A Ship Design Process

By R i c h a r d s T. M i l l e r ~

With greatest emphasis on feasibility or conceptual design, which has been so sparsely
treated in the literature, the author presents the naval ship design process from first
statement of operator's requirements to final production of builder's plans. The iterative
nature of conceptual design is emphasized, and a rational process for arriving at prin-
cipal characteristics shown. The development of a specific design is illustrated by selected
sketches and plans of the AGOR-3 class of oceanographic research ships at the con-
ceptual, preliminary, and contract stages of design.

As a marriage between requirements and capabilities, Establishing Requirements

ship design may well be summed up by gEe old wedding
adage of "something old, something new, something
borrowed, and something blue."
Ships are not invented. Rather they evolve over the
years as advancing technology permits new solutions to
old problems, and poses new problems looking for solu-
tions. This is not to say that naval architects and marine
engineers are reactionary proponents of the status quo.
quite the contrary. History shows that ship design has
been at the fore in technology, frequently making the
first practical use of a new development, and often forcing
research in areas of its own particular need. Witness the
first use of oil fuel for power generation in the little
gunboat, USS Palos, in 1867; the first harnessing of nu-
clear power in USS Nautilus; and advances in steel
metallurgy prompted in no small measure by the need
for tough, high-strength materials for naval ship con-
struetion.
M a n y times in ship design a touch of something old is
crossed with something new. Not infrequently a
technique is borrowed from a sister engineering discipline,
or a new lease on life is given to an old design concept.
Always the vision of the designer must be on the "blue
yonder" to maintain that steady advance in ship cap-
abilities which is the backbone of the Navy.
The following notes are based generally on the design
process as followed by the Ship Design Division of the
Bureau of Ships, Department of the Navy, and partic-
ularly by the Preliminary Design Branch of the division
during the years of the author's association with the
division. Portions of the material have been derived
from presentations by Owen H. Oakley, Technical
Director of the Preliminary Design Branch and by Rear
Admiral J. H. MeQuilkin, USN, as Director of Ship
Design. The design spiral is based on original work by
Prof. J. Harvey Evans of MIT.
Captain, USN, an Engineering Duty Officer; formerly ttead,
Preliminary Design Branch, Bureau of Ships; now CO and Di-
rector, USN Mine Defense Laboratory, Panama City, Fla.
Presented at the March 12, 1965 Meeting of the Southeast
Section of THE SOCIETY OF NAVAL ARCHITECTS AND MARINE
]~NG1NEERS.
Ships are instruments of national defense. Conse-
quently defense policy dictates the need for types and
numbers, creating the impetus for their design and con-
stmetion. This policy is shaped by many and varied
forces, including:
(a) The type of war anticipated.
(b) The most likely locale.
(c) Potential allies.
(d) The enemy threat in weapons and ship types.
Other forces, whether directly operative in the formula-
tion of naval policy or not, are no less effective in shaping
ship design. These include:
(a) National politics.
(b) Influence group pressures.
(c) Interservice rivalries.
(d) Fiscal environment and budgetary pressures.
(e) Technological development.
Requirements for a new design may arise from ~ new
method of warfare, such as the vertical envelopment, con-
cept of amphibious assault which led to the amphibious
assault ship (LPH) ; and new concepts of fast task-force
operations which resulted in the fast combat support ship
(AOE). Technological advances may provide oppor-
tunities for new ship types having improved operational
capabilities--for instance, nuclear submarines SS(N) and
SSB(N), hydrofoil ships PC(H) and AG(EH), and air-
cushion vehicles such as SKMR-1. Deficiencies in exist-
ing ships, disclosed through operational experience, pro-
voke the desire for improved designs; and, periodically,
aging ships require replacement.
Design Feasibility Studies
Requests for ship design feasibility or conceptual
studies may originate from any one of several N a v y
offices or committees, or may be Bureau of Ships initiated
to prove a new concept, such as the Albacore submarine
hull form. However, the usual source of such requests
is the Ship Characteristics Board in the Office of the

OCTOBER 1965 339

 Table 1 Study Characteristics for AGOR-3 class
1. MISSIONAND TASKS 8. FIRE CONTROl
B
TO SUPPORT NONE
OCEANOGRAPHICRESEARCH
H 9. ELECTRONICS
2, APPROX. BULL SIZE COMMERCIALRADIO
& RAV.RADAR
F LENGTH ON WATERLINE 800- 1000TONS
3. SPEED 10. ACCOMMODATIONS
D BEAM ON W.L. AMIDSHIPS AS ACHIEVEDWITH25% CREW& SClENT,PARTY35
z~ DRAFT EXCESSPO~EROVER 11. STORESPERIODS
REQUIREMENTFOR
ENDURANCEPOWER FROZEN 30 DAYS
3 FREEBOARD
OTHER 45DAYS
4. ENDURANCE
Y(I~'O) DEPTH AT SIDE AMIDSHIPS
15,000MILES~ 12BTS. 12, AVIATION FEATURES
Cp DISPLACEMENT
5. MACHY. TYPE NONE
DISPLACEMENT-.LENGTH RATIO SINGLESCREW 13. PROTECTION
CM CONT.OOMTROL,FULL PD)~ER
PRISMATIC COEFFICIENT' TOi} KT. POWER NONE
QUIETOPERATION
Cwp MIDSHIP SECTION COEFFICIENT 14. MISCELLANEOUS
6. ARMAMENT
WATERPLANE COEFFICIENT LABORATORIES 1290SQ. FT.
Crr NONE lO T. LIFT,8 FT. OVERSlOE
50.0(11LBS.LIFT OVERSTERN
TRANSV. W.P. INERTIA COEFFICIENT 7. AMMUNITION DEEPSEAWlNCH
Vl~ _ 36FT., lOT. BOAT
SPEED--LENGTH RATIO 20T. SPECIALEXPLOSIVES

