Stability Control of Submarine Appendage

T.C.
DENİZ KUVVETLERİ KOMUTANLIĞI

DENİZ HARP OKULU KOMUTANLIĞI
TUZLA / İSTANBUL
BİTİRME ÖDEVİ
STABILITY CONTROL OF SUBMARINE APPENDAGES
GEMİ İNŞAA MÜHENDİSLİĞİ

BÖLÜM BAŞKANLIĞI
3803 BEYZA NUR SAMUTOĞLU
PROJE DANIŞMANI:
Yrd Doç. Dr. Müh. Bnb. Erinç DOBRUCALI
Mayıs 2016
(THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT)
STABILITY CONTROL OF SUBMARINE APPENDAGE
Dört Yıllık Lisans Eğitimini Tamamlama Gereği

Bitirme Projesi Olarak Hazırlanmıştır.
GEMİ İNŞA BÖLÜM BAŞKANLIĞI
Yazarı:
Harp IV/S Beyza Nur SAMUTOĞLU
Onaylayan:
Yrd. Doç. Dr. Müh. Bnb. Erinç DOBRUCALI

Gemi İnşa Mühendisliği Öğretim Elemanı
Yrd. Doç. Dr. Müh. Yb. Veysel ALANKAYA

Gemi İnşa Mühendisliği Bölüm Başkanı
ABSTRACT
It has been seen that a great deal of information about submarine
performance, and stability and control, can be obtained from a study of the simplified
linear equations, of motion despite the many assumptions that have to be made. In
order to use these equations we must have available realistic numerical values for
the coefficients of the equations, that is, the derivatives. It would obviously be
desirable to be able to determine these derivatives in the early stages of the design
so that the necessary predictions could be made to check that the design meets the
various requirements laid down. At this early stage chances could easily be made to
improve the design if it were found that the requirements were not being met.
A method is described below for calculating the derivatives of single-screw

submarines.
It is assumed that the derivatives for the complete submarine can be found by
adding the contributions of each of the components (hull, propeller, appendages)
and including any interference effects between components.
I
CONTENTS
ABSTRACT ........................................................................................................ I
CONTENTS ...................................................................................................... II
SYMBOLS ........................................................................................................ V
ABBREVIATIONS ....................................................................................... VIII
DRESSINGS .................................................................................................... IX
TABLE OF GRAPHS ....................................................................................... X
TABLE OF FIGURE ........................................................................................ XI
APPENDIX ................................................................................................... XIV
FIRST CHAPTER INTRODUCTION ............................................................... 1
SECOND CHAPTER GEOMETRY .................................................................. 2
THIRD CHAPTER APPENDAGE .................................................................... 4
3.1 SAIL ...................................................................................................................... 4
3.1.1 The Foil Type; ................................................................................................ 4
3.1.2 The Blended Type; ........................................................................................ 4
3.2 FORWARD CONTROL SURFACES .......................................................................... 5
3.2.1 Midline Planes .............................................................................................. 6
3.2.2 Eyebrow Planes............................................................................................. 7
3.2.3 Sail Planes ..................................................................................................... 9
3.3 AFT CONTROL SURFACES ................................................................................... 11
3.3.1 Cruciform Configuration ............................................................................. 11
3.3.2 X-Form Configuration ................................................................................. 13
3.3.3 Alternative Configurations.......................................................................... 16
3.3.3.1 Y configurations; .................................................................................. 16
3.3.3.2 Pentaform configuration; .................................................................... 16
II
FOURTH CHAPTER STABILITY ................................................................. 18
FIFTH CHAPTER MATHEMATICAL MODELS ......................................... 20
5.1 HULL ................................................................................................................... 20
5.2 PROPELLER ......................................................................................................... 24
5.3 FORWARD CONTROL SURFACES ........................................................................ 25
5.4 BRIDGE FIN......................................................................................................... 34
5.5 STERN STABILISERS ............................................................................................ 35
5.6 RUDDER ............................................................................................................. 37
5.7 GENERAL ............................................................................................................ 38
SIXTH CHAPTER CONCLUSION................................................................. 39
6.1 COMPARE OF CONCLUSION............................................................................... 39
6.1.1 Sample Design Conclusion .......................................................................... 39
6.1.2 Change of Length ........................................................................................ 41
6.1.3 Change of Diameter .................................................................................... 44
6.1.4 Change of Casing Height ............................................................................. 46
6.1.5 Change of Displacement ............................................................................. 48
6.1.6 Change of Bowplane’s Dimensions............................................................. 50
6.1.7 Change Dimension of Bridge Fin................................................................. 53
6.1.8 Change of Stern Stabiliser........................................................................... 56
6.1.9 Change of Rudder ....................................................................................... 59
6.2 Result ................................................................................................................. 61
6.2.1 The Optimal Values..................................................................................... 61
6.2.1.1 Length .................................................................................................. 61
6.2.1.2 Diameter .............................................................................................. 61
6.2.1.3 Casing Height ....................................................................................... 61
6.2.1.4 Displacement ....................................................................................... 61
6.2.1.5 Bowplanes............................................................................................ 62
6.2.1.6 Bridge Fin ............................................................................................. 62
III
6.2.1.7 Sternstabiliser ...................................................................................... 62
6.2.1.8 Rudder ................................................................................................. 62
BIBLIOGRAPHY ............................................................................................ 63
IV
SYMBOLS
a Chord of flat plate

B Upward force due to the buoyancy
(=∇ρg)
B Position of centre of buoyancy
BF Position of centre of buoyancy of form
displacement
BG Distance between the centre of
buoyancy
and the centre of gravity
BGF Distance between the centre of
buoyancy and the centre of gravity
corrected for free surface
BH Position of centre of buoyancy of
hydrostatic displacement
BM Distance between the centre of
buoyancy
and the metacentre
b Span of flat plate
bg Vertical upward force through the centre
of buoyancy
D Diameter
Fr Froude number
G Position of centre of gravity
GH Stability index in the horizontal plane
GH Position of centre of gravity of
hydrostatic displacement
GM Distance between the centre of gravity
and the metacentre
GV Stability index in the vertical plane
g Acceleration due to gravity
H Distance from the water surface to the
centreline of the submarine
I Second moment of area of the
waterplane around the longitudinal axis
Ixx, Iyy, Izz Mass moments of inertia about the x-
axis, the y-axis and the z-axis
respectively
Ixy, Iyx, Izx Products of inertia about xy, yx and zx
respectively
I′yy and I′zz Non-dimensional moments of inertia in
pitch and yaw respectively
K Position of the keel
K, M, N Moments about the x-axis, the y-axis
and the z-axis respectively
K′, M′ , N′ Non-dimensional moments about the x-
axis, the y-axis and the z-axis
respectively = moment/(½ ρV2L3)
Ka Coefficient of added mass
V
KB Distance between the keel and the
centre of buoyancy
KM Distance between the keel and the
metacentre
kx, ky, kz Added mass coefficients for motion in
the x, y, and zdirections respectively
L Length
LA Length of aft body
Lbp Length between perpendiculars
LF Length of fore body
Loa Length overall
Lapp Horizontal coordinate of the centre of
pressure,or centre of added mass, of an
appendage
M Position of the metacentre
m Mass of the submarine
madded Added mass
m′ Non-dimensional mass = m/(½ρL3)
mg Vertical downward force through the
centre of gravity
N Propulsor rate of rotation (revolutions
per minute)
Nvapp , Nrapp Rate of change of moment about the z-
axis on an appendage as a function of
sway velocity and yaw velocity
respectively
n Propulsor rate of rotation (revolutions
per second)
nf Coefficient defining the fullness of the
fore body
O Position of the origin
P External vertical force due to grounding
or contact with ice
PE Effective power
PS Shaft power
PT Thrust power
p, q, r Angular velocities about the x-axis, the
y-axis and the z-axis respectively
p, ˙q, ˙r Angular accelerations about the x-axis,
the y-axis and the z-axis respectively
p′, q′, r′ Non-dimensional angular velocities
about the x-axis, the y-axis and the z-
axis respectively = angular velocity × L/V
Re Reynolds number = VL/ν
RFflat Friction resistance of a flat plate
RFform Frictional resistance including frictional-
form resistance
RP Form drag
Rsailform Form drag of sail
RT Total resistance
S Wetted surface area
Sa Plan form area of lifting surface
Shull Wetted surface of submarine hull
t Time
VI
u, v, w Velocities in the x, y and z directions
respectively
u˙, v˙,w˙ Accelerations in the x, y and z directions
respectively
u′, v′, w′ Non-dimensional velocities in the x, y
and z directions respectively = velocity/V
uc Steady state velocity in the x-axis at the
set propeller rpm when the submarine
has only velocity in the x-axis and has
no control surfaces deflected
V Velocity
Va Velocity of advance of the propulsor
vR Sway velocity at the rudder (uncorrected
for the presence of the hull)
W Downward force due to the mass = Δg
wB, ws Heave velocity at the bow plane and
stern plane respectively (uncorrected for
the presence of the hull)
X, Y, Z Forces in the x-axis, y-axis and z-axis
respectively
X′, Y′, Z′ Non-dimensional forces in the x-axis, y-
axis and z-axis respectively =
force/(½ρV2L2)
x, y, z Coordinates in the x-axis, y-axis and z-
axis respectively
xB, yB, zB Coordinates of the centre of buoyancy in
the x-axis, y-axis and z-axis respectively
Yr, Yv, Zq, Zw First order coefficients of force as
functions of velocities (q, r, v, and w)
Y′vapp Contribution of an appendage to the
non-dimensional sway added mass
coefficient
Zwapp , Zqapp Rate of change of force in the z-axis on
an appendage as a function of heave
velocity, and pitch velocity respectively
Z′w˙ app Contribution of an appendage to the
non-dimensional heave added mass
coefficient
α Angle of attack
Δ Displacement
ΔF Form displacement
ΔH Hydrostatic displacement
θ Pitch angle
ρ Density of water
τ Trim angle
φ Roll angle
ψ Yaw angle, heading angle
∇ Volume
VII
ABBREVIATIONS
CFD Computational Fluid Dynamics
FSC Free Surface Correction
ITTC International Towing Tank

Conference
LCB Position of the Longitudinal

Centre of Buoyancy
LCG Position of the Longitudinal

Centre of Gravity
rpm Revolutions Per Minute
VIII
DRESSINGS
‘ Dimensionless
.
Differential with respect to
time in the body frame
(A ) Appendage like plane or

propeller
(H ) Hull
(HI) Hull in ideal flow
(P) Propeller
(tail) Submarine’s tail
(T) Tail
(W) Wing
(WB) Wing-Body combination
IX
TABLE OF GRAPHS
Graph 1 L & Gv .......................................................................................................42

