Marine Technology, Vol. 32, No. 3, July 1995, pp.

224-230

A Comparison of Alternative Bow Configurations

Chel Stromgren 1

Newport News Shipbuilding (NNS) has been preparing for a reentry into the commercial shipbuild-
ing market for several years. Those preparations resulted in the signing of a contract in October of
1994 with Eletson Corporation for the construction of two (with an option for an additional two)
46 500 dwt product carriers. This is the first contract for a U.S. shipyard to build commercial ships
for a foreign owner in 37 years. In developing the hull form for the standard product carrier Double
Eagle, NNS performed studies to determine the economic and hydrodynamic effects of alternative
bow configurations on a representative modern, high-block tanker. The objectives of the study were
to update the NNS commercial ship speed-power database, investigate the application of state of
the art computer software, and create a bow design which strikes a balance between hydrodynamic
performance and producibility. To achieve these goals, NNS worked with SAIC to use the compu-
tational fluid dynamics (CFD) SLAW software to mathematically analyze several candidate bows.
These designs were then model tested at the Swedish State Model Basin in Gothenburg to validate
the results of the CFD codes. Construction costs were then estimated for each design and finally,
the bow forms were compared on an overall economic basis.

Introduction The main drawback, obviously, is that although the initial

THE overall economic viability of a modern ship design
depends on both its operating costs and on its construction
costs. In the past, a great deal of research has been done on
the optimization of bow designs, particularly bulbous bows,
with the goal of improving the hydrodynamic performance of
ships to reduce operating costs. However, in modern, high-
block coefficient, low-speed tankers it can be difficult to jus-
tify the added construction cost of a traditional bulb due to
the relatively small reduction in resistance. These ship types
call for the designer to achieve a reasonable trade off between
performance and construction costs. The result may be t h a t
the optimal design for this type of ship will depart from what
has been seen in the past.
In this project several alternate bows were designed with
various levels of producibility. Each of these designs was
then model tested to determine the performance character-
istics. Construction and operating costs were estimated for
each design and combined to compare the ship designs on an
overall economic basis.
Background
As the marketplace for tanker construction grows more
competitive, the importance of producibility and the reduc-
tion of construction cost is becoming much more critical. The
initial cost of a ship has become the dominant factor that
owners use in evaluating designs. This drive to reduce con-
struction costs has led many shipyards to consider eliminat-
ing the bulbous bow from their latest designs for high-block,
low-speed ships. The rationale behind this decision has been
that the reduction in power that a bulb can achieve at lower
Froude numbers is small compared to the added costs in-
volved in building a more complex hull form.
This approach to design has several inherent problems.
1 Commercial Ship Engineering, Newport News Shipbuilding, ward part of the testing model is changed. When testing bows
Newport News, Virginia.
Paper presented at the January 26, 1995 meeting of the Hampton as a result of the difference in volume of the bulbous forms.
Roads Section of THE SOCIETYOF NAVALARCHITECTSAND MARINE The resulting drag due to this increase in volume is deemed
ENGINEERS.
acquisition cost of the bulbless ship may be lower, the oper-
ational costs do increase somewhat. In addition, there are
other tangible benefits of the bulb that are lost. It has been
well established that a bulbous bow can greatly improve a
ship's seakeeping characteristics. Many owners insist on
having bulbous bows on their ships due to these potential
benefits in seakeeping.
The result of this situation is t h a t the designer is left with
a choice between two extremes. One extreme is the tradi-
tional bulbous bow, which will have good seakeeping and
powering performance, but may be initially less attractive
because of increased production costs. The other extreme is a
simple vertically sided bulbless bow, which will be much eas-
ier to build, but will have poor performance characteristics
and may have seakeeping problems.
The purpose of this project was to explore the middle
ground between these two extremes. It was felt t h a t if a com-
promise could be made between construction complexity and
powering performance, the result would be a better overall
economic design.
It was therefore decided that a comparison would be made
between hull forms with bows of varying complexity. Each
hull was analyzed to determine the complexity of the struc-
ture and the construction costs. Model tests were performed
for each bow configuration to determine the powering char-
acteristics and the hydrodynamic qualities. The construction
cost and powering data for each bow design were then ana-
lyzed to determine which hull offered the most advantageous
economic return over a period of time.
History
Before any bow forms were selected or designed, several
decisions were made concerning the basis of comparison of
the bows. Traditionally, when comparing different bulbous
bows, for the sake of cost and simplicity, only the very for-
in this manner, the block coefficient is simply allowed to vary
to be a necessary part of having a bulb. However, because the