P.C. , PROPULSIVE COEFFICIENT

Fig. I Principal variables

when multiplied by L X B a gives the moment of inertia of

Chief of Naval Operations. These are made to support
the development of approved characteristics for ships
in the annual shipbuilding programs.
Usually, the Bureau of Ships is furnished or develops
in consultation with the Ship Characteristics Board a
simple, single-sheet statement of the proposed character-
istics for the new design. This may include a brief state-
ment of the mission and tasks, the desired speed and
endurance, the approximate size desired by the Ship
Characteristics Board--although the precise dimensions
are determined as an end product of the studies--the
armament or special equipment, special features, and so
on. For example, we have in Table 1 the study charac-
teristics of the oceanographic research ship (AGOR-3)
class.
To facilitate subsequent discussion, definition of the
principal variables is appropriate at this time, Fig. 1 :
(a) L = length on the waterline; B = beam on the
waterline amidships; H = draft; F = freeboard; and D
= depth at side amidships, are all well-understood linear
dimensions.
(b) A is the displacement in salt water in long tons.
(c) A/(L/IO0) a, the displacement/length ratio, a
coefficient important in powering estimates, is a measure
of the slenderness of the hull.
(d) Cp, the prismatic coefficient, also important in
powering estimates, is a measure of the fullness of the
ends of the hull.
(e) C,n, the midship coefficient, is a measure of the
fullness of the midship section up to the load waterline.
(f) C~,,, the waterplane coefficient, is a measure of the
fullness of the load waterplane.
(g) C~, the transverse waterplane inertia coefficient,
the load waterplane about the fore and aft axis.
(h) V / L 1/2, the speed/length ratio, is a scaling ratio
used in powering estimates.
(i) PC, the propulsive coefficient, is an overall
efficiency factor taking into account propeller efficiency
and the interaction between the propeller and the hull.
The interrelationships of the linear, area, and volu-
metric measnrements and coefficients to produce an
estimate of the initial stability characteristics of a design
might be termed "naval architecture in a nutshell," Fig.
2:
(a) Displacement, A, is equal to L X B X H X C~ X
C,~ divided by 35, the number of cubic feet of seawater in
a ton.
(b) Height of the center of buoyancy above the keel,
K B , is determined by Morrish's approximation
(c) Height of the metaeenter above the center of
buoyancy, B21J, is equ~d to the transverse moment of
inertia of the waterplane divided by the cubic displace-
ment of the hull.
(d) Vertical distance between the center of gravity of
the ship and the metacenter is calculated readily by
GM = K B + B M -- K G
(e) Finally, the righting arm, GZ, for any small angle
of heel 0 is given by
GZ = GM sin 0
The approach taken in feasibility or conceptual studies
is not an established process but varies from design to
design. In this, more than any other stage of ship

340 MARINE TECHNOLOGY

 L.B.H'Cp'C M
35
1 H 35,4

I F7
L
B3 CIT

BM -- 35A

w.[
t

t"!z %
GM=KB+BM-KG

,/ ,K
- ~ ' - - --...... ~/ GZ =GM " SIN 0

Fig. 2 Initial stability

GEN. ARRGT.
& VOLUMES
of the spiral are the naval-architectural features which
are the variables of the problem. Different groupings
MACHY.
II and sequences are possible, depending on the baekground
STABILITY
data available.
Frequently the designer will start with rough, general-
arrangement sketches and estimates of volumetric re-
LE?T.