Graph 2 L & Gh ......................................................................................................43
Graph 3 r & Gv .......................................................................................................45
Graph 4 r & Gh .......................................................................................................45
Graph 5 Casing height & Gv ...................................................................................46
Graph 6 Casing Height & Gh ..................................................................................47
Graph 7 Displacement & Gv ...................................................................................48
Graph 8 Displacement & Gh ...................................................................................49
Graph 9 Bow Plane Root Chord & Vertical Plane Stability Index.............................50
Graph 10 Root Chord & Gh ....................................................................................51
Graph 11 Span & Gv ..............................................................................................51
Graph 12 Span & Gh ..............................................................................................52
Graph 13 Bridge fin location & Gv...........................................................................53
Graph 14 Bridge fin location & Gh ..........................................................................54
Graph 15 Tip Chord & Gh .......................................................................................55
Graph 16 Tip Chord & Gv .......................................................................................55
Graph 17 Stern Stabiliser Span & Gv......................................................................56
Graph 18 Stern stability span & Gh .........................................................................57
Graph 19 Root chord & Gv .....................................................................................58
Graph 20 Upper Rudder Flap Chord & Gh ..............................................................59
Graph 21 Rudder Location & Gh.............................................................................60
X
TABLE OF FIGURE
Figure 1 Axisymmetric Body .................................................................................... 2
Figure 2 Submarine Geometry ................................................................................. 2
Figure 3 Common Stern Configuration..................................................................... 3
Figure 4 Cross Section Showing Casing .................................................................. 3
Figure 5 Surgeon Class Submarine ......................................................................... 3
Figure 6 The foil type of sail ..................................................................................... 4
Figure 7 Blended Type of sail .................................................................................. 5
Figure 8 All of the possible location for the forward control surfaces ........................ 6
Figure 9 Location of midline forward plane............................................................... 6
Figure 10 Wake from Midline Forward Plane ........................................................... 7
Figure 11 shows example of the midline plane location is type 212 submarines. ..... 7
Figure 12 Eyebrow forward plane ............................................................................ 8
Figure 13 Wake from eyebrow forward plane........................................................... 8
Figure 14 214 Type submarine shows example of the eyebrow plane location ........ 9
Figure 15 Wake from forward plane ......................................................................... 9
Figure 16 Cross section of sail plane ......................................................................10
Figure 17 212 example of the sail plane location is type 212 submarines. ..............10
Figure 18 Cruciform configuration for aft planes. a Schematic. b View from astern .12
Figure 19 Example of the cruciform configuration is type 214 submarines. .............13
Figure 20 X-form configuration for aft planes (courtesy of DSTO). ..........................14
Figure 21 X-form configuration for aft planes. a Schematic. b View from astern .....14
Figure 22 Comparison of control inputs for a cruciform and X-form configurations..15
Figure 23 Inverted Y configuration. a Schematic. b View from astern .....................16
Figure 24 Pentaformconfiguration. a Schematic. b View from astern ......................17
Figure 25 Motion stability modes ............................................................................18
Figure 26 Sketch of an ellipsoid ..............................................................................20
Figure 27 The sheme of the example’s dimension ..................................................21
Figure 28 Added mass coefficient for a prolate ellipsoid according to Lamb. ..........22
Figure 29 Shematic of pressure distribution on a submarine in pure sway/
heave(ideal fluid solid line, real fluid dotted line) .....................................................23
Figur 30 Cross section of NACA 0015 ....................................................................25
Figure 31 Lift curve slopes of isolated wings ...........................................................26
Figure 32 Sketch of an isolated wing ......................................................................27
Figure 33 Variation of (a2/a1)s with control chord and trailing edge angle for full
span controls ..........................................................................................................28
XI
Figure 34 Correction factor applied to (a2/a1)s for full-span balance and gap.........29
Figure 35 Spanwise extend of control correction for part-span control ....................30
Figure 36 ................................................................................................................30
Figure 37 Geometry of Wing-Body Combination and equivalent isolated wing for
circular body cross section ......................................................................................31
Figure 38 Correction factors for stability terms for fins on circular and elliptic hulls .32
Figure 39 Fore plane interaction on after planes .....................................................33
Figure 40 Bridge fin planes .....................................................................................34
Figure 41 Geometry of wing-body combination and equivalent isolated wing for
elliptical body cross sections ...................................................................................34
Figure 42 A sample for stern stabilisers ..................................................................36
Figure 43 Correction factors for the stabilising force due to fins at the tail of hulls of
circular cross section. .............................................................................................37
Figure 44 Acceptable range of stability indexs ........................................................39
Figure 45 Sample Design main Dimensiosn ...........................................................39
Figure 46 Conclusion of sample design ..................................................................40
Figure 47 Conclusion of L=100m Submarine, other main dimensions are same .....41
Figure 48 Conclusion of L=50m Submarine, other main dimensions are same .......41
Figure 49 Conclusion of L=40m Submarine, other main dimensions are same .......42
Figure 50 Conclusion of r=15m Submarine, other main dimensions are same ........44
Figure 51 Conclusion of r=5m Submarine, other main dimensions are same ..........44
Figure 52 Conclusion of casing height=1,5m Submarine, other main dimensions are
same.......................................................................................................................46
Figure 53 Conclusion of casing height=0,5m Submarine, other main dimensions are
same.......................................................................................................................47
Figure 54 Conclusion of total displacement=2500tonnes Submarine, other main
dimensions are same ..............................................................................................48
Figure 55 Conclusion of total displacement=1900 tonnes Submarine, other main
Figure 56 Conclusion of bowplane’s root chord=7m Submarine, other main
Figure 57 Conclusion of bowplane’s span=2m Submarine, other main dimensions
are same ................................................................................................................52
Figure 58 Conclusion of Bridge fin’s location is 15m Cg to bow Submarine, other
main dimensions are same .....................................................................................53
Figure 59 Conclusion of Bridge fin’s Tip chord=12m Submarine, other main
XII
Figure 60 Conclusion of Stern stabiliser span=12m Submarine, other main
Figure 61 Conclusion of Stern stabiliser root chord=6m Submarine, other main
Figure 62 Conclusion of upper rudder flap chord=5m Submarine, other main
Figure 63 Conclusion of lower rudder flap chord=5m Submarine, other main
XIII
APPENDIX
Appendix A Calculation
XIV
FIRST CHAPTER INTRODUCTION
Submarines are very specialised vechiles, and their design is extremely

complex. When considering the appandages of submarine the calculations about
efficiency is more diffucult. The hydrodynamic characterization of control
appendages for ship hulls is of paramount importance for the assessment of
maneuverability characteristics. There are many research and tests about that. The
article “Application of dynamic overlapping grids to the simulation of the flow around
a fully-appended submarine” is about this subject and the researcher used the
mathematical and numerical methods, in 2014. At the same year, Australian
Maritime College published an article, Quasi-static analysis of the hydrodynamic
interaction effects on an autonomous underwater vehicle operating in proximity to a
moving submarine. And University of New South Wales published an article and
researchers are studied with the Autonomous underwater vehicles (AUVs).
(BANDARA, RUBERG, & CIRAK, 2016)
After one year, university of Cambridge is published an article about shape

optimisation. The researcher used the methods of (CAD) and finite element analysis
(FEA) software. They tried a method “large-scale geometry changes and,
conversely, updating the fine control mesh coordinates leads to small-scale
geometry changes”. (KIMA, ROHB, & HAC, 2015)
A more research, in India , is for different inclination angles in order to

characterize the effect of inclination on the stability of the system. Their study shows
that, at all inclinations, a GH point and BT point exists. The subcritical and
supercritical bifurcations are confirmed by numerical simulation of the time-
dependent, nonlinear ODEs for the selected points in the operating parameter space
using MATLAB ODE solver. The identification of these points is important because
the stability characteristics of the system for finite (though small) perturbations are
dependent on them. (ZAGHI, MASCIO, & BROGLIA, 2015)
All of the researches for the optimization of the submarine shape and stability.
Its important and hard to study. This dissertation deals some of submarine
appendages and their productivity. It is used numerical method for calculation.
1
SECOND CHAPTER GEOMETRY
Submarine geometry is fairly straightforward; however there are various terms

used which are not common to naval architecture in general. This terms are
expressed. (RAWSON & TUPPER, 2001)
Axisymmetric body : The submarine hull which is perfectly symmetrical around

in longitudinal axis.
Figure 1 Axisymmetric Body
Sail : This can be called like bridge fin, it contains house items such as
periscopes, the snorkel and other masts. This platform is also places which control
the boat when the submarine on the water surface.
Figure 2 Submarine Geometry
Forward and aft control surfaces: These are required to control the boat.
Propulsor: Conventional propeller, or a pumpjet. This is normally located aft of

the aft control surfaces.
2
Figure 3 Common Stern Configuration
Figure 4 Cross Section Showing Casing
Figure 1.5 shows a general aspect of submarine and its appendages are
shown with Sturgeon Class Submarine.
Figure 5 Surgeon Class Submarine
3
THIRD CHAPTER APPENDAGE
Submarines usually have three groups of appendages as follows: Sail, forward

control surfaces, and aft control surfaces.
Appendages contribute a considerable increase in drag, and need to be

considered carefully. They will often operate at an angle to the flow, thereby
resulting in induced drag, and associated vortices. Care needs to be taken to ensure
that root fairing is done carefully, particularly over regions of the hull where the cross
section is decreasing. In addition, appendages need to be designed for the expected
angle of the flow over them.
3.1 SAIL
The sail, or bridge fin, is undesirable from a hydrodynamic point of view, as it
adds to the drag on the submarine, adversely affects the flow into the propulsor, and
has a detrimental effect on manoeuvring in the horizontal plane. (RENILSON, 2015)
There are two types of sail, the foil type, and the blended type.
3.1.1 The Foil Type;

The foil type is to reduce the size of the sail as much as possible.
Figure 6 The foil type of sail
3.1.2 The Blended Type;

The blended type of sail has a larger volume than the foil type, and is better
faired into the hull, reducing the effect of root-vortices. However, the greater volume
may result in increased drag, including wave resistance when operating near the
4
surface. Transverse stability when surfacing may also be affected, dependingon the
drainage arrangements for the free flooding compartments in the sail.Thus, the
design of the sail depends on many factors, which need to be considered at the
early design stage. (RENILSON, 2015)
Figure 7 Blended Type of sail
They also showed that although the wake into the propulsor from a badly
designed blended sail can be considerably worse than that from a foil sail, the wake
into the propulsor from a well-designed blended sail can be equivalent to that from a
foil sail.
3.2 FORWARD CONTROL SURFACES

