Warship Displacement (by Al Wellman 11 April 1999)

Warship displacement is generally estimated by totaling

individual weights of construction materials, weapons,
ammunition, propulsion and auxiliary machinery, and the crew.
Where more than one displacement figure is provided, the
larger figure also includes fuel, boiler feed water, food, and
consumable stores. Different references may have different
definitions for how much fuel, water, etc.
Actual weight is computed from knowledge of hull geometry by
determining the mass of the volume of seawater displaced by
the submerged hull. When interior equipment and hull
geometry are kept secret, publications have used the
displacement announced by the nation owning the ship and
some of these figures were intentionally mis-stated.
Cargo ship tonnage is sometimes computed differently on the
basis of volume of cargo holds.
Tonnage Measurements used for Cargo Ships
(by Caspar Vermeulen 19 May 2003)
Here is an overview of the tonnages used for cargo ships. In
my profession (I work in a maritime company) we use several
tonnages:
DWAT (Deadweight All Tonnage) - This is the total weight of
fuel, cargo, equipment, etc., that the vessel can carry when fully
loaded.
DWCC (Dead weight cargo capacity): This is most important
for the Charterers (Whose cargo has to be shipped), because it
gives the weight of the cargo that the vessel can carry. The
more fuel the vessel needs the lower the DWCC is. This also
depends on the water temperature and the water (Salt,
brackish, etc.). In the summer, vessels have a higher DWCC.
GRT (Gross Registered Tonnage): Measurement of a ship
calculated by taking the total enclosed volume of her hull below
the upper deck as well as enclosed spaces above it (with
certain exceptions, namely; double bottoms used for ballast and
accommodation) in cubic feet and dividing by 100. It is
measured in accordance with the IMO International Convention
on Tonnage Measurement of Ships (1969).
NRT (Net Registered Tonnage): Equals gross tonnage minus
deductions for space occupied by crew accommodations,
machinery, navigation equipment and bunkers. It represents
space available for cargo. It is generally used for tax purposes
and for harbor/canal dues. For the latter, you have the Suez

1
and Panama Canal tonnages, which are generally higher (in
order to collect more in tax payments).
In shipping, the DWCC is the most important figure, although
ship owners also look at the NRT, because they have to pay the
taxes. Car carriers have a very large GRT, but their cargo
capacity is limited. For most modern cargo ships the relation of
GRT to cargo capacity is about 1 : 1.4, but for large ore carriers
(ore has a high density) this can be as high as 1 : 2.
Understanding Block Coefficients
(By Stuart Slade Updated 19 December 1998 )

Sorry this took so long to get around to but here goes. Block
coefficient is determined by taking a notional rectangular block,
the length, width and depth of which are those of the ship in
question. The volume of this block is then calculated.
The actual volume of the ship hull in question is then assessed
and expressed as a proportion of the volume of the block.
Norman Friedman's Battleship Design and Development has a
good account of these things (its long out of print unfortunately).
DK Brown has also produced a series of books and articles
covering the minute details of hull design.
If you look at a hull form profile (the horizontal section through
the hull at the waterline), you'll see that the curves are not
smooth and continuous from bow to mid section. Normally, the
entry is fine, stays that way for a while and then starts to widen
quickly. The reason for this is the way water flows past the hull.
Hulls work best in smooth water. At the point of entry, the curve
of the hull is convex, it bulges towards an observer sitting in the
water off the bow. This pushes the water to one side (in three
dimensions) and generates a positive pressure sine wave along
the hull. The amplitude of this pressure wave is determined by
the hull form and some other things.
However, where the hull shifts from a gentle to a rapid increase
in beam, the curve is effectively concave (viewed from our
observer in the water). This generates a negative pressure sine
wave, the amplitude of which is determined by the rate and
length of that particular design feature. If the peaks of the two
waves coincide (that is the maximum positive pressure
coincides with the maximum negative pressure), the two waves
cancel each other out and the hull is sailing in smooth water.
Sneaky, isn't it?
This is one of the reasons why the Iowa's had problems in
heavy weather. The long, fine bow section lacked internal

