.11.2.2 Motion Sickness Incidence (MSI)
Motion sickness incidence is a measure of likely percentage of people who will be subject to motion
sickness and vomit within a two hour period, again it is strongly dependent on acceleration and
encounter frequency. Motion sickness rises to some maximum value shortly after exposure to ship
motions, than declines as the population becomes habituated
Suggested Limits of Motion Sickness Incidence (MSI) (Khattab (2000))
Ship Type MSI Reference
Naval Mono-Hull 20% in 2 hrs Olson (1977)
3350 tonne SWATH 20% in 2 hrs Olson (1977)
Hydrofoil 10% in 4 hrs Stark(1977)
2000-3000 tonne SES 10% in 2 hrs Mandel (1979)
Trimaran 20% Anceriz(2001)
Naval Monohull 20% in 2 hrs Olson (1977)
Sonar research
8.11.2.3 Lateral Force Estimator
Lateral Force Estimator is the lateral acceleration experiences at a given position on a deck
perceived by a person or object on the deck. It is the acceleration which will tend to cause objects
or personnel to topple or slide across the deck.
Suggested Limits of Lateral Force Estimator LFE (Anceriz (2001))
Ship Type LFE Reference
Trimaran 0.28g Anceriz(2001)
8.11.2.4 Motion Induced Interruptions (MII)
Well acclimatised and experienced crews may perform well despite seasickness. MII describes to
interruption to work caused by slipping and tripping and hence the need to use one hand to hang
on. Hence it can be regarded as a measure of the interruption to work caused by sever weather. .
MII predicts only number of MII expected, not severity; the consequence of an MII is very
important in determining what level of risk is acceptable for any particular task being assessed.

9 Structure
9.1 Weight Estimation
An important part of the ship sizing process is the estimation of Structural Weight. For warships
it represents 30% approx. of Total Weight and 50% of Dry ship Weight. For merchant ships, the
proportion is generally somewhat lower, but still significant. Initially this estimate must be based
on the assumed values of Volume, Displacement and dimensions (see Chapter 2-3) and determined
by the use of formulae or scaling from a suitable data base.
Most ship types fall into discreet bands of Structural Weight Fraction (Ws/W) and Structural
Density (Ws/V) as is shown below
Structural Weight will be driven by a mixture of the Loading requirements and the envelope
function of enclosing a given volume. Apart from Still Water primary Loading, which is Weight
sensitive, all other forms of Loading (e.g, Wave Induced primary Loads, Transverse Loads) are
principally determined by dimensions.
Therefore, on balance it is probably justified to calculate Structural Weight initially from an
assessment of dimensions and Total volume, rather than Weight. The use of Total volume alone is

only justified if the form parameters, and in particular Length to volume ratio, fall within the data
base of a given ship type.
It is this latter simplified approach which is used in the Ship Design Exercise for the initial estimate
of Structural Weight.
Warships Merchant Ships
Monohulls Ws = 0.0762V Ws = 10KV0.91
(see Annex 9A for values of K
and derivation)
SWATH Ws = 0.08V (or 0.4W) ---
(preferable to use Weight
Fraction)
An intermediate and more refined estimate of Structural Weight - before any Structural design has
occurred - can be achieved by examining Sub-Group and Sub-Sub-Group breakdowns of existing
ship types, and applying appropriate scaling laws. This approach is often deprecated as being
'unscientific' but is probably essential for residual items such as minor structure, brackets, seatings,
supports, etc., which are not readily amenable to analytic calculation until the final design phase.
Analytic approaches also have the tendency of omitting certain 'unexciting' detail and therefore of
undercalling the estimate.
Once one or more Structural Sections have been synthesised it is then possible to proceed to
analytic methods of structural weight and c of g estimation, combining Wt.Area of Hull, Deck and
Bulkhead structure with calculated surface areas. Computer programs are available to assist in the
design of the Midship Section. It is important that this is done before the final Stability analysis is
carried out.
9.2 Estimation of Primary Loading
The Primary Loading acting on a Hull Girder is composed of a Still Water and Wave Induced
component. It will be of benefit to later discussion to consider the separate dependence of these
contributions to dimension, weight and weight distribution.
Still Water Bending Moment Msw ∝ µ WL f (Wt distribution)
Wave Induced Bending Moment Mwi ∝ µ BL2h f (Waterplane Area)
where W is Weight, L is Length and h is Wave Height.
9.2.1 Still Water Loading
Still Water Loading (i.e., Shear force and Bending Moment) should be calculated directly from an
estimate of mass and buoyancy distribution.
For warships SWBM will be of Hogging sign.
Msw / WL = 50 - 100 Nm/tonne m
9.2.2 Wave Induced Loading
Extreme Wave Induced Loading (comprising buoyancy and whipping effects) can be estimated by
formulae in the early design stages or simulated by a static balance approach.
9.2.3 Most probable Extreme Values
The Most Probable Extreme values for Sagging and Hogging Wave Induced Bending Moment
& Shear Force amidships (corresponding to a Probability of Exceedance PL1 = 3.3 x 10-8) can be
found using Lloyds rules (Volume 1 Part 5 Chapter 4 for the warship rules)
Alternatively the Most Probable Extreme values can be determined by a Static Balance calculation
of the wave induced component using the method described in Chalmers “Design of Warship
Structures” ie using an 8m wave of length equal to the ship length. Computer programs are
available to assist with this.
The Wave Induced Loading calculated above will correspond to a ship life of 3 x 107 wave periods
- with mean wave period equal to 7.2 secs. Should a greater ship life be required then the results
can be extrapolated as shown below.
9.2.3.1 Design Extreme Loading (Wave Induced)
Design Extreme Wave Induced Loading (corresponding to a Probability of Exceedance with the
ships life of 1% i.e., PLN = 0.01) can be estimated from the Most Probable Extreme values by
factoring them by 1.54 if Chalmers (ie the 8m wave) has been used and by 1.5 if the formula in
Lloyds rules is used.
Msagwide = 1.54 Msagwi
Mhogwide = 1.54 Mhogwi
where wide is design extreme
9.2.3.2 Combined Design Extreme Loading
The Wave Induced Design Extreme Values must now be added to the Still Water Bending Moment
to determine the Combined Design Extreme Loading.
Msag = Msagwide + Msw
Mhog = Mhogwide + Msw
9.2.3.3 Design Extreme Shear Force
Design Extreme Shear Forces can be calculated in an analogous way to Bending Moment using as
a start point a static balance calculation to determine Wave Induced Most Probable Extreme values.

These must then be factored by 1.54 (or 1.5) for Design Extreme Values. The maximum quartile
values should be used for this procedure.
9.2.3.4 Distribution of Extreme Loading along Ship
The above procedure for Bending Moment and Shear Force has only considered maximum values.
It is also necessary to be able to define values at other positions in the ship.
The distribution of Bending Moment along the ship should be factored by static balance results,
taking the Design Extreme values amidships as references.
An allowance should also be made for slam induced bending moment away from amidships (see
Chalmers).
For shear force, the distribution up to quartile points should be factored from the static balance
results, but a linear distribution assumed between them.
9.3 Criteria for Design of Midship Section
The Midship Section should be designed to satisfy the following Hull Girder criteria:
(i) Extreme Loading

Mcrit (strength deck) / Msag = 1.1 = Mcrit (outer bottom) / Mhog
where Mcrit = fsy Z [for Strength Deck Outer Bottom] and f is Compressive Strength factor.
(ii) Fatigue Loading
σR = ( 1Msag1 + 1Mhog1 ) / Z
For the strength deck and outer bottom, and
σR ≤ [loge . N / PLN] [ A / ( N Γ (b + 1) ) ]1/b = σF
A and b being Fatigue constants for specific material and σF being permissible Stress Range.
An allowance of 5% should be made for Whipping induced stress cycles, and a further
reduction for any macro stress concentrations.
Empirically warship 2nd Moment of Area values (Iyy) are given by the following formula:
Iyy = 0.814 . [ BD3 / 103 ]
where B, D are in Metres and Iyy is ex superstructure.
For designs with a large number of internal decks (e.g., LPD's, Aircraft Carriers), and low L/D
rations, it is unlikely that primary Loading will be critical. Other considerations such as secondary
and tertiary loading may set a minimum on effective thickness. Designs should therefore be wary
of falling too far below the above empirical formula in the early design stages.
Merchant Ships should be designed to classification society rules, and checked using the rational
method outlined above.
9.4 Effect of Superstructure Proportion in Structural Weight
Superstructure proportion can have a significant effect on Structural weight - in particular the
longitudinal structure contributing to Hull girder strength.
For Monohull escorts a high Superstructure proportion can be arranged to give a continuous 01
deck in the midship region, thereby effectively increasing Hull Girder Depth. While this leads to an
improvement in structural efficiency, a more powerful effect is that for a constant Volume increases
in Superstructure proportion will naturally lead to a reduction in length of the Main Hull. This
can be expected to reduce primary Loading quite considerably, and hence Structural Weight. If a
structurally efficient superstructure deck can be arranged this will be an added bonus.
A low superstructure proportion, on the other hand, will lead to a long Main Hull, and by being
distributed into small blocks will not be able to contribute to Hull Girder strength.
9.5 L/D ratio of Main Hull
L/D ratios greater than 14 will lead to considerable weight penalties.
9.6 Primary Structure Design of SWATHs
The following structural calculation should be carried out for SWATHs, analogous to the Midships
Section synthesis for monohulls.
(i) Loading
a) Estimate Still Water Loading of Box and Struts (i.e., Bending Moment and Sheer force on
Box, vertical thrust on Strut).
b) Most probable Extreme Wave Induced Transverse Load.
PL1=3.3x10-8
For a Single Strut
FT / ∆ = 7.94 ∆-0.23
For a Twin Strut
FT / ∆ = 4.26 ∆-0.23
where ∆ is in tonnes
(c) For Design Extreme values factor the above by 1.4.

From this calculate
• Bending Moment and Horizontal Thrust on Box.

• Bending Moment and Horizontal sheer force on Strut.

(ii) Section Synthesis
From the loading above, carry out design of Centre Line Section of Box, and Haunch Section of
Strut, meeting Extreme and Fatigue criteria. (See also Ref. 4 of annex 2D.)

10 Estimates of Cost
10.1 Introduction
It is essential part of any design project to be able to estimate cost with reasonable accuracy at an
early stage in the design process. Only in this way will it be possible to investigate the trade-offs
between fighting capability and cost for a warship, or to include capital cost in an economic analysis
of a proposed merchant ship design.
To make the cost estimate as accurate as possible it is desirable to attack the problem by summing
the equipment costs as far as these are known. For a warship the only systems and equipment
which are known at an early stage are major weapon systems, propulsion systems and perhaps some
‘power supply’ equipment (e.g. generators, chilled water plants). This however leaves unaccounted
the ship installation cost of the above, and many other systems and equipment of which little
is known in detail. For this majority of the design, cost estimates must be based on historical
regression data plotted against various parameters which are available to the designer. Typical
parameters which are used are Group weights, volumes, areas and powers. Experience will usually
dictate which is the most reliable method. For example structural cost is usually based on eight,
while the electrical generation Group may be based on power supplied. For obvious reasons this
general approach to the problem of cost estimating is known as Parametric Costing.
There are a number of levels of sophistication employed in Parametric Costing. Cost Data may be
applied at Group, Sub-Group or even sub-Sub Group level. It can simulate both material and labour
costs, or it may be possible to estimate these separately. For example warship cost data is usually
combined (see paragraph 2), while the merchant ship data is separated (see paragraph 3).
The parametric cost data must be used with some care. In particular the designer must ensure that it
is appropriate to the sophistication/technology level of the system which he or she is designing. For
example longitudinal structure costs more per tonne than transversely framed structure due to the
higher labour costs involved. It also goes, almost without saying, that a cost must be quoted relative
to a given financial year (e.g. 98/99).
So far we have discussed the method used for the estimation of Unit Production Cost
(UPC). Within the total project cost for a class of ship, however, there are additional ‘start-up’ costs
such as the design itself, development costs, shore test facilities and tooling/jigs etc. There are also
the ‘through-life’ costs of stores, fuel, repair and maintenance etc. to consider. Ref 1 provides a
good insight into the complexities of costing warships in general. Ref 5 contains a more recent
review of data available to assist in warship costing . Ref 2 provides background to the costs to be
considered in merchant ship design.
Below a summary is given of the parametric costing methods for warships and merchant ships to be
used in the Ship Design Exercise.

10.2 Initial Estimate of Warship Cost
10.2.1 ‘Platform’ Cost
In the Ship Design Exercise the so called ‘Platform’ cost should be estimated using Cost data for the
following weight groups:
1. Hull
2. Personnel
3. Ship Services
4. Propulsion
5. Electrics
6. Payload
A complete costing procedure and data is given in the Ship Data book for warships. The cost of
weapon equipment is determined directly from a summation of individual costs. To this should
be added a Design Contingency (typically 5%) and Industrial Contingency (typically 10%). The
Design Contingency quoted is applicable to standard monohull designs, using tested technology,
with a controlled element of risk. Advanced Naval Vehicle with greater technological risk may need
to use higher figures.
10.2.2 Payload Cost
The cost of payload items are to be individually costed. A list of the majority of likely items is
given in the Ship Data Book. The cost of weapon systems is for control equipment, launchers,
sensors and other hardware items purchased by the shipbuilder or supplied to him by the procuring
authority (i.e. Admiralty Supplied Items ASIs). It excludes ship installation costs (as already
explained), software costs, and development costs. Ammunition, missiles, and other variable
load items are also not attributed to the warship (UPC). This logic also applies to the cost of
helicopters. (However in the Ship Design Exercise, Design Groups should be prepared to quote
helicopter cost if these form part of the ‘permanent’ outfit of the ship).
The data given in the Ship Data Book is FOR EXERCISE PURPOSES only and will not
correspond exactly to negotiated prices. In view of the above omissions from the cost of weapon
systems, and to account for some of the likely development problems, additional contingencies are
quoted in the Ship Data Book. These cover both design and industrial uncertainties.
10.2.3 Propulsion System Cost
The Propulsion System cost can be refined by summing the cost of individual equipments (e.g. Gas
Turbines), leaving the residue of items to be costed by a parametric method.
Some typical costs are given in the Ship Data Book. The Marine Engineers should lead this
component of the costing exercise.
10.2.4 First of Class Costs
This is not quoted as part of the UPC but is typically of the order of 10-20%. It covers most of the
‘start-up’ costs attributable to the platform mentioned in paragraph 1.

10.2.5 Cost Basis for Choice of Dimensions and Machinery Installation
The choice of dimensions and size of machinery installation has a considerable bearing on fuel
consumption and hence life-time fuel costs. Thus a cost basis which is used to select dimensions
and machinery should include fuel costs as well as initial installation costs.
Furthermore, the choice of machinery affects the number of watchkeepers required, which in turn
influences the complement and the gross volume of the ship (and hence the Hull cost).
The basis for the selection of dimensions and machinery will be:
The minimum sum of:
1. Initial Cost - as described above.

2. Fuel Costs - over a 20 year period at present day prices, assuming that average time spent at sea
is 5000 hrs/year following the operation patterns described in Chapter 5.
3. Manpower Cost.
10.2.6 Life Cycle Costing
It has long been argued that Life Cycle Costing is the only rational method of assessing the true
cost of ownership, as opposed to acquisition. Figure 10.1 is a typical Life Cycle cost profile for a
warship. Ref 3 and Ref 5 provide more detail on this matter.
In reality Life Cycle Costing has yet to be widely accepted for warships. This is due in part to a
paucity of data (in truth a symptom rather than a cause), but more importantly reflects the emphasis
given to the ‘short term’ by most defence administrations. In the UK this is encouraged by the
Defence Vote System which compartmentalizes project costs, and the competitive procurement
environment amongst the three Services. This favours the lowering of acquisition costs - to obtain a
‘foot in the door’ - and a ‘beggar myself tomorrow’ mentality.
10.2.7 Ship Datum Costs
As some Target Costs for the Ship Design Exercise are quoted relative to existing designs, The
comparitive costing of a T23 undertaken in Ref 5 may be if interest.
10.3 Initial Estimate of Merchant Ship Cost
Merchant ships can be differentiated from warships in that the payload is usually part of the
Variable Load (i.e. cargo) and is not fixed (i.e. as with weapon systems).
The payload (if cargo) does not therefore represent an element of the capital cost. The ‘platform’
cost of a merchant ship - the Lightship cost - is composed of three Groups:
1. Structure.
2. Propulsion and Machinery.
3. Outfit.
Proportionally these will be more important as cost fractions than for warships, where the fixed
payload tends to dominate. (E.g. for a tanker, structure represents 50% of cost, whereas for a
frigate it is about 10%).

In view of the small number of Groups it is normal for merchant ship parametric costing data to be
available for both the material and labour components of the above.
A typical parametric formula is that give in Ref [4], and is reproduced below:
The formula is split into three components describing the following three areas:
1. Steelwork
1. Labour
2. Materials
2. Outfit
1. Labour
2. Materials
3. Machinery
1. Labour & Materials
where L = Length Between Perpendiculars (in metres), WS the Steel weight (in tonnes), WO the
Outfit weight (in tonnes) and PS the Service Power of Main Engines (in bhp). A’, B’, C’, D’ and
E’ are factors embracing wage rates, allowances, overall productivity levels, assumed overheads
and profit, material costs, wastage and allowance, delivery and handling charges and distributed
allocation of service and miscellaneous costs.
Data for use in this formula is given in the Ship Design Data Pack, using certain stated
assumptions. Students should consult Ref [4] themselves, and are at liberty to propose more suitable
factors should this be appropriate to their design.
10.4 Example of life cycle cost assesments
Figure 1 Life Cycle Costs - 3000 Tonne Figate

Figure 2 Life Cycle Costs - 140000 Tonne dwt Bulk Carrier
10.5 References
1. D. K. Brown and D. Andrews. ‘Cheap warships are not simple' - SNAME, Symposium on Ship
Costs and Energy, 1982. (page )

2. Marine Transport Centre, University of Liverpool. ‘Containers and their Competitors’. In
NAME office - Ref. 6.08/5.
3. K. J. Rawson. ‘Toward Economic Warship Acquisition and Ownership’ - RINA 1973. (page
)
4. J. Carreyette. ‘Preliminary Ships Cost Estimation’ - RINA 1978. (page )
5. Dirksen, G, Consideration of Warship Costs, UCL MSc Dissertation 1996 (page )

A Appendix
A.1 Computer Programs for the Ship Design Exercise
A.1.1 Initial Sizing
A.1.1.1 Sizing Calculation
Several programs have been written to assist with initial sizing at various times. However, in recent
years, most students have found that implementing the weight/ volume scaling algorithms from the
data book and the procedure shown in Figure 5 of Chapter 2 using a spreadsheet, has proved most
effective. An alternative to the spreadsheet would be to use a mathematically explicit program such
as MathCad with the MathConnex overlay to provide a suitable structure.
A.1.1.2 Powering Calculation
Power speed calculations should be carried out using a method appropriate for the vehicle type.
For monohulls, trimarans or pentamarans this could be Taylor Gertler, Series 64, or other series
as appropriate. One attractive method has been to use Holtrop and Mennen (Principles of Naval
Architecture) as this avoids the requirement to refer to curves for residuary resistance, and can be
readily implemented in either a spreadsheet of MathCad program. Holtrop and Mennen relies on a
general curve fit and should therefore be validated against a similar vessel with a well established
resistance curve before it can be used with confidence.
Two computer programs are available: -
1. S64 for Series 64 calculations

2. POWSPD which includes a calculation using the Holtrop method.
(In the latter stages of design ParaMarine or Tribon can be used for power speed calculations)
For SWATHs two programs are available SWANLEY and CHAPMAN however previous
students have frequently arranged with Quinetiq Haslar to run their SWATH resistance program
(SWATHRES), Initial contact should be through the UCL staff. These codes are also useful
for resistance estimates for other marine vehicles with one or more SWATH type hull, such as
HYSWAS or TRISWACH

A.1.2 Parametric Survey
The situation is similar to initial sizing in that although specific computer programs exist to assist
with the parametric survey most students find a spreadsheet best.
A.1.3 Detailed Design.
A.1.3.1 Hull Form Development
Students are advised to directly develop a hullform in Paramarine on Tribon. A number of different
approached to hullform generation are possible which are outlined in the Paramarine tutorials
within the Department.
A.1.3.2 Intact Stability
The Paramarine & Tribon computer system are available to assist with this analysis, and may if the
ship is modelled in a suitable way be used to evaluate not only monohulls but also trimarans.
A.1.3.3 Damage Stability
The Paramarine & Tribon computer system are available to assist with this analysis.
A.1.3.4 Structure
In Paramarine it is possible to calculate bending moments allowing critical sections to be designed.

Structure can also be designed on a panel by panel basis and structural weight estimated. The
calculations are simple however and a spreadsheet could easily be used.
A.1.3.5 Propeller Design
The Paramarine & Tribon computer systems contain propeller design algorithms, however 20” data
is available in the NAME library and a hand calculations is certainly quicker.
A.1.3.6 Seakeeping
Seakeeping analysis programs are available within Tribon. SHIPMO and TRIMO programs from
MARIN are also available.
A.1.3.7 Layout
Programs have been produced to assist with laying out the ship; the most recent of these is
CEASAR which takes the form of an AutoCAD overlay. For most students however the approach
adopted has been simply to use AutoCAD itself.
A.1.4 User manuals
User manuals for the programs mentioned above are available in the Naval Architecture CAD room

A.1.5 References
Principles of Naval Architectur,e SNAME
A.2 Parametric Survey
A.2.1 Introduction to Parametric Survey
The following describes the general procedure for guidance in undertaking the parametric survey. It
is a little simplistic and may be refined to consider further variables if a computer based sizing
approach has been adopted.
In the early stages of the design there is considerable freedom to alter the shape of the ship. It is
convenient to think of the ship as made of rubber. It can be deformed as we wish, stretched a little
but is almost incompressible.
Before discussion of efficient shapes it is necessary to define the range of feasible dimensions and
form parameters.
A.2.2 Parametric Definition of Monohull Form
At the simplest level the following dimensions and parameters will be used.
To define Underwater Form
Length L
Beam B
Draught T
Prismatic Coefficient Cp
Mid Section Coefficient Cm
Block Coefficient Cb ( = Cp.Cm )
For the above water form we need the additional parameters
Main Hull Depth D
Waterplane Area Coefficient Cw
Superstructure Proportion vs ( = Vs / V )
Using these basic parameters the expression for a ‘wall sided’ form will be as follows
Total Volume V = Vm + Vs
Main Hull Volume Vm
Superstructure Volume Vs
Displacement Volume ∇= LBT Cp Cm = W / ρw = LBT Cb / density of water
Main Hull Volume Vm = LBT [Cb + Cw (D/T - 1)]
A further useful definition is
Displacement proportion ρ̅ = ∇ / V (Referred to hereafter as overall ‘density’.)

A.2.3 Constraints/Requirements imposed on Parametric Survey
In considering the various possible combination of Form Parameters and Dimensions the following
constraints are imposed
(i) Space Balance, where Volume Required = Volume Available
Vreq = V
(ii) Weight - Displacement Balance
W = Δ = ρw [ L B T Cb ]
i.e. Ship must float at Design Waterline such that desired Underwater Form parameters are
achieved.
(iii) Stability Balance
GM = GMreq
i.e. Ship dimensions/form parameters must provide sufficient GM for stability. Excessive GM
over GMreq will tend to produce roll rate problems.
The above constraints will yield consistent sets of D, vs, Cb, L, B, T. These candidate forms
must then be assessed against the various performance requirements of the design.
• Layout
• Payload Effectiveness
• Speed
• Seakeeping
• Survivability
• Cost etc.
A.2.4 Parametric Survey Strategy
In the first instance it is advisable to approach the Parametric Survey in two stages:
(i) Major Parametric Survey
vary
• vs - Superstructure proportion
• D - Main Hull Depth (and by implication the number of internal decks nd)
holding form parameters Cb and Cw at constant median values.

(ii) Minor Parametric Survey
Having selected values of vs, nd it is possible to consider the effect of varying, Cp, Cm and Cw
away from the median values of Cb and Cw.
For the purpose of illustration it has been assumed that Weight (W) and Volume (V) are
independent of dimensions. This is not strictly correct, but is acceptable for small variations
in dimensions (if a computer based sizing method has been used this assumption is not
necessary).

A.2.5 Major Parametric Survey
The basic mechanism by which Superstructure Proportion (vs) and the number of internal decks
(nd) (and hence depth) influences dimensions is outlined below.
(i) The Initial Sizing indicates:
Weight = W
Volume = V
∇ = W / ρw
and hence overall ‘density’ (ρ̅ ) or displacement proportion is given by
ρ̅ = ∇ / V
(ii) The proportion of volume in Superstructure (vs) is selected where:
vs = Vs / V
hence the ‘density’ of the Main Hull will be:
ρ̅m = ∇ / ( V - Vs ) = ρ̅ / (1 - vs)
For Typical values of vs and ρ̅m see Fig. B.1.
(iii) Using the ‘wall sided’ model for the Main Hull
∇ = L B T Cb
Vm = L B T [ Cb + Cw (D/T -1) ]
The ‘Density’ of the Main Hull is therefore
ρ̅m = ∇ / Vm = Cb / [ Cb + Cw (D/T -1) ]
(iv) An initial Depth is selected to be consistent with the need to provide sensible multiples of Deck
Height (i.e. D = nd Δh + R) or (i.e. D = ( nd - 2) Δh + M).
where Δh is Deck Height (approx. 2.5m), M is Machinery Space Depth, R is Double Bottom
Residue and nd is the number of internal decks.
and where Δh is consistent with value used in initial sizing.

