Fro.

1.--AN

EXAMPLE OF C~H.LISION I)AMAGE

Standards for Stability of Ships in

Damaged Condition'
BY VITO L . R u s s o ,

M E M B E R , ~ AND ]'AMES B. ROBERTSON, JR., M E M B E R 3

The 1948 Transactions of the Society contains a

report on the 1948 International Conference on
Safety of Life at Sea by Admiral J. F. Farley,
Chairman of the American Delegation. In this
report the members of the Society were given
comprehensive information on the preparatory
work performed in this country prior to this Conference, the United States proposals, the organization of the Conference, and the principal amendi Paper presented a t a n n u a l m e e t i n g of T h e S o c i e t y of N a v a l
Architects and Marine Engineers i n N e w Y o r k on N o v e m b e r 10,
1950.
J D i v i s i o n of Ship C o n s t r u c t i o n a n d R e p a i r , M a r i t i m e A d m i n i s t r a t i o n , United States Department of Commerce. Washington, D. C.
a Naval Architect, Merchant M a r i n e Technical Division, United
S t a t e s C o a s t G u a r d , W a s h i n g t o n , D. C.

ments and additions to the articles and technical

provisions of the International Convention of
1929, which the Conference considered and approved. Some of the new regulations which have
been added to the 1929 Convention constitute
major advances in international standards for
safety of life at sea. I t is the intent of this paper
to discuss in some detail one of these additions;
namely, Regulation 7, Chapter II, of the 1948
Convention, which deals with stability of ships in
damaged condition.
Foundering, or capsizing, as a result of flooding,
is one of the major hazards of the sea. A conven-

478

STABILITY OF SHIPS IN DAMAGED

ti0n dealing with safety of life at sea logically" m u s t
include s t a n d a r d s w h i c h will insure t h a t a ship will,be able to :withstand a reasonable a m o u n t of
damage and also maintain a minimum of seaworthiness after damage, necessary to carry out
life-saving operations such as launching of lifeboats. T h e necessity for such standards has long
been. recognized and regulations concerning the
c o m p a r t m e n t a t i o n of ocean-going passenger ships
were included in the first International Convention of 1914, and have been amplified and extended in the .Conventions of 1929 and 1948.
Flooding, or free opening of a n y b u o y a n t part
of a ship to the sea, will affect the transverse stability as well as the longitudinal stabi!ity of the
ship and, i n general, will result in a change of
draft, trim, and angle of heel. Safety requirements can be considered satisfied, if the combined
effect of these three changes does not immerse the
margin line and if the angle of heel is below a maxim u m value which prevents weight shifting aboard
and permits life-saving operations. T h e first two
factors alone, draft and trim at the end of flooding, are not sufficient to locate the margin line in
relation to the sea level, and in no way indicate
the ability of the ship to maintain the upright position or come to rest at a satisfactory angle of heel
at the end of flooding. Dr~tft and trim variations
computed only on the basis of longitudinal stability m a y be entirely misleading; they m a y indicate t h a t the margin line will remain above the sea
level at the end of the flooding, a n d yet the same
flooding m a y so affect transverse stability t h a t
the ship m a y heel to a very large angle, or, in extreme cases, capsize. I t is obvious t h a t standards
of safety for flooding, which do n o t include requirements for transverse stability, are inadequate.
A great deal of study and research has been
carried out b y m o s t of the leading maritime nations for the purpose of establishing standards of
c o m p a r t m e n t a t i o n which would give satisfactory
margins of safety in cases of flooding and still preserve the economic aspects of ship design, construction, and operation. T h e records go a long
way back, perhaps further back than the Merc h a n t Shipping Act of 1854, and the resulting first
issue of Rules for the Construction of Iron Vessels
b y Lloyd~_s R e ~ s t e r , which included certain pro. . . . . . . . . . . . visin.s~-.f~r transverse bulkheads. A review of
more recent studies, such as the report of the
Bulkhead Committee of the Board i)f T r a d e
(1912-1915), the report of the Informal Bulkhead
C o m m i t t e e (1920-1924), and the proceedings of
the 1929 Conference, indicates t h a t 'there always
has been clear and universal acceptance of the fact
t h a t the longitudinal extent of flooding m u s t be
restricted in order to limit the draft and trim varia-

CONDITION

479

tions .due to flooding, and prevent immersion of

the margin line. There never has been a n y contention against this principle; these committees
never had to debate whether the margin line
should or should not i m m e r s e at the end of flooding. Flooding, which affects draft and trim, has a
coficomitant effect upon transvers, stability;
and i t would seem logical t h a t a n y committee
seeking to establish standards of safety against
the immersion of the margin line-would include
the possible heeling effect of flooc51g in its considerations. The records show t h a t in practically
every study of this kind, up to and including the
1929 Conference, the effect of flooding upon transverse stability was considered, discussed, arial~zed, and dis-iflissedbn the ground thdt it Was "a
very difficult thing."
The s u m m a r y on "Stability" reported i n i f ' p a per o n "Safety of Life at Sea (1929 Conference)"
read at the 1930 spring meeting of the British
Institution , of Naval Architects [9] 4 was quite
brief and to the point. I t stated:
"Stability--For t h e first time it is required definitely that every new passenger ship shall be inclined, and the elements of its-stability determined. In addition, the necessary inf0rmatiofi is
t o b e furnished to the ship's staff to insur e proper
stability under service conditions.
" T h e Conference recognized t h a t at present it is
not practicable to lay down stability regulations,
but recommended the various G o v e r n m e n t s - t o
study and exchange information on this important matter."
The 1929 Convention, in Regulation V(8), did
call attention to the necessity of considering stability in so far as the possible listing effect of flooding in way of watertight decks, inner skins, or
longitudinal bulkheads was concerned, but did not
a t t e m p t to establish any suitable standards for
such an evaluation. I t is pertinent to quote f r o m
one of the comments to the aforementioned
paper:
. . as far as I am aware no standard of stability is laid down. I am, therefore," rather at a
loss to know who decides what a m o u n t of stability
is s u f f i c i e n t . . , to standardize Stability is going to
be a very difficult thing In fact, difficult as' the
subject of subdivision has been, the work of a
Convention on stability for ships would, in m y
opinion, be a much greater task"
When one considers the truly monumental fae'torial system for subdivision formulated b y t h e
informal Bulkhead Committee, and adopted b y
the 1929 Conference, one cannot but wonder at t h e
ingenious methods d e v i s e d t o insure a predeterN u m b e r s in brackets indicate references listed a t . t h e e n d ' o f thia
paper.

480

STABILITY OF SHIPS IN DAMAGED CONDITION

mined standard of safety, quantitatively and consistently increasing on the basis of acceptable
parameters such as the length and the passenger
character of ships, effective in preventing the
foundering of a ship due to sinkage and trim
under certain assumed conditions of damage, and
yet total'ly inadequate to prevent capsizing of the
ship for the very same damage.
The 1948 Convention eliminates this inconsistency by requiring that a ship shall have sufficient intact stability in all service conditions so as
to be able to withstand the final stage of flooding
of one compartment if its factor of subdivision is
more than 0.50, and two adjacent compartments
if the factor of subdivision is less than 0.50. The
Convention does not require a ship with a factor of
subdivision of 0.33 or less to have sufficient intact
stability to withstand the final stage of flooding of
three adjacent compartments. From a point of
view of logic, this leads again to an inconsistent
situation inasmuch as under Regulation 5 the
1948 Convention m a y require that a given ship
shall be able to withstand three-compartment
damage. The Conference, of course, was cognizant of this fact; it decided, however, that it was
not practicable, at this time, to extend the scope of
the newly established standards of stability of
ships in damaged condition beyond the limits set
forth in Regulation 7.
Actually, this inconsistency of the Regulations
is mitigated by the fact that practically no ship
existing today would have a fadtor or subdivision
of 0.33 or less, determined according to Regulation 5 of the Convention. Even such outstanding ships as the Queens and the Normandie would
approach very closely, but not quite reach, the
point of demarkation which would bring into effect
a three-compartment requirement for transverse
stability. Perhaps, as a matter of practical consicleration, it should be noted that ships which
reach a factor of subdivision of 0.33 are necessarily
so outstanding, and their ability to withstand
damage is so important for several reasons, that
their design'would be based upon very high stability standards irrespective of any Convention
reciuirements.
The introduction of standards for stability of
ships in damaged condition has the effect of establishing a floor on tile au:ount of intact stability'
which a ship must maintain under all service conditions. The intact stability of a ship is dependent, principallyt upon the mechanical and geometrical characteristics of the ship itself, which are
fixed, and upon the amount and vertic~al distribution of th e weights taken aboard for any service
condition. If a standard establishes a floor below
w h i c h intact stability cannot be extended, it is

evident that the result of this standard is to restrict the range within which the amount and.
vertical distribution of the weights taken aboard
in service can be varied at will. More specifically,"
damaged stability requirements m a y preclude
indiscriminate vertical distribution of cargoes,
m a y limit the operational range of draft by requiring ballasting under certain operation conditions,
and also may restrict slack tankage in order to
limit free surface.
I t is possible that under certain conditions the
operational restrictions m a y be quite severe.
In such cases, these restrictions may be mitigated
by modifying either the mechanical characteristics
of the ship (KG) or the geometrical characteristics
(KM) or both, depending upon the circumstances,
and thus improve stability by varying the fixed
factor, the ship. The increase in intact stability
for the critical service condition thus obtained is
necessarily carried throughout the whole operating range of the ship and it m a y happen that the
resulting high point of intact stability m a y be to0
high and the ship m a y have a short period of roll,
at least at some drafts.
It is evident that standards of stability of ships
in damaged condition have a definite and very
important relation to the economics of sea transportation, since the design and the operation of a
ship may be affected b y such standards. The
Conference recognized this fact. The regulations
for stability of ships in damaged condition set
forth in the 1948 Convention are not in any manner predicated upon the unsinkable ship but constitute, as all other parts of such a Convention
must constitute, the standards upon which agreement could be obtained. Agreement was simplified by the over-all consideration that standards
for stability, such as length of damage, permeabilities, etc., should be generally consistent with
the standards for subdivision promulgated b y the
Convention under other regulations. Where
additional standards were required, such as the
permissible angle of heel at the end of flooding, the
British and United States practices, under which
appreciable service experience had been accumulated, served largely' as a basis for consideration.
DESIGN

The intact stability required to enable the ship

to withstand the finalstage of flooding at a given
draft is dependent directly upon. each of the following factors:
1. The extent of damage.
2. The limiting conditions that the ship is permitted to reach at the end of flooding.
3. The form, proportions, and dimensions of

STABILITY OF SHIPS IN DAMAGED

the ship and the arrangements and configuration
of the flooded spaces.
Each of these factors is a determin!ng cause f o r
a n y operating restriction or desigfi limitation
which m a y result from damaged stability considerations. T h e first two factors are regulated b y
the Convention; the third factor is an integral
p a r t of the ship's design; and is left entirely to the
judgment and ingenuity of the naval architect.
T h e Convention provides, however, that, if and
when a relaxation of the regulation is requested,
the Administration shah be satisfied t h a t the best
practicable use of the third factor has been made
in the design of the ship from a stability point of
view.
THE EXTENT OF DAMAGE
T h e damage is regulated both as to extent,
amount, and location in the following manner.
The regulations prescribe the longitudinal, transverse, and vertical extent of the damage and the
permeabilities t h a t m u s t be assumed for various
spaces. T h e regulations prescribe also the location of the damage in the sense that, if the factor
of subdivision is higher than 0.50, the longitudinal
location of the damage m u s t be assumed to be
such as not to bridge over any transverse watertight bulkhead. If, however, the factor of subdivision is 0.50 or less, the longitudinal location of
the damage m u s t be assumed such as to bridge the
transverse watertight bulkheads which fall within
its length. The location o f damage is regulated
further b y the requirement t h a t sufficient intact
stability shall be provided in all service conditions
so as to enable the ship to withstand the final stage
of flooding of a n y one or any t w o adjacent main
c o m p a r t m e n t s as the case m a y be. Finally,
the Convention further qualifies the damage b y
requiring that, if a n y damage of lesser extent than
t h a t specified b y the regulations would result in a
more severe condition regarding heel or loss of
metacentric height, such damage shall be assumed
in the calculations. Thus, the damage t h a t is prescribed b y the regulations m u s t be so located in
the length of the ship as to give the highest requirements for intact stability.
Quantitatively, the assumed longitudinal extent of damage specified b y the Convention is 10
feet plus 3 per cent L with a m a x i m u m of 35 feet.
This constituted a partial acce~)tance of the
United States proposal for increased length of
damage (or minimum spacing of bulkheads)
which previously was required to be 10 feet plus
2 per cent of L.
T h e assumed transverse extent of damage was
defined in Regulation V(3) of the 1-929 Convention
which prescribes t h a t "A main transverse bulk-

CONDITION

481

head m a y be recessed provided t h a t all parts of the

recess lie inboard of vertical surfaces on'both sides
of the ship, situated at a distance from the shell
plating equal to one-fifth the breadth of the ship."
This rule is repeated in the new Convention,
Regulation 6(d). There was some discussion of
the possible and likely transverse extent of damage
at the 1948 Conference b u t it was agreed finally
t h a t there was insufficient basis for a n y modi
fication of this assumption.
T h e assumed vertical extent of damage, from
the t a n k fop to the margin line, is in accord with
United States practice. I t should be .noted' t h a t
t h e Convention prescribes two different vertical
extents of damage inasmuch as it requires t h a t the
floodable length be determined on the assumption
t h a t the b o t t o m tanks are e m p t y and flooded
whereas the required intact stability m u s t be predicated on b o t t o m tanks being intact. The assumption t h a t b o t t o m tanks remain undamaged,
or, what is essentially equivalent, are full upon
damage, is a simplification which is considered to
be justified for double bottoms of ordinary depth.
While considerable heeling m o m e n t m a y be developed when an e m p t y double-bottom t a n k is
flooded, this is not very likely to occur at the
deepest drafts where freeboard is m o s t critical.
Where freeboard is adequate, although appreciable
heel m a y occur, the effect of the low flooding is
beneficial on ttie residual stability. Fig. 2 shows,
for a C3 type vessel, the effect of flooding above
an inner bottom of varying depth. Fig. 3 shows
the effect of fooding due to damage extending below the t a n k top level when the double b o t t o m is
empty. I t will be noted t h a t t h e intact G M neces-

.E
a:5
E

-~

-I

I
2
3
Requited 6M ~n Feet

-5

FIG. 2.--EFFECT OF INNER-BOTTOM HEIGHT ON REQUIRED

GM VALUES(C3 TYPE VESSEL)

C o n d i t i o n s : D a m a g e , 50 feet flooded a m i d s h i p s ; u -: ' 8 5 . p e r c e n t ;

no h e e lin g m o m e n t ; d r a f t , as shown.

482

S T A B I L I T Y OF-,..SHIPS ~tN D A M A G E D

3O

~26

O
"O

-6
XI8

RequiPed 6 M in Feet
FIG. 3..----EFFECT OF FLOODING INNER-BOTTOM
QUIRED G M VALUI~S (C3 T Y P E V E S S E L )
Conditions:

ON RE-

Damage, 50 feet flooded amidships; u = 85 per cent.

sary to limit the heel to 15 degrees is about the

same as t h a t required to avoid negative residual
G M where the flooding occurs only above the t a n k
top.
Ordinarily, ships have inner-bottom depth equal
to, or a little higher than, the tabular depth specified b y the classification societies; in such cases,
flooding of b o t t o m tanks is not required to be considered. At times, in one or more of the ship's
compartments, the inner bottom is stepped up,
mostly in way of shallow deep tanks. In such
cases, flooding Of the holds is more likely to be
associated with flooding of bottom tanks and the
heeling effect of the unsymmetrical flooding which
m a y be critical should be considered.
LIMITING CONDITIONS AT THE END OF FLOODING

T h e conditions which the ship is permitted to

reach after damage are based primarily on two
considerations: t h a t the margin line shall not be
immersed, in order to prevent progressive flooding; and t h a t the heel permitted shall not exceed
certain values, in order to permit handling of the
boats and putting into effect measures to save the
ship.
In specifying t h e m a x i m u m permissible angle of

CONDITION

heel in the final conditions of flooding, the regulations differentiate between symmetrical flooding
and unsymmetrical flooding. In the former instance the regulation provides t h a t ordinarily the
residual G M shall not be negative, but gives the
Administration authority to accept, in some cases,
a small negative residual G M providing the resultant heel is not more than 7 degrees. In the case of
unsymmetrical flooding, the resultant maximum
permissible heel m a y v a r y between zero degrees
and 15 degrees depending on the circumstances,
and at the discretion of the Administration, but
it m u s t be noted t h a t any heel in excess of 7 degrees which m a y be permitted m u s t be due entirely to the heeling m o m e n t introduced by the unsymmetrical flooding.
The differentiation in the regulations is based
upon the fact t h a t a ship which is permitted to
reach a position of static equilibrium of 01 degrees
heel, solely because of negative initial G M (upright), is usually very tender and unable to resist
small external actions, tending to return it to u p :
right. This can be visualized b y reference to a
typical statical stability curve for a ship with
negative GM (upright). The area under this
curve between zero degrees and the position of
static equilibrium 01 is usually quite small. This
area is a measure of the energy required to move
the ship from 01 to upright; if this area is small, it
m a y happen t h a t small external forces, which can
be set upon the ship b y wind, or waves, or shifting
of weights aboard, m a y start the ship to oscillate
from 01 port to 01 starboard. Dynamic factors
would amplify the swing and it is evident therefore that, in order to maintain the ship under control, the angle of heel under these circumstances
m u s t be limited to a small value. The Conference
adopted an angle of heel of 7 degrees, which is as
specified in the "Instructions as to the Survey of
Passenger Steamships" issued b y the British
Ministry of T r a n s p o r t (1947).
If, on the other hand, a sizable heeling m o m e n t
is acting upon the vessel and lists the vessel to a
position of statical equilibrium corresponding to
02 degrees heel, port or starboard, an external force
tending to return the ship to the upright position
m u s t overcome the keeling m o m e n t as well as the
resisting m o m e n t of the ship itself. In general, the
mechanical conditions of such a system are quite
different from those considered in the preceding
case. Comparatively large external actions are
required to move the ship from its position of equilibrium at 02 degrees heel; the ship will oscillate
around this angle b u t will not have a tendency to
pass over the zero degree point and swing to a
symmetrical situation on the opposite side of the
vertical. Under these conditions, a larger angle

STABILITY OF SHIP' ,IN DAMAGED CONDITION

"W

483

\
J
J

"

"

B~
B

FIG. 4

FIG. 5

of heel can be allowed and the regulations so pro'vide b y permitting a maximum angle of heel of 15
degrees. This is the limiting angle for launching
of lifeboats specified in Regulation 20(i) Chapter
I I I of the 1948 Convention.
T h e requirements of the Convention for stability at the end of flooding can be stated as follows :
1. In the case of symmetrical flooding a positive residual metacentric height is required.
Since the Convention does not specify the value
of G M required, it is assumed t h a t zero residual
metacentric height is permissible; in other words,
it is assumed t h a t at the end of flooding the metacenter comes to coincide with the center of gravity of the ship. This is a cardinal assumption
and constitutes the basic concept of most methods
developed for the purpose of determining the
"sufficient intact stability" which the Convention
requires that a ship shall maintain in all service
conditions.
2. In special cases the Administration m a y accept a negative residual metacentric height (upright) provided the resulting heel is not more than
7 degrees and the margin line is not immersed.
The mechanical condition of a ship with negative
residuary metacentric height (upright), coming to
rest at 0 degrees heel, is diagrammatically'illustrated in Fig. 4. Within the deck:edge range and
a m a x i m u m of 30 degrees it has been shown [1]
that,

The negative' residual metacentric height is therefore a function of the residuary metacentric radius
and of the factor K. For merchant vessels of normal form and proportions and 0 equal to 7 degrees,
K,o is approximately equal to 0.085 [1].
3. In the case of unsymmetrical flooding, the
total heel shall not exceed 7 degrees, except that,
in special cases, the Administration m a y allow
additional heel due to the unsymmetrical moment,
but in no case shall the final heel exceed 15 degrees, or submerge the margin line. The first portion of this requirement might appear to indicate
t h a t whenever any heeling m o m e n t , is ,present,
however small, a heel to 7 degrees is permitted.
This, however, would not be consistent with the
requirement concerning symmetrical flooding, as
it would mean t h a t a symmetrically flooded vessel
which was permitted no heel at all due to negative
G M would, when subject to a minimum heeling
moment, be permitted a 7-degree heel, most of.
which would then be due to negative G M .
Rather, Regulation 7(f)ii should be considered in
the light of Regulation 7(f)i. If this is done', it is
plain t h a t :
(a) A vessel which, symmetrically flooded, .is
not permitted any heel due to negative G M , when
unsymmetrically f l o o d e d i s permitted heel only
due to the unsymmetrical moment.
(b) And, a vessel which, symmetrically flooded,
is permitted 7 degrees heel due to negative G M ,
when unsymmetrically flooded, is permitted heel
due both to negative G M (up to 7 degrees heel)
and to the unsymmetrical moment. In both cases
(a) and (b), however, the Administration may, if
justified and subject to the foregoing, permit the
full 15-degree heel, or heel to the margin.fine, if
less.
The upright cofldition of the ship under 3(b)
is then equal to t h a t of case (2) except t h a t now.an
uns3mametrical m o m e n t will heel the ship beyond

MRZ

' Ko BMR

100

in which MR is the upright metaeenter after damage. The negative residual metaeentric height
which the Administration m a y permit in special
cases of symmetrical flooding is then
BMR
GMR = K,o 100
sin~7

484

STABILITY OF SHIPS IN DAMAGED

CONDITION

7 degrees. The mechanical condition of the ship

at 0 degrees (angle of rest) is illustrated in Fig. 5.
B y equating the righting and heeling moment.s at
the position of rest we have:
A X GZ = H M c o s O

Heeling

H M cos 0

GZ

From Fig. 5:
GZ = Mt~P -- GMR sin 0

/t K,o '~ B M a .
ksin7/~sm0

BM~
= K O ~

H M cos 0

--

Ko B M R

( K , o "~ B M R

~--

100HM

Ko

Angle of Heel

FIo. 7

KT o

cos 0

Lx X B M R

k,sin7 ] ~ s i n 0
sin 7 tan 0

(1)

Fig. 6 is a graphical representation of equation

(1). If we know the displacement of the intaet
ship (A), the metaeentric radius at the end of
flooding ( B M R ) and the unsymmetrie m o m e n t acting upon the ship (upright) ( H M ) , we can obtain
from Fig. 6 the angle of heel at which the ship will
c o m e to rest at the final condition of flooding under
the combined effect of a negative metacentric
height (upright) and a heeling moment.
Perhaps a better understanding of the mechanical meaning of equation (1) and Fig. 6 can be
obtained b y a qualitative illustration b y means of
righting and heeling m o m e n t curves. When we
postulate t h a t the ship m a y be allowed to reach an
angle of heel of 7 degrees with zero unsymmetric
moment, we are in fact establishing the stability
curve of the ship in the final condition of flooding.
Any unsymmetrical m o m e n t acting upon the ship
will heel it beyond 7 degrees and the ship will heel

0.7
0.6
~0.5

0.2

0.1

oJ
7

J
9

10

II

IZ

13

Maximum Angle of Heel Allowed-Degrees

FIC. 6

further away from this angle as the magnitude of

the unsymmetric m o m e n t increases, and this is in
accordance with the regulations. Of course, Fig.
6 applies only within a certain, and usually quite
limited, range of heeling moments, and the results
are valid within the degree of approximation inherent in the formula used to compute righting
arms due to form [1 ]. If the heeling m o m e n t is of
such magnitude t h a t Fig. 6 gives an angle larger
than 15 degrees, it will be necessary to increase the
residual stability at the final stage of flooding (and
therefore the intact initial stability of the ship) in
order to comply with the regulation and not exceed
15 degrees heel. Fig. 7 illustrates this point.
MARGIN OF SAFETY

I n so far as it relates to transverse stability

standards, the 1948 Convention divides all ships
into two classes : one-compartment ships and twoc o m p a r t m e n t ships. T h e point of demarkation
between these two classes is given b y the 0.50
value of the factor of subdivision. T h e factorial
system of subdivision first promulgated b y the
1929 Convention, and reaffirmed in toto b y the
1948 Conference, is a purely empirical device b y
which ships are graded in a consistent manner from
a minimum subdivision standard to a m a x i m u m
subdivision standard as a function of their length
and their passenger character. In subdivision,
this factorial system works in a gradual manner
and for ships of a given group standard, say onec o m p a r t m e n t standard, there is an actual and
physical meaning to a factor of subdivision less
than unity. As the factor of subdivision decreases from unity to approach 0.5, the vessel remains a one-compartment vessel, b u t the required
residual freeboard after damage increases.
"15
I t is i m p o r t a n t to appreciate t h a t in so far as
transverse stability is concerned the factorial sys-

STABILITY OF SHIPS IN DAMAGED

tern does not provide any gradually increasing
margin of safety and has orily the function of
establishing the transition point between one- and
t w o - c o m p a r t m e n t standard. This is due to the
fact t h a t there are no provisions in the rules which
v a r y the limiting factors of damaged stability
(extent of damage and residuary conditions) as
functions of the factor of subdivision. As has
been noted, however, the Administration has a
certain degree of latitude in permitting a vessel to
reach the final condition at the end of flooding with
a list which, depending on the character of the
flooding, and at the discretion of the Administration, can v a r y between zero degrees and 15 degrees. A possible interpretation of this discretionary power would.be to permit a vessel to reach
the m a x i m u m permissible heel when its factor of
subdivision is numerically close to the upper value
which denotes the group standard within which
the vessel is classified, and, conversely, to permit
the m i n i m u m heel when the factor of subdivision
is numerically close to the lower value of t h a t
group. In the case of heel due to unsymmetrical
flooding, it m a y be proper to permit the full 15degree heel even for vessels numerically close to
the lower limit of factor of subdivision of their
group where there is a good margin of residual
freeboard at the 15-degree heel and where no
equalizing arrangements are depended upon.
The extent of damage a n d the limiting conditions, at the end of flooding, have been discussed
at some length in order to outline the basis and
reasoning upon which these standards were established; also, to permit the appraisal of their adequacy from the point of view of probable damage
and the seaworthiness of the ship at the end of
flooding. These standards, like all the others considered and a p p r o v e d b y the Conference, were
not predicated on the assumption t h a t they should
insure the safety of the vessel against all possible
damages. T h e proof of practicability was a perennial companion to a n y proposal considered b y
the Conference; this was especially the case in the
m a t t e r of sfability. Damage can v a r y from a
slight puncture to a crippling blast with extensive
structural destruction, and practically all sorts of
conditions and circumstances could be cited, with
great weight of evidence, to support a predetermined contention on the subject of extent of damage. The Conference was very reluctant to increase the extent of d a m a g e much beyond t h a t
defined b y the 1929 Convention until the necessity
and practicability for such increase are demonstrated.
I t should be easier to agree to the adequacy of
the limiting conditions. The Conference carried
the m a x i m u m permissible angle of heel at the end

CONDITION

485

of flooding to the limit imposed b y the regulations

on lifeboat launching gear, and thereby reduced as
much as possible the effect of this standard upon
the intact stability requirements w i t h which the
ship m u s t comply. I t would be difficult to argue
for a larger angle of heel, as it is apparent t h a t with
a list greater than 15 degrees it would be difficult
to maintain movable weights in position, and even
moving along the decks might be hazardous. All
in all, the standards under discussion here are in
line with United States ship design practice and
each one, per se, will not result in excessive requirements for intact stability. I t should be
noted, however, t h a t even these minimum standards can result in very high and quite restrictive
stability requirements if the third factor upon
which these requirements depend has not been
properly considered.
OPERATIONAL EFFECTS OF STABILITY REQUIREMENTS

As previously stated, the amount of intact stability that a ship must maintain under all service
conditions in order to be able to withstand the
critical damage is affected by the extent of damage, the limiting conditions that the ship is permitted to reach at the end of flooding, and the
form, proportions, and dimensions of the ship, and
the arrangements and configuration of the flooded
spaces. The importance of the last factor is
heightened by the fact that the Convention explicitly prescribes that, before permitting any relaxation from the requirements for damage stability, the Administration shall be satisfied that
the proportions, arrangements, and other characteristics of the ship are the most favorable to
stability after damage which practically and reasonably can be adopted.
I t must be recognized that the introduction of a
factor such as stability sufficient to withstand
damage may affect ship design practices which
have been perfected with little consideration for
stability. As previously discussed, the regulations for stability of ships in damaged condition
establish a floor on the amount of intact stability
which a ship must maintain under all service con~
ditions. Usually, the intact stability of a ship is
maintained above this level by restricting the
amount and vertical distribution of the weights
taken aboard, and the condition of the tanks.
However, in order that these restrictions be kept
within practical limits, it is necessary to make sure
that the required stability level be as low as possible, consistent vith the standards of safety prescribed by the Convention, and, also, that the
inherent stability characteristics of the shi p itself
b e adequate. I t is evident t h a t if the inherent

486

S T A B I L I T Y OF S H I P S I N D A M A G E D

CONDITION

35

30

% yT,,4
T/T, = 1.4

$
D-

c9

T/T, = 0.8-

u9

t/)

5
co

0'
I ?_o

too

BO
60
40
ZO
Direction of Seo Encounter- Degrees frozB Sfern

FIG. 8
W a v e l e n g t h = 300 feet.
period of w a v e s = Tt.

S h i p period (T)- = 15 seconds.

Apparent

stability of the ship (light) reaches well into the

negative rang e , so that most of the available corrective means have to be expended to maintain the

I00
80
GO
40
20
Direction of See Encounter-Oe(grees f r o m Sfern

FIG. I 0
Wavelength = 300 feet. Ship period (T) = 95 seconds. Apparent

period of waves = Tt.

ship upright, it may be quite burdensome, and

p e r h a p s i m p o s s i b l e , to t a k e c a r e of t h e a d d i t i o n a l
l o a d i m p o s e d b y flooding.
~5

35

IZO

30

~5

zo

k
co

cO

l0

co

L20

lO0
80
60
40
ZO
D~recfion of Sea Encounter- Oe~r.ees f r o m Sfern

W a v e l e n g t h = 800 feet.
period_ ofl[waves = i T t .

FIG. 9
Ship period ( T ) = 2 0 s e c o n d s ,

P-O

I00
80
GO
40
ZO
0
Direction of Se~Encounfen-Degrees f r o m S~ern
Fzo. I i

Apparent

W a v e l e n g t h = 600 feet,
period of w a v e s = TI.

S h i p p e r i o d ( T ) = 15 seconds.

Apparent

STABILITY OF SHIPS IN-DAMAGED

CONDITION

487

3S

T/T, = 1.4

\ %
~)
"6

T/Tt : 0.8_
15
to

I0

0
I20

100
80
60
40
20
Olrec#ion of Seo Fncoun+er-Degrees ~rom S~ern

IZO

I00
BO
GO
40
ZO
OireL-'f~on of Seo Encounfer-Degrees f r o m S,ern

FIG. 12
Wave length ~ 600 feet.
period of w a ~ e s = Tl.

S h i p p e r i o d ( T ) = 2 0 seconds.

FIG. 13
Apparent

These conditions are noted occasionally in ships

built under the provisions of the 1929 Convention
and were not uncommon in very large passenger
vessels. In support of such design practice it was
contended t h a t large values of GM's in operation
were not acceptable inasmuch as they would result
in v e r y quick rolling ships which would be too stiff
for comfort. On this premise, it has been argued
t h a t it is necessary to accept ships with negative
metacentric height in dead light conditions, even
large negative metacentrie heights, in order, to preserve the easy rolling characteristics at the high
point of operating stability, usually at full load.
The validity of the premise t h a t a small GM is
necessary to comfort is contradicted b y the experience of United States passenger vessels built in the
last decade or so, in compliance with stability
standards approximately equal to those now required by the 1948 Convention. I t is further
contradicted by the experience of British passenger
ships built since the 1929 Safety Convention.
Quoting from the official records of the last Conference, SafCon 41, " M e m o r a n d u m circulated b y
the United Kingdom Delegation on Stability of
Ships":
"Fortunately, the belief t h a t a small GM is
necessary to comfort is relegated to the past and
designers do not now hesitate to provide metacentrie heights t h a t at one time would have been
thought to guarantee a stiff, uncomfortable ship.

Wavelength

period of waves

600feet.
= Tt.

Shipperiod

(T) = 25seconds.

Apparent

" T h e mass inertia of fuel and water in the wings

and bottoms and the heavier top weights have facilitated easy rolling."
The interpretation of seagoing characteristics in
terms of GM only is an oversimplification. When
rolling is considered in terms of two basic parameters, GM and the transverse radius of gyration
of mass, it becomes evident t h a t for two ships
with different radii the s a m e GM will give different periods of roll. The larger radius of gyration
results not only in a longer period of roll but also
in a smaller angular response to any single rolling
impulse. The effective radius of gyration and
mass inertia of a ship also are increased b y a n y
change in form which tends to increase the entrainm e n t of water as the ship rolls. I t is believed t h a t
not only has there been some increase in the actual
relative value of the radius of gyration, as indicated in t h e British comment, but t h a t its effective value m a y have tended to be increased further
b y a use of somewhat higher midship coefficients
than was the practice in the past.
I t is perhaps pertinent to note t h a t the motion
forced upon a ship b y a rough sea is the result
of various components all of which contribute to
the discomfort of the passengers. Heaving and
pitching are not affected b y the available GM;
lurching, as well as regular rolling, can be a source
of discomfort and danger to passengers. As noted
in Mr. Rigg's paper before the Society in 1940, and

488

STABILITY OF SHIPS IN DAMAGED

in the comments thereon, an increase in GM decreases the severity of lurching. In the paper presented before the Society in 1936 [5] on the rolling
of the Conte di Savoia, reference is made to the
severe lurching and accompanying yawing which
was sometimes experienced b y this vessel operating with a comparatively small GM. The very
excellent data concerning the size and period of
seas in this paper are also of interest. If these
data are used as an approximate guide for N o r t h
Atlantic conditions, it appears t h a t the preponderance of storm waves v a r y from 350 feet to 650
feet in length, having periods ranging from 8.3 to
11.3 seconds. If this is used as a basis, and the
range of headings over which synchronism m a y
occur is calculated for a range of ship speeds and
periods of roll, it is seen t h a t for speeds of a b o u t
25 knots and above the angular range of headings
for near-synchronous rolling is little affected b y the
period of roll and decreases with an increase in
speed. This situation will be apparent from Figs.
8 to 13. For slow-speed vessels an increase in
period, however, materially decreases the range of
headings for near-synchronous rolling. While it
is true t h a t a lower GM and longer period do tend
toward more comfort at sea, the advantages of the
lower GM are not nearly as great as they once were
thought to be.
In general, there is no theory "which justifies
ships which in dead light conditidn are so deficient in stability as to burden the ~hole operating
range with extensive ballasting arid impractical
restrictions in the use of tankage, etc. The Convention does not specify the means b y which the
ship shall maintain the required intact stability,
but it is obvious t h a t the Administration will have
to be satisfied t h a t the means provided are reasonable and practical. The Convention has laid
down the principle t h a t ships shall have sufficient
intact stability to withstand damage consistent
with subdivision. If this principle is accepted-in
good faith, the logical thing to do is to design ships
inherently capable of maintaining the standard of
safety required b y the Conference in a reasonable
and practical manner.
REDUCTION OF STABILITY REQUIREMENTS
This task will be simplified considerably if care
is taken to reduce the stability level required b y
the regulations as much as possible consistent
with the standard of safety prescribed b y the Convention. There are features of design which affect
this stability l e v d . t o a higher degree than others.
If such features are allowed to accumulate indiscriminately within a compartment, or group of
compartments, it is possible to create a p e a k i n the
stability requirements for damage in such corn-

CONDITION

30

\ \
\\

OricJlnol AvQilable6 M

\.

l/

Modilied Avoilable GM
(A~fer Choncjein

/3

dz--- \
d3 ~ - - - - ~ "

-I
Pre,~m~ncxrj,Required GH

',2
\\

\\

,0

.l-Minimum Required GH

(Affer Reorrongemeni)

$
GM-Fee+
Fro. 14

p a r t m e n t out of proportion with the requirements

of any other c o m p a r t m e n t in the ship. Since the
peak in stability requirements at any draft estabishes the level of intact stability t h a t the ship
m u s t maintain at t h a t draft, it is obvious t h a t
critical c o m p a r t m e n t s should be avoided, or minimized, as. m u c h as possible b y reassignment of
spaces, changes in compartmentation, changes in
tankage, a n d any other means which will reduce
stabilitF:'requirements while maintaining other
necessary features of the design. The Convention
makes this m a n d a t o r y when relaxations are requested, but it is obvious that, aside from such
consideration, this is a desirable procedure of design and should be analyzed and considered as
soon as the design has progressed sufficiently to
permit acceptable approximations, long before it
reaches the stage when changes in the features
noted in the foregoing become major design reconsiderations.
In the preceding discussion it has been shown
t h a t in order to maintain the standard of safety
for stability required b y the 1948 Convention, and
at the same time obtain satisfactory operating
conditions and a comfortable ship, it is desirable
to adjust the ship's dimensions, form, arrangements, etc., in such manner t h a t the conflicting
considerations of minimum operating restrictions
and satisfactory rolling m a y be balanced with the
least interference with other basic features of the
design. This is a typical ship design problem and
a satisfactory solution can be obtained only b y
taking consideration of stability at the very inception of the design, together with all the other basic
requirements which m u s t be considered and correlated at this time.

