Naval Arch Aspect of Submarine Design

Naval Architectural Aspects of
Submarine Design
By Capt.
:E. S.
Arentzen, USN, 1
Member, a n d Philip M a n d e l , ~ Member
Summarized in this paper are the basic naval architectural aspects of recent attack
submarine designs. In a brief historical section each submarine discussed is placed in
its proper chronological setting. It is shown that volume and deck-area considerations
are even more important than those of weight in establishing dimensions of current submarines. The over-all favorable aspects of single-screw body revolution submarines
with particular regard to improved propulsive characteristics, smaller size and enhanced
maneuverability submerged are demonstrated. Volume and weight requirements of
diesel-electric versus nuclear power are discussed along with the large space demands
made by improved electronic equipment and by present-day habitability standard~.
The vital function of permanent fixed ballast needed for stability, space requirements,
allowance for design error and allowance for future growth is clarified. An attempt is
made in the structural section to develop a measure of the relative efflciencies of different
designs. Considerable discussion is devoted to the stability and control of present-day
high-speed submarines and it is concluded that excellent motion stability characteristics
can be made to be quite compatible with rapid entry and exit from radical maneuvers.
Finally, a limited look into the future with respect to the relatively incompatible features
of reducing submarine size and increasing operating depths is undertaken.
1 Introduction
phasis on recent developments might not only be

of
service to m a n y people, but would also be in
T h e submarine's role as one of the most important naval ship types in existence t o d a y is well the national interest. This paper stems from t h a t
established. N o t only is the submarine's con- thought.
In order to limit the length of the paper, the
tribution to military supremacy growing, b u t its
term
"Naval Architectural Aspects" fised in the
potential contribution to the peaceful pursuits of
mankind through oceanographic research and title has had to be accepted in its most limited
possibly even commercial u.tilization is being in- sense. M a n y dramatic developments in the subcreasingly recognized. Thus, while submarine marine field are scarcely mentioned a t all because
design was, but a decade ago, the concern of a they are largely in the fields of marine engineering
very. limited group of activities and individuals, as well as the engineering of component parts.
today it has become the concern of ever-widening Furthermore, the bulk of the paper is devoted to
groups of people. In this environment it seemed developments t h a t have reached the hardware
reasonable to the authors t h a t a factual account stage; only in the last section is there a limited
of modern submarine naval architecture with era- look into the future and then only with respect to
reducing submarine size and increasing operating
1Professor of Naval Construction, Massachusetts Insti- depths. Finally, attention has largely been fotute of Technology, Cambridge, Mass.
2Associate Professor of Naval Architecture, Massa- cused on the design of submarines for submerged
chnsetts Institute of Technology, Cambridge, Mass.
operation; the m a n y interesting aspects of subPresented at the Annual Meeting, New York, N. Y., marine performance on the surface have had to be
November 17-18, 1960, of THB ~OCA'ETYOF NAVALAECHrignored.
TECTS AND M A R I N E ENGINEERS.
622
Within these limitations each subject included

in t h i s p a p e r h a s r e c e i v e d b r o a d t r e a t m e n t .
In
each case the most pertinent and illustrative data
have been used whether they originated from
m o d e l e x p e r i m e n t s o r f u l l - s c a l e trial% I n m o s t
c.ases, t h e d e s i g n a s p e c t s of t h e s u b j e c t axe
t r e a t e d m o s t f u l l y s i n c e t h a t is t h e b a c k g r o u n d of
b o t h of t h e a u t h o r s .
However, both construct i o n a l a n d o p e r a t i o n a l a s p e c t s of s u b m a r i n e s axe
included where they bear heavily on the subject
discussed.
In many respects the historical development

that immediately follows this section is part of the
introduction.
I t ~s i n c l u d e d t o s h o w t h e c h r o n o l o g i c a l e v e n t s t h a t i n f l u e n c e d t h e d e s i g n of t h e
submarines whose details are subsequently described.
Historical
I n t h e l a s t d e c a d e of t h e 1 9 t h c e n t u r y t h e H o l land Torpedo Boat Company initiated the cons t r u c t i o n of a. s u b m a r i n e , i n c o r p o r a t i n g c h a r a c teristics that the company believed important,
that was destined to be the first successful American military submarine.-: This submarine, comp l e t e d i n 1898 a n d n a m e d H o l l a n d , h a s b e e n d e s c r i b e d in c o n s i d e r a b l e d e t a i l i n m a n y p a p e r s a n d
p u b l i c a t i o n s a n d is m e n t i o n e d h e r e b e c a u s e n o t
o n l y d i d i t i n c o r p o r a t e v i r t u a l l y all t h e p r i n c i p l e s
f o u n d in p r e s e n t - d a y c o n v e n t i o n a l l y p o w e r e d s u b m a r i n e s b u t i t also p o s s e s s e d m a n y f e a t u r e s o p t i mizing submerged performance.
These features
were later rediscovered during the research and
d e v e l o p m e n t l e a d i n g t o t h e d e s i g n of t h e A l b a c o r e
in 1950.
Nomenclature
B ffi position of center of buoyancy
Ct -- frictional resistance coefficient -- R I I ( p l 2 ) S I n "
Cp =- prismatic coefficient of entire submarine -4V
ITD~L,
C~ ~= prismatic coefficient of ends of submarine =

4V .I~:D'L.
/7, = residual resistance coefficient = R , I ( p l 2 ) S V ~
C. ffi wetted surface coefficient of entire submarine -S/,r D L
C , ffi wetted surface coefficient of ends of submarine ffi
." S./,:DL,
C, = total resistance coefficient = R , I ( p l 2 ) S V I
d = propeller diameter
D - maximum diameter of outside hull of submarine
DO = diesel oil
e~ = hull efficiency
ep = propeller efficiency
e,, ----relative rotati~m efficiency
E ffi=modulus of elasticity
E H P ffi effective power ,
Gz = position of center of gravity (including effects of
free surface in longitudinal direction)
Gt = position of center of gravity (including effects of
free surface in transverse direction)
h -- thickness of pressure-hull material
h' =
modified shell thickness including effect of framing
J = advance coefficient
L = over-all length of submarine = L, -I- L , ; L ' = 1
L = clear spacing between frames of pressure hull
L, ffi sum of lengths of forebody and afterbody;
L.' = L , I L
L~ ----length of parallel middle body of submarine;
L=' ffi L ~ / L
Mz = position of metacenter (including effects of free
surface in longitudinal direction)
Mt = position of metacenter (including effects of free
surface in "transverse direction)
n --,propeller revolutions per unit time
M L =" weight of margin, lead
N D T ffi normal diving trim
p ffi p~opeller pitch
P = Sea pressure, psi :~-,
Pc = static collapse pressure
PC --.propulsive coefficidnt ffi ep X eh X e,, = E H P /
SHP
Q = propeller torque
R ffi mean radius of pressure hull

r 0 - radius of curvature at nose of hull; r0' -re L . / D I
r, ffi radius of curvature at aft end of hull; rl' ffi
nL./D j
RI ffi frictional resistance
R, ffi residual resistance
Rt ffi total resistance ffi R! + A R / + R ,
S ffi wetted surface of whole submarine
Se ffi wetted surface of ends of submarine
SHP ffi shaft power -- E H P / P C
SL = weight of stability lead
SW = salt water
T -- total thrust
~
T L = weight of t o t a l l e a d
t -- thrust deduction coefficient
V ffi velocity of submarine
V. -- average velocity of advance of propeller
~v = wake fraction
W = weight (subscript indicates particular weight)
xm = distance from nose of submarine to maximum
section; x~' ffi x , , / L
V = volume of displaced water of whole submerged
submarine, or subscript indicates particular
volume; e.g;
V6 ffi volume of ends of submarine exclusive of parallel
middle body
A
weight of displaced water (subscript indicate~
particular displacement)
"i,
ARf = added roughness resistance
ACt ffi added roughness resistance coefficient ffi
AR~/(p/2)SW
F (L/2 R)~]1/4( ~ ~1/I

= slenderness ratio ffi 4 L(h/2 R) a J \ E }
p ~ mass density of'water
, = maximum yield strength of material
PR/h - hoop stress
~ modified pressure factor ffi _P~
ru
~b = also angle of heel measured from the vertical

Po
~b -- pressure factor = euh/R
f" =ffi.also yaw angle
':'~"
Note: " The foregoing nomenclature does not in general
apply tO Section 7 of this paper. SN'AME Bulletin 1-5
contains the nomenclature for that section.
Naval ArchitecturalAspects.of Submarine Design
623
USS Skipjack SS(N)-585

624
Naval Architectural Aspects of Submarine Design
II
400~
tO
350
9
s- l
7
300
w
~
w
250
~6
-~--
.
200
z S
150
IOO
50
~695
tStS
19t9 .
t920
IS30
BOaT
1940'S
5S576
SS580 SStNJ57t"
~
POST WW'I~ DIESEL*ELEC
SS(N}578 $5(N}585
"
"~%r~-NUCLEAR SUBS
SS(N)S93
_ __,.~1
Fig. 1 Variations of principal dimensions of representative U. S. submarines
Referring to Fig. 1, it should be noted that the

length-to-beam ratio of 5.26 of the Holland is not
far from the optimum as shown, in Fig..6. Hol:
land also had essentially a body of revolution hull
form, a minimum of reserve buoyancy, very little
superstructure and no "sail," all of which contributed towards minimizing her submerged resistance. Holland had a large-diameter, slow-turning propeller located on the axis of revolution enhancing her propulsive efficiency. Finally Holland had stern planes located at the vertical centerline and did not employ forward hydroplanes.
All of these "advanced concepts" are now employed in present day United States submarines
.except that the latter still possess "sails" and forward hydroplanes. After one of her future alterations, it is expected that the AIbacore will finally
resemble the Holland in these latter aspects.
In the development of military submarines
prior to World War I the trend was towards enhancing surface characteristics. When viewed
, in retrospect, it is obvious that little attention was
paid towards submerged speed or maneuverability. The famous U-boats employed b y Germany
in World War I possessed essentially the same di-.,
mensions and general characteristics as the Sboats of the United States.
Referring to Fig. 1, it should be noted that the
S-boat's length-to-beam ratio had increased to

10.7, a ratio finer than most high-speed surface
ships possess.
Near the end of World War I the Germans developed the so-called large cruiser type submarine
and completed four of them b y the time of the
armistice. Its principal characteristics were as
follows:
Length, ft . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Beam, ft . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Submerged displacement, tons . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Surface speed, knots . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Submerged speed, knots . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
302
291~
2500
15.8
7.7
This submarine, the largest t h a t had ever been

built until then, exercised considerable influence
on submarine development b y the victorious powers in the period between World War I .and World
War II. While the approach of the United States
toward producing a better submarine t h a n the
German cruiser t y p e was more moderate than
t h a t of the English and the French, it still resulted in constructing four V-boats which, as
noted in Fig. 1, are 371 ft in length. With long
length, high reserve buoyancy and reasonable surface power, these .submarines possessed good surface characteristics. However, with inadequate
eleetric-stgrage-battery capacity t h e y were woefully underpowered submerged. With low sub-
Naval ArchitecturalAspectsof Submarine Design
625
.....
sss63
.....
Fig. 2
.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
....
---~7._.2
Outboard profiles of four U. S. s u b m a r i n e s
merged power coupled with a large, highly resistful submerged hull form they reached a new low
in submerged performance and maneuverability.
Later U. S. submarine development resulted in
the famous Fleet Boats that fought the war in the
Pacific. Referring to Fig. 1, one can note that
this design approximated the dimensions of the
German cruiser-type. Except for a considerable
increase in surface speed the remaining principal
characteristics of the early Fleet Boats were nearly
identical with those of the German cruiser-type.
~IcKee [113 has described this design in considerable detail and has noted that the fleet submarine's
surface performance took precedence over submerged performance whenever the two conflicted.
With little consideration having been given to submerged speed, the submerged resistance was
extremely large. Fortunately for U. S. submariners the Japanese never mounted sustained ef3 Numbers in brackets designate References at the end
of the paper.
626
f ~
CLASS
fective antisubmarine attacks, or else the Fleet

Boat's poor submerged characteristics would
have led to numerous losses.
In World War I I the Germans encountered
very strong antisubmarine forces, so strong that
late in the war their submarine force suffered
prohibitive losses. In 1943 realizing that the
submarine that spends a large percentage of
its time on the surface was no longer effective, the
Germans developed the snorkel, the design for
the Type X X I submarine and the experimental
closed-cycle power plants using hydrogen peroxide as the oxidant under the leadership of Mr.
Walter.
The T y p e X X I submarine, described in [2],
never saw combat. As in the case of the World
War I German cruiser type, the Type X X I again
served as the pattern for U. S. submarine development in the immediate post World War I I
era. The first step taken by the U.S. was to convert many of t h e Fleet Boats to Guppies (greater
~;--
7!/E
SSlN)593
.. B , ~ _
.....
ifTn n i i r T T - T . . _ . 2 ~ Z Z 2 E Z Z - 2 1 ~ 2 _ ~ .
.....
~................
II
Fig. 3 Outboard profiles of four U. S. submarines

underwater propulsive power), described in [1].
In the late 1940's the U. S. developed the SS
563 (Tang) class, Fig. 2, whose general characteristics are essentially the same as those of the
T y p e X X I submarine. The Darter, SS 576, the
last submarine of this class and one which incorporated improvements in the original design is considerably shorter t h a n the Fleet Boats as shown
in Fig. 1.
Beginning with the Tang-class submarines,
some attention was paid towards enhancing submerged performance. However, their length-tobeam ratio, nearly 10, was almost as high as a
high-speed surface ship. Also the propellers were
still located below the ship's centerline as in the
case of the Fleet Boats with the stern diving
planes in similar positions. Directional stability,
particularly in the vertical plane, while somewhat
improved over her predecessors, is still inadequate based on present-day standards.
I t was not, then, until the nuclear power plant
development for the Nautilus and the developm e n t work leading to the design of the Albacore
were initiated in about 1948 t h a t the United

States finally stepped out from under the shadow
of G e r m a n y in the field of submarine design and
donned the mantle of leadership in this field--a
leadership t h a t this nation, it is fervently hoped,
will never relinquish again.
T h e Nautilus was developed to test the first
pressurized-water nuclear power plant at sea.
M a n y new ideas in hull structures, tankage arrangement and internal general arrangements
were employed for the first time. Her hull form
was not, however, too unlike her predecessors.
Referring to Fig. 1, it can be seen t h a t her lengthto-beam ratio is essentially the same as the famous
Fleet Boats. The Nautilus, SS(N) 571, shown
in Fig. 3, still has a large bridge fairwater and a
considerable superstructure although Figs. 6 and
8 in Section 3 indicate t h a t these are not as deleterious to submerged resistance as might be expected. At the stern, however, a principle recognized by Holland in the last decade of the 19th
century was finally incorporated in a modern
s u b m a r i n e - - t h e two propellers were located a t the
627
ship's axis and the stern planes were also located

at the ship's axis.
Research and development work conducted at
the Taylor Model Basin in the field of submarine
stability and control exercised an influence on
Nautilus, as evidenced by the installation of shaft
line stabilizers which improved her directional stability in the vertical plane. The stern configuration of the Nautilus is still exemplary for a twinscrew submarine, and as indicated in Fig. 8 her
propulsive efficiency is as high as one could reasonably expect for a twin-scr.ew design.
Before Nautilus was completed but after her
prototype power plant had operated successfully
at Arco, Idaho, it was obvious that more nuclear
submarines should be constructed as soon as possible. At that time operating submariners who
had spent virtually their entire careers in the fleettype submarine believed that future nuclear submarines should be as close in size to the older submarine as possible. Even though a reduction in
size would necessitate a reduction in the power
output of the machinery plant together with a
considerable diminution in submerged speed, this
course was considered desirable in order to reduce
size and cost. The Skate class, represented by
SS(N) 579 in Fig. 3, was designed and built to
meet t h i s requirement. Referring to Fig. 1, it
can be seen that the length and displacement
were considerably reduced. There was also a
small, reduction in the length-to-beam ratio. The
external hull form and appendages were reasonably similar to those of Nautilus so that.her total
power consumption per unit displacement also is
favorable as will be shown subsequently in Fig. 8.
The Albacore, AGSS 569, shown in Fig. 2, was
developed simultaneously with, although separately from the Nautilus. While the latter's main
purpose was to test the first nuclear plant at sea,
the former's was to demonstrate to operational
personnel improvements in submerged performance that are obtainable with a single-screw, body
of revolution hull form designed to maximize submerged features at the expense of surface capabilities. In operations at sea Albacore confirmed
design predictions many of which were based .on
an extensive model-testing program at the David
Taylor Model Basin.
Nautilus had already been completely successful and had demonstrated to the operating
forces the many advantages associated with a
high substained submerged speed. With bothNautilus and Albacore operationally successful, operating submariners discarded the "fleet boat" concept and quickly advocated the construction of a
single-screw nuclear-powered submarine emphasizing high submerged speed and maneuverability.
628
The submarine that developed was the Skipjack

(frontispiece). As shown in Fig. 1 her length-tobeam ratio is not far from the optimum. Her:
displacement is considerably less than Nautilus
even though the two submarines develop the
same power. The reduction in displacement will
be discussed in a subsequent section.
Together with development of Skipjack, a
single-screw diesel-electric submarine Barbel, SS
580, Fig. 3 was also constructed. Again as seen
in Figs. 1 and 6, her length-to-beam ratio is not
far from the optimum. Her displacement is a
little more than prior conventional diesel-electric
submarines primarily because of added, features
which enhance her capabilities for carrying out
her mission. However, just as Skipjack has
demonstrated far better submerged capabilities
than Nautilus. so has Barbel when compared to
Darter.
A very recent submarine, the Thresher, SS(N)
593, is also shown in Fig. 3. Thresher, now nearing completion at Portsmouth Naval Shipyard
has some additional capabilities, not possessed by"
Skipjack, which require additional volume inside
her pressure hull. To provide this additional
volume the best compromise solution was to increase her length, as shown.in Fig. 1, while holding the same diameter as that of Skipjack.
It should be noted that this historical discussion and in fact the whole paper are largely limited to submarines with almost identical primary
missions; i.e., attack submarines. Special purpose submarines such as those developed to carry
the Polaris missile or large surface radars (USS
Triton) are not included, since their missions impose such requirements that comparing them with
attack submarines would not give a true indication
of the trends in submarine design.
3
Speed'and Power
In considering the subject of speed and power

next in this paper, there is no intent to imply that
this subject is of overriding importance. Certainly considerations of space, arrangement,
and weights are as important or more" so than
speed and power in establishing submarine dimensions and proportions. Nevertheless it is
convenient to consider this subject next and the
restrictions imposed by consideration of speed and
power do establish certain zones of practicality
within which the other considerations can operate.
In some respects the treatment of the subject of
the speed and power of deeply submerged submarines is greatly~ simplified when compared to
surface ships. Tlie very important dependency
of the residual resistance on Froude number, so
typical of surface ships, is completely absent with
KEY
L/0i4
4-L x, =0
0
IJ.
~)iO0
CURVES THROUGH EXPERIMENTAL PTS.