The range of depths available to the monohull designer will in fact be restricted to the following
discreet steps.
Min Depth (with 2.5m Deck Height and Minimum double bottom height of 0.8m for illustration)
D1 min = 2.5 + 0.8 = 3.3m
D2 min = 5.0 + 0.8 = 5.8m
D3 min = 7.5 + 0.8 = 8.3m - (1 internal deck over Main Mcy space)
D4 min = 10.0 + 0.8 = 10.8m - (2 internal decks over Main Mcy space)
etc.
It follows that the corresponding maximum depths (where R = 3.3m) are:
D1 max = D2 min = 5.8m
D2 max = D3 min = 8.3m
etc.
The exact depth retained will be dictated by the relative need for Tankage Volume below the lowest
deck and deck area. As ship size increases the weight fraction devoted to fuel tends to decrease
(for given Range and Speed) and hence Hull Depth will tend towards the minimum values. As ship
size decreases, however, a greater proportion of volume will be devoted to tankage and hence Hull
depths will move away from the minimum values.
These observations are borne out by observation of typical ships.
Of the above minima listed the first option of 3.3m-4.0m will be too restrictive from a machinery
point of view, and offer too little freeboard for ocean going service. For most ships the first option
will around 5m irrespective of size.
(v) From the value of Depth (D) selected the requirement for Main Hull ‘Density (ρ̅m) dictates the
Draught (T) from the relationship.
ρ̅m = ∇ / Vm = Cb / [ Cb + Cw (D/T -1) ]
or rearranging

D/T = (Cb / Cw) [ (1 / ρ̅m ) - 1 ] + 1
The above relationship is independent of Beam which must be determined from the stability
constraint (see (vi)). It also illustrates an important point. As Main Hull Density is increased by
an increase in Superstructure proportion (vs), the value of D/T will decrease. In other words for a
given depth, Draught will increase.
(vi) Beam (B) is derived to satisfy the Stability/Roll rate criteria
GM = GMreq
At this level of definition GM can be expressed as
GM = KB + BM - KG
from Morrishes formula
KB = [5/6 - Cb / ( 3.Cw ) ] T
BM = [ Cit kb2 / (12 Cb) ] T
KG = f(vs, D)
(see fig. 7.2 Chapter 7)
At UCL the following empirical expression has been derived for the mean value of KG (Deep)
KG = [ 0.455 + 0.18 vs +1.29 vs2 ] D
with a coefficient of variance vkg of 0.05
An additional factor ( 1 + n vkg ) should be used for flared hull forms where n = 1 → 2
The value of required GM (GMreq) is determined from an empirical/theoretical plot.
The UCL variant of this is given in Fig. 7.1 of Chapter 7.
GMreq= f(D, ρ̅m, vs) (for Deep Condition)
The requirement is equality between GM and GMreq determines kB = B / T as the value of all other
variables is known.
GMreq= (5/6 - Cb / 3.Cw ) T + [ Cit kb2 / (12 Cb) ] T - [KG/D] D
(see Chapter 7 Stability for further discussion on effect of various parameters)
(vii) At this stage a review of the resultant values of D, T and B should be carried out. Assuming
that the cross-sectional dimensions are satisfactory, Length is derived from either the Volume or
Displacement values.
L = ∇ / ( B T Cb ) = Vm / ( B T (Cb + ( D/T - 1 )Cw)
Hence to summarize the process is as follows:
• The overall ‘density’ yielded by the Sizing Process plus the Superstructure
proportion determines the Main Hull Density.
• The number of internal decks dictates the Depth
• The Depth and Main Hull Density determines Draught for an assumed set of Form Parameters
• The empirically required GM, Depth, Draught and the relative depth of KG determine Beam.
• Given the above cross-section dimensions of Depth, Draught and Beam (and the assumed
Form Parameters) a certain Length is required to generate the basic Displacement and Volume
of the ship.

The procedure outlined above in steps (i)-(vii) should be carried out for a range of
• Superstructure Proportion (vs)

• Main Hull Depth (D)
yielding windows of consistent dimensions of T, B and L for median values of Cb, Cw.
A suitable presentation is shown in Figs. B2-B3.
It is now necessary to determine a suitable combination of Superstructure Proportion and nd (& D
min) for further parametric examination using the Minor Parameters.
The Minimum Superstructure proportion (vs min) can be assessed by consideration of Conning,
Payload requirements and other essential space demands on the upper Deck.
A sensible length range (from a hydrodynamic point of view) is given by consideration of Relative
Length M=L / ∇0.3. Values should lie in the range 5-9.
Values less than 5 will present severe R and P penalties if wavemaking drag is significant. Values
higher than 9 will present Seakeeping and Structural Strength problems.
Consideration should also be given to any absolute limits on length (e.g. Docking or Upper Deck
Layout).

Depth should be considered in discreet bands corresponding to the number of internal decks and
the need for Double Bottom volume.
Ultimately the choice presented to the designer may appear in the form:
Corresponding dimensional windows can be determined for Draught and Beam.

The selection of a minimum Depth, of Superstructure proportion and approximate Length requires
consideration of the performance aspects as stated in paragraph 3.

A.2.6 Upper Deck Length driven Designs
It can be seen from the above that to increase Length there are two basic courses of action
(i) Reduce Superstructure proportion (vs)
(ii) Reduce Depth, and hence Draught and Beam.
The above procedure assumes a constant overall Volume. If a minimum superstructure and Depth
policy still generates insufficient Length or leads to unacceptably low values, it is necessary to
increase the Main Hull Length as required.
This will effectively increase Total Volume and reduce density ρ̅ as the buoyancy generated will
exceed the additional structure and system weight. Draught and Beam may need to be adjusted
slightly for the new Main Hull Density.
A.2.7 Selection of Median Values of Block Coefficient and Waterplane Area

Coefficient for Major Parametric Survey
The Major Parametric Survey requires the selection of median values of Cb and Cw which can
subsequently be varied in the Minor Parametric Survey.
Appropriate values are
Cb Cw
Corvettes 0.44 0.75
Frigates/Destroyers 0.50 0.75
Cruisers 0.52 0.75
Aircraft Carriers 0.55 0.72
Passenger Ferries 0.55 0.72
Container Ships 0.60 0.76
Bulk Carriers 0.80 0.90
Crude Oil Carriers 0.85 0.93
The trend in Cb for different types of ships is determined by whether for a given displacement the
resistance at maximum speed (or service speed) is Wavemaking or Skin Friction dominated.
If the resistance is wavemaking dominated, i.e. Fn∇ = Speed(U) / (g ∇1/3 )1/2 > 0.8, then a low Cb
will be beneficial by increasing Length.
If the resistance is skin-friction dominated i.e Fn∇ < 0.6 then a high Cb will be beneficial by
reducing surface area. If this trend is taken too far it will result in form drag increase. A high Cb is
also beneficial for reducing structural cost and for improving cargo carrying efficiency (i.e. high
Cm). (See fig. B4 below).
Cw is broadly linked to Cp for Warship forms, though this will show some scatter between U and V
shaped sections forward.

A.2.8 Minor Parametric Survey
On completion of the Major Parametric Survey you should have been able to define the major
variables: Superstructure proportion (vs), No of Internal Decks (nd) and hence minimum Depth of
Main Hull.
It is now possible to repeat the exercise varying the Form Parameters e.g. Cp, Cm, one at a time, for
various small increments of Depth above the minimum value.
Note that Cw and Cit will be linked to Cp.
Cw = 2 Cp / (1 + Cp)
Cit = 6 Cw3 /[(2Cw 1) (Cw 1)] ) (2Cw +1)*(Cw+1)
This will again yield windows of consistent dimensions D, T, B and L. An example is shown in Fig.
B5 for a Frigate design, illustrating effect of Cp.
Such results can more usefully be presented at constant values of the Form Parameter of interest,
plotted against Circular M or Length. Fig B6 shows the effect of this transformation based on Fig
B5.
In addition to plotting dimensional variation it is possible to include some performance parameters
such as Powers for Max and Cruise speeds.
Further, the several Form Parameters/Circ M graphs can be combined into Matrix contour plots for
individual variables.
A spread sheet may provide an appropriate method of carrying out parametric survey calculations
and due considerations should be given to the presentation of the results.

A.2.9 Limits and Constraints on Dimensions and Form Parameters
The realities of ships design impose restrictions, rigid or flexible, on some of the parameters. Some
of the restrictions are absolute, either dictated by the dimensions of fitted equipment, or externally
applied such as the length of a dock, or width of a canal.

These absolute restrictions are to be differentiated from limits imposed to prevent degradation of
particular performance aspects e.g. Seakeeping, Fuel Consumption, Structural weight etc.
Some likely examples are:
Parameter Defined by
LENGTH Maximum Docking
Structural limit (L/D) see chapter 9
Minimum Upper Deck Layout
Vulnerability
BEAM Maximum Docking
Canal passage (e.g. Panama)
Minimum Machinery Layout
DRAUGHT Maximum Harbour or canal passage
Minimum Propeller diameter (see Chapter 4)
Bow Emergence due to Vertical Point Motion
SECTION AREA Arrangement of Machinery and Equipment will
(or critical dimensions) impose a number of
limits on the area and shape of section of the
ship e.g.
Forward: Sonar or Vertical Launch, Missiles
Amidships: Main Machinery
DEPTH Minimum Main Machinery Depth,
Freeboard,
Deck Wetness
A.2.10 Section Areas and Area Coefficients
Further guidance on the relationship between L, Cp and critical Section Areas is given below.
Amidships Section Area
A11 = ∇ / ( L Cp)
And the Area Coefficient
Cm = A11 / ( B T )
The areas of other sections may be deduced by using a systematic set of ‘Curves of Area’ (e.g. the
Taylor series). For example the ratio A2 / A11 is given as a function of Cp.
Cp 0.57 0.60 0.63 0.66
A2 / A11 0.19 0.22 0.25 0.29
A.2.11 Selection of Length
The selection of the length of a ship will be dictated by such facts as:
• Layout
• Payload Effectiveness
• R&P
• Fuel Costs
• Seakeeping
• Structural efficiency
• Costs
• Etc.
While the discussion of length in respect of Layout and Payload Effectiveness will centre on
absolute values, it is more appropriate when selected length for R & P, Fuel Cost and Seakeeping to
consider the length of the ship relative to its displacement i.e Circular M = L / ∇1/3.
(i) Resistance and Fuel Consumption The optimum ‘relative length’ Circ M from a Resistance and
Fuel Consumption point of view will depend on the speed of the ship and its displacement. At
‘high speed’ when wavemaking effects dominate resistance a high Circ M is beneficial. At ‘low
speed’ when skin friction effects dominate resistance a low Circ M is best (see Hydrodynamic
Considerations).
‘High’ and ‘Low’ speeds are terms which need to be defined relative to a given displacement (see
Fig. B7).
Froude Displacement No [ Fn∇ = Speed(U) / (g ∇1/3 )1/2 ] is the appropriate non-dimensional
parameter.
The effect of Circ M on a nominal Shaft Power (PE / 0.6) is shown in Fig. B8. Although there is
some advantage in a low Circ M for Fn∇ < 0.6 it should be remembered that the Shaft Powers for
Fn∇ > 0.8 are much greater than for Fn∇ < 0.6. Hence any ship which has a significant proportion of
its speed profile at Fn∇ > 0.8 will usually find an advantage in increasing Circ M.
An alternative presentation is given in Fig. B9 at constant Fn∇.
Fig. B.10 gives a tentative ‘design lanes’ for M based on Fn.

(ii) Symmetric Seakeeping The effect of ‘relative Length’ Circ M on symmetric motions (pitch,
heave, vertical point motion) has both advantages and disadvantages which require careful
consideration.
Figs. B11-B15 present typical trends based on a vessel of ∇ = 4000m3 [ Cb = 0.5] [ h1/3 = 6.0m,
τ=10.5 sec] for Head Seas.
Figure
Motion Effect of M
parameter
B11 PITCH Increasing Circ M beneficial in Reducing Pitch. Weak dependence.
B12 HEAVE Increasing Circ M beneficial in Reducing Heave. Strong speedDependence.
B13 ABSOLUTE Relatively small differences are apparent on a Stn to Stn comparison towards
VERTICAL extremities However towards centre Circ M is beneficial.
POINT
DISPLACEMENT
(Stn to Stn
distribution)
B14 ABSOLUTE Increasing Circ M is beneficial in reducing Acceleration on a Stn to Stn
VERTICAL comparison
POINT
ACCELERATION
B15 RELATIVE Increasing Circ M is weakly detrimental in increasing. Relative Vertical
VERTICAL Point Displacement at FP. However as increasing M is also associated with a
POINT reduction in draught for a constant kB = B/T i.e. T = ∇1/3/ [M Cb kB]1/2. This
will result in increased Point Motion Exceedances e.g. Keel Emergence,
Slamming.

Voluntary Speed Restrictions will be caused by applying a limit to the frequency of extreme
response events such as;
(a) Vertical Point Accn.
(b) Vertical Point Velocity.
(c) Relative Point Displacement
• Bow Immersion
• Keel/Sonar Emergence
• Slamming.
In view of the trends outlined above this will lead to conflicting trends with Circ M as shown in the
permissible speed diagrams below.
Resolution of this problem will require case by case calculation, as it will be affected by the position
of accommodation, bridge, sonars etc.
Involuntary Speed Restriction determines the permissible Speed envelope in low/moderate Sea
States. For a given installed Shaft Power increases in Circ M are beneficial for Fn∇ > 0.8.
In order to resolve these conflicting trends consideration must be given to concepts such as Mean
Permissible Speed or to some measure of overall Operational Effectiveness.
Mean Permissible Speed into Head Seas can be determined by combining the Permissible Speed
Envelope for a candidate form with the Sea State Probability Density Function of a given Sea Area/
Time of Year.
A high Circ M is generally beneficial in raising U for ships of moderate/large size (>4000 tonne)
and/or ships operating in areas of low/moderate Sea States.
A less extreme Circ M may have advantages for ships of smaller size and/or ships operating in
moderate/high Sea States.
Hence a certain awareness is required in selecting Circ M for Seakeeping reasons. While length
is generally beneficial, severe reductions in Freeboard and Draught are not. If Depth is fixed, the
achievement of a preferred Circ M will be linked to Superstructure proportion.
In the Parametric Survey you are not expected to carry out these detailed comparisons but to make
a qualitative judgement of the merit of relative dimensions on Seakeeping, vis a vis the function of
the ship, the payload fitted and the likely areas of operation.
A.2.12 Selection of Prismatic Coefficient Cp
The Prismatic Coefficient (Cp) is defined as:

Cp = ∇ / ( L A11)
It is a measure of the longitudinal distribution of immersed volume. A low value of Cp implies
that the volume is concentrated amidships, while a high value has the opposite significance. The
distribution of volume affects:

• Block Coefficient and Dimensions
• Resistance and Fuel Consumption
• Seakeeping
• Internal Space Distribution
These are discussed below.
A.2.12.1 Effect of Cp on Block Coefficient Cb and Dimensions
(i) Cp is a component of Block Coefficient (Cb) as indicated by the relationship:

Cb = Cp x Cm
As outlined in par, 7, Cb is an important determinant of dimensions along with Depth (D) and
Superstructure Proportion vs. In particular it exerts a powerful effect on Length, a low Cb resulting
in greater length and higher values of Circ M. An illustration of the effect of Cb on dimensions (due
to changes in Cp) has already been given in Fig. B5).
In discussing the effect of Cp on various ‘performance’ aspects it is always essential to distinguish
between changes at constant Cm - i.e. Cb is changing proportional to Cp, and changes at constant
Cb where Cm must change in the opposite direction to compensate for the variation in Cp. In most
of the literature on the subject the effect of Cp is considered at constant length, beam and draught
- hence implicitly at constant Cb. Thus in any discussion where there is guidance on optimum Cp
values, the designer should be aware of the implicit value of Cm consistent with the value of Cb in
his/her design.
In the following sections Cp considered in this manner i.e. at constant length and Cb.
A.2.12.2 Resistance and Fuel Consumption
(ii) At speeds around the prismatic hump (Fn = 0.3 - 0.35) the second trough of the bow
wave system coincides with the stern trough. From experiment it is found that the longitudinal
distribution of buoyancy has an important effect on this resistance peak. At higher speeds (main
hump), the first trough of the bow wave coincides with the stern trough. At such speeds the
distribution of buoyancy is of less significance - the forebody being more nearly a single point
disturbance.
The design lane below, taken from Saunders, shows empirical values of Cp for minimum
resistance. (For Fn > 0.3 these are in accordance with the Taylor-Gertler series for minimum
wavemaking resistance). The figures on the curve show the percentage change in resistance for a
change in Cp of + 0.05. As would be expected these figures are large in the region of the prismatic
hump and low at high speeds. Below Fn =0.25 the prismatic coefficient has no significant effect on
wavemaking resistance and Cp is increased to increase Cb, reduce length and wetted surface area,
and hence Skin Friction resistance.
It can be seen that for cruising speeds corresponding to a Fn = 0.3 - 0.35 a low value of Cp (≅0.55)
is advantageous while for high speed a higher value is beneficial. This will also have implications
for fuel consumption. The optimum value of Cp for fuel consumption will require consideration of
the speed profile.
It is worth noting with reference to sub-para (i) that the higher Cp’s indicated by the Taylor-
Gertler curve for high Fn’s are only worth achieving if Cm can be reduced accordingly. Should it be
necessary to allow Cb to rise, length would reduce and much higher wavemaking resistance would
be obtained.
DESIGN OF UNDERWATER FORM
A.2.12.3 Seakeeping
(iii) The value of Cp is very closely linked with the value of Cw and indicated by the relationship:
Cw ≅ 2 Cp / ( 1 + Cp )
It has been shown that symmetric seakeeping is improved by increases in Cw which among
other effects increases Heave and Pitch damping. This therefore implies that increase in Cp (with
compensating reductions in Cm) are beneficial to seakeeping.
(Taken to its logical extreme the ultimate seakeeping form would be a triangular wedge with a
rectangular waterplane area.).
There are also some indications that the benefit of high Cp is such that some degree of increase in
Cb and reduction in length may give a net advantage.
Internal Space Distribution
(iv) Forms with a low Cp have a great deal of volume concentrated amidships. If, as may well
happen, this space is greater than actually required for machinery, there may be no way of using the
excess. On the other hand, the fine ends will cause problems in sonar installation and in arranging
the shafts and gearboxes.

Conversely, a high Cp form will have a small section area amidships which may raise problems
in fitting the main machinery. Some idea of the space aspects of prismatic coefficients may be
obtained from a simple example.
Consider a ship whose mass is 2700 tonnes and whose length is 107m. The underwater volume
will be 2700 m3 and the area of the midship section can be calculated for any value of Cp. If it is
assumed that the machinery space is 27.5 m in length and its volume is 27.5xmid sec area, then the
usable volume outside the engine rooms can be found.
Cp Mid Sec Area (m2) Usable Volume Outside M/C
(m3)
0.50 50 1300
0.55 46 1430
0.60 42 1540
0.65 38 1620
A.2.12.4 Choice of Prismatic Coefficient (Cp)
(v) It is suggested that the following process should be adopted in the choice of Prismatic
Coefficient.
A.2.12.4.1 Resistance and Fuel Consumption
Select Cp (along with Cm) to give the desired Cb in order to obtain a preferred value of length and
Circ M. High Circ M will have advantages for both speed and fuel consumption for most warships
with speeds in excess of Fn = 0.8.
Having achieved the required value of Cb, Cp should be optimised as far as possible (trading off
against Cm) on the basis of speed and fuel consumption. In view of the fact that variation of Cp
away from the optimum has little relative effect on resistance at high Fn (see previous diagram),
this consideration can be given limited weighting i.e. optimisation for top speed.
This then leaves the choice of Cp to be based on the minimisation of fuel consumption, dependant
on the speed profile. It is generally found that the predominance of time spent at cruising speeds
will therefore favour a lowish value of Cp (0.6 to 0.55).
A.2.12.4.2 Seakeeping
Given the constraint of Cb to achieve the preferred length, Cp should be raised as much as
possible (and Cm reduced) consistent with other considerations. The most important of these other
considerations are likely to be:
• Optimisation for Fuel Consumption/Range (previously discussed).

• Limit on Cw dictated by water plane entrance angle (see para 13).
• Limit on minimisation of Cm due to machinery installation considerations.
• Limit on Cp increase due to damage stability considerations - particularly loss of water plane
area near transom and subsequent trim problems.
It can be seen that there may be some conflict between Fuel Consumption and Seakeeping for the
final choice, which the designer will need to resolve.

A.2.13 Selection of Midship Section Coefficient Cm
The Midship Section Coefficient (Cm) is defined as:

Cm = A11 / ( B T )
It is a measure of the fullness of the midship section. The value of Cm affects:
• Block Coefficient and Dimensions

• Seakeeping
Effect of Cm on Block Coefficient (Cb) and Dimensions

(i) Cm is a component of Block Coefficient (Cb)
Cb = Cp Cm
and as discussed in paras 7 and 11 (I) has a significant effect on dimensions. An illustration of the
effect of Cb (due to changes in Cm) is given in Fig. B17. This shows that the principal effect of a
reduction in Cm (at constant Cp) will be an increase in Draught (T), a small reduction in beam (B)
and an increase in Length (L).
It is not surprising therefore that most merchant ships which need a low Circ M have Cm≅1, while
warships progressively reduce Cm as Fn is increased (e.g. some corvettes have Cm as low as 0.67). A
low Cm, by increasing Draught (T) also has benefits for the fitting of larger diameter propellers (for
twin screw ϕ ≅ T).
Given that Cb will be selected to help achieve a particular length and Circ M for R & P reasons, the
value of Cm retained must be consistent with that selected for Cp.

A.2.13.1 Seakeeping
(ii) It has already been outlined in para 11(iii) that given a value of Cb, that increases in Cp and
reductions in Cm are beneficial to symmetrical seakeeping. This not only reduces responses but
increases draught (hence lowering the probability of keel emergence).
From a Roll Damping point of view a low Cm will have a slack ‘turn of bilge’ and hence possess
low hull damping. However the space available within the Beam-Draught rectangular envelope
for stabiliser fins, bilge keels will have been increased. As these tend to predominate in their
contribution to total Roll damping there is therefore little disadvantage in this trend.
The minimum value of Cm will usually be dictated by Machinery Layout Considerations (consult
with Mechanical Engineers).
For a systematic investigation and presentation of Cm, the method outlined in the Minor Parametric
Survey may be used.
A.2.14 Selection of Waterplane Area Coefficient Cw
Cw influences Seakeeping, Stability and Resistance. It is linked fairly closely to the value of Cp but
some variation is possible with the style of section shape (i.e. ‘U’ or ‘V’ shaped).
A high Cw forward has been shown to reduce Symmetric motions, and hence to improve
Seakeeping into Head Seas. (See Hydrodynamic Considerations). For a given displacement, Length

and Cp - and hence Section Area distribution - an indefinite increase in Cwf would logically lead to
a reduction in Draught (T) and Deadrise Angle (b). There is clearly an optimum to be struck.
A limit to the maximum value of Cwf (and reduction in Length) is provided by the maximum
permissible Waterplane Entrance Angle (α) - from a Bow Wave Self noise, Resistance and Spray
generation consideration.
For Fn > 0.3 then 1/2 α max ≅ 10°
Though for optimum reduction of Self Noise values as low as 7° may be required.
It can be seen that a certain amount of co-ordination is required in the selection of Cp, Cm and
Cw. This is illustrated in the diagram below:
For small fast warships it is important that Cp and Cm lead to a draught which is compatible with
the maximum Cw and ‘V’ shaped sections forward. This maximised Draught and Deadrise Angle
is advantageous for reducing slamming (see Chapter 8). It is also the principal characteristic of so-
called ‘Seakeeping Variant’ Hullforms.
A.2.15 Beam/Draught Ratio (B/T)
Over the normal range of ships the Beam/Draught ratio has very little effect on Resistance. The
effect of B/T is greatest at Fn = 0.45; at other speeds the effect is much less. It is generally
satisfactory to consider B/T as a passive parameter dictated by the need to achieve a ‘Stability
balance’. There seems to be no unreasonable resistance penalty for values of B/T up to 4.5.
A.2.16 Weight and Weight Breakdown
A typical Weight Breakdown for a Frigate is shown in Fig B18.