Forward control surfaces are required to enable the submarine to change
depth without changing trim, which is important at periscope depth. They are also
necessary to provide control in the vertical plane at low speeds.
There are three possible locations for the forward control surfaces, as shown :
(a) midline planes;
(b) eyebrow planes; and
(c) sail planes.
5
Figure 8 All of the possible location for the forward control surfaces
All of types has positive and negative aspects. Its locations needs to be
considered on design state as to necesity.
3.2.1 Midline Planes

Midline planes are in reasonably undisturbes flow, and the hull provides a
positive ground-board effect, thus increasing their effective aspect ratio.
However, with midline planes the trailing-vortices may degrade the

performance of sonar flank arrays, and they may be sucked into the propulsor, as
shown increasing propulsor noise.
Midline planes need to be retractable. However, this also gives the opportunity
to reduce resistance and noise associated with them, as the forward planes are not
needed when operating deep and at high speed. Figure 2.4 shows cross section of
midline plane.
Figure 9 Location of midline forward plane
6
Figure 2.5 shows wake from midline forward plane. Its easy to see the
undisturbes flow.
Figure 10 Wake from Midline Forward Plane
Figure 11 shows example of the midline plane location is type 212

submarines.
3.2.2 Eyebrow Planes
Eyebrow planes operate in the upward flow caused by the hull, as shown in
Fig. 6.6. This means that unless the plane is twisted in the span-wise direction the
angle of attack on the plane will be a function of the span-wise position. Thus, it will
7
not be possible for the whole plane to be at zero angle of attack, and hence there
will always be induced drag and associated tip-vortices. In addition, great care will
be required with the root fillet and interaction with the hull as shown in Fig. 6.7. In
most cases, there will be a gap when the plane is at a non-zero angle of attack, and
this can result in vortices and associated noise.
However, with the eyebrow plane the trailing-vortices are less likely to affect
the flank arrays, and are less likely to be sucked into the propeller than with midline
planes.
Figure 12 Eyebrow forward plane
Figure 13 Wake from eyebrow forward plane
8
Figure 14 214 Type submarine shows example of the eyebrow plane
location
3.2.3 Sail Planes
Sail planes are situated in reasonably undisturbed flow. The vortices from
them won’t affect the flank arrays and are unlikely to be sucked into the propulsor,
Fig. 2.10.
Figure 15 Wake from forward plane
Sail planes are generally located close to the Neutral Point. This means that
by operating the sail planes alone it is possible to change the depth of the
submarine without changing its trim.
9
As sail planes are located much higher than the hull, and relatively close to the
surface when operating at periscope depth, they will be influenced by the presence
of wind generated waves. This may need to be taken into account when assessing a
submarine’s performance at periscope depth in waves.
Figure 16 Cross section of sail plane
Figure 17 21 example of the sail plane location is type 212 submarines.
10
3.3 AFT CONTROL SURFACES
The aft control surfaces may include fixed and movable surfaces. The
movable surfaces, stern planes and rudders, are required to change trim, and hence
to make large depth changes, and to turn the submarine. They are also used to
control depth changes during a turn.
It is important to note that as the submarine is symmetrical in the x-z plane,

manoeuvres in the vertical plane only require a vertical force from the aft control
surfaces, whereas as it is not symmetrical in the x-y plane, manoeuvres in the
horizontal plane will require both a force in the horizontal direction and one in the
vertical direction to maintain constant depth.Thus, when considering the size and
configuration of the aft control surfaces this needs to be taken into account. There is
little point in providing a large horizontal force capability if the vertical force available
cannot maintain the depth when turning at maximum turn rate.
3.3.1 Cruciform Configuration
The traditional arrangement for the aft control surfaces on submarines with
a single axial propulsor is the cruciform configuration, as shown in Fig. 6.11.
With this arrangement the vertical control surfaces (rudders) control the
manoeuvring in the horizontal plane, and the horizontal control surfaces (stern
planes) control the manoeuvring in the vertical plane. As the submarine is
symmetrical in the x-z plane, manoeuvres in the vertical plane only require
operation of the stern planes, whereas as it is not symmetrical in the x-y plane,
manoeuvres in the horizontal plane will require operation of the rudders,
together with operation of the stern planes (and bow planes) to maintain
constant depth.
11
Figure 18 Cruciform configuration for aft planes. a Schematic. b View
from astern
It is normally desirable for a submarine to have a high degree of stability in the

vertical plane, and a high degree of manoeuvrability (lower stability) in the horizontal
plane. The cruciform arrangement makes it possible to achieve this. For example, it
is possible to have a fixed fin with a flap for the stern planes, and an all moving
arrangement for the rudders, as shown in Fig. 6.11a. Note that this is not essential,
and many submarines have a fixed fin and flap for the rudder, as well as for the
horizontal plane. With the cruciform configuration the lower rudder is often smaller,
and with a lower aspect ratio, than desirable, as it is not permitted for it to extend
below the keel of the submarine. This may make manoeuvring on the surface
difficult. On the other hand, the upper rudder may be made larger, which will also
help reduced. (AN, SOTO, & DIAZ, 2014)
12
Figure 19 Example of the cruciform configuration is type 214
submarines.
3.3.2 X-Form Configuration
An alternative arrangement for the aft control surfaces is the X-form

configuration, as shown in Figs. 6.12 and 6.13. With this configuration, as each
control surface is identical, it is not so easy to meet the generally accepted
requirement of good stability in the vertical plane and good manoeuvring in the
horizontal plane. The need for good stability in the vertical plane may be less
important for low speed conventional submarines (SSKs) than for the higher speed
nuclear powered submarines (SSNs), however this aspect does need to be
considered with the X-plane configuration.
One advantage of the X-form configuration is that each of the control surfaces
can have a much longer span than with the cruciform configuration. This means that
13
for the same aspect ratio the total control surface area for the X-form configuration
can be much larger than that for a cruciform configuration.
Figure 20 X-form configuration for aft planes (courtesy of DSTO).
Or, alternatively, the aspect ratio can be increased for the same total control
surface area for the X-form configuration can be much larger than that for a
cruciform configuration. Or, alternatively, the aspect ratio can be increased for the
same total control surface area. There is the opportunity of generating greater
control forces with the X-form configuration, than with the cruciform configuration.
Figure 21 X-form configuration for aft planes. a Schematic. b View from

astern
With the X-form configuration, generally each of the control surfaces is all
moving and completely independent. This requires an autopilot to control the
submarine, as for each manoeuvre a different combination of plane movements is
14
required. As can be seen from Fig. 6.14a, when applying a force to port, in order to
turn to starboard, each control surface is required to operate. Vertical upwards
forces are generated which are cancelled out by vertical downwards forces. Hence,
to create a given effective force considerably greater total force is generated for the
X-form configuration than for the cruciform configuration. The same can be seen in
Fig. 6.14b when creating a vertical force (Renilson 2011). Thus, a greater total force
will be required for the X-plane configuration.
Figure 2.17 shows Comparison of control inputs for a cruciform and X-form
configurations when turning a submarine which is not symmetricalabout the x-y
plane.
a) Cruciform configuration.
b) X-form configuration
Figure 22 Comparison of control inputs for a cruciform and X-form

configurations
However, as most submarines are not symmetrical about the x-y plane, when
turning a vertical force is often required to maintain depth. The vertical force
15
changes with the forms. Whether the total force is greater for the cruciform or the X-
form for a particular manoeuvre will depend on the degree of asymmetry that the
submarine has.
Finally, horizontal stabilizers can be added to the X-form configuration,

resulting in six appendages. This will result in six significant wake regimes impacting
on the propulsor.
3.3.3 Alternative Configurations
3.3.3.1 Y configurations;
On the surface, the lower planes are required for manoeuvring in the
horizontal plane. The requirement to have good stability in the vertical plane
and good manoeuvrability in the horizontal plane can be achieved by sizing
the rudder and the lower planes accordingly.
Figure 23 Inverted Y configuration. a Schematic. b View from astern
The inverted Y configuration results in three different wakes into the

propulsor, which may affect the propulsor noise.
3.3.3.2 Pentaform configuration;
Control in the vertical plane is accomplished by the lower planes, as

with the inverted Y-form. The other two planes can be fixed, providing
16
greater stability in the vertical plane than in the horizontal plane, which is
often a design requirement. With the pentaform configuration there are five
significant wake regimes impacting on the propulsor, so a five bladed
propeller would generate considerable additional hydro-acoustic noise.
Figure 24 Pentaformconfiguration. a Schematic. b View from astern
17
FOURTH CHAPTER STABILITY
The basic concepts behind the manoeuvring of a submarine are very similar to
that of a surface ship. The main differences between a study of submarine
manoeuvring and that of surface ship manoeuvring are that a submarine can
manoeuvre in all six degrees of freedom, but is very unlikely to be required to
manoeuvre whilst going astern. (RENILSON, 2015)
As with surface ships, there are four different possible levels of motion
stability:
(a) unstable;
(b) straight line stability (after a disturbance the boat remains on a straight line,
but at a different heading from the initial heading);
(c) directional stability (after a disturbance the boat remains on the original
heading, but is displaced from the initial path); and
(d) positional motion stability (after a disturbance the boat remains on the
original path).
Figure 25 Motion stability modes
18
Another important point is that with the controls fixed the degree of motion
stability possible in the vertical plane is different to that in the horizontal plane. In the
horizontal plane, the greatest possible level of motion stability with the controls fixed
is straight line stability. With this level of stability, after being disturbed by a small
deflection a submarine will return to a straight line motion, but not in the same
direction as prior to the disturbance, as shown in Fig. 3.1b. To achieve the same
direction it is necessary to have operating controls.
On the other hand, it is possible for a submarine to have directional stability in

the vertical plane. With this level of stability, after being disturbed by a small
deflection a submarine will return to the same direction. This is shown in Fig. 3.1c.
This is possible because of the influence of the hydrostatic force, which provides a
pitch restoring moment.
Hence, an important aspect for the submarine designer at an early stage in

the design is to determine the level of manoeuvrability and motion stability required
in each plane.
19
FIFTH CHAPTER MATHEMATICAL MODELS
This mathematical model include an example. The submarine dimensions can

change. It is accessed different stability index with different dimensions. These are
some suggestion to optimal dimensions for stability.
MODEL SUBMARINE DIMENSIONS