STABILITY OF SHIPS IN D A M A G E D C O N D I T I O N

489

10

1
E

Contritions
D~mcto
oe: Am[dsh~ps,uv=uA=O.B5%
I.B. Height =B/16.4
Note: These Curves include the
~ollow[ng
Effec.fs
Wclferplc~ne
f~) K8 Rise
due -to Sinkage
(b) BM Loss due to lost
(c) Bt4 Cho'nged'uet S{nkcLg'

4-

~s

_~ 9 ~ /
~

C)
[-

t.D

5
5.?_5

2.7S
0'

IO

15
Pereentae o{ Lencjth Flooded

~0

FIG. 1 5 . - - E F F E C T OF BEAM-DRAFT RATIO AND FLOODED LENGTH ON REQUIRED

The design considerations incident to the question of intact stability sufficient to withstand
damage can be visualized best by reference to a
simplified diagram of available and required
GM's. For a given ship the intact stability required b y the Convention at any draft is equal to
the stability loss which the sh!p would incur for the
damage of the critical compartment at that draft,
and usually is expressed in terms of required intact GM plotted against draft. In order to comply with the Convention, the ship shall maintain,
at any draft, a GM higher or equal to that indicated by the required GM curve at. that draft.
Between sailing and arrival, the ship's draft and
available GM will vary from a maximum to a
minimum; for simplicity, assume that operational
GM's versus draft will plot as shown in Fig. 14.
This chart indicates that, when the ship reaches a
draft dl, liquid ballast must be taken aboard in
order to maintain the GM required b y the Convention. Obviously, if dt can be lowered, a lesser
amount of salt-water ballast will be required and
this will result in better operation. Since d~ is

25

GM

30

VALUES ( C 3 TYPE VESSEL)

determined by the intersection of the curves of

required and available GM, it. is evident t h a t it can
b e lowered either by-.reducing the GM required,
(moving the curve of required GM to the left)
or by increasing the GM available (moving the
curve of available GM to the right). In general,
the most satisfactory way of reducing dl, f r o m a
design point of view, is to reduce GM required.
This can be accomplished by reducing either or
both of its component parts~ i.e., G ~ r losses and
residual required GM. The following discussion
deals with the design features which affect these
stability parameters.
A most direct and effective way of reducing
GM .loss, and therefore reducing intact stability
requirements, is to reduce the loss in waterplane
inertia. Sometimes it is possible to do this in way
of a critical group of compartments by reallocating spaces in such manner t h a t t h e damaged water~
plane falls in way of low permeability spaces.
Reducing the length of the critical group oflcompartments by relocation of bulkheads m a y he
effective in reducing GM loss depending, upon t-he

490

STABILITY OF SHIPS IN DAMAGED

CONDITION

Io

./
Condlt'ions
Damoge:Amld~hlps~Uv=UA=0.85 %
I. B. Flei~ht= B/15.0
Nofe: These Curves include "the
<o~/
/
following Effects:
,~'-~,~. /
(~) KB Rise due ~r0 Sinkocje
-~E-2~q,<o~-----(b) BM Lossdue fo los~Woferplone /
/ ~
/
(c) B I hcm~edue fo S i n k o c j e ~ / ~ 9 ~ / , ~
.

/ -

.)
oE
~

q~

LO

3
o

"---..
0

FIG.

10

15
z0
Percen~'o~e o~ Length Flooded

30

25

16.--EFFECT OF BEAM-DRAFTRATIOAND FLOODEDLENGTHON REQUIRED.GMVALUES(S.S. "AMERICA")

beam-draft ratio at the critical operatifig draft.

(See Figs. 15 and 16.) This, however, should be
balanced against the increased possibility of damaging two adjacent bulkheads and exceeding the
extent of flooding t h a t the ship can withstand from
a stability viewpoint.
GM losses for adjacent c o m p a r t m e n t s should
not be equalized b y stepping the intervening bulkhead. The Convention specifically prescribes
t h a t where two adjacent main c o m p a r t m e n t s are
separated b y a bulkhead which is stepped the
intact stability shall be adequate to withstand.the
flooding of those two c o m p a r t m e n t s unless the
step is located so high t h a t the c o m p a r t m e n t over
which the step extends does not exceed the permissible length corresponding to a margin line 3
inches below the step. I t is evident t h a t a step
which m u s t remain above the final waterline for
the flooding of the c o m p a r t m e n t over which it extends would be. totally useless for the purpose of
equalizing GM losses. GM loss can be minimized
b y reducing the loss in waterplane inertia; this
will result in some cases where it is practical to ex-

tend tanks above the level of the damaged waterline.

GM loss can be minimized also b y reducing the
a m o u n t of submerged intact buoyancy within the
critical compartments. At times, relatively large
deep tanks are grouped under a watertight flat
extending from side to side and between m a j o r
watertight bulkheads. A typical example of this
arrangement m a y be in way of a hold aft when
spaces port and starboard of the shaft alley are
assigned to liquids. If such a c o m p a r t m e n t is
flooded above the watertight flat, it m a y be possible for the damage to result in a combination of
small sinkage and high waterplane loss. This
m a t t e r is generally serious and every effort should
be made to minimize its effect b y lowering the
watertight flat as much as is practicable. Fig. 17
indicates quantitatively the GM loss at various
drafts and depths of w.atertight flat for a C3 ship.
HEELING

MOMENT

AND CROSS

CONNECTION

T h e required intact stability can be reduced by

reducing the required residual GM. This m a y be

S T A B I L I T Y O F SHIPS I N D A M A G E D C O N D I T I O N
f

491 ~

---n

manneL These p!ugs preserve the thermal function of the partition and remain in place in normal
operating conditions, but will release under a small
ood~ngAbove
l ( Flat
head of water. The usual practice is to provide
for flooding in two directions. The plugs must be
installed as low as possible in the compartment
and must be so arranged that the contents of the
space cannot be so stowed as to prevent their
action. Cross-flooding in way of stores spaces is
~s
simplified b y the fact that partitioning of these
spaces is done usually with wire mesh or expanded
metal bulkheads. In cases where solid bulkheads
are used, it is usually possible to open these bulkz0
heads with holes of adequate size, provided with
wire mesh or other suitable manner, and thus inS
sure cross-flooding while preserving the protective
function of the bulkhead. Whether in the case of
"S
blow-out plugs in refrigerated space bulkheads or
other equalizing openings, it is important that
such openings be as low as practicable and as large
in area as practicable.10
Heeling moment m a y be created also by unsymmetrical flooding of wing tanks. Elimination
of this heeling moment can be accomplished by
m e a n s of a pipe directly cross-connecting Opposite
0
I
2
~
,4
5
G tanks and of sufficient size to insure free flow of
Required GMin Feel
water in case of damage to either t a n k The
Fit; 17.--EFFECTOF HEIGHTOF FLATON REQUIREDGM minimum area considered satisfactory for crossVALUES(C3 TYPE VESSEL)
Conditions: Damage,50 feet floodedamidships; u = 85 per cent; connection m a y be obtained from the following
no heelingmoment.
empirical equation :

'

A
effected by reducing the heeling moment or by
increasing the angle of heel to the maximum permitted by the Convention. The heeling moment
referred to here is the transverse moment caused
by unsymmetrical flooding. In general, it is good
design practice to eliminate unsymmetrical flooding as much as possible. To this end, all space
layouts involving longitudinal bulkhead s, or partitions, of sufficient tightness to interfere with the
free flow of water athwartship should be reviewed
critically and changes made or means provided
whereby no unsymmetric buoyancy would exist
at the final stage of flooding. This applies particularly to refrigeration spaces and store spaces
separated by means of insulated partitions or steel
partitions.
These partitions, while not structurally equivalent to watertight bulkheads in their construction,
are frequently able to withstand the head of water
caused by flooding and therefore can prevent or
delay the flow of water athwartship. The partitions separating refrigeration spaces usually are
provided with bl0w-out insulated plugs so located
that flooding due to damage on. either side of the
vessel will extend athwartship in a symmetrical

v
2,000 4 R

in which
A = cross-connection area in square feet
V = volume of one tank in cubic feet
H = height from center of duct to top of tank in feet
However, wing tanks are provided essentially
to stow the liquids necessary for the operation of
the ship. An open cross-connection between port
and starboard tanks containing liquids reduces the
intact stability of the ship and aggravates the conditions of the ship for damage in other spaces. I.f
wing tanks weT6 not to contain any liquids, an open
cross-connection would be a satisfactory means to
insure cross-flooding and eliminate heeling moment, in which caseit generallywouldbepracticable
and very desirable to use a cross-connection having
considerably more area than that indicated by the
foregoing formula. Since most tanks contain
liquids which generally must be consumed during
operation, it becomes necessary that the crossconnection-of port and starboard tanks be such
that the tanks can be independent of each other at
all times except when they are part of the damaged
compartment, in which case they should 5e cross-

492

S T A B I L I T Y OF S H I P S I N D A M A G E D

~I~

l~

....

d[_.~

69.5 . . . .

CONDITION

.....

G9.5 . . . .

,~

3O

~ ~

h:lO

!~_l

-h:lO

h:20
--h=40

h=ZO

--h=40

--h :30

~6

.c
-+- 22

:~ 18

14
0

3
4
Required 6M~n Feet

2
3
Required 6M in Feet

FIG. 1 8 . - - R E Q U I R E D G M CURVES WITH WING TANKS

CROsS-CoNNECTED AND CENTERLINE SPACE FLOODED
(C3 TYPE VESSEL)
Conditions: Compartment length = 50 feet; wing tank length =
50 feet; wing tank width, 10 feet. Permeabilities: Centerline space
= 80 per cent; wing tanks = 95 per cent. Allowable heel = 0 degrees. Tanks considered to have unlimited height. Depth of liquid .
in tanks before damage = h.

FIG. 1 9 . - - R E Q U I R E D G M CURVES WITH WING TANKS

CROss-CoNNECTED AND CENTERLINE SPACE NOT FLOODED
(C3 TYPE VESSEL)
Conditions: Compartment length : 50 feet; ~ing tank length :
50 feet; wing tank width = 10 feet. Permeabilities: Centerline
space = 0 degrees; wing tanks = 95 per cent. Allowable heel = 0
degrees. Tanks considered to have unlimited height. Depth of
liquid in tanks before damage = h.

connected. The simplest means to accomplish

this is to use a direct cross-connecting "pipe installed as low as possible and fitted with a valve
for manual control, which can be opened in case
of damage involving one of the tanks. To prevent
the valve from becoming inaccessible after damage, a reach rod to a control handle above the bulkhead deck is required.
. I t is obvious t h a t since this system depends
upon manual operation, and since initial flooding
m a y proceed much more rapidly than equaliza_tion, some time m u s t elapse after damage before
the equalization of flooding is accomplished, and.
during this time the vessel m a y be in a severely:
listed condition. I t is for this reason t h a t t h e
1948 Convention specifically prescribes t h a t where
special cross-flooding fi.ttings are provided these,
togethzr with the m a x i m u m heel before equalization, shall be acceptable to the Administration.
In cases of damage involving wing tanks crossconnected in the manner previously described, it
becomes necessary to develop two sets of calcu-

lations: one to determine the intact stability required with the tanks in free communication (valve
opened), and another to determine the angle of
heel which the ship, with the intact stability required by, the Convention, will take when the
tanks are not cross-connected (valve closed).
The Convention does not impose a n y limitation
on the amount of heel permissible under these
conditions except that it shall be acceptable to the
Administration. In view of the t e m p o r a r y character of this situation, a large list should be permissible, even a list which immerses the margin
line, if it satisfies the two basic requirements:
(1) t h a t the conditions aboard are not rendered
precarious b y weight shifting or similar occurrences, and (2) t h a t no progressive flooding is
initiated.
Reliance upon manual operation for equalization of flooding is subject to the chance of human
error. This is a very i m p o r t a n t consideration in
eases where extensive use of wing tanks leads to
the installation of numerous cross-connections,

STABILITY OF SHIPS IN DAMAGED

CONDITION

-T

~- . . . .

L- .

69.5:- ---- -,~

493

. . .

69.5-

- ---~

30

.E
N
N

# ~8

h:?O

".,
I

Required GM in Fee~

GM CURVESW I T H

CROSS-CONNECTED

AND CENTERLINE SPACE FLOODED

W I N G T A N K S NOT

(C3 T Y P E VESSEE)
Conditions:

Compartment

wing t a n k width

length

= 50 feet:

10 feet.

Required GM in Feel

FIG. 20.--REQUIRED

50 feet;

wing tank length :

Permeabilities:

Centerline

s p a c e = 80 per c e n t ; wing t a n k s = 95 per cent. A l l o w a b l e heel =

15 d e g r e e s . T a n k s c o n s i d e r e d t o h a v e u n l i m i t e d h e i g h t .
D e p t h of

liquid in t a n k s before d a m a g e = h.

and valves. For effective equalization, it is

necessary first to locate exactly the damage and
then to operate those valves which will eliminate
unsymmetrical flooding. An error in the selection
of the proper valves m a y lead to the cross-connection of intact tanks, which m a y result in further increasing the already critical list of the ship. In
general, it is good practice for commercial vessels
to reduce the number of cross-connecting valves
to an absolute minimum.
I t follows therefore that, since unsymmetrical
flooding of cross-connected tanks m u s t be considered, and its effect determined and approved,
the proportions and arrangements of wing tanks
m u s t be investigated thoroughly with a view to
minimize their effect upon the damaged vessel.
The effect of damage in way of wing tanks upon
the required intact stability which a ship m u s t
maintain in operation is dependent upon a number
of variables which quite often are interrelated in a
complex manner. The effect of damage obv,iously
is predicated on whether the tanks are cross-

FIG. 21.--REQUIRED

GM

CURVES WITH WING TANKS NOT

CROss-CONNECTED AND CENTERLINE SPACE NOT FLOODED

(C3 TyPE VESSEL)
C o n d i t i o n s : C o m p a r t m e n t l e n g t h = 50 feet; w i n g t a n k l e n g t h =
50 feet; wing t a n k w i d t h = 10 feet. P e r m e a b i l i t i e s : C e n t e r l i n e ,
space = 0 p e r c e n t ; wing t a n k s = 95 per cent. A l l o w a b l e heel =
15 degrees. T a n k s considered to h a v e u n l i m i t e d h e ig h t. D e p t h of
l i q u i d in t a n k s before d a m a g e = h.

connected or not as noted; it is dependent also

upon the size of the tanks, their location, the level
of liquids in t h e tanks in relation to the waterline,
etc. I t has been shown t h a t even when the wing
tanks are cross-connected the Convention requires
t h a t they be considered independent and that-the
m a x i m u m heel before equalization shall be acceptable to the Administration. The Convention
also prescribes that, if any damage of lesser extent
than the standard damage would result in a more
severe condition regarding heel or loss of m e t a centric height, such damage shall be assumed in
the calculations. This is particularly important
in case of unsymmetrical flooding and m a y require
additional analysis of damage when wing tanks are
involved. All in all, it is evident t h a t the ap=
praisal of any tankage arrangement versus required stability in damage can be based only upon
a quantitative analysis of each specific case.
However, an understanding of the effect t h a t
changes in basic features have upon the required
stability is very important, and m a y be helpful in

494

STABILITY

-T

__

i
/ d =I 4-~.
Flooded

/d=14'-~: Noi" Flooded

L..--,
g
x2

t~

OF SHIPS

..~.....d:26'-_No~ Flooded

"d= 7_6'- . Flooded

IN DAMAGED

CONDITION

q u i r e d was c a l c u l a t e d t a k i n g initial d r a f t d a n d
d e p t h of l i q u i d in t h e t a n k s h as variables. Figs.
18 to 21 i l l u s t r a t e a series of such d i a g r a m s for
wing t a n k s 10 feet wide. B y p l o t t i n g a n d crossp l o t t i n g these d a t a (see Figs. 22, 23 a n d 24), t h e
following general f a c t s were i n d i c a t e d .
If t h e t a n k s are c r o s s - c o n n e c t e d :
(a) The required GM value is not sensitive to the level
of the liquid in the tanks, and is maximum when the level
inside is approximately equal to the level of the sea outside.
(b) For the deeper drafts the required GM, when flooding wing tanks only, may be greater than for flooding wing
fimks and centerline space.
(c) The required GM- increases directly with the width
of the tanks.
If t h e t a n k s are n o t c r o s s - c o n n e c t e d :
(a) The required GM is extremely sensitive to the level
of liquid in the tanks, and is a maximum when the tanks
are either empty or full. This maximum is always greater
than the cross-connected condition.
(b) Minimum required GM values are obtained when
the level of liquid in the tanks is approximately at the level
of the sea outside, after sinkage.
(c) For the deeper drafts the required GM, when flooding wing tanks only, may be greater than for flooding
wing tanks and centerline space.

T h e general conclusions b a s e d on t h e effects

n o t e d in t h e foregoing a r e t h a t for non-crosso
Io
ZO
30.
c o n n e c t e d w i n g t a n k s a c o n s i d e r a b l e p e n a l t y reHeighf of Liquid in Tanks
sults f r o m an increase in size, a n d t h a t t h e level of
F I G . 22.--CROSS PLOT OF REQmRED GM VALUES ~.VITH
liquid in t h e t a n k s before d a m a g e is a critical facW I N O TANKS CROSS-CoNNeCTED (C3 TYPE VBSSEL)
Conditions: C o m p a r t m e n t length = 50 feet; wing tank length =
tor.
50 feet; wing tank width = 10 feet. Permeabilities: Centerline
space = 0 per cent and 80 per cent; wing tanks = 95 per cent.
H e e l i n g m o m e n t m a y r e s u l t f r o m flooding
Allowable heel = 0 degrees.
a r o u n d s h a f t alleys. I n m u l t i p l e - s c r e w vessels, i t
is possible to e l i m i n a t e m o s t of this heeling m o m e n t b y p r o v i d i n g cross-passages b e t w e e n p o r t
a n d s t a r b o a r d s h a f t alleys in w a y of each w a t e r s a v i n g t h e d e s i g n e r f r o m a large a m o u n t of de- t i g h t c o m p a r t m e n t . T h e s e cross-passages are
t a i l e d a n d i n v o l v e d calculations.
f u n c t i o n a l l y desirable a n d should be f i t t e d in all
On t h i s premise, a n a t t e m p t was m a d e t o iso- cases. I n single-screw vessels t h e u n s y m m e t r i c a l
l a t e t h e m o r e i m p o r t a n t t y p e s of v a r i a t i o n a n d
flooding which occurs when t h e flow of w a t e r
consider t h e m s e p a r a t e l y as t h e y affect t h e rea t h w a r t s h i p is p r e v e n t e d b y t h e c e n t e r l i n e t u n n e l
q u i r e d G M values of a t y p i c a l vessel of n o r m a l
will result in t h e vessel t a k i n g a t e m p o r a r y list u n t i l
shape. T h e s e c a l c u l a t i o n s were d e v e l o p e d for a
t h e d a m a g e d w a t e r level gets a b o v e t h e t o p of t h e
C3 t y p e vessel h a v i n g a 5 0 - f o o t m i d s h i p c o m p a r t t u n n e l a n d floods t h e o t h e r side. I n s o m e inm e n t flooded. T h e wing t a n k s were a s s u m e d to
s t a n c e s a v e r y large angle of heel m a y r e s u l t before
e x t e n d l o n g i t u d i n a l l y t h e l e n g t h of t h e d a m a g e d
cross-flooding s t a r t s .
c o m p a r t m e n t . T h e following c o n d i t i o n s were
W h e n t h e holds p o r t a n d s t a r b o a r d of t h e
assumed:
centerline s h a f t t u n n e l are assigned to d r y cargo,
it is a simple m a t t e r to e l i m i n a t e this source of
(a) W i n g t a n k s :
heeling b y i n s t a l l i n g a n a d e q u a t e n u m b e r of open
Cross-connected.
cross-connecting d u c t s or pipes a t t h e t a n k t o p
N o t cross-connected.
level. W h e n these d u c t s are installed, cross(b) I n b o a r d e x t e n t of d a m a g e :
flooding will t a k e p l a c e a t t h e b e g i n n i n g of d a m W i n g t a n k s only.
age a n d v e r y l i t t l e heeling m o m e n t will develop.
Wing tanks and center compartment.
T h e h a z a r d i n h e r e n t in t h e m a n u a l c o n t r o l of
cross-connecting v a l v e s is recognized a n d v a r i o u s
S e v e r a l w i d t h s of wing t a n k s were c o n s i d e r e d ;
schemes h a v e been p r o p o s e d to o b t a i n a m e a s u r e
for e a c h w i d t h a n d for e a c h c o m b i n a t i o n of t h e
of e q u a l i z a t i o n w i t h o u t t h e n e e d of m a n u a l conc o n d i t i o n s listed u n d e r (a) a n d (b), t h e G M re- trol. When. w i n g t a n k s a r e so l o c a t e d t h a t in all
0

STABILITY OF SHIPS IN DAMAGED

CONDITION

495

W-15'-LFlooded
L_
L~

~ ~ o t
W:lO'-NotHooded-

W=5~-i Flooded/
10

Flooded

~W-5'-%_ Mot Flooded

70
,30
Heighf of Liquid [nTonks

40

FIG. 23.--CRosS
PLOT OF R E Q U I R E D G M V A L U E S WITH W I N G T A N K S CROSS-CONNECTED ( C 3 T Y P E V B S S E L )
C o n d i t i o n s : C o m p a r t m e n t l e n g t h = 50 feet; wing t a n k l e n g t h = 50 feet; wing t a n k widths = 5 feet, I 0 feet, a n d 15 feet. D r a f t
before d a m a g e = 22 feet. P e r m e a b i l i t i e s : Centerline space = 0 per cent a n d 80 per cent; wing t a n k s = 95 per cent. Allowable
heel = 0 degrees.

conditions of sinkage and trim for damage involving the tanks they are always and entirely belo.w
the damage waterline, it is possible to locate an
open equalizing pipe at the level of the top of the
tanks and depend upon the head of water to effect
cross-flooding. In such cases the open ends of the
equalizing pipe are extended athwartship to the
center of area of the liquid level in the tanks ill
order to restrain port and starboard transference
of liquid in intact Operating conditions. With this
type of cross-connection the ship will take an initial list and will return to upright upon completion
of the cross-flooding. This scheme has been used
in cross-connecting deep tanks port anti starboard
of the shaft alley in Victory ships.
The residual GM can be reduced also by increasing the angle of heel up to the m a x i m u m permitted
b y the Convention. This is ordinarily a question
of residual freeboard after parallel sinkage, and
can be taken care of b y raising the margin line
either b y raising the bulkhead deck or b y pivoting
the margin line. Raising the bulkhead deck

means additional watertight doors in passageways,

extension of controls, vents, etc., t h a t m u s t be
above the margin line, additional exits, :additional
penetrations of watertight bulkhead b y - d u c t and
piping systems, etc. When the freeboard deft,eiency occurs near the quarter points, it is possible
to increase the residual freeboard b y pivoting the
margin line forward or after as required. This. is
equivalent to a partial lifting of the b u l k h e a d d e c k
and will reduce to a minimum the additions of
watertight doors, exits, etc., previously noted.
A severe condition with reference to freeboard
deficiency is noted sometimes in passenger vessels
having great length of adjacent dining spaces and
galley located within the midship length and on a
deck close to the damaged waterline. This arrangement is quite common in large passenger
vessels. Service requirements and decorative
exigencies often preclude the possibility of using
watertight doors between dining rooms and galley
with the result t h a t the margin line m u s t be
lowered to the deck over which these spaces are

"~

d:14'-_Flooded /

dM4L-No#Flooded

d= ?.G'-{ No+ Flooded

r ooded

I0

20
Heighi" o'~ Liquid

fnTonks

30

~ ....

~g.s'----4

40

F I G . 9 . 4 . - - C R o s s PLOT OF R E Q U I R E D G M V A L U E S WITH W I N G T A N K S N O T CROSS-CONNECTED ( C 3 T Y P E V E S S E L )

C o n d i t i o n s : C o m p a r t m e n t l e n g t h = 50 feet; wing t a n k l e n g t h = 50 feet; wing t a n k w i d t h = 10 feet. Pel:meabillties: C e n t e r l i a :
space = 0 per cent and 80 per cent; wing t a n k s = 95 per cent. ~ l l o w a b l e heel = 15 degrees.

496

STABILITY OF SHIPS IN DAMAGED

located and this m a y be too low to permit heeling

to the m a x i m u m angle allowed b y the Convention.
In such cases a good design practice is to raise the
dining rooms and galley, and the margin line, one
deck and thus reduce substantially the intact stability requirements. T h e trend toward mechanical elevators for handling of stores, and the prevalent use of air conditioning in passenger and crew
spaces, should minimize the disadvantages t h a t at
first glance could be associated with such a rearrangement.
A careful selection of arrangements, tankage,
compartmentation, margin line, cross-connections,
etc., as previously discussed, usually will reduce
intact stability requirements to acceptable values.
I t m a y happen, however, t h a t the functional requirements of a design m a y be such as to restrict
considerably the variations which are permissible
for each or all of the features listed in the foregoing, and that, even after all possible variations
have been considered, excessive ballasting and impractical restriction in the distribution of cargo or
use of liquids is still indicated. In such cases,
acceptable operating conditions m a y be obtained
b y varying the proportions of the design and increasing the intact available stability.
This is clearly indicated in Fig. 14 which illustrates in a schematic manner the design considerations related to damage stability. The minimum
operating draft has been reduced from a preliminary value, dl, which is assumed to correspond to a
preliminary combination of arrangements, tankage, etc., to an irreducible value, d2, resulting from
the o p t i m u m combination of the same features
consistent with the other basic requirements of the
design. If the a m o u n t of ballasting corresponding
to this draft is excessive for practical operation, the
minimum operating draft (and ballasting) can be
reduced to an ~cceptable value (d3) b y increasing
the intact stability of the ship in such manner t h a t
at d3 draft the G M available will equal the G M required. This can be accomplished, of course,
b y lowering the center of gravity of the ship or by
raising the metacenter. At this time the increase
of available G21l is intended essentially in terms of
increase of metacentric radius and, therefore, concerns primarily those features which affect directly
the geometrical characteristics of the vessel.
Usually the metacentric radius is increased b y
increasing the beam and adjusting the draft to obtain the correct displacement; sometimes it is expedient to adjust form coefficients, as well as
draft, to compensate for the variation in beam.
These variations will increase the GM available at
all drafts b u t they also will increase the G M required, thereby reducing, to a certain degree, the
effectiveness of the increase in beam in extending

~Z

CONDITION

c~
~

:Constoiq{ Beonl

. i~
"~'

V~r~ing Draft

Cons+ant Draf~
V~ryin9 Beom
I

Z.Z

2.4

Z.6

Z.8

3.0
B/d Rotio

3Z

3A

3.6

3/3

FIG. 2 5 . - - E F F E C T OF VARIATION IN BEAM AND DRAFT ON

REQUIRED G M VALUBS (C3 TVPE VESSEL)
Conditions: Damage, 50 feet flooded amidships; u : 85 per cent;
no heeling moment.

the operational range or draft. I t should be emphasized t h a t ordinarily the increase of G M available for a certain increase in b e a m is much higher
than the corresponding increase of G M required
and therefore increasing the b e a m to meet the stability requirements is an effective method of accomplishing the desired aims.
A quantitative analysis of these variations for a
C3 t y p e vessel in conjunction with simplified condition of damage might be of interest. Fig. 25

t.Z

2.4

Z.6

Z.8

3.0

32

3.

B/d Roio
FIG. 26.--DRAFT CONSTANT AT 26 FEET. EFFECT OF
CHANGE IN BEAM OR REQUIRED AND AVAILABLE OM
VALUES ( C 3 TYPE VESSEL)
Conditions: Damage, 50 feet flooded amidships; u = 85 per cent;
no heeling moment.

STABILITY OF SHIPS IN DAMAGED

2G

497

weights, no change in draft, form coefficients, etc.,

a change in b e a m from B1 to B~ will change the
GM margin between available and required b y an
a m o u n t equal to

25

U-Form i y/

V Form

24

Residual BM, L\B1/

FCBq ' - 17

V-Form.
//

44
4-

"

r/

'Ji

18
0

CONDITION

I,

3
4
5
6
GM {n Fee
FIG. 2 7 . - - E F F E C T OF U AND V FORMS ON REQUIRED AND
AVAILABLE G M VALUES

shows GM required versus beam-draft ratio for

two basic variations of proportions; i.e., beam
constant and varying draft, and draft constant and
varying beam. This chart illustrates the wellknown fact t h a t an increase in beam-draft ratio
increases the required GM an d the rate of increase
is approximately the same whether the beam is
changed or the draft is changed.
Fig. 26 shows GM required and GM available
when the draft is maintained constant and the
beam-draft ratio is varied by changing the beam.
In Fig. 26 the position of the curve of available
GM in the diagram is arbitrary inasmuch as it is
based on an assumed KG value; however, the diagram indicates correctly the rate of variation of
GM available versus GM required for the dimensional variation upon which the diagram is based.
Fig. 26 also indicates clearly t h a t for a change in
beam the rate of variation of GM available is
much higher than t h a t of the GM required.
While Figs. 25 and 26 are strictly true only for a
C3 t y p e vessel, the trend indicated b y these diagrams will apply to any ship of usual form.
In preliminary design it is often desirable to
determine the effect of an increased beam on the
GM margin between available and required. If
we assume no change in vertical distribution of

This equation presumes sYmmetrical flooding and

no trim variation and applies to reduction as well
ks to increase in beam.
Another, and perhaps more efficient, way of improving operation b y raising the inherent stability
of the ship is to adopt a ship's form which combines high inertia in the operating draft range, and
the greatest possible inertia under heeled conditions when damaged, with good propulsive characteristics. The effectiveness of this solution depends to a large degree u p o n the particular circumstances and requirements of each specific de.
sign and the possibility of obtaining a satisfactory
balance of the major characteristics affected by the
ship's form. Ordinarily, high waterline inertia
within a practical range of draft will result in
sharper sections at the ends, larger deck areas, loss
of tankage volume, etc., when compared with a
ship of usual form. Sections of more V-shape forward, as contrasted to U-sections, will lessen the
probability of pounding, and wider decks at the
ends will permit better arrangements. The possibility of obtaining good propulsive characteristics
with such form is in large measure dependent upon
the form parameters of the design. A large number of model basin tests indicate t h a t it is consistently possible to develop a form with moderate
V-type sections forward which, up to a certain
speed-length ratio, will compare favorably with a
low resistance form using U-type sections. Beyond this speed-length ratio, however, the high
inertia model usually will show a rapid increase in
resistance and, correspondingly, an increasingly
higher power penalty for the gain in stability thus
obtained. T h e quantitative relationship of the
factors discussed in the foregoing is very much
affected by the circumstances peculiar to each design and can be established only b y working out
specific solutions for the designs on hand.
Fig. 27 gives a quantitative example of the variations in available and required stability and the
total variation in minimum operating draft under
equivalent loading conditions, resulting from a
form change from U- to V-type sections. The full
line diagram o n Fig. 27 corresponds to the V-type
Sections, and the dotted line diagram represents
the U-type sections. I t should be noted t h a t Fig.
27 approaches two complete solutions of the santo
design problem in the sense that, except for the
variation in the KG of tile light ship which has

498

STABILITY OF SHIPS IN DAMAGED

been assumed constant, all the other variations

incident to the lines change have been taken into
account in computing available and required
GM's.
This form change can be expressed in terms of
waterplane inertia coefficient Within the operating
range of draft. For the specific design related to
Fig. 27 the inertia coefficient variations were as
follows :
Draft
U-sections
V-sections

--.

Full load
0.045
0.047

Light load
0.042
0.043

Another example of the effect of form change in

relation to damage stability requirements is recorded in the 1931 Transactions of the Society
"Design of an American Superliner" b y T. E.
FerNs [6]. T h e comparison of models 17-20-22
given in this paper clearly indicates the advantage
of this line of investigation in balancing stability
requirements with other m a j o r characteristics of a
design.
'As stated in the foregoing, regulations for damage stability establish a floor on the a m o u n t of int a c t stability which a ship m u s t maintain under
all service conditions. A ship designer m u s t reduce this floor to the absolute m i n i m u m consistent
with the regulations and in the foregoing some of
the means available for this purpose have been
discussed.
The basic requirements of the design 'impose
limitations beyond which the stability requirements cannot be lowered without impairing functional or other basic design features. If, after
Careful s t u d y of all possible changes, a practical
m i n i m u m operating draft cannot be obtained, it
will be necessary to increase the inherent stability
of the ship and thus raise the whole range of operational stability. This m a y create peak values of
. "int~/~t:stability, usually at the higher drafts under
full load conditions, which m a y result in quick
rolling and therefore uncomfortable ships. T h e
Convention recognizes this possibility and provides for relaxation of the regulations when the
Administration is satisfied t h a t even though "the
proportions, ,arrangements, and other characteristics of the ship are the most favorable to stability
after damage which can practically and reasonably be adopted in the particular circumstances,
the intact metacentrie height in a n y service condition necessary to meet these requirements is
excessive for the service intended." The Convention states specifically t h a t "Relaxation from
the requirements for damage stability shall be permitted only in exceptional cases," and therefore it
is reasonable to assume t h a t substantial evidence

CONDITION

of the fact t h a t G M required is excessive for the

service intended and t h a t the proportions, arrangements, etc., are the most favorable for stability after damage must be presented before relaxation of the regulations m a y be considered.
The requirement t h a t the proportions be most
favorable for stability after damage portends a review of the whole subject of ship proportions and
perhaps, as has been suggested already (see [3]), a
return toward the narrower ships of the early nine.teen hundreds, at' least for .large~-,f~st~"passenger
vessels.
A designer should be furnished with a standard
which, .even though approximate, could be used to
'establish when the metacentrie height., is excessive
for the service. The United States proposal to
the Convention t h a t no relaxation'be considered
until the m a x i m u m G M in operation exceeded
0.05 of the beam was rejected on the ground t h a t
this would tend to establish this G M value as a
m a x i m u m standard. I t would seem desirable to
substantiate the relationship between period and
a m p l i t u d e of roll and the G M available with field
d a t a of sufficient amount and reliability so t h a t at
least for the major sea routes a broad and comprehensive basis could be established for the proper
interpretation of these data in a new design.
DETERMINATION OF INTACT STABILITY REQUIREMENTS
The general concept upon which the standards
of stability established b y the 1948 Convention are
based has been stated in the opening paragraphs of
this discussion. I t bears repeating here, in view
of the fact t h a t this concept identifies the nature
of the parameters that m u s t be determined to show
compliance with the stability requirements of the
Convention. These requirements are considered
satisfied if the combined effect of the changes in
draft, trim, and angle of heel resulting from a specified a m o u n t of flooding will not immerse the margin line, and if the angle of heel is below a maxim u m which permits life-saving operations. These
are the conditions which the Convention considers
necessary and sufficient for the safety of ships 'in
damage. I t follows, therefore, t h a t any method of
calculation set up for the purpose of determining
damage stability requirements must be adequate
to give w i t h sufficient approximation the draft,
trim, and list at the end of flooding and to determine the initial intact stability t h a t the ship must
have in order not to exceed the specified m a x i m u m
list.
I t could be contended t h a t compliance with such
standards does not, in fact, give any indication of
the reserve of stability of the damaged ship and

STABILITY OF SHIPS IN DAMAGED

that, in order to have a complete analysis of the
stability characteristics of a vessel, intact a s w e l l
as damaged, it is necessary to have curves of righting m o m e n t s (or righting arms) for various loading conditions encompassing the operating range
of the ship. This contention has been made, in
fact, and has been implemented with the developm e n t of feasible and practicable methods of calculation which, b y means of processes usually emp l o y e d i n ship design, arrive at complete curves of
righting a r m for a n y damaged vessel in a n y given
operating condition (see [4]). I t is obvious that,
within the approximation implied in all matters of
damage stability, such curves give a complete
answer to the question of how much stability the
damaged shil5 has. In view of this, it could be
thought t h a t the Convention should have amplified the limiting conditions t h a t a ship is permitted
to reach at the end of flooding, and should have
prescribed standards for major elements of residu a r y stability such as area of the righting mom e n t diagram, vanishing angle, m a x i m u m righting
moment, etc.
I t should be noted, however, that, while it is
feasible and practical to calculate all the parameters Of residual stability which a given ship, in a
given operating condition, will have at the end of
an assumed flooding, it is not at' all practicable to
set up standards which in all cases, for all passcnger ships (or even for classes of passenger ships)
running in all sorts of international sea lanes, will
result in the a m o u n t of residual stability which is
necessary and sufficient to carry out life-saving
operations. W h a t is necessary and what is sufficient in the m a t t e r of residual stability depends to
a great degree on the circumstances of a particular
service, sometimes on the special characteristics
of a particular ship, and cannot be generalized to
any satisfactory degree.
I t should be noted further that, as a m a t t e r of
practical necessity, a conference for safety of life
at sea is not a research body, b u t a deliberative
body which, in general, will promulgate standards
which have been applied successfully to a large
number of vessels in a variety of services and trade
routes, and which have been proved necessary,
sufficient, and consistent with the economics of
ship operation. Standards equivalent or higher
than those promulgated b y the 1948 Convention
for damage stability have been applied generally
to United States passenger vessels for the last
fifteen years or so. This was a very i m p o r t a n t
consideration in the approval of the stability
standards included in the new Convention.
T h e Conference did consider a proposal for
standards for intact stability which essentially
dealt with the same stability characteristics and

CONDITION

499

parameters we are discussing here, except t h a t the

consideration was how much intact stability,
rather than how much residual stability, is necessary and sufficient for the safety of passengers and
crew. The decision of the Conference on this m a t ter is recorded in recommendation No. 5 of the
1948 Convention. It, in effect, abeyanced consideration of regulation for intact stability until
the need for and practicability of adopting such
regulations are demonstrated b y actual experience. Any proposal to enlarge the limiting conditions established b y the Convention for the
damaged ship at the end of flooding would have to
be substantiated in the same manner.
The following points might be pertinent in summing up the question of regulations for residuary
stability:
No data, based on passenger ships in commercial service, and upon which a quantitative definition of additional standards could b e based, are
available. The standards established b y the Convention (i.e., non-immersion of the margin line
and heel below a specified m a x i m u m ) are obviously valid standards. I t is axiomatic t h a t the
new regulations on damage stability, properly administered, will result in a general i m p r o v e m e n t of
stability characteristics for all ships, intact as well
as,in damage, to a level comparable to t h a t prev a i l i n g f o r United States vessels, of recent design
and construction. There is no evidence t h a t these
ships have demonstrated general deficiency of stability under conditions of damage approaching design assumptions. I t is felt t h a t when the stability standards now included in the 1948 Convention are associated with usual ship's form and
proportions, the damaged ship will reach the end
of the prescribed flooding with a reasonable margin of stability. In general, this opinion is corroborated b y the performance of the American
merchant fleet during World W a r I I .
I t would be of interest to develop residual stability curves for typical merchant vessels' in typi~ "~
cal operating conditions, and correlate these d a t a
to establish quantitatively a factual situation and
perhaps single out the unusual ships and the reasons thereof.
The general requirement of the Convention
under Regulation 7 is t h a t "Sufficient intact stability shall be provided in all service conditions . . . . " This general requirement is specified in subparagraph (f), which clearly established the fact t h a t the measure of intact stability
required b y the Convention is the metacentric
height in the intact condition. The requirements
of the Convention for intact stability were analyzed in connection with the discussion of limiting
conditions at the end of flooding, and it was shown

500

STABILITY OF SHIPS IN DAMAGED CONDITION

Reduced Buoyancy

Run Off,

Reduced Buoycmcy

Do
,og.d

J' ""Oooged W.t_,

/ RunIOff~l)~
/

~e,,In'l"ocf W.L.