~
"ENOU.~.CE
COEFFICIENTS PROPULSION
V Vll
DISPLACEMENT " power permits an estimate of machinery weight, and
Vl
Fig. 5 Design spiral
design, the art rather than the science of naval archi-
tecture is dominant. Here success depends completely
on the depth of experience resident in and available to
the naval architect, and on his design judgment. Its
direction depends to a large degree on the similarity be-
tween the ship under consideration and existing ships.
Accumulated data from previous designs are used ex-
tensively for short-cut design procedures. If the new
ship is to be a development of an existing type, it fre-
quently is possible to select a "parent design" thereby
facilitating the work.
Regardless of the possible variations in design ap-
proaches, all are iterative processes which may be con-
ceived as moving in a spiral fashion to a balanced con-
clusion with all features compatible, Fig. 3. The spokes
quirements. In effect, the items discussed will be de-
veloped almost simultaneously, with initial estimates
of the length of machinery compartment, length of ship,
draft, h'eeboard and beam all guiding the development of
a sketch arrangement drawing. Hull-form coefficients,
Cp and C,,,, will be chosen to lie in a good range for
powering. Displacement is thus fixed. Some adjust-
ment in length and displacement may be made at this
time if the displacement length ratio does not appear
favorable for powering. Power can be calculated from
the gross dimensions and coefficients. Total installed
endurance power allows an estimate of endurance oil re-
quirements. The weight and vertical center of gravity
of the ship can be estimated by proportioning from similar
designs. Finally, the stability can be checked. Fre-
quently it will not be a suitable value; e.g., G M approxi-
mately 10 to 15 percent of the beam for the general run
of ships at this stage of design. If stability is too low,
beam nmst be increased, and the next loop of the spiral
commences. Other features may also require adjust-
ment, and several circuits may be necessary to bring all
elements ill balance.
Considering the design process in more detail, one of
the earliest decisions to be made concerns the hull form.
As the speed of a conventional, full-bodied hull increases
above a speed-length ratio of about one, the exponential
increase in horsepower required to overcome wavemaking
resistance rises from a cubic to a fifth and even greater
power equation. In order to keep the wavemaking re-
sistance within bounds, modified hull forms must be re-
sorted to, Fig. 4. First bulbous bows are added, then

OCTOBER 1965 341

 FULL SHIPS SLENDERSHIPS PLANING CRAFT
HARD CHINES
TRANS~ STERNS I
-40
BULBS
..~S /
PTT BOATS

- 50

-- ~ ~- DESTROYERS
- 20 EH.___PP
ton
/

-io

FRliTIONAL

I I
2 5 WVT-
I
0.5 ID ~
4 ~

FROUDENO.
Fig. 4 Hull forms for various speed ranges

more slender hulls are used, transom sterns are added, and Table 2 Typical Values
finally at a speed-length ratio between two and three, Type V / L 1'~ A/(L/IO0) a C~,
hard chines and the typical P T type of planing hull CVA . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1.2 80 0.58
come into use. Through such modifications to the hull DD(FP) . . . . . . . . . . . . 2.0 40 0.62
DD (cruise) . . . . . . . . . 1.2 0.58
form, the relative contributions to resistance of surface AGOR (ideal) . . . . . . . . . 1.1 ii0 0.58
friction and wavemaking may be kept in balance, and rea- AGOR (actual) . . . . . . 1.1 200 0.53
sonable powering requirements retained through speed
length ratios of four or five.
If the new design will be similar to other types of ships, sketched. Voiumes for machinery and magazines are
an analysis of their proportions m a y be helpful. Such estimated and allowed for. Deck heights are important
an analysis of fishing trawlers, ocean-going tugs, and selections which lead to decisions as to depth of hull and
ocean minesweepers was used as a point of departure for freeboard.
the AGOR, Fig. 5. In this case, the variation of length Where deck arrangements will be simpler, an inboard
with displacement was studied using assumed values for profile may suffice as in the first sketch of the AGOR,
the prismatic and midship coefficients, and the length4o- Fig. 7. Here all of the important elements such as
beam and beam-to-draft ratios. Thus machinery spaces, laboratories, quarters, and shop
LaC~C,~ areas are indicated on the one drawing. Even the
A= asymmetric arrangement of the decldlouse planform is
(L/B)~ (B/SS) 35 shown through the use of dotted bulwark and port and
I t was found that the upper desired limit in ship displace- starboard cove lines.
ment, 1000 tons, would be reached on a length of 170 ft. The freeboard developed in the study sketch may be
Because of the demands for working space on the main compared with other ships by means of a graph, Fig. 8.
deck, the longest ship practicable within other limita- The dashed line separates "wet" ships from " d r y " ships
tions was appropriate. So the feasibility study com- in a qualitative sense. The high points are mostly ai>
menced with this load-waterline length. craft-carrier freeboard as measured to the flight deck.
Having established initial dimensions in one way or The grouped, circled points show the hangar-deck free-
another, the designer next will prepare a study sketch. board of a few of the carriers. Some designs, notably
If length and other dimensions are set largely by known the AG01~ and fishing craft, must have a compromise
requirements for equipment (guns, aircraft handling solution between high enough freeboard for good sea-
arrangements, and so on) as in the aircraft carrier shown keeping and dry decks, and low enough freeboard for
in Fig. 6, both a deck plan and an inboard profile m a y be convenient working over the side.

342 MARINE TECHNOLOGY

 I,I --

1.0 -

Cm, TUGS ~ TRAWLERS ~,

E .8 -
ID
CG

8.7 L
co, TUGS

Cp(OPTIMUM V=I2KTS)
..... J..,&.;.~
-2500 , I
50 LENGTH ~L 250

L/B ,TRAWLERS

m 22000

m
B/d, TUG S 7
_j B/d, TRAWLERS

:q500 ! ! I
5o LENGTH, k j 200 250

ZS'TRAWv s L E~ R=S -1- "~I / L L FOR ASSUMED

~',oooi CHARACTERISTICS
Z
w

hl
QD
AM 8, AMS
-D
CL t
Z~jTUGS
50C #

LENGTH, L
I I I i
50 IO0 150 200 250
Fig. 5 Typical characteristics, tugs and trawlers