2
buoyancy so it had tended to dig in. In addition, the form of the
bow meant that the first positive pressure wave negative peak
was well forward of any cancellation so it sucked the bow
downwards. Adding a blister forward, around A and B turrets
(as was projected to improve torpedo defense) would have
shifted the negative pressure curve aft, increasing the
downward pull on the bows. This was not good.
These pressure waves have other, interesting effects. The
waterline of a ship is usually drawn as a straight line. However,
the combinations of pressure curves mean that the real
waterline actually varies up and down according to the pressure
wave at that point. In some cases, these variations were
enough to cover the armor belt of to lift it clear of the water.
Either way they mess up freeboard something horrible. One of
the reasons the Japanese used that unique wavy sheer line
was that it followed the pressure waves around the hull,
maintaining freeboard and, thus, seaworthiness. A great
example of meticulous attention to detail while completely
blowing the important things in life.
There are other applications of this as well. For example, the
US WW2 cruisers and the Arleigh Burke class destroyers all
have fantails that slope upwards towards the stern. Not at
speed they don't - the ships dig their sterns in and that deck
becomes horizontal.
These things are why making major changes to hulls is so
fraught with danger. We've had a lot of proposed modifications
to battleships on these boards, mostly directed to the Iowa's (for
example, removing turrets to allow for flight decks or VLS
systems).
The most elementary of these are gee-whiz modifications
(wouldn't it be great if....) that do not make any allowances for
weight and trim changes. Some of these would have changed
trim by so much that the bows would have gone right under (I
do work these things out you know!!!). As for the topweight......
The next group try to make the weights add up so that the net
total comes out the same. These look more convincing but
usually fall foul of stability and stress calculations. A large area
of weight carried high will not compensate for a small area
carried lower even though the totals add up to the same. Stress
is a real swine to accommodate, especially with the BBs. The
weight of those turrets was so great that the hull was virtually
designed around the stress loadings they imposed.

3
If a conversion system is going to work, not only have the
weights got to add up but they have to do so in roughly the
same places. If the pressure waves around the hull are
distorted, they cease to interact properly and the wave-making
resistance shoots up. Suddenly, there is an acute loss of speed.
Another nasty point about gun turrets and their weight. The
weight of the turret and its barbette are carried by the ship's
keel - its the only thing strong enough to do it. There has to be
the correct level of bouyancy at those points to support the
turrets. Now, take the turret out, that added bouyancy arches
that part of the ship's spine upwards and CRACK - gurgle
gurgle.
You can do the same with the ship's engines which is why
replacing steam turbines with much lighter gas turbines is
problematical.
What about wing turrets??? The problem with them was that
they required great reinforcement of the ship's keelson and
bottom to support the weight. In the early days, this wasn't so
much of a problem and the weight invested in the reinforcement
was comparable to that needed for the taller barbettes needed if
guns were going to be superimposed. Soon those lighter guns
(12 inch etc.) were replaced by much heavier mountings and
the structural penalties got nightmarish. Centerlining guns got to
be the only viable solution and the weight penalty of the
barbette required for superimposition wasn't so bad.
Another minor problem with pressure waves is that they create
areas of stagnant water (water that moves at the same speed
and direction as the ship) at points along the hull. By and large,
these are nothing much to worry about but there have been
cases where the outfall from the ship's toilets discharged
directly into an area of stagnant water with the result that the
poor crew were faithfully followed around the oceans by their
own by-products. This was quickly rectified at a refit.