224 JULY 1995 0025-3316/95/3203-0224500.39/0 MARINE TECHNOLOGY

 ) ------
I !
J~
Fig. 1 Bow lines, bow #l--elliptical bow
basis of comparison for this study was overall economic fea-
sibility, and the leading driver in the economics of a ship is
cargo deadweight, it was decided that the traditional ap-
proach would not be ideal. Additional volume gained in the
bulb, minus the small increase in lightship, increases the
cargo carrying capacity of the ship. Therefore, it was decided
that each ship design would have identical displacements.
The afterbody of the ship through the parallel middlebody
would be held the same, and the fullness of the lines would
vary forward of this point. The bows with larger bulbs would
have finer forward hull lines in order to hold the overall
volume constant.
In addition, although the fullness would be allowed to vary
slightly, the basic form of the forward hull would be kept the
same. The hull would be allowed to vary to correct for volume
differences and to integrate with the bow designs, but the
general characteristics would remain the same, so that any
changes in the powering of the hull could be attributed to the
changes in bow design and not to a change in the shape of the
hull lines.
Descriptions
The first phase of this project was to select two initial bow
configurations that would represent the limits of the design
range. One end of the design range would be a bow that
offered maximum producibility, the other end would be a de-
sign that had the best hydrodynamic performance. These two
bows were to be traditional forms that have been incorpo-
rated in past ship designs.
Bow # l - - E l l i p t i c a l Bow: A bulbless bow with elliptical
waterline endings and a small circular forefoot was selected
as the bow design with maximum producibility (Fig. 1). This
bow has vertical section walls t h a t stretch from the parallel
midbody all the way forward to the vertical stem. The bilge
radius is very small all the way through the bow and the
forefoot is a very small, tight quarter circle. All waterlines
above the bilge, up to the knuckle line, are identical and have
elliptical endings at the stem.
Bow # 2 - - C o n i c a l Bulb: A bow with a large faired conical
bulb was selected to represent the upper end of the design
range (Fig. 2). The bulb has the form of a large conic section,
capped by a hemisphere, extending forward of the stem of the
ship below the design waterline. Traditionally, this type of
~ o r tLE
Fig. 2 Bow lines, bow #2--conical bulb
JULY 1995
/ .//
___J
Fig. 3 Bow lines, bow #a--spoon bow
bulb provides very good hydrodynamic performance, signifi-
cantly reducing the wave profile of the ship.
Once these two limiting cases had been selected, the next
step was to select additional bow configurations in the design
range between the two extremes. It was decided to analyze
two additional hulls, both of which would be designed with a
compromise between performance and ease of construction.
Bow # 3 - - S p o o n Bow: The third bow configuration exam-
ined was another bulbless bow (Fig. 3). The basic form of this
bow is similar to the first elliptical bow. However, to improve
the flow around the bow, the hull form is significantly mod-
ified. The bow profile is much smoother and the forefoot, in-
stead of being a small tight quarter circle, is of a much larger
elliptical form. In addition, the bilge radius is also much
larger towards the stem of the ship. This type of bow, with a
large open forefoot, is usually referred to as a "spoon" bow.
Bow #4--Producible Bulb: Typically, spoon bows perform
better hydrodynamically than elliptical bows. But, they do
not match the performance of most ships with traditional
conical bulbs. The inherent advantages of the bulbous bow
are very strong and are not limited to the reduction of wave
drag. Bulbous bows offer improved seakeeping performance
and in large-block ships can significantly reduce wave break-
ing at the bow. Therefore, it was decided t h a t the fourth bow
tested would also be a bulbous form. In this case a bulb would
be selected that would be of a more simple form in order to
reduce the complexity and construction costs.
In the past few years, long thin bulbs that are better inte-
grated with the waterlines of the ship have been seen on a
number of tanker designs. The intention of these bulbs has
been to improve the performance at not only the full load
draft, but also at the ballast draft (a limitation on traditional
bulbs), by lengthening the ballast waterline.
Because the intent behind these bulbs is to have a smooth
ballast waterline, they have the advantage t h a t they are
more integrated with the hull of the ship. By t a k i n g a bulb of
this type and running the vertical sidewalls of the hull
through the bulb, the construction complexity can be signif-
icantly reduced over a traditional bulb. This type of bulb was
selected as the fourth bow configuration to be tested (Fig. 4).
Construction
Each of the bows was analyzed in order to determine the
complexity and the effect on construction costs. In terms of
/ . .J ~
i A_a_--a~
~pOrILE
Fig. 4 Bow lines, bow #4---produciblebulb
MARINE TECHNOLOGY 225
 Table 1 Bow shell steel areas
eel Area w/ Total Shell
d Curvature Steel Area Jj
~ t o Bow#l) (compared to Bow #1~1
Bow #1 - Elliptical Bow I 100% 100% 1
Bow #2 Conical Bulb 275% 104% I!
Bow#3 Spoon Bow I 242% ~ 98% i
Bow #4 Producible Bulb J 212% 102%