Fig. 9, based on Hydrodynamics of Ship Design by
S a u n d e r s , 5s u s e d to' select or to check a n earlier s e l e c t i o n
of the prismatic coefficient, C~, and the displacement/-
length ratio, A/(L/IO0) a. I t shows lanes of best values
for good speed-power characteristics, e.g., minimum
resistance. Typical values are shown in Table 2.
Obviously, the ideal values cannot always be achieved.
In ships such as destroyers, which nmst operate in two
distinct speed regimes, the best prismatic coefficient for
full-speed power must be compromised in favor of reduced
endurance oil requirements at cruising speed. In small
ships, such as the AGOR, it frequently is not feasible to
reduce displacement/length ratio to the optimum value
for the required speed/length ratio. The value 0.53
selected for C~ of the A G O g was based on an earlier
analysis of best values for speed-power characteristics
based solely on wavemaking resistance. Saunder's
analysis also accounts for the variation in wetted surface
with U~ and its effect on the total resistance.
Power can now be calculated based on Taylor (or other
suitable) Standard Series, using only the gross dimen-
sions and coefficients. Corrections are made to reflect
the influence of special features such as bulbous bows,
transom sterns, and so on, in which the actual design
departs from the standard hull. Worm curves as shown
in Fig. 10 relate actual model results to Taylor's Stand-

OCTOBER 1965 343

 I I

/ . , ~ ~ ~ , . __2__

~ ' . ' ~ ~ ~ \\ .... ",'--- . . . . . . . ~-.-T-

.,, <d : ~'Z~22"~;.,,

~' I / ///
I IIIf/~-oK.
I I/// /
~ , , ~ . o ~ - ~o.~'
~,~.,,az.~"
~,.o'
I '1111//4,~o~..~.~"
~1 Iii / I I / . I~ r,L.~.~',

I I t ~ | I I I I I I
2o I~ v6 14- 1'7. IO ~ 6 4 '2 o
,~P ~ FP

Fig. 6 Study s k e t c h - - C V A

t
/ . . . . . " ~ "7 -

t I I I I I I / I t I

Fig. 7 Study s k e t c h - - A G O R

344 MARINE TECHNOLOGY

 JrCV7
STA. 3 FREEBOARD [20 STATIONS
AS PERCENT OF LENGTH
+ ARK ROYAL
CV4

+AKA
+CVS
+ CV9
%APA57 CVA59 + +CVA58
+ILLUSTRIOus CVA66 + Jr +CVAN65
PROJ. 211
BATTLE +CVP,41
"J'- CLASS(BR)
+
CV2
+ SS UNITED STATES
NORMANDIE
DL2 +
+ Jr
DDq31 _t. I~AARINER QUEEN MARY

DD6q2 +
+LIBERTE ~ + CL51
DO7%
~cLs,
CL40 "P
+,
BBS7 BBS5
+HMS RENOWN HANGAR DECK
/ / / .. \ \
CL-144+~ ++ ~ +HMS VANGUARD (/ \'x--
CA134 +~ ,CVAS9. CVAN64
CB1- +BB61 ~ CVA6~. "1" + /
\ PROJ /~
",. 211 //

I I I I, ,1 I I I
300 40O 5O0 600 800 700 900 lO00 1100
LENGTHON WATER LiNE IN FEET
Fig. 8 Freeboard/length comparison

A
DESIGNLANESFOR~CP......AND L(~

PERCENT
5 SUPERIOR

0.9

I
0.8 )o

03 ;o PERCENT
JNFERIOR
-.j l IO
0.6
[] /
0.5

0.5
\
i
/
15 ,t
lo I.S 2.o 0.4 0,6 0,8 LO 1.2 1,4
Y-c- ,/',/E
Fig. 9 Fig. 10 Worm curves

OCTOBER 1965 345

 tIjO'~POWER /

/
,REQUIREDPOWER/

BOoPOWER
I~0D

t
SHP
ENDURANCESPEED
/ 5 /
ENDURANCEPO/tIER i

f
GROUP 1 HULL STRUCTURE
1DO0
REQ.
SUST/~q SUSTAI
SPEED
NEDSPEED
PLUS3%MARGIN

Fig. 11
SPEED
Speed p o w e r curve

Fig. 12
L BeDAVG.
1
Table 3 Weight Classification System
1 Hull structure 5 Auxiliary systems
2 Propulsion 6 Outfit and furnishings
3 Electric plant 7 Armament
4 Communication and control 8 Loads

Table 4 AGOR-3, Comparison of Preliminary and Contract Design

PRELIMINARY CONTRACT PRELIMINARY CONTRACT

DESIGN DESIGN DESIGN DESIGN

LOA 181 FT. 208 FT. ACCOMMODATIONS

LWL 170 FT. 196 FT. OFFICERS 6 8
BEAM 33 FT. 37 FT. CREW 11 14
DRAFT 14 FT. 9 IN. 14 FT. 3 IN. SCIENTISTS 5 15
STUDENTS 12
Cb 0.423 0.424 TOTAL 34 37
Cp 0.530 0.530 MESS ROOMS COMMON SEPARATE
Cm 0.799 0.800
LABORATORIES