SEMI EXTRAPOLATEO 0ATA
EXTREME RANGE
EXPERIMENTAL OATA FOR HULL
VARIABLES OTHER THAN LID 8CP
(TESTEO ONL~ WiTH L/O=7, Lxt:O,
Ce =.65)
L/O =5
/
LX'= O ' - ~ ' ~ ' * ~""
w
I1:
s
s
~ s
o~
LID=6
Lr-'.,',
/
~ s
,.
-/
~ - - - 4
.--
/L"=O~I
I1:20
I,
.50
Fig. 4
.60
l =I
:x..LL,o.,o
~Lx,=.30
.../-'V,~,
~'(l
~L/O=7 I
L,O.,
' 'Lx1~285
~ ~r'"
L/O=IZ5
. xl=.60
~ .x'=.60
_'t~l_~--.--~.,...p,r l//H.ii:,/~
"IC-L,O->,o:
" x ' VAR,',NG
--,,'~'_2"~L~1:3,:'2~.
%ART,RG
1
k l=VAR....s
Is/
--I/
-~
L/D= 5
~.6o
~O4o
"~
-- -iL/O=IO
LxI=O
.70
PRISMATIC COEFFICIENT, CP
.80
90
Variation of residual-resistance coefficient with L/D and C~
deeply submerged bodies. In fact for deeply submerged bodies, the residual resistance in nondimensional form is almost entirely shape depende2at. There is theoretically a small dependency on
Reynolds number, so small, however, that it is
usually ignored in submarine resistance work. It
is, therefore, possible to present a fairly complete
picture of total submarine submerged resistance
in compact form with its universality only impaired by the slight dependency of the viscous
drag coefficient, Ct, onspeed and length.
The current utilization of fairly streamlined
bodies of revolution for submarines further simplifies the matter of presentation. The body of
revolution shape parameters that appear to be significant as far as resistance is concerned are very
few in number. Two of the parameters that
strongly influence submarine size, hull costs and
arrangements, namely, the length-diameter ratio
and the prismatic coefficient, are also happily the
two most significant parameters for resistance.
Furthermore, since the majority of the appendages
on body of revolution submarines are easily distingnishable and separable from the basic body for
model test purposes, separate treatment of the
drag of the basic bare hull is both possible and
logical.
Several current submarines conform approxi-
mately to the body of revolution shapes described in [3]. In that reference a sixth-degree
polynomial is used to describe Useful streamlined
shapes for submarine applications. With these
polynomials, independent selection or variations
of such shape parameters as nose radius, tail radius, position of maximum section, prismatic
coefficient, and length/diameter ratio can be
made. Submerged bare-hull resistance data for
several series of body of revolution models incorporating single-parameter variations have been
reported by Gertler. Later work by Larson reported resistance data for several of the original
models split at the maximum section and incorporating various lengths of parallel middle body.
This later work forms a very useful extension of
the series and permits some interesting comparisons of the effect of sectional area curve shape
which will be made subsequently.
The shape parameters of the body of revolution
models used in this paper are shown in Table 1.
Comparative residual resistance data for these
models are shown in Fig. 4. The symbols used are
defined in the nomenclature given at the beginning of the paper. From these definitions the
following useful relationships can be derived:
L/D = LJD - ( 1 - L/)
Naval Architectural Aspects of Submarine Des/gn
(1)
629
p=.7(~
I!
1.0
X1=.185
e---'-' CpE = ,6515
/CSE=.759
, \ k~ =.8o3
\
.s
Cp:.70 "]
Lx~:O ~
CpE :.70
.Cs=.sos)
t//
//
/
I.O
F--"
.4ii:
z
.N
.9
.8
.7
.6
.5
~
.3
DISTANCE AFT OF NOSE + LENGTH, X/L
.2
Fig. 5 Comparative sectional-area curves for different body of revolution forms with Cp = 0.70
Cp = C~ (1 - L~') + L~'
(2)
c , = G . (t - L / ) + L='
(3)
L = (L/D)21'(4V/~G)~I, =
1.08 (L/D)2/'(v/Cp) 'Is
(4)
S = G(TrL/D)lls(4V/Cv) 218 =
3.69 C,(L/D)lt3(v/C~,)'/a
(5)
T h e bar shown in Fig. 4 at Cp = 0.65 indicates

the range of residual resistance coefficients for the
most extreme variations in xm', r0' and rt r tested.
T h e length of this bar indicates t h a t these extreme variations in x= J, r0' and rj r, are not as signilicant to residual resistance as Cp and L/D
within the practical range of values tested. Fig. 4
also shows the expected decrease in C, with increasing L/D until at an L/D of 10 and C, =
0.60 the residual resistance has almost vanished.
Further increases in L/D at other values of Cp
are not likely to yield significant further decreases
in C,.
Of particular interest in Fig. 4 is the interrelationship of Cp and L=' to residual resistance. T h e
figure clearly shows that at all LID values, increases in C~ above 0.60 t h a t are achieved by incorporating parallel middle body into otherwise
optimum forms result in less penalty in C, than increasing Cp without using parallel middle body.
For example, at LID = 7 and C, = 0.70, the L='
= 0 form (No. 15 in Table ~[) developed directly
from [3] has more than twice as much residual drag
as a form with L/D = 7, Cp = 0.70 and L=' =
0.185. T h e comparative sectional area curves'of
these two forms are shown in Fig. 5. As might be
expected, the latter form has a finer run and a
more forward location of longitudinal center of
630
buoyancy, which would be expected to reduce the

residual drag of submerged bodies. T h e parallel
middle body form also has very slightly less wetted
surface as indicated b y the wetted surface coefficients in Fig. 5.
Careful examination of both Table 1 and Fig. 4
shows t h a t while a C~ = 0.60 results in the least
residual drag at any L/D, provided t h a t L=' = 0,
t h a t 0.60 is not necessarily the best C~, value when
the body is split at the maximum section and parallel middle body is inserted. D a t a plotted in
Fig. 4 for the brief series of models, No. 22-25 of
Table 1, with constant L / D = 10 and L=J = 30
per cent show t h a t a C~ = 0.65 results in slightly
less residual drag than Cp, = 0.60. This result
has been used as a guide in plotting the extrapolated data shown in Fig. 4. In addition, these latter data are at least partially verified b y the results for models Nos. 16, 26, 27 and 28 of Table 1,
plotted in Fig. 4.
Fig. 4 b y itself yields, of course, a misleading
picture as far as selecting hull parameters for
minimum resistance is concerned. If, as primary
design parameters, constant submerged volume
and constant speed are used as a basis for comparison, a diagram can be constructed readily t h a t
includes frictional as well as residual drag and
t h a t is also applicable to other volumes and speeds
with only very small error. Such a diagram is
shown in Fig. 6 for a submerged volume of 100,000
c u f t and a constant submerged speed. Selected
for comparison were forms of C~ = 0.60 to 0.84
and L/D = 4 to 15 ~hich when associated with a
total volume of 100,000 c u f t and using equations
(3), (4) and (5) have actual lengths and wetted
surfaces as shown in Fig. 7. T o insure mini-
Naval ArchitecturalAspects of Submarine Design
,40
6
120
I00
80
t~ 6 0 :
40
20
Fig. 6
8
I0
L E N G T H / D I A M E T E R , RATIO
14
16
Variation in total resistance with LID and Cp for submarine forms

of 100,000 c u f t volume
Table 1
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
12
L/D
4
5
5
5
6
6
7
7
7
7
7
7
7
7
7
7
8
8
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
11.67
14
17.5
" Cp
0.65
0.55
0.60
0.65
O. 55
0.65
0.55
0.55
0.60
O. 65
0.65
O. 65
O. 65
O. 65
0.70
O. 753
O. 55
O. 65
O. 55
O. 60
O. 65
O. 685
O. 720
O. 755
O. 790
0.76
O. 80
O. 84
Model Characteristics
to'
rl'
0.50
0.50
0.50
0.50
O. 50
0.50
0.50
0.50
0.50
O. 50
0.50
O. 50
O. O0
1. O0
0.50
O. 50
O. 50
O. 50
O. 50
O. 50
O. 50
O. 50
O. 50
O. 50
O. 50
.0.50
O. 50
O. 50
0.I0
0.10
0.10
0.10
0
0.10
0
0.10
0.10
O. 10
0.10
O. 30
O. 10
O. 10
0.I0
O. 10
0
O. 10
0
O. 10
O. 10
O. 10
O. 10
O. 10
O. 10
0.10
O. 10
O. 10
x,~'
0.40
0.40
0.40
0.40
O. 36
0.40
0.36
0.40
0.40
O. 52
0.40
O. 40
O. 40
O. 40
0.40
O. 29-0.57
O. 36
O. 40
O. 36
O. 40
O. 40
O. 28-0.58
O. 28-0.58
O. 28-0.58
O. 28--0.58
0.24-0.64
O. 20--0.70
O. 16-0.76
L~'
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
O. 285
0
0
0
0
0
O. 30
O. 30
O. 30
O. 30
0.40
O. 50
O. 60
. L.Io
C~
0.789
For models
0.701
with L=' .4- 0
0.743
0.781
O. 694
0.777
0.692
0.695
0.737 "
O. 775
0.774
O. 779
O. 769
O. 774
0.809
0.65
5
O. 8435
O. 690
O. 773
O. 689
O. 730
O. 772
0.55
7
O. 787
0.60
7
O. 816
0.65
7
O. 842
0.70
7
O. 867
0.60
7
0.843
0.60
7
O. 8685
O. 895
O. 60
7
.(.
631
['C, ".SO',
350
Z4
LENG' . l C p :.'r6~
LC~,:.8,I.-~
zz
300
250
2OO
IuJ
I/d
U.
z 150
~IOO:
50
Fig. 7
SURFACE
i4 ~
6
B
I0
LENGTH/DIAMETER RATIO
12
14
t6
Variation in length and wetted surface with L/D and C~ for submarine
forms o f 1 0 0 , 0 0 0 cuft volume
mum residual drag, a C~, = 0.60 was empirically

associated with L~' = 0, a Cp, = 0.65 with L / =
0.30 and C~e = 0.70 with L~' = 0.60 which represents a linear relationship between C~, and L / .
If this empirical relationship which is based on
the data shown in Fig. 4 is used in conjunction
with equation (2), the characteristics of the" specific forms shown in Fig. 6 can be computed and
are shown in Table 2 for all values of L/D.
Table 2
c,
c,.
L/
C,
G,.
L='
0.00
O. 68
0.70
O. 84
0.000
O. 025
0.652
O. 682
0
O. 143
0.311
O. 495
0.64
O. 72
0.80
O. 88
0.012
O. 038
0.007
O. 70
0.068
O. 225
0.40
O. 60
In turn L/D can be varied for any C~ and L /

by varying Le/D. Other combinations also
might have been used, but these would most likely
result in some additional residual drag.
Fig. 6 shows the residual drag of submarine
forms in its true perspective as a very small part
of the total drag. Furthermore, the penalty for
wide departures in C~ and LID from the minimum drag combination need not be large. T h e
advisability from the point of view of economical
design of utilizing large prismatic coefficients is
also evident from Fig. 6. For example, with a
fixed volume of 125,000 cu ft and a fixed diameter
632
,sg
12
4
"
/./
of 31.5 ft increasing C~ from 0.60 to 0.80 yields

such virtues as (a) length decreased by 25 per
cent from 267 to 200 (LID from 8.47 to 6.35),
(b) wetted surface decreased by 10 per cent from
19,360 to 17,500 and (c) constant section diameter for a length of 80 ft, with a drag penalty of only
about 1 per cent. However, as a cautionary
item, it should be noted t h a t if a Ct of 0.80 were
used without parallel middle body but utilizing
offsets directly from [3], the drag increase would
be on the order of 20 or 30 per cent. Therefore,
while a large range of prismatic coefficients is
favorable for over-all economical design, particular care must be exercised in the shaping of the
hull when a large C~ is used. The conclusions
reached in this paragraph are not unlike those applicable to slow-speed surface ships whose hydrodynamic characteristics are quite similar to
deeply submerged submarines.
Also shown in Fig. 6 for comparative purposes
are the total bare-hull resistance of six representative submarines, discussed in Section 2, expanded
or contracted as the case m a y be, to a uniform submerged volume of 100,000 cu ft. The first
three submarines shown are basically bodies of
revolution, but the data for the latter two of these
three submarines include deck structure in addition to the basic body. These three submarines
all have a single propeller located on the axis of
Naval Architectdral Aspectsof Submarine Design
KEY
BOW (SAIL) PLANE DRAG
BRIDGE (SAIL) DRAG
STERN PLANES, RUDDER, STABILIZERS,
SHAFT a STRUT DRAG
ADDITIONAL ROUGHNESSDRAG (~CF=JOOt2|
-(ACF =L)O04I
PROPULSION LOSSES WITH ACF,JOOl2
17"7] PROPULSION LOSSES WITH ACF=~OO4
o
t~
,<
OU
I.-z
7.4
7.6
8.0
r
9.8
I0.0
LENGTH/BEAM RATIO
102
r 11,4
11.6
Fig. 8 Comparative appendage resistance, roughness drag, and propulsion losses for
submarine forms of 100,000 cuft volume
revolution. The bare hulls of the last three submarines (which are all twin screw) incorporate
extensive deck structure and some unseparable
integrated hull appendages t h a t add appreciably
to their resistance. It is important to note t h a t
such extraneous protuberances can change the
submerged drag of submarines by larger amounts
than large changes in hull proportions and coefficients, a reflection of the fact t h a t we are dealing with very low drag forms.
Appendages
As a corollary to the last statement it follows
t h a t items such as control surfaces, bridge fairwaters, shafts, struts o.r additional hull roughness
are of tremendous importance to submerged drag.
T h e relative magnitudes of these added resistances
are shown in graphical form in Fig. 8, for the six
submarines previously considered. Two separate
versions of the USS Albacore, AGSS 369, are ineluded in these data designated I and II. Albacore I utilizes a large structure both forward and
around the single propeller to support a set of rudders and stern planes aft of the propeller, Fig. 2,
while Albacore I I has a set of rudders and stern
planes both forward of the propeller similar to

T h e general
configurations of the other submarines are shown
in Figs. 2, 3 and the frontispiece.
Specific comments on each of the appendages
are as follows:
Bow Planes. While in all cases these appendages add only 1 per cent, or less to the bare hull
wetted surface, the relative added drag is much
greater than this amount, although less iu the case
of the body of revolution types than in the others.
The principal reason for this is that,the bow planes
are mounted with their principal axes normal to
the hull on Albacore and Barbd (they are mounted
on the bridge fairwater or sail on the Skipjack),
while on the other submarines they are mounted in
a horizontal position high up on the hull where
they introduce a good deal of interference drag
with the hull. The sail planes of the Skipjack
are seen to be quite favorable in terms of low
added drag.
Bridge Fair,rater (Sail). The drag of these
large appendages is on the order of 15-30 per cent
of the bare hull drag. Systematic drag tests of
this appendage indicate some decrease in resist-
Barbd, (SS 580), shown in Fig. 3.
633
ance with increasing fineness ratios; however,

the scatter of data is substantial.
Stern Control Surfaces. In the case of the
twin-screw submarines these appendages include
rudders, stern planes, and either horizontal stabilizers supporting the shafts as on the Skate and
Nautilus or else bare shafts and supporting struts
as on Darter. The high penalty in drag associated with the aft control surfaces of Albacore I
is evident from Fig. 8. The cumbersome interrupted nature of these surfaces causes a much
greater drag increase than that attributable to
their increased wetted area.
The total drag of all appendages for the seven
present-day submarines shown in Fig. 8 is somewhere between ~ and ]/~ of the comparable drag
of World War II, fleet-type submarines. Fig. 8
also shows that the incremental drag involved in
an increase in hull roughness from ACs = 0.0004
to ACI = 0.0012 is about the same magnitude as
the drag of all of the appendages combined.
Large variations in hull roughness have been deduced from full-scale trial results with different
submarines with some correlation of these results
with (a) the extent to which the bare hull and
subsequent protective coatings have been
smoothed; (b) The elimination or minimization
of small hnll protuberances and flooding holes;
(c) The shaping of flood openings. This correlation is sufficient to point the way towards valuable
reductions in drag.
The propulsion losses shown in Fig. 8 constitute the major difference between total power consumption of the single-screw submarines and the
twin-screw submarines. Among the twin-screw
submarines, the Nautilus and Skate, with shaft
lines mounted level with the horizontal axis of
symmetry of the submarine, shows considerably
lower propulsion losses than the Darter with shaft
lines below the axis of symmetry. These losses
with twin-screw propulsion are two to three times
those with single screw. The propulsion losses
increase significantly with increased roughness because:
(a) The prol~ulsion losses are directly proportional to drag with constant propulsive coefficient.
(b) The propeller efficiency decreases with increased drag because of increased loading on the
propeller.
Hull Efficiency Effect on Propulsion