Fig, 5 Bow plating, bow #3~elliptical bow Table 2 Bow section construction costs
ITotalConstruction CostlJ
~_mpared to B o w . l ~ l
maximizing producibility and reducing shipyard manufac- Bow #1 - Elliptical Bow | ~ II
turing costs, there are several factors that must be consid- Bow #2 - Conical Bulb | 121.2% |1
Bow #3 - Spoon Bow | 112.5% |
ered in the bow design. The most critical is the amount of
Bow#4- Producible Bulb j 114.1% |[
steel that must be formed (box-molded) versus the amount of
steel that can be simply rolled in one direction. Additionally,
the complexity of the framing can affect the construction
costs significantly. The complex shape of a traditional bulb
design typically requires a number of extra stiffeners and
frames in order to support the large overhanging shape.
These factors are taken into account in predicting the con-
struction cost for each bow.

Bow #l--Elliptical Bow

The fiat sides of the elliptical bow have curvature in only

the longitudinal direction and can be produced by simply
rolling the plate. The amount of plate that must be box
molded (compound curvature) is very small, limited to only
the forward portion of the bilge and the forefoot (Fig. 5). In
addition, the framing of the bow is very simple, with trans- Fig. 7 Bow plating, bow #3---spoon bow
verse frames all the way forward and breast hooks at the
stem.

Bow #2--Conical Bulb Bow #3--Spoon Bow

While conical bulbs usually have good powering perfor-
mance, this type of bulb can be expensive to produce. There is
a large amount of plate with curvature in two directions. In
this case, because of the large bulb that is faired into the hull,
the amount of molded shell plating in the forebody is much
greater (Fig. 6), an increase of 175% compared to the ellipti-
cal bow (Table 1). All of this plate must be carefully formed
with box molds. The framing required to provide adequate
strength to the conical bulb is quite complex. In order to
support a bulb of this size, the number of stiffeners and other
structural components is increased significantly. The con-
struction cost of this bow is increased by 21.2% over the cost
of building the elliptical bow (Table 2).
/ maximizing the amount of shell plating that can be simply
Fig. 6 Bow plating, bow #4--conical bulb
When compared to the elliptical bow, the construction com-
plexity of the spoon bow is also increased considerably. The
large forward bilge and elliptical forefoot create a large area
of plating forward that has compound curvature (Fig. 7). To
construct this large forward bilge area, the amount of plate
that must be box molded is increased by 142% (Table 1) com-
pared to the elliptical bow and the framing has become more
complex. While the construction is nowhere near as compli-
cated as for the conical bulb, the construction cost has risen
by 12.5% when compared to the elliptical bow (Table 2).
Bow #4~Producible Bulb
Because this type of bulb is more integrated with the bull
of the ship the construction is naturally less complicated
than for a traditional bulb. By taking a bulb of this type and
rolled instead of having to be box molded, the construction
costs can be significantly reduced compared to a normal
faired bulb (Fig. 8). By running the vertical sidewalls of the
hull through the bulb, and keeping the forward bilge area
fairly small, the amount of additional plating that must be
box molded is limited to the very top portion of the bulbous
bow. The amount of molded plating is only 112% greater than
on the elliptical bow, 30% less than the spoon bow, and 63%
less than the conical bulb (Table 1). In addition, because the
bulb is of a simple form and is more integrated with the hull,
the framing system remains relatively simple. The result of