,~ L.S. 600 T. 1016 T. WET 338 SQ. FT. 250 SQ. FT

A F.L. 1000 T. 1373 T. DRY 348 SQ. FT. 800 SQ. FT.
TOTAL 686 SQ. FT. 1050 SQ. FT.
SHP 1000 1000
SERVICE SPEED 13 KTS. 13 KTS.
WINCHES
ENDURANCE - MILES 15,000 12,000 ONE DEEP SEA WINCH ONE DEEP SEA WINCH
('ALBATRCSS' TYPE) (6,800 LBS. @600 FPM,
@SPEED 12 KTS. 12 KTS. 30,000 LBS. @133 FPM
TO 60,000 LBS. STATIC)
S/S GEN. CAP. 300 KW 600 KW
TWO HYDROGRAPHIC TWO HYDROGRAPHIC
QUIET OPERATION S/S GEN, 3~0 KW G/T WINCHES (7450 LBS. WINCHES (2,(~0 LBS
@211 FPM) @350 FPM TO 4,000 LBS.
STATIC)

346 MARINE TECHNOLOGY

0
-4
0
c~
m
pu LIGHT SHIP, SUMMARY NAVSHiPS ~761-5 (3-5S)

WEIGHT ABOVE MLD BASE LINE REFERRED TO MIDSHIPS

0', ;ROUF DESCRIPTION IN REF.
U'l
TONS C,G. VERT, MOMENT C,G. FWD. MOMENT C.G. AFTER MOMENT
I HULL STRUCTURE
2 PROPULSION
3 ELECTRICPLANT
COHHUNICATION AND CONTROLS
S AUXILIARYSYSTEMS
6 'OUTFIT AND FURNISHINGS
7 AI~4AHENT

DESIGN MARGIN
CONSTRUCTION MARGIN

FUTURE DEVELOPMENTMARGIN

LIGHT SHIP DISPLACEHENT =

L. C. 8.
MEAN DRAFT = LEVER

RISE
TRIM = MTI" =
= ~DISPLACF.NENT X LEVER
TRIM =
~4 = HTI m

TRIM = X

DATE COMPUTER CHEC~ER TYPED BY sNiP

Fig. 13 L i g h t ship, summary sheet

ca
4~
0o

LOAD CONDITION, SUMMARY NAVSHIPSq.761-6 (3-58)

WEtGHT
ABOVEMLD BASELINE REFERRED TO MIDSHIPS
DESCRIPTION IN REF
TONS C.G. VERT MOMENTS C.G. iFWD. MOMENTS C,G, AFTER MOMENTS

LIGHT SHIP

AdN(JNITION
COMPLEMENT
STORES
POTABLE WATER
RESERVE FEED WATER
FUEL OIL
DIESEL OIL
LUBE OIL

LOAD CONDITION DISPLACEMENT -

L.C.$ =
MEAN DRAFT = LEVER =

F . $ . CORR =
NTI ~ =
TRIH = R
B TRIM - DISPLACEMEIIT X LEVER
II t,t r l "

> TRIM - X
;o

m ~ATI[
.-I
i -~" i ~" I ~'"" i"
Z Fig. 14 Load condition, summary sheet
0
G
o
-<
 TOTAL DISPLT. A T
APP'D'GE, DISPLT, A A
;-
MOLDED DISPLT.A.~
LENGTH, W.L. L

S'i
E
MIDSHIP COEF, C M

BEAM B
DRAFT H /o I
LONG'L. COEF. Cp
I
Cwp # I
WATERPLANE COEF. Cwp I

I
I
I
Cp X TRANSOM STERNS
W.P. INERTIA COEF.CLT
. ,,. ]
BM= X-~'~-J-T
L
35AT
KM-KB+BM

F.S. CORRECTION

KG

GM= KM- (KG+ F.S.)

Fig. 15 Preliminary hull form estimate sheet

c~
,L'-'~ t/2

LOA 181'- 0"

LBP 170'- 0"
BEAM 33' - O"
DRAFT (TO DWL) 14'-9"
LO WL DISPLACEMENT (TO DWL) IO00TONS SW
08 WL Cp 0.53
0.6 WL Cx 0.799
.-,.,.- r.. :\ i -- 0.4WL
DmG.A~ ~ . . . F . . / ~ " CB 0.423
0.2WL
~_ O OWL
IO'B. 5'B 5'B IO'B

PORT COVE,..~3,...//~ J
i .OWL l .... !
0.8 WL i i. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ./ / i :
0.6WL : i / / 5'B/ . . . . . . . .
0,4WL
~--------~__Q,2 WL : _._-4- - j j ~

85 80 75 70 65 60 55 50 45 40 35 30 25 20 15 I0 5 FRAMES
AP 9 6 4 .~ FP STATIONS
/ ~ MN. DR _ _ 8 ~ OI LEVEL
I

~0.6',V~

I ~ MN. DR~.
I

Fig. 16 AGOR-3, preliminary lines and body ~lan

OCTOBER 1965 349

 F
.|..,, . "......................
i
i ................ , ..........
i
~
i
:: i i i ,/
.'. : ! i j _. ' ,?'