Length 61 m
Diameter 7,3 m
Casing Height 1 m
Total Form Displacement 2153 tons
Form Displacement of Submarine Without Appendages 2050 tons
Longitudinal Centre of Gravity in Forward of Ship' 2,5 m
Midpoint
5.1 HULL
In this study, it is accepted that the hull is an ellipsoid so it is used the ellipsoid
equations.
The mass is non-dimensionalised as given;
𝑚𝑚
𝑚𝑚′ = 𝜌𝜌 3
(1)
2𝐿𝐿
Figure 26 Sketch of an ellipsoid
20
If the ellipsoid are a, b, and c where 𝑎𝑎 > 𝑏𝑏 ≥ 𝑐𝑐 (LAMB, The Inertia-
Coefficients of an Ellipsoid, 1918)
𝐿𝐿
𝑎𝑎 =
2
𝑏𝑏𝑐𝑐 3𝑚𝑚′
=
𝑎𝑎2 𝜋𝜋
𝑏𝑏 𝑃𝑃𝑃𝑃𝑃𝑃𝑃𝑃𝑃𝑃𝑃𝑃𝑃𝑃 𝑎𝑎𝑃𝑃𝑃𝑃𝑎𝑎 𝑃𝑃𝑃𝑃 ℎ𝑢𝑢𝑃𝑃𝑃𝑃

= (2)
𝑐𝑐 𝑃𝑃𝑃𝑃𝑎𝑎𝑃𝑃 𝑎𝑎𝑃𝑃𝑃𝑃𝑎𝑎 𝑃𝑃𝑃𝑃 ℎ𝑢𝑢𝑃𝑃𝑃𝑃
4𝜋𝜋 𝑚𝑚
. 𝑎𝑎𝑏𝑏𝑐𝑐 = = 𝑚𝑚′ . 4𝑎𝑎3
3 𝜌𝜌
𝑎𝑎 𝜋𝜋 𝑐𝑐
=�
𝑏𝑏 3𝑚𝑚′ 𝑏𝑏
Figure 27 The sheme of the example’s dimension
Horace Lamb studied on hydrodynamics derive the forces acting on ellipsoid

has an angle of attack. It is possible to see the added mass of the body in the x and
z directions. After calculate the a,b,c, the table of Lamb can use for the coeffient of
𝑎𝑎
added mass. For figure 4.1.2
𝑏𝑏
= 𝑙𝑙𝑙𝑙𝑙𝑙𝑙𝑙𝑙𝑙ℎ/𝑑𝑑𝑑𝑑𝑎𝑎𝑚𝑚𝑙𝑙𝑙𝑙𝑙𝑙𝑡𝑡.
21
Figure 28 Added mass coefficient for a prolate ellipsoid according to
Lamb.
According to k1,k2,k’ , the added mass coefficient kx,ky,kz, ky’,kz’ are calculated
with ampirik formulas. This formulas has a maximum error of 2 per cent in range
(LAMB, The Inertia-Coefficients of an Ellipsoid, 1918)
𝑎𝑎 𝑏𝑏
15 > > 6 and < 2 (3)
𝑏𝑏 𝑐𝑐
𝑏𝑏
𝑘𝑘𝑥𝑥 = 𝑘𝑘1 [1 + 0,772 � − 1�]−1
𝑐𝑐
𝑏𝑏
𝑘𝑘𝑦𝑦 = 𝑘𝑘2 [1 + 0,964 � − 1�]−1
𝑐𝑐
𝑏𝑏
𝑘𝑘𝑧𝑧 = 𝑘𝑘2 [1 + 1,072 � − 1�] (4)
𝑐𝑐
1,04 𝑏𝑏
𝑘𝑘𝑦𝑦′ = 𝑘𝑘 ′ [1 + �0,97 + 𝑎𝑎 � � − 1�]
− 2 𝑐𝑐
𝑏𝑏
0,95𝑏𝑏 𝑏𝑏
𝑘𝑘𝑧𝑧′ = 𝑘𝑘 ′ [1 + �1,02 + � � − 1�]−1
𝑎𝑎 𝑐𝑐
22
This calculated coefficients are used to calculate derivative in each axis with
moments of inertia of ellipsoid.
The formulas for found to be mass moments of inertia non–dimensionalised of

the equivalent ellipsoid;
𝑚𝑚′ 𝑐𝑐 2
𝐼𝐼𝑦𝑦′ = (1 + 2 )
20 𝑎𝑎
(5)
𝑚𝑚′ 𝑏𝑏 2
𝐼𝐼𝑧𝑧′ = (1 + 2 )
20 𝑎𝑎
Figure 29 Shematic of pressure distribution on a submarine in pure

sway/heave (ideal fluid solid line, real fluid dotted line)
As can be seen, there will be no net side force as the pressure over the
forward half of the body will be identical to the pressure over the aft half of the body.
There will be a moment, known as “Munk Moment”. (MIT, 2015) Thus, the ideal flow
derivatives;
′
𝑌𝑌𝑉𝑉′ = 𝑍𝑍𝑊𝑊 =0
𝑌𝑌𝑃𝑃′ = 𝑍𝑍𝑞𝑞′ = 0
𝑁𝑁𝑃𝑃′ = 𝑀𝑀𝑞𝑞′ = 0 (6)
𝑁𝑁𝑣𝑣′ = −(𝑘𝑘𝑦𝑦 + 𝑘𝑘𝑥𝑥 )𝑚𝑚′
′
𝑀𝑀𝑤𝑤 = (𝑘𝑘𝑧𝑧 + 𝑘𝑘𝑥𝑥 )𝑚𝑚′
Acceleration derivatives;
23
Yv′ = −k y m′
′
Zw = −k z m′
Yr′ = Nv′ = 0 (7)
Zq′ = Mw
′
=0
Nr′ = −k z ′Izz
′
Mq′ = −k y ′Iyy
′
5.2 PROPELLER
Apart from the effect on the flow over the body the propeller has a fin-effect of
its own. For a propeller in open water there are a number of published papers by
Harris giving methods of the calculating the side force in non-axial flow.
′(𝑃𝑃) ′(𝑃𝑃) 4,24 𝐷𝐷𝑃𝑃2 𝐽𝐽 𝑑𝑑𝑑𝑑𝑄𝑄

𝑍𝑍𝑊𝑊 = 𝑌𝑌𝑉𝑉 =− 2
(𝐾𝐾𝑄𝑄 − ) (8)
𝐽𝐽 𝐿𝐿 2 𝑑𝑑𝐽𝐽
DP is diameter of propeller.
This assumes that the tangential force is distributed uniformly along the length
of the blades but little error occurs if this is not so. If the tangential force distribution
is of the form r3(1-r)2 then the error is only %5. (Defense Technical Information
Center, 2012)
Evaluation of this term involves a knowledge of wake and propeller

characteristics. If this is not avaible the wake from a similar ship can be used and
propeller data obtained from data sheets.
The propeller on the submarine is not open water and its real incidence to the
flow may be different to that of the hull. In particular the incidence of the propeller
will be affected by the downwash behind the rudders and stern hydroplanes.
However it is suggested that no correction be made to the open water derivative,
which is usually small compared with hull and fin derivatives.
24
5.3 FORWARD CONTROL SURFACES
To permit the submarine to change depth without changing trim, and to control
depth at low speeds. The forward planes are useful at relativly low speeds and at
periscope depth. Fitting fore planes does provide the means of controlling pitch
angle and depth independently, making it possible for the submarine to remain level
while slowly gliding up or down in depth.
The forward planes can be located in three different positions: midline;

eyebrow; and sail. In our sample, we choose the NACA 0015 for bow plane.
Figure 30 Cross section of NACA 0015
25
Figure 31 Lift curve slopes of isolated wings
26
An isolated wing has this features;
Figure 32 Sketch of an isolated wing
𝑏𝑏 2
𝐴𝐴𝐸𝐸 =
𝑆𝑆𝑊𝑊
1 𝐶𝐶𝑟𝑟
= (9)
𝜆𝜆 𝐶𝐶𝑡𝑡
𝐿𝐿𝑑𝑑𝐿𝐿𝑙𝑙
𝐶𝐶𝐿𝐿 =
(𝜌𝜌/2)𝑆𝑆𝑊𝑊 𝑈𝑈 2
Lift slope of isolated low aspect ratio aerofoils and shows clearly the effects of
the major design parameters.
𝜕𝜕𝐶𝐶𝐿𝐿
𝑎𝑎1 =
𝜕𝜕𝜕𝜕
The lift slope due to the control surface;
𝜕𝜕𝐶𝐶𝐿𝐿
𝑎𝑎2 = (11)
𝜕𝜕𝛿𝛿𝐻𝐻
𝑎𝑎 𝑎𝑎
�𝑎𝑎1� , 𝜂𝜂, 𝐿𝐿 = 𝑎𝑎2 (𝑎𝑎2)𝜂𝜂𝐿𝐿𝑎𝑎1 (12)
2 1
27
𝑎𝑎
�𝑎𝑎1 � is the effect of control ratio (control chord aft of hinge line/ total chord) and
2
is found from figure 33.
Figure 33 Variation of (a2/a1)s with control chord and trailing edge angle
for full-span controls
28
𝜂𝜂 is the effect of hydroplane shape and control gap and is found from Figure
34.
Figure 34 Correction factor applied to (a2/a1)s for full-span balance and

gap
29
𝐿𝐿 is the correction for control which do not extend over the whole span and is
found from Figure 35.
Figure 35 Spanwise extend of control correction for part-span control
Figure 36 Sketch of an aerofoil
30
Fins on cylindrical hulls circular cross section for isolated wing can be like that;
Figure 37 Geometry of Wing-Body Combination and equivalent isolated