The largest single factor accounting for the high
propulsive coefficient of the single-screw submarines is the high hull efficiency, eh. The difference in hull efficiency is a reflection of the fact
that the single propeller mounted axially behind
the body of revolution is in aa ideal position to
634
I. o,.Lo,o,,ol
2__
i
._~.,~ ~//, :
:
'~c
30
AO
.50
"2 " ' l e4
.60
.30
.40
.50
PROPELLER DIAMETER+SHIP DIAMETER
.60
Fig. 9 Variation of wake coefficient, thrust-deduction

coefficient,hull efficiency,and relative rotative efficiency
with ratio of propeller diameter to ship diameter
recover part of the energy imparted to the boundary layer by the passage of the hull ahead of the
propeller through the water.
Twin screws
mounted off to the side of the submarine are not
in a position to recover as much of this energy as
the single screw, although the symmetrically
mounted twin screws (in the vertical plane) of
Nautilus and Skate are better off in this respect
than the unsymmetrically mounted propellers of
the Darter.
There have been many instances in the history
of surface ship model testing where extraordinarily
high propulsive coefficients have been achieved
because of high hnll effieiencies. But almost inevitably these high hull elfieieneies have resulted
from high drag so that the over-all power consumption of the particular ships was not favorable.
The axially mounted propeller behind a submerged
body of revolution is a case where exceptionally
high propulsive coefficients are achieved with exceptionally low drag forms.
This interesting phenomenon has been probed
further. It is clear that if an axially mounted
propeller recovers energy from the hull ahead of it
then the ratio of propeller diameter to hull diameter must be an important parameter governing
hull efficiency. That this is so is shown in Fig. 9
which is based both on individual submarine
model propulsion data (which naturally iuclude
the effect of all appendages) and on a series of
propulsiou tests with a bare hull.body of revolutiou model (No. 20 of Table 1) with different
diameter propellers, reported by Beveridge. It is
clear that with a fixed hull diameter, increasing
the propeller diameter beyond a certain point will
decrease the hull efficiency, e~. Since at the same
time an increase in the propeller diameter enhances the propeller efficiency, e~, a combination
GUPPY DARTER BARBEL SKATE NAUTILUSSKIPJACK

IIA
S S 5 7 6 SS580 SS(N)578 5S(N)571 $5(N)585
Fig. 11 Volume assigned for payload
There is, of course, reasonable doubt that the

foregoing
statements apply very precisely to the
GUPPY DARTER BARBEL SKATE NAUTILUS SKIPJACK
IIA
SS576
SS580 SS(N)578 SS(N)STI SS(N)585
full scale. The boundary-layer thickness is relatively much greater on the model than on the full
Fig. 10 Volumerequired for machinery
scale which would tend not only towards more
favorable interaction effects but also towards reof values of propeller diameter and. RPM prob- duced drag for the appendages on the model.
ably exists that yields an 9Ptimum propulsive Furthermore the procedure normally used in
model self-propulsion tests of correcting for the
coefficient.
Fig. 9 indicates that the appendages usually difference in frictional drag between model and
fitted to submarines improve the hull efficiency full size contaminates the outcome of the previcompared to the bare hull condition. Presum- ous discussion. Nevertheless even the qualitaably, this improvement.must be largely due to the tive result is of considerable interest.
stern control surfaces which, are located directly
ahead of the propeller and which according to Fig. 4 Dimensionsand Arrangem'ent
9 increase the wake velocity (w V = V -- V,) appreciably with a smaller corresponding increase in Volumes
McKee in [1] has drawn particular attention to
the thrust deduction ( t T = T -- Rt). Thus the
stern control surfaces which are fitted to all sub- the fact that in the case of military submarines
marines for reasons totally extraneous to propul- more than in any oxher type of ship the size of the
sion play a vital dual role in propulsion..They ship depends oti the space required to contain the
both increase drag in the towed condition and they various things which are required to meet the
improve propulsive coefficient in the self-propelled characteristics of the ship. Submarine designers
condition. Calculations based on Figs.. 8 and 9 have customarily used the terms "space-conindicate, surprisingly enough, that the latter trolled" or "volume-limited" design as indicative
favorable influence more than offsets the former of this situation which arises because the average
unfavorable influence for three of the submarine density of the entire envelope of the submarine
models considered; i.e., that based on model must equal water density in order to submerge.
test results the stern control surfaces appear to Yet the average density of military ships includ,
add little or nothing to power consumption for ing living spaces, and so on, rarel3~ approximates
the submarines Albacore II, Barbel and Skipjack, the density of water. Therefore, to provide the
and may even subtract a little from total required necessary volume on military submarines it is espower. This is a most interesting possibility that sential t 9 carry very high density and sometimes
could be simply verified by running propulsion somewhat redtfndant weight in the form of ballast.
tests with these submarine models with stern Only in the case of submarines designed for great
control surfaces removed.
depths where the weight of the hull structure be-
Naval Architectural Aspectsof Submarine Design
635
40
LOWER LEVEL NOT USED

ARRANGEMI~qTS
LOWER LEVEL FULLY USEO
~:~:....~...
I
I
I
I
I
(
~
I:~::~.
....."":"~:":":'......
:,:.'..
I "
~ m m l
G~
TWO - L E V E L S
,0
~'L
I.
Fig. 12
I
16
I
16
I
20
THREE-LEVELS
I
t
I
22
24
26
HULL DIAMETER IN FEET
I
I
30
FOUR-LEVELS
I
3: )
I
34
Variation in useful deck area with pressure-hull diameter
comes a very large part of the total weight does

the submarine become "weight limited." An exceUent example is the submarine described in [4].
One of the methods generally employed in developing the first approximate dimensions for a
new submarine design is to list all the items required to meet the characteristics of the new ship
and then estimate the volumes required for each
item. While better arrangement of items within
spaces sometimes permits a reduction in the estimated volume required, on the whole the total
volume estimated b y such a means is apt to be on
the low side. Hence it is a good starting point for
a design since it usually extends the arranger to the
utmost of his ability to accommodate all required
items in a limited volume and also serves as an
early brake against the usual pressures for growth
in size. To this total are added the volumes required for the variable tanks and the volume to be
used for main ballast tankage with the sum total
equal to the first estimate of the new ship's submerged displacement.
Fig. 10 shows how the volume required to contain the machinery has varied in attack-type submarines since World War n . Among the three
diesel-electric type submarines of this period, the
Guppy develops more shaft horsepower on the
surface while the Darter and Barbd develop more
submerged. Darter and Barbd have aclditional
auxiliary machinery and this aceotmts primarily
for the small increase in machinery volume re-
636
I
28
quired over the older submarine. Of the three

nuclear submarines shown, the Nautilus and Skipjack develop the same total shaft horsepower while
Skate develops considerably less. Skipjack's single-screw machinery plant requires somewhat less
volume than does t h a t for the twin-screw Nautilus
installation, and is the major reason w h y less
total machinery volume is. required on Skipjack
than on Nautilus. For the diesd-eleetric submarines, Fig. 10 also ~hows the a m o u n t of volume
devoted to diesel oil. I t is interesting to note
t h a t the total volume within the ship's envelope
devoted to machinery and fuel in the dieselelectric submarine is greater than t h a t required
for Skate, a nuclear-powered submarine developing
considerably more shaft horsepower. If this
chart were reduced to volume per shaft horsepower developed, the Skipjack would have the
shortest bar and those for the diesel-electric submarines Would be approximately five times its
height.
Fig. 11 drawn to the same scale as the preceding
figure shows the remaining volume that can be
used for hotel facilities for the crew, electronics
installations, ship control, a r m a m e n t and lesser
but essential activities. This volume will be
referred to as the payload volume throughout
this paper. Each of the two diesegelectric submarines following the Guppy increased the volume
employed for these purposes, partly to remedy
inadequacies in the Ouppies and partly to ac-
Naval Archifecfural Aspectsof Submarine Design
.J
o
GUPPY
Fi~. 15
DARTER
sss?s
BARBEL
ss~o
NAUTILUS
ss~)sT~
SKATE
SStNm~
SI(IPJACK
SS0~SeS
Effective deck area on representative

submarines
commodate added items of equipment. Of the

three nuclear submarines shown, Nautilus and
Skipjack" have essentially the same capabilities
but these are contained in less volume in Skipjack.
Skate has somewhat less over-all capabilities than
Nautilus and Skipjack and in addition m a n y of
her arrangements could be considered austere by
comparison.
Deck Areas
Volume is only one measure of space in a submarine I n most cases effective deck area is
more important, particularly throughout the
living, berthing, and control spaces Since most
military submarines are "volume limited," arrangements that provide more deck area "per unit
of volume will result in smaller submarines. Fig.
12 shows the results of an area study for two, three,
and four-level submarines. This study assum.~
t h a t the area is boun
" "
ressure
h u l l with in.ternal framin~ in each case. The
'tween deck heights were proportioned ifi a manner t h a t would generally provide for the maximum
effectiveness in space utilization. In all cases
only deck areas where at least 5 ft 6 in. of clear
height was available were counted. T h e chart
has been divided to indicate what might be considered to be appropriate ranges of hull diameters
for two-level, three-level, and four-level ships.
T h e minimum diameter for each case would pose
some rather difficult arrangement problems since
the 'tween deck heights in these cases are definite
minimums Two possibilities are shown in each
situation, namely the case where the lower level
is not available for arrangements, and the alternative where the entire lower level is available for
arrangements. T h e submarines previously dis:
cussed in this section are between these two possibilities. With two-level submarines a reasonable
percentage of the lower level is available for
arrangements. With the four-level submarines
the lower level is devoted almost entirely to variable tankage.
The chart clearly shows discrete gains in useful
deck area per unit of volume with each increase
in number of levels as well as the expected loss in
deck area per unit volume when the diameter is
increased appreciably over the minimum required
in a particular situation. Further gains in this
respect could be obtained by going to a five-level
arrangement. However, two important considerations militate against and perhaps even preclude
such an arrangement in a military submarine:
(a) An increase in diameter beyond t h a t shown on
the chart would complicate the structural design
and might not be structurally feasible for deep
operating depths. (b) The diameter-to-draft
ratios for submarines in the surface condition are
necessarily quite low, ranging from about 1.20 in
low reserve-buoyancy ships to 1.80 for high reserve-buoyancy ships designed primarily for good
surface performance. A submarine with a diameter of 36 ft, the largest diameter shown on
the chart, would, if designed to maximize submerged capabilities, have a mean draft of 30 ft.
With a normal a m o u n t of trim by the stern such a
ship would be unable to enter m a n y harbors.
Hence 36 ft appears to be near, if not the upper
limit for the diameter of submarines of the military
type.
In Fig. 11 the payload volumes for several
attack-type submarines are compared graphically. It is interesting to compare the total
effective deck area t h a t is available for arranging
this same payload, Fig. 13. The Guppy t y p e and
the Darter are two-level submarines while the
Barbel is a three-level submarine having about the
minimum possible diameter of pressure hull
(Barbel has a double hull) for this number of
levels. N o t only does the Barbel have considerably more deck area available for arrangements
but the increase is also much greater proportionately than the minor increase in volumes With
this additional area it was possible to improve
considerably the habitability and workability
of a diesel-electric attack submarine. T h e additional level was also helpful in separating various
ship functions and placing m a n y of these in the
most efficient location well out of all n o r m a l '
traffic, paths.
The Nautilus and Skate are three-level submarines and the "former's hull diameter is considerably greater than the minimum required for
three levels. T h e Skipjack is a four-level sub-
637
I
'
,~
WWll
FLEET GOAT
GREW
[]
OFFIG[RS
GUPPY
"'
[[
DARTER
SSST6
BARBEL
SS580
v"
DIESEL-ELECTRIC SUBMARINES
Fig. 14
SKATE
SS(N)578
SKIPJAGK
SS(I~J85
NUCLEAR SUBMARINES
Deck area assigned for officers and crew
marine and her diameter is near the minimum

for this number of levels. It is then not at all
surprising to note in Fig. 13 that Skipjack has
more deck area available for arrangements even
though more volume is assigned to this purpose in
Nautilus. This feature as much as any other
enabled building Skipiack to a displacement considerably less than Nautilus.
length, Beam, Draft

The first approximation of the submerged displacement can be made as suggested in the discussion on volumes. One could then select the
length, diameter and prismatic coefficient on the
basis of the information shown in Fig. 6 and
utilizing equation (4) of Section 3. Such a selection of dimensions would rarely best suit other
conditions such as employing a hull diameter
near the minimum for the'number of levels contemplated for arrangement spaces, providing a
hull diameter in way of the reactor compartment
that will be most efficient from both a power output and shielding-weight consideration, and providing requisite lengths for major portions of the
ship (propulsion machinery, torpedo room, reactor
space, living spaces, and so on).
From the discussion on speed and power it is
evident that reasonable departures from the
optimum length to beam ratio and the submerged
prismatic have only a small effect on the submerged speed. Therefore, in "volume-limited"
submarines, maximum utilization of internal
volume should generally have a considerable influence in selecting the hull diameter. Likewise
large lengths of parallel middle body add to the
efficiency of the arrangements, probably .lower
construction costs and as shown in Fig. 4 have a
favorable effect on minimizing resistance at large
values of Cp. There does seem to be a very real
draft limitation for military submarines and this
638
NAUTILUS
SSU~571
in effect sets an upper limit on maximum beam

for military submarines. There is also a distinct
advantage in minimizing length from the point
of view of economic design and good maneuvering
characteristics. Based on these concepts a hull
diameter and a length can generally be established for an attack-type submarine that (a) will
not be far from the optimum from the point of
view of resistance, (b) will be an optimum from
an arrangement point of view, and (c) will also
possess good maneuvering qualities. Special purpose submarines, such as those that carry the
Polaris missiles, require considerable length to
perform their unique functions and of necessity
must depart considerably from optimum values
and so suffer somewhat in both submerged speed
and maneuverability.
Growth in SpaceRequirements
Referring again to Figs. 11 and 13 the growth
in volume and deck area employed for arrangements is easily discernible. Much of this growth
has been required to accommodate new facilities
that are required in this age of complexity.
O n e could list many items that have encroached
upon the limited volume within a submarine but
this paper will confine itself to an over-aU survey
of personnel accommodations and the growth in
communication and fire-control-type electronics,
two of the more important factors iff any presentday submarine. In Fig. 14 the deck areas assigned for berthing, messing and washroom
facilities for the officers and crew on various
diesel-electric and nuclear submarines are shown
relatively. The fleet boat's complement increased considerably during World War II with a
resulting reduction in the ship's over-all living
standards. In converting fleet boats to Guppies
additional space was required to contain the
larger battery and in the resulting rearrangement
s o m e space f o r m e r l y u s e d for b e r t h i n g a n d m e s s i n g
t h e crew was lost. B a s e d on t h e h a b i t a b i l i t y
s t a n d a r d s e s t a b l i s h e d for U. S. s u b m a r i n e s in
1956 t h e Guppy w o u l d be c o n s i d e r e d i n a d e q u a t e .
T h e h a b i t a b i l i t y of t h e Darter is t h e m o s t satisf a c t o r y f o u n d in a t w o - l e v e l diesel-electric subm a r i n e . Barbel h a s a p p r o x i m a t e l y t h e s a m e
v o l u m e a v a i l a b l e for t h i s p u r p o s e as Darter b u t
d u e to t h e b e t t e r efficiency of h e r t h r e e levels h a s
s o m e w h a t m o r e d e c k area. As a r e s u l t Barbel,
Figs. 15, 16 a n d 17, is t h e m o s t h a b i t a b l e diesel
s u b m a r i n e in t h e U. S. N a v y . Skate a n d Skipjack
h a v e t h e s a m e c o m p l e m e n t while Nautilus m u s t
b e r t h a n d mess m o r e of b o t h crew a n d officers.
All t h r e e n u c l e a r t y p e s h a v e m o r e t o t a l d e c k a r e a
assigned for t h i s p u r p o s e t h a n a n y diesel-electric
submarine.
I n Fig. 18 t h e d a t a f r o m Fig. 14 a r e shown on a
p e r - m a n basis. A g a i n Barbel is m a r k e d l y s u p e r i o r
to p r e v i o u s diesel s u b m a r i n e s , a n d in so f a r as t h e
crew is c o n c e r n e d is t h e e q u a l of t h e Nautilus a n d
Skate. Skipjack h a s t h e m o s t a r e a p e r enlisted
m a n of a n y n u c l e a r - a t t a c k s u b m a r i n e to d a t e . All
these ships a r e far b e t t e r t h a n t h e i r fleet b o a t
predecessors. L i k e w i s e t h e i n c r e a s e d d e c k a r e a
per officer h a s allowed for m u c h b e t t e r a c c o m m o d a t i o n s . I n all cases t h e s e b e t t e r a c c o m m o d a tions h a v e c o n t r i b u t e d m a t e r i a l l y t o w a r d s imp r o v i n g t h e efficiency of t h e crew a n d w i t h it t h e
fighting efficiency of t h e ship. W i t h o u t t h e s e
i m p r o v e m e n t s i t is d o u b t f u l t h a t t h e v e r y long
continued periods submerged that the nuclear
s u b m a r i n e s h a v e a c h i e v e d w o u l d be possible.
L e s t one m i g h t m i s c o n s t r u e this t r e n d a n d ass u m e t h a t an u n d u e a m o u n t of space h a s been
Fig. 15
USS Barbel--crew's berthing
a s s i g n e d for this p u r p o s e a n d t h a t in " v o l u m e l i m i t e d " designs some r e d u c t i o n should b e m a d e
Fig. 16 USS Barbel--crew's mess
639
Fig. 17
USS Barbel--control
room
CRE*
~ ' 7 ~ OFFICERS
WW II
~FLEETBOAT
GUPPY
DARTER
~RBEL
NAUTILUS
SS576
SS580j ,SSIN)571
v'
DIESEL-ELECTRIC SUBMARINES
Fig. 18
640
SKATE
SKIPJACK J.K.TAUSSIG
SS(N)578 SSIN)5~B5 ; DELOS0
V"
NUCLEAR SUBMARINES
A v e r a g e d e c k area p e r m a n
i]ii.
i
i
FLEET BOAT FLEET GOAT G U P P Y
1940
1945
DARTER
SS57G
BARBEL
SS580
DIESEL-ELECTRIC
Fig. 19 Variations in deck
~. Naval
NUCLEAR
area and v o l u m e required