Figure B18 Typical Weight Breakdown of Frigate

In comparing candidate forms it is important to be aware of the effect of dimensions on the
relative magnitude of the various Weight Groups, on Total Weight, and from this an assessment of
additional fuel costs.
The Weight Groups which are dependent on dimensions are:
• Hull Structures
• Main Propulsion
• Ship System distribution
• Electrical System distribution
• Fuel
The Weight Groups which are largely independent of dimensions, and effectively defined by the
Staff Target are:
• Payload
• Personnel
• Ship System equipment
• Electrical System equipment
• Stores
This distinction between dependent and independent components is shown in the 2nd column of Fig.
B18. Using such a presentation it is possible to make comparisons between candidate designs, see
Fig. B19.
Figure B19 Effect of Relative Length on Frigate
Weight Distribution (Displacement = 4000 Tonnes)

Length reduces Propulsion Weight (or increases speed) and Fuel Weight (if based on an operating
profile), but increases Structure and System Distribution Weights. As Propulsion Plants come
in step sizes it is normal to accept the increase in speed which length confers. The penalty is
that longer ships tend to be somewhat heavier, due to Structure and System distribution weight
increases.
A.2.17 Cost and Cost Breakdown
A typical Cost Breakdown for a Frigate has been shown previously in Fig. 6.
The effect of dimensions on the relative size of Weight Groups can be translated into Platform Cost
using parametric costing methods. The Payload is costed separately, see Fig. B20.
Figure 20B Effect of Relative Length on Frigate Cost Distribution (Displacement = 4000 Tonnes)

Again the dimensionally dependant terms have been identified, though it is traditional not to cost
variable load. It is also apparent that the relative cost importance of material components does not
coincide with the weight breakdown.
For warships the Payload dominates while Hull cost is a relatively small proportion.
This approach may be used to assess the relative merits of different candidate forms meeting the
same Staff Target on a Total Cost and Payload/Platform Cost ratio basis. Through life Fuel Costs
need to be assessed separately.
In terms of the Payload, Mobility and Float/Platform functions the following generalisations can be
made for different candidate forms meeting the same Staff Target.
(i) Payload cost will be sensibly constant. Some supporting system distribution costs will
increase with length. This is a small effect.
(ii) Mobility cost will be reduced with length (if a ‘high’ speed requirement exists). Through
life Fuel Costs will be reduced.
(iii) Float/Platform costs will be increased by length. For a warship, Hull Structure represents
a small cost fraction of the total - hence the effect will be minimal. For a Merchant Ship it is
likely to be significant.
A.2.18 Volume Formula for Non-Wall Sided Forms
In discussing the parametric definition of a monohull form in paras 2-5 of Annex 2B a ‘wall-
sided’ assumption has been made for simplicity. In reality all ships have flare and sheer, so a more
accurate expression for the volume of the main hull is given by:

Vm = L B T [ Cb + Kf Cw (D/T) - 1 ]
Where Kf is flare/sheer volume factor
Kf = (Vm - ∇) / (Vm(ws) - ∇)
where Vm(ws) Volume in Main Hull if wall sided. Hence
D/T = [ Cb / (Kf Cw) ] [ (1 / ρ̅m ) - 1 ] + 1
Typically for so called ‘wall sided’ forms (i.e. wall sided amidships) - Kf = 1.05.
For ‘flared’ forms - Kf = 1.1 - 1.2.
It is also possible for Kf < 1 where a partial main hull deck is present, i.e.
Students are advised to include this modification in any parametric studies as this will give results
which align better with existing designs. If values of Kf > 1.1 are used it is advisable to augment the
value of KG/D obtained from the parametric formula by one or two times the standard deviation.
A.3 Design Procedure for SWATHS
A.3.1 Introduction
The procedures laid down in this ANNEX are designed to give the student an insight into how the
Initial Synthesis, and subsequently the Parametric Survey, of a SWATH can be conducted.
As far as possible the description of the process is related back to the corresponding methods for
monohulls.
In the following paragraphs the expressions and formulae have been kept deliberately simple to
maintain clarity of explanation.
As a general introduction to SWATH design Ref [1] is recommended reading.
A.3.2 Outline of Initial Synthesis
The procedure outlined for the synthesis of monohulls in Chapter 2.3 is broadly applicable to
SWATHS in that the principles of the process are identical (see Fig. D.1).
From a definition of Payload volume it is possible to estimate Total Volume using a Payload
Volume fraction, and from Total Volume an initial Displacement using a value for Overall Density.
This procedure is only required for the 1st iteration as subsequently volume and Displacement will
be ‘updated’ by Volume Required and Weight respectively from the summation of Group values.
For the summation to proceed it is necessary to translate the Total Volume and Displacement into a
set of dimensions which can be used to calculate individual Group weights and volumes. To do this
a sufficient set of Form Parameters is required.
While the principles are the same as for monohulls, the complexity of the SWATH geometry make
the implementation somewhat more difficult.
Firstly the minimum set of Form Parameters to adequately define dimensions from Displacement
and Volume will need to be greater in number. Secondly the concept of what is meant by a
balanced design is more complicated. Not only must Δ = W and V = Vreq, but there needs to be

individual space balances in the component parts. The Box will be the prime site for compartments,
while Tankage, Ballast, Stores, etc. will need to be placed in the Struts and lower Hull. For larger
SWATHS there may even be a requirement to place Main Propulsion in the Lower Hulls. Also the
volume required specifically in the Hull and Struts must not be incompatible with displacement.
The symbols to be used, Form Parameters and the concept of a balanced design are explained
further later.
A.3.2.1 Notes on Initial Synthesis at UCL
Typical Payload Volume Fraction (pvf) - 75% of Monohull equivalents

Box Volume Fraction
vb = Vb / V ≅ 0.60-0.70
Residue Volume Fraction
1 - vb = Vr / V ≅ 0.30-0.40
Typical Overall Density is similar to Monohull equivalents but at increased size.
A.3.2.1.1 Group estimation
Item Data Source

Propulsion calculation based on Shaft Power
Personnel use Monohull Data
Ship Systems use Monohull Data
Electrical Systems use Monohull Data
Stores use Monohull Data
Fuel direct calculation based on Shaft power
Structure assume initially a Structural Weight Fraction of
0.45
(Check using method of Chapter 9 to calculate
Loading and hence effective thickness of
plating.)
Figure D.1
2nd, 3rd … iterations

(p.v.f = Payload Vol. Fraction)
A.3.2.2 Definition of Dimensions, Volumes and Displacement
3. (i) Dimension definitions

(ii) Volume definition
V= Vbox +Vhull +Vstrut = Vbox +Vres
i.e. Vres = Vhull + Vstrut and Vres = s + Vbc (Box Clearance Volume) (i.e. Volume in Strut above
Design Waterline)
(iii) Displacement definition
∇ = ∇hull + ∇strut
where ∇hull and ∇strut represent the displaced volume of both hulls and both struts.
(It should be noted that superstructure and haunch volume have been omitted from these basic
definitions).
A.3.3 Form Parameters required for Initial Synthesis
For Initial Synthesis it is usually sufficient to determine basic dimensions such as A, LH, Ls, T, b,
B using ‘underwater’ parameters, and to assume that these can be made compatible with the Box
Volume. This compatibility will be considered later in the parametric Survey.
Below a possible, and sufficient set, of Form Parameters is defined. It is quite feasible however to
devise alternative sets. For simplicity it has been assumed that Hull Length (LH) and Strut Length
(LS) are equal.
(i) Displacement Distribution (m)
m = ∇hull / ∇
hence
∇hull= m∇
∇strut = (1-m) ∇
Typically (m) will need to lie in the range 0.70 to 0.85. Below 0.70 the struts become too
voluminous and the seakeeping advantage of a SWATH is lost. Above 0.85 stability, Trim and
Sinkage can present problems. Strut contribution is also likely to be difficult.
(ii) Prismatic Coefficient (Cp)

(A = average diameter)
Typically Cp will be 0.60 - 0.70 for Fn ≤ 0.45 (low, medium speed) or ≥ 0.90 for Fn > 0.55
(very high speed)
For Elliptical hulls
A = (DH.DV)1/2
where typically
DH / DV ≥ 1.4
(iii) Waterplane Area Coefficient (Cw)
Cw = Aw / 2 Ls b
Typically Cw will be 0.75 ~ 0.80
(iv) Lower Hull Length/Diameter Ratio (LH/A)
Typically (LH/A) will be in the range 12 - 25
(v) Strut Width/Lower Hull Diameter (b/A)
Typically (b/A) will be in the range 0.6 ~ 0.4
(vi) Length/Beam Ratio (Ls/B)
Typically (Ls/B) will be in the range 2 - 5
(vii) Box Clearance (BC)
Box Clearance (BC) is not a Form Parameter but an absolute dimension which determines
Box slamming performance.
Typically BC = 0.8 h1/3max e.g. (3.5 – 4.5m for 3,000 tonne ship)
where h1/3max is Significant Wave Height
It should be noted that the ranges above for (L/A), (b/A), and (L/B) are approximately
consistent at start and finish. Using the above set of Form Parameters it is possible to
calculate basic dimensions from values of displacement so that Initial Synthesis can proceed
iteratively. This is outlined in para 5.
(viii) Strut Length/Lower Hull Length (Ks)
Ks = Ls / LH
Typically Ks = 0.80 - 0.85
Low values are currently favoured.
A.3.4 Calculation of Dimensions from Displacement for Initial Synthesis
(i) Length of Main Hull Struts (L)

hence solve for Ls = Ks LH, where Ks= Ls / LH
(ii) Diameter of Lower Hull (A)
A = LH / (LH / A)
(iii) Width of Strut (x)
x= A / (b / A)
(iv) Draught (T)
T = ( 1 - m ) ∇ / ( 2 Cw b LS ) + A
(v) Separation of Struts (B)
B= LS / (LS / B)
(vi) Box Clearance Volume
VBC = 2 CwL b (BC)
The above Form Parameters provide a shorthand method of deriving dimensions for the sizing
process so that a balanced design can be achieved with iteration using values of V and W. In due
course stability, seakeeping, R & P and Layout considerations must be used to refine the choice of
dimensions. This is discussed in the Parametric Survey.
A.3.5 Concept of Design Balance
The concept of a Design Balance for SWATH is more intricate than for a Monohull. This can be
attributed to the non-homogeneous nature of the value of space. The Space Balance for the Box
must be considered separately from the Space Balance in the Struts and Lower Hull. As a general
rule a space requirement which derives from a need for area must be allocated in the Box. Space
requirements for Fuel, Ballast, and possibly Machinery must largely be found in the Lower Hull and
Struts.
(i) Conditions for Balanced Design
a. Space
Vreq ≤ V
Vboxreq ≤ Vbox
Vresreq ≤ Vres
note: Vbox will be derived from Area requirement (where Δh= Deck Ht.)
Vbox =Abox.req. Δh + dV
b. Weight – Displacement
W=Δ
(ii) Conditions for Design Imbalance
a. Space
Vreq > V

Vboxreq > Vbox
Vresreq > Vres
b. Weight – Displacement
W≠Δ
(ii) Conditions for Design Imbalance
If any of the above imbalances were to occur then clearly Volume and Displacement values must be
updated appropriately for 2nd and subsequent iterations. This is shown in Fig. D.2.
Vbox → Vbox req
Vres → Vres req
W→Δ
In addition to the weight-displacement and partial space balances which must be achieved, it is also
necessary that the volume of the struts and Lower Hulls (Vres) is compatible with displacement and
Box Clearance (BC).
The Volume in the Lower Hulls and Strut up to the Design waterline needs to be the maximum of
the buoyancy or volume requirement (M).
M = max [ W / ρw, (Vresreq- VBC ) ]
And subsequently used to update both Vres and D, i.e. Vres = M + VBC and Δ = ρwM. This is shown
diagrammatically in Fig. D.2
A.3.5.1 Alternative Iteration Procedure
In all synthesis procedures for monohulls or swaths a design is balanced by an estimation of

Volume and Displacement and then checked/iterated such that Vol. = Vreq W = Δ from summation
of Groups.
As already explained this process requires as set of Form parameters to derive dimensions from
Displacement. An alternative method is to define all dimensions in considerable details and
from these to derive both Volume and Displacement. This can then be assessed against Group
requirement in the usual manner. For further iterations it is necessary for dimensions to be updated
manually by the designer to remove any imbalances.
Iteration Update Figure D.2.

At this stage it is assumed that Volume and Displacement values have been defined, consistent with
a balance around a set of default form parameters.
V = Vbox + Vres > Vreq
Δ = Δhull + Δstrut = W
It is now necessary to examine in more detail the options available in terms of dimensions which
satisfy both the Space and Weight constraints, and additionally Stability/Trim requirements which
up to now have been ignored. Again as in the Monohull section it will be assumed that the Space
and Weight constraints are rigid and not sensitive to dimensional variation. This will of course
be incorrect to a certain extent but is justified as an aid to clarity in this context. (It can always
be relaxed later and will probably justify use of a computer program. In this event the Parametric
Survey cannot be cleanly separated from the Sizing process).
The process of the Parametric Survey can most conveniently be divided into two parts; firstly Hull
and Strut Dimensions and secondly Box Dimensions. It will be shown how a consistent set of
dimensions may be calculated, given an initial value of one dimension. In the following example
Main Hull Diameter (A) has been chosen as the input variable. By varying A over a range of values
a window of consistent dimensions can be determined. (Note: A is average diameter for elliptical
hulls).
A.3.6.1 Hull and Strut Dimensions/Input Variable (A)
(Δ = const)
A.3.6.1.1 Length of Hull and Strut (L)
• Thus for selected values of m and Cp, LH is determined by A.

• LS = KS LH
where Ks is Strut/Hull Length factor ~ 0.80 ~ 0.85
A.3.6.1.2 Width of Strut (b)
The Width of Strut (b) may be defined initially by the requirement to meet Heave/Sinkage
response criteria. This is achieved by maintaining Aw as a ratio of ∇2/3.
Aw = KA ∇2/3 where KA ~ 1.0
As
Aw = 2 C w Ls b
and
b = KA ∇2/3 / ( 2 Cw LS )
hence b is determined from the value of Ls above, KA and Cw. Eventually the Strut width
and Length will need to be checked for Longitudinal Stability. (see Appendix 2D-1 for more
detail on GML criteria)
A.3.6.1.3 Draught (T) and Hull Immersion (T-D)
∇st = (1 - m) ∇
hence
(T - Dv) = (1 - m) ∇ / ( 2 Cw Ls b )

and
T = (1 - m) ∇ / ( 2 Cw Ls b ) - Dv
hence from previously calculated values of b, Ls and the input value Dv, T and (T - Dv) can
be determined.
A.3.6.1.4 Separation of Struts or Beam (B)
The Beam (B) is determined from the Transverse Stability criterion for an adequate value of
[GMT/B].
GM = KB + BM - KG
Each of the variables on the RHS of the equation will now be considered in turn. In each case
approximate expressions will be used.
A.3.6.1.4.1 KB - Vertical Centre of Buoyancy
hence

A.3.6.1.4.2 BM – Metacentric Radius
From the parallel axis theorem
As Aw = 2 Cw Ls b

A.3.6.1.4.3 KG – Vertical Centre of Gravity
KG = f (A, T, BB, HB)

Where HB defines the Box height. Although A, T, BC will be known, Box dimensions will at this
stage be unknown. Hence an assumption is required for KG, e.g. (T + BC) until more details from
the Box Parametric Survey are available. A certain amount of iteration will not doubt be required.
Hence in summary
The above expression for GM must be equated with GMreq to determine B.

This can either be a fixed value, or a ratio of B itself.
GMreq = xm
GMreq = Kgm B where Kgm ≅ 0.1 (≅ 2m for 3000 t. ship)
It has been shown above how values of LH, Ls, b, T and B can be calculated from an initial value of
A, m, Cp, Cw and ∇. For a range of A it is thus possible to plot consistent values of LH, Ls, b, T, T-A
and their ratios of interest. This is shown below in the two diagrams.

An example of such a plot is shown in Figs D3 and D4.
On to these plots for Lower Hull and Struts dimensions it is possible to define certain constraints
for some of the parameters.
For example it is often suggested
• 10 < L/A< 25
• 1.5 < T/A – to control Wavemaking resistance, propeller ventilation and maintain seakeeping
advantage.
• 2m < b - for construction reasons
• GML in accordance with Appendix 2D-1
Examples are shown on Figures D3 and D4.

In this manner a window of permissible dimensions can be determined.

Further optimisation is now required by assessing each of the candidate forms against various
performance criteria.
Other considerations to keep in mind during the Parametric Survey are the effect of dimensions and
form parameters on Seakeeping and Damage Stability.
Seakeeping is discussed in 8.1 with formulae for estimating Heave, Pitch and Roll natural
frequencies suggested at Appendix D-2.
Damage Stability is important to dimensional choice on account of the need to limit the angle of
heel subsequent to asymmetric flooding in one hull. This is discussed in 8.5.

A.3.6.2 Box Dimensions/Input Variable A
(Vbox = const)
From the Hull/Strut Parametric Survey it has been possible to define values of Ls, B as a function
of Hull Diameter (A).
Clearly the Box Dimensions LB and BB should not be much less than Ls and (B+b). (This is
mandatory for Beam - less so for Length where some discussion is possible). On the other hand
there is not reason why a certain amount of overhand is not permissible.
Hence
Min Box Plan Area (SB) min = (LS - δL) (B + b)
Max Box Plan Area (SB) max = (LS - δL) (B + b + δB)

Assuming for the moment that we can write
Hbox = Vbox / SB
It is possible to define two curves of Box Height as a function of A.
However as the Volume (Vbox ) is derived from an Area requirement the height has no meaning
except as multiples of deck Height Dh. (The height increment Dh must be the same value as used in
the synthesis process). Hence acceptable zones will be apparent as shown in the diagram below and
Fig. D.5.
It will not be possible to compare the design windows derived from both Box and Hull/Strut
Parametric Surveys. This process may further restrict the window of dimensions.
Note: If a Superstructure exists then clearly the above procedure should be limited to the Main
Box.
Vmainbox = Vbox - Vss
where Vss in the Superstructure Volume

Notes for Figure D5: Vbox / V = 0.65, Hmax = Vbox / ( L B ), Hmin = Vbox / (1.5 L B )
Vbox must have been calculated using some deck height assumptions
A.3.7 Other Design Considerations
A.3.7.1 Seakeeping
(i) The main advantage of a SWATH over a Monohull platform is the greatly improved Seakeeping
- particularly for the symmetric motions of Pitch and Heave. This is achieved principally by the
reduction in the proportion of the displaced volume in the vicinity of the water surface (i.e. in
the struts) and hence reduction of wave induced buoyancy forces. Secondly the major part of the
displaced volume, being in the submerged cylindrical hulls, is less prone to the pressure fluctuations
caused by the wave induced fluid motion (which decrease with draught i.e. Smith effect).
If both Heave and Pitch are considered for discussion purposes as decoupled single d.o.f. systems;
(separation of LCB and centre of flotation will represent a significant cause of coupling and
should be restricted to not more than 0.25% of L), then some of their basic characteristics can be
examined via a Wave Forcing function:
Aη̈ + Bη̇ + Cη = Feiωet
where η is ‘degree of freedom’ - Heave or Pitch
The Natural Frequency (ωe) of each d.o.f. is given by:
ωo = [ C / A ]1/2
The Damping Factor (ν) is given by:
ν = B / (2 ωo A )
SWATHS are characterised by the very low values of the fluid stiffness term [C] which is
dependant entirely on the properties of the Strut waterplane.

Heave: C = Aw rw g where Aw = Waterplane Area
and rw = water density
Pitch: C = GML M g where M = Mass
Clearly these will be much smaller quantities than for monohulls equivalent displacement.
The ‘Inertia’ terms [A] in the equations:
Heave: A = M + AZZ where M = Mass and Azz =
Added Mass in Heavesity
Pitch: A = Iyy + Aθθ where Iyy = Pitch Inertia of
‘Dry’ Hull and Aθθ = Added
Inertia in Pitch
are of a similar order of magnitude to monohull values. It follows that the Heave and Pitch Natural
frequencies i.e. [ C / A ]1/2 will be considerably less than those for monohulls of similar size.
The above characteristics of the Heave and Pitch equations of motion are beneficial to Seakeeping
in that the value of the natural frequencies for Heave and Pitch causes the response characteristics
to be generally ‘detuned’ from the input Sea Spectra, as illustrated in the diagram below.
The effect of ship speed (U), relative heading (c) and wave frequency (w) on encounter frequency
(we ) is given by:
ωe = ω - (ω2 U) / g . cos(ϰ)
Values of encounter frequency for various values of Ucosϰ and w are shown in Figure D.6. (U cos
ϰ being the component of speed in direction of wave propagation). From such a plot it is possible to
distinguish three dynamic regions for any given response such as Heave or Pitch by examining the
ratio of ωe / ωo.

A.3.7.1.1 Subcritical (Contouring)
ωe / ωo < 0.75
RAO ≃ 1
Phase Lag ≃ 0
A.3.7.1.2 Critical (Resonance).
0.75 < ωe / ωo < 1.2

RAO >> 1
Phase Lag ≃ π/2
A.3.7.1.3 Supercritical (Platforming)
1.2 < ωe / ωo
RAO ≃ 1
Phase Lag ≃ π/2
A.3.7.1.4 Comparison
The situation is illustrated in the diagram below (note - y axis is U cos(ϰ) from ( ϰ > 90 ) to ( ϰ <
90 ) ):

As a general rule platforming type behaviour (i.e. supercritical) is preferred for operational Sea
States, while contouring is necessary for ‘survival’ Sea States once the box clearance is exceeded
by wave amplitude. It can be seen from the diagram above that for ‘Head Seas’ (i.e. c > 90°)
platforming is relatively easy to achieve except for low speed, low wave frequency (and hence
high sea state) combinations. In the ‘Following Seas’ (c < 90) the situation is more varied, and
the likelihood of meeting resonant conditions greater. In particular combinations of U cos c which
coincide with the ‘flat’ portion of the resonance region are to be avoided, especially if this also
corresponds to the wave spectrum of a given sea state, (see diagram below (note - y axis is U
cos(ϰ) from ( ϰ > 90 ) to ( ϰ < 90 ) )).

The condition of resonance in ‘Following Seas’ will be aggravated where it also coincides with ‘ship
- wave’ matching. For the pitch mode this will intuitively occur at λ/2 = L cos(ϰ) approximately as
shown below:
Hence for typical naval SWATHS of length 70–100m this corresponds to λ = 140 cos(ϰ) ~ 200
cos(ϰ) .
For stern seas ϰ = 0 we therefore have λ = 140 ~ 200m.

As wave frequency in deep water is given by,
ω = [ 2 π g / λ ]1/2
the respective values for (ω) are 0.66 ~ 0.56 rad s-1. From Figure D.6 it can be seen that these
values are reasonably well aligned with the ‘flat’ part of the resonance region for typical pitch
natural frequencies of 0.3 ~ 0.4 rad s-1.
At such conditions of resonance the magnitude of the response will be dependent on the damping
in the ‘system’. As a major contribution to the damping is derived from energy radiated in the
form of surface waves, the damping for SWATHS will also be less than for monohulls. Hence in
these specific conditions it is possible for the Seakeeping SWATHS to be worse then for equivalent
monohulls.
The very real possibility of combined resonance/ship-wave matching with low damping points to
the need for a ‘stabilisation’ system of some description. Despite the low forward speeds associated
with this form of resonance, fin type systems appear to be favoured, as in a purely passive sense the
fins will add considerably to the damping of the system due to the generation of viscous drag.
The use of lower hulls with oval cross sections will also increase viscous damping, as well as
augmenting added mass and inertias.
A more detailed discussion of SWATH Seakeeping can be found in Reference (6) and Appendix D.
(2).
A.3.7.2 Natural Frequencies of Heave, Pitch and Roll
Students should calculate the Natural Frequencies of Heave, Pitch and roll so as to be aware of the
speed, wave-heading and sea state conditions when resonance effects may operate. It should also be
considered whether any detuning can be achieved by dimensional variation.
Heave

Pitch:
Roll:
Values of Added Mass (A33) and Added Inertia (A55) are increased by lower hulls with oval cross
sections and can be calculated using a strip theory approach.
For the parametric survey phase of the exercise, suitable approximate parametric formulae are given
at Appendix D (2).
A.3.7.3 Pitch Instability with Speed
It has been outlined above how the small waterplane of a SWATH is generally beneficial
in improving Seakeeping as this reduces the fluid stiffness terms and detunes the response
characteristics from the input wave spectra.
Apart from the possibility of resonance/ship wave matching phenomena, another unfavourable side
effect is that above a certain speed the hydrostatic pitch stiffness term (GML g M) is insufficient to
counteract the destabilising moment caused by the flow around the hulls when subjected to a pitch
perturbation.
This is discussed in very simplistic terms below (assuming the changes with respect to time in θ and
w are sufficiently small to be neglected, and that δθ = Angle of attack).
(a) Destabilising Pitch Moment due to Pitch Perturbation (δθ)
where δMD means Destabilising Moment, Azz means Added Mass in Heave (Munk moment), ∫L
x means Viscous Lift Effect, D(x) means local horizontal diameter and a0 means Viscous Lift
Coefficient (~ 0.07).
(b) Restoring Moment due to Hydrostatic Stiffness
δMH= GML M g δθ
Assuming that only these terms affect the issue, the critical speed for Pitch instability is given by:
δMD = δMH
Pitch Instability can be prevented/postponed to a higher speed by the fitting of fixed horizontal
lifting surfaces towards the stern of the vessel. These will have the effect of generating a restoring
moment for a given pitch perturbation.
L = CL (1/2 ρw A U2)
D = CD (1/2 ρw A U2)
where
CL= α ( ∂CL / ∂ξ ) and ξ = δθ
Restoring Pitch Moment due to Lifting Surface
With this additional stabilising influence, the condition for Pitch Stability now becomes
δMF + δMH > δMD
and the minimum fin area for stability at a given speed is:
The effectiveness of such fins may be further enhanced if they are incorporated in an active pitch
control system.
For a more rigorous analysis of this aspect of SWATH design see Ref. (5), where the effect of
Heave and Pitch coupling on the equation of motion is considered.

If a forward pair of fins has been fitted to increase the heave viscous damping contribution, it will
be evident that these will be destabilising when fixed from a pitch stability point of view. In this
case the after fin area will need to be increased accordingly.
A.3.7.4 Resistance
The nature of the resistance curve for a SWATH is similar to that for a Monohull (albeit of greater
magnitude and with different proportions of Skin Friction and Wavemaking components) but
exhibits a pronounced ‘Prismatic’ Hump due to the presence of the submerged cylindrical hulls.
Theoretically this will occur at Fn ≅ 1 / √3π = 0.325.
The ‘hump’ will become more pronounced as ‘hull’ draught is reduced. Much can be achieved
however by careful contouring of the hull shapes to produce beneficial interference effects.
Examples of different contour types and their effect on the residuary resistance coefficient is shown
in Figure D.7.
Students will also need to give consideration to matching propulsor and prime mover (thrust,
torque, rev) characteristic sin this region (e.g. consideration of CP propellers).
Figure D.7 Effect of Contouring Hull on Residuary Resistance

A.3.7.5 Management of Trim and Draught
One of the consequences of the low values of GML and Aw is the large variation in draught and
trim for variations in weight and Lcg. On a monohull these considerations are usually accorded a
lower priority due to their small effect.
For a SWATH design the following causes of variation in Eight and Lcg need to be taken account
of in a manner similar to that employed in Submarine Design.
(i)
• Inaccuracies in the estimation of Weight and Lcg in the Design and Construction phases
- ‘Design Margin’.

• The fitting of additional payload throughout the life of the ship - Board Margin’.
• ‘Growth’ in the design - ‘Growth Margin’.
(ii) Changes to the variable load (e.g. fuel, stores etc.) and variation of external water density
leading to buoyancy changes, on a given mission. (also changes due to icing should be
considered).
(iii) Flooding due to damage, causing large angles of heel and/or trim. If not correctable by
counter flooding such large angles could preclude operation of vital systems.
Each of the above is considered in more detail below.
(i) Solid Ballast (Design, Board and Growth Margins)
The compensation capacity of Solid Ballast, in terms of weight and longitudinal moment, can be
assessed by consideration of how a given quantity of Solid Ballast (w) can be distributed along
the Length of the vehicle. From this an envelope of Moment v Wt Compensating effect can be
constructed.
Ideally if the total amount (w) could be fitted at either of the two extremities of a vessel:
- this would give a Moment - Wt capacity as shown below.
In reality due to problems in physically locating ballast in voids/tanks, a realistic envelope will fall
within the above ideal.