wing for circular body cross section
For NACA 0015, from figure 2 we get for the lift curve slope. After find the
cross section data which is calculated using figure 37 , the correction factors table
is used (Figure 38) for 𝐾𝐾𝑊𝑊 + 𝐾𝐾𝐵𝐵 .
31
Figure 38 Correction factors for stability terms for fins on circular and
elliptic hulls
32
Derivatives Equations;
′(𝑊𝑊𝐵𝐵) 𝑆𝑆𝑊𝑊
𝑍𝑍𝑊𝑊 =− 𝑎𝑎1 (𝐾𝐾𝑊𝑊 + 𝐾𝐾𝐵𝐵 ) (13)
𝐿𝐿2
And the lever arm from CG to ¼ chord position of the bowplane is calculated.
′(𝑊𝑊) ′(𝑊𝑊) 𝑥𝑥
𝑀𝑀𝑊𝑊 = −𝑍𝑍𝑊𝑊 ( )
𝐿𝐿
𝑍𝑍𝑞𝑞 = −𝑍𝑍𝑊𝑊 ( ) (14)
𝐿𝐿
𝑀𝑀𝑞𝑞 = 𝑍𝑍𝑊𝑊 ( )2
𝐿𝐿
“x” is the longitudinal body axis measured positive forward.
Figure 39 Fore plane interaction on after planes
33
5.4 BRIDGE FIN
Bridge fin is the major excrescence causing considerable drag high above the
axis so that in the vertical plane it causes an appreciable bow-up pitching moment.
Figure 40 Bridge fin planes
For our example, NACA 0018 is choosen. The derivative of isolated fin is
given;
𝑌𝑌𝑊𝑊 =− 𝑎𝑎
𝐿𝐿2 1
𝑆𝑆𝑊𝑊 is fin area.
𝑎𝑎1 is the lift curve slope, it is used Figure 4.3.2.
Figure 41 Geometry of wing-body combination and equivalent isolated

wing for elliptical body cross sections
34
The derivative of fin and body combination is
𝑌𝑌𝑉𝑉 =− 𝑎𝑎1 (𝐾𝐾𝑊𝑊(𝐵𝐵) + 𝐾𝐾𝐵𝐵(𝑊𝑊) ) (15)
𝐿𝐿2
Values of 𝐾𝐾𝑊𝑊(𝐵𝐵) + 𝐾𝐾𝐵𝐵(𝑊𝑊) for fins mounted symmetrically on an elliptical body

are given figure 4.3.9, for the necessary datas figure 4.4.2 is used.
𝑁𝑁𝑉𝑉 = 𝑌𝑌𝑉𝑉 ( )
𝐿𝐿
𝑌𝑌𝑃𝑃 = 𝑌𝑌𝑉𝑉 ( ) (16)
𝐿𝐿
𝑁𝑁𝑃𝑃 = 𝑌𝑌𝑉𝑉 ( )2
𝐿𝐿
5.5 STERN STABILISERS
The after hydroplanes are the horizontal control surfaces situated as far to the
stern of the submarine as is practicable which, in the case of a single propulsor with
its shaft on the axis, usually means that the planes are at the level of the axis just
ahead of the propulsor on the tail cone of the hull.
The main fuction of the planes is to control the pitch of the submarine.
Submarine can be steered vertically using after planes alone.
For our example, NACA 0015 is choosen. For pairs of fins mounted near the
tail of a body. This reproduced in Figure 4.5.1; the curve for bodies with faired ends
should normally be used. The correction factor must be applied to the lift slope of
the “gross” wing- formed from the two exposed fins plus the imaginary fin between
them. No values of the correction factors for the control term are avaible for fins
mounted at the tail of a body. It is assumed that the ratio of control and stability
correction factors will be the same as for fins on a cylindrical body.
35
Figure 42 A sample for stern stabilisers
The derivatives;
′(𝑊𝑊𝐵𝐵) 𝑆𝑆𝑊𝑊 ∗
𝑍𝑍𝑊𝑊 =− 𝑎𝑎1 �𝐾𝐾𝑊𝑊(𝐵𝐵) + 𝐾𝐾𝐵𝐵(𝑊𝑊) � (17)
𝐿𝐿2
𝑀𝑀𝑊𝑊 = −𝑍𝑍𝑊𝑊 ( )
𝐿𝐿
𝑍𝑍𝑞𝑞 = −𝑍𝑍𝑊𝑊 ( ) (18)
𝐿𝐿
𝑀𝑀𝑞𝑞 = 𝑍𝑍𝑊𝑊 ( )2
𝐿𝐿
∗
�𝐾𝐾𝑊𝑊(𝐵𝐵) + 𝐾𝐾𝐵𝐵(𝑊𝑊) � is the correction factor for the control devivatives. It can be
found with Figure 43.
36
Figure 43 Correction factors for the stabilising force due to fins at the tail
of hulls of circular cross section.
5.6 RUDDER
In submarines with a single propulsor the normal arrangement is to have a

pair of vertical rudders one above and one below the tail cone more or less in line
with the after planes and fins.
Ruddes are all-moveable surfaces.
The upper and lower rudders are often very different because of the retrictions
on the draught of the lower rudder. In this case the rudders should be treated
separately, the equivalent wing being taken to be the rudder plus image in the plane
of the hydroplanes. If the upper and lower ruder are to be operated together, to
provide a yoke around the main shaft.
For our example the NACA 0015 is choosen.
37
The derivatives;
′(𝑊𝑊𝐵𝐵) 𝑆𝑆𝑊𝑊 ∗
𝑌𝑌𝑉𝑉 =− 𝑎𝑎1 �𝐾𝐾𝑊𝑊(𝐵𝐵) + 𝐾𝐾𝐵𝐵(𝑊𝑊) � (19)
𝐿𝐿2
𝑁𝑁𝑉𝑉 = 𝑌𝑌𝑉𝑉 ( )
𝐿𝐿
𝑌𝑌𝑃𝑃 = 𝑌𝑌𝑉𝑉 ( ) (20)
𝐿𝐿
𝑁𝑁𝑃𝑃 = 𝑌𝑌𝑉𝑉 ( )2
𝐿𝐿
The solution way is the same as after stabilisiers.
5.7 GENERAL
The all derivatives are calculated and all of the components are plus. We wil
find the stability index. These derivatives;
Stability index in horizontal plane;
𝑁𝑁𝑣𝑣′ (𝑚𝑚′ −𝑌𝑌𝑟𝑟′ )

𝐺𝐺𝐻𝐻 = 1 + (21)
𝑁𝑁𝑟𝑟′ 𝑌𝑌𝑣𝑣′
Stability index in vertival plane;
′
𝑀𝑀𝑊𝑊 (𝑚𝑚′ +𝑍𝑍𝑞𝑞′ )
𝐺𝐺𝑉𝑉 = 1 − (22)
𝑀𝑀𝑞𝑞′ 𝑍𝑍𝑤𝑤
′
38
SIXTH CHAPTER CONCLUSION
This dessertation could expand with vortex effect of each appandages. I show
all my assumption clearly at throughout calculation. These results are shown the
vertical and horizontal stability indexes are okay for (RENILSON, 2015).
Figure 44 Acceptable range of stability indexs
This dessertation shows that “How does appandages affects on submarine?” .

It covers, the type and location of appandages. Stability, maneuvering, resistance
and performance these are the most important abilities for a submarine. So
calculations about them must so sensitive. This dessertation include only empirical
formulas, so it can use preliminary design. This conclusions must be supported with
experimental results.
It must be compared the conclusion.
6.1 COMPARE OF CONCLUSION
6.1.1 Sample Design Conclusion

Length 61 m
Diameter 7,3 m
Casing Height 1m
Total Form Displacement 2153 tons
Form Displacement of Submarine Without Appendages 2050 tons
Longitudinal Centre of Gravity in Forward of Ship' Midpoint 2,5 m
Propeller Diameter 4m
Maximal Propeller rpm 150
Propeller Plane Forward of Aft Perpendicular 0,75 m
Density of Water 1,0252 tons/m^3
Umax 11,4 m/sec
Propeller Number of Revolutions per Minute Propeller 150 rpm
Propeller Diameter characteristic 4m
Wt 0,216
Bowplane NACA 0015 is choosen
Bridge Fin NACA 0018 is choosen
Figure 45 Sample Design main Dimensiosn
39
VERTICAL PLANE
Component Z'w M'w Z'q M'q
Hull -0,0124033 0,014944969 0 -0,00084527
Propeller -0,0013221 -0,00069898 -0,000699 -0,00036954
Bowplanes -0,0113414 0,003788205 0,0037882 -0,00126532
Sternplanes / Stabilizers -0,0230375 -0,0106879 -0,0106879 -0,00495849
TOTAL -0,0481043 0,007346287 -0,0075987 -0,00743862
Stability Index Gv 0,79427798
HORIZONTAL PLANE
Component Y'v N'v Y'r N'r
Hull -0,0145834 -0,0151331 0 -0,00063203
Propeller -0,0013221 0,000698982 0,00069898 -0,00036954
Bridge Fin -0,0566015 -0,00510342 -0,0051034 -0,00046014
Upper Rudeer -0,0116887 -0,0054228 -0,0054228 -0,00251582
Lower Rudder -0,0098201 0,004555863 0,00455586 -0,00211362
TOTAL -0,0940158 -0,02040446 -0,0052714 -0,00609116
Stability Index Gh 0,18439358
Figure 46 Conclusion of sample design
40
6.1.2 Change of Length
VERTICAL PLANE
Hull -0,0028384 0,003392224 0 -0,00018701
Propeller -0,000492 -0,00025459 -0,0002546 -0,00013175
Bowplanes -0,0042201 0,001477044 0,00147704 -0,00051697
TOTAL -0,0161228 0,000517138 -0,0028751 -0,00279435
HORIZONTAL PLANE
Hull -0,0033101 -0,00343493 0 -0,00014254
Propeller -0,000492 0,000254587 0,00025459 -0,00013175
Bridge Fin -0,0210614 -0,00526536 -0,0052654 -0,00131634
Upper Rudeer -0,0043494 -0,002079 -0,002079 -0,00099376
Lower Rudder -0,003654 0,001746633 0,00174663 -0,00083489
TOTAL -0,0328669 -0,00877806 -0,0053431 -0,00341928
Figure 47 Conclusion of L=100m Submarine, other main dimensions are

same
VERTICAL PLANE
Hull -0,0224015 0,027137792 0 -0,00157334
Propeller -0,0019678 -0,00105278 -0,0010528 -0,00056324
Bowplanes -0,0168805 0,005486163 0,00548616 -0,001783
TOTAL -0,0755389 0,015935357 -0,0112024 -0,01104952
HORIZONTAL PLANE
Hull -0,0264812 -0,0274794 0 -0,00115898
Propeller -0,0019678 0,001052785 0,00105278 -0,00056324
Bridge Fin -0,0842457 0 0 0
Upper Rudeer -0,0173975 -0,00793325 -0,0079332 -0,00361756
Lower Rudder -0,0146162 0,006664976 0,00666498 -0,00303923
TOTAL -0,1447084 -0,02769489 -0,0002155 -0,00837901