226 JULY 1995 MARINE TECHNOLOGY

 V//////~
Fig. 8 Bow plating, bow #4--producible bulb

this simplified bulb form is t h a t the construction costs are

only 14.1% g r e a t e r t h a n for t h e elliptical bulb, 7.1% less t h a n
for the conical bulb (Table 2). DYNAMIC PRESSURES

C F D Analysis
Each bow was analyzed u s i n g C o m p u t a t i o n a l F l u i d Dy-
namics (CFD), in order to e x a m i n e the h y d r o d y n a m i c prop-
erties of the hulls. A potential flow code was used to predict
the fluid p r e s s u r e s on the hull and the direction and velocity
of the fluid flow over t h e bow. The code was also used to
predict the wave profile t h a t would be produced by each hull
at the 15.5 knot design speed (Fn = 0.185) t h a t was used for
all t e s t i n g and analysis. F i g u r e s 9-12 show maps, produced
by the CFD code, of h y d r o d y n a m i c pressure and fluid flow for r

each bow. In these figures, the dynamic pressures are repre-

sented by isobars on the hull and are shown relative to the
s u r r o u n d i n g static w a t e r pressure. The velocity vectors of the
fluid flow are shown as arrows on the hull. The direction of
each arrow shows the direction of the fluid flow at t h a t point,
and the r e l a t i v e length of the arrow shows the speed of the
fluid at t h a t point.
Bow #1--Elliptical Bow
The results of the CFD a n a l y s i s show t h a t there are some
a p p a r e n t h y d r o d y n a m i c problems t h a t exist with the ellipti-
cal bow. In the plot of the p r e s s u r e g r a d i e n t s (Fig. 9), it can
be seen t h a t t h e r e will be adverse flow a r o u n d the a r e a of the
forefoot. S t a r t i n g a t the s t a g n a t i o n a r e a along the vertical
stem there is a very large pressure g r a d i e n t leading around
the forefoot. The pressure in this a r e a changes very r a p i d l y
from a high positive s t a g n a t i o n pressure to a negative pres-
sure below the underside of the forefoot. This negative pres-
sure is strong enough to cause a predicted dynamic t r i m of
0.6 m down by the bow a t 15.5 knots. As can be seen in the
plot of the velocity vectors (Fig. 9), the r e s u l t of this pressure
g r a d i e n t is t h a t t h e r e is an e x t r e m e l y large a r e a of fast down-
w a r d fluid flow in this region. The likely r e s u l t of this flow
will be s e p a r a t i o n along t h e bottom of the hull and a signif-
icant increase in hull resistance. Additionally, the predicted
wave h e i g h t at t h e stem is quite large, indicating t h a t the
wave resistance for the hull would be high.
Bow #2--Conical Bulb
The pressure and flow m a p s for the conical bulb (Fig. 10)
are much smoother t h a n for the elliptical bow. The flow fol-
lows the contours of the hull closely, and there are no sharp
pressure gradients. The predicted d y n a m i c t r i m of this bow
has been reduced to only 0.39 m. In addition, the bulb im-
p a r t s a downward flow at the stem t h a t reduces the wave
profile. For this p a r t i c u l a r case, the predicted bow wave h a s
been reduced in m a g n i t u d e by almost 50% compared to the
elliptical bow. The total effect of adding a conical bulb was
, t . . . . L- . . . . . .
.3 ...... L
VELOCITY VECTORS
Fig. 9 Dynamic pressures and velocity vectors, bow #l---elliptical bow
predicted to be 3%-4% reduction in the resistance of the ship
at the 15.5 knot design speed.
Bow #3--Spoon Bow
The changes in the hull form from the elliptical bow to t h e
spoon bow have a significant effect on the r e s u l t s of the CFD
analysis. By comparing the plots of hull p r e s s u r e s and veloc-
ity vectors (Fig. 11), it can be seen t h a t the flow a r o u n d the
bow has been improved considerably by these changes. The
pressure g r a d i e n t around the forefoot is g r e a t l y decreased
when compared to the elliptical bow. The predicted d y n a m i c
t r i m for the spoon bow has been reduced to 0.40 m down by
the bow. The velocity vectors follow the hull much more
closely, without the a r e a of high downward velocity t h a t was
seen in the first bow. The chances of flow s e p a r a t i o n along the
bottom of the ship are g r e a t l y reduced, and t h e overall resis-
tance of the bow was predicted to be much lower t h a n for t h e
elliptical bow.
Bow #4--Producible Bulb
The CFD analysis shows that, like the conical bulb, the
producible bulb has very good flow a r o u n d the bow. The pres-
sure g r a d i e n t s and the velocity vectors (Fig. 12) are v e r y