I Tank I Ta~k I Tcmk I

v" DctmagedW.L.

FIG. 28

that the intact GM required is equal to the algebraic sum of all the GM gains and losses resulting
from flooding. The method of calculation set up
to compute damage stability requirements must
then be adequate to give draft and trim variations
and also all GM variations resulting from flooding.
~/~ETHODS OF CALCULATION

Regulation 7(b) requires that the calculations

shall take into consideration the proportions and
design characteristicsof the ship, and the arrangements and configurationof the damaged compartment. The intent of this regulation is quite clear,
inasmuch as it prescribes direct methods of calculation which give proper consideration to the individual factors of each case and rules out empirical
formulations.
The various methods which have been developed for the calculation of the intact stability
necessary to sustain damage required by the Convention have been described in several pubiications, and more particularly references [1],
[2], and [3]. It is not proposed, therefore, to discuss them here except for the followingcomments
which seem pertinent and may be of value in
clarifying some phases of the calculations. In
general, all of these methods can be divided into
two main categories.: lost buoyancy methods and
added weight methods. Within each category,
methods differ only in the degree of approximation with which each give the final draft, trim, and
GM value. Appendixes 1 and 2 are examples of
damage stability calculations for the same ship
and the same damage. Appendix 1 is based on
the lost buoyancy method, and Appendix 2 illustrates a procedure of calculation based on the
added weight method. The parallel development

of the same example, according to the two types

of calculation, affords a direct comparison of the
processes involved.
The calculations outlined in Appendixes 1 and
2 are adequate for practically all types of damage which must be considered in ships of usual
form and arrangement, t h a t of Appendix 1 being
most commonly used.
The format in Appendix. 1 has been derived from
[1]. The simplifying approximations recommended in [1] have been checked with more accurate calculations over a period of time involving
numerous designs of ships of many types. These
approximations have been found acceptable except that a direct calculation of the inertia gain
due to sinkage and trim is considered desirable in
all cases where the trim exceeds 5 feet total.
When the final trim is less than 5 feet, the variation of waterplane inertia may be computed only
for the sinkage by using the formula given in the
Appendix.
Occasionally, the final waterplane will cut
through a permeability level in way of the damaged compartment. Appendix 3 illustrates schematically a case where the initial and the parallel
sinkage waterlines run through cargo spaces in
the damaged compartment; but, when the ship
lists to the permissible angle of heel, part of the
damage waterplane is in passenger spaces. I t is
evident t h a t a condition of unsymmetric lost buoyancy is thus created which will result in higher intact stability requirements. I t is expedient in
such cases to complete the calculations and determine sinkage, trim, and GM required, without consideration of the difference in permeability; then
add the effect of flooding a wedge of higher permeability on the required GM. The effects of this

STABILITY OF SHIPS IN DAMAGED

2z"

S'fern I

CONDITION

Bow I

"

501.

zz*

ZO"

~zo

8"

4"

FIG. 29.~MODt~L 3921

Wedge on sinkage and trim are assumed to be

negligible. A computation of additional GM required in such a case is given in Appendix 3.
In some instances of this sort, especially where
the configuration of the final flooding is irregular,
it m a y be more expeditious to use the direct
added weight method indicated b y Appendix 2.
Sometimes the lost buoyancy m a y be a negative loss and the ship in damage will rise instead of settling to a deeper draft. Damage
in way of a tank c o m p a r t m e n t with tanks extending above the initial waterline, and full, could result in a negative b u o y a n c y loss. By reference to
Fig. 28, it is evident t h a t when the damaged comp a r t m e n t is opened to the sea liquid will run off
and the ship will rise. The a m o u n t the ship will
rise depends u p o n t h e weight of liquid in the tanks
above the intact waterline, and the density of this
liquid in respect to the density of the water in
which the ship is floating. If there is no difference
in the density of the two liquids, the draft variation Which results from the run-off due to damage

can be obtained b y relating the weight of run-off

liquid above the initial waterline to the reduction
in b u o y a n c y in the intact p a r t of the ship. The
weight run off and b u o y a n c y reduction in w a y of
the damaged c o m p a r t m e n t (between the intact
and damaged waterline) are identical and balance
each other. In this case, it is sufficient to enter in
the lost buoyancy form the weight of run-off liquid
above the intact waterline with a negative sign
and proceed in the manner indicated taking the
tons per inch loss at 100 per cent.
If the liquid inside the tanks is lighter than the
water in which the ship floats, damage in way of
the tanks will Cause all the light liquid to float out
and p a r t of the liquid to be replaced with sea
water. T h e draft variation resulting from the
weight run off and change of liquids can be obtained from the lost buoyancy form (used in Appendix 1) b y entering the total weight of the light
density liquid in the tanks as a negative loss of
buoyancy, and entering the weight of sea water in
the tanks up to the intact waterline as a positive

502

STABILITY OF SHIPS IN DAMAGED

S%rn Z

zz"

FIG.

100

...

30.--MODBL 3922

loss of buoyancy. The algebraic addition of these

two quantities will give the total negative loss of
buoyancy. A more common variation of damage
involving liquid run-off occurs for damage in way
of high wing tanks, full and not cross-connected.
An example in which this condition has been associated with flooding involving the cargo space between the tanks, together with the necessary calculations, is given in Appendix 4.
Reference [1] gives an empirical equation of the
statical stability curve:
GZ = GMsinO + K B M

Bow I

CONDITION

(2)

which is considered sufficiently accurate within the

deck edge and a m a x i m u m of 30 degrees heel for
ships of usual form. This equation, is used generally in determining the residual G M required to
limit heel, in cases of damage where a list is permitted. References [1] and [3] describe in detail
the calculating procedure b y which the residual
G M required to limit heel is thus determined.

This procedure is included in the methods illustrated in Appendixes 1 and 2. The righting arm
M is computed
due to form in equation (2), K B100'

on the basis of the known B M value and a factor

K given in [1] for various angles of heel.
If the cross curves of stability for a given ship
are available, K values for this ship can be calculated in the following manner:
For a given displacement (and draft, K M , B M )
assume t h a t K G = K M . On this basis develop
the curve of righting arms which b y reason Of the
assumption made will give at any angle the value
of the righting arm due to form. If we equate this
M
righting arm to K B
100
we can compute K for any

angle of heel at different drafts. Calculations of

righting arms are ordinarily not very accurate at
moderate angles of heel and are somewhat vitiated
b y the fact t h a t they do not reflect the influence
of trim. Calculations set uo to include trim would

,4~" i

STABILITY

OF, SHIPSTN
Stern I

z z~

'(

"

DAMAGED
Bow Z

503

2z"

' Io

~ 0

CONDITION

'

iJ

2
10"

\ I

~" /

L~t

//-.,'~91C
9

FIG. 31.--MOD~L 3923

be q u i t e e l a b o r a t e . I n o r d e r to check t h e degree
of a p p r o x i m a t i o n a s s o c i a t e d w i t h t h e K f a c t o r s
given in [1], e x p e r i m e n t a l d e t e r m i n a t i o n of t h e s e
f a c t o r s for v a r i o u s ship models, a n d v a r i o u s cond i t i o n s of t r i m , h a v e b e e n c a r r i e d o u t for t h e C o a s t
G u a r d a t t h e T a y l o r M o d e l Basin. T h e m o d e l s
used for this p u r p o s e were d e v e l o p e d e s s e n t i a l l y
w i t h t h e i n t e n t of s p a n n i n g a r a n g e of form, a b o v e
as well as below t h e L W L , f r o m a fine U to a full
V. T h e p e r t i n e n t d a t a r e g a r d i n g t h e f o r m of
t h e s e m o d e l s are l i s t e d in T a b l e 1. I t s h o u l d b e
n o t e d t h a t t h e m i d s h i p section coefficient for all
m o d e l s was 0.967 a n d all m o d e l s h a v e a wall-sided
m i d s h i p section w i t h o u t t u m b l e home.
T h e form of these m o d e l s is i l l u s t r a t e d f u r t h e r
in Figs. 29 to 34. T h e e x p e r i m e n t a l p r o c e d u r e
was as follows:
1. E a c h m o d e l was i n c l i n e d a t f o u r different
d r a f t s a n d for each d r a f t , a t f o u r different trims.
2. F o r each model, a t each i n i t i a l d r a f t a n d
trim, t h e initial G M was d e t e r m i n e d . T h e b o d y
p l a n of each m o d e l was c h e c k e d a g a i n s t t h e

TABLE I.--STABILTTY ~ODEL SUMMARY

Model Data:

Length, 216 inches; beam, 30 inches

C~ (at .10-inch draft), 0.967.
Bow

Model
3921.
3922.
3923.
3924.
3925.
3926.

No.
1
.1
.2
.2
3
4

Type
Fine U
Fine U
Full U
Full U
Fine V
Full V

Stern
No. Screws Cv
1
1
0. 603
2
2
0.615
1
1
0.655
2
2
0.665
2
2
0. 612
1
1
0. 652

PMB
None
None
7%
7%
None
7%

m o d e l ' s offsets a n d t h e g e o m e t r i c a l c h a r a c t e r istics were b a s e d u p o n t h e c o r r e c t e d b o d y p l a n s

3. E a c h m o d e l f r o m e a c h i n i t i a l c o n d i t i o n was
i n c l i n e d t h r o u g h t h e w i d e s t possible r a n g e of heel.
A l t h o u g h heel was c a r r i e d b e y o n d t h e d e c k edge,
t h e d a t a p r e s e n t e d h e r e i n a r e for heel n o t i m m e r s i n g t h e d e c k edge.
4. A t each inclining s t a t i o n t w o f a c t o r s were
m e a s u r e d : t h e h e e l i n g momenl~ M a p p l i e d to t h e
m o d e l a n d t h e r e s u l t i n g angle of heel 0. K n o w -

504

STABILITY oF SHIPS IN DAMAGED CONDITION

Sfern 2

Bow Z

Sheer

"

/\ \
\\
t~.

I_.~r

_L
Iff-

IS 'L . . . . . .

9 ..........

FIo. 32.--MODBL 3924

ing for each condition: the displacement of the

model A, the initial GM, the heeling moment M,
and the angle of heel 0, it is possible to calculate
the GM gain due to form,

GM gain

M
~ sin 0

GM initial

5. B y cross-plotting the experimental data,

GM gain/BM for each model at zero trim and
three B / d ratios have been computed and are
shown in Figs. 35 to 40. Figs. 38 and 39, corresponding to the extreme limits of form, indicate
also the effect of 0.03L trim by the stern. These
diagrams indicate that within the form range
covered, within 15-degree heel, and within ordinary
b e a m / d r a f t ratios the effect of trim upon GM
gain due to form is not very significant.
6.

A curve of mbdified K factors

100-~n 0

has been included' in each diagram. The comparison indicates that within the 15-degree heel
permitted by the Convention the K factors given

in [1] can be used to determine GM gain due to

form, with satisfactory approximation. I t should
be noted t h a t the margin of error (at 15 degrees)
against experimental test results is generally less
than 3 degrees heel. This margin of error is
perhaps less than t h a t resulting from the inaccuracy in usual calculations of righting arm
curves, at moderate angles of heel, and therefore
the use of K factors under these circumstances
appears to be preferable to direct calculations for
ships of ordinary form. Further experimentation
with other ships' form, including variation in the
midship section coefficient, tumble home, etc.,
are under consideration and, if the results warrant, will be reported at a later date.
STABILITY DATA FOR SHIP OPERATION

Article 8 of the 1929 Safety at Sea Convention

provides t h a t every passenger ship shall be inclined and that the ship's master shall be furnished
such stability information as is necessary for the

STABILITY OF SHIPS IN DAMAGED CONDITION

zz"

5~ern ~

505

Row 3

,,7.0

FIG. 33.--MOD~L 3925

efficient handling of the ship. Regulation 18,

Chapter II, of the 1948 Convention continues
this requirement and extends it to include cargo
vessels (of over 500 gross tons). Regulation
7(e), Chapter II, of the 1948 Convention further
relates to the stability information which shall
be supplied to the masters of passenger vessels
with special reference to the operation of damage
control arrangements when required. Regulation 19(b), Chapter II, includes equalizing valves,
if fitted, among those items of equipment which
are to be inspected periodically at sea at least
once a week. Regulation 13(c)(ii), Chapter II,
requires that all port lights below the margin line
be of such design as to prevent their being opened
without the master's consent. Thus, the 1948
Convention not only contains new requirements
for damage stability, as have been previously discussed, but also places increased emphasis on the
necessity that operating personnel be supplied
with stability and damage 'control information.
It should be noted especially that Regulation

18, Chapter II, reads in part, as follows: " T h e

master shall be supplied with such information
on this subject as is necessary to permit efficient
handling of the ship, and a copy shall be furnished
to the Administration concerned." The responsibility for the preparation of such informa-tion and furnishing it to the ship is considered
to rest primarily with the owner, the naval architect, and the shipbuilder; the Administration's
responsibility being to pass upon its adequacy.
By calculation (in the early design stage, and
later) the conditions of design and operation
necessary for the efficient operation of the ship
from a stability point of view are determined.
No matter how well this work is done and .how
excellent the design m a y be from a stability view:
point, the degree of stability attained in operation
is dependent upon the adequacy of the information furnished the master and the degree to which
he makes use of this information. Such information needs to be adequate in a most complete
sense. I t should provide not merely for main-

506

STABILITY OF SHIPS IN DAMAGED

n"

t '''/

Stern

Bow 4

zz"

J+

CONDITION

'

I?."

,!/ / i/ ,
II

9
15"-. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

15"

FxG. 34.--MODEL3926

tenance of enough stability on an inflexible basis. for particular service conditions, it will be of
I t should take into consideration the vagaries of little service.
the trade in which the vessel is engaged and
I t can be seen from the foregoing observations
should make allowance for such variations in t h a t the furnishing of adequate stability informaloading as m a y be expected. I t should not re- tion to a ship requires adequate knowledge of the
sult, in some circumstances, in the maintenance
ship's stability characteristics, of the service
of G M much higher than t h a t actually required,
conditions, and even of the experience and trainat the possible expense of deadweight capacity ing of the ship's officers. A ship's stability
or satisfactory sea behavior. I t should not characteristics are determined b y her arrangeplace dependence upon the water ballasting of ments and form characteristics, and weight and
fuel-oil tanks in excess of ballasting which can position of C G as determined b y the inclining
be accomplished practically. Since the danger experiment, and can be assessed properly b y a
of collision is actually =highest-on"the " a p p r o a e h ' - " : : t e c h n i c a l : ~ s t a f f - ' t r a i n e d " : a n d : e x p e r i e n c e d , . i n . ~ s u c h .
to harbor, dependence should not be placed on work. Knowledge concerning the ship's service
oily ballast which cannot be carried into port.
conditions, on the other hand, demands some
Most i m p o r t a n t of all, stability information familiarity with t h a t particular vessel's (or class
supplied a ship m u s t be in such a form t h a t it of vessel's) operations.
will be understood and used b y the ship's master
Since the ratification of the 1929 Convention
and offcers. If this condition is not satisfied, no b y the United States in 1936, the Bureau of
m a t t e r how technically correct and complete the Marine Inspection and Navigation, and later the
information is and how perfectly it m a y allow Coast Guard, has issued stability letters to ocean

STABILITY OF SHIPS IN DAMAGED CONDITION

0.09

0.08:

8/d-3-

0.05

I Bld-4

Niedermair K.
~edebmair-K

% 0

0.04

L
0.03

U-

0.02

B/d:2-

0.06

Iz

Model39Z3
NoTrlm

"i
/

No T r i m

0.07

Model 39ZI

507

U- Bow (Fine]
S{ngte-Screw Sfern

-S

i0

IS

Z0

ZS

Angle of Heel

30

35~

10

-B/d- Z
U-Bow (Full)

Single-Screw Si-ev n
K,: K/100 Sin 8

I,

15
ZO
Angle of Heel

ZS

30

35

FIG. 37

Fro. 35

0.09

0.09

i"

,7
//

0.08
Model392Z
NoTrim
0.07

g/d = 2 __-,y ,
0.03 L Trim A , f / /

Nbdermo]r-K,

026

W~=z_---Vg ,
.Bmo4

"r - 0.05
~ 0.04
II

0.03

/~

0.01

.0

10

//'

u~ Bow(F{ne)
Twin-Screw
$fern
K,= K/100 SinB

15
20
Angle of He~l
FIG. 36

?_5

U-Bow (Full). [~
K
T~!l-'/Slc oe$winSi~rn

30"

35

i0

15
ZO
Angle of Heel
Fio. 88

2S

,30

35

508

STABILITY OF SHIPS IN DAMAGED CONDITION

0.09
/
0.08

Model 3925

0.0-/

__
t~
(103LB]dZ
Tr~mAll! i~// ~'

B/d=3
NoTrirr

__Bid=3
0.03LTrim Ai'f
0.061

No Trirr

X
rn

,y

No Trlm

"

passenger vessels, and has passed upon stability

booklets which have been furnished such vessels.
Although specific regulations concerning damage
stability were not contained in the 1929 Convention, it has been considered b y the United States
that the requirement for stability consistent with
the required degree of subdivision was implicit.
The stability data ftirnished a vessel can vary
from simple loading and tankage instructions to
elaborate and complete technical data.

'~"
- 0.05
STABILITY BOOKLETS

LO

0.0Z0'03

0.0'

0o

0.09
008

0.07

0.O6
w
r"

ko

Probably the most familiar form in which this

information has been furnished is the Stability
Booklet. Primarily, a stability booklet consists of
/
~,/
0.03LT.mA{f
two parts; first, a statement, of general loading
conditions, special tankage instructions, action to
be taken in case of damage, etc., and, second, a
series of sheets depicting, by means of inboard
S/
V- Bow (Fine)
Twin- Screw Stern
profile diagrams of the vessel and tabular sum,(j,/y
.
Ki=K/iO0 Sin 0
maries, an average series of loading and tankage
conditions covering the vessel's.drdinary range of
operation. On each of these sheets the assumed
5
lO
'i5
ZO
Z5
30
35 amount and location of cargo, fuel oil, fresh water,
Angleof Heel
and other consumables are indicated, together
FIG. 39
with the corresponding drafts forward and a f t
and the amount and location of salt-water ballast
which may be required to provide a satisfactory
net metacentric height. Assumed general cargo
distributions usually are homogeneous, except
at the lightest deadweights and in cases of special
service conditions, where a lower or higher'vertica|
center m a y be justified. In addition to the fore/
going information, a plot of the required minimum
GM versus draft is generally included.
I t is believed that a stability booklet is of use
No Tr~
///
/
primarily as a general comparative guide in the
loading and operation of a vessel and should be
kept as simple as possible. An elaborate and detailed booklet m a y be more exact from a naval
architectural point of view but will be so imNTeder I o'r- K,pressive-to those on shipboard that it will be
stowed away in some safe place where its impressiveness will be less frightening. The stability booklet, if kept simple, is considered a
reasonably dependable, although not precise,
guide to satisfactory operational stability.
Figs. 41 to 44 illustrate the type of general
information
and loading sheets which are deIO
sirable in a stability booklet. These are, in fact,
taken from the booklet issued a C3 type passengercargo vessel in 1940. This same vessel has been
.
used as the basis for the example~damage stability calculations given in Appendixes 1 and 2
S
l0
15"
Z0
25"
30=
35" and as the basis for the example of a proposed
Angle of Hee~"
method of furnishing stability information to
vessels which will be described.
FIG. 40
./..

II

0.05

"T.... B/d=4

~l]

0"0
' ii'i.
0.O4

0.0z
o oo

STABILITY OF SHIPS IN DAMAGED

OPERATING

INSTRUMENTATION

Various types of instrumentation have been

proposed and used, to some degree, for the de:
termination of the ship's metacentric height in
service conditions. A highly dependable device
which would indicate automatically and correctly, the available Gz]~r in any service condition
would be very desirable. Such a device, together
with a curve, or table, of required G M ' s and instructions for a n y particular action required in
case of damage, would p r o v i d e all the stability
information, which is necessary to operate a ship
efficiently and therefore would be adequate under
the 1948 Convention. Such a device is not
available.

,'

' '

':'

"'

I " ~ ,.

509

INSTRUCTIONS
L OADING

|.
~ E N E R A L CARGO IN ALL CONDITION~ IS A S S U M E D TO I~ I
STOWED HOMOGENEOUSL~'~ THAT I S : IAOLDS AHE>~TWEF_hi
D E C I < 5 ARE C O M P L E T E L y FILLED WITH CARGO A T A UNIFORM
W E I G H T P E R CUBIC F O O T .
.

~...

U N U S U A L STOWAGE C O N D i T $ O N 5 AS AI~E O S T A | H E D
LOADSI C O N C E N T I ~ A T E D WEIGHT5 5UCI~ A S
"
L O C O M O T I V E J : I L A R G E C A S T I N G S } E T C . MUST ~E. GIVEN
SPECIAL COHSI~EI~ATION TO I N S U R E T H A T T H E COMMON
CENTER OF G R A V I T y OF ALL CARGO C A R ~ I E D iS NOT IlIGHEI~
T H A N THAT OF THE. H O I ~ I O G E I ~ E O U S CAEGO L O A O I N G ~ .
~ H O W N ~ E R.IEI ~l.

WITH* DECI~

~,

THE 4~4~ D O U B L E ~ O T T O I ~ TANKS APsE T O ~ E ~ E P T

REASONA~L~I" FULL A T ALl- T I M E S TO M I N I M I Z E THE RESUL.TIN~
H E E L WHEN DAMAGE IOCCURS I N ~ # H O L D .
t.~. PlOT MORE THAN TWO PA%!~$ OF DOUBLE B O T T O M
TANKS
ARE TO ~
E M P T y AT A N y T I M E
E X C E P T IN C O N D I T I O N T E "
WHEN ONL"{ ONE PAIR' N A y EIE E M p T y .

--

The various~nstruments ~vhich have been used

fall into three general groups according to their
principle of operation, as follows:
1 . ' Devices dependent upon measuring, in
service, t h e angle of heel produced by a known
heeling moment.
2. Integrating balances simulating the vessel's loading and tankage and determining the
resultant displacement and effective virtual
height of center of gravity.
3. Devices dependent upon the relationshi p
existing between a ship's metacentric height and
natural period of roll.
The first type of device consists essentially of a
combined level inclinometer or pendulum and
slide rule. The change in heel resulting from the
transfer of liquids between port and starboard
wing tanks, or from the use of liquid from a wing
tank, is measured. The vessel's draft is derived
from the departure draft and the consumables
which have been used since departure. Given
draft, heel, and heeling moment, the G M in t h a t
particular service condition is very simply calculated by~m.:e~fiisof the s~eeializedy.slide'~-fule p a r t
of the instruri~ff{~:?~:: : ~:~:-~!:~"::~: '
In the use of this type of device, it is necessary
to develop large heeling moments so t h a t the results are not appreciably affected b y superimpose d
heeling actions of wind, m o v e m e n t of persons
~ b o a r d , etc., which, under the 'circumstances,
cannot be controlled. I t is a l s o n e c e s s a r y t h a t
the deliberately"applied m o m e n t can be ascer:
tained with reasonable accuracy. This presupposes an accurate determination of the weight
of liquid transferred from side to side to create
the heeling moment. Ordinary tank-sounding
procedures are not accurate enough for the putp o s e unlessaccurate corrections a r e m a d e for:list
and trim. Pneumatic sounding devices which
have been used are also not considered sufficiently
dependable.

CONDITION

IN CASE

OF DAMAGE

J,
IF C O L L I S I O N OR OTHE~ DAfVlAGE OCCURS WHICH FLOOD~
THE V E S S E L IN'WAy OF N SHOLO~ THERE ARE P~ES.~URE.
DOOI~S FITTED IN THE LONGITUDINAL DIVISIONAL BULKHEAD'~
iNTHE I"(OLD~ AHD ON THE TillED AND FOURTH DECKS ~4HICI~
WILL OPEN UNDEE WATER PRF~SURE TO ALLOW FLOODING
ACIP~OSS V E S S E L IN ORDEI~ TO E L I M I N A T E HEEL C A U S E D
~" UNSYMMETRICAL
FLOODING.
~.,
IN TH~ EVENT TNEii~(;DOU~LP- ~ O T T O h ' I TANKS ARE EP,4PT~'~
WHEN DAMAGE I$ ~U 6TAINED IN 1~ HOLD~ THF UHDAhtAG ED SIDE. ,IS
TO ~
C O U H T E R F L O O D E D E ~ /~/EA~4E OF THE ~Vd. I~ALLA~T ~ S T ~ M I
~,
~MHENCARGO DEEP TArfKSIPI-ZOIP3A~E E M P T ~ OQ. CONTAIN
DRy" CAP.GO THE E ~ U A L I Z I I ~ G VALVE HANDWHF-.EL~ LOCATED OH
THE ~NELTER DECI(. AE~E TO EE XEPT OPEN TO PRI~VEI~T
U N ~ r M M E T I R I C A L FLOODING WHEN DAMAGE OCCURS IN WAy
OF IIIII. N O L D .
WHEN LIQUID CARGO IS CAEI~IED IN DEEP
"TAHI~S#I'~OR3
THF. E Q U A L I Z I N G {'IPE 15TO [}E B L A N K E D
OPF OR. THE E ~ U A L I E I N G VALVE HANDWHEEL LOCATi~.D ON T i l l =
~JHEL'rEI~- D~CI~ ~J~'E TO I~E K E P T C L O S E D .

FIG. 41

GENERAL
~.

~.=.

NOTES

LOADING 5yM~,OL%:
ET"/'/'~"= GENER.AL CAI~GO.% "
= I~EFII~IGEli~ATED CARGO ;.
~
FUEL OIL ~
. .
FRESH
WATER;
~
-=SALT
WATEI~.BALLAST.

2
THE- M E T A C E N T R I C
I ~ E t G H T (Ct.M. l 3 N O W M HEREIN'
I$ 6 U F F I C I E N T T O P R O V I D E T H A T . C A L C U L A T E D TO BE-'
NECESSARy
FOR O N E C 0 M I ~ A R T M E N T
DAMAGE BASED
ON T H E A S S U M P T I O N S
P R E $ C R t I ~ E D - I ~ y THE. BUREAU
OF M A R I N E
INSPECTION
AND NAVIGATION.
~.
T H E F R E E S U R F A C E C O R R E C T I O N IN C O N D I T I O N 5
:r T O ~TI A L L O W S
FOR A T L E A S T T H E F O L L O W I N G T A N K S
. S E I N C i S L A C K A T A L L T I M E S : ONF PAIR R E S E R V E FEED
TANKS~5
D B L , ~ 0 T T , ' P ~ 5 , - ; : O N E PAIIE W A S H I N G - W A T E R
I'
TANKS~
DBL'BOTT" P ~ 5 J F R E S H W A T E R TANK. F O R V 4 A R O ;
P O T A B L E W A T E R T A N I ~ O N E PA~I~ F U E L O I L ' S T O R A G E T A N K 5
# G D I 6 L . B O T T . P # 5 (AT INNEI~ S01TTOWI T A N K TOP L E V E L ) A N D
ONE P A I R - F U E L OIL S E T T L I N G T A N K S .
~'.
ALL'TONS"
I ~ E R E I N ARE LONG TONS OF 22urO LBS
' T O O B T A I N CAPACITOr IN 5 H O ~ T T O N S ( Z O O O Lt~S,)
MULTIPLY
LONG T O N F I q U K E B Y L I 2 .

5,

F U E ~ ~ OIL', ~7.ZS'CU FT. (I~'A.RI.):'~TR.Z~8 G A L S . OR i ; . 6 ~ l

BBL~ : I TON.
FRESH WATER: 36CU. FT.: ~6~Z8
GALS.= IT'ON,
$~LT
W A T E R : ' 3 5 C U . FT. ~ ~(el. 8
GALS = ITO~I.

FIG. 42

510

STABILITY OF SHIPS IN DAMAGED CONDITION

5UMMAR'Y
Co ND.

NO.

Trr

L OADIt,,I ~

OF LOADING

DDWT.
LONG
TO N t

CONDITION

L I G H T "SHIP -'I, IO CAKq O~FUEL Ol~L~

FRES~ WA'rE~,PASSE~aER%C~EW OR,

B A L L A S T C O N D I T I O N - FULL F U E L OIL #
F R E S H W A T E R , 1,4o CARGO, NO S.V~.
BALL A~T.
e, A L L A S T CONDITION- ~ / ~ F U E L O I L AND

W:RE'S~,WATE~ NO CARaO. NO a W .
BALL A ST.
FULL LOAD ~EHEP.AL ,1~ REFR|G. C A R C O .
F U L L F U E L 01L4 F R E S ~ ~/ATER.. P40
LIQUID CAR.GO. NO S.'~. B A L L A S T ,
FULL LOAD G E N E R A L ~ REFR~q. CAR.qO.
FUEL OiL 4: FIP,ES~ WATER.. NO LIOUID
C A R G O . NO S.W. ~ , A L L A S T .
FULL t O A D G E N E R A L C R E F R I G . CARGO.
'/5 FUEL OIL # F R E S H WATER. NO LIQUID
CARGO. S.W'.BALL A S T FOR STAedLtT'('.
~/~ G E N E R A L 4~ R E F R I G E R A T E D CARGO.

"mr FULL FUEL O.#FRES~W~,TEe. NO

"xT

CONDtTION3

O
Z61LI-

DI$PL

MEAN
KEEl..

D RAFT

Ti~ tWl SEE

BY PA~E

STERN

I"

00~38 II'8VZ
8852

,~. , ^ , , . ,,
, o ' l u / z +5.7z
,

,,

t.

,-4~

co

95%

"/197- 15-3~z

9:5

9937

161"[5i 2~'9'

3'-Y' 7

_,

9107 1~3~.5 Z5'- 7 *L6oI' 7L8 "

878Z

|50g025"~"

"T$98 1373~ 23"5"

,|.05 3'-3

LIQUID CARGO. RIO S.~/. 5 A L L . S T .

2/3 G E N E R A L ,~ R E F R I G . CARGO. ~/3FUEL
OiL A N D F R E S H W A T E R . NO L I Q U I D
(;668 12906 ~2'-0
CARGO.
N O S.W. ~ A L L lkST.
~ / 3 G E N E R A L ~ R E F R I G . CARGO. Y3 FUEL
OiL~; F I ~ E S H W A T E R - . NO LiQUIDCAI~GO 6 5 8 8 1 2 8 2 6 21'-II"
5.VV. B A L L A S T
FOR, 5 T A B | L I T " ( .
~/~ GENERAL ~" R E F R I G . CARGO. F U L L
FUEL OIL It FRE. S~ WATER.. NO LIQUID 5 0 5 8 1 1 2 9 G | 9 ' - ? " ~ . 0 9
C A R G O . N O S.~/. ~ A L L A S T .
Y ~ G E N E R ~ k . 4~ R E F R i G ,
CARGO. ~ F U E L
~ I"
Oil. 4 F~,F...St4 W A T E I ~ . N O L I Q U I D
8228 10~.g6 |8-#Y~
CARGO.
NO S.W. ~,ALLA.ST.
~/3 G E N E R A L ,~ REFII~IG. CARGO. V3FUEL
OtL 4~ FRES)-4 W A T E R . . NO LIQUID CAR.GO 3 9 0 3
IOIZ~l 17'-i0" + 2 . 9 7
s.w. BALLAST ~O
ST,a,SU-IT'(.

s'0 !
9'-3" u

25Yz 15

I?-"

15

FIG. 43

, The use of this type of stability control device

is believed to be limited to comparatively smooth
water conditions on account of the difficulty in
obtaining accurate heel angle readings under any
other conditions. I t appears t h a t this difficulty
might be eliminated b y the development of a
sufficiently sensitive electronic "averager" in
conjunction with a gyro inclinometer which
automatically would register the mean " z e r o "
position of the ship in any series of rolls. As far
as is known b y the authors, such a development
has not yet been undertaken. The authors are
not familiar with any installation of this type of
Stability control device on any United States
vessels.
Integrating balances in use are of two sort_s,
gravity balances and spring balances. The

gravity-type balance consists essentially of a

platform bearing a profile diagram of the vessel.
The platform is pivoted on axes cor'responding
to the ship's longitudinal and vertical axes, with
longitudinal and vertical sliding weights provided
for balancing. Weights proportional to the
vessel loading and tankage are located appropriately on the profile diagram. The approximate
effect of slack tanks is provided for by a vertical
shift of weights on the diagram. The longitudinal and vertical sliding weights are adjusted
until the platform is balanced on each axis. Displacement and draft are determined from a deadweight scale provided with the instrument. GM.
is indicated b y the position of the vertical balancing weight and is determined b y reference to a
diagram supplied with the instrument. Trim is

,-

. . ,

. : ,';

STABILITY OF SHIPS IN DAMAGED CONDITION

511

FULL
LOAD
GENERAL ~ REFRIG.
CARGO
~/5 FUEL OIL ~ F R E S H ,WATER,.
NO LIQUID C A R G O
5.iN:. B A L L A S T
FOP,, 5 T A i ~ I L I T Y .
=

DISPLACEMENT

I~0~.0

TONS

DEADWEIGHT

G.M.UNCORRECTED
FREE SURFACE. CORR.

= + 2.7/4 '
=

l.GS'

CORRECTED

1.05'

~IVL

OF

DISTRIBUTION

.
.

.
.

.
.

.
.

.
.

.
.

~' 5
. . . . . .
TOTAL"
,,
,,
~" I LOWER. JTWEEIN DECt~.S
~.
.
.
.
,
TOTAL . . . .
I

HOLD

~ 2.
H-

TOTAL~ HOLDS
CAP.GO D E E P T A N I ~ I
,,

,,

~" 2 .

319Z

zg.

P/ S

Z 09

T O T A L a GEbiEi~AL CARGO ~
~'STOWEO ~oMo. I~ Gg.~CU. FT. PE~, ToN
P~EFRIG. C ~ R . G O
~ t ~ L 0 W EP~ ' T ~ / E E N ( ~ T - ~ D E C l C
"#'3 HOLD
T O T A L ~ i~EI=RIG. C A I ~ G O ~
HOMO.

3'

Y="

EW,

S.W,
,

15"9
~6
7

"

P/s

,. . . . .
#
P/S
- ~ O T A L t "CAP.GO "DEEP TANI(.~

~q[c'$TOWF.D

~LON~ T O N S )
DEADWEIGHT
TANKS
NO.
F.O. 5 E T T L El~S
P/5
~1
~lT
P . O . DEEP TANKS AFT P / 5
u~3z
D~L. I~OTT. ~ [
l~/s
~lq"
5"31
',
,,
#2.
P/s
I 9'9 q-_
,
#a
P/s
S'5~.
"
,,
*~ u,.
P/s
?9-5"
,'
,; .*'G
P/s t~(.
12 9 ~
"

TONS

93~
98T

,,

= P- 5 ' - I "

TRIM BY STERN =

~5"~.

,,

DRAFT

DRAFTS /FORD, = 2 3'-57~'

tAFT
- 2 G'-8~'

878E

GENERAL
CARGO
#1 UPPE~'TWEEN
DF.CI~S
# z
#~

MEAN

F.W. T A N K FOP~D.
POTABLE W A T E K T A H K
DISTILLED WATEP~ T A N K
FORE PEAI~ T A N r ~
AFT
PE~
I"AN~
C A R G O DEEP TAlilK'Irl W $

Io I

. . . . . .

197

~32.

[04:) CU. F T . I [ : ~ R , T O N

P / s

TOTALS
Ivt ISCL.

?_~E

~2

,, ~t3 P/S

. . . .

GO8
61991

9"8
~5"

,-

D E A D W E I G HT

50"r 30~

1505

"

PASS.t CP~EW ~ EFFECTS

M A I L ) BAGGAGE) 5 T O ~ E S . -SWIMMING POOL WATEIP. '
T O T A L , M I $ C L . DD~/T.

~8
(0/~

TONS
*,

50
,,
I~Z TON5

FIG, 44
indicated similarly and determined by.the position of the longitudinal balancing weight. The
gravity balance, providing,care is exercised in its
use, is considered to provide a reasonably accurate and dependable G M determination, but
only under good weather conditions when the
platform may be balanced satisfactorily, and:
when the vessel's trim is not excessive.