same
41
The conclusions are shown that length is one of the most important parameter
for submarine stability. If the all dimensions are the same except length, the short
submarine has more adventages than longers according to (RENILSON, 2015).
VERTICAL PLANE
Hull -0,0433935 0,0530035 0 -0,00324373
Propeller -0,0030747 -0,00167188 -0,0016719 -0,00090908
Bowplanes -0,0263758 0,008242432 0,00824243 -0,00257576
TOTAL -0,1264206 0,035732438 -0,0172711 -0,01733809
HORIZONTAL PLANE
Hull -0,0517211 -0,05367071 0 -0,00231688
Propeller -0,0030747 0,00167188 0,00167188 -0,00090908
Bridge Fin -0,1316339 0,016454238 0,01645424 -0,00205678
Upper Rudeer -0,0271836 -0,01209668 -0,0120967 -0,00538302
Lower Rudder -0,0228378 0,010162809 0,01016281 -0,00452245
TOTAL -0,236451 -0,03747846 0,01619224 -0,01518821

same
The L=40m submarine’s conclusions are shown that, the shortest submarine
is not the most stabilized. There is an optimal length and to get longer or shorter
affect stability negative.
Graph 1 L & Gv
42
For vertical plane stability accebtable submarine length must be between
44m<L<62m.
Graph 2 L & Gh
This graph is shown that there is a turning point. It is acceptable range that
45m<L<53m. If the dimensions are between the 53m-76m, this is the unstabil state.
45m<L<53 is the common value both plane.
43
6.1.3 Change of Diameter
VERTICAL PLANE
Hull -0,0133394 0,015986123 0 -0,00078572
Propeller -0,0013221 -0,00069898 -0,000699 -0,00036954
Bowplanes -0,0113414 0,003788205 0,0037882 -0,00126532
TOTAL -0,0490404 0,008387442 -0,0075987 -0,00737907
HORIZONTAL PLANE
Hull -0,0155123 -0,01609036 0 -0,00067894
Propeller -0,0013221 0,000698982 0,00069898 -0,00036954
Bridge Fin -0,0566015 -0,00510342 -0,0051034 -0,00046014
Upper Rudeer -0,0116887 -0,0054228 -0,0054228 -0,00251582
Lower Rudder -0,0098201 0,004555863 0,00455586 -0,00211362
TOTAL -0,0949446 -0,02136173 -0,0052714 -0,00613807
Figure 50 Conclusion of r=15m Submarine, other main dimensions are same
VERTICAL PLANE
Hull -0,011665 0,014121072 0 -0,00089935
Propeller -0,0013221 -0,00069898 -0,000699 -0,00036954
Bowplanes -0,0113414 0,003788205 0,0037882 -0,00126532
TOTAL -0,047366 0,00652239 -0,0075987 -0,0074927
HORIZONTAL PLANE
Hull -0,0138407 -0,01436725 0 -0,00059503
Propeller -0,0013221 0,000698982 0,00069898 -0,00036954
Bridge Fin -0,0566015 -0,00510342 -0,0051034 -0,00046014
Upper Rudeer -0,0116887 -0,0054228 -0,0054228 -0,00251582
Lower Rudder -0,0098201 0,004555863 0,00455586 -0,00211362
TOTAL -0,0932731 -0,01963862 -0,0052714 -0,00605416
Figure 51 Conclusion of r=5m Submarine, other main dimensions are same
The conclusions are shown that submarine diameter is not the one of the most
important parameter. It is true the stability index parameter change with this
44
parameter but it’s not so effective. And it can be told that to get bigger diameter
vertical plane stability index is get smaller at the same time the horizontal plane
stability index is get smaller.
Graph 3 r & Gv
r&Gh
30
25
20
Diameter
15
r&Gh
10
5 Polinom.
(r&Gh)
0
0 0,1 0,2 0,3 0,4
Horizontal Plane Stabilty Index
Graph 4 r & Gh
According to results the diameter of submarine must be between 6m<r<14m.

It is acceptable range of vertical plane stability index. 2,3m<r<5,7m range, is
provided the horizontal plane stability index requirement. There is no common
45
range. The horizontal plane is so sensitive and it’s range is not wide. So it’s quite
hard to provide its stability.
6.1.4 Change of Casing Height
VERTICAL PLANE
Hull -0,0116048 0,01405371 0 -0,00090408
Propeller -0,0013221 -0,00069898 -0,000699 -0,00036954
Bowplanes -0,0113414 0,003788205 0,0037882 -0,00126532
TOTAL -0,0473058 0,006455029 -0,0075987 -0,00749744
HORIZONTAL PLANE
Hull -0,0137797 -0,01430431 0 -0,00059201
Propeller -0,0013221 0,000698982 0,00069898 -0,00036954
Bridge Fin -0,0566015 -0,00510342 -0,0051034 -0,00046014
Upper Rudeer -0,0116887 -0,0054228 -0,0054228 -0,00251582
Lower Rudder -0,0098201 0,004555863 0,00455586 -0,00211362
TOTAL -0,0932121 -0,01957567 -0,0052714 -0,00605114
Figure 52 Conclusion of casing height=1,5m Submarine, other main

dimensions are same
Graph 5 Casing height & Gv
It could be better that determine the upper layer due to the the get higher of
casing height is resulted less stability. The maximum case height must be under
1,2m.
46
VERTICAL PLANE
Hull -0,0133134 0,015957244 0 -0,00078726
Propeller -0,0013221 -0,00069898 -0,000699 -0,00036954
Bowplanes -0,0113414 0,003788205 0,0037882 -0,00126532
TOTAL -0,0490144 0,008358562 -0,0075987 -0,00738061
HORIZONTAL PLANE
Hull -0,0154866 -0,01606397 0 -0,00067764
Propeller -0,0013221 0,000698982 0,00069898 -0,00036954
Bridge Fin -0,0566015 -0,00510342 -0,0051034 -0,00046014
Upper Rudeer -0,0116887 -0,0054228 -0,0054228 -0,00251582
Lower Rudder -0,0098201 0,004555863 0,00455586 -0,00211362
TOTAL -0,094919 -0,02133533 -0,0052714 -0,00613677
Figure 53 Conclusion of casing height=0,5m Submarine, other main

dimensions are same
It’s shown that the case is so long and except of the elliptic, get longer of it
both of stability index is bigger. It is a so effective parameter.
Graph 6 Casing Height & Gh
Horizontal plane graph is shown that the optimal value of casing height must
be higher than 1,208m.
47
6.1.5 Change of Displacement
VERTICAL PLANE
Hull -0,0151015 0,018225572 0 -0,00103776
Propeller -0,0013221 -0,00069898 -0,000699 -0,00036954
Bowplanes -0,0113414 0,003788205 0,0037882 -0,00126532
TOTAL -0,0508025 0,01062689 -0,0075987 -0,00763111
HORIZONTAL PLANE
Hull -0,0177846 -0,018455 0 -0,00077269
Propeller -0,0013221 0,000698982 0,00069898 -0,00036954
Bridge Fin -0,0566015 -0,00510342 -0,0051034 -0,00046014
Upper Rudeer -0,0116887 -0,0054228 -0,0054228 -0,00251582
Lower Rudder -0,0098201 0,004555863 0,00455586 -0,00211362
TOTAL -0,097217 -0,02372636 -0,0052714 -0,00623182
Stability Index Gh -0,0479256
Figure 54 Conclusion of total displacement=2500tonnes Submarine, other

main dimensions are same
Graph 7 Displacement & Gv
The minimum value of displacement is 1980 tonnes.
48
VERTICAL PLANE
Hull -0,0115024 0,013851435 0 -0,00078165
Propeller -0,0013221 -0,00069898 -0,000699 -0,00036954
Bowplanes -0,0113414 0,003788205 0,0037882 -0,00126532
TOTAL -0,0472034 0,006252753 -0,0075987 -0,007375
HORIZONTAL PLANE
Hull -0,0135163 -0,0140258 0 -0,00058532
Propeller -0,0013221 0,000698982 0,00069898 -0,00036954
Bridge Fin -0,0566015 -0,00510342 -0,0051034 -0,00046014
Upper Rudeer -0,0116887 -0,0054228 -0,0054228 -0,00251582
Lower Rudder -0,0098201 0,004555863 0,00455586 -0,00211362
TOTAL -0,0929487 -0,01929716 -0,0052714 -0,00604445
Figure 55 Conclusion of total displacement=1900 tonnes Submarine, other

main dimensions are same
Graph 8 Displacement & Gh
The graph is shown that between 1550 tonnes and 2000 tonnes is acceptable
range for horizontal plane stability. And interval of 1980-2000 tonnes is a small
common values.
Before this calculation it could say if the displacement get increase, stability
index is getting bigger. This parameter is suprised due to conclusions. It is an so
49
effective parameter and get decrease is effected the stability index positive. It
means; it is useful for stability use of light material.
6.1.6 Change of Bowplane’s Dimensions
VERTICAL PLANE
Hull -0,0124033 0,014944969 0 -0,00084527
Propeller -0,0013221 -0,00069898 -0,000699 -0,00036954
Bowplanes -0,0453655 0,015152818 0,01515282 -0,00506129
TOTAL -0,0821284 0,018710901 0,00376593 -0,01123459
HORIZONTAL PLANE
Hull -0,0145834 -0,0151331 0 -0,00063203
Propeller -0,0013221 0,000698982 0,00069898 -0,00036954
Bridge Fin -0,0566015 -0,00510342 -0,0051034 -0,00046014
Upper Rudeer -0,0116887 -0,0054228 -0,0054228 -0,00251582
Lower Rudder -0,0098201 0,004555863 0,00455586 -0,00211362
TOTAL -0,0940158 -0,02040446 -0,0052714 -0,00609116
Figure 56 Conclusion of bowplane’s root chord=7m Submarine, other main

dimensions are same
It shows that the the change dimensions of bowplane is not effected on