ment
to reduce the ship size, a similar study was made

of a relatively small combatant-type surface
ship not known for unusually "plush" living,
namely the f. K. Taussig, DE1030. I t can be
seen t h a t each man and each officer on J. K.
Taussig has about twice the amount of deck area
as is available on the best submarine. In addition topside decks on the J. K. Taussig provide
considerable freedom of movement and there are
also numerous other facilities below decks. By
contrast the submariner has a 27-30 in. passageway to permit access to his watch or battle station.
T o d a y we are in an electronic age. In no type
of naval ship is this more apparent than in the
nuclear submarine. The constantly increasing
need for electronics equipment for both old and
new functions has been one of the major items influencing the growth in size of submarines. Fig.
19 shows how both the deck area and 'internal
volume required for communications, attack, and
defensive electronics (radio, radar, and sonar)
has steadily increased. The fleet boat at the end
of World W a r ' I I had more than twice as much area
and volume devoted to these.purposes as in 1940.
The latest diesel-electric submarine, Barbel has
more than double this volume and area compared
to the post-war fleet boat. The trend has continued in the nuclear submarines with Thresher
representing the high point in this respect to date.
How great an effect this equipment exerts on ship
size can best be expressed b y noting t h a t it
occupies almost as much volume inside the hubmarine as t h a t devoted to the berthing and
messing of the entire crew.
I
I
NAUTILUS SKIPJACK THRESHER
S S ( N ) 5 7 1 SS(N)585
SS(N)593
for electronics equip.
Quarter-Scale Mockups
Being volume limited, submarines have always
presented difficult arrangement problems b o t h
for large and small items of equipment as well as
the numerous ventilation, hydraulic and highpressure air piping runs, electrical cable runs and
other items t h a t compete for the same location
in the ship. In fact the a t t e m p t at building the
first submarine for the U. S. Navy, the Plunger,
was abortive and the submarine was never p u t to
test, because among her m a n y other faults the
installation of a t t h a t time enormous steam power
in a very limited space rendered her practicall.y
uninhabitable [5].
T h e success of a submarine design depends to a
great measure on operability of equipment and
accessibility to it for maintenance and repairs.
T o assist in this m a t t e r full-scale mockups have
been used for m a n y years for the most important
areas; namely, machinery spaces and control
rooms. In some cases mockups have been constructed for the entire ship. Besides assisting,
design personnel in arriving at solutions to their
various problems, they have been of considerable
assistance to production personnel who have made
use of them for varied purposes ranging from
instruction of new workers to construction of
piping jigs.
Full-scale mockups have been expensive. Generally the space they occupy requires some location t h a t is distant from both the drafting room
and the building ways which reduces their use
t o a considerable extent: In m a n y cases they
have taken so long to build or change that they
have lagged well behind ship construction, par-
ArchitecturalAspectsofSubmarineDesign
641
Fig. 20
Quarter-scale mockup USS Thresher, engine room, lower level mid-section

port
Fig. 21
Quarter-scale mockup USS Thresher, engine room, lower level forward

port
t i c u l a r l y w h e n a s h i p ' s c o n s t r u c t i o n is b e i n g exped i t e d , a n d so q u i t e often h a v e been m o s t ineffective. I n m a n y cases t h e i n e v i t a b l e i n t e r ferences t h a t r e s u l t f r o m t w o - d i m e n s i o n a l d r a w ings c o m p l e t e d in different sections of a design
r o o m h a v e r e q u i r e d r e s o l u t i o n in a m o s t difficult
a n d e x p e n s i v e m a n n e r ; i.e., a f t e r a n i n s t a l l a t i o n
h a s b e e n f o u n d to be u n w o r k a b l e a b o a r d ship.
642
T o m i n i m i z e these v a r i o u s p r o b l e m s M a r e
I s l a n d N a v a l S h i p y a r d , in d e v e l o p i n g w o r k i n g
p l a n s for t h e Grayback, SS574, d e v e l o p e d as a
design tool, a o n e - q u a r t e r scale m o d e l of t h e entire i n t e r i o r of t h e ship. T h e s h i p y a r d selected
t h e q u a r t e r scale as a n o p t i m u m b e c a u s e it prod u c e d a m o d e l w h i c h e n a b l e d one to visualize a n
a r r a n g e m e n t r e a l i s t i c a l l y a n d b e c a u s e i t could be
SUBMARINE TANKS
SUBMARINE TANKS
MAIN BALLAST TANKS,
DIESEL OIL SYSTEM
SYSTEM IS LARGE OPEN-ENDED INTERCONNECTEDSIPHON:

DIESEL OIL IS CONSUMED AT ONE END AND SEAWATER ENTERS
AT THE OTHER ENO REPLACING IT.
BY FLOODINGBALLAST TANKS, SUBMARINESUBMERGES.

BY BLOWING BALLAST TANKS, SUBMARINESURFACES.
SURFADE
NEGATIVE TANK
COMPENSATINGWATER SYSTEM
FWO
AFTER TRIM TANK

FULL
g~%ANN
AUXILIARY TANKS
~" ' "
"
LJGHT OVERALL
NEGATIVE TANK- LOCATED FORWARD

OF CENTER OF BUOYANCY FOR DIVING
MOMENT.
USUALLY KEPT EMPTY SUBMERGED AND SURFACED.

PROVIDES NEGATIVE BUOYANCY AND FORWARD M O t
MENT FOR FASTER DIVE. TANK'IS BLOWN BEFORE
ORDERED DEPTH IS REACHED.
Fig. 23
Submarine tanks, diesel oil and negative
FULL
Fig. 22
Submarine tanks,, main ballast and compensating
built and altered readily. Furthermore, its

components could be installed or moved without
special rigging requirements. The entire mockup
could be built in close proximity to the drawing
room and thus be of maximum benefit to the
design engineers. A still lesser scale model was
not selected because the amount of detail and
accuracy required would have considerably increased costs and probably lost much of the
realism of the model.
The use of quarter-scale mockups has spread to
other submarine design shipyards. At Portsmouth, N. H., the Shipyard is making extensive
use of this method in developing the working
plans for the latest nuclear attack submarine,
Thresher. All hull and machinery arrangements,
Figs. 20 and 21, have been tested in the mockup
before they have been reduced to blueprints and
released to the shops for production work. The
shipyard's design division is certain that this
procedure has reduced required manhours for
design work, saved many production manhours
that formerly were required to rectify major
arrangement faults on board ship, and has also
resulted in'a more workable over-all design. In
Portsmouth the quarter-scale mockup has been
located in an area convenient to all parties coneerned in the development of a new ship. While
it has been of maximum assistance to the design
engineers, it has also been of great value in

keeping planners and estimators abreast of the
design and cased their work in transferring the
design into working instructions. Production
personnel have made use of this small-scale
mockup for the same purpose. When the design
division is satisfied that the mockup is essentially
complete, the mockup's portability enables it to
be moved to the actual scene of construction
where it can be a great assistance to production
personnel.
Portsmouth Naval Shipyard still constructs
full-scale moekups of small areas shown to be
critical in the quarter-scale mockup as well as the
perennially critical areas of the ship's control room
and fire-control center.
5 Weight, Buoyancy," Static Stability and Weight
Margins
Weight and Buoyancy

In any surface ship or submarine, the total
weight of the ship must equal the weight of the
displaced water. Since the volume of the displaced water is less when the submarine is on the
surface than when it is submerged, it is necessary
that weight in the form of water ballast be taken
aboard in order to submerge the ship from the
surface condition. The tanks used for this purpose are characteristic of submarines. In presentday nuclear submarines several types of tanks are
used to dive the submarine and to maintain submerged trim. The functions of these tanks--
643
I00 -
=~
ao-
Nml~ll
BI
Divlnq
Trlm
G2
. 60
i
4-O-WBT
Sutm
Fig. 24
40-
,N
20-
._:,_
Moment balance
main ballast tanks, compensating tanks, diesel

oil tanks, and the negative tank--are shown diagrammatically in Figs. 22 and 23. An excellent
technical report on the function of these tanks as
well-as the whole subject of buoyancy and stability of older type submarines is contained in
reference [6]. The "wrap-around" main ballast
tanks shown in Fig. 22 have become standard
for all new submarines whereas they were not in
the past. Compared to ballast tanks employed
in the past (encompassing about 300 deg of the
pressure hull leaving the area from about 10
o'clock to 2 o'clock exposed beneath a light superstructure deck) the wrap around tanks offer
several advantages:
1 Provide more reserve buoyancy without
changing hull dimensions or coefficients.
2 Provide better structural transition with
the pressure hull.
3 Reduce structure generated noise when
underway.
4 Improve ship's capability to withstand
damage from depth charges.
Compensation for variations in the ship's
weight is made by varying the liquid loading in
the variable tanks: i.e., the auxiliary tanks and
the forward and after trim tanks. The auxiliary
tanks are divided port and "starboard to correct
list. The trim tanks permit maintenance of the
ship on even keel fore and aft in the submerged
condition. The variable tanks are used individually or as a group to bring the ship to the
neutral buoyancy condition submerged. The
variable tanks are box type with portions of
the ship's pressure hull serving as partial boundaries. They are designed to be capable of withstanding full sea pressure at maximum submergence. Even at present operating depths
this type of construction necessitates ve.ry heavy
structural floors an.d longitudinals together with
quite small panel sizes.
The negative tank is a carryover from past
644
o
o
tO00
IO00
Aft MOmlmt
2000
3000
Ff~d M o m e n t - Ft Tons
4000
50OO
Fig. 25 Equilibrium polygon
submarine practice, where it served to aid in

faster dives and in accepting the inevitable
periodic inflow of water during snorkelling operations. In many submarines, particularly those
that have undergone major changes, it is necessary
to utilize this tank as an auxiliary tank under
some. of the possible conditions of loading.
Normal surface displacement, &,,, is the submerged displacement, A~,b=,less the displacement
of the main ballast tanks, Wb,. In this condition
the submarine is in normal diving trim (NDT)
and always floats at the same waterline no matter
what density the water may be. Furthermore, the center of volume of the reserve buoyancy
lies in the same longitudinal position as the center
of volume of the main ballast tanks. Referring
to Fig. 24, this statement can be easily verified:
Volume of reserve buoyancy (Vae)
= volume of ballast tanks (VET)
For equilibrium:
V1 = A,...
Subscript 1 refers to surface condition
V2 = A..b=. Subscript 2 refers to submerged

condition
V~ + V ~
= V~ = a..., = A.~. + Wbt
(6)
Take moments about B2:
C-yR.) (d + (v,) (d) - (A.o.) (b)

+ (w.t) (a) -- o
(7)
For equilibrium on the surface d must equal b.

Then (VaB) c -- (WhO a and c = a. In'utilizing
equations (6) and (7) care must be used to express volume and weight in comparable units.
No matter what the shape of the upper part of (HA) and for two different water densities (64.3
the ship nor where the center of gravity of the pc/and 63.6 pc/). These conditions of loading are
main ballast tanks is located, the submarine must detailed in reference [8] and have been derived
take a surface trim down by the head or by the from operating experience with diesel-electric
stern such that the vectors VaB and Wbt lie in the submarines. When sufficient nuclear submarines
same vertical line. Surface trim is changed by a are operating, a reaualysis may disclose the need
shift in volume,s, rather than by shifts in weights. to readjust these arbitrary loading conditions.
Therefore, in a submarine the surface trim can be The means by which the ordinates and abscissas
controlled only by regulating the shape of the for these points are determined can be reduced to
upper buoyant part of the ship and the shape and simple word equations:
1 The weight of variable ballast to add to any
fore-and-aft position of the main ballast tanks.
For body of revolution type submarines the arbitrary initial condition equals the submerged
shape of the upper part of the ship is subject to displacement in water of specified density minus
very little change. For a particular shape of the the ship's condition A weight (ship complete,
upper part of the ship shifting the center of volume ready for service in every respect, includivg lead
of the main ballast tanks forward will bring the ballast, liquids in machinery at operating levels,
bow up in the surface condition. Alternatively air in banks at full charge, electrolyte in storage
shifting the center of volume of the main ballast batteries at minimum operating level, with emertanks aft will push the bow down in the surface gency rations and water but without any item of
consumable or variable load), the weight of the
condition.
variable load for the arbitrary initial condition
Equilibrium Pelygan
and the weight of the water in the main ballast
The equilibrium polygon is a design tool which tanks.
2 The moment of variable ballast to add to
provides a graphic representation of the changes
in weight and moment which are possible by any arbitrary initial condition equals the moment
varying the amount of liquid in the variable of the submerged displacement about the esballast tanks. References [6], [7], and [8] treat tablished reference point minus the moment of
this matter in some detail. A brief description is the ship's condition A weight, the moment of the
included here to permit a better understanding of weight of the variable load already aboard in the
the margin lead discussion that follows in this arbitrary initial condition and the moment of the
weight of the water in the main ballast tanks,
section.
Fig. 25 shows a typical equilibrium polygon about the same reference point.
In Fig. 25 all arbitrary conditions plot just
for a nuclear submarine. The abscissa is the
moment of variable ballast water about a refer- within the polygon and hence the submarine
ence point in the middle of the auxiliary tanks should be able to dive under all the assumed
near the center of the ship, and the ordinate is conditions which do represent extreme conditions.
the weight of the variable ballast water. Start- However, if this polygon is based on calculations
ing with all tanks empty, if the forward trim completed at a certain stage of design, errors will
tank, auxiliary tanks, and the after trim tanks undoubtedly exist in the assumed locations of
of the submarine were filled in that order, the the variable load and changes will inevitably
moment and weight plot would progress from occur during the long subsequent construction
A to B to C to D. Likewise if water were first period. Therefore, it would be desirable to inadded to the after trim tank and then pro- crease the size of the variable tanks a small amount
gressively forward, the moment and weight plot at this stage of design so as to increase the width
would progress along A-F-E-D. The polygon and depth of the polygon to take care of the inthus determined then circumscribes all possible evitable contingencies. Changes in the position
weight and moment conditions that can be recti- and amount of fixed lead ballast aboard also
fied by the variable ballast tanks. Experience permit some adjustment in the position of the
has proved that if certain arbitrarily determined points within the polygon.
On completion of the ship, an inclining experioperating conditions can be plotted within this
polygon, the submarine will be able to dive satis- ment and a stop trim dive provide sufficient iufactorily for any condition of loading or water formation to determine the ship's exact displacedensity. These conditions are plotted in Fig. 25 ment and position of center of buoyancy and with
for arbitrarily assumed conditions of loading: it whether or not a shift in amount and position
Two light conditions (L-1 and L-2), two heavy of the ballast lead is required. W h e n a change in
conditions (H-l, H-2), two heavy forward condi- ballast lead is required to place all condition
tions (HF-1, HF-2) and one heavy aft condition points within the polygon, it can be seen from the
645
POSITION OF "M~r
r--- POSITION OF';S"DEPENDS