z=...i-i..-2.iL] i i i [ [ [ [ [ i ] i.L21l i.!~ ~.~LLLL[~L~L~i~i~i~j~.~L~..i~i~i~i~i~.!~i~imi~i.i~i~L-]~-..-:~2 h i:;-;-:-'-~-

Fig. 17 AGOR-3, preliminary outboard profile

Fig. 18 AGOR-3, preliminary inboard profile

ard Series by values of inferiority or superiority. Titus a 3 percent margin must be made at 80 percent installed
Curve C is for a ship with a large transom. Curves A power. Thus required power is determined. Endurance
and B are for other ship forms which are also somewhat power is also estimated.
inferior to a Taylor form W~. low speeds, but superior The designer now is in a position to make weight esti-
to Taylor at high speeds. Propulsive coefficient (PC) mates. For this a weight-classification system such as
must also be estimated at this stage--usually on the outlined in Table 3 is a vital design tool. In tiffs early
performance of similar ships, rather than from model-test stage of design, weights are estimated from data on pre-
results. vious designs and accumulated data, e.g., hull structure
From the power calculations a speed-power curve may (Group 1), which can be proportioned from similar ships
be constructed, I?ig. 11. Specified sustained speed, plus by ratios of hull dimensions. Similarly, propulsion

350 MARINE TECHNOLOGY

 r, ................ - . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

'. SCIENT.8= : , , , O

J NAV

', Roo~
PILOT :

: ~.
:

v
J ~

: ,, ,, : .....

Ol LEVEL

~:::~3T WINCH ~ l ' ~ m ' ~ -- - DRY LA.ORAT~Y " -.

- " " ~ ~ - - - ~ T ; R Y /N. :LLEY

MAIN DECK
W . . ~ ' - -- /! WT,

" " ..WT WT

,F ~,

" " ~ " - - _ ..... r,.~.-J...---

~ -'~ Ist PLATFORM
w._ / ~ h /Or WT

;,,.j..JSOUND
i
~Roo~ F yNIA. .. . . . . . . . .......
....
-~-. --- ~.; ~ ~
2rid PLATFORM

Fig. 19 AGOR-3, preliminary arrangement plan

(Group 2) is a function of installed horsepower, and so In the Load Condition Summary, Fig. 14, all of the
on. elements of ship's load such as ammunition, complement,
To illustrate further, Fig. 12, weight data on hull stores, oil, and so on, are added to the light-ship weight.
structure plots well as a function of L )K B )< D, using Again vertical centers are estimated as a function of depth
an average value of depth to account for raised forecastle and a vertical CG determined. Although in the early
decks, superstructures, and so on. stages of design, the fore-and-aft balance m a y be ignored,
The weight and moment estimates are then noted on a since necessary adjustments generally do not seriously
Light Ship Summary Sheet, Fig. 13, and suitable margins affect major dimensions, it must be checked carefully
introduced. Design and construction margins amount during later stages. In a radically asymmetric ship, such
to 5 to 10 percent of light ship, depending on how de- as an aircraft carrier, transverse balance also must be
velopmental a design might be. Future development given careful consideration relatively early in the design
margin accounts for weapons system and other changes process.
which will occur over the twenty-year life of a ship, and Finally, the naval architect is in a position to summarize
normally is specified in the characteristics which have been the preliminary hull-form characteristics. While the
determined. estimate sheet shown in Fig. 15 is primarily for the purpose
KG rise also accounts for developmental changes in the of determining initial stability (GM), it also serves as a
design, t t usually amounts to 1.0 ft for a carrier and record to keep a series of studies consistent. The charts
possibly 0.5 ft for an escort destroyer. show data from existing designs which relate C~ to C ~

OCTOBER 1965 351

 i 4,,xi~/~j
[k[ VITION- L~IN~ ST~

-. !q ~ d8

Fig. 20 AGOR-3, preliminary machinery arrangement

CB
ArT FWO

16

u- 8O

~o
o
4O

o 20

, ,

0 200 400 600 800 I000

TONS DISPLACEMENT (SALT WATER)

Fig. 21 AGOR-3, preliminary curves of form

and C~v to Cu. K B and B M are calculated as noted been issued by the Chief of N a v a l Operations, the design
earlier. enters the second or preliminary design stage.
T h e approved characteristics are contained in a formal
Preliminary Design document of some length with statements on the follow-
ing:
Once design feasibility has been established and an
approved set of military characteristics for the ship has (a) Mission.

352 MARINE TECHNOLOGY

 24
22
20 ~'~/GM = 2 05 FEET
1.8
1.6
~4
1.2 . . /
1.0 / FULL LOAD D iSP.: 1,000 "[.
0,8
RIGHTING 0.6
ARM
0.4
{FEET) ~ D I S p . : 584 T -. 0.15 FEET
0.2
0 "v-----i--- , - ~ - ] - - I J I
I00 20 30 ~ 60
02
0.4 ANGLE OF HEEL " ~
0.6
0.8
1.0
1.2
1.4
I,G

Fig. 22 AGOR-3, preliminary statical stability curves

1400

1200

TRIAL SPEED 13,3 K

SERVICE SPEED 13K
1000
950 HP ( 9 5 % FULL POWER

800
CRUISING SPEED
12K.
725 HP
I
6oo
=<
u~
SHIP TRIAL 12 I/2% .
SHIP SERVICE25% BOT
40O
ASSUMED 55% PC

2O0

0 I I I I I I
Fig. 23 AGOR-3, preliminary estimated speed-power curve

(b) D e s i g n e d tasks. (g) Armament.