JULY 1995 MARINE TECHNOLOGY 227

 DYNAMIC PRESSURES
DYNAMIC PRESSURES

_ _w

i _ _ ~ - - - 4

I
_

-
_
-
;--_;.:7:
:}~ j"
7 , .. ...- . - . . . . . . . ~ - ~ . . . : : ~ . . "

VELOCITY VECTORS
Fig. 10 Dynamic pressures and velocity vectors, bow #2--conical bulb
smooth, and the bulb is c r e a t i n g good downward flow at the
stem t h a t will reduce the h e i g h t of t h e bow wave. While the
flow is not as smooth, and t h e downward flow at the stem not
as strong, as on t h e conical bulb, t h e overall resistance was
predicted to be lower t h a n for both the elliptical and spoon
bows.
Model Test Results
VELOCITYVECTORS
Fig. 11 Dynamic pressures and velocity vectors, bow #:?---spoon bow
Bow #l--Elliptical Bow
The model test results for the elliptical bow confirmed the
indication from the CFD a n a l y s i s t h a t t h e r e a r e some hydro-
d y n a m i c problems with this hull. The p a i n t flow tests a r o u n d
the bow show the v e r y strong downward flow at t h e forefoot.
The low pressure at the forefoot was s l i g h t l y less t h a n h a d
been predicted by the CFD code, r e s u l t i n g in a d y n a m i c t r i m
of 0.52 m down by the bow (Table 4).

After the designs h a d been completed for the a l t e r n a t e bow Bow #2--Conical Bulb
forms, all four configurations were t h e n model tested in order
Adding a large conical bulb to the bow did have a signifi-
to obtain accurate powering information and to verify the
cant impact on the powering results. U s i n g the simple ellip-
predictions m a d e using the CFD codes. All the model t e s t i n g
tical bow as a base, the bow w i t h the conical bulb shows a
work was done a t the Swedish State Model Basin (SSPA) in
power reduction of 3.4% (Table 3). The bow wave h e i g h t of
Gbteborg, Sweden. Bow models were constructed for each of
the hull is reduced from 3.90 m for the elliptical bow to 2.70
the a l t e r n a t e designs. Each bow was tested in conjunction
m with the conical bulb, and the d y n a m i c t r i m has been
with a s t a n d a r d stern model.
reduced from 0.52 m to 0.37 m (Table 4).
The powering results obtained from t h e model t e s t i n g con-
firmed t h a t t h e i n i t i a l predictions m a d e using the CFD codes Bow #3--Spoon Bow
were correct. As expected, the two i n i t i a l designs, represent-
ing the e x t r e m e s of t h e design r a n g e h a d the h i g h e s t and The model t e s t i n g shows t h a t t h e spoon bow also h a s a
lowest powers. The two bows which were designed with a significant i m p r o v e m e n t in powering over the elliptical bow.
compromise in construction complexity have required powers The effective power at 15.5 knots was reduced by 1.4% (Table
which fall between the two extremes, as shown in Table 3. 3). Because t h e r e was no bulb in this case, the h e i g h t of the

228 JULY 1995 MARINE TECHNOLOGY

 Table 4 Dynamic trims/bow wave heights from model tests

Dynamic Trim ! Bow Wave Height 7

at 15.5 Knots (meters~ at 15.5 Knots ~ i
, Bow #1 - Elliptical Bow ,, 0.52 j 3.90 ,~
!'II Bow #2 - Conical Bulb 0.37 I 2.70 ;
Ii Bow #3 - Spoon Bow i 0.40 I 3.70 !i
i Bow #4 - Producible Bulb! 0.44 2.90 I

Table 5 Amoritization periods

- -
Bow#1 - Elliptical Bow
Bow #2 - Conica~ Bulb
I - - Bow #3 - Spoon Bow
I~- Bow #4 Producible Bulb
[Time Period to Recoupli
'1 Added B u d ng Cost /I
--ii
j 0,0
I 5.1
! 6.8
i 3.9