I ON ACTUAL CONDITION
t OF SHIp LOADING
CONDITION"A"
SHIPWEIGHT--'-~
SURFACE NORMAL
DRAFTS
Fig. 26
Curves of MT, B and GT for a body-of-revolution submarine
simple word equations by which the points were

derived that adding lead ballast to the ship
moves all the points down in the polygon and that
removing lead ballast moves all the points up.
Likewise moving, lead ballast forward in the ship
moves a11 the points to the left in the polygon
and moving ballast aft moves aU the points to the
right.
Static Sfabil'ity
Submarine static stability can be discussed in
three general areas; namely, surface, during submerging or emerging, and submerged. In the
days of the diesel-electric submarine considerable
attention was paid to static stability in the surface condition. This was appropriate since these
submarines spent by far the greater part of their
operating time on the surface and, in general,
surface stability was also more critical. The
typical submariue form with its narrow waterline
beam and pronounced tumblchome is not conducive towards large metacentric heights. Submarines operating on the surface do, however,
have a relatively low vertical center of gravity in
relation to the vertical position of the center of
buoyancy. In addition, when the submarine
puts to sea its topside is closed up and watertight
except for relatively small openings required for
air induction and bridge access which are located
well above the waterline. As a result submarines
generally have a large range of stability. In the
body of revolution submarines with wrap-around
tanks, the metacenter is at the axis of symmetry,
and vith the center of gravity below the axis of
symmetry this range extends to 180 deg in the
surface condition.
From World War I to Barbel (SS580) all U. S.
646
diesel-electric submarines were built with double

hulls, the inner designed to withstand full submergence sea pressure and the outer to contain
diesel oil or water ballast. For the pre-Barbe[
submarines the outer huh was proportioned to
provide low drag in the surface condition in the
range of operating speed-length, ratios. The
ballast-tank width was also considerably increased
at the surface waterline to increase the inertia of
the waterplane and with it the initial metacentric
height. This form did show a significant loss in
righting arm when the tank tops Went under but
the range of stability was still beyond 90 deg.
The surface-condition metacentric heights required at the inception of a new submarine design
by the U. S. Navy, while not large, have been
considerably greater than values accepted by
foreign navies. Weight growth while never as
extensive on submarines as on surface ships still
poses a more severe problem. On a surface ship
the addition of reasonable amounts of weight at
the center of gravity has little effect on stability.
In a submarine such an addition causes a loss in
stability since a like amount of lead ballast located
about 2 ft above the keel must be removed. On a
submarine only weight additions made within 2 ft
of the keel can be accepted without a loss in stability. Hence the larger metacentric height
required in the past by the U. S. Navy enabled it
to operate submarines for many more years without major enforced alterations than those nations
which accepted lower values.
The metacentric height accepted by the U. S.
Navy has also permitted "Fleet" type submarines
to remain operational on the surface even in winds
up to hurricane force without taking dangerous
angles of heel. Although under most circumstances a submarine can submerge to avoid such
conditions, this was still a valuable attribute for
the diesel-electric submarine to possess in the
event of being forced to the surface from low
battery voltage during gale conditions. The
present-day "body of revolution" submarines in
the surface condition have their metacenter
approximately at the axis of the submarine no
matter what the angle of heel. Therefore, the
righting arm curves are of the form GM sin
and are positive up until ~ = 180 . Hence a
somewhat lesser metacentric height, GM, can
be accepted when compared to the double-hull,
tank-top submarines which did not have this
range of stability. Accepting a 25 per cent less
GM for this type results in less metacentric stability at heel angles of 15 deg or less but beyond
this angle of heel the stability differences greatly
favor the newer type submarines. It rciight be
anticipated that more experience with these sub-
marines would demonstrate the feasibility of

accepting still lower metacentric heights.
Fig. 26 shows the vertical positions of the center
of buoyancy, B, the center of gravity for' transverse stability, Gt, and the transverse metacenter,
Ms, for a body of revolution submarine as a function of draft. During the transient condition of
submerging and surfacing there is considerable
free surface in the ballast tanks. If this effect
were neglected in the design, negative GMt
could result during part of this operation. In
submerging, this would be of little concern since
the operation is so fast that a brief period of negative stability would cause no ill effects. During
surfacing, however, this condition might exist
for a period of several minutes and under certain
conditions could be serious. As a result the
Bureau of Ships now requires a positive minimum
GM~ value of ~ ft during the trimming-down
operation.
When the submarine submerges completely,
the waterplane disappears and both the transverse
metacentric radius, BM,, and the longitudinal
metacentric radius, BMz, become zero. During
the submergence procedure B rises above G.
When the ballast tanks are full, free surface
decreases and BG sin ~b becomes the submerged
righting arm both transversely and longitudinally
although small differences in free-surface corrections will cause small variations between BG~ and
BGz. Both BGt and BG~ are relatively small
values and hence every possible step must be
taken to minimize free surface. This is particularly true in so far as the BGz is concerned since
tanks and bilges are almost always longer than
they are wide. Means must be provided for
maintaining machinery bilges dry or as nearly
dry as possible, in order to maintain a positive
BGv
The firm establishment of a lower limit on
acceptable submerged metacentric heights (BG,
and BG~) is a difficult task. Submarines have been
operated with metacentric heights as low as 3 in.
in the submerged condition. As of today one
could not establish a definitive criterion for.the
submerged metacentric height. To limit the
heel in turn (discussed in Section 7) it would be of
considerable assistance to have a high metacentric height, much higher than could be obtained reasonably in practice. A high value also
contributes towards motion stability in the vertical plane particularly at low speeds. This also
will be discussed in Section 7. However, high
values can cause control problems at low speeds
when control surfaces are inadequate to overcome
the ship's metacentric stability. Further study
is required before a more reasoned analysis of the
conflicting demands in this matter can be made

and with it a more definitive establishment of
criteria in this respect. In the meantime minimum surface GM's are required. These values
are generally associated with corresponding submerged metacentrie heights that have at least
been reasonably satisfactory from an operational
viewpoint.
Fixed lead ballast is invariably required to
meet stability requirements. This" ballast is
installed as close to the baseline as possible so as
to exert the maximum effect on lowering the
center of gravity. In one recent case involving
the austere conversion of the submarine Barbaro
to carry Regulus Z, the lead ballast was even installed beneath the keel in the form of a bar keel
to lower the center of gravity the requisite
amount.
In diesel-electric submarines of the past the
storage battery was more than half the machinery
weight and was located very low in the ship so
as to reduce the need for lead ballast for stability purposes. In nuclear submarines the battery capacity is greatly reduced. As a result the
battery weight is less than 10 per cent of the total
machinery weight in all cases and hence is only
moderately helpful in lowering the ship's center
of gravity. Some of the nuclear submarines
have required as much as 7.2 per cent of the surface displacement assigned to lead ballast in order
to meet stability criteria. However, in the latest
nuclear attack submarine, Thresher, a sizable
reduction in height of the vertical center of the
hull structural weights has been achieved primarily through the complete elimination of the
superstructure coupled with a great reduction
in the size of the sail. As a result only a small
amount of lead ballast, about 1 ~ per cent of the
surface displacement, is required to meet the same
stability criteria.
Weight Margins
In Section 4 it was noted that military submarines have generally been volume-limited.
Under these circumstances lead ballast must be
added to permit the submarine to submerge.
In such circumstances it would appear at first
glance inconsistent to require a weight margin
in a new design. It might appear more appropriate to insert a volume margin in a new design.
There is, however, no practical method for providing a volume margin that could be parceled
out at various locations throughout the ship.
Furthermore in a submarine whose arrangements
are always austere compared to surface ships a
small volume margin would be occupied rapidly
and lost forever. A weight margin on the other
647
LOCATION OF
/
MAXIMUM LEAD
/
STORAGE , F T . - - - ~
/
/
'I,
API
AFT-x
. . . . . . .
TOTAL LEAD
I I
I ~, STAStU~ LEAD SL=
o
~
I;}
it
~l
O.STA
CE. .
!j
I
~
C
LOCATION OF
MAXIMUM LEAD
STORAGE FORWARD
FORWARD
~
\
/,<
-.L~.
#~--CENTER
"O~'~LE~E~TER
O ML-
OFSTASILITYLEAO" ~ I] [I\ ~
O,STA
CE
i
!
' FP
Fig. 27 Margin lead distribution diagram
hand can be later distributed within limits in

various portions of the ship. It is a well-known
fact that weight estimates cannot possibly be
accurate until construction is completed and hence
it has been customary to incorporate a weight
margin in the design-weight summary. The
amount of margin can rarely be fixed on the basis
of fact but rather on the basis of engineering
judgment. If the new submarine design is one
which differs from a previous one only by items
that cart be calculated with reasonable accuracy
then a small margin is justified In the more
usual ease where the design is quite different a
much larger margin is warranted since a submarine
completed with excess ballast can still carry out
all its functions whereas one that is overweight on
completion cannot dive without undergoing major
alterations. The USS Tang (SS563) is an object
lesson in this respect. She was first lengthened
on the building ways to gain buoyancy submerged
and later had to have two ballast tanks converted
to full pressure structure for the same purpose
before she could be released for unrestricted operations.
Besides a margin to allow for changes during
the detailed design and ship construction period
it is desirable to have a margin left when the ship
is completed to allow for "must" additions to
the ship during her long service life. The Bureau
of Ships now. specifies that completed submarines
not only possess enough lead ballast to meet
stability criteria but that they also have a minimum of 20 tons of future development lead that
648
could eventually be expended for alterations

with a cumulative center of gravity located at the
ship's axis. In practice all margin remaining
when the ship is completed must be installed as
lead ballast together with the lead ballast required for stability in order to bring the ship's
weight up to the condition A-displacement and
thus permit the ship to dive when the variable
load, variable ballast, and main ballast are
added Reballasting is usually required after
the inclining experiment and trim dive have been.
conducted and the results analyzed. Reballasting
may require the removal or addition of some .le3.d
ballast as well as its relocation longitudinally in
the ship in order that the equilibrium polygon
will enclose the points representing the various
arbitrary loading conditions.
Margins to compensate for weight growth
during the building period and for essential future
growth are then vital to a successful design;
and. yet specification both of the amount of
margin and of its vertical center is inadequate by
itself, since that amount can be expeuded only in
one longitudinal position At locations forward
or aft of this position lesser amounts of margin
are available. It is entirely possible to have 180
tons of margin available on a 3000-ton submarine
and yet discover that it is impossible to increase
the weight of an item such as the main reduction
gear, located well aft in the ship, by a matter of
10 tons because of the inability to balance out
the ship longitudinally. It is, therefore, necessary not only to determine the maximum margin
but rather the maximum amount of lead that can

be stowed at about 2 ft above the keel. T h e
curves labeled "usable aft" and "usable forward"
represent the maximum weight growth that can
occur at any particular longitudinal location and
still permit the submarine to achieve longitudinal
balance submerged. To have the maximum
amount of margin lead expendable at b-distance
aft of the longitudinal total lead position it is
necessary that the stability lead be located as far
forward as possible. Further to be able to expend X-tons as far aft as possible the remaining
portion of the margin lead, (ML-X), must also
be located as far forward as possible so that
longitudinal balance is achieved ; i.e.,
bX = SL.a
+ (ML-X) . c
(8)
From this moment equation the maximum

distance aft, b, where X-tons of margin can be expended can be determined. Likewise other locations for varying expenditures of margin can be
determined and the completed diagram is shown
in Fig. 27. New diagrams should be developed
when major changes in the weight summaries
develop.
Fig. 28 Model failure in shell buckling
Structure
Pressure Hull Shell and Framing
available and its vertical location but also to

determine the amount of margin that can be
expended at any particular longitudinal location.
This information is necessary during the early
design phases while the ship's pressure-hull
outline is being developed so that changes in
this outline can be made to ensure that sufficient
margin will be available in the fore-and-aft locations where there is considerable doubt as to the
final weights.
A diagram has been developed that graphically
portrays the margin available at any longitudinal
position on the ship. Fig. 27 shows how such a
diagram is developed. From a weight summary
the total lead (TL) required to reach the condition A-displacement together with its longitudinal
location is evolved. Also from a weight study
the amount of lead required for stability purposes
(SL) is determined. The difference between
these two values is the margin lead (ML). From
a study of the ship's arrangement one can devise
a lead stowage plan showing the maximum
amounts of lead that can be stowed at various
longitudinal locations along the ship and also
reasonably close to the keel. The upper curve in
Fig. 27 represents the foregoing data as computed
from the lead-stowage plan. Note that this
curve does not represent the total lead on board
This section of the paper will be devoted to a

general description of the modes of failure of
present submarine pressure hulls and with some
aspects of current submarine structural design.
There has been considerable progress in submarine structures over the years. Quite a bit of
this progress is owing to the fact that unlike the
surface ship where the loading is generally
speaking quite indeterminate, the loading on the
submarine circular pressure hull, at least in the
static sense, is rather well defined. Hence the
problem has had a great deal of appeal over the
years to those analytically minded. In particular
the pioneering work of von Mises and of yon
Sanden and Gunther in the second decade of this
century has had a lasting Influence in the structural design of submarines of all nations.
The simplest part of the submarine pressure
hull is essentially a stiffened cylindrical shell with
either internal or external frames (in United
States submarines the frames are located externally wherever possible). Under static conditions such a structure may fail in one or more of
three manners:
1
2
3
Buckling of the shell between frames.

Yielding of the shell between frames.
Over-all collapse.
649
Fig. 2 9
Model failure in shell yielding

Fig. 30 Model failure in general instability
An extensive discussion of submarine structures is included in a 1958 NAS-NRC report by E. Wenk, Jr.
Shell buckling is illustrated in Fig. 28. This

mode of failure for infinite unstiffened tubes was
recognized by Bresse and by Bryan in the 19th
century, and they determined the significant
material property to be Young's modulus. Von
Mises was the first to analyze the finite cylindrical
shell. For very short lengths of cylinders between stiffeners, yon Mises found that as many as
15-25 regular lobes could form upon reaching
the critical buckling pressure. The validity of
the theories of von Mises was reasonably confirmed by systematic tests conducted by
Windenburg in the ,United States in the early
1930's, and Windenburg's simplified expression
for this mode of failure, formula (34) of reference
[9] 'is still applicable today, Just as for the
buckling of a column, the critical buckling stress
is reduced materially with eccentricity which in
this case is out-of-roundness of the shell.
Shell yieldiug between frames in the form of an
axisymmetric pleat is shown in Fig. 29. Whether
or not failure will occur by yielding or by buckling
depends upon the geometry and the yield strength
of the material. If the shell is relatively thin or
the frames are widely spaced, buckling will
650
probably occur. On the other hand if the shell

is relatively thick or the frames are closely spaced
as in a short, fat column, failure is most apt to
occur by shell yield. The thinness factor
F (L/2 R)211/4(o-y~1,2
;"=L~R)~/ W]
'
(see Nomenclature) employed by Windenburg

[9] and analogous to the length/radius of gyration ratio of column theory is indicative of the
modes of failure in this respect. For approximation purposes, thinness factors, ~, of less than 0.8
are generally associated with shell yielding,
X-values greater than 1.0 with shell buckling;
and those between are in a transition zone.
To obtain the yield mode of failure it is then
necessary to have frames at relatively close
intervals. Such frames cause considerable departure from the uniform circumferential and
longitudinal membrane stresses in a perfectly
circular shell without stiffeners. With frames
it is obvious that the inward radial displacement
of the shell is much greater at mid-bay than at
the stiffeners. Von Sanden and Gunther in 1921
[10] evaluated these effects and found the stresses
strongly affected b y frame area and spacing.
They evolved two widely known formulas, (92)
1 , 3 - -
1.2
l,l
+ SHIPS WITH P FROM 9 2 0
~+
++++
+~
~o(~.%..~. ,%.oM
1.3.
1.2.
IL u .
II
'~
0.t -
o~
o.I
0.!
e e
0.9
~
0.8,
o.
<
0.4
Fig. 31
,1,
0.6
0.8
1.0,
o.I
1.0
1,2
,I ,I
1.4
h6
1,8
>
I
M.S.
2,0
Fig. 52
1940
1950
144
HTS
1960
~
HY-80 - -
I'
Variation in pressure factors of representative submarines
~-X plot of representative submarines and some

models
and (92a) [10] or [11], that are still widely used

today. These formulas followed the Rankine
(principal stress) failure theory. Formula (92)
gives the pressure that results in the longitudinal
stress reaching the nominal yield of the material
on the inside of the shell at the frame ring and
formula (92a) gives the pressure associated with
the circumferential stress reaching nominal yield
on the outside of the shell midway between frame
rings. The moments developed in the longi tudinal direction due to the pressure on the ends
of a closed cylinder, neglected by von Sanden
and Gunther, were included in a somewhat later
analysis made by Salerno and Pulos [12]. In
most cases the collapse pressures predicted by
these formulations are on the conservative side.
Lunchick [13] has developed a plastic-hinge
analysis, utilizing the reserve strength beyond
the initiation of yielding, which under some circumstances predicts a collapse pressure in closer
greement with experimental values although in
many cases, possibly because of imperfections in
construction, its predictions are optimistic.
Fig. 30 illustrates failure through general instability, whose mechanism of failure is i n m a n y ways
similar to that for shell instability between
frames. A satisfactory analysis for this type of
failure was slow in being made but was finally
achieved by Kendrick [14] and [15], early in
the past decade. Kaminsky [16] extended
Keudrick's work for different end conditions.
One of the most important results of this work
was that the length of stiffened cylinders between
bulkheads or very rigid deep frames is as important for general instability as is frame spacing
for shell instability. Kendrick's theory has been

reasonably confirmed by various model tests [17].
A simplified form of Kendrick's method, placed
in graphical form by Reynolds [18] is easy to
apply but it does produce slight errors under some
conditions. Small imperfections in the structure
may cause a sizable diminution in the critical
pressure for over-all instability.
There is some argument for designing a cylindrical pressure hull on the "one-boss shay" concept
(see Weak [4]) so that collapse in all three manners would occur simultaneously. Achievement
of such a design even on paper would be exceptional and in practice its achievement is wellnigh impossible. Furthermore, there is ample
opinion, including that expressed in [4], that the
minimum-weight design is that configuration
which insures that failure occurs by yield. This
opinion exists because both interframe and overall instability failures can occur before the yield
strength of the material is reached, and such failures are also markedly susceptible to imperfections in construction. It therefore appears reasonable in developing a new design to establish the
geometry in such a way that the collapse pressures associated with interframe and over-all
instability are sufficiently higher than shell yield
to make certain that the latter will be the mode of
failure should it occur. This will ensure working
the material to its yield strength.
Fig. 31 shows a pressure 'factor, ~, versus
slenderness ratio, X, plot for most U. S. submarines
built since 1940, as well as some of the many
models that have been tested at the Taylor Model
Basin in the past decade. The $-X co-ordinates
651
12--
i~~/__
1.1|
iO. m
:t=i"t
0.6
i
I
1940
1950
1960
YFARS
T
HI"S
q.
>lYe0 - -
1940
Fig. 33 Over-all structural efficiency factors for representative submarines
1950
IS60
YEARS
Fig. 34 Modified pressure factors for representative