The above must be sufficient to compensate for all possible differences in weight and moment. For
the particular case of the Design Margin it must be able to cater for expected differences between
the nominal Lcb and Lcg, plus any margin.
The nominal position of Lcg will be known from direct calculation. Consideration must also be
given to the possible ‘drift’ in the calculated position (i.e. Lcg margin). From this and the weight

contingency, it is possible to construct a ‘margin window’ of weight and Lcg condition (see above)
which it is assumed will contain the as built condition of the SWATH. (This will of course require a
weight control management system being set up during the design and build of the vessel).
Proof of solid ballast sufficiency (for the Design Margin) is given by being able to fit the margin
window into the compensation envelope, as shown below.
For a real ‘as built’ Deep Condition the amount and position of any Solid ballast can be determined
from the ‘compensation vector’. This is also illustrated below.
The above explanation has centered on the Design Margin. Separate assessment must be made for
Board and Growth Margins.
(ii) Liquid Ballast
(Control of variable load and buoyancy changes).
(a) Compensation Capacity - Trim Polygon
Consider the Liquid Ballast Tanks (A, B, C, D) situated along the length of the vehicle which are
cumulatively filled and emptied in order of the lever arm magnitude forward (i.e. A first, B second
etc.)

The graph of the Moment - Wt compensation effect is known as a ‘Trim Polygon’.
(b) Plot of Conditions Relative to Deep
(c) Proof of Sufficiency of Liquid Ballast Capacity

Proof of sufficiency of liquid ballast capacity is achieved by fitting the ‘Plot of Conditions’ within
the ‘Trim Polygon’.

The origin of the ‘Plot of Conditions’ indicates the amount and position of liquid ballast required to
be carried as part of the Deep Condition (in S/M Design known as Standard Condition). This can
be compensated for by reducing fixed ballast.
(iii) Flooding Damage Management
Some consideration should be given to the extent to which Ballast/Fuel Tanks can be used to
counter the effects of flooding. Here consideration is placed entirely on compensating moment
changes, rather than weight, in an effort to reduce trim or heel angles. It is accepted therefore that
the further weight due to compensation can be absorbed.
A procedure analogous to that for the Trim Polygon can be defined, which is illustrated in outline
only.
(a) Counterflooding Capacity

(b) Moment Changes due to Flooding
(c) Proof of Counterflooding Sufficiency

It is probable that only certain degrees of damage will be containable in this manner - with extreme
damage lying outside the capacity to counterflood.
A.3.7.6 Damage Stability Consideration
The Damage Stability of SWATH ships is usually very healthy in terms of the overall GZ curve, and
the reserve of ‘dynamic’ stability. However one problem which does occur is that the initial angle
of heel (before any corrective measures are initiated) can be large, and will often exceed existing
stability criteria largely intended for monohulls. This is therefore a point to bear in mind during the
parametric survey.
A useful estimate of the maximum angle of heel due to flooding is provided by the Box – Strut
rectangular envelope.
Depending on the severity of the flooding the angle of heel (q) will be given approximately by:
For minor flooding
For extreme flooding

For warships an estimate based on extreme flooding is appropriate and ideally should not exceed
200 (the existing limit for monohulls) - though there is some room for debate on the exact value.
For commercial SWATHs the degrees of flooding is likely to be less.
A.3.8 Background references
1. SWATH Ships. J. L. Gore. ASNE Special Issue Feb 85. ‘Modern Ships and Craft’.
2. Swath Design Method MSc 83 – Lt(N) X. L. Guyot C. F.
3. A Concept Exploration Model for SWATH Ships. W. C. Nethercote and R. T. Schmiths RINA
81.
4. SWATH Asset. (Theoretical Manual) DTNSRDC.
5. Lee C. M. and Curphey R. M. : ‘Prediction of Motion, Stability & Wave Loads for SWATH
Ships’. SNAME Transaction Vol. 85 (=977) pgs. 94-130.
6. Lamb G. R.: ‘Influences of Seakeeping Requirements on SWATH ship geometry’ SNAME
(Chesapeake) June 1987.
7. Parametric Formulae for A33, A55, W. J. van Griethuysen: 1987. (held as separate Annex)
8. Bishop R. E. D. and Price W. G. : ‘Hydroelasticity of Ships’ pgs 126-127 CUP 1979.
A.3.9 Estimation of GML
GML = KB + BML - KG
where Cil is given below as a function of Cw. For a given value of Cw, Cil exhibits a range of values
dependant on position of LCF as a proportion of strut length.A reasonable formula for Cil is given
by:
Cil = 2 [ Cw / (3 - 2.Cw) ]
A.3.9.1 Criteria for GML
Criteria for GML as a function of displacement are given below for ‘Low’ and ‘High’ Speed
Designs. These values can be estimated as the following formulae.
Low Speed
GML = 1.05 ∇0 25
High Speed
GML = 1.00 ∇0 315

A.3.10 Seakeeping Considerations For SWATH Design
Formulae For Estimation Of Natural Frequencies
A.3.10.1 Nomenclature
η3 Heave A33 Added Mass in Heave

η4 Roll A44 Added Mass in Roll
η5 Pitch A55 Added Inertia in Pitch
SWATH Parametric definitions as in Ship Design Procedures. (Annex 2D).
However in addition
Ke = Dh / Dv (i.e. ovalility ratio)
ω Wave Frequency (rads-1)
ωe Encounter Frequency, rads-1
λ Wave length
k Wave Number = 2π / λ
U Ship Speed
c Relative Heading to waves
A.3.10.2 Dynamic Response of a Single Degree of Freedom System
Before consideration of the dynamic characteristics of SWATH’s, it is useful to review the dynamics
of a simple single degree of freedom system.
The output response (η) of any mechanical system subjected to a cyclic force of magnitude (F) is
given by:
η= F / ( k - mω2) + iωb
where m is mass, k is stiffness, b is damping, ω frequency in radian and ωo = (k/m)1/2 Natural
Frequency.
If dynamic response is normalised by static response ηo = F/k the following typical characteristic is
obtained.
From this we can identify three dynamic response regions.
(a) Subcritical Response
ω / ωo < 1
η / ηo ≤ 1
ϕ ≅ 0 (i.e. in≅ phase)
(b) Resonant Response
ω / ωo ≅ 1
η / ηo >> 1 dependent on damping
ϕ≅π/2
(c) Supercritical Response
ω / ωo > 1
η / ηo → 1
ϕ ≅ π (i.e. in anti-phase)
This simple model can be used to interpret the response of SWATH’s in Heave, Pitch etc. except
that the Forcing Function F(ω) will not be constant with frequency. There will be a reduction in
forcing function as (ω) increases due to 'ship-wave’ matching effects (or more mathematically the
participation factor between distributed loading and the rigid mode shapes). Thus if we take Pitch
as an example for L/λ > 0.5 part of the wave will be tending to reduce pitch moment.
Hence in the absence of resonance effects we could expect pitch response (η5) as shown below
η5 / ka
For Heave (η3) a similar effect is evident for L / λ > 0

η3 / a
A.3.10.3 Concept of Subcritical & Supercritical
Behaviour applied to Heave, Pitch and Roll

Let us define Natural Frequency for Heave, Pitch and Roll as ω30, ω50, ω40
A.3.10.3.1 Heave
A.3.10.3.1.1 Subcritical
This type of wave following behaviour is known as ‘contouring’.
ωe / ω30 < 1
η3 / a ≅ 1
ϕ3 ≅ 0
A.3.10.3.1.2 Supercritical
This second type of behaviour where response is extremely small and level is known as
‘Platforming’. Although technically the response is in antiphase this is not important due to its low
magnitude. Reduction of motion is due to increased inertia at higher frequency and the ship wave
matching effects referred to earlier.
ωe / ω30 > 1
η3 / a → 1
ϕ3 ≅ π
A.3.10.3.2 Pitch
Again technically pitch will be in antiphase to wave slope but for ωe/ω0 > 1 the magnitude of the
response will be very small.
(Contouring)

ωe / ω50 < 1
η5 / ka ≅ 1
ϕ5 ≅ 0
(Platforming)
ωe / ω50 > 1
η5 / ka ≅ 0
ϕ5 ≅ π
A.3.10.3.3 Roll
ωe / ω40 < 1
η4 / ka ≅ 1
ϕ4 ≅ 0
In this case the ship rolls with wave slope and is approximately of equal magnitude.
(Platforming)

ωe / ω50 > 1
η5 / ka ≅ 0
ϕ5 ≅ π
Here the SWATH rolls into wave slope as the response as in antiphase. Again it can be anticipated
that roll magnitude will be low.
A.3.10.4 Application of Subcritical (Contouring) and Supercritical (Platforming) Behaviour

to SWATHs
As a general rule it is supercritical behaviour which gives the type of level ‘platforming’ behaviour
which is desirable for a SWATH as this reduces motion. However it will be noted from the above
diagrams that relative motion is then significant and is broadly equal to heave amplitude as the
SWATH is effectively static. Hence there will be a limit to which platforming behaviour is possible
before wave impact with the box wet deck occurs.
Beyond this limit it is preferable for the SWATH to contour as this reduces relative motion –
although at the expense of absolute motions equal to the wave inputs (i.e. RAO 1). Thus we are led
to the concept of ‘Operational’ Sea States where platforming is required and ‘Survival’ Sea States
where contouring is to be preferred. For this to occur we must ensure that the natural frequencies
are correctly arranged with respect to encounter frequencies (we).

(iv) Effect of Speed, Relative Heading and Wave Frequency (ω) on Encounter Frequency (ωe )
and the conditions for Platforming and Contouring
Encounter Frequency (ωe) is related to wave frequency (ω), speed (U) and relative heading (c) by
the relationship ωe = ω - (ω2 U) / g cos χ
For various values of (U cos χ) (the component of speed parallel to the direction of wave
propagation) and (ω) we can plot values of ωe as shown in Fig. 1.

Given this type of plot, if the value of ωo is known for a particular response it is possible to define
(U cos c) combinations where
• Contouring (Subcritical)

• Resonant (Critical)
• Platforming (Supercritical)
behaviour are likely to occur - as illustrated in the diagram
It can be seen that high values of (ω) and increasing the speed component (U cos χ) into waves (i.e.
U cos χ < 0) will generally create conditions for platforming. By the same token, low values of ω
(i.e. long wavelengths λ), slow relative speed into waves, or even the presence of following waves,
will create contouring conditions.
So far we have discussed these concepts in terms of a single wave frequency (ω). It is now
necessary to consider the application of these principles to irregular seas where a range of wave
frequencies will be present in each wave spectrum defining a sea state.

A.3.10.5 Frequency Content of Sea States
Each Sea State wave spectrum is defined typically by a significant wave height h1/3 and modal
frequency (ωm).
Szz(ω)
where ω = 1.26 / √ h1/3 for ISSC Spectrum.

As Sea States become more severe (i.e. increasing h1/3), wave energy content shifts to lower wave
frequencies and higher wave lengths.
ω2 = 2 π g / λ
Hence we have the following situation:
Szz(ω)
If we assume the majority of the energy is contained, within the range 0.75 ωm < ω < 1.25 ωm
then we can define the following approximate table for significant frequency range, using the ISSC
spectrum as an example.

Sea State h1/3 0.75 ωm ωm 1.25ωm
4 1.875 0.69 0.92 1.15
5 3.25 0.50 0.67 0.84
6 5.0 0.42 0.56 0.70
7 7.5 0.34 0.46 0.58
8 11.5 0.28 0.37 0.46
A.3.10.6 Sea State/Speed/Heading conditions to cause Platforming or Contouring

Behaviour
Using the same form of plot of (ωe) as Fig. 1 we can now assess whether a given Sea State/Speed/
Heading condition is likely or not to cause Platforming, Contouring or Resonant response.
Taking as an example Sea State 6 (h1/3 = 5.0m, ωm = 0.50rads-1) with a half power frequency band
of 0.42 to 0.70 rads-1, we can examine the case of a SWATH with Heave natural frequency ω30 =
0.5 rads-1. The various zones are shown on Fig. 2. This shows that for U cos χ < - 8ms-1 (e.g. for
χ = 180° U = 8ms-1 or 15.6 kts), platforming behaviour will occur, and for Ucos χ > 6.8ms-1 (e.g.
for χ = 0° U = 6.8ms-1 or 13.2 kts), contouring behaviour will occur. Between these two values of
Ucos χ a certain degree of resonance is probable from some of the frequency content in the wave
spectrum.
In general for Head Seas (χ > 90°) lower Sea States and high speeds will ensure platforming, and
high sea states and low speeds will cause contouring type behaviour. This therefore suggests a
design procedure for head seas which distinguishes between Operational Sea States and normal
speeds, and a Survival Sea State at slow speeds. In general conditions of resonance will be limited
to a relatively narrow frequency range.
In following seas (χ > 90°) there is generally a greater danger of resonance. This is particularly a
greater danger of resonance. This is particularly likely at values of U cos χ which cause resonance
to occur across a wide frequency range and which also corresponds to the band width of a sea state
(see diagram below).
Thus there will be a strong degree of excitation from all frequencies within a wave spectrum which
‘straddles’ the flat portion of the resonance band.

From Fig. 2 it can be seen that for ω0 = 0.5 U cos χ = 5 ms-1 Sea State 4–5 is likely to meet this
condition. Alternatively for Sea State 6 values of w0 = 0.3 and U cos χ ~ 8 ms-1 would be a bad
combination.
The above phenomenon will be made even worse if the wave length corresponding to ω (i.e λ = 2 π
g / ω2 is such as to cause significant ship wave matching, e.g. for Pitch L/λ ~ 0.5).
A.3.10.7 Selection of Natural Frequencies to ensure Platforming Behaviour in the

maximum Operational Sea State and minimum Speed
If we select a maximum sea state and minimum speed/heading combination (U cos χ) at which
safe platforming behaviour is required, it is possible to determine the necessary value of Natural
Frequency (ω0). The most critical of these frequencies is that for Heave as it is likely to be the
highest. (typically Heave: Pitch: Roll - 1: 0.7 : 0.5)
The diagram shown above takes account of the frequency spread around the modal frequency and
of the resonance band width.

From such considerations it is tempting to suggest a rough separation of the following order:
ωm / ω ≅ 1.6
It will be noted from the first diagram above that for a given design operational sea state that the
lower the speed the lower the value of w0. This is therefore a more onerous design case than for
high speed. It is this fact, for example, which allows ‘high speed Swaths’ to have a higher GML than
low speed variants. (see Appendix 2D-1 of Ship Design Procedures). This will also be necessary
because of the greater likelihood of Pitch instability with speed due to the so called Munk moment.
Once the value for w0 has been selected (or accepted?) in this way for platforming it is then
possible to perceive the Sea State/speeds in which increased motion due to resonance could occur,
and the reduction in speed or change in heading for extreme sea states to ensure that contouring
type behaviour occurs.
A.3.10.8 Relationship between Heave, Pitch and Roll Natural Frequencies
Because of the inherent characteristics of practical SWATH geometry the natural frequencies for
Heave, Pitch and roll will occur at different relative magnitudes. In general Roll is the lowest (i.e.
highest period), Pitch next and Heave has the highest natural frequency. Hence if we are interested
in achieving platforming type behaviour most emphasis will fall on Heavy natural frequency as it
has the largest value and because SWATH motion is generally Heave dominated.
Discussion of the parametric tools available to alter ω30 is given in (ix) below. It should also
be noted that it is important to avoid the coincidence of pitch and heave natural frequencies
(simultaneous resonance) or for the occurrence of any harmonic relationships.
ω30 / ω50 = 1, 2, 3, etc.
Approximate formulae for the estimation of Heave, Pitch and Roll Natural Frequencies are given in
(ix) - (xii) below, in terms of form parameters. The parameters are the same as those used in Ship
Design Procedures Annex 2D.
A.3.10.9 Geometric Factors which affect Heave Natural Frequency (ω30)
Heave Natural Frequency (ω30) is given by:

ω = [ (ρ g Aw) / ( ρ∇ + A33) ]1/2
where Aw = KA ∇1/2
And ignoring effect of struts
A33 = ρ m Ke ∇ (See Ref. 7 for derivation)
where
Ke = DH / DV
m = ∇hulls / ∇
Thus for m = 0.75 Ke = 1.4 - A33 = 1.05
Ke = 1.8 - A33 = 1.35
Hence we have:
This indicates that to reduce ω30 requires reduction of KA, or increase of (m) or (Ke) (i.e. ovality of
lower hulls). (Note however that too great an increase in (m) would result in low strut draught (T-
Dv)).
It also indicates that all things being equal that ω30 ∝ ∇1/6 (i.e. w30 reduces with size).
Hence taking as an example:
KA = 1.0 m = 0.85 Ke = 1.5 ∇ = 3000m3
ω30 = 0.547 rads-1 i.e. τ0 = 11.5 sec.
If ∇ is increased to 5000m3 the same form parameters give:
ω30 = 0.547 (3000/5000)1/6 = 0.502 (τ0 = 12.5 sec)
Another point of interest to note is that neither Cp nor DH, Dv affect the value of A33. (At least at
this simple level of analysis).
A.3.10.10 Geometric Factors which influence Pitch Natural Frequency (ω50)
Pitch Natural Frequency ω50 is given by :-

ω50 = [ ( ρ∇ g GLL ) / ( I55 + A55 ) ]1/2
where I55 is moment of inertia of dry hull and that I55 = ρ∇ kL2 LH2 , A55 is added inertia and kL
is non dimensional pitch radius of gyration and it can be shown approximately by ignoring strut
effects that:

(see Ref. 7 for derivation)
As A55 = ρ ∇ m Ke we finally have:
This formula indicates that to reduce ω50 requires reduction of GML, or an increase in (m) and
Ke. It is also of interest to consider the interaction between Cp and L in order to maximise the
denominator. It can be shown (Ref. 7) that if we substitute for L from the volume identity:
m ∇ = (π DH2) / (2 Ke) LH Cp
LH = (2 Ke m ∇ ) / (π DH2 Cp)
that A55 may be expressed as:
This reinforces the benefit of increases to m and Ke but also shows that reductions in both Cp and
DH (and Dv = Dh/Ke) all help to increase A55. As reduction in Cp, DH, Dv, will increase LH it is also
likely to increase the dry hull inertia (I55 - assuming kL is constant).
Let us look at an example:
m = 0.70 Ke = 1.4 Cp = 0.7
Then
compared to a typical assumption for kL= 0.28 (i.e. uniform cuboid assumption).
Returning to the formula for ω50 we can deduce that if:
GML ~ kGML ∇1/3 (see Appendix 2D (1)
and
LH = Circm ∇1/3
then

Again, as for the formula for ω30, a reduction with size is evident, i.e. for an increase in ∇ of 2, w50
reduces by a factor of 1/21/6 = 0.89.
Finally let us calculate ω50 for an example set of values:
∇ = 3000m3
Circm = 5.5
KL = 0.28 w50 = 0.347 rads-1 (t0 = 18.1 sec)
m = 0.85
Ke = 1.5
Cp = 0.7
GML = 12m
A.3.10.11 Geometric Factors which influence GML
The designer will sometimes be faced with the problem of reducing GML to achieve an acceptable
Pitch Natural Frequency (ω50). The geometric tools which are available to do this are outlined
below:
GML = KB + BML - KG
Of these parameters the most sensitive to change will be BML where:
BML = (Cil / 12) (LS3 b / 12)
This relationship can usefully be rewritten with the following substitutions:
LS b = Aw / 2Cw
and
Cil ≅ [2 Cw / (3 - 3Cw)]
Thus
BML = Ls2 Aw / (12 ∇)
Hence it can be seen that reduction of Ls and Aw are most likely to reduce BML. Inclusion of Aw in
the formula shows the manner in which Heave and Pitch ‘stiffness’ terms are coupled.
Reduction of Ls is achieved by increasing Lower hull diameter Dh, Cp or reducing Ks (strut length
proportion.
A.3.10.12 Geometric Factors which influence Roll Natural Frequency ω40
Roll Natural Frequency (ω40) is given by:

ω40 = [ ( ρ∇ g GLT ) / ( I44 + A44 ) ]1/2

where I44 = ρ∇ kB2 BB2 and kB is non dimensional roll radius of gyration
A44≅ B2 A33 / 4 = ρ ∇ m Ke B2 / 4
(as A33= ρ ∇ m Ke)
Hence we have:
This indicates that to reduce ω40 requires reduction of GMT or an increase in m, Ke and in particular
B.
Beam B is linked largely to the value of GMT and of Aw (i.e. KA). The lower the waterplane area
(Aw) the larger the value of B for a given GMT. Hence there is likely to be a broad proportionality
between ω40 and ω30. Beam will also be increased by increases in lower Hull Diameter (DH) (see
parametric Survey).
Let us illustrate use of the formula with an example. Using the same data as in (x).
∇ = 3000m3 kB = 0.40
Circm = 5.5 KA = 1.0
m = 0.85 GMT = 2.0m
Ke = 1.5 CW = 0.75
Cp = 0.7
Input of these values in the geometric relationships given under Parametric Survey, in Annex 2D of
the Ship Design Procedure yields the following consistent dimensions.
LH = 79.33m DH = 6.62m T = 6.57 Dv = 4.41
From these values KB = 2.70m if KG T + BC
BMT = 10.87 and BC = 5m.
and finally B = 25.04m
Assuming Box Beam BB = B
we find ω40 = 0.255 rads-1 (t0 = 24.6 sec)
A.3.10.13 Estimation of Maximum Heave Acceleration in the Operational Sea State
It has been explained how Heave Natural Frequency (ω30) should be selected to ensure that for
the maximum operational Sea State and minimum speed, supercritical conditions are achieved
(i.e. platforming type behaviour). Due to the low heave displacement in these circumstances, the
resultant heave acceleration (ωe2 h3) will also be low. The worst case heave acceleration in the
maximum Sea State will occur at conditions of resonance. Provided sufficient damping is present
(i.e. fin, appendages, oval hull sections), this should ensure that at low speeds (h3¤a) does not
exceed a value of approx. 1.6 at ωe / ωo ~ 1 (Ref. 6).

Hence at resonance the significant Heave Acceleration amplitude (η̈3)1/3 will be given by:
(η̈3)1/3 = ω302 1.6 a1/3 = ω302 1.6 h1/3 / 2
This relationship can be inverted to provide a ‘back of the envelope’ criterion for the selection of
ω30 or ∇. Thus if (h1/3)max is selected, a limit on (η̈3 )1/3 of say 0.2g – will place an upper limit on ω30.
This value may be achievable by selection of the correct geometric form and/or place a lower limit
on displacement.
Thus for example if: (η̈3)1/3 < 0.2g
(h1/3)max = 5 m s-1
Hence (ω30)max = 0.70 rads-1
A.3.10.14 Estimation of Required Box Clearance at Bow
Box clearance (BC) should be dictated by the maximum operational Sea State when platforming
type behaviour can be assumed and Relative Bow Motion (zr) ~ h/2, rather than ‘survival’ sea states
when contouring behaviour will be assumed and zr → 0.
However for the maximum operational Sea State it is probably prudent to assume that supercritical
conditions cannot always be met and that some resonant conditions could occur. If it is assumed
that Relative bow Motion RAO (zr/a) at resonance is approximately 2 (Ref. 1), and that we avoid all
but 1/10 highest occurrence (note h1/10 = 1.25 h1/3).
At resonance
BC = 2 ( h1/10 / 2 ) = h1/10 = 1.25 h1/3
while for normal platforming where (zr / a) ≅1.
BC = 2 ( h1/10 / 2 ) = h1/10 = 1.25 h1/3
Hence it would appear that for operational sea states a value of about h1/3 is prudent assuming
predominance of platforming behaviour with some margin for the occasional passage through
resonance. (However, for more extreme sea states this assumes speed can be reduced to achieve
subcritical contouring behaviour).
For Box Clearance at amidships values approximately 80% of the above are probably sufficient.
A.4 Design Procedure for Merchant Ships
A.4.1 Investigation of Concept
In Chapter 2 it was explained how the design of a warship is specified by a Staff Target. This is
preceded by Concept Studies based on a spectrum of Staff Target options which seek to interpret
the Outline Requirement I the most cost effective manner. In other words there is an interaction
between designer and customer to determine the optimum set of requirements.

This type of dialogue is particularly relevant to Merchant Ship Design, where it is necessary to
determine the optimum Payload and Ship Characteristics (particularly speed) which will maximise
profit on a given route.
The classical analysis assumes that a commercial service is to be established between ports A and B,
carrying a particular cargo. It is then necessary to analyse Revenue (R) v Cost ( C ).
The costs incurred per annum can be summarised as follows:
(i) Construction Cost, repaid over n years at Interest Rate k.
(ii) Running Costs
• Fuel Costs
• Crew Wages
• Maintenance
• Insurance
• Port Levies
The Revenue per annum will be determined by:

(i) Amount of Payload carried per trip (Wp).
(ii) No of trips per annum (N). This will be a function of distance, service speed and ‘turn-
round’ time.
(iii) Freight Rate charged per tonne per trip.
Rather then calculate the Profit per annum P = R - C, it is often more convenient to carry out an
analysis to determine the minimum Freight Rate to ‘break even’ - the Required Freight Rate (RFR).
RFR = C / (WpN)
Concept Studies are required principally to determine the correct balance between Payload, Speed
and Complement on a given route. They must be sufficient to be able to quantify the following:
(i) Volumes (and hence Gross and Net Tonnage), Weight
(ii) Capital Cost
(iii) Fuel Consumption
Basic data required for this analysis may be obtained by carrying out studies for a range of
Payloads and Speeds, with assumed constant form parameters. Figures below show a possible
presentation. The constraint of fixed form parameters can be dropped later during the Parametric
Survey phase.

From such a carpet plot of results it is then feasible to calculate the RFR as a function of Payload
and Speed.
As a general rule an increase in Payload will reduce RFR but optimum speed is very sensitive
to specific fuel cost i.e. revenue is proportional to speed but fuel cost is proportional to speed
cubed times specific fuel costs.
The above analysis is relatively straight forward as it has been assumed that a single route exists,
and that no limit exists on market share (i.e. Payload). In reality a shipping company would need
to consider alternative/multiple routes and the certainty of market share. There are also other
intangibles such as the effect of speed in attracting customers.
Increasingly as shown in containerisation the ship must be considered as part of wider transport
system. This will affect turn-round times, and will be another influence on customer choice.
A.4.2 Calculation of Required Freight Rate
The calculation of Required Freight can be carried out at nominal price levels as indicated above, or
more properly using discounted cash flow analysis over a period of several years.