4
Towing Tank Tests
By Stuart Slade
Updated 19 December 1998
(Typing errors corrected 20 January 2003)

Most of the early development work on using tank testing was

done by William Froude (1810 - 1879). He was a long-time
assistant to I.K. Brunel, initially working on the Bath and Exeter
section of the Great Western Railway. Later, he assisted with
the mathematical calculations on the Great Eastern and did a
mathematical analysis on the rolling of ships, the results of
which stood until the late 1970s (it took computers to beat this
guy!)
In the early 1860s, Froude was elected to the British
Association with a specific remit to study the performance of
steam ships. At that time there was no way to estimate the
power required to drive a ship at a specific speed. A lot of work
had been done using both models and full-scale ships but the
results were "embarrassing and expensive mistakes". Froude
opposed an initial series of trials using full-scale ships under
tow. He was alone in believing that model testing could provide
some answers to the puzzles the architects were facing.
Pretty well everybody else disagreed with him; all the model
work to this date had proved nonsensical since the researchers
had failed to realize the complexity of resistance to motion of a
floating body. This problem was cracked by Colonel Beaufoy of
the Society for the Improvement of Naval Architecture who
showed that the various resistance components of a ship hull all
behaved differently (he did the tests in Greenland Dock,
Greenwich).
In 1867, Froude did his model tests using models of two
different hull shapes (called Swan and Raven). Each was built
in 3ft, 6ft and 12 ft sizes. He did the runs in Darmouth Creek
and observed that when models of either form were run at
speeds proportional to the square of their length, they
generated virtually identical wave patterns. From this, Froude
was able to show that wavemaking resistance was proportional
to the weight of the model when run at this corresponding
speed. This became known as Froude's Law.
Now we get to the relevant bit. On 24th April 1868, Froude
wrote to Edward Reed, the Chief Constructor of the Navy,
proposing the construction of an experimental tank and outlining

5
a two-year research program. In February 1870, their Lordships
approved the expenditure of 2,000 pounds on the tank to be
built in the grounds of Froude's house, Chelston Cross in
Torquay.
A prominent part of the work was dragging flat planks of varying
shapes through the water and also repeating the runs using
surface finishes of varying types. In an earlier post I suggested
an experiment to another correspondent which involved taking a
2 foot plank of 4 by 1 timber and cutting it to different degrees of
fineness, retaining the 6:1 length to beam ratio. This was, in
fact, a simplified version of Froude's work.
Froude's ideas were great and simple. he showed that the
resistance of a ship could be calculated by (1) determining the
resistance of a plank of wood of the appropriate scaled
dimensions, (2) determining the frictional resistance of a model
of the hull (3) subtracting (2) from (1), (4) determining the
residuary resistance of the hull by multiplying (2) by the ratio of
the weight of the model to that of the real thing and finally
adding (3) and (4). By the standards of the day, it worked. It
was now possible to make rational comparisons of one hull form
with another.
The tank at Chelston Cross was the first properly-instrumented
testing tank in the world. It was later moved to Haslar (in 1886)
where it remained in service until 1938. Froude's son Edward
remained in charge of the operations for 40 years after his
father's death.
William Froude did a lot else; he showed the importance of
interactions between hull form and propellers, designed much of
the instrumentation, came up with the idea of the bulbous bow
and, ironically for the man who made tank testing with models
work, showed that there were scaling factors between models
and real ships that couldn't be explained (and still can't). His
work also showed that there were hydrodynamic factors in hulls
that simply could not be explained away.
It is fair to say that every ship in the world today owes its
performance to Froude's insight and painstaking work. He
steadfastly refused to accept any payment for his services.
On other points, yes it is the same tank and models are
frequently self-propelled. it depends what we're doing the trials
for. Towed models are better for resistance measurements;
powered ones for sea-keeping trials (you have never lived until
you've seen a tank-typhoon).

6
I think the history of Froude covers Question 2 - the size of the
model isn't so hot but the size of the tank is - as you point out,
the last thing we want is interactions between the sides and
base of the tank with the model.
Finally, the skeg trials are fascinating - they have different
results for every series that were run. It seems that the operator
has as much influence on the results as the design of the skegs
themselves.