submarines
give a convenient representation of buckling

data. The pressure factor, ~b, is the collapse
pressure divided by the pressure, ~,h/R. The
latter is the "hoop stress," at which hoop-yielding
occurs in an unstiffened cylinder based on the
Rankine-principal stress failure theory, where h is
the shell thickness and R is the mean shell radius.
The curve plotted, ~b = 1.30/)` 2, represents
Windenburg's [9] simplification of the theoretical
instability formulas. The pressures used for the
pressure factor for the ships are those derived
from yon. Sanden and Gunther's formula (92a).
The pressures used for the models are those
measured at the time structural failure was
observed whether or not the failure was by yield
or instability. At high ),-values, representing
definite regions of instability, some of the points
lie above the curve, possibly in part because the
curve represents the pressure at which the rate
of change of deflection increases markedly whereas
the measured pressure at failure represents the
ultimate coUapsing pressure. Many of the model
points, particularly in the intermediate range of
0.8 < )` < 1.0 where either shell yielding or interframe buckling may occur, plot well below the
Windenburg line.
In many of these cases, representing older
model tests, it is probable that there were departures from circularity which resulted in reduced pressures for instability failure. In more
recent model tests circularity measurements
have been taken and attempts have been made to
substantiate the loss in capabilities predicted by
theories such as those of GaUefly and Bart [19]
and of Bodner and Berks [20]. Except in a few
special cases satisfactory confirmation of these
formulations has not been achieved. It now
appears that for normal submarine structures,
application of these theories would give unduly
pessimistic predictions. With existing construc652
I.I
LC
O . $ - O
o5
I) O e
0.7
0.6
0.7
0,0
0.9
I I
1.0
I. |
1.2
THINNESS FACTOR
Fig. 3 5 Modified pressure factors versus thinness factor

for U. S. submarines
tion practices the shell out-of-roundness for

present-day submarines can be held to small
magnitudes, well within specified tolerances.
Under these circumstances test results indicate
that there is no appreciable reduction in the
collapse strength of the subma4;ine.
It should be noted that the ship points plot
with one exception at ~b-values greater than 1.0.
Prior to 1950 such large relative values of the
collapse pressure would have been discounted
and in these cases the hoop stress would have
been considered the maximum pressure that the
structure could withstand. Such a concept is at
variance with theory. With closely spaced
frames a portion of the load is shifted from the
plate to the frames so that higher collapse pressures are predicted by theory. Research and
scale-model tests consistently proved that in
certain ranges of geometry ~b-values greater than
1.0 are valid. In fact development of ~b-values
as great as 1.9 have been observed in experimental

models with very closely spaced rings There is
then benefit to be gained in small A-values, but it
must also be recognized t h a t in actual practice
this can only be achieved with certain combinations of depth, diameter and material.
Fig. 32 plots the variation of the pressure
factor ~b over the past two decades) The points
shown represent different design submarines and
are based on the collapse pressure predicted by
yon Sanden and Gunther formula (92a). (A
formulation that is conservative in most cases,
although somewhat optimistic in cases involving
thin shell plating combined with wide frame
spaces.). From this plot the trend towards
increased pressure factors with better use of the
shell material is apparent.
I t is difficult to compare the relative design
efficiency of different submarine structures developed for different geometries and operating
depths and often constructed of different materials. One coefficient, .
( ~0 = 104cv_W ] '
employed at Taylor Model Basin, a modification

of one suggested b y yon Sanden and Gunther,
takes into consideration the weight of one bay of
shell and framing, W, the volume of one bay, V,
and collapse pressure, Pc. The higher the numerical value of the coefficient; the greater the
over-all efficiency of the design. I t does not
.allow for differences in the yield strength of
materials and, hence, unless an extremely poor
design is involved, t h a t "constructed of a higher
yield matex'ial will always show to advantage.
Fig. 33 shows how this over-all efficiency factor
has varied with the years and again the predicted
pressure of yon Sanden and Gunther (92a) has
been used in developing the factor It should be
noted that some gains were made in the later
H T S submarines T h e sharp increase with the
change to H - 8 0 steel is also worthy of note.
Although it is not generally used, a means of
comparing the performance of different structures
first suggested by Wenk is one t h a t seems to offer
considerable merit. This method compares how
closely on the average the structure approaches
the yield criteria. The pressure factor, ~k, shown
in Fig. 31, is not altogether suitable in this respect since it does not take into account the load
carried by the frames. A modified pressure
factor, $, can be devised t h a t will allow for some
contribution on the part of the frames. This
factor assumes that the total area of the frames,

ineluding welds, is spread uniformly over the shell
in the span between frames giving a nominal
cylinder with an effective shell thickness of h'. 6
This effective thickness can then be used to
calculate a modified pressure factor:
P
- h ' / R 0.y
where (h'/R)0.v is hoop stress for nominal cylinder. I t should be noted t h a t the effect of
differences in yield strength of the material is
incorporated in this factor Based on the von
Mises-Hencky criterion of failure one can establish a theoretical maximum value for ~b (one
that could only be approached in actual practice)
This theory is expressed by the following equation:
9_ 0.m 2 =
(0.1 -- 0"2) 2 +
(0"2 -- 0.,)2 +
(0.1 -- 0.,)2
(9)
where ~1, ~2, and ~3 are the three principal stresses

and. 0.m is the stress at which yielding occurs in
simple uniaxial loading. In the case of the nominal cylinder above 0.1 = 20.2 and 0.8 = 0, then
al must equal 1.10 0.m in order, t h a t failure by
yielding m a y occur rather than 0.j = 0.~ as in
the Rankine principal-stress theory Based on
the yon Mises-Hencky criterion, the maximum
possible value for is 116 and similarly based on
the Rankine theory the maximum possible value
would be 1.0.
In Fig. 34 the same submarines that have been
shown in previous plots are compared with respect to their modified pressure factors and, as i n '
the others, the yon Sanden and Gunther formula (92a) for collapse pressure is used. This
plot indicates that there has been little real gain
in structures in the past two decades and that in
fact in one recent ease there was a considerable
reduction in the modified pressure factor This
particular reduction can be attributed to employing a high-yield material in an unfavorable
geometry and depth combination.
One last plot of the modified pressure factor,
~b, versus the thinness factor, A, is shown in Fig.
35. Here virtually all' U. S. submarine types
constructed in the past 25 years are plotted,
based again on the pressure predicted b y the yon
Sanden and Gunther formula (92a). This plot
clearly demonstrates the gains that can be made
by employing low k-values. Lest one immediately conclude t h a t all submarine structures
should have k-values of 0.6 or less, a note of caution should be sounded. If one examines the
expression for A; i.e.,
i Figs. 32-35 inclusive developed from data from compre- 6 First appears in DTMB report prepared by Weak,
hensive DTMB report prepared by Stenwiek, Wenk and Stark and Peugh. This report has strongly influenced
authors.
Pulos.
653
it can be seen that there will be certain combinations of hull diameter, required operating depth,
and steel employed that preclude low values for ~,.
Transverse Bulkheads
Transverse bulkheads have been installed in
submarines to prevent structural failure by over-all
instability, to divide compartments, to limit
flooding in special cases, and to provide end
refuge compartments. During the period when
bulkheads were installed mainly to limit flooding,
they were spaced to permit the ship to remain
afloat with any single compartment and one adjacent main ballast tank flooded and hence some
degree of safety in the event of a surface collision
was attained. To be effective this concept also
required a very large amount of ballast tankage,
in excess of 30 per cent, of the surface displacement, with a most deleterious effect on submarine size. Furthermore, there is little possibility that this concept would be of real assistance
in the event of the flooding of any main compartment while submerged to any appreciable
depth. With the increased size of main compartments on nuclear submarines, the greatly decreased need for external tankage and the emphasis on submerged characteristics, and the realization that nuclear submarines will spend little
time on the surface, it would be wasteful to adhere
"to the older concept. Hence nuclear attack
submarines are incapable of withstanding complete flooding of any main compartment either
on the surface or submerged. Transverse bulkheads are still installed so as to provide forward
and after refuge compartments in the event that
the submarine is sunk in water of considerably less
depth than that associated with collapse on the
hull.
As in the case of transverse bulkheads in surface ships, submarine bulkheads are designed on a
single use basis and hence would be expected to
exceed yield and be worked well into the pIastic
range at their maximum expected holding pressure. These bulkheads are of the flat-plate type
with an extensive stiffening system which in the
past has been designed with the use of standard
beam formulas and assumed loads. Generally
one .main (primary) horizontal girder is installed
at the axis and has been assumed to withstand an
elliptical load totalling one half that applicable
to the entire bulkhead. Vertical (secondary)
stiffeners are installed and collectively have been
assumed to withstand the entire load on the bulkhead. Finally, tertiary intercostal stiffeners have
654
been installed between the vertical stiffeners to

decrease panel, sizes and to prevent tripping of the
vertical stiffeners and have been assumed to
withstand loads of trapezoidal or triangular
distribution. Bulkheads designed by this method
have met or exceeded specified holding pressures.
However, they have not provided the minimumweight solution. Heller and Palermo [21] have
devised an elastic analysis of this type of bulkhead stiffening system that agrees more closely
with experimental results and which should permit some reduction in structural weight of bulkheads.
Bulkheads or heavy frames cause discontinuities in a stiffened cylindrical structure a.nd hence
bays adjacent to them are potential sources of
early failure of the pressure hull. Experimental
observations have demonstrated on many occasions that axisymmetric shell yielding almost
always occurs in the bay adjacent to the "hard
spot." To offset the weakening effect of the
heavy bulkhead, it has long been the practice to
reduce the spacing of the first frame from the
heavy member. However, this method merely
forced the failure point into the first full-length
bay without a real improvement in the collapse
pressure. Short and Bart [22] have developed
an optimum design method for these "end" bays.
Limited model tests [23] have confirmed the
results of this design method. Of the geometries
tested, that determined by the optimum design
procedure (end bay 8 per cent longer and end
frame 23 per cent larger than typical) proved to.
be 5 per cent stronger than the old practice of
reducing the lengths of the end bay with no
change in frame size.
Model and Full-Scale Tests.
Other areas that cause stress concentrations in
the submarine's pressure hull can be readily noted;
e.g., the large-diameter end of conical transitions,
box-type hard tank structure, sea chests, and compensation for holes. Theoretical analyses are
wanting or lacking altogether for many of these
eases. Such details then for the most part must
still be designed by empirical means. Model
tests are extremely useful in :this respect. Furthermore, even thouglz the major modes of failure
have been quite thoroughly investigated it is
recognized that exact analysis is impossible and
this together with the comparatively small factor
of safety employed [1] creates a strong desire on
the part of the designer to see :his product tested
before it is transformed to an a c t u a l ship structure. Generally this has been accomplished in
small-scale models at the Taylor Model Basin
where there are many diverse facilities for this
Fig. 36 Portsmouth Naval Shipyard 30-ft-diam test tank
purpose. Pressure tanks are available ranging

from 10 in. to 12 ft diam and the largest tank is
capable of applying pressures of over 1500 psi.
Methods of test are described in [24]. Models to
be tested are constructed geometrically similar in
as m a n y aspects as possible to the tentative structural design and of sufficient length to give equivalent end effects. The hydrostatic pressure at
which failure occurs is identical with full scale if
exact geometric similitude exists. This means
that imperfect circularity in the model should
be the same as full scale, welding residual stresses
should be identical, yield strengths of material
should be identical and if welding defects exist
they should be scaled. These conditions cannot
always be met and at times can cause some doubt
as to the adequacy of the model predictions.
Because of these doubts the Bureau of Ships
decided in the later 1940's to confirm the validity
of small-scale model results in full scale. A 30ft-diam tank was built at Portsmouth Naval
Shipyard, Fig. 36, for this purpose. This tank,
completed in early 1953, is 75 ft long. I t is constructed of a welded cylindrical section with
hemispherical ends. To prepare a model for
testing one of the hemispherical ends is cut away.
The model is slid into the tank and welded to a
heavy mounting bulkhead near the fixed end as
shown in Fig. 37. The movable hemisphere is
then rewelded in place. Models are completely
instrumented and are subjected to a series of
tests culminating in failure. Four such tests were
conducted and the results gave close enough correlation to lend confidence to the small-scale test-
ing methods employed at Taylor Model Basin. I t

is probable that this large tank will be employed
in the future to investigate particular phases of
stress concentrations to try to confirm appropriate small-scale techniques.
The final verification lies in the completed submarine. Unlike some foreign nations, the United
States has not carried out tests involving failure
or near failure in the actual ship but reasonable
verification of each new design has been obtained
through strain measurements taken during the
initial deep dive of the first submarine of each
class. Gage locations are selected at locations
where strains can be compared with theoretical
calculations and also in areas of expected stress
concentrations not subject to calculation or to
duplication in models. Data are evaluated at
various depths d u r i n g the descent to ensure satisfactory operation of the test equipment and to
see whether or not the strain increments are as
predicted. Generally agreement has been most
satisfactory although there have been areas
where, due to (a) local irregularities, (b) the effects of encumbering structures such as large
machinery foundations, and (c) welding residual
stresses, large variations in strain have been observed.
Based on analyses of the various model and
full-scale test data, the Bureau of Ships has developed modifications to the basic formulations
that increase their accuracy in the type of submarine structures now employed by the U. S.
Navy. While further modifications will undoubtedly permit an even closer correlation be-
655
/~
t i J "" ~
]ll;il|hL[
411 ii!
~m
OO0
|i
~1,,- m
19EE
.(..
ma
mid
XZO~
z_m~- m
-q~z
Illl ~!!!Jill~
I-llmn
OO0
.~
Fig. 38
1940
1950
YEARS
"
1960
Variations in pressure-hull weight
6 tween results predicted from computations and

1
those obtained in the actual ship, it is doubtful
that complete confidence in a design will ever be
obtained without at least a model test of the most
critical area being completed satisfactorily. Considering the large cost of a new submarine the
small expense" incurred in model testing s e e m s
.amply warranted.
~, Higher Strength Steels

m
In the past 20 years there has been consider~
a able progress in the d~velopment of higher
"~ strength steels for submarine pressure hulls. Improvements in this respect have been translated
.~ into deeper diving depth or into a reduction in
hull weights. In Fig. 38 the variations in weight
per unit volume of the pressure-hull envelope
over the pasl two decades is shown. In early.
r. fleet boats the pressure hulls were medium-steel,
m. welded structures and the operating depth was
shallow by present standards. Early in the wartime building program, two changes were made
that greatly increased the possibilities for survival
under enemy attack. Some of the weight that
had been saved in development of the design, together with some of the w.eight margin available,
was used to increase the scantlings of the pressure
hulls of later ships of this type and hence there
was a moderate increase in pressure-hull envelope
weight per unit volume. At the same time hightensile steel was adopted for pressure-hull use.
With these two changes the collapse pressure was
increased'by about 60 per cent. The next three
bars shown in the figure are indicative of the
progress in high-tensile-steel submarine structures
subsequent to World War II. Deeper depth was
656
Naval Architectural Aspects.of Submarine Design
then, as it is now, an extremely desirable characteristic for a submarine. Hence the weight devoted to pressure-hull structure on the first of
these submarines was increased in order to obtain
a further increase in collapse pressure. With the
later different configurations it was possible to
make some slight reductions in the pressure-hull
envelope weight per unit volume and still retain
the same collapse depth.
High-tensile steel was a most satisfactory material for small-diameter-pressure-hull submarines constructed during World War II. It
was still reasonably satisfactory for the dieselelectric submarines constructed subsequent to
World War II. Nuclear submarines, however,
necessitated a large increase in pressure-hull diameters and still larger diameters were required
to provide the best arrangements. With these
increases in diameter the shortcomings of hightensile steel as a pressure-hull material became
more obvious. Among these shortcomings were
loss in tensile strength in thicker plates, reasonably wide range in physical properties, and less
than desired notch toughness.. HY-80 steel was
developed to overcome these shortcomings as well
as to provide a material that would enable the
designer to consider still greater operating
depths. The last bar in the figure shows the reduction in pressure-hull envelope weight made
possible by the use of HY-80 steel while retaining
almost the same collapse pressure for the structure.
The use of HY-80 steel in submarine pressure
hulls has provided the shipbuilder with a new
group of problems. Some of these problems such
as shaping and forming were solved relatively
early in the program although only with an increase in labor per pound of steel formed. Weldability turned out to be considerably more difficult. Problems that were thought to have been
solved in this respect in constructing the shell of
Albacore returned many years later when thicker
plates of HY-80 (the chemistry of this steel is
varied in thicker plates to retain the same .yield
strength) were welded under conditions of considerable restraint. These problems are now
under control but require extremely close adherence to specified processes that lengthen the
time to complete welds and considerably increase
the cost of construction. Despite these difficulties the new material is better and more efficient
than any previously employed in submarine pressure hulls and will permit a considerable increase
in operating depths in the future.
Prior to the incorporation of nuclear power,
submarines had to ration their battery power
carefully while submerged and hence rarely
made either high speeds for very long or many