The Cash Flow ‘out’ will be made up of Interest Charges on Loan Capital (or Leasing charges for a
Chartering arrangement) plus Running Costs. Cash Flow ‘in’ will be the revenue obtained from the
Payload. The discount rate to be used is the anticipated interest rate on an alternative investment.
In principle this is a simple analysis, but as in all things economic, each of the above items may
be subject to erratic price variations relative to the base inflation rate. Hence any certainty in such
calculations is difficult to achieve. It is therefore advisable to carry out economic sensitivity studies
to determine the risk involved.
Annual Capital Charge = Ca
Capital Cost = C
Ship Life = n
Discount Rate = k
Ca = C / [ (1 - (1+k)-n) / k ]
Initial Synthesis Procedure
The Initial Synthesis procedure outlined in Chapter 2.3, and shown in detail in Fig. 5 of Chapter 2,
is of general application. It can therefore be used for Merchant ships as well as Warships. However,
by its very generality it is more appropriate to warships in that it reflects the care which is required
to calculate the Ship Service and Electrical systems to support the Payload and Complement.
In Merchant ships Payload is usually inert cargo which does not require supporting power
supplies. Similarly the complements of merchant ships are many times smaller than warships (see
Chapter 6).
For these reasons Merchant ship design can often be simplified to the calculation of Payload
(Deadweight), Propulsion Plant and Auxiliaries, Outfit and Hull Structure (see Fig. E5).
Because the Payload of merchant ships requires considerably less indirect support it also tends to
represent a larger Volume and Weight fraction of the whole. For this reason it is easier to iterate to
a design balance starting from Payload details. Typical Payload Volume Fractions, and the Overall
Densities of various merchant ship types are given in Chapter 3 alongside warship values. These
values are only needed for the 1st iteration/ thereafter summations of Group weights and volumes
can be used.
Details of the densities of various bulk cargoes are given below. Refs 3 and 4 of Chapter 2 should
also be consulted for guidance in Merchant ship synthesis.

Bulk Cargo Density Range (tonne m3)
Iron Ore 1.91 - 3.49
Iron Pellets 1.84 - 3.49
Manganese Ore 1.79 - 3.15
Chrome Ore 2.09 - 2.72
Bauxite 1.03 - 1.28
Salt 1.20
Phosphate 1.12
Coal 0.75 - 0.85
Sugar (Raw) 0.78
Petroleum Crude 0.78 - 0.92
Residual 0.94 - 1.00
Distillate 0.84 - 0.94
Gasoline 0.74
Wheat 0.64 - 0.77
Corn 0.59 - 0.72
Rye 0.63 - 0.72
Grain Sorghum 0.63 - 0.71
Barley 0.46 - 0.61
Linseed 0.61 - 0.63
Oats 0.35 - 0.49
Parametric Survey
At this stage it can be assumed that Payload and an approximate Service speed will have been fixed
by the Concept Studies. It is now necessary to explore the effect of candidate forms on RFR in
some more detail.
The Parametric Survey procedure outlined in Annex 2B which uses the concept of ‘windows’ of
consistent dimensions for given Volume, weight and Form Parameters to define candidate forms
is applicable to any vessel. However for most merchant ships the stepwise constraint on Depth
dictated by ‘tween deck heights of 2.5m approximately are unlikely to be appropriate. This will be
particularly true for ships carrying bulk cargoes in deep holds. For vessels such as Ro-Ro’s, Ferries
and Container ship dimensions will need to be considered as multiples of vehicle deck heights or
container dimensions.
Certain Main Hull dimensions require special attention in a merchant ship. Minimum Freeboard is
laid down as a requirement by Classification Societies. It is defined as function of Length, CB, L/
D and Superstructure Height. The Basic Minimum Freeboard for a Type B vessel with CB (up to
0.85D) of 0.68 is given in Fig. E6 for the ABS. (as an example).
For ships which need to transit canals Beam, Length and Draught may be restricted by the size of
locks e.g. Panama B < 32m; L < 280m.

In almost any port Draught is likely to be a limitation on size. It may even influence the initial
economic analysis in deciding on the trade route.
Tonnage Measurement
The term Register Ton* (or Measurement Ton) is a measure of volume rather than weight) and
is used as ‘unit’ to assess the Total Volume (Gross Tonnage) and cargo carrying capacity (Net
Tonnage) of a merchant ship.
Historically a ‘Register Ton’ was equivalent to 100ft3 or 2.83m3. However the amount of volume
actually included in assessments of Gross Tonnage has varied through the centuries as a result of
periodic conventions which endorsed different systems of assessment.
It is only since the ratification of the International Convention of Tonnage Measurement of Ships in
1982 that an arguably more rational method has evolved.
Gross Tonnage (GT) is now calculated directly from Total Internal Volume (V) by the formula GT
= K1V where
K1 = 0.2 + 0.02 log 10V (see Fig. E7)
A given value of gross Tonnage can now be related directly to Total Volume. However the use of a
‘sliding’ conversion factor K1 means that the ‘ton’ as a unit is now effectively dead.
For a Volume of 10m3, GT = 2.2 ‘ton’ (i.e. the ‘ton’ represents 4.54m3).
For a Volume of 106m3, GT = 320,000 ‘ton’ (i.e. the ‘ton’ represents 3.12 m3).
This variable inflation of the ‘old’ register tone was required in order not to drastically alter the
gross Tonnage of existing ships and thereby to alter their ‘tax ability’.
[* Ton refers to ‘tuns’ the 15th century English word for a cask of wine – no doubt from the French
‘tonneau’ meaning barrel].

A.4.3 Passanger Ship Standards
When designing a passanger ship care should be taken to ensure it satisfies the applicable standards
(i.e. SOLAS).
Consideration should be given to passanger evacuation where appropriate. IMO have published
draft guideline describe a simple evacuation modeling approach (page ) suitable for use
during the ship design exercise.
A.5 Design Procedure for Trimarans
A.5.1 Introduction -- Trimarans and “Pentamarans”
A trimaran ship has a single main hull with 2 side hulls connected to it. (Fig 2G1) The concept
allows resistance to be decoupled from stability, such that the main–hull has greater length
than would otherwise be possible with a monohull geometry. It has been pioneered by UCL in
connection with naval and fast ferry applications.
“Pentamaran” 1 is a variant of the trimaran concept in which there are 2 separated side hulls on
each side, (see Fig 2G2) with the forward most pair suspended above the water surface on an even
keel. The concept envisages very shallow draught for the rear “wet” side hulls, with the forward
pair providing additional stability as the ship heels to either side. The concept also requires a ballast
system to maintain constant draught as deadwight varies.
In the subsequent sections the term “trimaran” will be employed as a general term for both types,
except for specific issues which are affected by the differences.

Fig 2G1 Trimaran “Cable and Wireless Adventurer”
Fig 2G2 The Pentamaran Concept
A.5.2 Initial Sizing
The initial sizing procedure for trimarans is no different in principle to that for displacement
monohulls; discussion will therefore be centred on the differences which affect the general steps
shown in Fig 2G3:
Fig 2G3 The Initial Sizing Process

• Sub-system sizing and parameters The different geometry of the trimaran will affect the
estimation of parameters such as weight, volume and power supplied for a number of sub-
systems. The most notable are likely to be:
• Propulsive Power. This must take account of 3 hulls rather than 1. (see Section on Resistance
below)The hulls will also be more slender requiring care in the selection of appropriate
estimation methods. The width of the machinery space is often a driving factor for the beam
• Structural Weight. Estimation of the structural weight of trimarans must take account of larger
total volumes, larger structural surface areas and higher primary loading for the main hull. In
addition side-hull structural weight must be accounted for.
• Auxiliary Systems. The increase in both the length and beam of trimarans may affect the
weight of pipe and cabling runs for the distribution of various power supply and cooling
systems.
• Additional Access / UnusableVolume This must be treated as a pseudo sub-system, which
requires space only. A trimaran will have more areas in which space is difficult to use. e.g.
narrow side-hulls. The trimaran may also need additional volume to reduce the density of the
ship in order to achieve sufficient box clearance and freeboard. (see discussion below)
• Ballast System Trimaran designs which need to control draught to ensure adequate side-hull
immersion will need a water ballast system.
• Geometry Model A trimaran specific geometry model is required which given a set of
geometry and stability constraints can convert values of displacement (∇) and total volume (V)
into consistent dimensions. The complication is that in addition to the main-hull, the geometry
of the side-hulls and cross structure need to be specified. An example of a trimaran geometry
model is given in Appendix 2 G1. It is analagous to that given in Appendix 2B1 for monohulls
in that it provides a solution for given depths of the main-hull and box cross sections. However,
it should be realised that in the design of geometry models it is largely a matter of taste as to
which form parameters and dimensions are fixed, and which are allowed to float; Appendix
2G1 should therefore be seen as one possible solution and not the only one.
A.5.3 Major Design Issues
A number of major choices present themselves very early on in the design of trimarans.
- Trimaran or “Pentamaran” The pentamaran is a more complicated solution, but offers advantages
in terms of survivability and resistance in that the side-hulls are split, and the surface area of “wet”
rear side hulls can be minimised for resistance. A trimaran side-hull will need to be sufficiently
long to be able to withstand transverse flooding damage. A pentamaran may also offer survivability
benefits against longitudinal raking damage at higher speeds.
- Shallow or Deep Side Hulls Trimarans depend on their side hulls for stability (typically 70%).
There are 2 basic design philosophies which can be followed in the design of side-hulls. With a
“deep” side hull solution (say 0.4 - 0.5 main-hull draught) there is sufficient draught to cope with
draught variation caused by deadweight change and rolling. The downside is that there will be a
considerable resistance penalty in the deep condition. The alternative “shallow” side-hull solution
requires a ballast system 2 to maintain constant draught, but with the benefit that resistance can be
minimised for the deep condition. Shallow side-hulls will however emerge from the water at small
angles of heel causing a large reduction in BM and hence GM. For this reason auxiliary side hull
elements are required which immerse with heel. This can either be arranged as a split arrangement
(the “pentamaran” solution) or as longitudinally stepped single hull (see Fig 2G4). Equally a “flare

step” in the side-hull will help to alleviate this problem. Students should also be aware of the greater
risks of parametric resonance with shallow side-hulls (see Section on Seakeeping below)
Fig 2G4 Longitudinally Stepped Side-hull

Box or No Box for Cross Structure The side-hulls are attached to the main-hull by a transverse
cross structure. There is a fundamental choice about how to do this. One approach is to use an
enclosed box type solution where the cross structure is formed by a plated-in continuation of 1
or more internal decks from the main hull. The other is to use a framework of cross beams as
the basic structure. This can remain open, or alternatively be plated in to provide an upper deck
platform. Because the plated-in box structure will attract wave slap loading on its underside, there
is a need for a minimum “wet deck” clearance, which only makes it a solution on ships with a
sufficient freeboard (see Fig 2G5). For example on a frigate with an internal box height of say
3m, plus a wet deck clearance of 3.5m a freeboard of 7m would be required. This would imply
a mainhull depth of somewhere around 11-12m. For this reason the cross-beam solution may be
more suitable for smaller ships, or in cases where there is no requirement for extended internal
decks (e.g. cargo carrying ships) In this latter case the trimaran is perhaps more correctly regarded
as a stabilised monohull.
Fig 2G5 Wet Deck Clearance
A.5.3.1 Cross-Structure/Box Length
As a minimum the cross-structure length will need to match the length of the side-hulls to provide
a structural attachment. However it is also possible to deliberately design the cross-structure length
to be greater, if there are layout benefits. Structurally the cross-structure tends to act as a short
cantilever, supporting the weight of the side hulls, with the buoyancy from the side hulls relatively
insignificant in providing any support at level heel. (This may not be the case when the side-hulls
are fully immersed as a result of heel.) The pentamaran is an example where the cross-structure can
be deliberately greater than the sum of the side-hull lengths.
A.5.3.2 Superstructure
Superstructure can be designed to a minimum, making as much use as possible of additional

internal space in the box structure. This is often the aim for naval ships. Alternatively for ferries and
cruise liners the superstructure can be made very large to provide wide decks for cars and passenger
cabins (see Fig 2G6 of a pentamaran design)
Fig 2G6 Cross Section of Pentamaran Fast Ferry
A.5.3.3 Main-Hull Configuration
The main-hull of a trimaran is usually of conventional monohull form with a large waterplane area.
An alternative configuration is to adopt a Trimaran Small Waterplane Central Hull (TRISWACH)
configuration, with the aim of improving seakeeping in much the same way as a SWATH does. (see
Fig 2G7 and ref 1)
Fig 2G7 The TRISWACH concept
A.5.4 Resistance
The trimaran configuration has the effect of increasing the skin friction component of resistance
for the same displacement (due to greater wetted surface area of multiple hulls and increased
slenderness) but of reducing wave making resistance due to the greater hull length. As a rough rule

of thumb the cross-over speed for resistance benefit occurs above a Froude Displacement No (U/
(g. ∇1/3)1/2 of 0.9 approximately (see Fig 2G8). Fuel consumption depends on the speed profile and
the power weighted proportion above or below the cross-over speed. It is possible therefore for
installed power to be reduced, but for fuel consumption to be increased. Note however, that the
cross-over speed in terms of shaft power may be lower than that for resistance, as it will additionally
depend on the relative values of overall propulsive coefficient. For example the use of large podded
propulsors in trimarans will lead to a higher propulsive efficiency for the trimaran.
Fig 2G8 Installed Power and Fuel Consumption Comparison

Prediction of residuary resistance for trimarans presents certain difficulties because of the unusually
slender hulls and the interference effects. For the main-hull Series 64 [2] is recommended as the
best methodical series for predicting wavemaking resistance. This series can also be used for side-
hulls, based on the value of L/ ∇1/3 and Cb, and using extrapolation on the B/T value. For side-
hull L/ ∇1/3 values in excess of 15 and Fn values in excess of 1, an acceptable approximation is to
assume that resistance will be dominated by skin friction only and to ignore any small wavemaking
contribution (typically less than 5%).
An alternative method which has been found to give reasonable predictions, is that due to Holtrop
and Mennen [3] . This is a regression analysis method and therefore like all regression methods is
somewhat opaque to understanding of causality. It does however have the merit of being a formula
based approach which is ideal for programming in spreadsheets 3. Calculation of interference effects
is beyond the scope of elementary prediction methods and will vary depending on side-hull position
and speed, with in general more astern locations helping at higher speeds.[4]
(see Fig 2G9) A conservative design approach is to assume a 10% penalty on resistance at all
speeds, on top of the total wavemaking resistance of the hulls calculated in isolation.

Figs 2G9 Effect of Longitudinal Location of Side-Hulls on Resistance
A.5.5 Seakeeping
In the initial design stage the major influence on seakeeping will be the value of GM. This will
affect the roll natural frequency, and consequently the heading and speed combinations at which
resonance occurs (when the encounter frequency matches the roll natural frequency)(see Fig
2G10). With the same GM as a monohull, the roll natural frequency of a trimaran will tend to be
less than an eqiuivalent size monohull because of the greater beam and roll inertia. This results
in a equivalent GM trimaran being more prone to roll resonance in stern-quartering seas than a
monohull ; on the other hand, with the same GM, it should perform better in beam seas. For this
reason it has become accepted that trimarans should be designed with somewhat greater values
of GM to maintain the roll natural frequency. Research in this area continues to gain a fuller
understanding.
Fig 2G10 Effect of Roll Natural Frequency on Conditions for Roll Resonance

The other influence on roll is the amount of damping in the form of appendages such as bilge keels
and foils. In this respect the wide geometry of trimarans provides an opportunity for imaginative
use of foil type dampers attached to the side-hulls, or linked between the side-hulls and the main
hull,as the damping contribution of an appendage is proportional to at least the square of the
distance from the roll centre 4.
The risk of parametric resonance in head seas as a result of large periodic GM variation, at
approximately twice the roll natural frequency is also something to be aware of. This will occur in
waves of approximately ship length and the appropriate 2 x roll encounter frequency, and will be
even worse if heave or pitch natural frequencies also coincide. [The risk is diminished by sufficient
GM, and side-hull arrangements which minimise GM variation.] In this respect shallow side-hulls
may be worse than deep side-hulls and the pentamaran configuration better than the trimaran.
In general the additional length of the main-hull will provide some reduction in heave and pitch
response; however, the point motions at the extreme ends are likely to increase. For this reason, it
is probably a good idea to allow some increase in depth of the main hull to increase both freeboard
and draught. This is likely to be necessary in any case on ships with box type cross-structure to
ensure a wet deck clearance of 3.5 to 4 m. Although the probability of keel emergence is likely
to increase, this may not translate into increased slamming because of the much greater deadrise
angles near the keel, due to the reduced beam of the main-hull.
Calculation of Seakeeping performance can be carried out using the TRIMO strip theory program.
A.5.6 Parametric Survey Strategy
The following strategy is recommended:
• Stage1: Definition of Volume Distribution and Broad Dimensions

• Superstructure proportion, Main Hull Depth, Length, Overall Beam
• Stage 2: Parametric Survey of Main Hull
• Refine Depth v. Length v.Wet Deck Clearance trade-off;
• Explore effect of main-hull underwater parameters (e.g Cb v. Length)
• Stage 3: Parametric Survey Side-Hull
• Side hull length, beam and separation from main hull trade-off
The parametric survey should be carried out with a suitable sizing model, which allows variation
of parameters and constraints within the geometry module. For simplicity or for clarity of
demonstration, parametric surveys are often carried out at constant displacement and volume. This,
however, is artificial as the dimensions interact with the sub-system parameters in achieving an
overall balance. Thus students should either use a proper sizing iterative procedure for geometric
variation, or as a minimum, resize their final geometrically “optimized” design if this has been
carried out in isolation of a sizing model.
The geometry model at Appendix 2G1 (or similar) may be used with confidence for the first 2
stages of the above procedure. However because it uses the constraints of displacement, volume and
stability (GM) any changes to side-hull parameters in Stage 3 will also cause minor readjustment
of the main-hull dimensions. It may be preferred, therefore, that once satisfactory dimensions have
been achieved in Stage 2 to freeze the main-hull values, and to carry out side-hull trade offs in
isolation – maintaining stability – but allowing total volume to “float” as side-hull geometry and
transverse location are varied.
For trimaran ships which are effectively stabilized monohulls (i.e with no enclosed volume in the
box) an alternative and more straightforward approach may be preferred.

1. Treat the main hull as a monohull. Optimize geometry for resistance, seakeeping, layout and
structural strength in terms of superstructure proportion, depth length and beam. Largely
ignore sidehull geometry and stability issues for time being.
2. Explore side-hull options to provide required stability characteristics, ensuring other
performance aspects remain satisfactory.
A.5.7 Trimaran Research and References
Trimaran research is still at an early stage, based on paper designs, model experiments and
computer calculations. Students are encouraged to read some of these as background to their ship
design exercise.
Research into overall design has largely been carried out at UCL in previous Ship Design Exercises
and the PhD of J.W. Zhang. The results of this work have been summarised in a number of
references [5],[6],[7],[8],[9],[10] There are also various reports available from the MoD/DERA
programme of research [12-62] Most of these are on engineering science aspects.
A.5.8 References
1 Dubrovski V. “A Concept for a Triple Hulled Frigate” RINA Warship Technology article March
1998
2 Yeh H.Y.H. “Series 64 Resistance Experiments on High-Speed Displacement Forms” SNAME
Marine Technology July 1965
3 Holtrop J. and Mennen G.G.J. “A Statistical Power Prediction Method” ISP Vol 25
4 Zhang J.W. “Design and Hydrodynamic Performance of Trimaran Displacement Ships” PhD
Thesis UCL 1997
5 Pattison, D.R. & Zhang J.W. ‘The Trimaran Ships’. RINA Spring Meeting Paper, April 1994.
6 Andrews, D.J. & Zhang, J.W. ‘Considerations in the Design of a Trimaran Frigate’, Inter.
Symposium on High Speed Vessels for Transport and Defence, RINA, London, Nov. 1995.
7 Andrews, D.J. & Zhang, J.W. ‘A Novel Design Solution to Stability - The Trimaran Ship’, Inter.
Conf. on Watertight Integrity & Ship Survivability, RINA, London, Nov. 1996.
8 Zhang, J.W. & Andrews, D.J. ‘Manoeuvrability Performance of a Trimaran Ship’, Inter. Conf. On
High Speed Craft Motions & Manoeuvrability, RINA, London, February 1998.
9 Anrews, D.J. & Bayliss, J. ‘The Trimaran Ship – A Potential New Form for Aircraft Carrying
Ships’, WARSHIP 97, Inter. Sym. On Air Power at Sea, London, June 1997.
10 Zhang J.W. and van Griethuysen W.J. “Trimaran Design”, Naval Technology Conference,
Singapore 1998
12 Hall J.H., Gale M.G, Granshaw D. “Seakeeping, manoeuvring and resistance experiment on a
Trimaran frigate” DRA Haslar Report DRA/SS/SSHE/CR95020, Jul 95, UK Confidential
13 Scrace R J “Experiments with low resistance trimaran centre hulls” DRA Haslar Report DRA/
SS/SSHE/TR96008, May 96, UK Restricted
14 Gale M.G, Hall J.H., Hartley K.B “Trimaran Resistance experiments - effect of outrigger
position” DRA Haslar Report DRA/SS/SSHE/CR96037, Aug 96, Unclassified.
15 Gale M.G, Hall J.H, Granshaw D. “Trimaran manoeuvring and resistance experiments effect of
outrigger position” DRA Haslar Report DRA/SS/SSHE/CR96015, Dec 96, Unclassified.

16 Steer A.P. “Assesment of CFD methods for the design of Trimarans” DRA Haslar Report DRA/
SS/SSHE/CR96112, Nov 96, UK Restricted.
17 Bramble M.F, Montgomery P.S. “A Survey of software tools with application to the design of
multi-hulled vessels” DRA Haslar Report DRA/SS/SSHE/CR96023, Jan 97, UK Restricted.
18 Hall J.H “Computational tools and guidance for assessing and optimising trimaran
hydrodynamic design” DRA Haslar Report DRA/SS/SSHE/CR97044, Mar 97, UK Unclassified
19 Smith R.P., Lloyd A.R.J.M. “Current state of the art of mobility and seakeeping of surface
ships”, DRA Dunfermline Report Number DRA/TM/AWMH/93333, Nov 93, UK Restricted
20 Small RE “Platform technical measures for consideration in T22/23”, DRA Dunfermline Report
Number DRA/AW/AWA/CR94013, Oct 94, UK Restricted
21 Thomas M., Hampshire J.K. “Interim report of Theoretical prediction of waveloading on swath
and trimaran multi hulled vessels”, DRA Dunfermline Report Number DRA/AW/AWS/CR95202,
Jan 95, UK Unclassified
22 Thomas M., Hampshire J.K. “Theoretical prediction of waveloading on swath and trimaran
multi hulled vessels”, DRA Dunfermline Report Number DRA/AW/AWS/CR95262, Dec 95, UK
Unclassified
23 McVee J.D, Nisbet S, Cross R.L. “Evaluation of the structural vulnerability of surface
warships”, DRA Dunfermline Report Number DRA/SS/SSSV/TR96206, Jul 96, UK Restricted
24 Hampshire J.K. “Prediction of wave loading effects on Trimaran frigate - interim report”, DRA
Dunfermline Report Number DRA/SS/SSSV/CR96230, Aug 96, UK Unclassified.
25 Swift A.C. “Trimaran Demonstrator - Proposed UNDEX trial fit”, DRA Dunfermline Report
Number DERA/SS/SSSV/TR97216, June 97, Restricted - Commercial.
26 Hendy N “Development of Manoeuvring Software for the MoD Trimaran”, Burness Corlett
Report Number J.5681, 1996, UK Unclassified.
27 O’Boyle B “Trimaran Integrating Design Safety Hazard Assessment”, Vosper Thornycroft
Report Number D/96-1266, Aug 96 Draft.
28 Dando N. “Preliminary Development of a Parametric Tool for Trimarans” Vosper Thornycroft
Report Number D/96 -1312, Nov 96, Restricted.
29 Pollard M.R. “Trimaran Integrating Design Project - Phase 2” Vosper Thornycroft Report
Number D/97-1317, Jan 97, UK Restricted.
30 Pollard M.R. “Feasibility of Incorporating Sonar Domes into Trimarans” Vosper Thornycroft
Report Number D/97 - 1327, Mar 97, Restricted.
31 Hinxman P. “Stability Analysis of Trimaran Demonstrator” Vosper Thornycroft Report Number
D/97 - 1363, June 97, Unclassified.
32 Searle G.D, Milford R.M, Shelley N.A. “The Structural Style Of The Trimaran Demonstrator”
Vosper Thornycroft Report Number D/97 - 1340, May 97, Unclassified.
33 Bate J, Smith N.D.T, Douglas A.M, Wood D, Cowper N, Milford R.M, Shelley N.A. “Design
Guide for Trimaran Frigates” Vosper Thornycroft Report Number D/97 - 1344, July 97, Restricted.
34 “The structural style of the Trimaran Demonstrator (2 vols)” Vosper Thornycroft Report
Number D/97-1340, May 97, Unclassified.
35 “Stability analysis of the Trimaran Demonstrator” Vosper Thornycroft Report Number
D/97-1340, June 97, Unclassified.