In the spring-type balance, a freely floating

frame swinging in a vertical plane is provided
with spring attachments simulating the loading
and tankage in each vertical position in the vessel
The spring tensions are adjustable by means of
micrometer-type knobs graduated to indicate
tons. Provision is made for the compensation
for the free surface of slack tanks. The lateral

512

S T A B I L I T Y OF S H I P S I N D A M A G E D C O N D I T I O N

m o v e m e n t in response to the tensions of the loading springs is proportional to the deadweight and
is linked to provide a direct indication of mean
draft and deadweight on one dial of the instrument. The rotational m o v e m e n t of the balance
frame is proportional to the vertical m o m e n t of
the loading and, for a n y given deadweight, to the
vertical center of gravity of the loaded ship.
The mechanical arrangement is such t h a t rotational and lateral m o v e m e n t are linked together
so as to provide a direct indication of G M on the
other dial of the instrument. This instrument is
very compact as compared to the gravity balance
type and is comparatively insensitive to motion
of the Vessel. I t conceivably can get out of adjustment, but is believed to be reasonably dependable. I t makes no provision for the computation of trim; like the gravity balance-type, it
also makes no allowance for the effect of. trim
on the available GM.
Stability control devices actuated b y the rolling
of the vessel are dependent upon the relationship
between the G M and the natural period of roll,
wherein
g
where k is the combined effective mass radius of
gyration of the ship and the water entrained in
rolling. This relationship is essentially true for
small to moderate amplitudes of roll and for values
of G M sufficiently large so t h a t GZ m a y be taken
as GMO.
This relationship has been used frequently for
an approximate determination of GM. Under
favorable conditions, a reasonably accurate determination can be made b y simply timing a
sufficiently large number of roll cycles with a
stop watch and entering the average period of roll
in equation (3). G M can be read directly b y
means of either of the two types of instrumentation which have been developed for this purpose
and which have been described in the Transactions of this Society. I t should be noted, however, t h a t both the radius of gyration and the
period of roll enter squared and, therefore, a
moderate error in either will result in a relatively
large error in the determination of GM.
.
The computation of the radius of gyration of a
ship is a very laborious process and rarely is
carried out in the design stage, essentially because a p a r a m e t e r so computed would not reflect
the effect of entrained water in the motion of the
ship and would be of no value, for instance, in
G M equation (3) . . . .
Whenever possible, the effective radius of gyration in still water is determined experimentally as

p a r t of the inclining test of the ship. During

this test, it is often possible to impart to the ship
an oscillatory motion and measure the period of
roll T of the free rolling vessel. Knowing G M
and T, equation (3) can be solved f o r k . The
effective radius of gyration thus determined
m u s t be qualified, however, as follows:
(a) Quite often the b o t t o m clearance during
the inclining test is at a minimum. The entrained water, therefore, m u s t flow through a
restricted space and, under these conditions, the
apparent radius of gyration can be much larger_
than the effective radius in open water.
(b) If ample depth of water exists under the
ship at the inclining, the effective radius of gyration in still water m a y be somewhat less than
the effective radius under way when the entrained
water is virtually increased b y the vessel's speed.
(e) The effective radius of gyration determined at the inclining is correct only for the
condition of loading and tankage obtaining during the test. Other loadings and tankage conditions will affect the radius of gyration.
In addition, the following considerations are
pertinent in appraising the adequacy of devices
using the rolling response of the ship for the determination of GM:
(a) Even if the radius of gyration is known
accurately and the natural period can be de- termined accurately, the G M determined therEfrom m a y still be appreciably in error if a sizable
a m o u n t of free surface, particularly fuel-oil free
surface, exists. Under such a condition, the apparent dynamic G M indicated b y the period of
roll will be higher than" the actual static G M due
to the fact t h a t the h e a v y oil in slack tanks fails
to follow the rolling motion of t h e ship. Of
course, if the ship is damaged and is heeling at
the end of flooding, the liquid in the tanks will
shift to the lower side and therefore the G M t h a t
is i m p o r t a n t from a damage stability point of
view is the static G M which the period of roll fails
to indicate.
(b) The determination of the actual period of
roll for a ship at sea is not always feasible. Rolling is only one component of motion which is not
easily separated from the other components such
as lurch, yaw, etc. In good w e a t h e r conditions
.a vessel's regular rolling m a y not be of sufficient
amplitude and-may be confused b y response to the
helm. I n a following or quartering sea a vessel
m a y take abnormally long yaw-heels, or lurches.
(c) An ! m p o r t a n t obstacle to the use of the
rolling of a :vessel as a guide as to its stability is
the fact that. no ihdication can be obtained when
the ship is .at,.d6ek loading. Accordingly, there
is no way o f g a g i n g whether the loading distribu-

,.

.:.

S T A B I L I T Y OF S H I P S I N D A M A G E D
tion m a y be such as to cause stability difficulties
later in the voyage.
In view of all the foregoing considerations, it is
believed t h a t considerable judgment is necessary
in using the rolling response of 'the Vessel for a
determination of G-~ and t h a t instrumentation
for this purpose, where Used, cannot b~ depended
upon solely for a reliable determination of G M
b u t m u s t be considered as a supplementary device
to other means of determination. While speaking of judgment with respect to the motion of the
vessels, one time-honored device for the determination of stability from a vessel's motion,
and which works at the dock, is the master's
feet. While this device is not very accurate, it
has performed service in m a n y instances and need
not.be discredited entirely.
STABILITY LETTERS'

r~

All of the foregoing methods and devices for

stability control in service m a y be supplemented
b y written descriptive instructions. In m a n y
instances, in the case of United States vessels,
written instructions have provided the sole guide
to the operation of the vessel so as to maintain
adequate stability. When the stability information supplied the vessel has been considered incomplete or when it has been furnished in a form
which has been considered too obscure for practical
use on shipboard, the endeavor has been made to
include simple, clearly stated stability instructions in the stability letter furnished the vessel
b y the United States Coast Guard. When the
other stability data supplied the ship have been
considered adequate, the stability letter frequently has consisted merely of a statement to
the effect t h a t the vessel will be considered to have
satisfactory stability if operated in accordance
with the stability information furnished.
While most United States passenger vessels of
recent construction have been provided with
stability booklets, m a n y of the older vessels,
which have never been issued stability booklets
or other stability control devices, are operated
subject to instructions contained in their stability
letters. During the last war, the rapid conversion of m a n y vessels and the press of work freq u e n t l y precluded the preparation of a n y stability booklet, and, of necessity, the instructions
in the stability letter had to suffice for guidance.
": Figs. 45, 46, and 47 illustrate the form of the
stability letters which have been issued b y ,the
Coast .Guard in those cases where other stability
information ..furnished the ship was lacking or
was' cofisidered inadequate. While in the past
the C6~st Guard has issued a number o f s u c h sta-

CONDITION

513

bility letters, as previously n o t e d i t is considered

preferable and in better accoi'd with the intent of
the Convention that. adequate stability information be .supplied the vessel b y the Owner. I t is
considered very desirable a l s o t h a t written instructions be supplemente d b y simPie.idiagrams
or other suitable:' stability control"deyices de.
pending on the circumstances.
..

J,

VIRTUAL K G METHOD
Some tllought has been given to a somewhat
different form of presentation of stability information, and one which, as far as is known to the
authors, is new. I t is believed t h a t this method
m a y offer some advantages. This method is
based upon the principle that, for any vessel, the
required minimum intact G M corresponding to
any draft m a y be expressed completely, and accurately in t e r m s , of the highest permissible
virtual center of gravity or virtual vertical
m o m e n t at t h a t draft.
A weight located anywhere in the ship has two
effects :
(a) I t affects the VCG of the ship.
(b) I t affects the trim of the ship.
The variation in trim will bring about two
variations in K M : one due to VCB rise, and the
other due to the variation in waterplane inertia.
If we average the effect of form between deep
and light draft and over the operating range of
trims, it is possible to determine for a given variation of weight anywhere in the ship's length the
trim variation and the effect of such variation on
K M . We can deal with this K M variation as a
virtual K G variation (of the weight) and therefore we can compute the total effect of the variation of the weight on the G M of the ship in one
operation.
In the case of a variation of a liquid weight,
there is a further effect on K M due to the free
surface of the liquid. This effect also can be
computed and expressed as a virtual variation of
the K G of the liquid weight so t h a t the total
effect of a v a r i a t i o n of liquid weight on the G M
of the ship also can be computed in one operation.
For the average vessel, the effect of trim on the
available K M is approximately linear over the
range of operating drafts and trims: T h a t is to
say, the K M change can be expressed per foot of
trim, and consists of a K M gain for trim b y the
stern and a K M loss for trim b y the bow. F o r
the average vessel, the mean K M Change per foot
of trim m a y be calculated as follows: the mean
deep and light operating drafts are established,
together with the. estimated variations in operai}i n g t r i m . For each of these drafts and its cot-

"514

STABILITY OF SHIPS IN DAMAGED

SubJ,

Stability - SS

CONDITION

, O.N.

Calculations based on the results or the stability test conducted by the

U. S. Coast Guard on the SS
, O.N.
, on
, :at
, o,
, indt'cate that the vessel has satisfactory stability for all reaso~bl'e operating
conditions on the waters indicated in the Certificate of Inspection subject
t o the following restrictions:
m

I.

The approximately 1367 long tons of fixed ballast now on board at a

VCG of approximately 8.0' shall not be moved except with the permission
and under the supervision of the Officer in Charge, Marine Inspection.

2.

The equalizing valve between the Outboard Fuel Oil Deep Tanks, frames
80-93, shall be kept closed at all times except in case of shell damage
in way of the above-mentioned tanks in which case it shall be opened
to equalize flooding.

Liquids shall be carried in accordance with the following table:

Tons Cargo
in Holds
PlusLiquids
in Deep Tanks

Tons- "C" Dk.

and Above

Corresponding
Min.. Tons i n "
Double Bottoms

o
75.0

o
15o

8oo
65o

1600
1800
19oo

300
450
600

350
350
350

2050

350

2~5o

750
9o0
lO5O

2800

1200

350

2250

350

350

For each increase of I00 tons of cargo on "C" Deck and above or for
each decrease of I00 tons of cargo or liquids in hold or deep tanks,
double bottom tankage shall be increased by 50 tons. Similarly, for
each decrease of I00 tons of cargo on "C" Deck and above or for each
increase of i00 tons of cargo or liqulds in hold or deep tanks, double
bottom tankage may be decreased by 50 tons.
4.

Free surface shall be maintained at a minimum with not more than one
pair of tanks in any system, with the exception of the fuel oil settling
tanks, being allowed slack at an~ time.

This letter should be posted ,,nder glass in the pilot house of the subject vessel.
FIG. 45.--TYPICAL STABILITY LETTER " A "

responding m a x i m u m trim, the transverse m o m e n t mean LCF. Using these mean values, the
o f inertia of the waterplane and the VCB rise due mean trimming effect of adding or removing
t o trim are computed. F r o m the corresponding . weight is computed. This change .in trim times
K M ' s and the range of trim covered, the mean the mean K M change per foot of trim equals the
K M change per foot of trim is determined.
K M ( a n d GM) change due only to the trim reThe average of the m o m e n t to trim values at s u l t i n g from adding or subtracting, the weight.
the extremes of the operating draft range is taken This GM change m a y be expressed as a virtual
-as the mean m o m e n t to trim and the average of change in the VCG. of the weight, numerically
-the LCF values at these drafts is taken as the equal to the GM change times the displacement

STABILITY OF SHIPS IN DAMAGED CONDITION

SubJ=

Stability - SS

...,O.N.

515
,u

C a l c u l a t i o n s b a s e d on t h e r e s u l t s o f t h e s t a b i l i t y t e s t c o n d u c t e d b y t h e
U. S . Coast Guard on the SS
, O.N.
on
, at
, .
, indic a t e t h a t t h e v e s s e l has s a t i s f a c t o r y s t a b i l i t y f o r a l l r e a s o n a b l e o p e r a t i n g
c o n d i t i o n s on t h e w a t e r s i n d i c a t e d i n t h e C e r t i f i c a t e o f I n s p e c t i o n s u b j e c t
to the following restrictions:
1.

Free s u r f a c e s h a l l be kept to a mini~-,

2.

At l e a s t 60% o f t h e c a r g o b y w e i g h t s h a l l be c a r r i e d i n
the lower hold.

at all

t~,~s.

The total tankage aboard, consisting of fuel oil, fresh

water, , , ~ ballast water, shall not be below the
specified below depending upon the amount of cargo carried:

Long Tons o f Cargo

M i n i m ~ L o n g Tons o f
Tankage R e q u i r e d . ,

zzoo

5oo0

2ooo

6000
7oo0

1700
13oo

Intsr~edia~ v a l u e s may b e o b t a i n e d b y i n t e r p o l a t i o n .
h.

Ore carried in the lower hold may be considered as either

cargo or tankage for the purpose of requirements 2 and 3
above. For example, suppose that the vessel were carrying
800 tons of general cargo and 3000 tons of ore. If the 800
tons of general cargo are to be carried in the b.uen decks9
1200 tons of the ore must be considered as cargo to meet the
requirements of 2 above. This leaves 1800 tons of ore
which could be considered as tankage for the requirements of
3 above, which means that the vessel ~ s t carry at least
h00 tons of fuel oil, fresh water, or ballast water.

This stability letter is to be posted in the pilot house of the subject

vessel
Fro.46 --TYPICALSTABILITYLETTER "B"
of the vessel divided by the weight.
The effect of free surface is to produce a heeling
moment at any angle of heel. When the shift
of a liquid with heel is unrestrained by any tank
top or bottom, the effect of the shift is virtually to
raise the center of gravity of the liquid b y an
amount equal to i/v, where i is the moment of
inertia of the free surface and v is the volume of
the liquid. This is true for moderate angles of
heel, and the amount of the virtual rise in the
center of gravity of the liquid is independent of
the angle of heel. This is illustrated b y Fig. 48.
' When the shift is restricted by the tank top
or tank bottom, the transverse shift of liquid, and
consequent virtual rise of the center of gravity,
is reduced. The virtual rise in the center of

gravity of the liquid is then dependent on the

angle of heel. This is illustrated b y Fig. 49.
From the viewpoint of stability to withstand
damage, the virtual rise of the center of gravity
of liquids in tanks ought to be calculated at the
angle of heel:permitted in the damaged condition.
The Convefition provides heel limits, depending
upoii circumstances, which ~ary between zero
and 15 degrees. I t is proposed that an assumption of 7 degrees i s practically justified in all
cases.
This virtual rise in the center, of' grav!ty of the
liquid is Calculated for 'each tank in the vessel;
for a sufficient number of soundings. This m a y
be done by means of an integrator or b y means of
'the moment of inerti~i and pl:edetermined tabular

516

STABILITY OF SHIPS IN DAMAGED

Subj:

Stability - SS

,.,

CONDITION

, O.N.

Calculations based on the results of the stability test conducted by the

U. S. Coast Guard on the SS
, O.N.
, on
.,
at
,
, indicate that the vessel has
satisfactory stability for all reasonable operating conditions on the waters
indicated in the Certificate of Inspection) subject to the following restrictions~
i.

The fuel oil wing tanks No. 3, port and starboard, and the
fresh water wing tanks No. 5, pert and starboard, shall be
maintained approximately full at all times.

2.

Including the 150 tons of fixed ballast now aboard, a total

of at least IiOO long tons shall be carried in the double
bottom tanks~ deep tanks, and holds except that when cargo
is carried in the lower tween decks this amount may be
reduced in the amount of 20 tons for each 50 tons of cargo
in the lower tleen decks.

3.

Not more than two pairs of double bottom tanks, port and
starboard, two pairs of fuel oil wing tanks, port ar~ starboard, and one pair of fresh water wing tanks, port and starboard, shall be slack at any time. Ballasted tanks
shall be pressed up.
i

4.

The 150 tons of f i x e d ballast presently installed shall not

be moved except with the permission and under the supervision
of the Officer in Charge, Marine Inspection.

This stability letter is to be posted in the pilot house of the subject

vessel,
FIG. 47.--TYPICAL STABILITY LETTER "C"

data similar to t h a t on page 105, Table 32.01, the geometrical base line by an a m o u n t equal to
of Senate Report 184. I t is believed t h a t for the virtual V C G rise of a weight added at t h a t
most tanks the use of an integrator is preferable. longitudinal position forward, due to the unUsing the foregoing general procedure, the total favorable effect of trim b y the bow on available
virtual vertical moment, in foot-tons, of each GAJ. Similarly, it will be above the geometrical
tank at each sounding is determined. These base line aft b y an amount equal to the virtual
virtual vertical moments are included in the t a n k V C G lowering due. to the favorable effect of trim
sounding tables, Figs. 50, 51, and 52. In this b y the stern on the available G3/I. I t will be
manner the total effect of each tank on stability. seen that this virtual base line is a straight line.
is included in the tank sounding tables and is Reference lines are provided parallel to this
immediately available for computation in the virtual base line and at convenient vertical intermost simple form.
vals from it.
In order to prov!de a means of assessing the
This diagram is furnished the vessel and t h e
effect of various conditions of loading, a profile cargo loading is marked thereon as on a cargo
diagram of the ship is used, Similar to some cargo loading diagram. On the same sheet with this
loading diagrams presently in use, b u t accurate loading diagram, a tabular s u m m a r y space for
in its vertical and horizontal proportions (see
the.notation of the items of loading is. provided.
Fig..53). F o r increased vertical accuracy .the In. this tabular, summary, the number of tons of
vertical scale will be two to three times the hori-" cargo in each space, together with its appropriate,
zontal scale. Using the afore-described principle, virtual height, as indicated by a comparison with.
a v i r t u a l . base line is determined. This base line ` the reference lines, is noted. In the case of cargo
w!ll pass through the geometrical base line at stowed in c o m p a r t m e n t s critical for damage,
about amidships. For the average ship, .at any~ stability, cargo is taken at a homogeneous center,~
10ngitudina ! p0siti9 n .forward, it will be. below. however,, irrespective of its actual . stowage.i

STABILITY OF SHIPS IN DAMAGED CONDITION

This is done because damage stabiiity calculations made with various vertical distributions of
permeability to correspond to other than
homogeneous stowage of cargo have indicated
that, when the stability required to withstand
flooding of any compartrfient is computed on the

-y--- -

FiG. 48

basis of uniform permeability, as prescribed by

the Convention, in. estimating the ship's available
GM, the cargo in that compartment should be
assumed at a homogeneous center irrespective of

aYl
X:

tO

-~1 h21

:5
"-

!-[
---

>J

~l
+-i

.Li

!,+,+
FIG. 49

its actual vertical position. The cargo height

reference lines are omitted in way of such critical
spaces, and suitable notation is provided to indicate the height at which all cargo stowed in such
spaces is to be taken. For each item the product
of the tons and height is the moment. The sums
of the tons and tons )< height columns give the
total cargo tonnage and moment values.
The foregoing operation is performed once
each voyage upon completion of loading. In

517

cases where at a port of call only small changes in

cargo loading would be made, it would not be
necessary to provide complete entries on a new
diagram but would suffice ordinarily to enter only
those items which had been changed at that port
of call.
Provisions, mail, passengers, and crew, while
variable, frequently represent a small tonflage
and m a y be included at an average value in the operational light ship. Where their effect is appreciable, however, they should not be included in the
operational light ship, but should be considered
as part of the loading of the vessel and included in
the cargo summary. The total departure deadweight tons and moment are obtained by adding,
on a departure summary sheet (Fig. 54), the
previously obtained cargo values and the values
corresponding to the departure tankage, which
are obtained by reference to the. special tanksounding tables, Figs. 50, 51, 52, previously
described. The departure H is equal to the departure moment divided b y the departure tons.
O n suceeeding days; it is 0nly necessary to enter
additionally on the daily stability computation
s h e e t (Fig. 55) those items which have been
changed since the preceding day. The item
changes subtracted from the preceding dayls
values provide" the n e w deadweight tonnage and
moment values. The daily H is equal to the
daily moment divided b y the daily tons.
The value of the required minimum GM at
any draft as determined b y the damage stability
calculations (or any other desired stability
criterion) correslJonds to a specific maximum
KG, and, accordingly, to a maximum vertical
moment. This moment less the operational
light ship vertical moment equals the maximum
permissible deadweight moment, which divided
by the deadweight equals the maximum permissible virtual VCG or H. Thus a table can
be constructed establishing the relationship between.the tons deadweight and the draft and'the
maximum permissible H value. Such a table is
included on the daily stability computation sheet
and provides, by means of a direct comparison
with the day's computed deadweight tonnage
and H values, an indication as to whether or not
the vessel has adequate stability. If the computed
H value is higher than the maximum per./.
mxssxble H corresponding to the deadweight
J:
tGns,
ballast is necessary. Included as p a r t of
"

I
the table xs. an approxxmate means for computing
the amount of such ballast~ B y reference to this
table and a consideration of the tanks available
for ballast, a preliminary selection of a tank for
ballasting is made. The tons and vertical
moment corresponding to the tank thus tenta-

C+t
O0

NAME

FUE L
z~
~2
o
0--6
I-0
I-6
2-0
2-6
3-0
3-6
; 4-0
4-3
4-6
5-0
5-6
6-0

OIL

TAN

OF

KS--TOTAL

VESSEL

CAPACITY 157i. TONS AT 37 CU.FT. PER T O N - - M U L T I P L Y

D.B. N O . I . D . B . NO. 2. D.B.NO.2. D.B. NO. 3. D.B. NO.3. D.B. NO.6. D.B. NO. 6. D.B.NO. 7. _=~
PORT OR
PORT
STARBOAR[
PORT
STARBO~ed~D PORT
STARBOARDPORT OR
~TARBOARD ~ z

STARBOARD

TONS MOMENT TONS MOMENT TONS MOMENT TONS MOMENT TONS MOMENT TONS MOMENT TONS MOMENT TONS MOMENT
3.
7.
13.
20.
28.
36.
45.
85.
60.
64.
71.
74.
75.

40.
"IIQ,
190.
290.
390.
510.
640.
780.
770.
780.
710.
690.
690.

TANK! FULLA~
6 - 0 3UNDING,
SOUNCING FOR
FULL'I~NK IN-GREASES I$/~
FOR I FT. TRIM
BY S'ERN.
INTERMEDIATE
SOUNIIINGS IN.
-CRE#SEa/4 ,
FOR I FT. TRIIq
BY STERN.

14.
30.
49.
68.
89.
I10.
132.
154.
165.

700.
1380.
1940.
2540.
2670.
2910.
2770.
1840.
990.

14.
29.
47.
66.
87.
108.
129.
157.
162.

680.
1340.
1890.
2280.
2610.
2840.
2720.
1780.
980`

13.
26.
40.
54.
69.
84.
I00.
118.
127.

880.
1630.
2120.
2540.
2700.
2680.
2250.
1270.
530.

I0.
21.
32.
43.
85.
68.
82.
96.
104.

530.
960.
1240.
1450.
1600.
1680.
15 I0.
940.
440.

FIO. 50

1.06

Z~ I F~O. DEEP
o
TANK
z~=
PORT

FOR SALT WATER

SO. DEEP S E T T L E R ( 3o~

TANK
PORT OR
STARBOARD STARBOARD ~ :

TONS MOMENT TONS MOMENT TONE MOMENT

u.

17.
770.
17.
770.
4.
I0.
0-6
36
1360.
36.
1360.
8.
I0.
I-0
57.
1710.
57.
1710.
13.
I0.
I-6
78.
1920.
78.
1920.
19.
O.
2-0
I01.
2090.
I01.
2090.
25.
O.
2-6
125.
2210.
124. 2210.
32.
O.
3-0
149.
21 I0.
148. 2100`
38.
0..
3-6
173.
1460. 172. 1450.
45.
--20.
4-0
185.
890. 184.
880.
49.
--90.
4-3
188.
740. 187.
730.
50.
-llO.
4-6
191.
580.
190.
570.
52.
-130.
5-0
194.
470.
193.
400.
53.
-150.
5-6
197.
210.
196.
210.
55.
- 160. 6 - 0
203.
- 6 0 . 201.
-60.
57.
- 160, 7 - 0
208.
-120. 206. - 1 2 0 .
60.
-- 150. 8 - 0
213.
- 1 3 0 . 211.
-130.
62.
-140.
9-0
218.
--80.
216. -- 80.
64. -140.
LO-O
222.
-40
221. - - 4 0 .
67.
--130. I 1 - 0
227.
--20 225.
--20.
69. - - I 1 0 . [ 2 - 0
231.
20, 230.
20.
71. - I 0 0 .
13-0
~136.
80.
234.
80.
73. -- 8 0 . 14-0
240.
140.
239.
140.
75.
- 60.
15-0
245.
180.
243.
180.
78.
--40.
16-0
249.
240.
248.
240.
80.
-- 2 0
17-0
. . . . . .TANK c.
FU .L AT
4 - 3 30UNDI G . . . . . . . . ~" q:----.T ,NKS F,ILL AT 17-0 $OUNDIIIG:-'"')'
SOUl DING FCR FU . L TANK SOUNOIP,IG FOR
SOUr OING FO FULL T A N K SOUl OING FO FUL. T A N K INCR !ASES 2u F( R
FULL "INK ININCREASES
In/2" OR
INCR ASES
[" FOR
I FT. TRIM
~f STE RN.
-GREA~ES 10~'
I F1 T R I M BY
TERN.
I F1 TRIM BY ST [RN.
INTE tNEOtA1 SOUNDINGS FOR I :T. TRIM
INTI RMEOIA1 90LNDINGS INTE;tMEOIATI SOUIIDINGS
INCR :ASE I ~ FOR I FT.
BY ST'RN.
INCREASE 3~I FOR I FT.
INCREASEI/2" FOR I FT
TRI~ BY ST RN.
INTERMEDIATE
TRIM BY S~ERN.
TRIM BYS1ERN
DO 4 0 T E I I P T ' ~
NO. 6 SOUNONGStN.CREA~ ;E 3~t"
D.B.'5 A T D " E P E R
FOR I!:1". TRIM
TH~ N 2 2 FT [~RAFT. s~ s~ ;'RN.

BY

I--0
2-0
3-0
4-0
5-0
8-0
7-0
8-0
-9-0
io-o!
I 1 -0 !
12-0
12-9

2.
5.
8.
I I.
14.
18.
2?26.
30.
34.
39.
44.
48.

O.
O.
I0.
I0.
20.
40.
60.
80.
I to.
150.
190.
240.
230.

2.
3.
5.
Z
I0.
12.
15.
18.
21.
25.
26.
32.
35.

O.
O.
O.
10`
10`
20.
30.
50.
70,
I00.
140.
180.
180.

-TANKS FULL ;T 12~9 . . . . . .

S( UNOING

'2.7
5.4
8.0
10.8
13.0
16.2
18.8
21.5
242
26.9
29.6
32.3
35.0
37.7
40.4
43.1
45.5
48.0
50.1
522.
84.3
56.4
58.5
60
61.7

30.
I-O
60.
2-0
80.
3-0
I I0.
4-0
140.
5"0
170.
6-0
200.
7-0
24,0.
8,-0
280.
9-0
320.
I0-0
360.
I1-0
410.
12-0
460.
13-0
510.
14-0
390.
15-0
670.
16-0
700.
17-0
730.
18-0
780.
19-0
850. 20-0
8 9 0 . 21-0
950.
22-0
1020. 23-C
1080, 2 4 - (
I100 24-6

TANK FULL
AT 2 4 - 6
SOUl ,DING.

>

c~

~Z
t2
>
C~

0
~Z
~q
0

NAME
CARGO
MULTIPLY BY 1.08

OF

SSEL

DEEP.
TANKS4 0 c u . FT. PER TON --TOTAL GAP. 1198. T.B
FOR FUEL O I L MULTIPLY BY 1.14 FOR SALT W A T E R

S.W.

BALLAST

TANKS--

z I~ NO.I TANK NO.I TANK NO.2 TANK NO.2 TANK NO. 3 TANK NO.:3 TANK
PORT
STARBOARD P O R T
STARBOARD P O R T
STARBOARD
(.9 'o
Z

SWIMMING FOREPEAK AFTERPEAK z

POOL
o

0 ~~ TONS MOMENT TONS MOMENT TONS MOMENT TONS MOMENT TONS MOMENT TONS MOMENT
u) M-

TONS MOMENT TONS MOMENT TONS MOMENT z ,.p;,

o
w
u~u.

I-0
2-0
3-0
4-0
5-0
6-0
7-0
8-0
9-0
I0--0
II'C
12--0
13--0
14--0
14--9

I.'
O.
2:
- 20.
26.
1170.
51.
1470.
77.
1740.
104.
2020.
131. 2 2 7 0 .
159.
2S~JO
186. "2830.
214.
3120.
242.
34B0.
272.
3830.
301.
3700.
325. 2 5 9 0 ,
327. 2410.

I.
~-2.
20.
40.
61.
82.
104.
126.
148.
171.
194"
218.
241.
260.
263.

O.
20.
740.
970.
1130.
1300.
1500,
1700.
1930.
2170.
2440.
2720.
2820.
2140.
1980.

I.
I.
15.
29.
45.
61.
78.
96.
IIrS.
134"
154.
174"
194.
210.
213.

O.
I.
IO.
I.
330.
12.
4~50. 25.
560.
39.
.670.
53.
840.
68.
I000.
83.
1200. I00.
1400. 1 1 7 .
1650. 135.
1910.
153.
2040.
171.
1530.
185.
1380"
188.

O.
O.
210.
290,
400
510.
630.
750.
920.
1090.
1300.
1530.
1690.
1340.
1210.

O.
O.
I.
O.
6.
20.
13.
50.
20.
80.
,28,
I10.
57.
160.
46.
230.
57.'" "30067.
390.
78.
500.
90.
630.
102;
770.
112.
690,
1 1 5 . 640.

T A N I S F I I L L AT
1 4 - 9 SOU lOIN r,
SOUl DING FOR Ft!LL TkNK INCI EASE~ I/2" FC ~ I F" TRIM
INTEIMEDID, TE S01NDIN(;S INCl; EASE I/'z" FOr I F' TRIM

O.
I.
4.
- 915.
20.
28.
35.
4352.
61.
71.
81.
89.
92.

O.
0,"
I0.
20.
40.
60.
90.
140.
200"
270.
360.
460.
570.
550.
530.

BY S'ERN.
BY 5 ' E R N .

I:1:I l : [ 0 | l L,llllr41~ ~li'J ~|l']:Ig'~ I I ' | I '[I~iI~I~ ll~[o~ B l l B ; i ; ; , ~ ' I i

MMm . ,mm

THE; NO. I TANI<S ARE

TO ~E KEF T FLiLL OF
LIQ~ liD W IENEVER
DRY C A R ( O I c NOT
S T O N E D II BOFH
NO.
AND NO. 2
TA~KS..

I.
2.
5.
8.
II.

59.

3170.
.

I0.
3,0.
60.
90.

I.
2.
2.
3.

O.
- I0,
- I0.
-20.

130.

4.

-20.

14,
18.
22.
26"
30.
:34.
58.
43.
47.
52.
56.

180.
240.
300.
370.
450.
520.
600.
700.
800.
910.
1020.

5.

- 20.

6.
7.
8.
9.
I0.
I I.
12.
I 4..
15.
16.

61.

I 140.

17.

66.
71.
76.
8l.
86.
92.
97.
102.
107.
112.
117.
120.
121.

1260.
1390.
1540.
1680.
1640,
2000.
2170.
2340.
25 I 0 .
2700.
2860.
2920.
2960.

19.
20.
22.
24,
26.
2.
50.
53.
38.
43.
50.
59.

-20.
- 20.
- 20.
-20.
-20.
- I0.
O.
O.
i0.
20.
30.
40.
50.
70.
90.
I 20.
16 O.
210.
280.
360.
500
650.
920.

FUll
FIG.

Z --

kT 29-5

71.
1240,
83.
156 O.
90,
1390.
FULL AT 31-6

I-0
2-0
3-0
4-0
5-0
6-0
7-0
8-0
9-0
I0 - 0
I1-0
12-0
13-0
14-0
15-0
16-0
17-0
18-0
19-0
20-0
21-0
22-Q ..
23-0
24-0
25-0
26-0
27-0
Z8-0
29-0
29-5
30-0
5 I-~0
31-6

;>"

I-~
0
C/~
k-d
PO
~J3
~Z
;;~
;~
C'~

~Z

p.]
b-~
~(~
L~

51
~0

NAME
FRESH

WATER

OF

TANKS-

VESSEL
TOTAL CAPACITY

U')

_z~:

~_

O.B. NO. 4
PORT

D.B. NO.4 D.B. N O . 5

STARBOARD
PORT

D.B. NO. 5 z_~

STARBOARD ~

922.

TONS AT 36

CU. FT. PER TON

z- ~ z DEEP TANK POTABLE

z~_
13--23
WATER

!DlUllLLP.D

WATER

~x
ZO

Z--

=
/~ la.

0-6
15,
I-0
27.
I-6
41.
2-0
56.
2-61 71.
3-0
86.
5 - 6 I01.
4-(~ 117.
4 - ~ 124.

.......

960.
1720.
2210.
2540.
2680.
2570.
2090.
1070,
330.

TANK!

II.
22.
34.
46.
58.
71.
83.
95,
102.

FU.L

600.
1040.
1310.
1440.
1550.
1580.
1400.
790.
270.

17.
54.
52.
69.
88.
108.
127.
147.
157.

AT

SOUNDING F(R FULL TANK

INCRI'ASES
~'4" F:)R I FI'
TRIM E f S T f R N .
I NTE ~MEDIAT
SOU NDINGS
INCR'ASE |~" FOR I FT.
TRIm BY $1 ;RN.

4- 3
"

II10.
1970.
2550.
2910.
3110.
3000.
2440.
I I 30.
180,

18.
34.
54.
72.
91.
III.
131.
152.
162.

1160. 0 - 6
2060. I-0
2650.
I-6
3030. 2-0
3 2 2 0 . 2~-6
3100. 3-0
2520. 3-6
I 180. 4 - 0
180. 4 - 3

SOU IDING . . . . . . . . .

SOLNDING F
INCREASES
I T. TRII~
INT :.RMEDII
INCREASE
TRIM BY (,

IR F U . L TANK
11/4" FORBY STERN.
rE SC UNDINGS
I/t" :OR I F'[
tERN.

Fro. 52

U~

9 0
TONS . O . E N T

TONS MO.

N, TO.S

7.
380.
18.
620.
30.
870.
42.
I I I0.
53.
1360,
64.
1620.
76.
1910.
89.
2210.
102". 2 5 4 0 .
115.
2880.
128.
5220.
140.
3580. !
154.
3960.:
167.
4360.
180.
4770.
194. 5 1 9 0 .
207. 5 6 3 0 .
221. 6050.
232.
6070.
235.
5970.
TANK FULL A1
19-90UNDING

I0,
760.
20.
1050.
50,
1240.
39.
1440.[
49.
1650.
59.
1880.
69.
2110.
79.
2350.
89.
2610.
98.
2870.
108.
3090.
118.
3050.
122.
3110.
126.6 3000

E.T

M.

I-0
2-0
5-0
4-0
5-0
6-0
7-0
8-0
9-0
I0-0
I1-0
12-0
13-0
14-0
15-0
16-0
17-0
18-0
19-0
19-9

I.
2.
5.
5.
6.
7.
8.
9.
I0.
I t.
12.
13.
15.
15.7

20.
40.
60.

I.
2.
3.
90.
4.
I I0.
5.
150;,
6.
160.
7.
190.
8.
220.
9.
250.
I0.
280.
II.
310.
12.
350.
13.
380. FULl

0
Ul

U:

),,,-4

;>
0

:Z

NAME

OF

VESSEL--LO&DING

DIAGRAM

FOR

STABILITY

>.
),.,.(

~5

L - _ _ _ _ _ 7 - I,~, ~ : : ~ _ ~ J : . ~

.I I r - ( 3 ~

P II b ~ - ~ _ - ~ - - - - ~ _

-=_ "H

DIAGRAM IN -POSITION
AS. STOWED,

li

ITEM (EXCEPT AS NOTEO)

INCt.UDE

.... ~
_ I_.~_~.;_.~_~ I ,,.,11o..

,o-~--~

~ ~_~2 -~ ~
- ~- ~

__~

NO. S" ~PACEO

,._J
NO, 4 SPACES
APpROX 8 TONS TO ~.RIM ~ ~r~ APPROX,14 TONSITo TRIM I I ~ H

ITEM

TON~ "H" TONSx'H'I L'reM

TANKAOE INCLUDtNO
OEEP TANKS
(UNLESS DRY. CARGO
~S CARRI[O) IS TO I S
ENTEnED im TANKAOS
TABLE ON OEPAnTUnE
SUMMARY SHEET,
NOT ON THIS SHEET.

TONS "H" I ' m ~ x ' N

L-. . . . . . .

tAKEN AT "H .
ILO, .X,CEI'T

': ~i -'-- l l

~oL~ ,,N~ IN

L~

.TOTAL

J~
1
"

;-:j

ITOTAL
I
,

. ~
'

l~
~__

-TAINING LIQUID

"

,,.

!. . . .

II

";

I I I"

Fzo.. 53

TOT,~L

INTO DEPARTURE
SUMMARY SHEET

i TOTAL

DEPARTURE

/
.

3:Z

CJ

EHT(:R TOTAL TON~ AN D

TLTOTAL

I
I

" IH"

TOTAL
"
t

17,5

NO'S

THE TANKS CON-

"-m

S TO e[ T . ~ ,

e,T " H ~ 17.5

WHEN
E
X C E P TLTI Q
HUAITD S
ARE C A R R I E D
THEY S H A L L BE
CLOSED BETWEEr,

IUMMARY

ITONS T ~ S

T H E EQUALIZING
V A L V E S BETWEE~
TANKS SHALL
BE KEPT OPEN

I
II
.