(c) Contingent tasks. (h) Communications and electronics.
(d) General discussion of design. (i) Propulsion and engineering features.
(e) Approximate hull characteristics. (j) Protection (ballistic, underwater_, and so on).
(f) Special features. (k) Aviation features.

OCTOBER 1965 353

 LEVEL.
-- j~6'-O" ~t. . LE.NGTH OVERAI.t:_ _ ~OW-4"
Li~N~TH BETWEEN P E R ~ N ~ U I . ~ J ' - O "
s ~'-o ~ w~. el~,~M ~r' -o~

:it kk ~,'k~'R,
~"~%~_N/I/1 III i w - o" WL D ~ F T, DES~SN _ _ _ ~.' - ~O"
D~S~LACE~NT, TOTN 1567 TONS
14'-3" WL OISPL/~F.kIENT,/~END~F...~ IO TON~
~- ~ I ~I~?l/1 # li~ 12'-O" WL
I0'-0" WL
PRI~ATIC CO~FF._ _ ,543
~XL_LR~I/I /1 J As
K ~ 1\I~1171 /Y
/I R
8'-O'WL
- - 6 " O" WL
MIDSHIP SECTION C O E F F . - - . 7 1 1 7
BLOCK COEFF. _ _ .433
: , - - ~ t ' ' , k ~,1 {'1! I / P " 4'-O'~L
- - 2'- O" WL INERTIA C0FF. ___ ,040~
, I l l ~~fIa~i - f - d , ~ . " ~ r I 1"
'El 12~1 I ' l 4'B~'~B4'B l ' l ~'~ N~'I MOLDED BASLELINE
~ I~LGKEELTRACE

/~
II f "J , f / . - . Y
~ // /~~r-~-'-- - - T ~ ~
,.---------~ ~ ............. ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ '~ 4'-0" BUTTOCK
l/ / / - ~ - J - - - ~ ~ ' '~--':: i -, "~'~' --z'-o"~rrocK
: i CENTERLINEOF S~tP

% ) <__
, j ;:,,J

,.// //
' ............

I /I /,.,,II" ,.;;.,,_
Z / l / A , /1 --~ e'-o" *L
m
j J

i I 1 Y I \ / 4';o" WL \
,.I- =
' , ~ . !! _!J t u , / ,, I
Z
0
0 - . ~ . -~ .-..~..-.R-3, .......... es.~n-.~..ea a-d b o d y " ~. it~g_t
Q
,,<
O
,=1
o
m

70
O~

IV~ ~ ~ i ~ ~ r .... ~ ,~-.~,. ~ _k

cb~,-t-~/ ~ - ~ ~ ~ : : : ~ : ~ ~ ~ = = ...... to-,-~,v --

. . . . ~ , .1- ~ . . . . ', ', _~ ...... " ....... ,~ . . . . . . . / ----

i ~~..-:,k~i i i --------~k .............. .;:........ rLL---~-4~" i ,. ,

:,
,
i, j
/[ I

I
Fig. 25 AGOR-3, contract design--outboard profile

fal
 CO

~ADI O

[~CLOS~D
0 P [~T,NCL
~ i N ~ ~QOM

MOTO~
~toOM
.~e~vl, T~
I
40 .W~ wl r m --T

Fig. 26 AGOR-3, contract design--inboard profile

Z
m
.-
m

z
Z
0
8
 0~ LEVEL

;; d - , LJ

j
,.---.-..~.~
~
,f_~ F ~o ' ~. . . . ./-~-~-~ X ~_~ i ~.._~.
I I~dF FU~R ~'NE!I~AT(~ IqtOOM

.... - _
~..~ , ,~ ~ ~ T - T L ~ _ J ~ ,~ ~ : -~,..-/-
. w ~ ~ :'-" ', ~ . . . . \~A "~ I ~r~ 2:~.-"'-~--
-i ...... = ....... ......
OI LEVEL

[.~,T,~ MAIN DECK

Fig. 27 AGOR-3, contract design--arrangements main deck and above

(l) Command and ship control. (d) Hydrostatic curves.

(m) Accommodations, berthing, messing and sanita- (e) Midship section--speciM structural plans and
Lion. calculations.
(n) Provisions. (f) Weight, V C G and L C G estimates, stowage lay-
(o) Miscellaneous. outs, tankage, and so forth.
(g) Speed-power estimate, propeller estimate, model
M a n y of the operations performed in feasibility studies tests for maneuvering, seakeeping, and so forth.
are redone in the preliminary design stage, but usually (h) Stability estimate, including intact and damaged
in greater detail and with better information. Many fea- righting-arm curves, check against BuShips Standards,
tures, such as hull girder and special strength, curves of and so on.
form, intact and damaged stability, and so on, not con- (i) Protection plans, including ballistic, underwater,
sidered during the early study phase are now examined. ABC warfare, shock and blast protection.
Particular attention is given to problems of area and
volumetric adequacy, which only have been given a Figs. 16-23 show selected preliminary design plans of
rough check in the earlier design stage. With the de- the oceanographic research ship (AGOR).
velopment of hull lines, ship model tests are initiated for
Contract Design
more accurate determination of the speed-power, ma-
neuvering, and seakeeping characteristics of the design. Following the preliminary design a third, contract
The end product of a preliminary design is as follows: design, stage is entered which carries the design through
another complete cycle of even greater detail and finer
(a) Generalarrangement plans. definition. In this process as many as a hundred con-
(b) Lines and body plan. tract and contract guidance plans, detailed weight,
(c) Appendage plan. strength and other calculations, and detailed shipbuilding