excursions between the surface and maximum
operating depth. As a result fatigue had never
been a matter of concern since the submarine
saw only a limited number of cycles in its
entire service life. Now that the submarine
travels at high rates of speed for extended periods
and conducts many changes in depth of considerable extent this phenomenon may take on some
importance. With few exceptions a well-designed submarine pressure" hull never experiences
tension. Nearly all of the structure undergoes
only compressive stresses ranging from small.
values on the surface to values sizable in proportion to the yield strength of the steel employed at
maximum operating depths. There are, however, limited areas such as box-type hard-tank
structure and conical intersections where construction procedures cause appreciable residual
tensile stresses. With the submarine operating
between the surface and her maximum operating
depth such areas may then cycle between tension and compression. The use of higher strength
steels has also resulted in higher stresses. Hence
there is a need to determine the number of cycles
that can be experienced before failure from plastic-strain fatigue occurs in structures of this type.
There are but scanty available data on this subject at the moment. It is a factor that needs
considerable research and requires early evaluation since it constitutes a potential roadblock in
developing a military submarine for very great
operating depths.
7
Stability and Control
Since the present-day submarine has capabilities for high sustained submerged speeds not possessed by its predecessors, it is only natural that
items which affect stability and control are perforce influential in developing the submarine's
shape and configuration. This is particularly so
for motions in the vertical plane where the submarine should be able to operate safely at ever
higher speeds within a relatively narrow vertical
band neither penetrating beyond its maximum
operating depth which can lead to certain disaster
nor broaching the surface of the water which could
lead to disclosure at an inappropriate moment.
Furthermore, merely sizing the control surfaces
on the basis of a previous design will not in itself
assure superior characteristics in this respect. It
is for these reasons that detailed consideration of
stability and control are of vital importance in the
early design stages of contemporary submarines.
Naval Architectural Amecf, of Submarine De,ign
657
Motion Stability
This discussion will first consider motion star
bility and later will combine it with the more vital subject of control. Numerous and sometimes
vague terminology has been associated with the
notion of stability and therefore it is first necessary to define the terms employed in this paper.
A body is said to be stable in any particular state
of rest or motion if when excited by an external
force or m o m e n t it ultimately returns to the same
initial state of equilibrium after release from the
disturbing force. The various kinds of motion
stability associated with submarines are classified
"by the attributes of their initial state of equilibrium that are ret/fined in their final path.
For example, in Fig. 39 in all cases, the submarine is initially assumed to be travelling in a
straight horizontal direction at a constant depth
below sea level. In Case I the final path after
release from a disturbance retains the straightline attribute of the initial state of equilibrium,
but the final path no longer has either the direction of the initial path or its depth. In fact, the
depth of the final path is changing at a uniform
rate. This kind of stability might be termed
straigkt-line stability. In Case II the final path
after release from a disturbance retains not only
the straight-line attribute of the initial path, but
also its direction. This is termed directional stability. Case I I I is similar to Case II except that
the submarine does not oscillate after the disturbance, but passes smoothly to the same final
path as Case II. The distinction between these
two cases will be discussed subsequently. Finally, in Case IV the final path of submarine not
only has the same direction as the original path,
but it is also at the same depth. This might be
termed positional motion stability.
It should be noted that the foregoing kinds of
stability have been defined in ascending order.
For example, a submarine that is directionally
stable must perforce also possess straight-line
stability. A submarine that possesses positional
motion stability must perforce possess both directional and straight-line stability. It will be
noted later that straight-line stability results from
a second-order differential equation, directional
stability from a third order and, although not
shown later, positional motion stability would result from a fourth-order differential equation.
Every ship and submarine must also possess
what was referred to ~[s static stability in Section
5. This is also termed metacentric stability. Here
the initial equilibrium condition involves no motion at all but simply the maintenance of an upright position while at rest. If a metacentrically
stable ship or submarine is disturbed from an ini658
Naval Aichitectural
tially upright position by a disturbance either in

pitch or roll, it will, upon release from the disturbance, return to its initial upright position.
The roll metacentric stability was referred to in
Section 5 as transverse stability and the pitch
metacentric stability as longitudinal stability.
A ship floating on the surface of the ocean also
possesses what might be termed at rest positional
stability in the vertical plane because no matter
what heave disturbances occur, as long as the
ship buoyancy remains intact, the ship will return upon release from the disturbance to its initial sea-level position.
All of the foregoing kinds of stability may have
meaning with control surfaces fixed at zero, with.
control surfaces free to swing, or with controls
either manually or automatically operated. In
ship and submarine usage the term stability
usually implies controls fixed stability; however,
the term can also have meaning with the controls
working. The following examples will indicate
the distinctions:
(a) In the vertical plane a surface ship sailing
on the surface of the calm sea possesses positional
motion stability (and therefore directional and
straight-line stability) with controls fixed.
(b) In the horizontal plane in the open sea a
ship or submarine either surfaced or submerged
cannot possibly possess either positional or directional stability with controls fixed. However,
they must mandatorily possess both of these
kinds of stability with controls working either
under manual or automatic guidance.
(c) The only kind of motion stability possible
in the horizontal plane with controls fixed is
straight-line stability. As will be shown later,
this kind of stability is desirable but not necessarily mandatory. In fact, many ships do not
possess it.
(d) If a submerged submarine possesses
straight-line stability with controls fixed in the
vertical plane and it also possesses the mandatory
metacentric stability, then it follows without further qualification that the submarine will also be
directionally stable with controls fixed in the vertical plane. As in the horizontal plane, this kind
of stability with controls fixed is desirable, but not
mandatory. However, it is mandatory along
with the higher order positional motion" stability
with controls working.
(e) Both metacentric stability and at rest positional stability are always associated with fixed
controls.
With each of the kinds of stability discussed,
there is associated a numerical index which by its
sign designates whether the body is stable or unstable in the particular sense.- The conventional
Aspectsof Submdrine Desigh
metaeentric height, GM~, is an index of metaeenMoment equation

tric stability in the longitudinal plane although in
the-more mathematical language of [25], which is (M~' -- I:/) t]' + M,,' a -{- Mo'O' + M,'O
+ Ma,' $, = 0 (11)
used throughout this section 7 the index for longitudinal metacentric stability is the derivative of
the pitching moment, M, with respect to the where
and 8 have been defined p r e v i o u s l y
pitch angle O, designated M,. For transverse
metacentric stability, the index is the derivative
~, --- stern plane deflection angle
of the rolling moment K, with respect to the angle
m ' -- nondimensional mass -- m / ( M 2 ) L ~,
of heel ~b, designated K~. (The yawing metacenIv = nondimensional mass moment of inertia
tric stability index N~ is always zero because
about the y-axis -- I~/(O/2)L 5
metacentric moments do not exist in the horizonThe expressions involving Z and M with subtal plane.) Similarly, the at rest positional
stability index in the vertical plane is the deriva- scripts are the stability derivatives, and the prime
tive of the vertical force, Z, with respect to verti- designations indicate t h a t the quantities are
cal translation, z, designated Z~. The directions nondimensionalized in accordance with [25].
Equations (10) and (11) are two simultaneous
of the moments, M and K, of the angles 8 and ~,
of the force.Z and the translation, z, are all de- differential equations, the first is of the first order
termined in accordance with [25]. Negative in a and # and the second is first order in a and
values of the derivatives discussed in this para- second order in 8. The last terms of equations
graph imply stability (moments or forces in op- (10) and (11) are, respectively, the force and
position to the angles or translations) and posi- moment arising from deflectiofi" of the control
tive values imply instability.
surfaces, in this case of the stern planes. If the
The indices associated with either straight- stern planes are held fixed at some constant angle
line or directional stability, which are 5f the two to maintain constant depth, then the terms
m o s t important kinds of control fixed stability for Zs,'~, gnd M8,'$~ are also constants. When comsubmarines in the vertical plane, cannot be ex- bined, equations (10) and (11) form a third-order
pressed as simply as the foregoing. The subma- differential equation which as noted earlier leads
rine orientation and motion involved in these to the concept of directional stability. Equations
kinds of stability can be separated into the follow- (10) and (11) have solutions for a and # consisting
ing categories (nomenclature taken directly from of three terms as follows:
[25] applies to vertical plane only) :
(a) Angle of attack, a, measured from the resultant velocity vector, V, to the x-axis of the
# = #~e: a -}- 02e"~ + #Be"~
(13)
submarine.
(b) Angular position from the horizontal earth
where e = 2.718, a , and 0, are constants of inteaxis to the x-axis of hull, O.
(c) Angular velocities, # or q about y-axis and gration, ~x, a2, and ~8 are the stability indices
with dimensions of 1/time and t is time. It can
also 0~.
be seen from equations (12) and (13) t h a t if a n y
(d) Angular acceleration, ~ or q.
Thus the indices for straight line or directional value of ~ is positive, a and 0 will increase with
stability must involve some combination of the increasing time and the motion is unstable. Only
force .and moment derivatives with respect to if all values of a are negative, will a and 0 decrease
each or the orientation and motion categories with time, indicating stable motion.
If the solutions (12) and (13) are substituted
listed in the foregoing. These are called the stability derivatives. The relationship between the back into the equations of motion (10) and (11)
stability indices and the stability derivatives is ob- the following characteristic equation in ~ is obtained from the equations of motion which are as tained:
follows for the vertical plane based on [26] (omitA ~a _{_ Ba~ + C~ -}- D = 0
(14)
ting the equation in the x-direction) :
Force equation in Z-direction
where
(z,,' -
m ' ) a ' + z,,',~
+ (Z' -- m')O' --}- Za,% = 0
(10)
7'To avoid confusion the nomenclature included at the

beginning of this paper does not include the very specialized nomenclature of this section.
A = (Mg - I/)(ZJ
- m')
B = (Mg - Z/)ZJ + (ZJ - m')Mg
C = Z . ' M g - (Zg + m ' ) M J
-
(J
m')
M, r
D = ZJM,'
Naval Archifectural Aspects of Submarine Design
659
I L,N'-~-E~'~I
ORIGINAL STRAIGHT
HORIZONTAL PATH
_~'
t ~,,,~'4(
CASE T
_
STRAIGHT LINE STABILITY
"O/v'~/~2'~.~
ORIGINAL HORIZONTAL" ~
-
CASE "iT
PATH
ALPATH,SAMED'RECT'OC
v
AS ORIGINALPATH BUT
DIFFERENT DEPTH
DIRECTIONAL STABILITY(WITH LESS THAN CRITICAL DAMPING)
ORIGINAL HORIZONTAL ' - ' ~
CASE 'm"
PATH
FINAL PATH,SAMEAS CASETr
DIRECTIONAL STABILITY ( WITH GREATER THAN CRITICAL DAMPING)

CASE ~Z
ORIGINAL HORIZONTAL-W~
PATH
~FINAL PATH,SAME DIRECTION

~""~'NAND DEPTH AS ORIGINALPATH
POSITIONAL MOTION STABILITY (WITH LESS THAN CRITICAL DAMPING)
"-
INDICATES INSTANTANEOUS DISTURBANCE
Fig. 59
Various kinds of motion stability in vertical plane
T h e solution of equation (14) which is a cubic

in ~, yields three values for ~ corresponding to
~1, ~ , and ~8 in terms of the stability derivatives.
Several possibilities obviously exist concerning
the nature of these indices the most common of
which are as follows:
(a) One value of ~ usually designated ~ is
real and the other two values, ~1 and ~8 are a conjugate pair of complex roots. Since terms with
complex exponents are equivalent to trigonometric functions, the motion in this case will be
oscillatory. If the real part of ~1 and ~8 as well
as ~2 are all negative, the oscillations will decay
with time and the submarine will eventually
return to a horizontal path (at a different depth
than originally) as shown in Case II in Fig. 39.
(b) On the other hand, if the real part of al
and ~8 is positive (a2 is usually a large, negative,
stable root), the amplitude of oscillation will
increase with time and the submarine will not
660
return to a horizontal path unless corrective action is taken.

(c) At very high speeds, for reasons which will
be discussed subsequently, all three values of
are likely to become real. If any one of these is
positive, a and O will increase progressively with
time (without oscillation) unless corrective action is taken.
(d) If all values of ~ are real and negative,
a and 0 will decrease with time and eventually
the submarine will return to a new horizontal
pa.th at a different depth than originally without.
undergoing any oscillations as shown in Case I I I
of Fig. 39.
As previously noted the prime designations
used in equations (10), (11), and (14) indicate
t h a t the quantities are nondimensionalized in
accordance with [25]. F o r the force equation,
(10), the nondimensionalizing factor is (p/2)
L 2 V 2 and for the moment equation, (11), the
~) - I
2-
i
Z
4 ~b
"
'50 50 15
20
Fig. 4 0
I0 7.5 6.0 5.0
4.0
3.0
2.5
SPEED tN KNOTS
V a r i a t i o n o f stability roots with speed for a

stable submarine
factor is (p/2)L s VL All of the hydrodynamic stability derivatives for a deeply submerged body are
sensibly constant with speed when nondimensionalized in this way (at least to the same extent that
Ct is constant with speed through the full-scale
speed range of submarines; see Section 3).
However, one of the stability derivatives Me,
which is also the metacentric stability index,
appearing in equation (11) is obviously not hydrodynamic in origin, in fact, it is a pure gravitybuoyancy couple. Therefore, the nondimensionalized version of the moment
MdO -
MoO
(p/2)LsV '
come zero. As noted earlier this corresponds

to straight-line stability which means that at
infinite speed, controls fixed, directional stability
can no longer exist even in the vertical plane.
Actually, the case of the submarine at infinite
speed in the vertical plane corresponds most
closely to the situation at all speeds "in the horizontal plane where only straight-line stability
can exist and where directional stability with
controls fixed is out of the question.
There is, of course, a direct fie-in between the
foregoing development which is largely b~sed on
[26] and the usual development shown in many
vibration manuals, [27] for example, provided the
motion is stable. The critical damping constant
Co = 2 [(M# -- Iy) Mo] x/2
(note the absence of primes, indicating a dimensional parameter) and the ratio of actual damping
to critical damping C/C, bear a direct relationship to the stability indices. The existence of
complex values of a corresponds to C/C, < 1.0 and
the relationship is as follows:
(C/C,)'
[az.s(R) ]2
[al,3(I)1' + [oLsCR)] ~
(15)
where al.3 (R) is the real part of the stability index

with dimensions of 1/time, and a~.s (I) is the
imaginary part of the stability index with dimensions of radians/time and.equal to the damped
frequency of oscillation.
The changeover from complex to real roots
takes place when the actual damping equals
critical damping or C/C, = 1. This corresponds
in equation (15) to ax.s (/) = 0 and takes #ace
at a speed of 50 knots in Fig. 40. As speed is
increased further az and as take on different real
values and in these cases C/C~ is greater than
1.0 and
varies very strongly with speed. Because of

this fact, then, the stability indices vary with
speed for the submarine in the vertical plane
as shown in Fig. 40, reference [26].
At low speeds where M J is likely to be large in
relation to the hydrodynamic derivatives, the
c / c , - a~ + as
(10)
motion stability will be governed by the meta2 zv.
centric stability index. The motion is almost
certain to be oscillatory and stable. As speed is . where W, is the undamped natural frequency of
increased and Md decreases in magnitude, the oscillation.
Experience with full-scale submarines which
motion stability will depend more and "more on
the hydrodynamic derivatives although it may will be described subsequently has amply demonstill be oscillatory and stable. At very high strated the desirability of their being directionally
speeds, ax, a2, and as will eventually all become stable in the vertical plane; i.e., of having aLs (R)
real roots, Fig. 40, signifying physically that and az all negative throughout the speed range.
Me ~ is too weak to even cause an oscillating type However, the question of how stable or what
of motion. The motion may still be stable or magnitude az.s (R) should be is more difficult to
unstable depending on the hydrodynamic de- answer. It can be shown that the time to damp
rivatives. Finally, at infinite speed Md = 0, to "say ~/~0of the initial amplitude of pitch angle
so that MdO disappears as a term in equation (2). caused by a brief disturbance is a minimum when
This lowers the order of the equation of motion C/Cc is somewhat less than 1.0 or about 0.8,
to second order so that there are only two sta- [this can be shown by solving equations (12) and
bility roots al and a2, and the third root has be- (13) for various values of C/C,]. Equation (15)
661
CONTROL SURFACE
ANGLE FOR
LEVEL FLIGHT
FOR[]
--INITIAL CONTROL
/BI
PITCH vEL,
"it-
OEP' CTIO,
_l_
/
-r
o~ ,.GLE e, - t ~
'';'' /
/
OVE/,~OOT[
\
~
/Zo-OVENS.OOT
~NGLE--L . . . . . . . . ~ O E P T H ,
TIME TO
REACH
EXECU.TEte
I
r~
Fig. 41
I
I
I
]I
LTIME
TO
I
! CHECK PITCH, t I
TIME TO
I
CH'~ECK DEPTH, t t
PI
Definition diagram for overshoot maneuver in

vertical plane
shows that these values of C/C~ correspond to

definite values of al,3 (R) and ~1,8 (/). It is reasouable to expect that minimum time to damp
would be a desirable property in a full-scale submarine, thus without considering the vital question of control the foregoing might be accepted
as a criterion. However, it is of vital importance
to determine how control is affected by this
criterion.
Stability and Control in the Vertical Plane