LOADINII

,, 2, AND~
CARGO DEEP
[~

t.ONGITUOIWAL SCALE
I INCH 20 FEET

~AIL BAGG~GIE,
kND ~ROVI'~IONS- S~OWED IN NO.3
LOWER TWE(N
DECK AND UPPER
' ~INOLOWEIt ~

~H ~O. ~ AND NO Z

tZ

~-'~--~I~s

,TEN I~rONS 'H' rONS."~'

DEEP TANKS
'
S H A L L BE KEPT
F U L L OF LIQUID ~Ue-TOTAL

;~T~
Ill

NO, I I p A t : i [ S
APP!~}X B TOIY~ TO TRIM I INCH

1T:S I AND ;~ IS CARGO DEEP '

ro ST TAKEN AT TANKS NO, I
" H " ~S.S

I - -

__ :~-

~'~EM TONS "H'ffO~S, "H' ~TEM TONS "H" rONS.'H

S ~TOWED IN
WHEN DRY CARGO
)'T S I ANDZ ALl IS NOT STOWED

--

~--~ttO. l SOAO~'!
APPROX 13 TON.,; tO TRIM I W(

l~wo4
. HI~L~' ~IO.BI

C~

ALL TONS ARE O~ ~:40, L8S.

NO. ) O ) A I )
APP~OX, 4~, T(3~ TO TRIM I INCH

pROVISIONS,

.OA~GO

o~-~
~ ~-~'~
.

~4
O

"

.
=

FIRST

FROM
DAT~

OFFICER

:Z

522

STABILITY OF SHIPS IN DAMAGED

%1,

NAME

OF

CONDITION

VESSEL

DEPARTURE SUMMARY S H E E T
F ROM

DRAFT
FWD.
DRAFT
AFT
MEAN DRAFT

' DATE

zo ~ =

.,
o
m
:D
0

ITEM

"i

,,.i

-'"'

Zn" ~
ooua~

,.0,

,.

Z
z

19'0.1 D.B.
"

9" AFT'

POR'T

"

"

STBD.

NO. 2

"

POR T

"

"

STBD.

IS

NO. 3

"

PORT

__ 1/2"

'

STBD.

NO. 6

12"

"

"
"

PORT

"

STBD.

NO. 7

"

PORT

"

STBD.

"

RG
"

17"~0
i

U
i

_.~ 3 / ~ '

11

OO
I

O0

Ol
I

"

SETTLER

4-

PORT

STBD.

F.O. O E E P T A N K
N

STBD.

le

01

ill

PORT

NO. I CARGO T A N K P O R T

I""
. =

I/2"

19""

N .

"

STBD,

15" "

NO. 2

"

"

PORT

ii

18" "

"

STBD.

"

"

NO. 3
. .

"
N

"
"

PORT
STBO.

AFTERPEAK

NO. 5

PORT

STBD.

F.W. DEEP
TANK
POTABLE
WATER
DISTILLED

TOTAL

15"FWC

"

FROH

LOADING

DEPARTURE

DEPARTURE

"H " -

:3" FWD,

4""

s4 :r
i 6"FWD
I
'

DIAGRAH
DEADWEIGHT

DEPARTURE
DEPARTURE

I" AFT'

0
0
0

"

20"AFT

STBD.

TOTAL

I0"

_1/2"

r)||

PORT

"

"

13" "

POOL

NG 40.B.
"

16" "

0
0

' FOREPEAK
SWIMMING

O0
||

mi u

"

"

"

"

II

MOMENT
TONS

Fm. 54

I III

$1

!
i
i
i
i

I
i
i
i

NAME

DAILY

OF

STABILITY

VESSEL

COMPUTATION

DATE

SHEET

TABLE

PRECEEDING
IZ
u.I
3"
O
-~

5w~- w o

Ze..

e.'Z

~ o ~ ==oo

~,.(n u~
UJ)U.l~
,JO l w
0c
~

n ~
zZ
O~
I--~

DAY'S TRIM

(.9
o_
~J~ Z

MJ
.-

,(~ ,,-,,O
3.
.~
3"

Z(.9
uJz
0~2:
,

3.Z
C/3
500.
I000.

u.I
o
Z

lll

u.I
/)uJ
Zo
ujUJ

TOTAL

CHANGE

PRECEEDING

IN

TONS,

MOMENT,

AND

TRIM

DAY'S

TONS,

MOMENT,

AND

TRIM

AND

"TRIM

DIFFERENCE " T O D A Y ' S

'~

. PIOUS..
.REVISED

TODAY'S "H"
BALLAST
;TONS,

IN

TONS,
I=

MOMENT,

TODAY'S
TODAY'S

MOMENT
TONS

"~

i .
"

=='

TANK

MOMENT,

.,

AND

OF MAXIMUM PERMISSIBLE
""H" VALUES

TRIM

D.B. 6 . S H A L L NOT BE EMPTIED AT DEEPER THAN

2 2 . FT. DRAFT.
WHEN DRY CARGO IS NOT STOWED IN NO.I AND NO.2 CARGO DEEP
TANKS. NO.I DEEP TANK S H A L L BE KEPT F U L L OF LIQUID.
EQUALIZING VALVES SHALL BE KEPT OPEN EXCEPT WHEN LIQUID IS
-~k I & I E ON PRECEEDIN@ DAY~3 TRIM. CARRIED THEY SHALL BE KEPT CLOSED BETWEEN TANKS CONTAINING LIQUID.

12-~
13-6

15 0 0 .

14-4

2000.
250 O.
3000.
3500.
4000.
4500.
5000.
5500.
6000.
6500,
7000.
75008000.
8500.
9000.
9500.
9810.

15-2
15-11
16-8
17-5
18- 3
19-0
19-9
20-6
21-3
22-0
22-9
23-5
24-2
24;-II
25-7
26-4
26-9

46.2
46.2
32,7
32.7
28.5
28.5
26.6
26.6
25.8
25.8
25.4
25.0
25. I
24.2
25.0
23,8
25.1
23.6
25.2
25.5
25.3
23.6
25.4
23.7
25.7
23.9
25.9
24.2
26.2
24,5
26.4 24.9
26.5
25.5
26.3
25.7
2 6 . 0 26.1
25.8 ' 2 6 . 4

40.
60.
90.
I I O.
130.
160.
180.
20Q.
210.
230.
240.
250.
260.
270.
280.
290,
320.
360. I
390.

;>

<
0

c.n

;>
;>

IF TODAY'S " H "

IS IN EXCESS
OF M A X I M U M P E R M I S S I B L E
,.
T A B U L A R VALUE CORRESPONDING i i
TO TODAY'S ToNS DEADWEIGHT
B A L L A S T IS R E Q U I R E D .
USE RIGHT HAND T A B U L A R
COLUMN TO A P P R O X I M A T E
AMOUNT OF B A L L A S T R E Q U I R E D . "
BALLAST
AFT IS MORE
E F F E C T I V E T H A N FORWARD.
PRESSED-UP
BALLAST
IS
MORE E F F E C T I V E T H A N
SLACK BALLAST.

C~
0

:Z

2~

Lr~

524

STABILITY OF SHIPS IN DAMAGED CONDITION

tively selected are added to the previously computed values and the revised totals compared
with the tabular values. If the computed H
value of the daily summary sheet is now lower
than the maximum permissible H value corresponding to the revised deadweight, it indicates
that the ballast tentatively selected is adequate.
The m a x i m u m permissible H values indicated
by the example table of Fig. 55 are based on an
operational light ship of 6,366 toni at 29.33 feet
KG and on the required GM values given b y Fig.
56 of Appendix 1 for the following conditions:
1.

2.

Above 24.75-foot draft

Flooding of No. 4 hold, with double
bottoms full and deep tanks full of
dry cargo.
(b) Below 24.75-foot draft
Flooding of No. 3 hold.
Flooding of No. 4 hold, with double
bottoms full and deep tanks full of liquid.
(a)

I t is believed that the following points concerning this proposed procedure should be noted:
1. In so far as is admissible from considerations of damage stability, cargo loading is taken
at its actual vertical position instead of at an
assumed homogeneous center.
2. The effect of free surface and of trim,
which m a y be appreciable at the lighter drafts,
are assessed more accurately than by most
other methods of determination suitable for
shipboard use, and the need for operation of the
vessel at actual G:~/'s higher than necessary to
meet requirements is reduced.
3. Although required GM, in accordance with
the Convention, and common practice, is computed on the basis of zero trim before damage,
appreciable trim at the deeper drafts m a y increase the GM actually required to withstand
damage. I t is not believed that this is ver)r
critical, since trims at the deeper drafts are usually
quite small. However, in cases where the effect
may be important, it can be allowed for in the

table b y the provision of a second maximum permissible H values column, corresponding to a

given trim; or, in such cases, it m a y be preferable to omit the allowance for the effect of trim
on the K M in preparing the data for shipboard
use.

4. Although appreciable calculation is necessary for the preparation of the necessary tables
and forms for shipboard use, the necessary calculations aboard ship are very simple, necessitate
no specific knowledge of naval architecture, and
are brief enough to be not at all burdensome.
T h e y are also in such a form as to provide a
simple daily record of the ship's stability in
operation, the handling of tanks, etc.
CONCLUSION

As previously stated, an International Conference is primarily deliberative in nature rather

than a research undertaking, and the agreements
reached therein tend to be general in character
and based upon the degree of common understanding existing prior thereto.
Although
many items were agreed upon in connection
with damage stability, it will be noted that,
within this framework of international agreement, there are a number of matters subject to
interpretation and development. I t is hoped
that discussions of this paper, by all concerned,
will contribute to the widest understanding and
best agreement.
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
The authors wish to acknowledge especially t h e .
excellent and very considerable assistance of the
late Mr. Ross Laurenson and of Mr. Franklin
Robertson of the Maritime Administration, not
only in t h e preparation of much of the material
presented, but also in their valuable suggestions
and comments. Acknowledgment is made also to
other colleagues who have assisted in the project.

REFERENCES

[1] Niedermair, J. C., "Stability of Ships

After Damage," Transactions of The Society of
Naval Architects and Marine Engineers, Volume

40 (1932).
[2] Niedermair, J. C., " F u r t h e r Developments
in t h e Stability and. Rolling of Ships," Transactions of The Society of Naval Architects and
Marine Engineers, Volume 44 (1936).

[3] Rossell and Chapman, "Principles of Naval

Architecture," Volumes I and II, published by
The Society of Naval Architects and Marine
Engineers (1941).
[4] Wright, Jr., C. L., "Stability of Ships After
Extensive Flooding," Journal of the American
Society of Naval Engineers, Volume 59, No. 4
(November, 1947).

STABILITY OF SHIPS IN D A M A G E D C O N D I T I O N
[5] de Santis, R., and Russo, M:, "Rolling of
the S.S. Conte di Savoia in Tank Experiments
and at Sea," Transactions of The Society of Naval
Architects and Marine Engineers, Volume 44
(1936).
[6] Ferris, T. E:, "Design of American Superliners," Transactions of The Society of Naval
Architects and Marine Engineers, Volume 39
(1931).
[7] l~igg, E. H., "Notes on Rolling and Lurch-

525

ing," Transactions of The Society of Naval Architects and Marine Engineers, Volume 48 (1940).
[8] Kiernan, J. E., "A Method for the Determination of a Ship's Stability at Sea," Transactions of The Society of Naval Architects and
Marine Engineers, Volume 56 (1948).
[9] Abell, W. S., and Daniel, A. J., "Safety of
Life at Sea (1929 Conference)," Transactions
of the Institution of Naval Architects, Volume
LXXII (1930).

526

STABILITY OF SHIPS IN DAMAGED CONDITION

APPENDIX I
DAMAGED
POINT
COMPT5 FLOODED: N o . ~ HoLD
FR, A H E.~
I Z I - IS'I
DRAFt
dl
~' I '- O "
OlSPL.
Z~
I "7_ ~ ,~. o

LOST

~2.
DESIGN:C3-TYPF
FA554CA.~G
DATE"
CALC. B Y :
CHECK. BY:
APPR B Y :

IL 0 ITc0

ITEM
I ~) y~,3 @
7 55,90
:~ ~ = 5"
19

HOLD
I-~" T ZI" I "
F.W.
rANK,.
J
C'OF FE P~ L',A }'~
J

FlOUR.F-

NOTES-" CAP--..qO D E E P " TANK.%

FULL OF bR.'~ C,4. P ~ O A N D
CP~oTpSp C o N N ~ - C T E I ~ . ~ o .
.~oul~LE ~ o T P t % E H W T T .

BUOYAN C
1

SPACE

S TAI~ILITY
OF

CU.
Cu.
cu.
c ~,.
cu,

.:,o I s ~"

FT.

19.:" lgZ.ZAI -

-6OI -iz

F.T.
F.L
FT.
F 7.

9 ~ "

~.8 IGz.~I ~.~

07

.95" I ;5.5o

~. ~1RO,O,~I~,S"P
io.o 19z.o ~( o.s-~
I
I

1 I . . ~ I , I . g A I Tv ~A~77"

@ li3S~
LOST

AR~:A @ d,

Lost

HoLD
.iv'. 1~.

~.~C~
H-~o

tT0,s/,HI
Li'~?SS t __~
L~- ~ 4ITCG. iIT WI

~(

--<~.FT.
~.fT.

~-

,~

92.~

TON s/'m @ c/, A

T0 N 5/IN
TONS~IN REiiO. A - d

LOSS t I

1/98Z,

11

,8o

I (~.c.

P_

l <:J. l
S-. ~
#3.o
19,59
Z7. 0
ffo. 5 8
~t. $7
ZZ. 5d,
Z3. $5
Z q . ~;q-

z/~

39.75

91963

12

Z Y.S'~

1(,~
19
?o

Z7. f f l
ZS.O

/~z;Y"

Vz

: 73""~r

f[~.

I.:
35

35

SI,

q / . _.#"

+ h

2~..I

H=a

,~

Zo~

/ ~[~8~

HB"

~.7~1
~r/ ~ - ~
ye.@ l ~,~ 7 ~'a
3~. ~, I z , ~ ~.-~3
18.9
d, 7s#

Jr~

3~.Z5"

?-7/

3#,/S

2.~,'Z.

Y.&8

33.G

"<)4"V "< ~'~"

LENGTHatDAMAGED AE'EA ,

]Z, 7 F
/#.3F

M T r ' ~ , ' J z TONS FT.

. A ~L h . ~ : - ~ . ' ~ . ~
"

J~-'Tf

Ma ,'~'.~-~

j~

"~'-""

~."e:;.~"

"f" - . / ~7,tc.
. ib J.P'3*, ;..~

L~.~

FUNCTIONS

o?O i.,. |~..~_

o T.N
.|Z~Jo
.Z59

/...~. z~.o

.268

.03~3

VCE~
1~ISE
L05T BUOyANCy
~ I)~.
INITIAL DRAFT
d, I

m
[ G~

c~, ~1.0

zJ.Ol4P I

/./s

i- ~:%,,,. ~.~

dL+ P
Rise

RES~OUAL M T I ' ,
t',4~. IZ'C~J.
/:,7/~TRIhl
FT:Y*@
/-So.:,,,,,'3~
IZ.~ F
~ - ~ ~
~'A

F.~INAL D~/KF.T G

OF HEEL

75""

,TA

T~ i ,.~

ANGLE

:78B:~7

cjy.,~-

DAHA~;E DICAF'r

15 <~

HEEL TO MARGIN LINE

H.L.
FRBO H~,~)MI TAN

, Z S :- 15-117
9

-LC~ (~ ~ / , ~ A

CFo,,,4

--833

Z197

TRIM

cFp=t=

.~o

~ " Fr

--

J zI

-LCGj

HB3

v~_l o

33~o

711

NET BM LOSS
RESIDUAL
I~M~.

ON
TRI v~ I~ 51NKAGI; CORRECTIO
STA
DAM OR

.~G' o

I. 8
lr0t,~i. ,..~,. ~0,. I~'K . O 3 " 7 I SINKAGE B~v~.~/~z-~M, Am
/'Z~ L
J 7 . 8 1 I TRIM 3iNKAGE
k/3Fj 15"11"7
I. i'l'-~J SHIFT OF" CF ~
18~A-~)qz
IG,~.t.~ NET B M LOSS
.
,]l.V- 7

BtVl,

~*~
/l~J. ~-

@d z

/9~

~ z ~- ,z.E ~ ~

I G. ~ ~-. I J T A I
TR. SHIRT OFCF~ TA+(A-),

I 5 S.

L05T INERTIA

GZ.~ ~o-

HEELING MOWI(~ = --.50

TOTAL l~.,.~)I~.~?.MTJ~purZ 7

AREA

~u~

FT ~ " y

ar..~:~.~l Y V c . ' t 7
= LT.%~'~..i,. /~. "/7"

ElSE OOE r'T. GMa I~~ _

To TKI h-,
A L" TOTAL ~ISE OF" C ~
NET KWt ~EoUCTIOH

FT.
FT.

HEEL
RE,

v--'/~'
/ I O O SINO

A'LOWA" ,O.

I
K, J

I. cJ"z5"~J/'S~'l
~ .c3:.3

J" G/V~ At
TOLIMIT HEEL
I NET (3MREQ'D
(~

I[

IJ ] . O ~ l ,8~..1
"1

1TOTAL ,N,T,.L

I/.za]/-o, 1

M,r HEEL
TO u
LHV

K,~ K/roD ~=N e

F r o . 56

~M ~E~O,~E~
TO / , L , p o

/,O~

I/'Z8

S T A B I L I T Y OF SHIPS IN D A M A G E D C O N D I T I O N

527

~
m

r o. "r-

SECTION

N0. q- HOLD
FzG. 57

V ~ '

5IN

K.AGE

~v~. L ~

528

STABILITY OF SHIPS IN DAMAGED

DAMAGED
?OINT
c o M , r s PLOO~O: N o .

F~P'OE:~
DRAFT
DISPL

~- /-~oL~
I ~'3

D'~-

'4.

Z ] "- 0 "
I~ ~:ZO

~t

LOST

BUOYANC

ITEM

Co,

'TONS"I K G

.~o

:,~

.GOl --IE
.9.~
:~7

FT.

~z.z~

]7,,~
I~.~-

6Z.3A3.o-F
")l.~Ao.g-t

TM.

HEELING MO~(~-~ Jg.B

TOTALTRAN{MOMT 3.3 <-

@ el,

~96~

*.FT.

.~,o

~,5c

~Q..FF.

6o

--

cl

TON$/,. ~ d,
TONS/I~ LOSS

TCG

LEG

~.z

A.REA

LOST A ~ c ' A
F w . T~.

Z
DESIGN : C 3 - T y F E [~<;$ ~ C ~ p ~
DATE:
CALC. B Y :
C'HlrCK BY:
APPR B Y .

!,,~

,,~5",9o

LO5T

c,.,. ~T.
C u . F~T

~,~7".~,

T ~

Co F F E R- D,a~t~l

~CLP

FIGU~-E

NOTES.'. F'uEL ~ I L Dool~L~

~,TT~,,'~
FvL~ . c.~R(~o
OIL
p~ll~ F" -rA~.~/(.5 F u L L O F
LIR~I~,

~a~

17' r<~ ~ l '

F.y~.

5TABILITY
OF

SPACE
~OL~)

CONDITION

roNs/m
Lo55 LEG TCG T M
~ . 7 )Z.VA --.[~
~.Z.3A3.o

l,.&

9;.~AT-;,

LOST INERT|A

I/~z,/~~ z . ~ IZ.'S'~. ~ ( . 3

TRIM SINKAGE CORRECTION ~ O T USED~

5TA SI~ i H ~
~,
H~ 3
DAM. OR. I-I~
o
/z.,
I
z ,
2
17~.,
H" ,
2 i
i

"
~p1
Z.7E
-,07

/,~

TR SHIRToFCF, TA(A-.). '<[ .~371

BM,
/7' '9
NET B/~I LOSS
~.~
RESIDUAL
~MR
/5+3

A I "-~--"~t~"
(~ t ~ ' P

!
.~t "
'"~
35"
1.Go 33E9S"
,.&O833

@ IZ

(~ q G

SINKAGE B M a d ~ - B M , I~,
TRIM p~}+NKAGF_
~/3S
SHIFT OF CF,
I;~A-<~) qz
NET

BPA

.oS"

E, (:,.o

L~55

HFEL TO MARGIN LINE

M.L.
I FRBD HB~MI. TAN

HI~ ~

r
IZ
ii P
16

~r
;w
4-

Zo

w i

ANGLE

.'I I
_

/z,

35

, ~-..._3_s :

- St,

~5

T'I~ i M
CrY' dr
/.t F
- L ( G <~ .95.) A
H ,9~.7-

h: ~-~.
~9. ~
/L"9~=
LENGTH OrDAMAGED A~EA 5 7S"
5z .~. ~3"
c re',,'#, :'
/ , s , ,~
', h, I / z . ~ , = M T I " O J z TONS FT.. M z / J ~ 8
/,-/. ,/-F
L
"
,-t-~.s-LC6 @ P;".~A
.~.(.., x 3-(.z..~tZ L "
/ C ,,< ~ . s "
/v~.
//-R-Z
CF@d~J
] . / .~ I RESIDUAL [VIT I "~
+ h
/Z.~F
TRI~ r / =
't 3 . 3 A
CFo~,m /V-. O F

3~"

DRAFT5
DAH^6S DRAys"
FINAL D RJ~FT S

e
7

"7

F P
Jz, Zl. 7
,~c./

AP
ZI.7
Z~.~I ~

FUNCTIONS
I S I N ' 1 TAN O I
K,
I iz.z_ I . I z 5 ! : o o 7 , t -

OF" HEEL

BM I = Zg.O --I1.1 =17.~

BI~ z = ZS.B3"-IIJ/~=
17.~ c

~,~=/ZZZO

Z~z=/Z~,IO

VC~
RISE
LOST 8UOYAN'(
~
INITIAL DRAFT
,~
~z~.,Q~ . q ~ 7

oli+ P

HEEL
ASSUMED ANGt.E oF HEEL
GM REQ'D TO LIMIT HEL T//ATAN0
K/too
51N e
K,
G/~ ALLOWANCE FOR FOI~M BI'~K,
NET QM REQ'D TO LIMIT HEEL

K, = K/IF30 51~

FIG. 58

ZI.o
P~

zI.3s

dI. ZI. 7,

RISE DvJE-,-FT ~
=
TO TIb ~
~ L
TOTAL RISE OF" .e,
l'qET Kl'Vl ~ E o u C T l O H

TOTAL INITIAL <:~N ~EQUI21ED

TO LIMI'f HEE.L TO
~" o

~/Z7 l ,~
EI.O:,~P

,75

~I

.D!
FT.
FT.

.11
z,q-9

7
NEGLI6w
,:X'7~
II
". I I

-.11

~. 3,e

3TABILITY OF SHIPS IN D A M A G E D , C O N D I T I O N

5291

|
DRY(
W L..~~
Wkt

CAR.GO
~ | N K A GF_~..~._-.~..

INITIAL

"

F~O.

SECTION

F,O,

NO.I-t- HOLD
FIG. 59

W,L.

530

S T A B I L I T Y OF SHIPS IN D A M A G E D C O N D I T I O N
DAMAGED

STABILITY

POINT

BUOYAN

OF

FIGUI~F-

NOTE,5! CArgO

COMPT5 FLOODED: N o . 13r H O L D

F ' R A . r,1 e S
lZt -Ifff
DRAFT
de
E I '- o "
OISPL.
A~
17_7_7-o

LOST
SPACE

D.T.

Fo~

./.x

~7S':~ 5"-~o
,gZZ5
~13"79

"(P)

"toN5

co. FT.

1993~

(F)

,co.
(.:u.
(o.
~,--,.

FF.
F/:.
FT.
FiT.

&c~

~7

I,~'D]

3 7 c:'

NS/m

~o=s

LCGITCG

TM

II

KG

ILCG/TCG

/9.~

92.ZAI --

tz.z

L O S T ~NERTIA

19~.sAI T~ "-Jl~3

HEELING MOI~t(~=<~ - - 3 9
TOTAL TRAN{HOM T ~ O 9 ~

@ ,-L.~

/ "-'~. I ~-~ ~'

/t=t,~ , . ~

I s "s I

TR. SHIRT oFCF, TA.~(A-a)=

BM,
NV.T B M LOSS
RESIDUAL
~hd K

; ;JNKAGE CORRECTION
TRII
STA I S M NB@ a, I
DAM. DR,] H B
~e~
O
I
-Z
/9.~9 ! .,9
(..o
I Z/(-

ol

!*

,61

z z . E ? 13,/.7~"
.~ o
13~,7sZ3:TSl~Z/,7~"

~1~.3

3Y'.7~ I ~196~
3~.75"1 q / . ~ ~.~

~/p~,3

,,,o-:~,,-e: ~z. 8

#Z,ZS-I/~,J/7

IV#.-z,/ Y ~ 7 3 - - . - S Z s '

3~7~

z~.3q-

Z~,7.~/
so88

z/,/.?_

1/~'.8~,

,~,/,/

z~,8 I /g z~
/I. 9 I / ~ , ~

, I~]
191

,/z

~ol

.,'z~

35

,'6. ~

--

"T~7o7/.3."

/i.-./~,

L .

z~./7

~9,9

1/T z

CF~ ~s~N
9fa. I

* ~t

H~a.

95". o x d,. (,.

9~.. o

z/9.z

LENGTH OrDAMAGED A~EA ,5

1~..7F

75"

5 z 3-C,Z~-

..gF
Jt,4T 1"~3~z TONS FT.

IZ.~F

"

AN6L~

OF" /'{EEL

IV~Z / , 3 ~ L o

VC~
~|SE
LOST BUOyANCy
@

~2__~_ / o q 7
"/z

x ~/9.z

d,. P

E F t ) ~t I
~ o ~

RF__,SIOUAL M T I ' )

.I A

15"

1 AP

/9.1

FUNCTIONS
O I I TA"

I Z~,,.9

.iz~
.~59

.z6B

Kt K//100

.o~z~

"7..8 A

.83
,o8

FT.
FT
I:~lViEAi~lUl

LE UU,-, E

6Z

HEEL
~0"
C~
Z , O . ~ I /. (o0

z3Pi
" I
J.7.~4___._~

K/ioo
S,N O
K, .o~4~" . o 7 e I ,~68J
GMALLOWA.CE FO'~rO~SM;K, I ,~si/.zs'//.oe
I
J

e I

//<~<~

I 9.;,

= / c , z / 7 X -9. 7
]Z Z Z~

RIs~ DOF- PT roWl~ f.z To TIU wt

,~ L
TOTAL ~ I S E o F
C~
N E T KP.q I~'EDUCTIOH
(:oI~ECTfoN
Fog

ASSuHEOANGLE oF HEEL.

GH REQ'D TO LIHITHEEL TI/~TAPie

K,
I .~z}l.OO.~l

IS,N

~ -s.7 . , # . / I

FINAI~' D R A F T S

rvll~

,,o~.r,</_o,~

T- i z , M ~ ,

I FP

T~,~
I e
L ~

. Y,@

F
TrIM
)/ ~Z.. 7/..'~,~

ORA,TS

/ ; . ~c...s-

z.
p

a~lZZ.~lY

RISe DUE F T @ - - Y
TO SlIqK,.%GIE
Z~

"

Z7-7

p~l H8 ABI kl~"

Co'21~E,:'r,oN-~
I. OVEF~ "ZND D ~ , ~ T .9-~" = " F . I Z
Z. eMEP~I;O I"/* FL'h-T A T L O o = - , 3 E
NET
('HAN~E =--.~o

"/~"

I /.I
I
Jr~
: 77~ S/o,.5"

TRIM

cr~a=l

/. "7

z/-19~

, z s ://6~/,7

35

.95

AT ~.I~E}

/9.8~1/3.1
z o . e , 6 I Z7. O

ur

~ ,, l~-.6z~ I

I-IEEL TO MARGIN
LINE
M . L : 3 ~ I FR.BD
HB@HL TAN O
B~ELOW"
mA~N Z~X:"

/~. ?- I z 3 o o
?-7. o I 1 ~ 6 8 : ~

H.
I01

?.oS"
zzz/a
1968~

I,-~'F~I
~,.T~.. "

SINKAGE
B M ~ a - BM, -~,~
TRIM ~-~iINKAGE.
L/35 /I~Z'I'IL
SHIP-I" OF CF ,
lp(A.< 0 <[i~
NET BM L 0 5 5
"

17,.~1
I0 1 5
/~.O~

Hl~ a
--

- -

q.

<[ . 0 ~ ; 7 '

TM

/,;. 5" IF)/..C'A Io.~

~t. I ~ . o A I / " ~'~

,AREA
@'d..

TON $/1~ LOSS

t
TONS~IN RE$1O, ~ ' d

- / Z

I. ~ 1

l ~ Ijc'~[
LOST

CY

1" *. ,='P"E'~OA wl

LOST AREA

P.~$s~(4~.~o

F.o.D.B.

O~T~E~s~rE

- ~.,,,,s. TeC.
oo-sLe B"TTo~

DESIGN:C3-TYPE

E~Pi-'[ I CHECK BY:

= C~ac>lT*cN~
I APPR. BY':

c~- ~/~J E<-TI~I:> .

17 ' "ro "C l "

CA ~'4o T X .

~F

ITEM

H o~.'O

~o 2

NETCIMREQ'DTOUMITHEEL'

TOTAL INITI^L. G~ ReQumep

TO LIm4t ~EF-L T O ~ : ~ 3

.~IP4 e

FI0.60

IHel

.3~t . s s l

179~o.e71/.i:#]
"

I ,s6 I
I
/-;~SJ

S T A B I L I T Y ' O F SHIPS I N D A M A G E D C O N D I T I O N

2NO.

531

DK.

WL~.

5 INK'AGE' VV'. L.
INITIAL

SECTION

NO. I.j. H O L D
FIO. 61

W.L.

552

STABILITY OF SHIPS IN DAMAGED CONDITION

C3 T Y P E - PA55 ~ CARGO
REQUIRED
G,M.

=....-.

/\

6.6 E~EFO2FEQ UALI Z"ATI 0 N

..

NOTE

WITH

EQU,',L'Z^T~ON-Po

Lt,,IT

r~

D R Y C A R G O IN
D , T , - N O. LI. HOLD- ANGLE
OF" H E E L ~ A S S U M I N G
N o CROSS CONNECTION
WILL
B E 8.(:~ o A T
~G'6"
I N I T I A L DR.AF'T
AND
?3 AT
ZI'O"
I NIT'JAL
DRAFT.

ItCBd

~..

IN F-. I TI4 E I~
CASE
NO PI~OGRES 5 IVE
FLOO D I N G W I L L OCCUR
,AND THE
DECK,
EDGE.
WILL
NOT
tSE
I M WIER;SE D.

"~\ ? ,
~

2
G M

3
REQUIRED
-

FzG.

62

,4.
FT.

.5-

STABILITY OF SHIPS IN DAMAGED CONDITION

2

APPENDIX

~L

.o..;3

CALC. BY

oz..o.

CHED. BY

CORI~RTIENT IK). 4 IDID - D.B. ~FIT

DATE

D.T.S, F01L (~ DI~ CARGO AND CROSSCONNOTE)

mINT D ~

FIG.

(o

COMPUTATION FOR SINKAGE AND TRIM . ADDED WEIGHT ~E~I00

ASSUMED LOP DRAFT IN EIIJAAOID

2h, O0

COMDITI(~, dz
TONS DAMAGED_~TER AT LEVEL TRIM

A~O (D

."5%.
,,

,~o oF

9Z.hA

(9 '.~ OF wss,,~ A~ ( O

3..6 A
90.8A

APPROXIMAT~ TRIM LEVER @ -

~o.~T TO ~R~. 0~ ~0T ~T ( D

APPROXIMATE TRIM @
ASSUMED TRIM @

x @

~. @

Z65~
8.8A

?.~A

TANGENT, HEEL TO NARGIN LINE

ASSUMED ANGLE OF HEEL, 0

.227
12.80

DRAFT AT DAMAGED SPACES

Z5.9

175:0

TONS OF DAY,AGE WATER

GROSS DISPLACEMENT AT @
@

~5o

DISPLACEMENT BEFORE DAMAGE @

dI CORRESPONDING LCF DRAFT

@ ~ (D-,,. @ ~ : ~

. .@ ~oo

21. }~2
22.71

@ LCFAT @

.0
Y2.TA

..@ ~o~=D ~,,~ @ ~ @

@

TRI~ BEFORE DAMAGE @

~z.7 A
9.8A

. @

9 F

~'~1~ ~ib1~

AMIDSHIPS DRAFT BEFORE DAMAGE

Fro. 63

m,,

533

554

STABILITY OF SHIPS IN DAMAGED CONDITION

,r~ss~, . . . . c-3

oi,1,,so.
D.T.S ~gLL ~V Z~Z C X ~ O

~D

C~OSS-OO~Z~C~ ~

eozxr n rxo.
]~UII~D GM BT FREE SURFACE MIALTSIS . JLDDED WEIGHT ~eTH~I)

3330O

TRLNSVBRSE MCS~NT Ole D~J~GE ~ T E R ABOUT

b~IP'S VERTICAL CENTER LINE

]I~

ru AT dZ AND DJ~LGED TRIM (No F.S.allowanoe

~)

2~.]2

12.79

VCB AT d2 AND DAM&GEDTRIM

2.19
|

TABZa FOR DBTERMINING ~ B L E

]~'EL AND YORM GAIN FOR AVEREGE FORM~ AI~)
H E E L NOT II~ER31NG MELVIN LINE
m .

I~O~..S HEEL..

FOR NO NEGATIVE
I~SIDULL GM

,03

.09

,19

,35

.57

.00

,O8

,21

,40

FOR 7 DEGREES
NEC~TIVE RESIDUAL GM
FOnU CAIN FACTOR

.OO3 .00? ,012

11

13

17 ] 19:1 21 128' [ 28 [ 27

,86
,67

HEEL BEYOND LS DEGI~ES NEVER

PERMIT~D EXCEPT FOR
]W~ER]~D IAZE FLOODING

,018 ,Og51 .033

J U L O I B L E HEBL, e2, BASED C[~ ABOVE TABLE OR

m m L TO MARGIN LINE, ~ICEIEVER IS LESS

F0~ ~

15

12.8

I~CTOR

.227
19270
PORM VERTICAL ROI~ENT GAIN

Teo

VERTICEL HOI~I~T ABOVE ELSE ~

IIkR&DE R L ~ R

250O0

27.37;
I I

28.68
L31
FI6.64

STABILITY OF SHIPS IN DAMAGED CONDITION

555

COMR&RT~T NO. ~ HI~JD - D.B. FOLL ,,"

C,AI2, BY

CHED. BY

DATE

D.T.S. FOLL ~e I I ~ D

AND NOT C~ESS-

CO~Tm)
POINT B

o~mo.

LoZ

COMPUTATION FOR SINKAGE AND TRIM - ADDED WEIGHT ~ O D

AS S ~ D LCF DRAFT IN I~AGBD

C(3KDITI(~. dZ

zh.oo

TONS DAMAGED W~TER AT LEVEL TRIM

66~

Am O
Q

LeG oF (D
LcF oF ~ss,L A, C)

93.7 A
1.6 A

~) ~O~NT TO TRm ONE ~OOT At Q

16~0

(D ,,,P,,,~MAT, ~I,, (D - ( D : ~ .......... 3 . , , "

O~S U~D

TRI~ Q

~.o A

TANGENT, HEEL TO MARGIN LINE

|

ASSUMED ANGLE OF HEEL, @

7.*

DRAFT AT DAMAGED SPACES

2~.8

~o

TONS OF DAMAGE WATER

~o

GROSS DISPLACEMENT AT @
@

DISPLACE~T BEFORE DAMAGE @

- @

D~o

(@.@),~
LCF AT @
,coo~ @

22.93

z3.~
9 A

93.9

99.0 A

..@ co=,=~ , ~
@

. @ .

TRIM BEFORE DAMAGE Q

h.l A
.I F

AMIDSHIPS DRAFT BEFORE DAMAGE

22.99
FXG. 65

fl

"536

STABILITY OF SHIPS IN DAMAGED CONDITION

~snz,

c-.3

o~..o.
~F~D. BY

r~I~TS OFFI~.

C~aTi~T

DATE

I~0. ~ HOLD - D~B. FULL,

D.T.S FUIL OF IX(~TD ~

NOT CRCSS-

cob"ssc~

(~%.

ItEQUII~D GM BT r, uus SURFACE ANALTSIS . ADDED WEIGHT u~..THOD

FIq~CTIV~ Ilk~G~ ~
SU~I~C~ ~ 55
TAKEN &BOUT SHIP'S TRANSVERSE
.O,F, IN DAMAGED CONDITION

33000

TRANSVERSE M C ~ N T OF DAMAGE WATER ABOUT

b~IP'S VERTICAL CENTER LINE

70
28,(~
12.67

wu AT d 2 AND DAMAGED TRIM (No F,S,allowano(

@
@
@

VCB AT d 2 AND DAMAGED TRIM

-)

It oorre'll~

.098
TABL~ FOR D~TERMINING A L L ~ B L E HEEL AND FOI~ C~IN FOR A % ' E R A G E - . N AND
HEEL NOT I ~ R S I N G MKR~IN LINE

"@

DB}REES HEEL

FOR'NO NEGATIVE
]~.SIDUAI; GM

.0~

.09

FOR 7 DEGHIFES
H'EC~TI'VE RESIDUAL GM
FOI~M GAIN FACTOR
@

.OO
..003

.19

cOB

.OOY .012

II
.35

13

15

.57

,86

,40

.67

.018 ,025

.035

.21

~ , I , ~ B I , ~ H E ~ , e 2 , BASED C~ ABOVE TABLE OR

HEEL TO MARGIN LINE, ~ICHEVER IS LESS

25 I 27
HEEL BEYOND 18 DEGREES NEVER
PERMITTED EXCEPT FOR
INTER~EDI A ' ~ PLOODING

.o, !l.o

.o, i .o, .o,I .o.