horizontal plane. It effect the vertical plane stability index.
Graph 9 Bow Plane Root Chord & Vertical Plane Stability Index
50
The minimum value of bow plane root chord is 1,6m for vertical plane stability.
It is appeared that higher than this value is acceptable but it is not forgetten that this
values is not included the vortex effect.
Graph 10 Root Chord & Gh
This graph is shown that the change of dimension that parameter is not
effected the horizontal plane stabilty index.
Graph 11 Span & Gv
Both of the graph are shown that bigger bow plane is resulted less stabilty.
And dimension of bowplane is not effected on horizontal plane.
51
Graph 12 Span & Gh
The non-changed Gh is shown in graph.
VERTICAL PLANE
Hull -0,0124033 0,014944969 0 -0,00084527
Propeller -0,0013221 -0,00069898 -0,000699 -0,00036954
Bowplanes -0,0064808 0,002164688 0,00216469 -0,00072304
TOTAL -0,0432437 0,005722771 -0,0092222 -0,00689634
HORIZONTAL PLANE
Hull -0,0145834 -0,0151331 0 -0,00063203
Propeller -0,0013221 0,000698982 0,00069898 -0,00036954
Bridge Fin -0,0566015 -0,00510342 -0,0051034 -0,00046014
Upper Rudeer -0,0116887 -0,0054228 -0,0054228 -0,00251582
Lower Rudder -0,0098201 0,004555863 0,00455586 -0,00211362
TOTAL -0,0940158 -0,02040446 -0,0052714 -0,00609116
Figure 57 Conclusion of bowplane’s span=2m Submarine, other main

dimensions are same
To get smaller of span dimension, vertical plane stability index get higher.
52
6.1.7 Change Dimension of Bridge Fin
VERTICAL PLANE
Hull -0,0124033 0,014944969 0 -0,00084527
Propeller -0,0013221 -0,00069898 -0,000699 -0,00036954
Bowplanes -0,0113414 0,003788205 0,0037882 -0,00126532
TOTAL -0,0481043 0,007346287 -0,0075987 -0,00743862
HORIZONTAL PLANE
Hull -0,0145834 -0,0151331 0 -0,00063203
Propeller -0,0013221 0,000698982 0,00069898 -0,00036954
Bridge Fin -0,0566015 -0,01206262 -0,0120626 -0,00257072
Upper Rudeer -0,0116887 -0,0054228 -0,0054228 -0,00251582
Lower Rudder -0,0098201 0,004555863 0,00455586 -0,00211362
TOTAL -0,0940158 -0,02736367 -0,0122306 -0,00820174
Stability Index Gh -0,0592742
Figure 58 Conclusion of Bridge fin’s location is 15m Cg to bow Submarine,

other main dimensions are same
Graph 13 Bridge fin location & Gv
The reference point is accepted the CG. This parameter changes are
according to CG to bow. The graph is shown that location of bridge fin is not
effected the vertical plane stability.
53
Graph 14 Bridge fin location & Gh
Being ahead of bridge fin provide more stability in horizontal plane.
These are expected results due to bridge fin’s fuction. It is the horizontal plane
appendage. Being more effective is about the distance to CG. All of the moments
are calculated according to this point.
VERTICAL PLANE
Hull -0,0124033 0,014944969 0 -0,00084527
Propeller -0,0013221 -0,00069898 -0,000699 -0,00036954
Bowplanes -0,0113414 0,003788205 0,0037882 -0,00126532
TOTAL -0,0481043 0,007346287 -0,0075987 -0,00743862
HORIZONTAL PLANE
Hull -0,0145834 -0,0151331 0 -0,00063203
Propeller -0,0013221 0,000698982 0,00069898 -0,00036954
Bridge Fin -0,0626854 -0,00565196 -0,005652 -0,0005096
Upper Rudeer -0,0116887 -0,0054228 -0,0054228 -0,00251582
Lower Rudder -0,0098201 0,004555863 0,00455586 -0,00211362
TOTAL -0,1000996 -0,02095301 -0,0058199 -0,00614062
Figure 59 Conclusion of Bridge fin’s Tip chord=12m Submarine, other main

dimensions are same
54
Graph 15 Tip Chord & Gh
The graph is shown that the minimum bridge fin tip chord must be longer than
12m. Under of this value being forced to provide stabilty in this plane.
Graph 16 Tip Chord & Gv
Graph 16 is the expected conclusion. The bridge fin dimensions are not
effected in vertical plane stability index.
The conclusion are shown that bigger bridge fin is better for both of stability
index. But it must not forgetten location of bowplane. Location is not effected the
vertical plane but nearer plane to CG is effected horizontal plane stability negative.
The bigger and far away CG bow bridge fin is suggested.
55
6.1.8 Change of Stern Stabiliser
VERTICAL PLANE
Hull -0,0124033 0,014944969 0 -0,00084527
Propeller -0,0013221 -0,00069898 -0,000699 -0,00036954
Bowplanes -0,0113414 0,003788205 0,0037882 -0,00126532
TOTAL -0,053759 0,004722893 -0,0102221 -0,0086557
HORIZONTAL PLANE
Hull -0,0145834 -0,0151331 0 -0,00063203
Propeller -0,0013221 0,000698982 0,00069898 -0,00036954
Bridge Fin -0,0566015 -0,00510342 -0,0051034 -0,00046014
Upper Rudeer -0,0116887 -0,0054228 -0,0054228 -0,00251582
Lower Rudder -0,0098201 0,004555863 0,00455586 -0,00211362
TOTAL -0,0940158 -0,02040446 -0,0052714 -0,00609116
Figure 60 Conclusion of Stern stabiliser span=12m Submarine, other main

dimensions are same
Stern stabiser span dimension’s is not effected the horizontal plane stability
index, the vertical plane stability index is get bigger. This conclusion with this main
dimension is not acceptable due to it is not in the range of Renilson. It could use
with different dimensions and could be more effective.
Graph 17 Stern Stabiliser Span & Gv
56
Graph 17 is shown that the stern stabiliser span must be range of 6,3m-9,8m.
Get increase of dimensions is resulted more vertical plane stability index.
Graph 18 Stern stability span & Gh
It is the expected result. The stern stabiliser dimension is not effected the
horizontal plane stability. It is the appendage of vertical plane.
VERTICAL PLANE
Hull -0,0124033 0,014944969 0 -0,00084527
Propeller -0,0013221 -0,00069898 -0,000699 -0,00036954
Bowplanes -0,0113414 0,003788205 0,0037882 -0,00126532
TOTAL -0,0642809 0,000484289 -0,0144607 -0,01033443
HORIZONTAL PLANE
Hull -0,0145834 -0,0151331 0 -0,00063203
Propeller -0,0013221 0,000698982 0,00069898 -0,00036954
Bridge Fin -0,0566015 -0,00510342 -0,0051034 -0,00046014
Upper Rudeer -0,0116887 -0,0054228 -0,0054228 -0,00251582
Lower Rudder -0,0098201 0,004555863 0,00455586 -0,00211362
TOTAL -0,0940158 -0,02040446 -0,0052714 -0,00609116
Figure 61 Conclusion of Stern stabiliser root chord=6m Submarine, other main

dimensions are same
57
Location (far of CG, near to aft) of stern stabiliser has conclusion of bigger
vertical plane stability index.
Graph 19 Root chord & Gv
The root chord is about the location of stern stabiliser. It is the given
opportunity to interpret the location effect. Long root chord tell behind stern
stabiliser. Far away CG, is given bigger conclusion for moment and so vertical plane
stability.
The horizontal plane stability is not effected from stern stabiliser location.
58
6.1.9 Change of Rudder
VERTICAL PLANE
Hull -0,0124033 0,014944969 0 -0,00084527
Propeller -0,0013221 -0,00069898 -0,000699 -0,00036954
Bowplanes -0,0113414 0,003788205 0,0037882 -0,00126532
TOTAL -0,0481043 0,007346287 -0,0075987 -0,00743862
HORIZONTAL PLANE
Hull -0,0145834 -0,0151331 0 -0,00063203
Propeller -0,0013221 0,000698982 0,00069898 -0,00036954
Bridge Fin -0,0566015 -0,00510342 -0,0051034 -0,00046014
Upper Rudeer -0,0116887 -0,00498207 -0,0049821 -0,00212351
Lower Rudder -0,0098201 0,004555863 0,00455586 -0,00211362
TOTAL -0,0940158 -0,01996374 -0,0048306 -0,00569885
Figure 62 Conclusion of upper rudder flap chord=5m Submarine, other main

dimensions are same
Graph 20 Upper Rudder Flap Chord & Gh
This graph is shown that rudder is an unstabil appendage. For horizontal

plane stability index maxsimum flap chord could be 1,04m.
Upper rudder dimensions are not effected on vertical plane stability index.
59
VERTICAL PLANE
Hull -0,0124033 0,014944969 0 -0,00084527
Propeller -0,0013221 -0,00069898 -0,000699 -0,00036954
Bowplanes -0,0113414 0,003788205 0,0037882 -0,00126532
TOTAL -0,0481043 0,007346287 -0,0075987 -0,00743862
HORIZONTAL PLANE
Hull -0,0145834 -0,0151331 0 -0,00063203
Propeller -0,0013221 0,000698982 0,00069898 -0,00036954
Bridge Fin -0,0566015 -0,00510342 -0,0051034 -0,00046014
Upper Rudeer -0,0116887 -0,0052695 -0,0052695 -0,00237559
Lower Rudder -0,0098201 0,004185599 0,0041856 -0,00178403
TOTAL -0,0940158 -0,02062143 -0,0054883 -0,00562134
Figure 63 Conclusion of lower rudder flap chord=5m Submarine, other main

dimensions are same
Rudder dimensions is not effected vertical plane stability index. To get bigger
rudder, smaller horizontal plane stabilty.
Graph 21 Rudder Location & Gh
This is shown that location of far away CG, is given bigger conclusion for
moment and so bigger horizontal plane stability.
This parameter is not effected on vertical plane stability.
60
6.2 Result
All of the conclusions are used for find the stability control of appandeges. The
method is not claimed to be very accurate (within %10 is considered good) but it is
suitable for preliminary design calculations and also estimating the effects of small
changes to a design.
6.2.1 The Optimal Values
6.2.1.1 Length
For vertical plane stability accebtable submarine length must be between
44m<L<62m.
Horizontal plane stability acceptable range is 45m<L<53m. If the dimensions

are between the 53m-76m, this is the unstabil state.
45m<L<53 is the common value both plane.
6.2.1.2 Diameter
According to results the diameter of submarine must be between 6m<r<14m.
It is acceptable range of vertical plane stability index.
2,3m<r<5,7m range, is provided the horizontal plane stability index

requirement.
There is no common range. The horizontal plane is so sensitive and its range
is not wide. So it’s quite hard to provide its stability.
6.2.1.3 Casing Height