36 “Trimaran frigate structural design final report” Vosper Thornycroft Report Number D/97-1443,
Jan 98, UK Restricted
37 Summers A.B., “Trimaran Future ASW Frigate Concept Study” DFP(N) Report Number D/
SSC/DFP(N)/102/36/3700, Aug 94, UK Restricted
38 Marshall S.A., “Trimaran T23 Design Comparison Study” DFP(N) Report Number DGSM/
DNA&FP/191/16/6, Aug 96, UK Restricted
38 Marshall S.A., “Trimaran Demonstrator Indicative Design” DFP(N) Report Number DGSM/
DNA&FP/191/8/5, Jun 96, Draft Issue
39 Bastisch C. and T Peters, “Advanced Technology Frigate Design”, UCL MSc Ship Design
Report 1990
40 Pearson S. and Schild W, “OPV Trimaran - NA Report”, UCL MSc Ship Design Report 1992
41 Jordaan M, “OPV Trimaran - ME Report”, UCL MSc Ship Design Report 1992
42 Cudmore A. and Best G., “Small Aircraft Carrier”, UCL MSc Ship Design Report 1992
43 O’Brien P. and Russel M., “Trimaran AAW Destroyer”, UCL MSc Ship Design Report 1993
44 Kamil M. and Burrows J., “Trimaran Corvette”, UCL MSc Ship Design Report 1994
45 Zhang J.W., “Design and Hydrodynamic Performance of a High Speed Trimaran Passenger/Car
Ferry”, UCL Report 1992
46 Hill C. and Merchant A., “Trimaran Ferry for West Coast Canadian Services”, UCL MSc Ship
Design Report 1993
47 Cole C.J.P., “Trimaran Stability - A Criteria Review”, UCL MSc Dissertation Report 1992
48 Cudmore A., “Resistance of Trimarans”, UCL MSc Dissertation Report 1992
49 Masson T.A., “Trimaran Stability Investigation”, UCL 3rd Year Project Report 1993
50 Bowman J., “An Investigation of the Manoeuvrability of Trimaran Hullforms”, UCL 3rd Year
Project Report 1993
51 Ash M.W., “An Investigation of the Structural Efficiency of Trimaran Hullforms”, UCL MSc
Dissertation Report 1993
52 Lambert J., “Exploration of Trimaran Layout using Caesar”, UCL MSc Dissertation Report
1994
53 Zhang J.W., “Investigation into Trimaran Tractor Propulsion”, UCL Report 1995
54 Bayliss J.A., Dicks C.A. and Zhang J.W. “Trimaran Ship Design Data Book”, UCL Report
1996.
55 Spragg A.L.L.W “An Investigation of Trimaran Structural Efficiency”, UCL MSc Dissertation
Report 1995.
56 Zhang J.W., “A study into methods of increasing KM of a Trimaran ship and the effects on
hydrodynamic performance”, UCL Report 1997
57 Vassalos D, Turan O, Bondini F, “Static and Dynamic Stability of Trimarans Phase 1”,
Strathclyde University Report Jan 1997
58 “Swan - Trimaran frigate parametric study”, DNorske Veritas Report Number 98-0137 Jan 1998
Unclassified
59 “Swan - Trimaran frigate, draft variation and non-linear simulations”, DNorske Veritas Report
Number 98-0189 April 1998 Unclassified

60 “Trimaran Future Escort - comparison of HSLC Rule Design loads and loads from
hydrodynamic analyses”, DNorske Veritas Report Number 98-0180 April 1998 Unclassified
61 “Trimaran Integrated Desgin Programme. Research into Ship Design Process, Phase A” By J A
Baylis, C A Dicks, J W Zhang, Report 1033/96 (Revised July 1997) Dept of Mech Eng UCL
62 “Trimaran Integrated Desgin Programme. Research into Ship Design Process, Phases B&C” By
J A Baylis, C A Dicks, J W Zhang, Report 1036/96 January 1998) Dept of Mech Eng UCL
A.5.9 Trimaran Geometry Model
It is assumed that both Displacement (∇) and Total Volume ( V ) will be defined inputs
to the Geometry Model either as initial guesses based on payload, or estimates based on
sub-system output summation of weight and space demand in the iterative sizing process.
A.5.9.1 Definition of Sub-Volumes and Dimensions
Sub-volumes and Cross Section Dimensions are as defined in Fig 2G1.1.
Figure 2G1.1
Length dimensions (at the waterline) are defined as follows
Length of Main Hull - L mh
Length of Box - L box
Length of Side Hull - L sh
A.5.9.2 Definition of Set Dimension Ratios and Form Parameters
The following parameters are initially set. Parameters shown in italic are derived from other
parameters. Suggested parameter values are for general guidance only and may not be appropriate
to specific designs.

A.5.9.2.1 Main Hull
Depth (D): Depth of Main Hull (Derived from assumed number of decks and double bottom height.
Will also be influenced by Box Height and Wet Deck Clearance. See Box)
B mh / B ov : Ratio of Main Hull Beam to Overall Beam
Kf mh : Main Hull Flare Factor (Ratio of volume above waterline in main hull compared to
wallsided assumption)
Cb mh : Main Hull Block Coefficient (A value close to 0.5 is appropriate for high speed ships. A
low value will result in larger values of main-hull length.)
Cp mh : Main Hull Prismatic Coefficient
Cm mh : Main Hull Midship Section Coefficient(= Cb mh/Cp mh)
Cw mh : Main Hull Waterplane Area Coefficient (can be set or default value derived from Cw mh
= 2*Cp mh/(1+Cp mh)
Cit mh : Main Hull Waterplane Section Coefficient (suggest derived from Cw mh value using
following approximate formula
Cit mh = 6Cw mh3/((Cw mh+1)*(2Cw mh +1))
A.5.9.2.2 Superstructure
vs : Superstructure Volume Proportion (Vss / V )

To establish an appropriate value range research into previous designs may be necessary. For
example a frigate will typically lie in the range 0.2-0.35; a large aircraft carrier as low as 0.01;
a modern cruise liner may be as much as 0.5. Of course this is only past guidance and a different
value may be needed for a new concept
A.5.9.2.3 Box - Cross Structure
(defined as extending to extreme width of ship)

Δbox : Min Box Double Bottom Height
n box : No of Box Decks
Box Ht req : Box Height Required (Minimum value given by
Box Ht req =Δbox + ΔH* n box)
Box Ht / D mh : Ratio of Box Ht and Main Hull Depth
B box /B ov : Ratio of Box Width (each side) to Beam Overall. (Derived value B box/B ov =
0.5*(1- B mh/B ov)
B sep / B ov : Ratio of Main Hull Separation to Beam Overall. (Derived value Hull sep / B ov =
0.5*(1 - (B mh/B ov) - 2*(B sh/B ov)) )
L box / L : Ratio of Box to Main Hull Length
As a minimum this should be equal to side-hull length rato (L sh / L) but can be deliberately greater.
Eg. for pentamaran configurations

A.5.9.2.4 Side Hull
(structure below underside of box)

Lsh / L mh : Ratio of Side Hull to Main Hull Length (typically 0.35-0.4 for a conventional
trimaran, but can be closer to 0.2 for a pentamaran or trimaran with longitudinally stepped side-
hulls)
T sh / T mh : Ratio of Side Hull to Main Hull Draught (typically 0.4-0.5 for deep side-hulls; values
of around 0.1? can be used for shallow side-hull)
B sh / B ov : Ratio of Side Hull to Overall Beam (typically 0.1)
Kf sh : Side Hull Flare Factor (Ratio of volume above waterline in side hull compared to wallsided
assumption)
Cb sh : Side Hull Block Coefficient (typically …)
Cp sh : Side Hull Prismatic Coefficient (typically ..)
Cm sh : Side Hull Midship Section Coefficient(= Cb sh/Cp sh)
Cw sh : Side Hull Waterplane Area Coefficient (can be set or default value derived from Cw sh =
2*Cp sh/(1+Cp sh)
Cit sh : Side Hull Waterplane Section Coefficient (derived from Cw sh value using following
approximate formula
Cit sh = 6Cw sh3/((Cw sh+1)*(2Cw sh +1))
A.5.9.3 Definition of Stability Parameters
GM req : Required value of GM

KG/D : Ratio of KG as proportion of Depth.
This value will depend on the ship type and the superstructure proportion and arrangement. Some
preliminary research may be necessary.
A.5.9.4 Displacement Volume Relationships
∇ = ∇mh + 2 ∇sh
where
∇mh = [ Cb mh . (B mh/ Bov)] . [T mh. B ov. L mh]
= α . [T mh. B ov. L mh]
and
∇sh = [ Cb sh . (B sh/B ov) . (Tsh/Tmh) . (Lsh/Lmh) ] . [T mh. B ov. L mh]
= β . [T mh. B ov. L mh]
Thus combining the above we have:
∇ = [ α + 2 β ] . [T mh. B ov. L mh]
where
α = [ Cb mh . (B mh/ Bov)]
β = [ Cb sh . (B sh/B ov) . (Tsh/Tmh) . (Lsh/Lmh) ]

It also follows that the displacement fractions of main and side hulls will be:
For the main hull
(∇mh / ∇) = α / (α + 2 β)
For a single side hull
(∇ sh / ∇) = β / (α + 2 β)
For both side hulls
(∇ 2sh / ∇) = 2 β / (α + 2 β)
A.5.9.5 Volume Relationships
Vm = V mh + 2 .V box + 2.V sh

where Vm = V (1 - vs) ie. total volume excluding superstructure
and each sub volume can be defined as follows:
V mh = ∇mh + [ Cw mh. Kf mh. (B mh/Bov)]. [D - Tmh].[ B ov. Lmh]
such that
V mh = { α . T mh. + γ . [D - Tmh] } .[ B ov. Lmh]
where
γ = [ Cw mh. Kf mh. (B mh/Bov)]
and
V sh = ∇ sh + [ Cw sh. Kf sh. (B sh/Bov). (L sh/L mh)].
[(1 - (H box/D))D - T mh] . [ B ov. Lmh]
such that
V sh = { β . T mh + δ . [(1 - (H box/D))D - T mh] } . [ B ov. Lmh]
where
δ = [ Cw sh. Kf sh. (B sh/Bov). (L sh/L mh)]
and
V box = [( H box/D) . (B box/ B ov) . (L box / L mh)] . D . [ B ov. Lmh ]
such that
V box = { ε . D } . [ B ov. Lmh ]
where
ε = [( H box/D) . (B box/ B ov) . (L box / L mh)]
Combining the above results we finally have:
V m =[{ α . T mh. + γ . [D - Tmh] }+ 2 .{ β.T mh
+ δ # . D - δ. T mh }+ 2. { ε . D}] x [ B ov. Lmh ]
where “ δ # ” is shorthand for : δ . [(1 - (H box/D)]

A.5.9.6 Determination of Draught, Freeboard and Box Wet Deck Clearance
Given a defined value of Main Hull Depth, the draught of the main hull (T mh) can be determined,
with subsequent calculation of side hull draught, freeboard and box wet deck clearance, as follows:
Recalling from Section 4 that Displacement can be written
∇ = [{ α + 2 β } . T mh]. [ B ov. L mh]
and from Section 5 that Volume (excluding superstructure) V m can be written
V m =[{ α. T mh. + γ . [D - Tmh] }+ 2 .{ β.T mh
The displacement fraction r m of the ship less the superstructure is given by
r m = ∇ / V m = ∇ / V( 1 - vs )
which is known from the input values of ∇, V and vs
However from the above expressions for ∇ and V m we can relate the value of r m to dimensions as
follows (noting that the [B ov. L mh] term cancels out) :
Dividing through by T mh with a small amount of re-arrangement this becomes:
and hence it is possible to determine D/T mh
Finally we have the results:

T mh = D / (D/T mh)
Having determined the value of T mh it is then a simple matter to determine the other draught and
freeboard related values:
Draught of Side Hulls
T sh = (T sh/ T mh ) . T mh
Freeboard of the main hull
F mh = D - T mh
Box Wet Deck Clearance
H wet = F mh - H box
A.5.9.7 Volume Fractions
Determination of the previous values of draught and freeboard now enables the volume allocation
within the main ship to be solved:
V mh/ V = ( α. T mh + γ. F mh) (1-vs) / { ( α. T mh + γ. Fmh)+2((β-δ).Tmh+δ#.D) + (2. ε. D) }

V sh/ V = 2 ((β-δ ). Tmh + d#. D ) (1-vs) / { (α. T
mh + γ. Fmh)+2((β-δ). Tmh+δ#.D) + (2. ε. D) }
V box/ V = (2. ε. D) / { ( α. T mh + γ. F mh)+2((β-δ). Tmh+δ#.D) + (2. ε. D)}}
V ss/ V = vs
A.5.9.8 Calculation of Beam Overall, Main and Side Hull Beams and Hull Separation
Beam is determined by the need to generate a particular value of GM req . Because both Main Hull
Beam ( B mh) and Side Hull Beam ( B sh ) have been defined to be particular fractions of Beam
Overall ( B ov ) it is possible to solve the stability relationship GM = GM req in terms of B ov. This
then allows B mh, B sh and Hull Separation ( B sep ) to be determined.
GM req = GM = KB + BM - KG
The following steps need to be followed:
GM req is defined as a fixed value, sufficient for stability and seakeeping requirements.
KG is estimated by assuming a particular value for KG/D from previous similar designs. It may
infact be possible to relate this to particular volume fractions of Box and Superstructure Volumes.
Thus
KG = (KG/D). D
KB can be estimated from the values of draught and underwater form parameters of the main and
side hulls using Morrish’s formula.
For the main hull
KB mh = T mh*((5/6) - (Cb mh/(3*Cwmh)))
For each side hull
KB sh = T sh* ((5/6)-(Cb sh/(3*Cw sh))) + (Tmh-Tsh)
The overall value of KB is determined by weighting main and side hull values by their
respective displacement fractions (see Section 4 pg 4 )
Thus
KB = ( α . KB mh + 2 β . KB sh) / (α + 2β)
Having determined the above values we can then define the required value of BM (BM req) as:
BM req = GM req + KG - KB
and from this determine the value of B ov as follows:
BM req = (I mh + 2. I sh ) / ∇ = ( I mh/ ∇) + (2. I sh/ ∇)
now for the first term
I mh =[Cit mh (B mh/B ov)3/ 12] B ov 3.L mh
and dividing through by
∇ = [ α + 2 β ] . [T mh. B ov. L mh]
we get
I mh/ ∇ = [Cit mh (B mh/B ov)3/ 12] . [T mh/( α + 2 β )]. { B ov/ T mh} 2
Similarly for each of the side hulls we have:

I sh ={ [Cit sh.(Lsh/L) (B sh/B ov)3/ 12] + [Cw sh. (L
sh/L mh). (B sh/B ov). (B lever/B ov)2] } B ov 3.L mh
where B lever is the distance of each side hull waterplane area centroid from the ships overall
centreline.
B lever/B ov is therefore given by: [1 - (B sh/B ov)] / 2
Again dividing through by ∇ = [ α + 2 β ] . [T mh. B ov. L mh]
we get
I sh/ ∇ = { [Cit sh. (Lsh/L).(B sh/B ov)3/ 12] + [Cw sh. (L sh/L mh).
(B sh/B ov). (B lever/B ov)2] }. [T mh/( α + 2 β )]. { B ov/ T mh} 2
It can be seen from above that the I / ∇ terms are functions of { B ov/ T mh} and therefore:
B ov/ T mh = [BM req. [( α + 2 β )/ T mh] / {[Cit mh (B mh/B ov)3/ 12] +
2[Cit sh.(Lsh/L). (B sh/B ov)3/ 12]
+ 2 [Cw sh. (L sh/L mh). (B sh/B ov). (B lever/B ov)2] }]1/2
As T mh is already known we obtain:
B ov = (B ov/ T mh). T mh
Once B ov has been determined all the “ slave values” can be calculated:
B mh = (B mh/B ov) . B ov
B sh = (B sh/B ov) . B ov
B sep = 0.5 ( B ov - B mh - 2. B sh)
A.5.9.9 Determination of Length Dimensions
Main Hull Length is given by:

L mh = ∇/ [ α + 2 β ] . [T mh. B ov]
Side Hull Length is then given by:
L sh = (L sh/ L mh) . L mh
A.5.10 TRISWACH Geometry Model
It is assumed that both Displacement (∇) and Total Volume ( V ) will be defined inputs
to the Geometry Model either as initial guesses based on payload, or estimates based on
sub-system output summation of weight and space demand in the iterative sizing process.
A.5.10.1 Definition of Sub-Volumes and Dimensions
Sub-volumes and Cross Section Dimensions are as defined in Fig 2G1.1.

Figure 2G1.1
Length dimensions (at the waterline) are defined as follows
Length of Main Hull - L mh (assume that strut and lower hull have same length for initial sizing)
Length of Box - L box
Length of Side Hull - L sh
A.5.10.2 Definition of Set Dimension Ratios and Form Parameters
The following parameters are initially set. Parameters shown in italic are derived from other
parameters. Suggested parameter values are for general guidance only and may not be appropriate
to specific designs.

A.5.10.2.1 Main Hull
Depth (D): Depth of Main Hull (Derived from assumed number of decks and double bottom height.
Will also be influenced by Box Height and Wet Deck Clearance. See Box)
B mh / B ov : Ratio of Main-Hull Beam to Overall Beam
( based on underwatwer width of central hull)
B strut / B mh : Ratio of Main-hull Strut Width to Main-Hull (ie. lower hull) Beam
B strut / B ov : Ratio of Main-hull Strut Width to Overall Beam
(Derived value from (B strut/B ov . Bmh/Bov)
T strut / T mh : Ratio of Strut draught to overall Main-Hull draught
Kf mh : Main Hull Flare Factor
(Ratio of volume above waterline in main hull compared to wallsided assumption based on Strut
Waterplane, This will be >1) 5
Cm mh For TRISWACH value defined based on B mh x Tmh envelope. Derived value as shown
in footnote 6Eg. A value of 0.54 approx will be appropriate with a strut draught 50% of T mh and
strut beam 30% of B mh. Actual value will depend on the desired relative beam and draught of the
lower hull and strut.
Cp mh : Main Hull Prismatic Coefficient.
Largely dependent on relative fullness of lower hull. Typical value 0.7 ??
Cb mh : Main Hull Block Coefficient
(Derived value from Cp mh.Cm mh)
Cw mh : Main Hull Waterplane Area Coefficient
(value based on Strut Waterplane.With considerable parallel body will be close to unity?)
Cit mh : Main Hull Waterplane Section Coefficient (suggest derived from Cw mh value using
following approximate formula
Cit mh = 6Cw mh3/((Cw mh+1)*(2Cw mh +1))
A.5.10.2.2 Superstructure
vs : Superstructure Volume Proportion (Vss / V )

To establish an appropriate value range research into previous designs may be necessary. For
example a frigate will typically lie in the range 0.2-0.35; a large aircraft carrier as low as 0.01;
a modern cruise liner may be as much as 0.5. Of course this is only past guidance and a different
value may be needed for a new concept

A.5.10.2.3 Box - Cross Structure (defined as extending to extreme width of ship)
Δbox : Min Box Double Bottom Height

n box : No of Box Decks
Box Ht req : Box Height Required (Minimum value given by
Box Ht req =Δbox +ΔH* n box)
Box Ht / D mh : Ratio of Box Ht and Main Hull Depth
B box /B ov : Ratio of Box Width (each side) to Beam Overall. (Derived value B box/B ov =
0.5*(1- B mh/B ov) which takes beam of main hull as that of lower hull
B sep / B ov : Ratio of Main Hull Separation to Beam Overall. (Derived value B sep / B ov =
0.5*(1 - (B mh/B ov) - 2*(B sh/B ov)) , again calculated relative to lower hull )
L box / L : Ratio of Box to Main Hull Length
As a minimum this should be equal to side-hull length rato (L sh / L) but can be deliberately greater.
Eg. for pentamaran configurations
A.5.10.2.4 Side Hull ( structure below underside of box)
Lsh / L mh : Ratio of Side Hull to Main Hull Length (typically 0.35-0.4 for a conventional
trimaran, but can be closer to 0.2 for a pentamaran or trimaran with longitudinally stepped side-
hulls)
T sh / T mh : Ratio of Side Hull to Main Hull Draught (typically 0.4-0.5 for deep side-hulls; values
of around 0.1? can be used for shallow side-hull)
B sh / B ov : Ratio of Side Hull to Overall Beam (typically 0.1)
Kf sh : Side Hull Flare Factor (Ratio of volume above waterline in side hull compared to wallsided
assumption)
Cb sh : Side Hull Block Coefficient (typically …)
Cp sh : Side Hull Prismatic Coefficient (typically ..)
Cm sh : Side Hull Midship Section Coefficient(= Cb sh/Cp sh)
Cw sh : Side Hull Waterplane Area Coefficient (can be set or default value derived from Cw sh =
2*Cp sh/(1+Cp sh)
Cit sh : Side Hull Waterplane Section Coefficient (derived from Cw sh value using following
approximate formula
Cit sh = 6Cw sh3/((Cw sh+1)*(2Cw sh +1))
A.5.10.3 Definition of Stability Parameters
GM req : Required value of GM

KG/D : Ratio of KG as proportion of Depth.
This value will depend on the ship type and the superstructure proportion and arrangement. Some
preliminary research may be necessary.

A.5.10.4 Displacement Volume Relationships
∇ = ∇mh + 2 ∇sh
where
∇mh = [ Cb mh . (B mh/ Bov)] . [T mh. B ov. L mh]
= α . [T mh. B ov. L mh]
and
∇sh = [ Cb sh . (B sh/B ov) . (Tsh/Tmh) . (Lsh/Lmh) ] . [T mh. B ov. L mh]
= β . [T mh. B ov. L mh]
Thus combining the above we have:
∇ = [ α + 2 β ] . [T mh. B ov. L mh]
where
α = [ Cb mh . (B mh/ Bov)]
β = [ Cb sh . (B sh/B ov) . (Tsh/Tmh) . (Lsh/Lmh) ]
It also follows that the displacement fractions of main and side hulls will be:
For the main hull
(∇mh / ∇) = α / (α + 2 β)
For a single side hull
(∇ sh / ∇) = β / (α + 2 β)
For both side hulls
(∇ 2sh / ∇) = 2 β / (α + 2 β)
It is also posssible to make an estimate of the distribution of volume in the main hull between the
strut and the lower hull. This is useful for later estimation of the vcb of the main-hull.
∇strut / ∇mh = [(Cw mh/Cb mh).(T strut/T mh).(Bstrut/ B ov)/(B mh/ Bov)]
and
∇lh / ∇mh = 1 - (∇strut / ∇mh )
A.5.10.5 Volume Relationships
Vm = V mh + 2 .V box + 2.V sh

where Vm = V (1 - vs) ie. total volume excluding superstructure
and each sub volume can be defined as follows:
V mh = ∇mh + [ Cw mh. Kf mh. (B strut/Bov)]. [D - Tmh].[ B ov. Lmh]
such that
V mh = { α . T mh. + γ . [D - Tmh] } .[ B ov. Lmh]
where
γ = [ Cw mh. Kf mh. (B mh/Bov)]
and

V sh = ∇ sh + [ Cw sh. Kf sh. (B sh/Bov). (L sh/L mh)].
[(1 - (H box/D))D - T mh] . [ B ov. Lmh]
such that
V sh = { β . T mh + δ . [(1 - (H box/D))D - T mh] } . [ B ov. Lmh]
where
δ = [ Cw sh. Kf sh. (B sh/Bov). (L sh/L mh)]
and
V box = [( H box/D) . (B box/ B ov) . (L box / L mh)] . D . [ B ov. Lmh ]
such that
V box = { ε . D } . [ B ov. Lmh ]
where
ε = [( H box/D) . (B box/ B ov) . (L box / L mh)]
Combining the above results we finally have:
V m =[{ α . T mh. + γ . [D - Tmh] }+ 2 .{ β.T mh
where “ δ # ” is shorthand for : δ . [(1 - (H box/D)]
A.5.10.6 Determination of Draught, Freeboard and Box Wet Deck Clearance
Given a defined value of Main Hull Depth, the draught of the main hull (T mh) can be determined,
with subsequent calculation of side hull draught, freeboard and box wet deck clearance, as follows:
Recalling from Section 4 that Displacement can be written
∇ = [{ α + 2 β } . T mh]. [ B ov. L mh]
and from Section 5 that Volume (excluding superstructure) V m can be written
V m =[{ α. T mh. + γ . [D - Tmh] }+ 2 .{ β.T mh
The displacement fraction r m of the ship less the superstructure is given by
r m = ∇ / V m = ∇ / V( 1 - vs )
which is known from the input values of ∇, V and vs
However from the above expressions for ∇ and V m we can relate the value of r m to dimensions as
follows (noting that the [B ov. L mh] term cancels out) :
Dividing through by T mh with a small amount of re-arrangement this becomes:
and hence it is possible to determine D/T mh

Finally we have the results:
Main-hull Draught
T mh = D / (D/T mh)
Having determined the value of T mh it is then a simple matter to determine the other draught and
freeboard related values:
Draught of Side Hulls
T sh = (T sh/ T mh ) . T mh
Freeboard of the main hull
F mh = D - T mh
Box Wet Deck Clearance
H wet = F mh - H box
A.5.10.7 Volume Fractions
Determination of the previous values of draught and freeboard now enables the volume allocation
within the main ship to be solved:
V mh/ V = ( α. T mh + γ. F mh) (1-vs) / { ( α. T mh + γ. Fmh)+2((β-δ).Tmh+δ#.D) + (2. ε. D) }
V sh/ V = 2 ((β-δ ). Tmh + d#. D ) (1-vs) / { (α. T
mh + γ. Fmh)+2((β-δ). Tmh+δ#.D) + (2. ε. D) }
V box/ V = (2. ε. D) / { ( α. T mh + γ. F mh)+2((β-δ). Tmh+δ#.D) + (2. ε. D)}}
V ss/ V = vs
A.5.10.8 Calculation of Beam Overall, Main and Side Hull Beams and Hull Separation
Beam is determined by the need to generate a particular value of GM req . Because both Main Hull
Beam ( B mh) and Side Hull Beam ( B sh ) have been defined to be particular fractions of Beam
Overall ( B ov ) it is possible to solve the stability relationship GM = GM req in terms of B ov. This
then allows B mh, B sh and Hull Separation ( B sep ) to be determined.
GM req = GM = KB + BM - KG
The following steps need to be followed:
GM req is defined as a fixed value, sufficient for stability and seakeeping requirements.
KG is estimated by assuming a particular value for KG/D from previous similar designs. It may
infact be possible to relate this to particular volume fractions of Box and Superstructure Volumes.
Thus
KG = (KG/D). D
KB can be estimated as follows:
For the main hull estimate KB mh based on assumed relative beam and draught and hence the
relative displacements and vcb of strut and lower hull.