8.o
,o09_
5o0

zT~
~0783S

26.72
I _ @ _ ~ ~z ~ ~=D ~

~=

28.68

==~

,,

FIG. 66

STABILITY OF SHIPS IN DAMAGED CONDITION

v~smL

,.,

,c-:~

CALC. BY

on,. so.

,.,

CHED. BY

DATE

COL~RTYZNT NO. h ~

557.:
- D.B.,

D . T . S FULL OF DRI C~I/~.,O - CRII~SGOllblEC~[OI~ NOT EFFEC~rVE

~i~

, ~ no.

~..

COMPUTATION FOR SINKAGE AND TRIM . ADDED WEIGHT ME~(X)

@

ASS~D
LOP DRAFT IN I~LMAOED
'COM~)ITI(~q, d Z

211400

TONS DAMAGED WATER AT LEVEL TRIM

AND

Z390

(~

a~.
93A
1.6A

,.o~o~
(9 =, o~ =s=, A~
@

APPROXIMATE TRIM LEVER @ -

91.~

7.~

MOMENT TO TRIM OIfE FOOT AT @

(D

.p=T==

== x :

0.5 A

AssuM= TR~ Q *

.~o6

TANGENT, HEEL TO MARGIN LINE

ASSUMED ANGLE OF HEEL, O

26.0

DRAFT AT DAMAGED SPACF.~

2~;.7

lS2o

TONS OF DAMAGE WATER

@ ~R~s o~,,~c~_= AT

@ (,@)

,. ,-

22.90
.2 A
a~rx.

@ ~.~Go~@

93,~ A

A
8.6 A

93.3

.1 F

21.75

AMIDSHIPS DRAFT BEFORE DAMAGE

Fro.

67

'
(To 3i bel
to uu~boa
correspom

weather
pusage

te~
nLLInl~41,

to 26.8 l e w e s )

558

STABILITY OF SHIPS IN DAMAGED CONDITION

q.-3

~SS~L

o n , . ~o.

Ckl~, BT

C3~ID, B Y .

D~TE

D.~.S rUU: ~ D ~ C*~.O - c n m s - . ~ . ~ u ~ O m

n,n~n-v~

OH - UNSTNP~TRI~LL Iq,0COINO - D ~ C T

1 ~
I

O, ~ L E

(~

OF ~ L

26.0

SIRE

d l , DREFT&T ~

LCF BEFO~ DARk4~ ~ )

21. 75

TRIM BEFOI~ DA~OB ~ )

.IF

d, ~

DRLFT BEI~I~ l~3ta~E

21.'~

r u AT d2 aND IIa~LGZD TRIM

29.06

(No IF.S. a l l ~ o s )

) GROSS VCB AT d 2 AND I1A.MAGEDTRIM

12,,76

.081~

"F', FOR~ COZFFICI~NT

TRANSVERSE ARM OF GRC6S D I S P L L ~ T

I~.DAMAGED CONDITION

(~..~ +

"~"B~, ) s I ~

13.3h0

TRLNSVERSE IdOM. OF GROSS DI~qAC~a~4T I ~ X ~

wx, TRANSVERSE MOMENT OF D3~AGE

W~ER
~IMUM

37200

~L(ROLBLE KG REFO~ D~AGE

27.ho

~ ) SINE 8
ru AT d I A~D TRI~ BE~RE D ~ G E

~i~

28.8~

~.~
FIG. 68

~DDED REIGHT ~eq~0D

539

S T A B I L I T y . OF SHIPS IN DAMAGED CONDITION

APPENDIX 3
C0ERECTION
FINAL

FOP,,

WATER

LEVEL

CASE5

L IN E

OF

C UT5

H|GHE.R

~'

INTO

PERMEABILITy',

PASS~N

W'HERF

dl~R3

t4 J,4 ~_...I1~'9S

~,

~'~l~

51 K./kG ~N'.L.

SFCTION
DAMA.GE
5HOW'N

WILL

FEET

AT

THE

THE-

"TS

RESULT

tS e

IN

HEEL

.OF

AI3OVE

DAMAGE

THE.

VOLUME

OF

EFFECTIVE

3.

.=

ABOVE

~.

~4EELIN~

5.

GM

TO

GM

MOMENT
LIMIT

ADD LTIONAL
O. 18

+
=

aND

THE

<;L/--5'8 ' CU. FT.

UN~YMMETI~IC'AL

~6~S8

( a~ x .a.~.35)
~;~.5

O.~O

FOI.

G+.~

=
:

L05T

T.0N5
BUOYANCY"

2G, 3

FEET

FOOT TON5

1699

o.sa

P'EET

IS

UNSYMMETRICAL

~lll" ~+

TO

..

"+ O.14-o . =

OF

DK.:~..,~.S5"~ ~z3.-~'a~TAN. 15",c7E-

UNSYMNIETI~ICAL

G~.6

HEEL

1~99
I 6 0 0 0 ~ ,z <;8

REQUIRED

LEVER " OF

9, H-

O,16

.DECK .

= (.SS-.~O)~V~.~

TI~ANSVERSE

OF

11,4 P A S S E N G E R " S P A C E 5

WEIC~HT OF AODITIONAI.

BUOyANCy

AS

C 0 N S t D E R , ATI O . N

=
2.

GM

BUO~'ANC'y'..DUE

WATER

WEDGE

COMPARTMENT

REQUIRED

LOST

SECOND

HOLD

FOOT

WITHOUT

UNSYWtWIETRICAL

WEDGE'

I.

TO

NO. ~

.,

klEEL ~ CORRECTED
L05T

DUO"(ANCy'.

FEET
.i

FOR

STABILITY OF s H I P S IN D A M A G E D CONDITION

540

APPENDIX 4

STABILITY

DAMAGED
FLOODED: I ~ I D S H I P
COIVtpARTW~ENT - ~ - O FT. L O N ~
DRAFT
d,
, ,~ P :
0"
DISPL , Z~
13070

NOTES: V~/IN~ TANKS

I ~ FT.
~IDE.
F U L L ~. N o T C P ~ o ~ O N N ,
CENTEr.LINE
51:'~CE F L O O D E O , No TRIM CONSIDERED,

COMPT5

LrOST

DESIGN: C ~

Typ~

DATE:

CALC BY :

CHECK BY:
APPR. B Y :

B UOYAN C Y

SPACE

/x
TONS
,8~
8~
.9~ - ~ @

ITEM

! CENTF_.I~LINF- S P A C E
F,O. ~ N ' : ~
TANK.
D A I ~ A G E ~/ATEP~
IM F.O. T ~ . TO Z Z ' ~ , I , .

3 ~'. 5 :~ 5 0 ~ 11,7.~ W t / 3 ~
-- ~ o x 15" X 5"o x I / ~ 7 . ~
17.7fKf.E

;r~So

A
TONS/IN LOS~ 4
TONS/INRE$1O. A-~t

'TONS/m L ~ d ,

T.M

2ZZI-1['GV.2

I~.13

Y.~O

Y. ' / ~ "
+-

27.Z$+983"

~3 9

7.~3
o
T~ -5"SoE
HEELINGMOM(~<~ "t" , ~ 8

TOTAL TR AN[ H0m T - SZZ/1~

AREA @ d,
C~NTER. 3 9 5 ~ %o X ~/~zo
T(,

TCG

o
O

AREA

Lost

~V,~

LCG

LOST

KG
13.15
19.Z~

~/y~o

ToNsA.

LOSS LCG TCG TM

~,0
o
0

~(~
;85
9g

1.7

o.

.'T.Z~

.LOST )NERTIA
~ 5 o x

I/..i,,ox

R~S~OUAL

~1~

|,lftf

~v1~

jj

~t 2

~-~

~z3(~
.gS- I S ' V - 9 8

~.FI
.~'-,~

.BE

h I~

Tom ~,~,+,^ Loss 1.6"7

SINKAGE BIv~zAZ-BtVI+A ~
,;~3
TRIM{}INKAGE
L/3$
-SHIP'[ O r CF)
i?(A_~D q.z
NET B ~ LOS5
l. Ur~

ct 1 1
~
T ~ V(o.3
S 6 . ~ - I TR SHIFTOFCF, TA-(A-,J)= ~ , ~ I
5"~ I B M ,
JT, IUC
~*0, ~/'j NRT B/V1 LOSS

3~.S a
~)+(~,x6xz/.z(

_ _

lITO

''---~

'+

15'

w4Lz
WLI T

51HY.A ~ 6
INtTI~U

W.L.
V~.L,
D~tv%AQED
510E

N
J

G9.5

-rR
Cr~#z
- L e G ~,
H
r
pA.

VC 5
P.ISE
L05T BUOYANCy
@ G39
c~ ZZ.O
I N I T I A L DRAFT
d~ 2Z.O +~P
.~

H ~<x
h: ~ - ; .
LENGTH OrDAMAGED A~EA S

tVIT I " ~ z

A~h

-LeG @1

I
CF@S/fl

TONS FT.

Jz% ~-O.l~ p

SZ
~Z

FT@,y

W1R

g-oL
DRAFTS

FP

AP

DAHA~ DI~A F T c~Z

T 1 ~'~
t
FINAL DR~IcT S

ISlN

FUNCTIONS

?o
15

O ITAN OJ
K,
.Izg.
.IZ3
.00'7 ur
.259
,26B .o3z3
K, ~ K//IoO 51~ e

HEEL
ASSUMED ANGLE oF H ~ E L ' " O

j~O

GH REqD TO UmT H~EL TATA~ o

I. ~r9

G M ALLOWANCE FOR FORM BMIK,

]

I.O

Rise Due
= 639
/~ I H - . 8 ~
To SINK.,~SE
~.
13 o " / ~
RIS[ o.JF- FT. ~ H R ( z
"TO TR~
Z~ L =
TOTAL R I S E o F
CE~
FT.
N E T KIv1 I?EDUETIOH
FI~.-

o.~, z

R E S I D U A L WIT I ' )

'

NET

~MREQ'D.TO

UM~T

TO LIMIT XEF-L TO

|~

H~EL

. ~'|

,~8

~
~f ~

,
+'

STABILITY OF SHIPS IN DAMAGED

CONDITION

541

DISCUSSION

" MR. H. GBRRISH SMiT,H,.P,ast President: The

Having been a m e m b e r of the committee t h a t
authors have.contributed,an able paper-on, a very studied this s u b ] e e t a n d having been at the 1929
important subject. I will n o t a t t e m p t to c o m m e n t Conference, I can state t h a t the s t u d y presented
on the highly technical problems in this paper, but b y the United States delegates on the subject of
wouldtike to make a few general'remarks.
subdivision was far~ more thorough than t h a t preInternational requirements on standards f o r
senfed b y ~ny other "nation and, while all of i t s
stability of ships in damaged condition in safety recommendations were not a d o p t e d at the Conof life at sea eonventi0ns up to date have been gen- vention of i929, it is true t h a t in a very large measeral rather than specific. The reason t h a t no hard ure the agreements reached b y the Conference
and fast rules have been established for stability were responsive t o p r 0 p o s a l s presented, by the
in damaged, cbnditiono.is: undoubtedly du~::t0 .the. United:States delegates...).: . .
.. .
inherent diffi~ulfieS of-,~fi~"i~x:6blem. ' ' " "
The" 1929 Convention substanfially"raised--tfie
While some a t t e n t i o n tO problems of safety has standards of construction above those of the 1914
always been given in strip:construction, it was the Convention, although there was disappointment
Titanic disaster in 1912 that reawakened maritime b y some of the American delegates over the failure
nations to the importance Of greater attention to of the 1929 Convention to provide some specific
subdivision in ship construction and brought requirements for safety .in a damaged condition.
about the first International Conference on Safety N a v a l Constructor John G. Tawresey, later Rear
of Life at Sea in London in 1913 and the Conven- Admiral, U. S. Navy, and a distinguished memtion signed in J a n u a r y 1914.
ber of this Society, now deceased, argued strongly
The provisions of this Convention. prescribed on this subject. I t was felt b y the other nations,
some general rules to the effect t h a t subdivision however, t h a t on the subject of construction the
should be as efficient as possible having regard to Conference had gone far enough for the time being.
the nature of the service for which ships are inA very important requirement of the 1929 Contended and it established some minimum require- vention was a stability test for every new ship and
ments b u t did not touch the subject of stability initial and subsequent surveys for ships. As
in damaged condition. This Convention was time went on, it was felt t h a t a further Conference
signed b y sixteen governments , was ratified b y some on Safety of Life at Sea to improve on the requireof them, b u t never was brought completely into ments of the 1929 Convention should be arranged.
force, although parts of it were made effective b y
Because of the predominant p a r t bY t h e United
some of the participating countries b y legislative States C o a s t Guard in maritime safety matters,
enactment or otherwise.
the State D e p a r t m e n t instructed the CommanIn the years t h a t followed, m a n y changes and d a n t of the Coast Guard to' draw up a proposal
advances in the type,s!-and methods in. the con- for the revision of the 1929 Convenfiqn. A s is
structi0n of ships:(and the-knowledge gained in Weil known t o some of y6u:; the preliminary meettheir operatign::~-.promptedi::,~the~British Govern- ings and studies preparat0i3r to the 1948 Conferment in 1927 to contact other maritime nations ence began in 1946 and ~extencled- 0ver the .three-"
with reference to another Conference on Safety of year period antedating the Conference: American
Life at Sea which c a m e about in 1929.
delegates fo the- 1948 Conference felt t h a t imporAs a result of these proposals from the British t a n t changes should be made in the Convention to
Board of Trade, interested departments of the make it conform more closely to United States
' United States Governmen, aided b y shipbuilding p r a c t i c e - a n d , t h e r e _was a. s~t1:ong-feeling on the
and ship operating interests, organized a commit- part of some of the American delegates, particu=
tee to study the 1914 convention a n d m a k e . r e e o m - larly the two authors of this paper who were both
mend/~tions f o r improvements therein.
"in attendance at the meetings, that-some requireOf the three sub-committees created, a ship con- ments should be imposed to assure, safety in
struction sub-committee gave intenslve considera- damaged condition.
tion to the subjee t of ship subdivision. This corn - . The Conference adopted Regulation 7 which has
mittee devoted a year to its study and made.spe- been discussed in detail b y the mithors and which,]
cific proposals which it was felt the United States in fact, brings international practice very close t o
should endeavor to have adopted at the 1929 Con- .United States practice in so far as extent of damference.
:
.,
age, limiting conditions after damage, and general

,%

:.

542

S T A B I L I T Y O F S H I P S IN D A M A G E D CONDITION

consistency between transverse and longitudinal

stability of ships in damaged condition are concerned.
Additional proposals regarding the criterion of
service formula, as well as i n t a c t stability, were
advanced b y various delegations; however, as in
the Conference of 1929, there was opposition on
the p a r t of other G o v e r n m e n t s to a discussion in
detail of these subjects and the Convention contains recommendations which, urge the Administrations to continue studies on these subjects and
interchange the results of their studies.
:
I t seems probable t h a t the next Conference on
Safety of Life at Sea m a y be willing to consider
the subject of intact stability as a p a r t from consideration of ability to withstand damage. Mr.
"Russo and Mr. Robertson have contributed imp o r t a n t thinking to this subject, for which I would
like to express to t h e m appreciation.
.

MR. DAVID P. BROWN,.Member: I was particularly interested in this paper since I was very
closely associated With Mr. Russo and Mr. Robertson in a Special Panel which was set up at the 1948
" Convention for the purpose of discussing, among
other technical matters relating to subdivision,
the proposals of the United States delegation for
damage stability requirements. The authors have
pointed out quite properly t h a t the provision of
sufficient bulkheads to control sinkage and trim
as a result of flooding is not sufficient to insure
t h a t a ship will remain afloat unless the ship also
has adequate stability to withstand the flooding.
This phase of the problem was recognized in all
previous Conferences and Conventions including
the 1929 Convention, b u t up to 1929 there was a
general belief t h a t there had not been acquired
sufficient experience in the administration of any
regulations concerning stability so t h a t agreement
upon their inclusion in t h a t Convention could not
be obtained.
A t the time of the 1948 Convention, however,
there had been acquired considerable experience
in the application of stability requirements aimed
at providing adequate stability after damage,
particularly in the United States, a n d in G r e a t
Britain. Armed with the background of experience on United States vessels, the United States
delegation made certain definite proposals to the
Convention and while it was necessary to modify
these proposals to some extent in order to obtain
international agreement, nevertheless I believe
t h a t the regulations as now included in the 1948
Convention, and which are the subject of this
paper, represent a very advanced step in the p r o motion of safety.
' :

I appreciate t h a t it is not the purpose of this

Paper to discuss the arguments pro a n d con for
the factorial system of subdivision. I have always
been a proponent of this system and while, at the
present time, I agree t h a t for the purposes of stability requirements it is necessary under their
present form to m a k e sharp lines of demarcation
on the basis of whether or not the factor of subdivision is above or below 0.50, nevertheless it occurs
to me t h a t in the not too distant future, as further
experience is acquired with stability regulations,
there is the possibility t h a t entirely new subdivision regulations can be developed which will inelude a combination of sinkage, trim, and-list after
damage, and which can be placed upon the basis of
requiring a varying margin of freeboard in the
damaged condition. This margin could be p u t
upon a sliding scale, using the same parameters as
are now used for obtaining the factor of subdivision and thus preserve the favorable features of
this system of assessing subdivision requirements;
i.e., the provision of margins for variations from
the basic assumptions under which the calculations are made and also the provision of an increasing margin of seaworthiness after damage as the
ships increase in size, the number of passengers
are increased, and the ships more nearly approach
the pure passenger types.
In several instances in this paper the authors
make reference to a m a x i m u m angle of heel of 15
degrees as having been related to the m a x i m u m
angle at which it is considered lifeboats can be
launched safely. This gives rise to the oft repeated argument that, if a vessel is provided with
adequate subdivision and stability to withstand
flooding, why should we be concerned with the
launching Of the lifeboats? I t should be recognized t h a t after damage a ship m a y be in a very
precarious position and in the event of h e a v y
weather it still might be necessary to provide for
the embarkation of passengers in the boats to say
nothing of the possibilities of a progressive flooding which might occur to a greater extent than can
be controlled b y the pumping equipment available
a f t e r damage, so-on this basis there should be no
quarrel with the consideration of lifeboat launching apparatus in determining stabilit)~ requirements b u t it should be pointed out t h a t in the discussions of these regulations there were other
thoughts advanced in support of the limiting
angles. I t was felt t h a t there is a possibility t h a t
a large angle of heel after damage might be conducive to panic arid" also it might result in extreme
difficulties in providing the necessary services for
the maintenance of the ship in the damaged state
such as the operation of generators, pumps, and in
those cases where machinery spaces might still be

S T A B I L I T Y .OF, SHIPS. IN~DA:MAGED C O N D I T I O N

intact, a too great an angle of heel might:render
the machinery extremely difficult, if not 'impossible, of operation.
: . . . . .
;
; ,,

545

of passenger ships, and that it will serve as a very

handy reference in.the future.
' ' ' :
~.

MR.~ jOHN.P. COMSTOCK,"M e m b e r : This paper

I am afraid that I cannot subscribe fully to the
authors' suggestion thatl in the application of the is of especial interest because, due to the positions'
discretionary powers of the administration in. re- Occupied b y the authors, it may be taken as notice
spect to the maximum allowable heel after dam-' of the-policies which will be followed in adminisage, consideration might be given to the factor of tering the 1949 Convention, partictilafly in those
sflbdivision of t h e vessel, allowing a greater lati- respects in which the Convention leaves considerttlde for those vessels which might approach, but able latitude to the Administration.
not equal, a: two-compartment standard than
For example, I note the suggestion near the top.
would be the. case for a vessel which only barely of page 485 that the Administration might use the
meets a one-compartment standard with corre- discretion M19wed in so-called "special ciises" responding controls on vessels which would have a garding the"final angle of heel a f t e r flooding as a
considerable m a r g i n above a. two-compartment means ofsfiioothing o u t : t h e sudden~.jump from
standard as against those which just barely meet one-compartment to two-'coinpartment stability
such a standard. I t should be realized t h a t the which occurs w h e n t h e factor'bf Subdivision passesl
discretionary powers as given to the administra- 0.5, b y arbitrarily varying this permitted .final'
tion in these stability regulations were intended to angle of heel. There is the further suggestion that~
be used on the grounds of:reasonableness and prac- this angle might also be arbitrarily varied because
ticability,.and to set any hard and fast scale upon of, the character of equalizing arrangements.
the allowable angle of heel after damage, within Such a policy would leave the designeY~somewhat
the range already permitted, and always assuming at.sea as regards the requirements he inust meet.'
that the margin.line would not be immersed, I n a particular case discussion w i t h the :Adminis-:
would be, to m y mind, a nullification of this ob- tration in the very earliest stages of design would.
jective. In a n y case i t s h o u l d be recognized t h a t be necessary to establish a fixed policy as regards
it is very rare t h a t a vessel has all compartments that particular design.
".
nearly up to the permissible length, it usually be-.
As coauthor o f ' t h e chapter in" Principles,. :of
ing found t h a t a number of the compartments N a v a l A r c h i t e c t u r e on "Subdivision of Ships," wri.thave'a substantially shorter l e n g t h t h a n the maxi- ten When there were n o . specific regulations.
mum lJ4rmissible length. This is very often true. regarding stability flooded, I was interested ::fn
in way. of t h e Midship machinery spaces and il~' how the recommendations made in Section 9 Of'
may often be that these compartments are the most t h a t chapter survived the 1949 Convention.
critical from a stability standpoint,, not only' in , These covered three items--, xtent of flooding,
association with symmetrical flooding b u t also. minimum remaining metaeentri~ height, and ac-.
since it is in these midship compartments t h a t ceptable angle of heel after flooding. Regarding
arrangements which might result in unsymmetrical extent of d/image, we stated t h a t "it seems t e a flooding are mos._t commonly found. ,.,Accordingly,. sonable and proper to assume flooding the number
if a n y controls are to be ~'stablished up0n the dis-. of compartments equal to the reciprocal of the
cretionary powers of the administration, I believe factor of subdivision; if this is not a whole numthat they should be established only after taking ber, the next whole number below the reciprocal
into consideration the particular compartment. should be used. For example, if the ship is a twounder question and the residual freeboard which compartment vessel or better but not a threeWill remain after floodingl since it is quite likely compartment'vessel, stability sufficient to survive
that even with a list of 15:degrees the flooding-of two-compartment flooding anywhere in the vessel
midship spaces may still leave a margin of. safety should be provided." This principle has in part
greater than that which ;'would result from. the survived in the 1949 Convention; with the excepflooding of a compartment near the quarter length tions that three-compartment vessles are required
o f t h e vessel with 0 degree list.
.to have :only two-compartment stabiflty, and that
T h e members of the Society owe thanks to the one=compartment vessels with a stepped bulkhead
authors foi presenting such a clear explanation of are 'in general required to have two-compartment
.
t h e - n e w stability regulations and for making stability in way of the step.
available suggested forms for carrying, out the
We proposed t h a t the metacentric height after
necessary calculations-and:for the presentation o f flooding be not negative. The Convention conthe. required informatidn.;. I am sure t h a t this tains this requirement, b u t modified it b y perpaper will prove to be~=:0fgr~at value to designers mitting.negiktive G M in undefined "special cases".

5,~4

STABILITY OF SHIPS IN DAMAGED CONDITION

a t the discretion of the Administration, provided

[6], illustrated in Fig. 38, page 196, of the Printhe resultant heel due to negative stability does ciples of Naval Architecture, in which outboard
not.exceed 7 degrees.
watertight bulkheads are used to increase the
We proposed that the final angle of heel due to angle of heel at- which progressive flooding could
unsymmetrical flooding should nol; immerse the first occur, is so practical and economical that I
margin line and that where there isample residual regret that it is not legally permissible. Perhaps
freeboard the heel should be limited to some speci- the authors can tell us why it is not.
fied limit such as 20 degrees. The Convention
The authors' proposal to present stability'inlimits the heel due to unsymmetrical flooding to formation on a basis of what they call a virtual
7 degrees, except that again in undefined "special height of the variable weights, discussed starting
cases" t h e t o t a l angle may be 15 degrees of Which on page 513 a n d illustrated by Fig. 53 on p~g~
not more than 7 degrees may b e due to hnega~ive 52I', is, S~) far as I know, new and seems to me to
residual GM.
have merit.
It seems to me that, with the possible exception
Tlaroughout this paper, the effect of the initial
of the 20 degrees maximum heel with ample re- trim of the loaded vessel is included in the detersidual freeboard, . in all three of:these respects a,' mination of stability after damage. To be conbetter case can be made for the regulation s regard- sistent, the effect of initial trim should be included
ing stability flooded suggested in the Principles of similarly in the calculation of floodable length.
Naval Architecture than for those in the 1949 Con- I would be interested in the authors' view on this
~ention.
point.
In the discussion of means of reducing the loss
of GM in the Principles of Naval Architecture, the
COMMANDER C. P. MURPHY, U. S. C. g., Memstatement is made that, "if flooding adjacent com- ber: Regardless of how certain the naval architect
partments causes losses of GM which differ greatly may be that some salt-water ballast in the oil
in amount, it may be desirable to step the inter- tanks will be acceptable, experience indicates that
vening bulkhead in way of the flooded waterline invariably the owners will find its use impractical
toward the compartment which causes the greater after the ship is in service. Therefore, if the deloss of GM." In this paper the.authors state that sign calculations.indicate that a large amount of
"GM losses for adjacent compartments should not salt-water ballasting in the fuel-oil tanks will be
be equalized by stepping the intervening bulk- necessary to meet damage stability requirements,
head." B o t h of these contradictory statements the naval architect should review the design imcan be justified. The authors' advice against mediately to see how the situation can be imsteps is based on the 1949 requirement that in a proved. ;
ship which is otherwise required to have one- ' This paper emphasizes the problems which
compartment stability, if a bulkhead is stepped should be 'faced and contains constructive sugin way of the~waterline, no m a t t e r how short the gestions as to how to proceed in solving these
step, the vessel must.have two-compartment sta- problems: As an indication of the scope which a
bility in way of the stepped bulkhead. This, of naval architect has for improvement of damage
course, severely penalizes such a step.
stability characteristics in new designs-it should
When the Principles of Naval Architecture was. be noted that a number of modern ships are fitted,
written, no such rule existed. As far as the actual in excess of the regulations, with sufficient bulkstability of the flooded ship is concerned, as op- heads to meet a two-compartment standard of
posed to compliance with a regulation, if under the subdivision but the maintenance of sufficient staconditions assumed in the Principles of Naval bility to .withstand the flooding o f any two of
Architecture the bulkhead is stepped as described,, these compartments is found impractical.
the maximum loss of GM Will be re_duc~ed: Whil.e
The authors state :that ~.the' iise .of a~-factor.~.of
I agree with 'the.authors t h a t under the Conven- subdivision does not provide ,a gradually increas:
tion shch a step m a y be undesirable, I consider ing.margin of safety in so far as stability is cont h a t the effect of thisrule in preventing a possible cerned. This is true as long as the allowable angle
reduction of loss of GM is unfortunate.
of-heel is limited b y the margin line b u t it should
Of course when the factor of subdivision is less be noted that, as the factor of subdivision dethan 0.5 and two-compartment stability throug h- creases, the residual freeboard after damage is inout is required, the penalty against the step_dis- .-cr~eased and this freeboard is available as a margin
appears while the benefit remains.
of safety in all eases where the required stability
With regards to increasing the pel-missible angle is based on a fixed limiting ang!e of heel.
of heel, the device proposed b y Theodore E. Ferris
: The problem o f providing the ship's operating

S T A B I L I T Y O F S H I P S I N :DA:blAGED C O N D I T I O N
personnel with stability information is a vital one,
and it is one for which !no complete solution has
been presented to date. T h e calculations involved in determining loading conditions of a
vessel require only the simplest forms of mathematics. Having in mind the complicated differential equations which can b e solved b y modern
computing machines, it certainly should not be
impossible to develop a simple and dependable
apparatus to compute the verticalcenter of gravity
of a ship in various loading conditions. With such
a device the stability could be checked easily before--cargo is taken on board and the effects of
various stowage arrangements could be checked
quickly to determine the m o s t suitable.
I t is hoped t h a t the directions in which this
paper points will be vigorously explored b y the
designers of new passenger ships.
PROFESSOR GEORGE C. MANNING, Member:
The priSvision of ttl~ 1948 Coiive]ation t h a t after
flooding is completed the metacentrie height
should be positive:brings up an interesting question; viz., how great m u s t the computed value of
GM be to insur~ that this quantity is not negative? The first reaction of most people to this
provision of the Convention is t h a t the ship
should b e considered to have the required sta_bility, if _the computed value of the metacentric
height is zero positive. I do not believe t h a t this
position can be m a i n t a i n e d . . According to the
classic theory of probability, it is a practical certainty t h a t no error will exceed four times the
mean error. T o be certain therefore t h a t ' t h e
metacentric height is not negative, the computed
value should be positive and four times the probable mean error in the computation of GM.
W h a t is the probable mean error in the value 6f
the metacentfic height obtained in the usual
methods of computation? The magnitude of.this
error depends upon the method of computation
and the precision of the data, if we assume no
error in the arithmetical work involved in the
comPutation. There is always a substantial ,uncertainty in the computed value of GM since it is
obtained b y subtraction of two nearly equal quantities.
Taking all things into consideration, it is probable t h a t the mean error in the computed value of
.the metacentric height of full-size ships is seldom
less t h a n ~-0.1 foot. If this is so, then to have a
practical certaiiaty t h a t G M is positive, the computed value should be + 0 . 4 foot. To put it another way, if the computed, value of the metacentric height is much less than half a foot, we cannot
ever feel certain that it ,will be positive:

545

In the .framing of regulations of this sort, it

seems to me t h a t it is preferable to specify the
acceptable computed value and the method of
c o m p u t a t i o n . . I n the m a t t e r of metacentrie
height- in d a m a g e d condition," it would appear t o ,
mei'therefore t h a t We would be on firmer ground,
if it w e r e prov~ded:.in the Convention t h a t the
vahie of' the metacentric height, eomputect by a
s[)ecific method (such as J. C. Niedermair's)
should no t b e less than. some specific value (say 0.4
fooL)..-'
..
The m a x i m u m vMue t h a t G~[R m a y have, if
negative, is t h a t value which will not produce a
list greater than 7 degrees. Using Niedermair's
equation for righting arms and his K values [1 ],
this comes out [GM~]~i~. = -- BMn
143

This is a

comparatively small quantity. If BMR = 30

feet, (GMR)~i~. = - 0 . 2 1 foot. In this-case, to-be
sure t h a t GMR is not less than - 0 . 2 1 foot (assum~ ,
ing a pt0bab!e mean error in GM of 0.1'foot)
would require a computed value of GM~ of + 0 . 1 9
foot. If a computed value for GMR. of . - 0 . 2 i foot
is-regarded as acceptable, i t is possible on the
given assumed mean error in .computation, to have
a .GMR of - 0 . 6 1 foot, which would result in a
materially, greater heel than 7 degrees.
I. do not know what c a n b e done about these
matters. I am not even sure t h a t anything should
be done, b u t certainly we naval architects should
not f0ol ourselves. We should never lose sight of
the fact t h a t the computed values are not absolutely precise, and t h a t these m a y indicate positive stability when actually the damaged ship m a y
become unstable. T h e provisions of the Convention of 1948 constitute a material improvement-.'
over those of the 1929 Convention. Whether or.":
not these are adequate can be determined only by.
experience and b y careful analysis of passenger
ship accidents which m a y occur in the future.
~IR. JOHN" C. NIEDI~RMAIR, Member: The information given in t h i s paper should prove most
helpful to the designers of merchant vessels.
Much progress has been made since the subject
was discussed before t h i s S o c i e t y in 1932. A
great deal of credit for the progress made during
the past twenty years is d u e t o the work done b y
t h e United States Coast Guard in the administra,
tion of the safety of life at sea regulationsand to
the United .States Maritime Commission for its
progressive ship designs during t h a t period.
I t is gratifying to see t h a t the authors have
found m y empirical f o r m u l a for intact and residual righting arms after damage to be reasonably
accurate, The value of K in the formula

546

STABILITY OF SHIPS IN DAMAGED

BM

GZ = GM

sin 0 -t- K 10---'-0

was checked b y myself and others, particularly b y

Professor H e n r y C. Adams of the University of
"Michigan, previous to its publication in m y
paper of 1932. At t h a t time I visualized its usefulness to the designer, during the early stages of a
design, in a manner similar to t h a t discussed in
this paper.
I question the suggestion t h a t the larger transverse radii of gyration have made it possible to accept the higher GM values now being assigned to
m e r c h a n t ships. I rather believe t h a t we have
found, from experience during the past twent3rfive years, t h a t higher GM values than were comm o n in previous years have improved the safety
of ships with little noticeable adverse effect on the
comfort of the passengers and crew.
With regard to the presentation of the damaged
stability data and the method of calculation, I believe the lost buoyancy method to be the more direct approach to the problem. I also recommend
t h a t we present the data in terms of t h e - G M
values directly rather than b y some indirfict reference such as the limiting KG method. The GM
is a direct indicator of a ship's stability which an
experienced naval architect can evaluate readily
and which the operating personnel can understand
with very little effort on their part.
T h e authors commendably have confined their
presentation of data and examples to the well
known C-3 type. Much information has been
published regarding the characteristics of this
type b u t I suggest t h a t the authors furnish additional information in their reply to this discussion,
regarding the dimensions and design coefficients
of the C-3.
PROFEssOR HENRY C. ADAMS, II, Member:
This paper is a valuable contribution to the Transactions of this Society in t h a t it not only records
the advances made in the last twenty-five years
in stability requirements, in both the intact and
damaged conditions, b u t also presents some of the
interpretations of the broad principles laid down
in the several Conventions for Safety at Sea. I t
was not so long ago t h a t one administrative authority proposed establishing the operating metacentric .heights of vessels b y their gross tonnage
without regard to their use, characteristics, or the
waters navigated. Such thinking led to the appointment of the sub-committee on Loading and
Stability b y the American Marine Standards
Committed in.1924. In their report, promulgated
in 1928, the farthest t h a t the committee felt they
could go in the m a t t e r of stability in the damaged

CONDITION

condition was t o require sufficient stability to

limit the heel to half the freeboard or a m a x i m u m
of 7 degrees in the event of flooding an e m p t y
wing compartment. Even this was not required
"where a properly recognized system of watertight subdivision is complied w i t h . . . "
F r o m a historical point of view the statement
at the b o t t o m of page 479 relative to the formulation of the factorial system of subdivision might be
misconstrued. T h e factorial system was adopted
b y the 1914 Conference although the values of
the factor for different lengths and services of
vessels were modified in 1929. This correction
adds to, rather than detracts from, the statement
made in the paper.
Is not the extent of damage inferred b y the
regulations t h a t to be expected from a direct
blow, as is evidenced b y the fore and aft extent
and the penetration ? Has any consideration been
given to the extent of a "ripping" damage such as
sustained b y the Titantic? Could not such a loss
occur under the present regulations?
In their discussion of the limitation of "heel the
authors state t h a t the Administration m a y accept
a negati~/e residual metacentric height providing
the resulting heel is not over 7 degrees. I t would
be of assistance to designers if the requirements
for such special consideration be given in general
terms.
Having at one time found it necessary to check
the area of an equalizing opening, the discusser is
much interested in the derivation of the empirical
equation for their minimum area. Was it based
upon detail calculations for such openings and, if
so, what time was assumed to be required to
equalize ?
A valuable addition would be the inclusion of
data and analyses of the behavior of vessels
which have suffered a casualty. Unlike the designer charged with the form, powering, and even
structure of a vessel, he who deals with watertight
subdivision and stability damaged has no trial
trips or full-sized tests to cheek his judgment and
calculations b u t m u s t make the most of casualties
when they.occur. I t is hoped t h a t a full report
upon the recent loss of the hospital ship Benevolence will be made b y the proper authorities and
included in the Transactions, either as p a r t of the
discussion of this paper, as an appendix to it, or as
a separate paper in the near future.
To name and discuss each valuable item of information given in this paper would require a discussion of prohibited length. However, as the
discusser has had some experience in attempting
to provide operators with a means of estimating
the stability condition of their vessel at sea, he
wishes particularly to compliment "the authors on

S T A B I L I T Y O F SHIPS IN DA~iA(~ED COND.ITION

the "VirtuM KG" method discussed in the paper.
I t is obviously simple, direct, and fundamentally
sound
MR. JOSEPH H. MCDONALD, Member,." This
paper is well conceived' and well presented, and
fills a need that has been recognized for some time
by those responsible for designing ships to meet
damaged stability criteria
An encouraging feature of the paper is its joint
authorship b y representatives of the two governmental authorities most intimately concerned
with the subject If this is an indication that the
United States Coast Guard and United States
Maritime Administration will henceforward be
o n common ground as to what constitutes adequate damaged stability, this effort will be saluted
b y all concerned.
I t is interesting to note that Senate Report 184
has been used for illustrative purposes only and
apparently is not a controlling influence i n evaluating damaged stability
I n spite of the cogent and theoretically acceptable arguments presented in favor of the proposition t h a t "the belief that a small GM is necessary
to comfort is relegated to the past," there will still
be found a number of the seagoing fraternity who
will disagree. Since a good many ship operators
are alumm of this school, the designer is faced
with a problem in salesmanship when G ~ r required" works out to 41/~ or 5 feet The fact remains that radius of gyration is comparatively inflexible, barring a major upheaval of the design,
while GM is subject to adjustment .even as the
work progresses After the design has reached a
rudimentary stage, pressure for a "comfortable
ship" can be relieved only at the expense of GM.
As stated, therefore, damaged stability should be
given consideration at the very inception of the
design
The c~urves showingthe effect on "G-~[ required"
of various wing tank arrangements and of variation in beam, draft, and form characteristics are
an interesting and valuable contribution. In Fig.
26, indicating the advantages of an increase in
beam, i is noted that "GM available" is based on
an assumed, a n d presumably constant, value of
KG. In the case of a design still in the fluid state,
particularly on a passenger vessel, it does not
appear altogether safe to make this assumption.
An increase of beam in such situations is usually
the signal for an increase in passenger accommodations and facilities with a consequent addition
of top weights. Any advantage thus gained in
the continuing struggle of "GM available" versus
"GM required" usually proves to be less than ex

