Hostname: page-component-848d4c4894-2pzkn Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-05-14T04:43:37.714Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

The effect of changes in scale on ship and semi-submersible design

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  05 December 2011

N. S. Miller
Affiliation:
Department of Naval Architecture and Ocean Engineering, University of Glasgow
P. M. F. M. De Souza
Affiliation:
Department of Naval Architecture and Ocean Engineering, University of Glasgow
Get access

Synopsis

The effects of changing scale on ships and semi-submersibles are explored in this paper. In the early part attention is drawn to the wide differences in design practice which exist for large ships with, in particular, a tendency for a lower length to breadth ratio as size is increased. Theoretical reasons for this are given, the principal ones being that this leads to a reduction in steel weight per ton displacement without any large increase in power. It is suggested that this tendency will continue until the weight of the transverse material in the hull approaches that of the longitudinal material. Many other characteristics of the ships improve with lower L/B ratios but manoeuvrability declines and in order to reap the benefit of low L/B designs greater research should be applied to improving this aspect of large ships.

Much greater flexibility in design exists for semi-submersibles since there are no draft restrictions. The paper examines the effects of geometric variations in semi-submersibles and concludes that the stability, dynamic motions and wind and hydrodynamic drag all improve with increasing size but that structural steel weight may not be a significantly lower percentage of the displacement unless design changes are made with changing scale. Attention is drawn to the big improvements in rolling (pitching) performance which would enable large floating platforms to have a very low level of motion. This could have great significance for the siting of petrochemical and other plants at sea.

Type
Research Article
Copyright
Copyright © Royal Society of Edinburgh 1978

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Abrahamsen, E., 1975. Tanker safety and pollution hazards. Veritas, 84.Google Scholar
Alsen, J., 1974. The influence of harbour facilities on the design and size of large tankers and bulk carriers. West European Conference on Technology, Delft, 14–17 May 1974.Google Scholar
Biles, J., 1931. The draught and dimension of the most economical ship. Trans. Roy. Instn Nav. A rchit., 1931, 243.Google Scholar
Boylan, F. N. and Atkinson, F. H., 1974. Hull Survey of V.L.C.C.'s in Lloyds Register of Shipping Technical Report, 69.Google Scholar
Lloyds Register of Shipping, 1976. Rules for the classification of ships.Google Scholar
Oo, K. M. and Miller, N. S., 1976. Semi-submersible design: the effect of differing geometries on heaving response and stability. Trans. Roy. Instn Nav. Archit., 1977 (3), 97.Google Scholar
Porricelli, J. D. and Kerra, V. F., 1974. Tankers and the U.S. energy situation: an economic and environmental analysis. Mar. Technol., 11, 340.Google Scholar
Roberts, W. J., 1967. A technical assessment of a 500,000 ton d.w. tanker. Mot. Ship, 48,263.Google Scholar
Saetre, H. J., 1974. On high wave conditions in the Northern North Sea. Rep. Inst. Oceanogr. Sci., 3.Google Scholar
Sato, S., 1967. Effect of principal dimensions on the weight and cost of large ships. SNAME, New York.Google Scholar
Ships on Order, 1977. Mot. Ship. (Suppl.), Jan. 1977.Google Scholar
Watson, D. G. M. and Gilfillan, A. W. G., 1977. Some ship design methods. Jl Roy. Inst. Nav. Archil., July 1977.Google Scholar