DYNAMZC PRESSURES
Results
The results of the model t e s t i n g and the b u i l d i n g cost anal-
ysis showed t h a t t h e r e are bow designs t h a t can reduce con-
struction complexity without s u b s t a n t i a l l y sacrificing perfor-
mance. The final step in this project was to combine the
b u i l d i n g cost d a t a with the powering results in order to quan-
tify the total economic impact of each bow design. In this
analysis, the elliptical bow is used as the b a s e l i n e for all
comparisons. The differences in power and costs are t a k e n as
percentile differences as compared to bow #1.
The critical factor to most shipowners, w h e n considering
m a k i n g modifications to a ship in order to reduce fuel costs,
is the period of time in which t h e i r capital i n v e s t m e n t can be
recouped. Because of the volatility of the p e t r o l e u m business
and the cost of fuel oil, this period of time is r e l a t i v e l y short.
Most owners will only have changes made if t h e cost can be
:/ m a d e back in 3 - 5 years.
The model test d a t a was t a k e n and used to calculate an
average y e a r l y fuel oil consumption for each of the four ship
designs. U s i n g a typical fuel oil cost, these consumptions
were then used to predict a y e a r l y fuel oil savings for bows 2,
3, and 4, as compared to the elliptical bow.
VELOCITY VECTORS
The n u m b e r of y e a r s t h a t it would t a k e to recoup the added
Fig. 12 Dynamic pressures and velocity vectors, bow #4---producible bulb construction costs was then calculated. These r e s u l t s are pre-
sented in Table 5. The producible bulb had the shortest pay-
back period at 3.9 years. The conical bulb h a d t h e next short-
bow wave was reduced only to 3.70 m (Table 4). However, the est at 5.1 years. The spoon bow had the longest p a y - b a c k
d y n a m i c t r i m of t h e hull is reduced to 0.40 m, indicating t h a t period at 6.8 years.
the low pressure a r e a u n d e r the hull had been relieved. The impact of these results is t h a t , for a n owner who is
interested in reducing his fuel cost, b u t w a n t s his i n v e s t m e n t
Bow #4--Producible Bulb m a d e back in a m i n i m u m period of time, the producible bulb
is the most attractive. By using this bulb a n owner can obtain
As expected t h e producible bulb fell between the spoon bow a power reduction of around 2% and can recoup his invest-
and the conical bulb with a reduction in effective power of m e n t in less t h a n four years.
1.9% at 15.5 knots (Table 3). The wave profile is reduced to It m u s t be noted however, t h a t because of the g r e a t e r re-
2.90 m (Table 4), showing t h a t the bulb was effective in cre- duction of power, over a longer period of time, t h e conical
a t i n g a downward flow to reduce the bow wave. The produc- bulb becomes more economically attractive. If a n owner is
ible bulb did not perform quite as well as the conical bulb, willing to invest his money longer, he can obtain a total
due to its lesser volume, b u t did perform significantly b e t t e r power reduction of almost 4%.
t h a n the spoon bow. However, for a s h i p y a r d t h a t is developing a generic ship
design t h a t has both high q u a l i t y and a low i n i t i a l cost, the
Table 3 Shaft powers at 15.5 knots from model tests producible bulb is the most attractive. U s i n g this bulb, the
y a r d can offer a ship t h a t has good powering performance, as
Required Shaft Power well as the improved s e a k e e p i n g provided by a bulbous ship.
at 15.5 Knots The y a r d can offer this high q u a l i t y ship at a price t h a t is still
(compared to Bow #1) very competitive.
Bow #1 - Elliptical Bow i 100.0%
t
BOW #2 " Conical Bulb 1 96"6%
Bibliography
Bow #3 - Spoon Bow 98.6%
Bow #4 - Producible Bulb 98.1% Ashby, D. L. and Iguchi, S. K., "Potential Flow Theory and Opera-
tion Guide for the Panel Code PMARC-12," 1992.