[ - :

i,

547

pected, if not imaginary. Added to this is the fact

that the critical compartment with respect to
"GM required" is frequently or/e containing a
wing tank or tanks, and here any conclusion predicated upon variation in beam is likely to fall
down. In short, the data presented in .this section of the paper would appear to suffer from oversimplification.
As noted, the factorial system applying to flooding does not have its counterpart in damaged stability calculations, except inasmuch as the Administration has discretionary power over permissive angles of heel after flooding. Apparently no
definite allowable angle s of heel are contemplated
at this time, thus Administration approval must be
sought in the very early stages of a design. It does
not appear outside the bounds of possibility that
a definite szale of angles could be established to
suit varying conditions. For example, assuming
that heel to the margin line is not a factor, a ship
with a factor of subdivision of 0.49, which would
just barely be required to demonstrate two-compartment flooding and damaged stability, might
be assigned a limiting angle of heel as high as 15
degrees As the factor of subdivision decreased
from 0.49, a gradually decreasing angle could be
permitted until 7 degrees was reached around a
factor of 0.34. A factor of 0.51, representing a
Ship at the very upper limit of one-compartment
floodability, might be required to stay within a 7degree maximum. As the factor of subdivision
increased from 0.51, an increasing angle of heel
should be allowed up to a maximum of 15 degrees
at a factor of 1.00: In this manner a series of
"steps" in damaged stability requirements would
be avoided and the designer would be given a firm
basis for experimentation with alternate schemes
MR. E. V. LEWIS, Member: This paper is particularly timely now, not long after the adoption
for the first time of international regulations on
the subject of damaged stability The many comparative studies in the paper, with results presented in graphical form, help greatly to give an
over-all picture of the damaged stability problem
And the model test data are a valuable addition
to the paper I t .is encouraging to know that the
generally used formula for righting arms is found
to be reasonably accurate up to an angle of 15 degrees. The curves, of course, permit a more accurate choice of K factor when beam-draft ratios
are high.
The authors' statements on page 485 regarding
"gradually indreasing margin of safety" should
be given careful thought It is the writer's opinion
that one of the chief values of the new regulations

548

STABILITY OF SHIPS

IN DAMAGED

CONDITION

to the master in usable form is brought to our attention forcibly b y the new Convention. The
Coast G u a r d ' s practice of issuing stability letters
with instructions to supplement a stability booklet is explained in the paper. Where such instructions cannot be stated in simple and concise form,
we have found advantages in using curves worked
out to show the relationship between cargo stowage
and liquids in tanks, based on minimum GM for
stability.
For example, on the chart shown in Fig. 69 it is
assumed t h a t a total of 2,900 tons of cargo are
to be-stowed, of which only 250 tons are to be
aEove the second deck. Following the dotted lines
we arrive at 1,690 tons total tankage required.
The chart can be used also for the problem of de2
termining how the cargo should be stowed for a
certain specified tankage.
T h e study of inner-b6ttom fi6odingon page 482
0 C~c
....
g-ives a very good. picture of this type of damage.
I
I
I
I~
I
However, it should be noted that, if there is addiII.
13
~. IS
lq
Ig
Zl
ZS,
?S
Z'/-,
-tional
uns3r-s-tematical flooding in t h e hold above,
Tonsof Liquid Requiredin T~nks-Hundreds
the
keel
would then exceed 15 degrees in the case
FIG. 6Q.--REQUIRED TANKAGE C H A R T - - N o DECK CARGO
"where the double b g t t o m is flooded. This serves
to demonstrate the value of additional longitudinal subdivision of double b o t t o m s to reduce the
is to encourage people to think more realistically heeling m o m e n t after damage, as well as to reduce
of subdivision in terms of one-, two-, three-, etc. intact free surface losses.
The authors state on page 485 t h a t "it would be
c o m p a r t m e n t ships. This viewpoint leads inesCapably to the fact t h a t when a two-coinpartment difficult to".argue-for a larger angle of heel" than
standard i s reached (F = 0.5), there is a very
15 degrees.'. Yet we lmow t h a t ships in ballast
sudden, not gradual, increase in the standard of condition have come safely into port with heels of
safety. Under assumed conditions of draft and 45 degrees or more as a result of shifting ballast.
permeability, the t w o - c o m p a r t m e n t ship can be I t is conceivable t h a t a special type of vessel
expected to survive a typical collision damage, carrying a small number of passengers might be
s u c h as t h a t illustrated in the photograph, no mat-' designed with special attention to avoiding shiftter where it occurs along its length; while the one- ing weights,' with high freeboard, with specially
c o m p a r t m e n t ship can survive it only if the dam- designed davits, and with sufficient boats On
age misses all bulkheads. Hence, it seems prefer- either side for all on board ' t h a t it might actually
able to give up the old ideal of gradually increas- be quite safe at an angle of 20 degrees, or even 25
degrees. I t is unfortunate t h a t a figure such as a
ing safety fostered b y the factorial system.
Nevertheless the authors' suggestion for being 15-degree angle once adopted b y an international
more strict about angle of heel for a ship with F body must always be accepted as final and unjust above 0.5 for example (i.e., not qu!te a 2- changeable.
Likewise an angle of heel of 7 degrees is now
c o m p a r t m e n t ship) has merit, if it encourages designers not to be satisfied with legs than the 2- firmly intrenched as a m a x i m u m angle of heel due
to negative GM. This means actually t h a t the
c o m p a r t m e n t standard.
Incidentally, the Convention provides t h a t "suf- permitted negative GM is so small as to give negficient intact stability" in service shall be deterc ligible benefit. For example, in the case shown in
mined b y a study o f the worst anticipated condi- Fig. 58 of the Appendix, the negative GM. could
tions of loading and does not specifically mention be only 0.1 foot. A negative GAf of 0.25 foot
contr011iilg the actual loading and ballasting of would correspond to an angle of only 10 degrees,
ships after- they enter serVice. Hence, it Would be which does not seem excessive.
of interest to k n o w how far other Administrations
The theoretical basis for the formula on page 491
go inissuing stability letters or ottierwise control- for size of cross-connections is not explained. I t
would be of interest to know the time for crossling stability in operatio n .
The problem of presenting stability information flooding which is embodied in the formula. I t
45

,,\",\ A\

STABILITY-OF

,,.....

:.,@%.,,,.t~ .'.

SHIPS IN DAMAGED

would-seem t h a t this allowable time, and. therefore the equation itself, would v a r y greatly with
circumstances. In any case, it is understood t h a t
this formula is not a part of the 1948 Convention.
On page 517 mention.is made of using the homogeneous center for thec, gitical cargo space rather
th~n the actual cargo center. The writer does not
favor having this solution of the problem of p a r t
cargoes standardized, even though in a given ease
it m a y be'reliable.
T h e form used in Appendix 1 embodies an imp r o v e m e n t in including space for calculating the
a m o u n t of inertia for the final waterline. A n alternative way of determining inertia change due
to sinkage and trim when a large number of conditions is to be worked 6ut is to prepare a family
of curves of m o m e n t of inertia vs. draft, for trim
b y the head and b y the stern. When the inertia
is calculated on the form, a simplification can be
made b y using the trapezoidal rule, since this rule
is as accurate or more accurate t h a n Simpson's
rule for waterplane.moment: of inertia.
A further qualification of the method of calculation given in Nppendix -1 would be t h a t Where the
trim is considerable, a s in the case of damage to
c o m p a r t m e n t s near the endsi the trim determination losesaccuracy, if t h e r e q u i r e d G M is critical ~
in such a case, it is well to check the trim b y means
of a trial t r i m l i n e calculation.
T h e importance of minimizing the possibilities
of unsYmmetrical flooding is mentioned in several
places in the paper. This is a m a t t e r which cannot be too much emphasized. I t should be remembered also t h a t in case of damage at the waterline means should be provided, for downward
flooding through decks which m a y be effectiVely
watertight (or in refrigerated spaces). ~Otherwise
the condition of flooding over a flat discussed on
p'age 490'will result.
.'-:
'.,
_ . . .

.,

MR. MATTHEW C~. FORREST, Member: This is a

very able paper, and a useful document ~for the
designer. In m y examination, I find t h a t m a n y
separate phases of w h a t we call the "Stability
Problem" are dealt With and not only the background of the D a m a g e d Stability Regulatioris.
of the 1948 Convention as the first paragraph
would indicate.
I n any paper dealing with the subject "Standards for Stability of Ships in Damaged Condition," required reading is the.well:known D e p a r t m e n t of Commerce d o c u m e n t - - S e n a t e R e p o r t
184. This document is conspicuous in th.is.paper I
b y its absence, the only.' mention of it b_eing, on
page 516 where it is r e f e r r e d !o as containing a
table for the ready determination of the. Virtual

CONDITION

549.

rise in the center of gravity of liquid in a tank.. I

can assure you t h a t Senate Report 184 is of greater
importance than t h a t in any damaged stability'
consideration. ,
I c a n a g r e e with m a n y of the explanations Of
how and why t h e - d a m a g e d stability, regulations
of the 1948 Convention came about; b u t I cannot
agree t h a t these are standards to which we should
all repair! . ' I t seems to me t h a t the case for not having a 3c o m p a r t m e n t standard for damaged stability is
not well made. There is no reason to believe t h a t
a gradual increasing margin of safety should not
be continued through the 3-compartment range,
as is the case in the America. Actually, the attaining of the higher standard b e c o m e s s i m p l e r
as the length of the ship increases.. The increased
number of passengers and crew associated with a
large vessel make it all the more imperative t h a t
such a high degree of safety be attained.
T h e inference in th e paper is t h a t t h e Q.E. and
" t h e Q . M : ; as-our"B'ri(isti friendscall them, aye not,
.3-eoinpartment ships, although the British have
refrained-fr0m--giving out quantitative information on this subject.
Under- tlie; i948 Convention, the.building' o~ new
ships of this type would be required to be only to a
2-compartment standard. Considering t h e ' size
and importance of such vessels, and their obvious.
use as transports in time of national emergency,
any limitations to a 2-compartment standard
w o u l d seem to be ill advised.
..
Reference is made to the facic tiaat where additional standards were required, speaking of damaged stability, "the British and United S t a t e s
practices, under which appreciable service exi~erience has been accumulated, served largely as a
basis for consideration." W h a t were the United
States practices put forward b y our delegation?
I submit t h a t these should:have been the damaged
stability requirements in accordance with Senate
Report .184. T h e largest proportion of vessels
referred to were constructed under the auspices,
or related in: some manner, to the Maritime Administration, which has administered Senate Report 184.
There are differences between the 1948 Convention add Senate Report 184 in both the fldod-:
ing and damaged stability regulations, b u t time
will not permit their analysis here. T h e " A " and
" B " curves and surface permeabilities are examples. A comparison of these and the views of
the authors concerning t h e m would m a k e ' f o r a
discussion which would-answer the question as
to where we in the United States stand in regard to
safety of life at sea.

550

STABILITY OF SHIPS IN DAMAGED

We have always stood for the highest practical

standard and it appears to me t h a t in the light of
the action taken b y the 1948 Convention, Senate
Report 184 should be reissued, with the minor
amendments issued to date b y the Maritime Administration, so t h a t it can continue to serve as a
guide to American practice.
MR. VINCENT ALBIACH,Member: I would like
first to t h a n k y o u r Society for this opportunity to
express m y opinion on the very important question of "Standards for Stability of Ships in D a m aged Condition," which was discussed at length in
London during the latest International Conference. I also wish to emphasize the value of the
American proposals on this subject.
The. provisions finally agreed upon b y most of
the delegates at the Conference constitute, as
stated b y the authors, a great improvement when
compared with those of the 1929 Convention.
However, the discussion still remains open on
certain aspects of the problems regarding the subdivision criterion as well as the stability after
damage, and I share the opinion of the authors on
the possibility of improvement.s.
In fact, the verification of the compliance with
the 1948 Conve~ltion provisions involves at present a great a m o u n t of calculations on 'trim, sinkage,, ~and,~stability,- all: of, which, are, , interfering.
with each other so t h a t it is qiaite impossible to
determine a priori which is the governing requirement.
In view of simplifying the work the authors
propose to ascertain mainly and exclusively that
the final stage of the ship flooding complies with the
Convention requirement, with a view of determining the modulus of stability before flooding.
This method does not take into account the intermediary stages of the flooding which are clearly
prescribed b y the Regulation 7, paragraph f(iii),
as follows :
" I f it is considered t h a t the margin line m a y
become submerged during an intermediate stage
of flooding, the Administration m a y require such
investigation and arrangements as it shall consider necessary for the safety of the ship."
Since the Convention has been issued and
applied in several passenger ships of different
types, we have had the opportunity to verify t h a t
in m a n y cases the study of the stability in the
intermediate stage of flooding is a governing condition with regard to the modulus of stability required before flooding, or as to the precautions to
be taken in view of limiting the effects of the
flooding when the margin line is submerged.
This is the main reason why the method pres-

CONDITION

0.50

0.40

a3o

0.20

//

0.I0

10 "

15

Z0

25

30

Degrees O

FIG. 70.--COMPARISON OF EQUATIONS:

GZ

=p

= GMslnO+K~
GZ

= pf(#)

sin0+l~
7

--ssin0and

s sin 0

ently applied b y the Bureau.Veritas s deals with

the exact position of the ship in all the intermediate stages of flooding and thus allows us to
know the position of the margin line with regard
to the sea level b y the previous determination of
the mean draft, trim, heel, and residuary stability
modulus.
Th~ method p r o p o s e d b y tlae authors;consisting . . . . . .
of applying to every weight on board a factor
depending on the longitudinal position of the
center of gravity of such weight, seems very
attractive and it m a y be assumed t h a t after
certain training such a method m a y be applied b y
the master of the ship. But it is obvious that, as
previously explained, m a n y of the other determining factors are omitted, so, in our opinion,
such a method should be c o m p l e t e d - - a n d we do
not see h o w - - w i t h a view to its application to the
design of the ship, when dealing with the Convention requirements.
We have been very much interested also in the
diagrams established b y the authors, thanks to the
numerous and complete calculations and tests on
the C-3 type vessel. Some of the conclusions
dealing with the righting a r m curve have been
illustrated b y a series of diagrams which seem
reliable for other types of vessels. According to
the authors' suggestions, the righting a r m would be

GZ

= GMsinO

+ KBM

loo

in which the value of the coefficient K is given in

the paper b y special charts.
i See Conference 48th Session (1949) of the Association Technique
Maritime et Aeronautique.

S T A B I L I T Y O F SHIPS: I N D A M A G E D C O N D I T I O N
When dealing with the same problem and in
order to avoid the difficulties of the calculation
usually involved in such cases of great angles of
list by the usual methods, we have demonstrated
and indicated in the previously mentioned paper
the following formula:

551

is now satisfied that t h e . s t a n d a r d s of safety

should be reduced in large ships in which the
Government h a s large investments, particularly
in view of the f a c t t h a t one of t h e Strongest
arguments for building large passenger vessels
is to have transports available in time of War.
This is of special' interest in case of such vessels
GZ = BM(cos ~ q-sin 82an 8.)tan0 - BG sin #
w h e r e Senate Report 184 requires three-compartment flooding and stability in the damaged
which results are very close to those given by the condition, but the 1948 Convention generally
authors (see Fig. 70).
requires less than three-compartment damage
The application of the Bureau Vefitas formula for flooding and only two-compartment damage
is very interesting for determining the list of the for damaged stability.
ships in case of initial negative stability.. When
ascertaining that in such case the list angle does
not exceed 7" degrees the required initial GMn
CAPTAIN E. A. WRIGHT, U.S.N., Member: In"
commenting on this fine paper, I should like to
must have the following value:
mention only the significant part that models play
GMR = - 0.0075BMR
in studies of damaged stability. "The Bureau of
Ships
now makes a damaged stability model .of
while the value indicated by the authors' diagram
every important combatant ship, and determines'
is equal to
therefrom the margin of buoyancy and stability
GMn = - 0.00695BMn
in various conditions of damage.
which is satisfactorily close to the aforesaid value.
Damaged stability models are not new. MonIn our opin!op, _th.e: analytic expression of our sieur L. E. Bertin, Director of Naval Construe-.
formula facilitates-its application.
.tion in France, first suggested and used the
With regard to cross,flooding piping systems, method to study the subdi;cision of ships in- 1866.
we .ha~/e :_already exprgssed our opinion in the Professor C. H. Peabody at the Massachusetts
previously mentioned paper and we are satisfied to Institute of Technology directed various d a m a g e d
share the same opinion expressed b y the authors stability model experiments in the 1890's. T h e
in-their present paper. T h e .use-of such-devices United States Experimental Model Basin in 19i8
must be thought out very carefully by the de- made an extensive model investigation of t h e
signers as well as by the shipmaster. In f a c t , damaged stability of the Colorado class of battle:
such devices must be considered, in our opinion; ships.
as an artifice for complying with the Convention
Various types of model construction have been
provisions in case of unsymmetrical flooding when used. The model of the Benham class of destroythe characteristics a n d t h e subdivision of the ship ers had a fore and aft steel beam which formed
cannot be improved. In certain, cases it should be backbone to support wooden sections. The setsafer to substitute for such devices, When they are tions could be removed to simulate the opening
necessary, separated direct sea inlets separately of compartments.to the sea. The Brooklyn class
controlled from the bulkhead deck.
model had a composite construction with metal
compartments in the middle body and wooden
MR. H. J. WENNBERG, Member: T h e paper dis- ends. Destroyer, cruiser, and aircraft carrier
cusses generally the various factors affecting the models in the last five years have been of all-metal
GM required for damage, and the measures to be construction. Recently a plastic damaged staconsidered in order to keep this requirement as bility model has been built successfully and tested.
: T h e model method has definite advantages.
low as possible. The discussion is based entirely
on the 1948 Convention which after ratificatiori After the model is built, ,various damaged condiwill be a legal requirement for damaged stability tions can be investigated more rapidly than by calsince the Senate Report 184 has had advisory culation, and there is therefore less chance of overforce only. However, it has been the practice looking a critical condition. The effect of trim
of the Maritime Administration to insist t h a t all on transverse stability at an angle of heel, which
designs approved by them should at least meet may be considerable in transom stern ships, is
the requirements of Senate Report 184. This apparent in a model b u t usually is neglected in
seems a sound position. I t would be of interest calculations. The accuracy of model results is'
to know if this policy has been changed and, if so, well .within the precision required for damaged
the reasons why the Maritime Administration stability studies:

552

STABILITY OF SHIPS IN DAMAGED

:. M o d e l studies are providing,~i-increasing knowledge of the ability of ships to survive d a m a g e from

collisions, storms, strandingi~'*:~and -Underwater
explosions.' Pt~.

MR."ROBERTTATE, Member: I should like to

take this opportunity to express thanks tol the,.
authors of this paper for what m u s t have been a
staggering task. Both of these gentlemen represent agencies of the Federal G o v e r n m e n t which
l~ave been occupied with m a n y and diverse problems during these last troubled months, and I suspect this paper was prepared at considerable expense to their personal time and pleasures.
I do not consider myself qualified to c o m m e n t
on the more intricate mathematical formulations
and principles which the authors have presented
for the guidance of the naval architect in applying
the requirements of the International Convention to the basic problems of ship design. I will
confine m y remarks to t h a t phase of the m a t t e r
which relates to the presentation of stability d a t a
for use b y operating personnel. " As a representative of a steamship operator I believe. I can say
that t h a t is a very real problem and a very difficult one with which to cope.
I wish to cite two examples to. illustrate what
actually can happen when a ship suffers grave and
extensive damage a n d the operating personnel
either do not have'available, or else do not effectively consider, information and data from which
they should be able to anticipate the vessel's
chances for survival.
The first case involves the ~vessel illustrated on
the first page of this paper, a salvage operation in
~hich I personally participated and for which I
later .received a citation from the Commanderi.fi-Chief of the Pacific Fleet.. This? vessel was
r a m m e d b y another in.way of-No. 2 hold, resulting
in the flooding of one large hold, a n d ' the broaching of one deep tank. Due to inherently low initial vertical G]kr characteristic in ships of t h a t
type, combined with the extensive loss of waterplane area due to the damage, she took an immediate and startling list, b u t in her listed condition
was relatively stable and in no immediate danger
of sinking. Nonetheless. she was abandoned b y
her crew and left as a derelict with watertight
doors open, airports in undamaged c o m p a r t m e n t s
open, and progressive flooding through small
leaks completely unchecked. As a result, and in
spite of moderate weather; flooding progressed to
such an extent that, when she was boarded by the
salvage crew the following day, it ~vas .then necessary to beach her on an unfavorable shoreline with
further extensive damage to her b o t t o m which

CONDITION

greatly increased the cost and time required to

repair her.
T h e other instance involves the recent loss of a
'hospital ship on the West Coast. In this case, the
opposite situation prevailed. The master apparently remained convinced that, after d/~mage b y
ramming, his vessel was not in immediate danger
of sinking, and according to what information has
been made public, delayed giving the order to
abandon ship until she was too far gone to permit
the ship's force to abandon her ~vithout considerable loss of life..
. The reason I have cited these two eases is t h a t
they serve to demonstrate the necessity for having
available at the time of a catastrophe instant information on two points. First, the master m u s t
know what is the maximum damage the vessel
carl suffer and still remain safely afloat; and,
second, he m u s t know the true extent of the damage and whether it does, or does not, exceed the
maximum permissible for survival. If the master
has.accurate information.on these two points,..-he-.-.can-determine his course of action for abandoning
ship, or waiting for assistance.
,.
Now, whether we like it or not, ship masters
usually are not versed in naval architecture, and
I a m inclined to think this m a y be a good thing,
for a little knowledge along those lines can be a
mighty dangerous thing in the hands of an amateur. T h e master.usuall F doesn't know-and probably. wouldn't understand, if .he.. did.know~ the
G2]~r of his ~essel intact or in damage. I a m in~
clined to think he will be equally unconcerned
with the "Virtual KG" suggested b y the authors.
W h a t the master does know, or can find out
easily, are such matters as draft, trim, tankage,
ballast, cargo distribution, and usually the extent
of damage ar/d flooding. All but the last two 0[
these are dealt with, where applicable, in the conventional stability letter now posted b y the Coast
Guard. In general, the Coast Guard does an excellent job of making this letter short, readable,
and understandable, and I realize the importance
of not having it any longer than absolutely necessary, but I do propose t h a t one additional factor
be added to this letter; t h a t is, I would add a
statement, in tabular form if necessary, as to the
exact amount of damage and flooding the vessel
can take and still expect to survive. I would discontinue the present practice of saying t h a t she
will have "satisfactory stability" if operated
Within certain limiting conditions of loading.
If' this information is available in the pilot house,
where it will be read and can be referred to immediately in emergency, I believe the average master
will then have available all 'the information he

S T A B I L I T Y O F S H I P S I N DAlVlAGED C O N D I T I O N

ffl'

553

S,~ = 0"2679 (GM -F 0.0324 BM)

really needs in deternfining what orders to give.
B
I know t h a t the foregoing remarks sayor of oversimplification of what is actually a complicated
In the case of strictly wall-sided vessels,
subject b u t we m u s t face the fact t h a t the sea0.2679 (GM at- 0.0359 BM)
faring m a n is not a mathematician even at the
'$15
[:,:, !
,B
best times. Even those of us who iunderstand
$15 m a y be plotted on B i d or G M / B .
The
fairly complicated calculations while Sitting o v e r
our very stable .drawing boards m a y "blow-up"' values of F shown on Figs. 35-40 indicate' the
and forget everything we ever knew about the further validity of this factor, for normal f o r m s
subject when we have just had ten or twenty and B i d ratios.
If the models 3921-3926, K G is assumed = K M
thousand tons of steel mass come barging through"
and B = 2.5 feet, then Sis = 0.1017 F . B M and,
our front door.
a s t h e authors point out, F . B M evaluates the g a i n
At the risk of being considered-repetitious I a m
going to summarize m y thoughts with the follow- in stiffness due t o form and I / V .
ing specific suggestions:
MR. L. F. ROBERTSON, JR., 6 Visitor:. In view
1. T h a t all mechanical calculations involving
"of
the requirements for stability in the d a m a g e d
the ship's stability characteristics continue to be
condition set forth in the International Convenaccomplished ashore prior to operation.
2. T h a t the best manner of presenting these tion for Safety of Life at Sea of 1948, it a p p e a r s
results to l:he operating personnel is in" simple t h a t t h i s paper is a valuable addition to the prec
:l
' " ' rd yioh"~ papers 6h the subject,
letter form, equivalent to the present Coast-Gua
I
believe
t
h
a
t
the'discussion
concerning
Figs. 4
stability letter.
through 7 is exceptionally valuable in lei/ding-to
3. T h a t this letter should be expanded to ina better understanding of the intent of the 1948
clude a specific definition of how much damage
Convention regarding the allowable angle of heel
can be suffered without danger of loss of the ship.
after damage.
This statement should be. in clear English without
I t has been shown in Fig. 27 t h a t a change from
resort to abstruse mathematical terminology, or
the U- to the V- type of form will result in an.in,
even to graphic representations.
crease in stability of the vessel and at the same
time c a u s e : a slight reduction in required G M .
"PROFESSOR L. A. BAIER, Member: This admir- This increase in stability m a y - b e desirable in
able paper reflects the extensive experience of the m a n y Cases, yet by the authors' statement will
authors in the field of stability a n d is of value to lead to shorter periods of-roll and .pgssible unt h e d e s i g n e r and operator. The proposed virtual comfortable and more dangerous behavior 6f the
vessel in certain combinations of wave motion
K G method for daily accounting and maintenance
of the required Gdkl appears superior to the vari- and speed: I t therefore appears desirable }:6 atous methods used or promoted in the past, and t e m p t to obtain the necessary stability for safe
should present no real difficulties to the m a t e or operation at the lighter drafts without the result
of excessive stability, with its quick period of roll~
master.
Figs. 35 to 40 are of particular interest to the in the full-load conditions.
One immediate solution to this problem is to
discusser in connection w i t h projected righting
m o m e n t c u r v e s in preliminary design. The func= raise the center of gravity of consumable liquids on
.tion F corresponds to the arbitrary K1 as derived the vessel t 6 as high a level as possible. A study
from Niedermair's K values. At Michigan we has been made using as a basic ship the standard
frequently have estimated the comparative stiff- C3 cargo vessel. The tankage of this vessel as
ness of yessels within a given type of design at a designed is 1,750 tons, all of which is located in
the inner-bottom and settlilng tanks. Epr comstandard heel of 15 degrees b y use of t h e f a c t o r
,.:par.ison
of avail.able G M' s, Ithe arrangement was
Sxs, where :
..
modified b y 1.'ocating all ofl the fuel oil in wing
$1~ GZ see 0
"
..,
tanks extending along the sides of Nos. 2, 3, and
4 h o l d s . The desired capaci, ty was obtained Witl{
sin 0 (G3~ + K, BM) see 0
a width of 5 feet 6 inches in dach wing.
= 0.2679.(CM B
,""- ".
.Moving the-fuel, o!! into w h a t was formerly
-F KIBM) "
B.
"
. cargo space resulted in a reduction of bale cargo
cubic of about 10 per cent. ' P a r t of this could be"
For 15 degrees;.K = 0.837 a n d K x ' ~.'.0.0324,
6 Federal
Maritime
Administration/United
States
Departmeht
of
hence
,
~. . . .
" ~.L' '"
.- ~
" "
Commerce, W a s h i n g _ t o n , D . C ~

554

STABILITY OF SHIPS IN DAMAGED CONDITION

3Z

Z9

GMAvaULble P
ModifiedShlo I

'

\
Available 6M. "

\6M AvaLh:lble
Ship ds Builf

Z6

N$1"andardForrn"\,.~/~,,.. I
IX./ j AvailableGMFi9.12'

,,/"

~xz ~, RequiredGMFig.TZ

~,~-6~ ReqUiredModifiedShip

25
o

I*--- GH ~,equlf'e3Ship as ~ul|.l.

I

GM- Feet

/
I

/
2

\. \

Required6M

. ~ f Stondofd Form

G~.- Feet

FIG. 71.--EFFECT OF I~AISING C.G. OF F.O. ON C3 TYpE

VESSEL

FIG. 73.--EFP~.CT OF FORMO N :REQUIREDANDAVAILABLE

GM

regained however b y reducing the depth of the

double-bottom tanks to the minimum f o r wl{ich
adequate structural strength could be maintained.
The inner-bottom spaces voided by this arrangement would become ideal for use as a clean ballast
system where additional draft is required for the
light cargo conditions or where increased stability
is desired.
For the purpose of damaged stability studies,
the wing fuel-oil tanks were assumed cross-connected. These studies indicated that the foregoing relocation of tankage would result in a
negligible increase in the required GM o f the
vessel when damaged.
A comparison of the stability characteristics of
the original ship and the modified ship (a s illust.rated b y Fig. 71) will show that t h e a v a i l a b l e
GM of the modified ship in the departure condition is about 0.8 foot less than that of the original
arrangement. Conversely, due to the reduction
in free surface correction, a slightly increased
margin of safety is obtained in the arrival condition of the modified vessel
Another approach toward the problem 9 f ira-

proving stability without increasing full-load

GM's has been mad)" b y use of a hull form including a midship section as shown in Fig. 72. Although all of the characteristics of this type of hull
have not b e e n determined as yet, it is felt t h a t
enough has been done to merit some mention at
this time.
Fig. 73 is an approximate diagram of the stability Characteristics of a vessel with midship
section as in Fig. 7-2.
Upon examination of Fig. 73 it can be seen that
the stability conditions of the vessel are improved
considerably, at the lower drafts, over those of a
vessel of normal form with a beam equal to the
full-load beam shown in Fig. 72. This improvement at the lower drafts, however, does not affect
the expected easy rolling characteristics of the
vessel adversely when fully loaded. I t is hoped
that further studies of this type of hull will substantiate fully the preliminary conclusions s t a t e d
in the foregoing.
In conclusion, I wish to compliment the authors
on what I consider an excellent paper, and which
I feel will become a valuable reference for anyone
concerned with the problems of stability after
damage.

.k

I
I

Full Load 30'6"

FIG. 72.--MIDSHIP S~CTION

MR. H..:E. SKINNER, Visitor: The authors are

to be congratulated on presenting a paper containing such a wealth of information. I t is to be
regretted, however, that the regulations for stability and subdivision apply only to passenger
ships, and that this deep study could not with advantage be appli'ed effectively to cargo and other
vessels, many of which .we know would sink even
if a single compartmen t were open to the sea.
In assessing standards of stability naval arehiteets have been unduly influenced, in my opinion.,

STABILITY OF SHIPS IN DAMAGED

b y the vague fear t h a t passengers are allergic to
large metacentfie heights. The authors, although
they rightly dismiss the idea t h a t a small GM is
essential for comfort at sea, still appear to feel t h a t
the value to be provided in a passenger ship design should be geared down to t h a t which will
just cover the calculated requirements of damage
stability. Actually, as" we all know, after a ship
is b u i l t there is a continuous encroachment of
added top weight; tending very soon to eat up
the margin of safety given to a ship so designed.
I t is pertinent therefore to inquire whether the
authors think t h a t the time has now arrived to
endow ships with a much ilarger initial metacentric
height. If the period of roll is any criterion of
comfort, smaller passenger ships now in existence
m a y h a v e periods possibly 80 per cent shorter
than those of larger vessels, b u t do not appear to
have an undue number of complaints directed
against t h e m on the score of comfort at sea. If
this is so, it would seem possible to increase the
metacentric heights of larger vessels and still
give t h e m periods of swing within those now prevailing in smaller vessels of the same type. These
conditions, I a m sure, would be acceptable to
passengers, especially if they were told t h a t
stiff ships are safe s h i p s . In fact, it is suggested
t h a t initial GM's of the value of L / 1 0 0 are more
appropriate to passenger ships than the values
now in vogue. If this is correct, it would seem
t h a t passenger ships could and should be designed
with sufficient metacentrie heights to .avoid conditions of negative GM in any state of symmetrical flooding.
In discussing methods of increasing residual
GM, the authors suggest t h a t builders could take
advantage of the m a x i m u m angle of heel allowed,
b y raising the bulkhead deck presumably b y one
deck. This device might nullify itself if the designer raised the bulkhead deck only to increase
the spacing of bulkheads, with consequent increased flooding due to damage.
i

JR., ? Visitor: T h i s
clearly expressed, detailed explanation of the stability required b y the 1948 Convention will serve
practically as a text whenever a design t h a t m u s t
conform to t h e Convention is being developed.
T h e discussion of considerations leading to the
adoption of the requirement is helpful in understanding its intent. The proposals of means and
methods b y which conformity with the requirem e n t can be assured o b v i a t e much of the thought
and study t h a t m a n y individuals would otherwise
have to spend on the matter.
MR.

CHARLES

L.

WRIGHT,

7 N a v a l Architect, Bureau of Ships. N a v y D e p a r t m e n t , Washington, D . C .

'"

CONDITION

555

The adoption of a stability requirement consistent with the subdivision requiremen t indeed
constitutes an i m p o r t a n t i m p r o v e m e n t over the
1929 Convention. To those of us who have been
concerned with similar provisions as applied to
naval vessels, m a n y of which are designed to survive several times the extent of damage required
even by the 1948 Convention and to conform to a
much higher standard of subdivision, it has seemed
imperative to obtain reasonable assurance t h a t a
vessel would not capsize or heel to an excessive
angle after any flooding upon which the subdivisions are based. Otherwise, the sacrifices in other
characteristics made necessary b y the subdivisions
could not be justified.
I t is difficult, of course, from an administrative
point of view, to agree on limiting conditions con-.
sidered satisfactory after damage, and on methods of determining whether a vessel could comply
with these conditions. However, any regulation
t h a t directs thought along these lines will lead to
the various improvements which the authors of
this paper point out will reduce the loss in stability after flooding. T h e ability of the ship to
survive some cases of damage will therefore be increased.
F r o m a technical point of view, if it is conscientiously intended to provide the greatest
ability to survive damage consistent with the
sacrifices made in other characteristics, more detailed and direct studies than those required to assure conformance with the Convention should be
considered.
During the preliminary stages of a design, before
the form of the hull has been established, approxim a t e calculations based on empirical relations are
all t h a t are possible. But as the design approaches
final development, consideration of the exact form
and other specific factors will sometimes show
significant differences in the characteristics of the
ship after flooding. From studies of naval vessels
it has been found t h a t calculations based directly,
on righting moments of the intact portions of the
hull after damage are more reliable and comprehensive than calculations of GM values based on
waterplane inertias such as the method discussed
in this paper.
For example, a C-3 type vessel at an even-keel
draft of 25.3 feet before damage could sustain the
flooding of the two c o m p a r t m e n t s between frames
47 and 102 without critical loss of buoyancy. By
the method discussed in this paper, a virtual GM
of 4.6 feet before damage would be required in
order to prevent a list of more t h a n 15 degrees
after this flooding. This is illustrated graphically on Fig. 74. A Curve of directly calculated

556

STABILITY OF SHIPS IN DAMAGED CONDITION

I
I
I
I

GM: = I.G~
GMu =3.0'
GMR=4.B'

(D
I

G~
LO

GM: S~n B

I
I

._

I
I

15

90

Ancjle of Heel-Degrees

KM : t S . l '
Req'd. GM= 4,6'
K6 =24.1 t

Reslduol G-L
(57.

Angle of Heel-Degrees

m-~
lOZ

"'

II

J
59

GZ : Righting Arm
OZ =Heeling Arm
GMa = Residual GM
GML = Losf G F?
GM~=Required GM
. F I p . 7 4 . - 4 C : 3 T Y P B VESSBLS.

47

Tanks" Full Before Damage

~ ' ~ " Flooded A f t e r Damage

-. ' . .

DRAFT BEFORE DAMACE ,= 25.3 FEET

STABILITY OF SHIPS IN DAMAGED

righting arms after this fooding, based on the
c e n t e r of gravity established b y the required GM,
is also shown. This curve indicates t h a t the vessel would actually heel to 12 degrees instead of
15 degrees, and t h a t the required GM could be
reduced 0.5 foot before the angle of list would
reach 15 degrees.
I t is also possible that, for some designs, curves
of directly calculated righting arms might indicate
t h a t the actual heel could be greater than t h a t
upon which the required GM is based, or t h a t the
righting arms after damage might not be large
enough to prevent capsizing.
The cross-connecting of wing spaces discussed
on page 491 is a desirable means of reducing the
heel t h a t might result after flooding, provided the
valves in the cross-connections are operated
properly. T h e minimum sectional area considered to be satisfactory for these connections seems
small. If the space on one side of the ship flooded
immediately, due to damage, approximately 15
minutes would elapse before the opposite space
completely flooded. This is rather a dangerous
length of time for a vessel to have a critical list.
In naval designs, m a n y times this a r e a is required,
and the" largest ducts or trunks practicable are
recommended. Cross-connections are used principally i n dry spaces. W!ng spaces intended to
carry liquids are subdivided b y transverse bulkheads into comparatively small tanks, and each
tank is required to be-refilled with sea-water ballast as soon as it becomes empty. Consequently,
not more than one t a n k of each type of liquid
Could be flooded unsymmetrically at any time.
Information and calculation forms for keeping
a periodic check on actual KG values, similar to
those described in the proposal starting on Rage
513, have been furnished to a few cargo-type naval
auxiliaries. R e q u i r e d stability expressed b y
curves o f a l l o w a b l e KG values vs. draft are now
included in tile D a m a g e Control Books issued to
most naval vessels. F r o m the limited experience
gained, it is evident t h a t the proposal is. practical
in operation and results. I t appears, however,
t h a t such a procedure should be simplified in every
way possible, and t h a t the ship personnel concerned be given complete and illustrated instructions in its application.
MR. F.- G. EBEL, Member: The adoption b y the
Convention of a r e q u i r e m e n t t h a t a ship shall have
sufficient transverse stability to withstand the
prescribed damage finally puts seflse into the regulations covering this phase of safety of life at sea.
Now, if we couldonly Work out some arrangement
With the Almigtit)r which w o u l d rule o u t the" p6s-

CONDITION

557

sibility of a one-compartment ship being struck

at a watertight bulkhead, we would have a fairly
logical and consistent set of regulations.