KB mh = [(∇lh / ∇mh). (T mh – T strut) /2] + [( ∇strut/ ∇ mh) (Tmh –(Tstrut/2))
For each side hull
KB sh = T sh* ((5/6)-(Cb sh/(3*Cw sh))) + (Tmh-Tsh)
The overall value of KB is determined by weighting main and side hull values by their
respective displacement fractions (see Section 4 pg 4 )
Thus
KB = ( α . KB mh + 2 β . KB sh) / (α + 2β)
Having determined the above values we can then define the required value of BM (BM req) as:
BM req = GM req + KG - KB
and from this determine the value of B ov as follows:
BM req = (I mh + 2. I sh ) / ∇ = ( I mh/ ∇) + (2. I sh/ ∇)
now for the first term
I mh =[Cit mh (B strut/B ov)3/ 12] B ov 3.L mh
and dividing through by
∇ = [ α + 2 b ] . [T mh. B ov. L mh]
we get
I mh/ ∇ = [Cit mh (B strut/B ov)3/ 12] . [T mh/( α + 2 β )]. { B ov/ T mh} 2
Similarly for each of the side hulls we have:
I sh ={ [Cit sh. (Lsh/Lmh).(B sh/B ov)3/ 12] + [Cw sh.
(L sh/L mh). (B sh/B ov). (B lever/B ov)2] } B ov 3.L mh
where B lever is the distance of each side hull waterplane area centroid from the ships overall
centreline.
B lever/B ov is therefore given by: [1 - (B sh/B ov)] / 2
Again dividing through by
∇ = [ α + 2 β ] . [T mh. B ov. L mh]
we get
I sh/ ∇ = { [Cit sh. (Lsh/Lmh).(B sh/B ov)3/ 12] + [Cw sh. (L sh/L
mh). (B sh/B ov). (B lever/B ov)2] }.[T mh/( α + 2 β )]. { B ov/ T mh} 2
It can be seen from above that the I / ∇ terms are functions of { B ov/ T mh} and therefore:
B ov/ T mh = [BM req. [( α + 2 β )/ T mh] / {[Cit mh (B strut/B ov)3/ 12] +
2[Cit sh. (Lsh/Lmh) . (B sh/B ov)3/ 12]
+ 2 [Cw sh. (L sh/L mh) . (B sh/B ov). (B lever/B ov)2] }]1/2
As T mh is already known we obtain:
B ov = (B ov/ T mh). T mh
Once B ov has been determined all the “ slave values” can be calculated:
B mh = (B mh/B ov) . B ov
B strut = (B strut/B ov) . B ov

B sh = (B sh/B ov) . B ov
B sep = 0.5 ( B ov - B mh - 2. B sh)
A.5.10.9 Determination of Length Dimensions
Main Hull Length is given by:

L mh = ∇/ [ α + 2 β ] . [T mh. B ov]
Side Hull Length is then given by:
L sh = (L sh/ L mh) . L mh
A.5.11 Marine Engineering Aspects of Trimaran Design
One of the advantages of a trimaran compared to a monohull of the same displacement is that at
higher speeds it has less resistance, the speed at which a trimaran becomes more efficient increases
with displacement. Conversely at lower speed where skin friction drag is more dominant it is less
efficient. This will tend to force trimarans into a different operating profile and design where they
can take advantage of the lower powering requirement at high speed. It is also one of the reasons
why direct powering and endurance comparisons between monohulls and trimarans should be
treated with care. A more valid comparison is to compare vessels designed to perform the same
roles.
In most monohulls the marine engineering is length driven, but in trimarans the design tends to
be beam driven. A comparison of monohulls with similar trimaran designs show that the beam of
the main hull in the trimaran tends to be only between 45% and 60% that of the monohull. Figure
*** demonstrates this, more dramatic concept designs have shown that a trimaran aircraft carrier
of similar displacement to HMS Invincible would have a main hull whose beam would be similar
to that of a Type 23. The centre hull design is then very sensitive to the machinery fit, not only
in beam but also in length. Because of the high L/B ratio, a small change in beam will result in
a significant change in length (if displacement is to be maintained). This is turn will affect the
resistance of the vessel in two different ways. Firstly the change in the hull form of the centre hull
will increase the resistance (assume an increase in beam). Secondly it will alter the wave pattern set
up by the centre hull with the result that the side hull geometry may require adjustment.
If a conventional mechanical system is to be used it will tend to be much longer than in a
monohull. Shaft length and watertight subdivision can become an issue. The position of the prime
movers is very constrained, they must be close to the centre line of the ship. Removal routes
and trunking can be a serious problem, especially on frigate sized vessels with flight decks and
hangers. Removal through the side of the hull might be severely hindered by the side hulls. Large
holes in the box structure can cause problems with structural integrity.
Even if a twin shaft system can be squeezed into the hull getting the power into the water is another
issue. It is important to perform quick propeller sizing calculations early on. It is preferable that the
propeller discs do not extend beyond the beam of the main hull and they should be at least 0.2D
apart, preferably 0.3D.
The side hulls on all but the largest trimarans have very little beam in which to fit anything of
use. Small propulsion motors can be fitted for manoeuvring and emergency propulsion. There
are serious problems with performance matching and residual drag caused by these propulsors
when not in use. Due to the shallow draught of the side hulls and the large roll lever emergence is a
problem.
If the side hulls are to be used for tankage the ability to maintain trim must be taken into
account. Access to all the pumps etc in the side hulls must be considered and in general more
pumps and piping will be required than on a monohull because there are three hulls not one. The
stabilisers can project directly out form the main hull as they are now protected by the side
hulls. They will be more efficient, but they will have to be as they have less of a lever arm due to
the narrow beam. On larger vessels the stabilisers can be fitted facing in from the side hulls.
Marine engineering for a trimaran is a challenge and beam is the key. The design of the vessel is
much more sensitive to changes than a monohull and issues such as the number of shafts and what
type of propulsor have to be considered much earlier in the design.
Figure 1. Comparison of midship cross sections of

5830T displacement trimaran and monohull frigates.
A.5.11.1 References
1 Greig, A.R. and Bucknall, R.W.G. (1998).

“Marine engineering the trimaran hull form: Opportunities and constraints”.
Trans. I.Mar.E., Vol. 110, Part 3, pp 181 - 193. ISSN 0309-3948
2 Greig, A.R., and Bucknall R.W.G. (1999)
(a) “Trimaran Cruise Liners”
(b) “Trimaran Cruise Liners - discussion”
Proc. The 21st Century Cruise Ship, Conf. Pub: I.Mar.E. Vol. 111,3 Part II pp. 81 – 82, 15 –
16 April 1999 London UK. ISBN 1-902536-20-7
A.6 Design Procedure for Surface Effect Ships (SES)
1. Introduction
2. Description of SES Concept
3. SES Synthesis Procedure
4. Parametric Survey
5. Transverse Stability

6. Other Design Considerations
Nomenclature
a = Wave Amplitude
Ac = Cushion Area
A1 = Cross Section area of Trunking
A2 = Cross Section areas of Plenum
AL = Leakage Area from Cushion
Awet = Wetted Surface of the Side Hull when on Cushion
Af = Frontal Area of Vehicle
b = Side Hull Width
B = Overall Beam
BC = Cushion Beam
Cd = Coefficient of Discharge from the Cushion
CDA = Areo Dynamic Drag Coefficient
Cf = Coefficient of Friction
Cw = Side Hull Water Plane Area Coefficient
d = Lift Fan Diameter Coefficient
D = Lift Fan Diameter
DB = Mean Box Depth
DSH = Depth of Side Hull
DW = Wave Drag (Cushion)
DF = Skin Friction Drag
DA = Aero Dynamic Drag
DSK = Skirt Drag
DR = Residual Drag
Fn = Cushion Froude Number = Speed(U)/ (gLc)^0.5
g = Gravity
GML = Longitudinal GM of Side Hulls while on Cushion
hg = Cushion Gap
H = Head Rise across Lift Fan
HC = Cushion Height
Aθθ= Added Fluid Inertia of Side Hulls
k = wave number = 2π / λ
L = Side Hull Length
Lc = Cushion Length

M = Vehicle Mass
N = Rotational Speed of Lift Fans
Np = Number of personnel
n = Number of Lift Fans
P = Absolute Pressure (Pa+PC)
Pa = Ambient Pressure
PC = Cushion Pressure
PL = Lift Power
PS = Propulsive Power
PT = Total power
pvf = Payload Volume Fraction
Q = Volume Flow Rate of Air in Lift System
R = Range
Rc = Wave Resistance Coefficient
rob = reserve of buoyancy in side hulls
sfcp = Specific Fuel Consumption (propulsion)
sfcL = Specific Fuel Consumption (lift)
TB, TC = Side Hull Draughts
U = Speed
U1 = Speed of Air in Lift Fan Trunking.
Uj = speed of air through cushion gap
V = Ship Volume
VB = Volume in box
VSH = Volume of side hulls
VWDC = Side Hull Volume Required to Provide Wet Deck Clearance
Vc = Cushion Plenum Volume
W = Ship Weight
WDC = Wet Deck Clearance
Wf= fuel weight
wp= payload weight
wper = weight of personnel group
wLS = weight of lift system
wSK = weight of skirt system
w3 = weight of ship services
w5 = weight of electrical system
δH = Losses in Lift Fan trunking
ηH =Hydraulic Efficiency of the Lift System
ηT = Transport Efficiency of the Lift System
ρa= Air density
ρ= Overall Density
ρw= Water Density
δ = Buoyancy Fraction
ω = Wave frequency
ωe = Wave encounter Frequency
ωo = Modal frequency in severe sea state
ωz = Natural Frequency of the Coupled Heave-Pressure Mode
ωθ = Natural Frequency of the Pitch Mode
γ = Ratio of specific heats for air (Cp / Cv)
Π1, Π2 & Π3 = Non dimensional Fan Parameters
σ = Fift Fan speed Coefficient
λ = wave length
A.6.1 Introduction
The procedures described in this Annex are designed to give the student an insight into some of
the considerations which influence the initial synthesis and choice of dimension of a Surface Effect
Ship.
Attention is directed principally towards the process of achieving a balanced design in terms of
weight and space. This procedure follows the same general approach as used for Monohulls and
SWATHS, but with consideration and amplification of areas specific to SES’s. (e.g. The relationship
between Weigh Cushion Pressure and Vehicle Dimensions; estimation of Propulsive Power;
estimation of Lift Power).
Once values for vehicle Weight and Volume have been achieved, other references are available (e.g.
Ref 1 & 2) to assist the student in analysing the candidate vehicle in more depth (e.g. detailed R&P,
Maneuvering, Seakeeping etc). Initial Transverse Stability is considered, however, as this represents
a major influence on the choice of SES dimensions.
Form parameters and geometry are discussed at an elementary level so as to maintain clarity of
explanation. The choice of form parameters to describe geometry, Like the synthesis procedure
itself, should be seen as one which is open to modification and embellishment should the situation
demand it.
Finally as a general introduction to the subject of SES Design Ref 1 is recommended reading.
A.6.2 Description or SES Concept
The Surface Effect Ship (SES) is a derivative of the hovercraft, using a cushion or air to lift the
majority of the vehicle out the water so as no reduce the drag and power requirement at high speed.
Originally the term SES was simply the American term for describing what in Britain vas called a
‘Side wall Hovercraft’ i.e. a hovercraft with rigid side walls and flexible seals an either end. Unlike

the amphibious ‘hovercraft’ the side walls restrict use of the SES to water. However the rigid side
walls confer several distinct advantages over the pure hovercraft.
(i) Perimeter leakage of air from the cushion no maintain a given clearance is much
reduced hence reducing Lift Power
(ii) The Side walls enable more efficient water propulsors, rather than air propulsors, to be
used.
(iii) The Side walls confer much greater directional stability and controllability to the
vehicle.
In the earliest development of the SES attention naturally focussed on the promise of being able no
achieve high speeds. This favoured development of craft with low Length to Beam ratios so that
at operational speeds the vehicle would be operating beyond the cushion wave making hump (i.e.
high Froude No). This makes good sense for applications where a constant high speed is required
e.g. Ferry design where the speed requirement is more varied, the choice of cushion aspect ratio
becomes more complex.
If Cushion Froude No is defined as Speed(U)/ (gLc)^0.5 two regimes may be distinguished.
For Fn > 1.2 a low Lc/Bc is beneficial;
For Fn < 1 a high Lc/Bc, is beneficial (in sub hump operation).
The problem confronting a SES designer with a mixed speed profile is particularly pertinent to
naval applications in that:
(i) There may be a need to operate at low speed to operate sensors such as sonars, and yet
be able to transit at high speed to other locations.
(ii) There will inevitably be a need to operate in some situations with other members of a
Task Group in which case overall speed is dictated by the ‘lowest common denominator’.
(iii) Platform mobility may not be of critical importance in certain ‘scenarios’.
For the above reasons attention has recently turned to higher cushion (L/B) ratios for SES’s
destined for moderate/high speed applications. While still conferring a distinct speed advantage
over conventional monohulls, the extreme speeds envisaged earlier have been traded against
improved fuel consumption at moderate/low speeds, improved range and/or increased payload
capacity.
Linked to the use of higher Lc/Bc ratios to reduce ‘Sub-Hump’ cushion wave making drag came the
awareness that much of the justification for cushion borne operation disappeared at low speeds.
The extra drag incurred by an increased proportion of buoyant lift was considerably less than the
power expended in maintaining a cushion of air. It was therefore logical for Naval SES development
to be pursued along the line of the ‘buoyant side hull’ concept. As this suggests, the side hulls are
designed to be able to support the entire weight of the vehicle with buoyancy when the cushion
pressure is zero. In fact some reserve of buoyancy is usually provided so as to maintain a minimum
clearance between the water surface and the bottom of the cross structure (the so called ‘Wet
Deck’). In this mode an SES is very akin to a conventional catamaran.
Two principal operational regimes therefore emerge for SES’s:
(i) Cushion borne / High speed
(ii) Hull borne / Low speed.
These regimes should be seen as two extremes of a variable balance to be struck between buoyant
and cushion lift so that at any given speed the sum of Propulsive and Lift Powers is a minimum.

Operationally the application of an SES in a Naval environment needs very careful justification.
While the advantage which an SES confers over a monohull is that of greater ‘platform’ mobility,
and in certain circumstances this will prove to be a decisive factor, it will clearly have the penalty
of a certain weight and volume fraction devoted to the Lift System. This in turn will reduce the
aggregate amount of Payload, Fuel, Stores or Structure as a weight and volume fraction of the total
vehicle.
Within this aggregate it is also probable that as Total Power on cushion will be relatively high, this
will dictate a high weight fraction devoted to fuel unless a very moderate cushion borne range is
deemed acceptable. In early high-speed studies this proportion was considered prohibitive (e.g. 3 K
SES see table below)).
Weight Percentage of Total
Fuel 42 Variable Load
Stores 3
Margin 4 Dry Ship
Structure 27
Propulsion 6.5
Lift System 3.5
Personnel 5
Ship Services 3
Electrics 3
Payload 3
Percentage Breakdown of US 3K SES Design (Optimised for high speed / on cushion performance)
In conclusion, therefore, the SES is unlikely to match the monohull for sheer payload carrying
capacity; nor is it able to match the much higher short range mobility of aviation which usually
forms part of the payload of monohull platforms. Finally, the apparent mobility advantage of an
SES may be significantly reduced in higher sea states.
In favour of the SES it is possible to perceive situations where there is a need not only for
individual capability but for a number of units to perform a given task. The calculation of this
number will usually need to take into account the ‘downtime’ for ‘transiting’ or ‘repositioning’
between ‘base’ and a ‘patrol’ area, or between one patrol area and another. It is perhaps in such
applications that the greater mobility of the SES could be justified to reduce total squadron numbers
and hence represent a cost-effective solution. (Alternatively the same numbers could be maintained
and effectiveness increased.)
The other area of application for SES’s is where the air cushion support gives it a unique capability.
One such area is likely to be their relative immunity to underwater shock, making them a strong
candidate for mine hunting applications. Others may be related to noise isolation and the very
shallow draft of the side hulls.
For commercial applications such as Ferries the reduction in payload capacity need not be seen as
a disadvantage as it will be offset by the greater number of trips which can be performed in a given
time.
This idea can be expressed in a Transport Efficiency parameter

A.6.3 SES Synthesis Procedure
A suggested procedure for the synthesis of Surface Effect Ships is shown in Fig. 1. From a
definition of payload characteristics (weight, space, power demand) assumed values of Volume and
Weight for the vehicle are estimated from figures for ‘payload volume fraction’ (pvf) and ‘overall
density’ ( ).

Subsequently these assumptions must be validated in an iterative manner against a summation of
individual Group weight and volume requirements based on Operational Parameters and Vehicle
Dimensions. (In each iteration the latter will have been derived from the updated values of Weight
and Volume and the set of Form and Cushion Parameters assumed).
As far as possible it has been the intention to show that the calculation of weight and space of
systems supplying power (e.g. Propulsion, Lift Auxiliaries & Electrical generation) should be based
on an assessment of power demand rather than purely on a regression type approach where the
physical understanding of ‘cause and effect’ is lost. This should allow major equipment units to be
selected, allowing size implications to be properly understood. However it will still be necessary to
scale residual items from past designs. For the Ship Design Exercise students will need to adopt a
flexible approach depending on the availability of data.
To amplify some of the steps in the Synthesis Procedure the following notes are presented as
indicated in Fig 1.
1. Typical SES Weight and Volume parameters

2. Definition of SES Geometry
3. Form Parameters
4. Cushion Parameters
5. Calculation of Dimensions
6. Estimate of Propulsion System
7. Estimation of Lift System (Selection of Lift Fans)
8. Estimation of Personnel Group (Outfit & Furnishings)
9. Estimation of Ship Services (Auxiliaries)
10. Estimation of Electrical Systems
11. Estimation of Stores
12. Estimation of Fuel
13. Estimation of Structural Weight
14. Concept of Design Balance
A.6.3.1 Typical SES Weight and Volume Parameters
For the 1st Iteration of the Synthesis procedure it is necessary to be able to derive assumed values
for Total Volume & Weight and to break down Volume into Box and Side Hull components.
Initially Total Volume can be estimated from the Payload Volume using a ‘payload volume fraction’
(i) Payload Volume Fraction (pvf)
pvf = 0.10-0.15 approx. (for military payload due to high indirect systems & complementary
support)
(ii) Overall Vehicle Density ρ = W / V
An initial estimate of assumed Weight can be achieved by multiplying Total Volume by an
assumed Overall Density.
From previous designs it is evident that two distinct design styles are possible.
Low Density Design ρ = 0.06 - 0.13 approx. tonne/m3
High Density Design ρ = 0.l3 - 0.20 approx. tonne/m3

The value used should be consistent with the ‘Cushion Density’ (see 3.4).
(iii) Box and Side Hull Volume Fraction
For a fully buoyant side hull philosophy
VSH / V = (1+ rob)(ρ+ρw)
VB / V = (1 - VSH / V)
A.6.3.2 SES Geometry Definition of Dimensions
for illustration ‘wall sided’ side hulls have been assumed.
A.6.3.3 Form Parameters selected in Sizing Iterations
(i) Buoyancy Fraction

δ = Buoyancy support / Total support ≈ 0.1 while on cushion at max. height.
(ii) Side Hull Width/Cushion Width to Beam ratio

b/Bc ≈ 0.1 ... 0.12
(iii) Overall Length/Cushion Length
L /LC ≈ 1.1 ... 1.2
(iv) Side Hull Water Plane Area Coefficient (Cw)
Cw = Aw / 2Lb
(v) Wet Deck Clearance (WDC) (absolute dimension)
typically WDC= aprox 0.03L
(vi) Cushion Density (PC / LC)
(see below)
(vii) Cushion Length/Beam ratio
(LC / BC) ≈ 2 ... 6
A.6.3.4 Cushion Parameters
Cushion Pressure (PC)

Cushion Density (PC / LC)
(i) Cushion Pressure (Pc)
Cushion pressure (PC) measured relative to ambient pressure (Pa) is given by :-
PC = (1 - δ) W / LC BC
(ii) Cushion ‘Density’ (PC/LC)
Cushion Density (PC/LC) is a corruption of the non-dimensional Pressure Number (PC/
ρgLC) which by dimensional analysis is shown to be of particular significance in determining
Wave Making Resistance.
From the formula for Cushion Pressure (PC) Cushion Density is given by:
(PC/LC) = (1 - δ) W / LC2 BC
As LC and BC are proportional to V1/3 where V is Vehicle Volume, it follows that :-
(PC/LC) ∝ (1 - δ) W / V
̈Thus for a family of...vehicles of similar proportion and buoyancy fraction it can be expected
that Cushion Density (PC/LC) will be proportional to Overall Vehicle Density (W/V).
i.e. (PC/LC) ∝ ρ
This surmise is borne out in practice where it is found that both Overall Density and Cushion
Density fall into distinct bands largely independent of vehicle size. (See fig for illustration of
Cushion Density trends).

Typically so called ‘Low Density Craft” (distinctive of British design such as the SRN4,
BH-7) exhibit the following density characteristics:
ρ ≈ 0.06 ... 0.13 tonnes/m3
PC/LC ≈ 0.006 ... 0.016 tonnes/m3 (64 ... 156 N/m3)
‘High Density’ craft, distinctive of U.S. Design display the following densities.
ρ ≈ 0.13 ... 0.2 tonnes/m3
PC/LC ≈ 0.016 ... 0.026 tonnes/m3 (185 ... 250 N/m3)
(A typical pressure for a ‘high density’ craft of 80 m in length would therefore be 0.15-0.20
bar i.e. significantly less than ambient pressure).
As a consequence of the grouped nature of (PC/LC) for a low or high density design style it
follows that Cushion Pressure (Pc) will tend to be proportional to Vehicle size.
i.e. PC/LC = const
⇒ PC ∝ V1/3 ∝ W1/3
(see plot from Ref 2)
In view of the above observations concerning the relationship of Cushion to Overall Density,
its well behaved nature with respect to vehicle size, and its evident contribution to ‘design
style’ it is suggested that Cushion Density is an active parameter which should be selected in
the sane way as Form Parameters. Given this constraint it is shown in para. 3.5. how Cushion
dimensions and Cushion pressure may be derived from this value.
(iii) Effect of Cushion Density

As already explained Cushion Density is related to a non-dimensional parameter which is
of significance in determining Cushion Wave Drag. For a given value of Fn and Vehicle
Weight, Cushion Wave Drag (Dw) is proportional to (PC/LC). Hence at first glance there is
an advantage in reducing (PC/LC). However low cushion densities result in larger plan area,
higher structural weight and in general higher resistance at high speeds from components
other than wave drag. This propulsion penalty is offset to some extent by a reduced Lift
Power requirement for low (PC/LC). (see 3.7)
A further aspect to be borne in mind in the choice of (PC/LC) is the effect of cushion pressure
(Pc) on the natural frequency (ωz) of the coupled heave-pressure mode. It can be shown from
a very simple consideration of mechanics (see para 6) that this is given by:
i.e. the simple Mass – Spring system constituted by the vehicle as a captured air bubble).
The combination of low energy Head Seas (ie low wave length and high wave frequency
(ω)) coupled with high vehicle speed (U) can lead to encounter frequencies (ωe) which cause
resonance of this particular mode:
ie
As the resultant heave response (z) will be of a high frequency nature, the associated
acceleration (ωe2 z) will be very severe. This is known as the ‘cobblestone’ effect.
Much design effort has been expended in developing ‘Ride Control Systems’ to overcome the
problem. In particular attention is directed towards augmenting the damping at resonance.
This is dependant on the lift fan Pressure Flow characteristics. This aspect of SES design is
discussed further in para 6.
The implication for cushion density on the value of ωz can be deduced as follows.
As Pa / Pc >> 1
Dimensionally
Thus for constant weight (W)

Hence a reduction in (PC/PL) will have a weak effect in raising ωz.
A.6.3.5 Calculation of Dimensions in Sizing Iterations
In each iteration dimensions can be calculated from the assumed or updated values for Weight and
Volume, and the Form Parameters and Cushion Density selected (see notes .3. and .4.)
For illustration of the procedure constant waterplane area Side Hulls have been assumed. It is quite
possible however to derive a similar set of relationships, with additional form parameters included -
for example Side Hull flare.
(i) Calculation of Cushion Dimensions & Pressure

note * represents a parameter previously selected (see notes .3. & .4.)
hence

(ii) Side Hull Length (L)
L = LC (L / LC)*
(iii) Side Hull Width (b)
b = BC (b / BC)*
(iv) Overall Beam (B)
B = BC + 2b
(v) Side Hull Draughts (TB), (TC)

Hull Borne TB = ∇/ 2 L bCw*
Cushion Borne TC = δ*∇/ 2 L bCw*
It should be noted that both these values ignore the effect of dead rise angle which will
need consideration later.
(vi) Depth of Side Hull (DSH)
DSH = (TB + WDC*)
(vii) Cushion height (HC)
HC = DSH - TC + ((1-δ)∇ / LCBC)
(viii) Mean Box Depth (DB)
DB = (Vbox / LB)
A.6.3.6 Estimation of Propulsive Power
A.6.3.6.1 Propulsive Power
Propulsive Power is determined from the requirement to overcome the Drag of the vehicle at a
given speed.
The Total Drag can be broken down into components, most conveniently represented as Drag to
Weight ratios.
where
DW = Wave Drag (Cushion)
DF = Skin Friction Drag
DA = Aero dynamic Drag
DSK = Skirt Drag
DR = Residual Drag
A considerable amount of empirical research into these drag components, particularly in the USA
(see Refs 1, 6) now enables us to make initial estimates of power with a reasonable amount of
confidence. These can be calculated through formulae which require a knowledge of Dimensions,
Weight, Form and Cushion Parameters. In the iterative procedure described here these are already
known.
(i) Cushion Wave making Drag
Based on work by Newman and Poole, Doctors produced curves of ‘Wave Resistance
Coefficient’ (Rc) against Fn for various cushion length to beam ratios.