It could be better that determine the upper layer. The maximum case height
must be under 1,208m for vertical plane stability.
Horizontal plane is different. That graph is shown that, minimum value for this
plane is 1,2m. For It is a so effective parameter.
Both of graph are shown that there is range for common value of casing height
but the range is so narrow like a point. The range is 1,2m<h<1,208m.
6.2.1.4 Displacement
Vertical plane stability, the minimum value of displacement is 1980 tonnes.
61
Horizontal plane stability graph is shown that between 1550 tonnes and 2000
tonnes is acceptable range.
And interval of 1980-2000 tonnes is a small common values.
6.2.1.5 Bowplanes
It shows that the the change dimensions of bowplane is not effected on
horizontal plane.
It effects the vertical plane stability index.
The minimum value of bow plane root chord is 1,6m.
The range of span dimension; 3,1m<span<6m.
To get smaller of span dimensions, vertical plane stability index get higher.
6.2.1.6 Bridge Fin

The bridge fin dimensions are not effected in vertical plane stability index.
The graphs are shown that the minimum bridge fin tip chord must be longer
than 12m.
Its location must be away to CG 22,5<d<27m.
6.2.1.7 Sternstabiliser
Get increase of dimensions is resulted more vertical plane stability index.
This appendage is not effected on horizontal plane stability.
Graphs are shown that the stern stabiliser span must be range of 6,3m-9,8m.
The root chord is about the location of stern stabiliser. Long root chord tell
behind stern stabiliser. Far away to CG, is given bigger conclusion for moment and
so vertical plane stability.
6.2.1.8 Rudder
Rudder dimensions are not effected on vertical plane stability index.
To get bigger rudder, smaller horizontal plane stabilty. Maxsimum flap chord
could be 1,04m.
Its location must be away to CG 29m<d<32m
62
BIBLIOGRAPHY
ALAM, K., RAY, T., & ANAVATTI, S. (2014, October 22). Design and construction of
an autonomous underwater vehicle. Neurocomputing, 16-29.
AN, Y., SOTO, L., & DIAZ, H. (2014). CAVITATING FLOW SIMULATION WITH
MESH DEVELOPMENT USING SALOME OPEN SOURCE SOFTWARE.
Proceedings of the 11th International Conference on Hydrodynamics (s. 6-
11). Singapore: Tsinghua University.
BANDARA, K., RUBERG, T., & CIRAK, F. (2016, March 1). Shape optimisation with
multiresolution subdivision surfaces and immersed finite elements. Computer
Methods in Applied Mechanics and Engineering, 510-539.
BHATTACRYYA, S., & ASADA, H. H. (2014, September). Control of a Compact,
Tetherless ROV for In-Contact Inspection of. Institute of Electrical and
Electronics Engineers (IEEE), 14-18.
BURCHER, R., & RYDILL, L. (1994). Concepts in Submarine Design. Australia:
Cambridge University Press.
BURCHER, R., & RYDILL, L. (1994). Consepts in Submarine Design. Australia:
Cambridge University Press.
CARTER, M., & JANG, S. Y. (2016, April 10). Submarine Buoyancy Control. May
06, 2016 tarihinde http://charm.stanford.edu/:
http://charm.stanford.edu/ENGR1052016/MikeCarterSaeYongJang
adresinden alındı
Defense Technical Information Center. (2012). NACA 0015 Data. Glasgow. U.K.:
Verification and Validation Data for Computational Unsteady Aerodynamics.
globalsecurity.org. Sturgeon (SSN-637). Submarine Photo Archive.
http://www.navsource.org, 2016.
HDW. Submarine Class 214. Reis Sınıfı (U 214TN) Denizaltı Tedarik Projesi.
http://www.trmilitary.com/, Germany.
HOSHINO, K., KATO, S., & SAITO, M. (1993). Hydrodynamic Forces Acting on
Finite-Length Circular Cylinder Oscillating. International Offshore and Polar
Engineering Conference (s. 6-11). Tokyo,Japon: Ship Research Institute.
HVAL, M., & LAMVIK, T. (2015, December). Parameters affecting the weld defect
acceptance criteria of clad submarine pipelines installed by S-lay or reel-lay.
Engineering Failure Analysis, 394–406.
JONES, D., & CLARKE, D. (2002). The Calculation of Hydrodynamic Coefficients for
Undenwater Vehicles. Australia: DSTO-TR-1329.
JONES, D., CLARKE, D., BRAYSHOW, I., BARILLON, J., & ANDERSON, B.
(2002). The Calculation of Hydrodynamic Coefficients for. Australia: DSTO
Platforms Sciences Laboratory.
KIMA, K.-S., ROHB, M.-I., & HAC, S. (2015, December 1). Expert system based on
the arrangement evaluation model for the arrangement design of a
submarine. Expert Systems with Applications, 8731–8744.
KOROTKIN, A. (2007). Added Masses of Ship Structure. Russia: Springer.
LAMB, H. (1879). Treatise on the Mathematical Theory of the Motion of Fluids.
America: Cambridge University Press.
LAMB, H. (1918). The Inertia-Coefficients of an Ellipsoid. F.R.S.: 623.
63
LEONG, Z. Q., RANMUTHUGALA, D., PENESIS, I., & NGUYEN, H. (2015,
September 15). Quasi-static analysis of the hydrodynamic interaction effects
on an autonomous underwater vehicle operating in proximity to a moving
submarine. Ocean Engineering, 175-188.
MILGRAM, J. H. (2008). Strip Theory for Underwater Vehicles in Water of Finite
Depth. America: Department of Mechanical Engineering Massachusetts
Institute of Technology.
MIT, O. (2015, November 29). MIT OpenCourseWare . May 7, 2016 tarihinde
http://ocw.mit.edu/: http://ocw.mit.edu/courses/mechanical-engineering/2-
154-maneuvering-and-control-of-surface-and-underwater-vehicles-13-49-fall-
2004/lecture-notes/lec9.pdf adresinden alındı
MOONESUN, M., JAVADI, M., CHARMDOOZ, P., & MIKHAILOVICH, K. U. (2013).
Evolution of submarine model test in towing tank and comparison with CFD
and experimental formulas for fully submerged resistance. Geo-Marine
Science, 1049-1056.
NEWMAN, J. N. (1935). Marine Hydrodynamics. London: The MIT Press.
RAWSON, K., & TUPPER, E. (2001). Basic Ship Theory. Boston: Butterworth-
Heinemann.
RENILSON, M. (2015). Submarine Hydrodynamics. Australia: Springer.
ROKN. An. S. Korea Launches fifth type 214 attack submarine for its navy. Hyundai
Heavy Industries, Ulsan.
WU, H.-L., HSIAO, S.-C., & LIN, T.-C. (2015, December 1). Evolution of a two-layer
fluid for solitary waves propagating over a submarine trench. Ocean
Engineering(110), 36-50.
ZAGHI, S., MASCIO, D., & BROGLIA, R. (2015, October). Application of dynamic
overlapping grids to the simulation of the flow around a fully-appended
submarine. Mathematics and Computers in Simulation, 75-88.
64

Stability Control of Submarine Appendage

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

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

Stability Control of Submarine Appendage

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

T.C.

DENİZ KUVVETLERİ KOMUTANLIĞI

STABILITY CONTROL OF SUBMARINE APPENDAGES

GEMİ İNŞAA MÜHENDİSLİĞİ

3803 BEYZA NUR SAMUTOĞLU

Dört Yıllık Lisans Eğitimini Tamamlama Gereği

GEMİ İNŞA BÖLÜM BAŞKANLIĞI

Harp IV/S Beyza Nur SAMUTOĞLU

Yrd. Doç. Dr. Müh. Bnb. Erinç DOBRUCALI

Yrd. Doç. Dr. Müh. Yb. Veysel ALANKAYA

A method is described below for calculating the derivatives of single-screw

ABBREVIATIONS ....................................................................................... VIII

TABLE OF GRAPHS ....................................................................................... X

TABLE OF FIGURE ........................................................................................ XI

APPENDIX ................................................................................................... XIV

FIRST CHAPTER INTRODUCTION ............................................................... 1

SECOND CHAPTER GEOMETRY .................................................................. 2

THIRD CHAPTER APPENDAGE .................................................................... 4

3.1 SAIL ...................................................................................................................... 4

3.1.1 The Foil Type; ................................................................................................ 4

3.1.2 The Blended Type; ........................................................................................ 4

3.2 FORWARD CONTROL SURFACES .......................................................................... 5

3.2.1 Midline Planes .............................................................................................. 6

3.2.2 Eyebrow Planes............................................................................................. 7

3.2.3 Sail Planes ..................................................................................................... 9

3.3 AFT CONTROL SURFACES ................................................................................... 11

3.3.1 Cruciform Configuration ............................................................................. 11

3.3.2 X-Form Configuration ................................................................................. 13

3.3.3 Alternative Configurations.......................................................................... 16

3.3.3.1 Y configurations; .................................................................................. 16

3.3.3.2 Pentaform configuration; .................................................................... 16

FIFTH CHAPTER MATHEMATICAL MODELS ......................................... 20

5.1 HULL ................................................................................................................... 20

5.2 PROPELLER ......................................................................................................... 24

5.3 FORWARD CONTROL SURFACES ........................................................................ 25

5.4 BRIDGE FIN......................................................................................................... 34

5.5 STERN STABILISERS ............................................................................................ 35

5.6 RUDDER ............................................................................................................. 37

5.7 GENERAL ............................................................................................................ 38

SIXTH CHAPTER CONCLUSION................................................................. 39

6.1 COMPARE OF CONCLUSION............................................................................... 39

6.1.1 Sample Design Conclusion .......................................................................... 39

6.1.2 Change of Length ........................................................................................ 41

6.1.3 Change of Diameter .................................................................................... 44

6.1.4 Change of Casing Height ............................................................................. 46

6.1.5 Change of Displacement ............................................................................. 48

6.1.6 Change of Bowplane’s Dimensions............................................................. 50

6.1.7 Change Dimension of Bridge Fin................................................................. 53

6.1.8 Change of Stern Stabiliser........................................................................... 56

6.1.9 Change of Rudder ....................................................................................... 59

6.2 Result ................................................................................................................. 61

6.2.1 The Optimal Values..................................................................................... 61

6.2.1.1 Length .................................................................................................. 61

6.2.1.2 Diameter .............................................................................................. 61

6.2.1.3 Casing Height ....................................................................................... 61

6.2.1.4 Displacement ....................................................................................... 61

6.2.1.6 Bridge Fin ............................................................................................. 62

6.2.1.8 Rudder ................................................................................................. 62

a Chord of flat plate

Ka Coefficient of added mass

CFD Computational Fluid Dynamics

FSC Free Surface Correction