Since, as pointed out in the paper, there is some

latitude of judgment allowed the Administration
i n application bf the new.regulation in respect to
permissible heel, it would be interesting to learn
from the authors if t h e r e is any machinei-y set up
for interchange of information between the contracting governments as to their interpretations.
' T h e inclusion by. the authors of examples of detail calculations adds a great deal to the value of
this paper. There is nothing like an actual example iworked out in detail to illustrate the application of a principle, particularly in the case of a
learner.
The operating stability control .method proposed by the authors is a very ingenious one, and
anyone familiar with this phase of naval architecture will readily appreciate the great a m o u n t of
work it must have entailed. Certainly this is a
very logical and reasonably simple procedure for
maintain!ng a check o n the ship's stability. This
brings up the question of what is being done in the
way of training merchant marine officers to fit
t h e m for assuming the responsibility of maintaining a ship in the required stability condition.
Now t h a t we have definite requirements to meet,
it seems only reasonable t h a t every ship should
Kave in its c o m p a n y a m e m b e r thoroughly familiar
with the problem of maintaining stability, and
capable of making the necessary calculations.
Without this, the efforts of the designer are mostly
wasted, and the regulations useless.
T h e authors are to be commended for presenting to the Society so much interesting and usable
information on this i m p o r t a n t subject.
MR. GEORC~ P. WEINBLUM, 8 Visitor: A slight
criticism m a y be expressed concerning the investigation on the m a x i m u m permissible GM based
on Figs. 8-13.
This investigation deals with the period relationshi p (tuning factor) only.
While it is admitted t h a t the study of the tuning factor i s a necessary and even the most important item in the theory of rolling motion, .it is
b y far not sufficient.
Assuming in.all cases a constant damping which
m a y be permissible within the scope of the present
discussion the tuning factor determines uniquely
the factor of magnification ~. T h e amplitude of
the resulting forced motion, however, is only determined when the effective m a x i m u m wave slope
O, is known

8 Consultant,
W a s h i n g t o n , D.

David
C.

Taylor Model
~-~".':,

Basin,

Navy

Department
:

"

"

"

 558

STABILITY OF SHIPS IN DAMAGED

9~ ---- /z0,

(4)

CONDITION

symmetrical fooding, the final angle of heel shall

not exceed 7 degrees except t h a t in special cases
the Administration m a y allow additional heel
due to the unsymmetrical moment, b u t in no ease
shall the final heel exceed 15 degrees or submerge
the margin line. Although admittedly 15 degrees
is the limiting angle for launching of lifeboats, I
think it would be difficult enough to muster and
disembark passengers safely with a ship listed to
even 7 degrees. In m y opinion, therefore, the
Oe = ~0 s i n X
(5)
final angle of heel after damage should in all cases
we overestimate the effective wave slopes close be reduced to not more than 7 degrees b y cross
levelling devices or b y an increase in the residual
to 0. Now from Figs. 8-13 it follows that, on the
stability
average, synchronism occurs at larger x for stiff
I concur with the authors' criticism of the beships than for r a n k ships; this means following
lief t h a t a small GM is necessary for comfort. I t
equations (5) and (4) t h a t amplitudes at resonance
is difficult to obtain reliable data about this, but
are on the average higher for stiff ships.
Perhaps still more i m p o r t a n t is the considera- several large modern British passenger ships are
tion of accelerations; the latter have been omitted operating successfully with GM's of the order of
6 feet. During the trials of a large passenger ship
b y the authors although they can be treated to
recently
completed, in which h e a v y weather was
some extent from period relationships only. T h e
experienced a n y discomfort I felt was due to the
acceleration is ceteris paribus proportional to the
square of the frequency or inversely proportional pitching and heaving motion rather than to the
to the square of the period. Hence assuming rolling motion, although the GM of the ship at
"resonance conditions in both cases the stiff ship the time was a b o u t 5 feet.
Recent inquiries into casualties to cargo ships
with T = 15 seconds experiences an acceleration
on
ballast voyages when carrying large amounts of
which is nearly three times as high as t h a t for the
solid
ballast indicate the risks involved in the
ship with T --- 25 seconds.
belief
t h a t a small GM is desirable. T o allow for
These simple considerations change somewhat
the rather favorable picture outlined b y the au- a possible s h i f t o f such ballast it is essential t h a t
thors for ships with a high GM although the a good GM be maintained.
In cases of unsymmetrical flooding due, say, to
writer admits t h a t sometimes probably too much
side
damage in way of a range of wing oil fuel deep
has been done in reducing the metacentric height.
ta.nks fitted with levelling pipes and valves
manually controlled, the initial angle of heel ocMR. S. A. HODGES, 9 Visitor: T h e authors are
curring before the levelling devices come into
to be congratulated on the clarity of thought and
operation requires very careful consideration.
expression shown in the preparation of this paper.
A p a r t from its actual magnitude, it is v e r y imT h e subject is a difficult one but they have sucportant, as stated b y the authors, t h a t progressive
ceeded in presenting a paper which is both inflooding shall not be initiated, in this connection
structive and interesting
attention migllt be drawn to the necessity (among
With regard to the statement on page 482, " T h e
other things) for careful examination of the arConference adopted an angle of heel of 7 degrees,
rangement of all pipe ,leads and connections. I
which is as specified in the ' I n s t r u c t i o n s as to the
frequently find t h a t air pipes are t a k e n from each
Survey of Passenger Steamships' issued b y the
t a n k to a single fore and aft main and then a single
Ministry of T r a n s p o r t (1947)," I feel sure t h a t
air pipe is led upwards to above the bulkhead deck
the authors do not intend to imply t h a t British
from this main. T h e estimated angle of heel
passenger ships generally have negative stability
m a y be such as to cause progressive flooding from
in .the upright condition when damaged and roll
one t a n k to another through the fore and aft
to 7 degrees T h e Context of the relevant parapipe and the latter should therefore be arranged
graf)h in the paper appears to indicate this,
well inboard and as high :as is practicable...Alterwhereas the m a x i m u m angle of heel of 7 degrees
natively;" so as to prevent t h i s interflooding, the
laid down b y the M i n i s t r y of T r a n s p o r t refers
air pipe from each t a n k should be looped well inprimarily, of course, to cases of unsymmetrical
board and as high as ~s practicable before being
floodirig.
.joined to..the fore and aft main. In this matter, as
T h e 1948 Convention requires t h a t With unwith all ~watertight subdivision arrangements, t h e
-closest_ possible, attention should be 'paid .to~ de9 M i n i s t r y o f Transport, England.
L
,2~ 2:
,.=~,,~
In the paper nothing has been said about t h i s
effective "wave slope as function of the course
angle X.
Obviously the m a x i m u m of 0e occurs at X =
90 degrees (beam sea); 0, becomes negligible at
X = 0 (following sea) or x = 180 degrees (head
sea) ; the latter case is uninteresting.
Assuming

STABILITY OF SHIPS IN DAMAGED CONDITION

559

7
~ cD~ "j

\
W.L.in

Ini'oLci Condiiion

0.?~//~/

'

D.B. Tank

F,m,

tails, otherwise the whole scheme of subdivision

is likely to fail in the event of damage to the ship.
If, due to the heel, the margin line is initially
submerged, progressive flooding is, of course,
likely to ensue along the bulkhead deck and down
to other main compartments. This may require
the fitting of partial watertight bulkheads on the
bulkhead deck, the moving of openings in the latter
to positions well inboard, the raising of coamings
to such openings and the fitting of double valves
on ship's side discharges from spaces above the
bulkhead deck:
In addition, the magnitude of the initial angle
of heel should not be excessive, since the manual
operation of levelling valves m i g h t then be ira-'
practicable. No precise limit to this angle can,
I think, be stated nor is specified in the 1948
Safety Convention, but I would suggest that about
20 degrees might be regarded as a maximum in most
cases.

The chance of h u m a n ' e r r o r when numerous

cross connections and valves are fitted is apparent
and although such connections and valves are required b y the 1948 Convention to be examined
periodically and logged accordingly, more extensive training of ships' personnel in damage control
seems desirable.
In some cases, as stated in the paperl automatic
levelling pipes can be fitted which do not require

75
manual control. The arrangement of such pipes
requires careful consideration to ensure that they
will operate in all conditions of sinkage, trim, and
heel in the event of damage involving the tanks
concerned, and that the cross-flooding is as rapid
as possible in the early stages. In order to achieve
the latter, care should be taken not to introduce
other objectionable features affecting the normal
operation of the ship, such as recently came to m y
notice.
In this ship the levelling pipes were arranged as
shown in Fig. 75. While the ship was on trials
she took a permanent list. The cause of this was
not apparent at the time b u t later investigation
showed t h a t it was due to fresh water flowing
from a tank on the high side to the corresponding
tank on the low side, through the levelling pipe,
when the ship was heeled by wind and sea. This
.action is illustrated in Fig. 76. I t could have been
prevented by the fitting of non-return flaps at the
lower open end of each levelling pipe, but f o r
practical reasons in the ship. concerned, the levelling pipes were extended as shown dotted in Fig.
76. This modification to the levelling pipes, although preventing interflooding in the i n t a c t
condition, would not provide such rapid initial
'counterflooding in the damaged, condition as the
original arrangement.
A difficult problem for designers in the future

560

STABILITY OF SHIPS IN DAMAGED

CONDITION

W. L. Ship Heeled Due 4o Beam W{nd ond Sea

~en~gxCens]onsto OpenLevellingPipes
,

~rom PortTankto
Sfar.bd. Tank

\Levels of Wa~rer in Tanks wi

' Ship in Uprlcjh4. Condiion

/" , I

I
~o~er

D.B.
Fio. T6
appears to be with ships engaged on short international voyages. These ships of the "passenger"
type, when carrying more persons on board than
the lifeboat capacity provided, must comply with
a 0.5 factor of subdivision. This.means t h a t two
main c o m p a r t m e n t s must be assumed flooded in
the damage stability calculations. These ships
generally are fitted with several tiers of erections
and have a correspondingly high. center of gravity.
T h e y are of high speed-length ratio so t h a t the
form has to be carefully considered and the critical
c o m p a r t m e n t s are often the main machinery
spaces with high permeability. The effect of .the
1948 Safety Convention damage stability regulations on these ships will demand careful study.
With regard to the stability information supplied to masters, I agree t h a t it should not be too
highly technical. I t should be a practical aid to
the ship's officers and indicate in as simple and
complete a way as possible how the GM in any
condition can be computed, the effect of free surfaces, and the stability condition which has been
assumed for the purpose of damage stability calculations, together with the precautions and procedure necessary for levelling .the ship after dama g e . In some cases i t would be valuable to provide
the data necessary for obtaining a curve of stability in any condition.
:
,.
In conclusion ,these, comments.are only:l~ersonai

opinions and should not be construed as being

the views of the British Ministry of Transport.

VICE ADMIRAL EDWARD L. COfiHRANE, U.S.N'.,

(RETIRED), _Past President: I hesitate to rise in a
discussion of so very intricate and scientific a
subject, and yet, having dealt with the fringes of it
over a lifetime of effort, I want to say just a word
or two.
First, in connection with this relative ques~
tion of lifeboats and "subdivisions," I r e m e m b e r
very clearly the experience we had in. London in
1929 at the convention there, of which Mr. Smith
has spoken. At t h a t time I was sitting with Admiral Rock in the Construction Committee.
We were dealing quite earnestly with bulkheading
and every now and then the question was raised
t h a t there was not too m u c h need for bulkheads,
because the Lifesaving Appliances C o m m i t t e e
would deal with the passengers by providing
boats.
I t was not very long before we had a visit from
a m e m b e r of the Lifesaving Appliances Committee. He reported .that there they w e r e deciding
t h a t they did not need to provide-boats, because
we were providing bulkheads! I t does require
some perspective to keep these things M1 s t r a i g h t .
: I w a n t to second very heartily w h a t Mr. Brown

,...

'

,-.,

STABILITY OF SHIPS IN DAMAGED CONDITION

said a b o u t the unacceptability of vitiating the
requirements f o r residual freeboard b y permitting
large angles of heel, and, as the "factor of subdivision" goes down, accepting increased angles
of list. Certainly, t h a t is not what is intended or
w h a t we all expect to have.
I want, also, to say a word as,.to the.disturbing
factors which arise in questions of sustained list.
I t is one thing for a ship to roll, but quite another
thing for her to take and hold a list. I speak with
some feeling and s o m e e x p e r i e n c e a b o u t this,
because in the period before World W a r I I we ran
a lot of damage control drills in the fleet. One of
tile requirements was actually to produce a list
of 15 degrees on the ship, and it is not anything
like as" small an angle as one would feel sitting
here, comfortably, with the stable vertical of
this room. I think I should tell you t h a t 15 degrees is a considerable list, a n d disturbing to those
on ttie ship, even though they know it has been
artificially induced and t h a t no danger ensues.
T h e question has been raised of the N a v y hospitalstiip" JB~nevolence.' U.nf0x:tuhately, -we ~now
too little a b o u t this casualty and just w h a t the
extent of the damage was. Admiral C l a r k i s here,
and I a m not so sure he could answer t h a t for us.
Reference h a s been .made to :Senate Bill. 184,
a carefully prepared and i m p o r t a n t d o c u m e n t .
I t is the one t h a t has had great bearing on the
ultimate acceptance of safety measures incorporated in the 1948 Safety of Life at Sea Convention."
One m u s t not 5~ccept the fact (because t h e y w o u l d
rather use a m i n i m u m ' standard) t h a t the minim u m standard worked into an international convention should become per se the m a x i m u m to
which we should prescribe. T h a t has not been
the case in this country heretofore, and I think
we can look back with great satisfaction to having
been leaders in the development/.of a number.~bf
things, including increased tanker.draft, decreased
freeboard, for example, as factors which we developed and established here as being entirely acceptable in our own experience, and which have
subsequently been accepted internationally.
I t was a good deal on the presentation which
our delegation made t h a t the factors on longitudinal flooding were set up, and I am sure there,
again, on what we do t h a t i m p r o v e m e n t s will be
made in this condition of transverse stability.
I want to leave this thought : W h a t can be accepted in an international agreement has not,
should not, and I want to say I hope will not,
be the standards with which we in the United
States should and shall be satisfied.
The paper refers to the "Administration" w i t h
a capital "A." I am not sure t h a t was intended
to include the Maritime Administration which I

561

have recently inherited. If so, I can only say I

will assure you t h a t not only will we not take ad.
v a n t a g e ' of the minimum provided, but t h a t We
will and shall strive for what we have been able to
accomplish heretofore, and what we know is
necessary to produce good ships to fly the Stars
and ~Strip.es.
I have one other point: I hope t h a t Mr. T a t e
will go to Kings Point tomorrow and see and learn
with his own eyes what is being done there to
instruct prospective m a s t e r s of American vessels
in stability. He will see t h a t it is by no means an
abstraction I~o these young men, and they will
graduate and go out to sea well-versed in this
subject. He will discover what is given to them
to assure t h a t they understand the meaning of
these words.
MR. W. F. GIBBS, Council ~]Iember: I should
like to concur fully With what Admiral Cochrane
has said. I t is extremely reassuring to all of us
who have had a p a r t in establishing the high
'stafldards o f safety' of American s h i p s t o 'i~now
t h a t the. Administration standards behind t h a t
proposition at this time.
I feel t h a t Admiral Cochrane has helped .all of
.us Who Were on that-side, w i t h t h e s t a t e m e n t . h e
has just made!
MR. RUSSO and MR. ROBERTSON, JR.: T h e
presentation of this 15aper had several objectives.
The first was to outline in some detail the m a j o r
considerations which led to the requirements for
stability of ships in d a m a g e d condition pr0mul-.
gated b y the 1948 Convention and thus assist in
a better understanding of the new regulations.
T h e second was to outline as briefly and as completely as possible .the methods and processes
which have been developed in our ship design practice for the p u r p o s e of establishing, in the early
stages of design, compliance with the intact s t a bility requirements of the Convention. The intent was to present up-to-date methods and
processes of calculation which would be of benefit
to those concerned with these" problems. !
Another objective of the paper was to stimulate
discussion "and elicit comments from ship designers, shipbuilders, and ship operators, plqncipally with reference to those parts of. the regulations which "are subject to administrative interpretatiofi. The 1948 Convention has already been
ratified b y the United States G o v e r n m e n t ; when'
the Cofivention comes into force, the United
States Coast Guard eventually will define its
authority with reference to interpretations .and
relaxations and the comments made ~available
t h r o u g h the discussion of this paper should, of

562

S T A B I L I T Y OF S H I P S I N D A M A G E D

course, be of prime assistance in such determinations.

I n the paper we a t t e m p t e d to avoid a n y expression of opinions pro or con in connection with any
features of the Convention with the purpose of
establishing an entirely objective basis against
which the comments of the discussers could be
interpreted. Some of the comments, however,
indicate t h a t perhaps we have not been successful
completely in this endeavor and therefore it becomes necessary to state at this time t h a t the
views, if any, expressed in the paper and in the
discussion are the personal views of the authors
and m a y not necessarily conform to the policies
which ultimately will be formulated b y the organizations of which they are part.
A large majority of comments concern the application of the discretionary power of the Administration with respect to the m a x i m u m allowable
angle of heel after damage. T h e suggestion m a d e
in the p a p e r t h a t the permissible angle of heel be a
function of the factor of subdivision of the vessel
would h a v e the a d v a n t a g e of permitting a fairly
clear definition of the requirement t h a t the designer m u s t meet.
Mr. M c D o n a l d endorses this proposal. Mr.
Comstock indicates t h a t in his view the discretion
given the Administration in the m a t t e r of the
angle of heel m a y be a source of complications to
thedesigner..unless,some, specific.definition of the
limits to be applied thereunder is made. Mr.
Brown, on the other hand, is of the view t h a t b y
the Convention's latitude in this m a t t e r it was intended t h a t the Administration should not set up
arbitrary rules more precisely defining the limits
of heel, but should consider each case on the
grounds of reasonableness and practicability.
Each of these points is corroborated b y sound
reasoning and, as indicated, they will contribute
toward the best solution of this matter.
Several discussers have requested information
on the derivation of the empirical equation for
minimum area of cross-connection given on page
491. This formula has not been based upon a n y
theoretical calculation of typical openings, b u t
represents a rational expression for the size of
valved equalizing connections which have been
fitted up to date and which are believed to have
been practical.
I t is recognized t h a t t h e area given b y the
formula will not insure rapid cross-flooding and,
in fact, in the paper it is recommended t h a t when
the cross-connection is open, and no valve is fitted,
the area should be considerably more t h a n t h a t
given b y the f o r m u l a . However, when valves
must be fitted, there are practical limitations
which m u s t be considered. T h e formula should be

CONDITION

considered as an absolute minimum requirement

when valves are fitted; we appreciate the opportunity' to clarify this point.
This paper, purposely, did not discuss the factorial system of subdivision, essentially because
this would have been outside its objectives. We
welcome the introduction of this subject, however,
in the discussion. We feel t h a t entirely new subdivision regulations along the lines indicated b y
Mr. Brown should be devised in order to bring
them to agree, as to premises, intents and results,
with the new regulations for stability in damaged
condition.
Mr. Lewis and Mr. Ebel seem to support the
principle t h a t all passenger ships should have a
two-compartment minimum standard. This principle is sound and, as a m a t t e r of historical interest, it might be noted t h a t the proposals of the
Bulkhead C o m m i t t e e appointed b y the Board of
T r a d e in 1890 included t w o - c o m p a r t m e n t subdivision throughout for ocean passenger vessels of
425 feet and over, and one-compartment throughout for cargo steamers over 300 feet. T h e adoption of such principle b y an international b o d y so
far has not been achieved on account of the economic burden t h a t it would impose.
One of the difficulties of writing about damaged
stability is the practical impossibility of isolating
a n y one of its basic parameters in order to show
the.quant, itative,.effect.of, such paramete~ on the
intact required stability, and still not run the risk
of oversimplification. T h e fact is t h a t intact
stability is dependent upon a large n u m b e r of
variables which almost always are interrelated in
a complex manner. In order to obtain a fair
appraisal of any particular case, a quantitative
analysis of the specific case must be developed.
In this sense, Mr. M c D o n a l d is correct in stating t h a t Fig. 26 suffers from oversimplification.
Mr. M c D o n a l d indicates t h a t when the beam is increased the naval architect is frequently Under
pressure for an increase in passenger accommodat i o n s and consequent addition of top weight.
Such an addition can be destructive of any gains
in available GM. On the other hand, it is quite
feasible actually to maintain the upper deck
areas, and the passenger accommodations, nearly
constant while moderately increasing the b e a m of
the hull. If additional stability is required, increasing the b e a m in this manner m a y be a practical way of obtaining more stability.
Mr. L. F. Robertson has reported some studies
which have been developed to measure quantita-.
tively the effect of some variations in design practices upon the stability characteristics of a vessel.
One example represents a s t u d y in ship's form to
obtain lower GM's at full draft, high GM's at light

 ,"

STABILITY

. . . .

OF SHIPS

34'9" 37.'0" 28'0" i~4'0" 20'0" 16~0

" IZ'O"
FI.H.B.

8'0"

IN DAMAGED
4'0" Z'O"_ 2'0"4'0"

8'0"

CONDITION

563

IZ'O" 16'0" ZO'O" Z4'O" Z8'O' 37.'0"C34'9"

M.H.B.

3Z'0"

!
" I\!'X
~
\,Third

\~~2 % 1 \ \ . ~ \\,. ~~- I I I I

240

tl
./\\

4'3" \ % ~ ,

<o' ~,..~
34'9" 3?.'0"
M.H.B.

24'0"

-7-"

2~'3"
~<o,

\ , \ \\\ Ill ll /
\ \\',l/Ill/ /
\

\.
~8'0"

\
20'0"

\~
IG'O"

12'0"

135From-esspaced Z'6"

oo,
oo

k',', (II Ill f i x ~

'\ \ , \ i : ' " I I I / Y l / / /

8'0"

4'0"

z'o"i~_j2'o"4'o"

B'o"

/
iz'o"

a,3,,

<o,,

I/

)~'8". ?.o'o" z4'o"

9"-~ ~L

-,-[. [~--12"

z~'o" 3z'o" ~'

I,I.H.B.

FIG. 77.--BODY PLAN OF C3 TYPE VESSEL

d r a f t , l o w e r K G for l i g h t ship, etc. T h i s s t u d y

has i n d i c a t e d h i g h l y p r o m i s i n g r e s u l t s a n d is
r e c o m m e n d e d for i n v e s t i g a t i o n in cases w h e r e s t a b i l i t y r e q u i r e m e n t s a r e critical. T h e
d a t e rep o r t e d for t h e C3 design s h o u l d be c o n s i d e r e d
p u r e l y as i n f o r m a t i v e i n a s m u c h as i t is a p p a r e n t
t h a t a large loss of b a l e cubic w o u l d n o t j u s t i f y ,
e c o n o m i c a l l y , t h e i m p r o v e m e n t in rolling c h a r a c teristics.
T h e b o d y p l a n (Fig. 77) a n d a list of m a j o r c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s of t h e C3 t y p e vessel a r e shown as suggested by Mr. Niedermair.
T h e c o n t e n t i o n of i n a c c u r a c y , m a d e in M r .
W r i g h t ' s discussion is c o n f i r m e d b y t h e d a t a alr e a d y d e v e l o p e d b y t h e a u t h o r s who h a v e so s t a t e d
in t h e p a p e r (page 504). H o w e v e r , Professor

CHARACTERISTICS OF C3 CARGO M C HULL NO. 38

Length over-all . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Length between perpendiculars . . . . . . . .
Beam, molded, max . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Draft, load molded . . . . . ". . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Depth weather deck . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Depth bulkhead deck . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Sheer forward . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Sheer aft . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Draft, design waterline . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Prismatic coefficient at design draft
(based on LBP) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

492 feet
465 feet
69 feet 6 inches
28 feet 6 inches
42 feet 6 inches
33 feet 6 inches
144 inches
72 inches
27 feet 3 inches
0. 6741

M a n n i n g h a s m a d e w h a t a p p e a r s to us to be a n
excellent case w i t h reference to a b s o l u t e l y precise
c o m p u t e d values. T h e q u e s t i o n o f m a i n t a i n i n g '
damaged stability calculations within the limits
of time, c o m p e t e n c e , etc., p r e v a l e n t in c o m m e r c i a l
ship design p r a c t i c e is q u i t e i m p o r t a n t a n d t h e r e -

564

STABILITY OF SHIPS IN DAMAGED

CONDITION

fore, in our opinion, direct calculations such as all is said and done, this is the real crux of the m a t those advocated b y Mr. Wright should be confined ter; without adequate practical and workable into special cases where, due to unusual form, beam- formation in the hands of the operating personnel,
the efforts of the designer are mostly wasted, and
d r a f t ratio, or other reasons, it is apparent t h a t
acceptable results cannot be obtained with the the regulations useless.
Professor Baler indicates t h a t he has compared
usual methods of calculation.
Mr. Lewis proposes t h a t under certain condi- {lie righting a r m of similar vessels b y a fdrmula
tions it ought to be possible to permit an angle of based upon the non-dimensional relationship of
heel appreciably larger than 15 degrees. I n view GZ to B. I t would appear t h a t the range of
of the degree of approximation possible in calcula- applicability of coefficients thus determined is
ti9ns , .which are based, among other things, o n limited to ships which are mechanically, as well as
average permeability values, the Conference con- geometrically, close. I t is felt t h a t the division of
sidered t h a t the 15-degree limit is as large as it GZ into two c o m p o n e n t s - - o f weight and of f o r m - should be. Mr. Brown has cited very ably other and the application of K coefficients to the latter
considerations which weighted very m u c h against greatly extend the range of applicability of these
a n y increase of the limiting angle. We are glad semi-empirical formulae.
T h e basic contention in Mr. Forrest's comments
t h a t Mr. Lewis emphasized the importance of providing for downward flooding through decks, and appears to be t h a t a detailed and analytical comconsider his required tankage chart a valuable parison of Senate Report 184 and the 1948 Conaddition to the m a t e r i a l r e l a t i v e to the presenta- vention with regard to provisions for damaged stability should have been included in the paper. We
tion of stability information on board ship.
W e fully agree w!th.Mr. Comstock's views con- haye presented a n d discussed the..regulat!on s of
cerning the requirement of t h r e e - c o m p a r t m e n t the 1948Conve'nt~on,.as [s,-wKhout any appraisal
d a m a g e d stability for vessels requiring three-com- of their merits in relation, to other standards. I n
p a r t m e n t subdivision. T h e standards of the 1948 our opinion, acomparati:ve study of t h e 1948 ConConvention are in no manner considered as ideal vention and S e n a t e f R e p o r t 184 would be highly
b u t are believed to represent an appreciable-im- interesting, b f l t w e definitely feel t h a t this paper
p r o v e m e n t from the 1929 Convention. Mr. Com- has already covered enough ground. This also
stock indicates t h a t he considers t h a t a bulkhead refers to Mr. Wennberg's comments.
We feel t h a t the standards-set forth b y the 19.48
containing a very short step should be considered
as unstepped. The United States Delegation did, Convention should, and eventually will, be imin fact, m a k e such a proposal to the Conference, proved and these i m p r o v e m e n t s will be the result
b u t t h i s p r o p o s a l was rejected b y a majority of of the experience which most nations will gain in
the other delegations in favor of the more strict the administration of the new regulations. We
feel also t h a t to appraise the new regulations only
interpretation contained in the Convention. Mr.
Comstock refers to the use of wing bulkheads to in terms of very large ships is not warranted in
permit an angle of heel immersing the margin line. fact. T h e paper does not t r y to " m a k e a case" for
Such-use of wing bulkheads is permissible under not having a. t h r e e - c o m p a r t m e n t standard; it
the Convention for t e m p o r a r y heel prior to ~qual- points out t h a t even if this standard had been inization. Mr. Comstock considers t h a t initial trim cluded, Regulation 5 makes it so remote t h a t beshould be included in the calculation of floodable fore this class of ships is reached several and far
length., Where the vessel operates regularly a b o u t more compelling reasons than the 1948 Convention
an average t r i m load waterline calculations can dictate the standards of safety of the design.
Mr. Forrest has misunderstood the s t a t e m e n t
be based properly on this mean trim load waterline
in accordance with Regulation 3(a) of the Conven- on page 480 in which it was pointed out t h a t :
" N o ship existing t o d a y would have a factor of
tion.
As noted b y Professor Adams, the present Regu- subdivision of 0.33 or less, determined according
lations do not take cognizance of a ripping damage to Regulation 5 of the Convention. E v e n such
as t h a t sustained b y the Titanic. " Adequate d a t a outstanding ships as the Queens and the Norconcerning the loss of thehospital ship Benevo- mandie would approach very closely, b u t not
lence are not available to us and, therefore, cannot quite reach, the point of demarcation which
~would bring into effect a t h r e e - c o m p a r t m e n t rebe appended to this discussion.
. C o m m a n d e r M u r p h y makes a very practical quirement for transverse stability."
As a m a t t e r of fact, the factors of subdivision
point in calling for the development of simple and
adequate computers which m a y simplify the task for these vessels, computed according to Regulaof the ship's operating people and insure proper tion 5 of the Convention are : 0.339 for the Queen
check of stability conditions in operation. When Elizabeth, 0.336 for the Queen Afary, and 0~34 for

.~

.,.-.

...

STABILITY OF SHIPS IN DAMAGED CONDITION

the Normandie. This has nothing to do' with the
actual standard of subdivision and stability built
in any of these ships as it refers only to what the
Convention would require. .Both of the Queens
actually meet a three-compartment standard of
subdivision. Subdivision" data on the O_ue~nMary
were published in the Shipbuilder and Marine
Engine Builder of June, 1936, and data on the
Queen Elizabeth, as well as a very large number of
other British vessels, were made available at the
1948 Conference.
Mr. Gerrish Smith has commented on the historical background of International Conferences
for safety of life at sea and has drawn attention to
the fact t h a t proposals for higher standards of subdivision were' advanced by the. United States
Delegation but were not approved by the Con.....
ference.
We are pleased particularly with-the comments
furnished b y Mr: Albiach inasmuch as they contribute a critical analysis .of.our methods, in the
light of the practice and experience of another
..... c o u n t r y and, conversely; afford us the opportunity
of learning of their experience in the application
of the Regulations to their vessels.
The Convention requires investigations of intermediate stages of flooding when it is considered
t h a t the margin line m a y become submerged. In
our practice this situation is relatively infrequent;
This:perhaps is due.to t h e fact t h a t the niajority
of United States passenger vessels have been designed to a standard of subdivision appreciably in
excess of the Convention and, therefore, in the
intermediate conditions of damage, have .in gen-
eral a substantial freeboard: Where necessary, the
required GM or heel. in" the intermediate stage of
flooding m a y be computed readily by either of the
general proceduresindicated in' the Appendix..
I t is significant t h a t in the French practice it
also has been found expedient to expressGZ variations by semi-empirical formulae in a manner
similar to our practice. I t is noted t h a t the values
given by the two formulations f o r GM gain .at
7-degree heel are practically equal.
We concur fully with Mr. Albiaeh's expressed
views concerning cross-flooding d e v i c e s . However, we feel t h a t direcf sea connections might
introduce serious practical difficulties with reference to maintenance in operating conditions.
Captain Wright discusses the--use--0f--models in
studies of damaged s t a b i l i t y . .We agree that this
method of a n a l y s i s has definite-advantages,
especially in cases where the configuration of the
~looded compartments is rather complex or when
ships of universal form are considered. However,
the cost of such a procedure for an average commercial design Would be perhaps too high.

565

While many discussers have indicated agreement with the proposed virtual KG method of presenting a ship with information for the maintenance of adequate stability, it is especially n o t e d
that Mr. T a t e considers this method, or any
method which reqil~res any calculation aboard
ship, to be undesirable.
Mr. Tate's point~ which is well put, is very
much appreciated in view of his experience in vessel operation. Probably, as in many other things,
there is no single ideal answer to the question of
how best to provide stability information. Mr.
Tare also makes a strong point for inclusion of information on the degree of damage which the ship
is able to sustain; this is. in accordance with the
intent of the Convention. In any precise sense,
the applicability of such information is dependent
upon close agreement of the conditions existing
at the time of any particular d~mage with those
conditions upon which damaged stability calculations are based, and therefore is not a simple matter. We agree, however, to the practical utility
of this information and that the degree of its inclusion should be considered carefully.
We wish to. thank Mr. Hodges f o r the very
worth-while points of his discussion.
I t was certainly not intended to imply by the
statement on page 482, referred to by Mr. Hodges,
that British vessels are generally perm!tted to
h a w n e g a t i v e ~tability and to roll to 7 degrees in
the damaged condition, and the authors regret
that their wording on this point was misleading.
.The 7-degree normal limit of heel of the Ministry
of Transport regulations refers to 'unsymmetrical
flooding. I t was applied to symmetrical flooding
at the Conference as a compromise between those
points of-view supporting no negative GM after
damage and those who proposed that there should
be no differentiation between negative GM and
unsymmetrical flooding in so far as the heel limit
was concerned.
We agree with Mr. Hodges that in the case of
unsymmetrical flooding a 7-degree heel is preferable to 15 degrees. I t is considered, however, t h a t
in very m a n y eases the rigid enforcement of such
a heel limit would force undue dependence on
equalizing, cross-levelling devices. I t is bdieved
preferable to depend to a lesser degree o n such
devices, a t least those requiring manual control.
And, as illustrated b y Mr. Hodges, even automatic
devices require very careful consideration to in:sure satisfactory operation b o t h in ordinary servi c e a n d in case of damage. " We,.fully agree with
Mr. Hodges concerning the importance of attention to detail in guarding against progressive
flooding. We also agree t h a t generally the initial
.heel prior to eqi)alization or due to negative GM

566

STABILITY OF SHIPS IN DAMAGED

during an intermediate stage of flooding should not

exceed about 20 degrees. I n cases where the
weights aboard liable to shift are small, and adequate range of stability exists, a somewhat larger
angle can be considered.
Some of the more recent i_lnited States vessels
operating on inland waters have comparatively
high centers of gravity, b u t have their topsides
flared throughout the length and have very low
or even negative required GM's for fairly extensive
damage. While such hulls, of course, are not
directly suitable for a n y typical short international ~royages, it is believed t h a t similar suitable consideration of the hull design will result in
sufficiently modest GM requirements for vessels on
short international voyages and required to meet a
t w o - c o m p a r t m e n t standard.
We are very glad to h a v e Dr. Weinblum's comm e n t on the portion of our paper referring to ship
behavior in a seaway. Dr. Weinblum points out
t h a t Figs. 8 to 13 deal only with the period relationship in so far as rolling behavior is concerned
and indicates that'he considers this to b e an undue
simplification. We agree t h a t for a n y real s t u d y
of ship rolling motion it is necessary to consider a
n u m b e r of other factors. Such a study, however,
was not included in the purpose of this paper.
Figs. 8 to 13 are intended simply to indicate the
relative insensitivity of fast ships to moderate
changes in period, in so far as the range of headings for near resonance are concerned.
I t is believed t h a t in one point of his c o m m e n t
Dr. Weinblum also m a y have oversimplified;
namely, with reference to the damping coefficient.
I t is believed t h a t the following general relationships exist relative to this coefficient:
(a) If the natural period of roll of a vessel is
decreased b y increasing the GM b y lowering G,
the damping, while increased due to the higher
angular velocity, is decreased as a result of the

CONDITION

reduced distance 'between G and the center of

rolling resistance, approximately the VCB. Depending upon the proportions and form of the
vessel, the total resultant damping m a y be either
increased or decreased.
(b) If the natural period of roll is decreased b y
increasing the GM b y increasing the beam, the
damping is increased due to the higher angular
velocity, due to the increased effective surface
and m o m e n t arm thereof and due to the increased
disturbed volume of water and m o m e n t arm thereof.
The present-day practice has been primarily to
raise the GM b y alternative (b)" T h u s the d a m p ing coefficients of modern vessels having comparatively large GM's b y older standards are probably
very much higher than the damping coefficients
associated with the older, narrower, more tender
vessels. I t is believed that, as indicated b y Mr.
Hodges in his comment, discomfort in the case of
large comparatively fast vessels is now more frequently attributable to pitching and heaving,
than to severe rolling, despite the higher GM's
now in general use.
I n closing, we wish to express our appreciation
and thanks to all the discussers who h a v e given
so much of their time to c o m m e n t on this paper.
D a m a g e d stability standards should be explored
continually and appraised in the light of modern
designs, and all possible i m p r o v e m e n t s which are
determined to be feasible and practical should be
established for possible i m p r o v e m e n t of the standards at future Conferences. I t is hoped t h a t this
paper m a y be instrumental in stimulating more
thought and, ultimately, higher safety for the
protection of lives and ships.
CHAIRMAN SEWARD: T h e very w a r m t h a n k s
of the Society are extended to the authors and
the discussers of this very fine paper.