OCTOBER 1965 357

 . ~'~ ~ ---,.._ " ---.---.
, \-- I '-'~;'- I.~. /~ ---~" . . . . . . . . .

_ -'..E~f~-- ~ lit Pt.ATFORM

,i

ENcllWl:
~.:~,'.2,~.;> - ,,,. -_-~,._..
"-, I.'Pt', I ~,~x }x 11 ' r.~.]
o
~]1 j.-Z
' '2.~.
~_2-~' ,
~ ~'~i~ 2nd PLATFORM
''-"-- ---J-L_. ~

,-,----'~ "~-'~'m'-. " - ' T ~ " .~-. --'.-"m

..i . #.~,i~1~./' . i_. ~'%* ,_-i~ i - i~- \1

/ " Id,.~,/i'\" ' I /,,-"-.~--......~--~1"~ I F--. .-.~,

-
~ --------~-
.-

"'~"~--',;--~\
~ ' ~ I- ~'.- r .......
"
2~-~'~ /7it, M o~

L ~ - - - - ~ - -----i . . . . i ~.._v__. ~.-:.~

Fig. 28 AGOR-3, contract design--arrangements first platform and below
CALENDARYEAR

X-2 X-1 X X+I X+2 X+3

FEASIBILITY STUDIES |
PRELIMINARYDESIGN @
CONTRACTDESIGN
nl
CONTRACTNEGOTIATION |
CONTRACTAWARD
I
SHIP CONSTRUCTION @
SHIP TRIALS

SHIP COMMISSIONING

I I I I I I I
X-2 X-1 X X+I X+2 X+3
LEGEND: FISCAL YEAR
~IlIIII]]]~ DESIGN PRE-CONSTRUCTIONPLANNING
OTHER CONSTRUCTION

Fig. 29 Shipbuilding cycle

358 MARN
IE
TECHNOLOGY
 Fig. 30 USS C o n r a d - - A G O R - 3
specifications are prepared. This stage usually ends with
a design closely resembling the product of the original
preliminary design, but sometimes results in significant
changes. In the ease of the AGOg, several years elapsed
between the original design studies and its authorization
in an annual shipbuilding program. During this period
the ideas of the sponsors changed in several areas, so that
the final ship increased in size some 30 percent as shown
in Table 4.
Figs. 24-28 show a few of the contract plans for the
A G O g illustrating the degree of adherence to, as well
as the changes from, the preliminary design.
Summary
In summary, Fig. 29, the design process takes about
one third of the total shipbuilding cycle. The Navy's
Bureau of Ships has in-house the manpower capability
and the engineering competence to accomplish all of the
ship-feasibility studies, virtually all of the preliminary
design work, and a large percentage (concentrating effort
on the major combatant ships) of the contract design
work required by the annual N a v y shipbuilding pro-
grams.
Feasibility studies require from 2 to 4 months to com-
plete. Virtually one-man jobs, they take from 40 to 80
man-days of effort. The preliminary design requires
from 4 to 8 months to complete and from 300 to 2000
man-days of effort. The contract design requires from 6
to 12 months to complete and from 3000 to 23,000 man-
days of effort. At this point the design is completed
OCTOBER 1965
from a naval-architectural standpoint, but the builder's
detailed construction plans have still to be prepared,
either by the building contractor or by his design agent.
While the major output of construction plans must come
early in the building period, the effort continues up to the
day of delivery, and for certain record plans may extend
beyond the building period. This work requires from
40,000 to over 400,000 man-days of effort.
The final result of the ship design and shipbuilding
process has been described by John ]~uskin as "the most
honourable thing that man, as a gregarious animal, has
ever produced. B y himself, unhelped, he can do better
things than ships of the line; he can make poems and
pictures, and other such concentrations of what is best
in him. But as a being living in flocks, and hammering
out, with alternate strokes and mutual agreement, what
is neeessaLv for him in those flocks to get or produce, the
ship of the line is his first work. Into that he has put as
much of his human patience, common sense, forethought,
experimental philosophy, self-control, habits of order and
obedience, thoroughly wrought handwork, defiance of
brute elements, careless courage, careful patriotism and
calm expectation of the judgment of God, as can well be
put in a space 300 feet long by 80 broad. And I am thank-
ful to have lived in an age when I could see this thing
done. ''~ He was speaking specifically of the Ship of the
Line, but his words are equally applicable today to small
ships such as USS Cor~rad (AGOI~ 3), Fig. 30, or larger.
Taken from "The Harbors of England," London, England,
1856, p. 12.
359