JULY 1995 MARINE TECHNOLOGY 229

Baba, E., "Blunt Bow Forms and Wave Breaking," SNAME-STAR
Symposium, 1975.
Blume, P. and Kracht, A. M., "Prediction of the Behavior and Pro-
pulsive Performance of Ships with Bulbous Bows in Waves,"
SNAME Transactions, Vol. 93, 1985.
Eckert, E. and Sharma, S.D., "Bow Bulbs for Slow, Full Form
Ships," SNAME T&R Bulletin 1-33, 1973.
Jonk, A., "The Use of Non-Viscous Flow Calculations in Hull Form
Optimization," Workshop on Developments in Hull Form Design,
Proceedings, MARIN, 1985.
Kerlen, H., "A Practical Viewpoint of the Design of Bulbous-Bows for
Full-Form Ships," Hansa, Vol. 108, 1971.
Kracht, A. M., "Design of Bulbous Bows," SNAME Transactions,
Vol. 86, 1978.
Letcher, J. S., Weems, K. M., Oliver, J. C., Shook, D. M., Salvesen,
N., "SLAW: Ship Lift and Wave Code; Theory, Implementation,
and Numerical Results," SAIC, 1989.
Lewis, E. V., Ed., Principles of Naval Architecture, SNAME, 1988.
Raven, H. C., "Adequacy of Free-Surface Conditions for the Wave-
Resistance Problem," in Proceedings, 18th Symposium on Naval
Hydrodynamics, Ann Arbor, Michigan, 1990.
Saunders, H. E., Hydrodynamics in Ship Design, SNAME, 1965.
Watson, D. G. G., "Designing Ships for Fuel Economy," Transac-
tions, RINA, Vol. 123, 1981.
Weems, K. M., SLAW (Ship Lift and Wave) User's Manual, SAIC,
1994.

SHIP STRUCTURE COMMITTEE PUBLISHES REPORT ON S S C - 3 7 5 UNCERTAINTY

OF S T R E N G T H M O D E L S FOR M A R I N E STRUCTURES

The S h i p S t r u c t u r e C o m m i t t e e has r e c e n t l y issued a new

r e p o r t on t h e following:

This p r o j e c t is the f o u r t h of a c o n t i n u i n g s e r i e s of S h i p
Structure Committee projects directed towards developing
probabilistic design strategies for ship structures. These
m e t h o d s p r o v i d e a m o r e r a t i o n a l b a s i s for d e s i g n t h a n the c u r r e n t
d e t e r m i n i s t i c methods. In o r d e r to d e v e l o p t h e s e r e l i a b i l i t y
b a s e d m e t h o d s the u n c e r t a i n t i e s in e a c h p o r t i o n of the d e s i g n
e q u a t i o n m u s t be q u a n t i f i e d . This p r o j e c t d e v e l o p s a m e t h o d to
q u a n t i f y the u n c e r t a i n t i e s in s t r e n g t h c a p a c i t i e s of structures.
It c l o s e l y c o m p l e m e n t s the e a r l i e r w o r k in S S C - 3 6 3 " U n c e r t a i n t i e s
in S t r e s s A n a l y s i s on M a r i n e S t r u c t u r e s " and S S C - 3 7 3 " P r o b a b i l i t y
B a s e d S h i p Design, Loads and Load C o m b i n a t i o n s " .

It and a n y o t h e r SSC r e p o r t s m a y be o r d e r e d from:

National Technical Information Service

S p r i n g f i e l d , VA 22151

Ph. (703) 487-4650

Fax (703) 321-8547

For S S C - 3 7 5 U n c e r t a i n t y of S t r e n g t h M o d e l s for M a r i n e
S t r u c t u r e s ask for a c c e s s i o n number PB95-126819.

T h e S h i p S t r u c t u r e C o m m i t t e e (SSC) is an i n t e r a g e n c y
c o m m i t t e e that s p o n s o r s ship s t r u c t u r e r e s e a r c h projects. It's
m e m b e r s h i p is m a d e up e q u a l l y from the A m e r i c a n B u r e a u of
Shipping, D e f e n c e R e s e a r c h E s t a b l i s h m e n t A t l a n t i c ( C a n a d i a n
N a t i o n a l Defence), M a r i t i m e A d m i n i s t r a t i o n , M i l i t a r y S e a l i f t
Command, N a v a l Sea S y s t e m s Command, T r a n s p o r t Canada, and the
U.S. C o a s t Guard.

230 JULY 1995 MARINE TECHNOLOGY