These curves are not in the following figure and have been taken from Ref 6
Hence
It is evident that the choice of (LC/BC), and also Fn for a given operating speed will have a
profound influence on wave making Drag. In very general terms it is evident that for Fn > 1.2
a low (LC/BC) is beneficial while for Fn<1 a high (LC/BC) is to be preferred. An alternative
presentation of results taken from Newman & Poole, and discussed in Ref 4 is shown below:

(ii) Skin Friction Drag
where Awet is the Wetted Surface of the Side hull while on cushion - usually calculated as a
fraction of Chine areas.

Calculation of this component will therefore require some assumptions about dead rise
angle(see Refs 3 and 6 for guidance on calculation.)

(iii) Aerodynamic Drag
where Af is Frontal Area of Vehicle and CDA is the Drag Coefficient (typically 0.5 for well
designed vehicle).
(iv) Skirt Drag
Ref 3 suggests a number of empirical formulae for the calculation of Skirt or Seal Drag.
These are broken down into Calm Water & Rough water effects.
(v) Residual Drag
The major component of Residual Drag which has not been considered so far is the Side hull
and Appendage Form Drag.
Momentum Drag is not considered as it is assumed to be balanced by Stern Seal Thrust. In
any case it has been found to be a relatively small fraction of the whole.
(vi) Hull Borne Power Prediction
So far only Cushion Borne Power requirements have been considered as these will be
determining in the Sizing Process. However at some point hull borne resistance will also need
calculation, so that hull borne speed, range and propulsor characteristics can be determined.
(vii) Selection of Propulsor
Selection of a suitable propulsor(s) will need to consider both ‘On Cushion’ and ‘Hull borne’
modes of operation.
At hull borne speeds a propeller is likely to be the most efficient installation, but will lose
efficiency due to cavitation at higher speeds.

In the ‘On Cushion’ regime a Water Jet or Super cavitating Propeller are likely to be the most
efficient forms of propulsor.
Particular care must be taken for low (LC/BC) vehicles to ensure that sufficient thrust can
be provided to transit the resistance hump, that is should a post hump operating regime be
required. As can be seen from the earlier figure shoving wavemaking coefficient this peak
in resistance will occur at Fn = 0.6 for (LC/BC)= 2 to 5. Theoretically it can be shown that
as (LC/BC) goes to zero that this peak will occur at Fn = 1/π = 0.56 . If the hump is severe it
may necessitate the use of ‘controllable pitch’ type propulsors. Again Ref [1] provides some
background to these choices.
6.2 Weight and Volume
As far as possible Weight and Volume requirements of the Propulsion System should be
determined from a selection of the equipment required to provide and transmit the Propulsive
Power calculated.
In the initial sizing stage it may be more convenient to estimate engine weight from specific
weight to power ratios for various types of prime mover (i.e. Gas Turbines, Diesel).
Weng = PS (W / P)
where (W / P) is the specific weight to power ratio
A plot of such specific weight to power ratios is given in Fig A7 of Ref 3.
The weight of items other than engines in the Propulsion System can be estimated from the
regression formula suggested in Ref 3.

where Ps is numeric of Power expressed in units of kw
A.6.3.7 Estimation of Lift Systems
A.6.3.8 Lift Power (PL)
The following outline description of the basic fluid mechanics of an SES Lift System, assumes a
‘plenum chamber’ type cushion, rather than the peripheral jet employed on ACVs. (In, the latter
case the effect of jet reaction on lift must also be considered). For background reading Refs 4 and 5
are recommended.
Consider the flow of Tair through an SES cushion in two stages.
(i) Atmosphere → Fan → Cushion
(ii) Cushion → Cushion Gap → Atmosphere
(i) Flow from Atmosphere to Cushion
Flow from atmosphere to cushion can be represented by Bernoulli’s equation.
Clearly PC is defined relative to atmospheric pressure PA, and the velocity in the plenum is
sufficiently low for ‘cushion velocity’ head to be ignored. Similarly any static head difference
due to vertical position has been omitted.
Thus

The largest component of ∑δH is likely to be the exit loss from the trunking into the plenum
chamber.
where A1 & A2 are cross section areas of trunking and plenum respectively; U1 is speed of air
in trunking; and k is a function of exit shaping.
As a rough rule of thumb for initial design it can be assumed that

and U1 = Q / A1 (see below for estimation of Q volume flow rate.)
(ii) Flow from Cushion to Atmosphere
Uj = speed of air through cushion gap. Hence

Thus the flow rate of air leaking from the cushion under the skirt will be given by
Q = Cd AL Uj
where AL is Leakage AreA, Cd is the Coefficient of Discharge (ref 4 provides some guidance
on value of Cd)
On an SES (hovering)
AL ≈ 2 hg BC
hg = Cushion Gap
On an ACV (hovering)
AL ≈ 2 hg (LC + BC)
Continuing with the example of the SES
(iii) Estimation of Lift – Power (see also Ref. 9 Appendix II)

Lift Power PL will be given by

where ηH = Hydraulic Efficiency of the Lift System
Further insight can be gained if it can be assumed that Total Fan Head is related to Cushion
pressure (PC).
ρgH ∝PC
As and therefore
it can be shown that lift power to weight ratio (PL / W)
It will be noted that Lift Power (PL) is a linear function of Cushion Gap height (hg).
Observation of previous designs indicates a value of hg which in absolute terms is sensibly
constant with vehicle size (hg ≈ 6cm) (see for instance ref 3)
If this is accepted then it can be seen that

Hence a reduction in Cushion Density will lead to a reduction in Lift Power as a proportion of
weight, particularly if this is associated with increased vehicle dimensions.
If, however, dimensions are proportional to weight then clearly
(From earlier considerations (PC / LC) has been assumed constant).

This appears to be borne out by historical data with regression trends varying between W2/3
and W7/8 (see Fig A2 of Ref 3 taken from Ref 2).
The above considerations have only taken account plenum requirements. There will also need
to be some thought given to the air fed to the inflatable skirts.
(iv) Selection or Lift Fan Characteristics
From the above, values for Total Fan Head (H), Flow rate (Q) and Lift Power (PL) will have
been determined. A suitable fan can be selected from Non-Dimensional Fan Curves usually
based on the non-dimensional parameters for a given blade geometry.

where N = Rotational Speed; n = Number of Fans; and D = Fan Diameter
These characteristics will depend on fan type (note also that Π3 ∝ ηH hydraulic efficiency).
As with propeller design the designer is faced with the unknowns of speed (N) and diameter
(D), which must be selected to optimise efficiency.
One method is to select D and plot Π1/Π22 = gHD4 / Q2 thus removing speed.
The intercept with the curve will give the operating point for the fan.

This procedure can be repeated for different blade geometries, and the optimum efficiency
determined. Speed (N) can be determined from either Π1 or Π2. Alternatively if diameter was
not considered to be a constraint, Π1 and Π2could be selected for a given blade geometry to
coincide with peak efficiency.

Diameter is then given by

Again N can be determined from either Π1 or Π2
(v) Selection or Lift Fan Type
There are of course a wide variety of fans available for different applications. For a given
total fan head a proportion can be attributed to static pressure the remainder to dynamic head
The types of fan fall into four main groups:
a) Axial (high revs, low pressure rise)
b) Centrifugal (low revs/flow, high pressure rise)
c) Mixed Flow (intermediate flows and pressures)
d) Cross Flow (intermediate flows and pressures)
All of the above fan types are characterized at their optimum efficiency by a ‘Speed
Coefficient’ and a ‘Diameter Coefficient’.
Speed Coefficient (σ)
Diameter Coefficient (d)
If the (σ) and (d.) values are plotted for all fan types they form an optimum envelope
as shown in the diagram below with specific zones for particular fan types. (note:- high
indicates high revs, high flow characteristics)

For very early design it is possible by selecting a value of D or N, with appropriate required
values of H and Q/n, to determine either or d.
The graph will than indicate:
(i) The appropriate type of fan for optimum efficiency.
(ii) The unknown value of N or D depending on assumed known value.
Ref 1 provides a good general summary on Lift Fan types.
A.6.3.9 Weight and Volume
The Lift Systems comprises

(i) Prime Mover to generate mechanical power.
(ii) Fans
(iii) Ducting. Shafting etc.
(iv) Ride Control System
(v) Skirt/Seal mechanism.
As far as possible Weight and Volume required should be determined from the selection of
the equipment required above to generate, distribute and control air to the cushion. In the
initial sizing it will be more convenient to estimate Lift System Weight from regression type
formulae.
Ref 3 suggests:
where W is in tonnes

and for Skirt ‘system’ alone
A.6.3.10 Estimation of Personnel Group (including Outfit & Furnishings)
In the absence of better data, the regression data given in Ref 3 should be used
Outfit & Furnishings Wt Fraction per man
This formula refers to ‘Outfit & Furnishings’ and therefore includes items in IJCL Group 1
other than Structure, as well as Group 2.
Volume should be determined directly from layout and ‘space per man’ considerations.
A.6.3.11 Estimation of Ship Services
Ref 3 gives regression weight formulae for auxiliary systems other than the Lift System.
However students should assess Air Conditioning and Chilled Water power demand, and
hence plant weight and volume directing from Payload and Personnel requirements.
Other fluid systems to be considered are:
(i) Fuel
(ii) Hydraulics
(iii) Compressed Air for engine starting
(iv) Sewage

(v) Saltwater
(vi) Fresh water
A.6.3.12 Estimation of Electrical System
Again in the absence of more detailed data Ref [3] gives a regression weight fraction formula:
Within this overall value, students should assess Electrical Generator ‘Plant size’ directly from
Payload, Personnel and Ship Service Power requirements.
A.6.3.13 Estimation of Stores.
Weight and volume requirements for stores should be estimated directly from Mission Time, system
back - up and personnel support requirements.
A.6.3.14 Estimation of Fuel
Fuel should be calculated directly from Total Power, specific fuel consumption, Range and Speed.
Both ‘On cushion’ and ‘Hull borne’ fuel requirements should be considered
It will be evident that Range on cushion will be considerably less than Range hull borne.
A.6.3.15 Determination or Structural Weight
Structural Weight typically represents 0.25 to 0.35 of total weight. In view of the need for a low
overall density to maintain cushion pressures within manageable limits it is essential that the
structure is light and efficient. The above range of weight fractions have been achieved by the
use of Aluminum or GRP, one the use or construction techniques more common in the aircraft
industry.
The loading on an SES is very complex with critical loads provided by slamming impulses while in
the hull borne node. Analysis of the resulting primary stress levels invariably requires an assessment
of the resulting acceleration distribution and a calculation of inertial loading. Secondary loading can
be attributed to cushion pressure and ‘wave slap’ loads.

For the purposes of the Ship Design Exercise it is suggested that a ‘Structural Density’ approach is
adopted for the calculation of Structural Weight, based on the value of Total Volume (V).
Appropriate values of ‘Structural Density’ can be lifted from the plot shown below for ‘Low’ and
‘High’ Density SES Design styles.
It will be noted that in general ‘High Density SES’s use a more rugged construction than ‘Low’
Density designs. (i.e. approx 48 kg/m3 versus 32 kg/rn3). This may be linked to the higher (PC /
LC) which will impose increased distributed loading on the box structure. This will be compensated
by the fact that the surface area will be reduced, leading to a similar weight fraction
A.6.3.16 Concept of Design Balance
(i) Design is balanced if:
(ii) Design not balanced if:

If the design is not balanced as indicated in (ii) it needs to be reiterated with Volume and
Weight values updated. It is also necessary to ensure that in the Hull borne mode that Weight
and hence displacement are compatible with Side Hull Volume and the minimum Wet Deck
Clearance.
Essentially the volume in the Side Hulls up to the ‘design waterline’ needs to be updated to
the buoyancy requirement if this exceeds the volume requirement. Hence
where, for ‘wall sided’ Side Hulls:
This will ensure that the minimum Wet Deck Clearance will be maintained.
The situation described above assumes a ‘weight governed’ determination of Side Hull
geometry, with dimensions being dictated by buoyancy rather than volume requirements. The
alternative situation where the volume in the Side Hulls exceeds the buoyancy and minimum
wet deck clearance requirement may also have to be considered, but has been put to one side
in this Sizing procedure.
As most space related problems are likely to concern minimum dimensions for propulsion
equipment this aspect is best left for fuller consideration in the parametric survey. It will also
be noted that the above sizing procedure has not integrated a stability balance; this will also
need to be considered subsequently and may also influence side hull dimensions.
Once broad values or Weight and Volume have been determined from the sizing procedure
based on the assumption or median parameters, it will, then become necessary to consider in
more detail the effect of form parameters cushion density and dimensions on various aspects
of the design. This will include layout, powering, fuel consumption, stability, maneuverability
and seakeeping (among others).
The most significant parameters are likely to be cushion density and cushion length to beam
ratio (LC / BC) as these will significantly affect both Propulsive Power and Fuel Consumption.

The normal assumption, which allows the sizing process to be decoupled from the parametric
survey, is that total vehicle volume and weight are constant and broadly independent of
form parameters. This is generally acceptable for small changes on parameters with modest
effect, but in this particular instance it is probably advisable not to alter (LC / BC) or (PC
/ LC) outside of the sizing process. This therefore implies a number of separate sizing
calculations to determine the optimum value of Lc, Bc and Pc.
Given that Lc and Bc will have been optimised in the above manner other areas of the form
which require careful consideration are the Side Hulls and Box.
For the Side Hulls this will involve consideration of trade offs between side hull width
and waterplane area, draught and cushion height. For the box (or cross structure) and
superstructure, though the value of Lc and Bc and hence plane area will be fixed, there
remains the selection of the number of internal decks within the ‘box’, and the proportion and
configuration of any superstructure.
Choices made in both of the above areas will of course be linked by stability
considerationand there will naturally be some interaction between box height and vcg.
Transverse stability is discussed in the next section. If it is found that Lc and Bc are
incompatible with box constraints then it will be necessary to re-enter the sizing process in
order to achieve a revised design balance.
5. Transverse Stability Considerations (see refs 3 & 8)

Consider Transverse Stability for small angles of heel about a point (F) on the vehicle centre line,
and on the external waterline.
The Righting Moment while ‘on cushion’ comes entirely from the buoyancy force
contribution acting through tte ‘Metacentre’ (M). Both the Weight.(W) and Cushion Upthrust will
act to cause an Overturning Moment.
(i) Righting Moment

where

and
note: Point B is the Centre of Buoyancy of the displacement volume denoted by the shaded area
(ii) Overturning moment due to cushion pressure

where
i.e. displacement ‘footprint’ of cushion pressure

(iii) Overturning moment due to weight
(iv) Value of GM while on cushion
For initial design it is recommended that GMc ≈ 0.25 - 0.3 B

As Φ increases the cushion will eventually vent to atmosphere and the GZ curve will revert to the
Hull borne GZ curve.

(v) Influence of Transverse Stability on Side Hull width
If the particular and artificial case of constant area Side hulls is considered it is possible to illustrate
some of the trade off between Side Hull width, Draught and the Vehicle v.c.g.

(a) FM
FM = BM - FB
As FB = TC / 2 and

Substituting into the expression for from (i)
(b) GF
(c) FF'

Hence combining
It is therefore evident that if L, Lc, Bc have been fixed by cushion density and cushion aspect ratio
(Lc / Bc) considerations and WDC & assumed as constants, then the requirement for a given value
of GM will dictate the value of Side Hull Width (b). This in turn will have implications for Side
Hull Draughts (Tc & TB ) as well as Cushion Height (Hc) (see 3 Note .5.).
A.6.5 Other Design Considerations
A.6.5.1 Side Hull Deadrise Angle/ Dynamic Stability
Side Hull Deadrise Angle
Will have particular relevance for Dynamic Stability and Manoeuvrabilitv characteristics in
particular it is important that the normal to the Side Hull dead rise passes well above the Vehicle
Centre of Gravity.

This will ensure:
(i) Vehicle will bank into turn when manoeuvring.
(ii) Vehicle will be able to maintain Roll Stability as a result of sway forces derived
from Sway and Yaw perturbations. Otherwise these dynamic forces would tend to reduce the
static transverse stability of the craft. These forces would clearly increase with speed.
Typically values of Dead rise Angle of between 30-45 degrees are found to be acceptable.
A.6.5.2 Seakeeping Considerations (Ride Control Systems)
(i) Coupled Heave - Pressure Mode (see Ref 7)

The basic equation coupling Cushion Pressure and Heave is given by:

Pitch effects can also be included but have been found to be largely decoupled from heave and
cushion pressure being dependent instead on hydrostatic and hydrodynamic parameters (Ref 7).
The above equation can be derived as shown in Appendix by ignoring any Side Hull effects (i.e.
applicable to pure ACV).
Omitting for the moment any consideration of wave forcing effects, it is possible to examine the
parameters which affect both the natural frequency and the damping factor.
If we write the equation as:
where

it is evident that the natural frequency (ωz) is given by:
As Mg ≈ PcAc (for ACV). Therefore:

Typically ωz ≈ 10 rad/s
The Damping Factor (ν) is defined from the relationship
i.e. ν ∝ B. As
and

for fan pressure - flow characteristics, the magnitude of Damping Factor will depend on the
valuerate of change of Q with reasect to P . The term B effectively represents the rate of flow out
of the cushion when it multiplied by the fractional rate of change of cushion pressure rise. Thus as
cushion pressure Pc starts to build up the resulting heave force on the vehicle can be reduced by
increasing the net rate of flow cut of the cushion plenum. The first term of B represents increased
leakage out of the skirt gap due to cushion pressure rise, while the second represents the extent to
which inflow supplied by the fan is reduced. The higher the magnitude of this reduction greater the
damping.
The achievement of a ‘flat’ characteristic can be obtained artificially by the use of flow modulating
mechanisms which are sensitive to cushion pressure perturbations. This is explained below.
A.6.5.3 Ride Control Systems
Present research into Ride Control Systems has concentrated on achieving increased damping by:
(i) Altering Blade/ Impeller pitch angle. (i.e. Control of inflow).
(ii) Variable ‘Inlet Guide Vanes’ (IGV’s) (ie Control of inflow)

(iii) ‘Dumping’ air from the cushion using ‘Vent Valves’ (VV’s) (i.e. Control of outflow).
While the operation of Vent Valves is relatively self evident in that it increases outflow, the theory
behind ‘Inlet Guide Vanes’ needs more explanation.
An IGV setting effectively reduces the flow through the fan each setting being associated with a
different tan pressure flow characteristic.
When linked to a servo - mechanism, such that closure occurs with an increase in cushion pressure,
the natural tendency of a fan to ‘choke’ the flow is dramatically increased, thus increasing the
effective value of (δQ/δP).
The beneficial effects of a Ride Control System are achieved with the penalty of additional 1ift
power being required. Either the fan is operated at less than optimum efficiency due to variable
blade pitch or IGV’s or air is dumped overboard using V.V’s.
A.6.5.4 Wave Pumping Action
From the characteristic equation, the natural frequency and damping of the heave pressure mode
can be determined. As outlined in Ref 3,4 the ‘system’ can be caused to resonate by certain
combination of speed and wave frequency which give an encounter frequency equivalent to the
natural frequency

e.g. for Head Seas
In physical terms the excitation of the heave pressure mode is caused by the variation in net volume
(& hence pressure) within the cushion plenum resulting from the passage of waves. The magnitude
of the effect will be a function of both wave amplitude and wavelength, (not to mention relative
heading) and is known colloquially as ‘wave pumping’ action.
Let us consider regular waves of elevation given by:
where x is measured with respect to amidships
For Head Seas the Reduction in Volume (Vc) at any given moment within the plenum is given by:

if this is integrated
or after some manipulation
and

From this it is evident that there are certain combinations of wave length and cushion length when
equal to zero.
These are when an integral number of wavelengths exactly fit into the cushion length
Thus it is to be expected that both heave and heave acceleration will display ‘ship - wave’ matching
minima.

However for any speed, wave heading combination a particular value of (LC / λ) will also
correspond to when a resonant ‘spike’ will occur in the response.

A further consideration in more sophisticated analyses of heave and cushion pressure is the effect of
‘wave pumping’ action on cushion leakage under the seals. This will modify the equation of motion
and will lead to the need for additional Lift Power to make good any losses.
(iv) Pitch Response
Pitch Natural Frequency is determined primarily by the virtual inertia of the vehicle (IYY + Aθθ) and
the Hydrostatic stiffness term (GML).

As in dimensional terms

it is clear that will be reduced (i.e. period increased) by increases in vehicle dimensions. This will
be favoured by reductions in Cushion density.
Consideration should be given to mismatching the value of from the encounter frequencies
corresponding to the modal frequencies of severe sea states and typical operating speeds.
A.6.6 References
1. The Surface Effect Ship. E.A.Butler

(part of ASNE Special Edition Feb 83 ‘Modern Ships and Craft’.)
2. Air Cushion Craft Development P.J.Mantle.
Mantle Engineering Co. Inc.
DTNSRDC Jan 80.
3. The Surface Effect Ship. S.A.Harris. MSc Project Dissertation 1985.
(see also SES Data Pack which contains most of the references given)
4. Hovercraft Design and Construction Elsey & Devereux
David & Charles Press.
5. Mechanics of Marine Vehicles. Clayton & Bishop
Spon
6. Powering Predictions for Surface Effect Ships based on Model Results. R.A.Wilson,
S.M.Wells L.C.E.Heber.
AIAA/SNANE Marine Vehicles Conference 1978
[see DATA PACKI
7. Dynamics & Hydrodynamics of SES P.Kaplan et al.
SNAME Vol. 89 1981.
[see DATA PACK]

8. Stability of Sidewall Hovereraft. Andrew Blyth (Vosper Hovermarine).
Naval. Architect Nov 1983
9. MSc. Ship Design Report (1986) Multi - Role Corvette SES A.R.Greig.
10. MSc Ship Design Report (1998) Advanced Technology Frigate SES N Hance
11. MSc Ship Design Report (1995) ASW SES Corvette L.M.P.Carola, M.D.Harvey
12. MSc Ship Design Report (1992) ASW SES G Rudgely, P Gai
13. Fans & Propellers for ACV past, present & future M J Cox, C B Eden
RINA Conference on ACV 1997
14. Air cushion passenger / vehicle ferries for the west Baltic routes T Jastrzebski, W
Chadzynski
15. Naval Hovercraft – what naval hovercraft? B Russell
16. Third generation, medium lift hovercraft for modern amphibious operations S E Southby
Tailyour
17. MCM System development for the Swedish Navy based on air cushion technology M
Ornfelt
18. SRN 4 Hovercraft so far L Heatly
19. Effect of economical aspects on fast speed craft design parameters – V A Abramovsky A
V Abramovsky
20. Monohull, Catamaran, Trimaran & SES High Speed sealift vessels C Broadbent, C Kennel
RINA Conference FAST 2001
21. SES Performance Evaluation in model and full scale S Steen, G Strand
22. Structural Design & Results from full scale structural measurements on the RNON High
Speed SES “KNM Skjold” A E Jenson, J Taby, B Hoyning
A.6.7 Appendix 1
Derivation of Coupled Heave for an SES through a Pressure Equation is details in the pdf file
attached below:
• Derivation of Coupled Heave for SES.pdf (page )

Notes
1. Patented concept of NGA and Norasia

2. This will need to be accounted for in the initial sizing with additional volume (but not weight) sufficient for water to compensate
for deadweight loss
3. Students should be careful to refer to the original paper, as the version contained in the latest edition of the Principles of Naval
Architecture contains a number of typographical errors.
4. Square effect for lifting force damping contribution Cube effect for viscous damping contribution
5. Students will need to draw desired cross-section to determine an appropriate value using
Kf = {[(B mh/B ov).(H box /D)] +[(B strut/B ov).(1 - (Tmh/D) – (H box/D)]}/{(1 – (Tmh/D)).(B strut/B ov)}.
Initially a guess will have to be made of the unknown ratio Tmh /D which can be iteratively corrected.
6. Cm mh = [(T strut/Tmh).(B strut/B ov) / (B mh/B ov)] + [(p/4).(1 - (T strut/Tmh))]

Ucl 2016

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Ucl 2016

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Ucl 2016

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Ship Design Procedure

April 20, 2016

3 Weight and Space 31

Ship Design Procedure 2

4 Resistance & Propulsion 39

Ship Design Procedure 3

Ship Design Procedure 4

7 Stability & Trim 82

Ship Design Procedure 5

Ship Design Procedure 6

10 Estimates of Cost 122

Ship Design Procedure 7

Ship Design Procedure 8

Ship Design Procedure 9

Ship Design Procedure 11

Ship Design Procedure 12

2-1 Typical Steps in the design process 16

Ship Design Procedure 13

Symbol Description Units

Ship Design Procedure 14

2.1 Introduction - The Phases of the Design

Ship Design Procedure 15

2.2 Investigation of the Concept

1. Understand the Staff Concept behind the Outline Requirement.

Figure 2 Definition of Staff Target

Ship Design Procedure 17

Ship Design Procedure 18

2.3.1 Ship Synthesis Procedure

Ship Design Procedure 19

2.3.2 Step-by-Step Procedure for Monohull Synthesis

• Range and Cruise Speed for Dieso

Find Weight and Space [Sub-Group 74].

Ship Design Procedure 21

Ship Design Procedure 22

Ship Design Procedure 23

2.4 The Parametric Survey

Ship Design Procedure 25

1. Absolute Dimensional constraints.

(viii) Survivability - The effect of dimensions on Signature Reduction and Vulnerability

Ship Design Procedure 26

(8) Estimate C of G from Block Layout and Dimensions.

2.5 Development of the Design Solution

• Armament Arcs of Fire

Merchant Ship Payload

• Cargo Handling arrangements

• Conning/Compass Platform/Pilotage Platform

Ship Design Procedure 28

• Relative Point motion at Bow

(ii) Define Permissible Speed envelope for ship.

Ship Design Procedure 29

2.6 MSc Naval Architecture Ship Design Data Book

The following data is contained in the Data Book

• UCL Weight Grouping System

More detailed information is held in the NAME Office database.

1. Friedman N: ‘Modern Warship Design and Development’, Conway 1979. UCL/02.71.

Ship Design Procedure 30

3.2 Initial Estimate of Total Enclosed Volume (V)

Calculate the Payload Volume to be fitted in the new design.

Ship Design Procedure 31