Operationally the stability and control problem
of submarines in the vertical plane can be expressed in terms of the following four performance criteria:
(a) The ability to maintain constant depth
with minimum plane movement and minimum
depth error.
(b) The ability to enter into a maneuver as
rapidly as possible.
(c) The ability to exit from a maneuver as
rapidly as possible.
(d) The ability to return to equilibrium as
fast as possible when the controls are returned to
Zero.
The first and last of these desirable operational

qualities axe certainly intimately related to the
mathematically defined stability indices. Even
with automatic depth control or course-keeping
equipment, which can compensate for a certain
amount of controls fixed motion instability, it is
still desirable to design submarines to be dynamically stable in straight-line motion. The
simple operation of maintaining constant depth
which submarines must do for long periods of time
can be accomplished with minimum error and
minimum wear and tear on both the operating
personnel and on other elements of the control
system if the submarine is basically stable. This
662
~8
PITCH
RIGHT
RUDDER ANGLE
,,.
LEFT
RUDDER ANGLE
Fig. 42 Definition diagram for Dieudonne spiral maneuver in horizontal plane
applies whether the submarine is m .anually or

automatically controlled.
The qualities of rapid entrance and rapid exit
from a maneuver (criteria b and c) axe perhaps
more heavily dependent on the effectiveness of
the control surfaces in introducing control forces
and moments [the last terms of equations (10)
and (11)] than they axe on whether the submarine is dynamically stable or not, although the
latter doubtless plays a role also. An index of
control effectiveness that is convenient to use
in this connection is Ms,/Iy, which is the ratio of
the moment on the ship produced by unit deflection of the control surfaces (stern planes in this
case) to the longitudinal mass moment of inertia
of the ship. This term is, of course, speed dependent in the dimensional form in which it is
usually expressed and has the dimensions of
angular acceleration. With the usual stern configuration of modem single-screw submarines
[e.g., Barbd SS580, and Thresher SS(N)593, in
Fig. 3], it is easily seen that achievement of both
adequate controls fixed stability as expressed by a
and adequate control as expressed by Msa/Iy are
completely intertwined. It is impossible to
change one without the other because the fixed
portion of the stern planes contributes somewhat
to control effectiveness as well as stability while
the movable portion contributes heavily to both.
Because of this, the qualities of rapid entrance
and rapid exit from a maneuver (criteria b and c)
axe in no way imcompatible with the quality of
good depth keeping (criteria a and d) on modem
submarines although this is probably contrary
to much current opinion.
A definitive maneuver called the overshoot has
been devised that demonstrates in a quantitative way the entrance and exit qualities of a ship.
It is described in [28] for surface ships and is
shown in Fig. 41 for submarines in the vertical
plane. Each test is run at a preselected value
of speed, of the initial control surface deflection
Table 3
v, ~ , ,
Results of Overshoot Tests in Vertical Plane
t z o.
8PB~V~,
.68
.93 T.6
.93
.M
8j. VAR.TAR~
1~
20
15" 10"
1~ 10"
10
10
10
10
~" 10"
10" ZO*
1~" 10"
20* 10'
~i.oo
2.O8
1.~3
1.13'
3.12 2.28
Z . ~ LaB
1.B8 -93
~..15
.el~
L~O
lq*
.6~
1.z7
~.6T
:~.oo
1.01
1.~
.~6
.~
B"
].~* 10'
~o
1~;' 20'
o.8
1.8 ~,.~. "~.5

~,.8 3.3 ~.8
b,.o 4.T 6.~
0 e AI~ ~
CCm'flq~
~
.~9
.0~.
.o9
.o6
.3.9
.c,s
.~2
.~
.~6
.I.~,
.zB
.W
.~
.25
.~.
.19
.]~
.2g
.2~,
.19
.21~
.26
.~
.18
.15
.~.
.~
.~
.17
.~6
.SB
.~
.z8
.z9
0.~)
2.:;
3.$
,~.T
2.~
~.0
~.~.
-a.,i
~..2
~'.T
S.~
5.7
4.6
~c.~
7.1
6-9
.~2.
.~
."~
.68
.~
a.9
~.6
~.8
.06
.~9
s.g ~.7 T.Z
T.6
~).1~
angle ~1 (.the checking angle ~ is taken equal to

8x), and of the execute angle of pitch, 00. The.
three principle quantities determined from the
tests are:
(a) The time to reach execute pitch angle, t,.
(b) The overshoot pitch angle O0 (difference
between 0~ and maximum 0).
(c) The overshoot change of depth z0 (difference between depth at execute pitch angle and
extreme depth reached).
All of these items are directly related to the
performance criteria (b) and (c) mentioned earlier. Their numerical values are dependent
on
Oe
0.2
Z.O
2.1
3.2
Iz.mlz.mlz.zoll*.91
.gBJ
0
0.9
1.8
a.6
1.o6 :L.IQ 1.~.) 1.1~

3..8o 3..~8 "t.3~
20 ,
20*' 20 ~,
I zo-I ~.~
.5].
-93
.~.7o a..~5
~.~ 1.~
x.oo z.~
1
].5
~j. ""q
1.9~ t,.g5
~ . ~ ~..~
z.tm .t.~B
]-.].7 ],38
20
c~mm~o~c~sm c~mm~, "o'
(a) The motion stability index, ~ (including

the effects of the metaeentric stability index,
M0),
(b) The controlindex, MjIu,

(c) The preseleeted values of ship speed, V,
the initial stern plane deflection angle, 81, and the
pitch angle of execute, 0o,
(d) The ship length,
(e) The rate of stern plane deflection, ~,.
The ship length, L, and ship velocity, V, can
be used to nondimensionalize te into
tJ = to__V
L
which corresponds to ship lengths, of travel, z0
into z0' = zo/L and fi, into ~,' = 8dL/4V, which
corresponds to degrees deflection per quarter
ship length of travel. Values of t/, 0o and z0'
for five different submarines are shown in Table 3.
As can be seen only very isolated data are avail-
3.9
~.7
5.8
5.g
I~.~l~a,
.39
.a3 . ~
T-T
Y.~
la.~ ]l
.7~
.~1
.~0
.'58
.R2
.~
.56 ].~1
.75 1.60
I .z~ I.z7 I.zs
able for the first two submarines. Pertinent

stability, control and plane-rate information for
the five submarines is shown in Table 4.
Examining the first part of Table 3, it is seen
that the variation of t / w i t h speed is small at the
higher speeds. In fact, except for the effects
of metacentrie stability and plane rate, t / s h o u l d
be a constant with speed for any given submarine.
This follows from the fact that the radius of the
turning circle of a submerged submarine has been
demonstrated many times to be a constant with
speed. In real time, of course, the longer submarine will have a greater execute time than a
shorteJ: submarine all other things ibeing equal.
The action of the metaeentric index, Met, tends
to increase t / beyond that what it would be if
Md = 0. However, as speed is increased
M e t decreases as the square of the speed so that
t/should decrease with increasing speed on this
score. The fact that plane rate, 8/, is not infinite
also tends to" increase t/. Since as shown in
Table 4, ~,' decreases linearly with increasing
speed, the tendency is for tot to increase on this
score. Thus, the effect of increasing speed on
Me' and 8/ results in opposing effects on t,'
which may tend to cancel each other out, although it is reasonable to expect that the effect of
Mot would be more important. This is in
keeping with the results shown in the first part
of Table 3 for any given submarine.
The comparison of the t / values among the
different submarines throughout Table 3 as a
whole reveals the interesting fact that the stable
submarine E with an excellent control index
663
has about the same t,' as the unstable submarines

A and B both of which also have poor control
indices. The longer time to execute, re' of C and
D compared to E can also be explained by their
poorer control indices and ,somewhat greater
stability. Since the time to deflect the stem
planes to 15 deg takes up to 60 per cent of the
time to reach execute (for submarine E at 20
knots) plane rate can also play an important role
in determining t/. This may explain the comparative performance of submarine C versus D
as far as t / i s concerned.
The first part of Table 3 shows a distinct tendency for 00and z0' to increase with increasing speed
for any given submarine. Here the separate
actions of _~re' and ~,' as speed increases no longer
oppose each other, but are both complementary
in permitting 00 and z0~to increase with increasing
speed. In particular, the action of ~,' is important because the time to deflect the control
surface from 8~ to 8~ consumes a major amount of
time that it takes to reach maximum pitch angle.
In fact, the increase in 00 as speed is increased
above 10 knots is approximately inversely
proportional to ~,' for each of the submarines
represented. Since zo~ is directly proportional
to the integral of the path angIe (0 -- a) versus
time curve it, too, is approximately proportional
to ~ / a s speed is increased.
The comparison among the different submarines as far as 00 and z0~ are concerned is even
more interesting. The most obvious fact is
that unstable submarines A and B with their
poor control indices experience very large overshoot angles and overshoot change of depths
compared to submarines C, D and E. Even the
extraordinarily fast plane rate, ~o~ of submarine
B does not overcome the detrimental effects of
its instability and poor control index. It might
be remarked parenthetically that submarine A
chronologically preceded B. "There was a natural tendency to believe that the difficulties that
A experienced as far as depth keeping and depth
control were concerned could be ielieved by increasing plane rates. This accounts for thegreatly increased plane rates of submarine B
compared to A which did not, according to Table
3, fully achieve the aims sought though it doubtless helped a good deal. On the other hand, the
smaller overshoot angles 00 of submarine C compared to D, both of which are stable, are probably
attributable to the faster plane rate of submarine
C which is of greater importance in this respect
than the amount of control exerted as will be
shown subsequently.
The second part of Table 3 shows the effect on
tel, 00, and z0' of varying the amount of control
664
used to achieve a constant execute pitch angle at

constant speed. That increasing the control
moment decreases t / h a s already been indicated,
and this is confirmed by this part of Table 3.
Of greater interest is the fact that O0 increases
with increasing control in spite of the greater
checking action as 82increases in magnitude. The
largest single element causing the increase in 00
is the increase in the pitch angular velocity at the
time the execute pitch angle is reached as the
control moment is increased. The fact, mentioned earlier, that the time to change controlsurface angles consumes such a large proportion
of ta prevents the full benefit of the larger 82 to be
felt by the time maximum 0 is reached. On the
other hand, the trend of z0' with changing 8,
shows that the greater 82 has had the opportunity
to exert its benefit by the time maximum depth
is reached. The importance of large control
moments in limiting z0t is also shown in Table 3
by the comparison between submarines D and E.
Submarine E experiences a smaller z0~ than D in
spite of its larger overshoot angles. This point,
of course, cannot be pressed too far since as mentioned earlier z0' is a function of both the path
angle of the submarine (# -- a) and the time to
cheek depth and the control moment primarily
affects the latter. This dual dependency may
account for the comparison between submarines
C and D that cannot be explained on any other
grounds.
The last two parts of Table 3 show the effect of
increasing the angle of execute, while holding
speed and control moment constant. Naturally
the time to reach 06 increases with 0e and the almost linear relationship between t6' and 06 at
higher values of 0, suggests that a constant
angular velocity in pitch has been achieved. :- The
fact that the pitch overshoot angles do not
change appreciably as 0~is increased at the higher
values of 0, also confirms this observation.
Since z0~ is directly proportional to the integral
of the (0 -- a) versus time curve it increases almost directly with 0e.
The major information gleaned from Tables
3 and 4 may be summarized as follows:
(a) If the effects of both metacentric stability and plane rate could be ignored, the actual
time to reach any given execute pitch angle
would be directly proportional to submarine
length and inversely proportional to submarine
speed all other things being equal.
(b) A submarine with excellent control and
stability can have the same execute time as another submarine of equal length and speed that is
both unstable and has a poor control index.
(c) For any given submarine the separate
the span of the fins can be extended out only to

the maximum dimensions of the submarine. In
some recent submarines with high prismatic
coefficients (which tend to reduce the distance
between the hull line and the maximum block
dimension of the submarine) it has been impossible with this restriction to achieve a desired degree of stability. This is so because the total
area of the fins could only be increased at the expense of aspect ratio and at some point this
process became self-defeating. In these cases
it was necessary to extend the fins beyond the
maximum dimensions of the submarine.
The-serious need for adequate emergency
measures in the event of stern-plane jam and the
difficulty described in the preceding paragraph
have given rise to a new type of stern-fin configuration called the X-stern. In this configuration the rudder and stern plane ensemble is
rotated 45 deg from the conventional cruciform
stern arrangement so that control surfaces are
Design for Stability and Control in the Vertical Plane
located at the 1 :'30, 4: 30, 7: 30 and 10: 30 o'clock
The importance of adequate stability and con- positions in the sectional view instead of the
trol in the vertical plane and the performance 12:00, 3:00, 6:00 and 9:00 positions. The surcriteria by which they can be evaluated have faces at 1:30 and 7:30 are operated by one
been emphasized. However, the design features hydraulic ram and the surfaces at 4:30 and.
that are necessary to accomplish these ends have 10:30 by another hydraulic ram. This arrangescarcely been touched.upon. As far as main hull ment permits use of all control surfaces for
dimensions are concerned, it is true that increasing maneuvers in either the horizontal or vertical
the length-diameter ratio, L/D, and decreasing plane or combinations of both. Thus, in the
the prismatic coefficient, C~, promote motion event of jam of one pair of control surfaces, say
stability. In other words, it requires somewhat in dive, the other pair is still available to offset
less fin area to achieve a given negative stability completely the effects of the jammed pair as far
index with a long narrow body with a low C~, as dive is concerned and the submarine will end
than a short fat body with high C~. However up in a turn in the horizontal plane. It is, of
this effect is not a powerful one, partienlarly at course, impossible to achieve this desirable result
L/D ratios greater than 7. Certainly the ad- with the conventional cruciform stern arvantages of reduced length as far as decreased rangement because the fins in the 12:00 and 6:00
time to enter and recover from a dive and the o'clock positions exert little or no force in the
advantages of decreased turning radius in the vertical plane. For ordinary maneuvering the
horizontal plane far outweigh whatever small X-stern makes available much larger control
disadvantages ensue from having slightly larger forces than the cruciform stern for motions in
fins at the stern.
either plane and stillretains the desirable feature
The function of fin area at the stern is multifold. of keeping the span of the control surfaces within
The movable portion of the fin produces the co'n- the block dimensions of the submarine. Obvitrol forces and moments, Z8,6, and M~,~a. The
ously, employment of the X-stern will render
total area of the fin, movable plus fixed, affects changes in the control room of the submarine
Za, M~, Z0, M#, Za and M# and the changes since it will be impossible to separate the duties
produced in the first four of these derivatives of the helmsman and the planesman. One m a n
by the addition of stern fin area is stabilizing. will havc to handle both functions. This type
Not only is the total area of fins important to of stern is scheduled to undergo full-scale evaluastability and control, but also their aspect ratio. tion in the not-too-distant future.
For any given total fin area the fin which has the
All submarines to date have been fitted with
largest dimension normal to the flow (span) dual sets of hydroplanes that are available to
and the smallest dimension parallel to the flow control motions in the vertical plane; one pair
(chord) produces more lift per unit angle of attack at the stern and thc other pair somewhere in the
than a fin with opposite proportions. Normally, vicinity of the bow. Actually the primary
effects of the metacentric stability index, M0',

and plane rate, ~,' on t~' tend to cancel each other
out as speed is increased.
(d) For stable submarines, the overshoot
pitch angle is more sensitive to the pitch angular
velocity at execute and to plane rate than it is
to the magnitude of the control moment.
(e) The overshoot pitch angles and overshoot
change of depths are m u c h larger for unstable
submarines with poor control indices than they
are for stable submarines with good control,
irrespective of plane rate.
(f) A large pitch angle overshoot does not
necessarily result in a large overshoot in depth.if
the submarine can apply a large control moment.
"
(g) Increasing the execute pitch angle of a
given submarine in a dive does not necessarily
increase the overshoot pitch angle. It does,
however, increase the overshoot change of depth.
665
function of bow planes on older submarines was

identical to the function of the negative tank;
i.e., to reduce diving time from the surface.
Traditionally, in the submerged condition on
older submarines, the bow planes have been used
to control depth and the stem planes to control
pitch angle although either set can actually do
both. There is, however, hydrodynamic justification for the operational pattern since the
force produced by bow-plane deflection is in the
direction of the desired depth change whereas the
stem-plane force is of necessity directed opposite
to the desired depth change. Brief examination
reveals, however, that the stem planes are much
more effective control surfaces than the bow
planes for several reasons:
(a) The bow planes usually interact unfavorably with the hull so that their net control force
frequently appears to act somewhat aft of the bow
plane instead of at the bow planes. Furthermore,
since the bow planes themselves are usually
located at a greater distance from the bow than
the stern planes are from the stem and since the
center of gravity of a modem submarine is likely
to be considerably forward of amidship, the con-trol moment of the bow planes about the center
of gravity of the ship is likely to be quite small.
(b) In contrast to the bow planes, the interaction of the stern planes with the hull and the
hull with the stern planes is favorable, augmenting
the lift produced by the stern planes alone.
(c) Whereas the stern planes favorably affect
both stability and control, the bow planes may
be destabilizing. The effect of bow planes on
the stability derivatives Ma ~ and Z~' is always
destabilizing, but their effect on M~~ and Za ~
is always stabilizing. Thus, the over-all effect
of bow planes on stability cannot be predicted in
advance without specific information.
For reasons related to berthing ships all submarines with the exception of the most recent
ones, like Skipjack and Thresher, havre been
equipped with retractable bow planes. Various
retracting mechanisms have been employed on
different submarines, but none of them has been
satisfactory in all respects. For this reason and
for others related to noise reduction, the most
recent submarines have been equipped with sail
planes (see frontispiece) in lien of bow planes.
As long as a requirement for forward hydroplanes
exists, this location has proven itself to be eminently more satisfactory than the conventional
location. Freed from the necessity of retraction
and with large span dimensions available within
the submarine block dimensions, sail planes can
be made much larger in area than ordinary bow
planes without concomitant difficulties. The
666
only disadvantage of the sail planes is that they

cannot be used to reduce diving time but as noted
in an earlier section this is no longer an important
consideration on nuclear submarines.
Fig. 8 shows that the drag of the sail planes on
the Skipjack compares very favorably with ordinary bow planes in spite of the fact that her
sail planes have about 75 per cent more relative
area than the bow planes on the rest of the submarines. For this 75 per cent increase in area
the Skipjack sail planes produce about 85 per
cent more relative vertical force than the bow
planes on Albacore I I and about 20 per cent
more moment. In addition, the sail planes
serve as an excellent flying bridge and landing
for the brow for boarding the submarine, features
that are otherwise distinctly missing on most
modem submarines.
For high-speed maneuvering, deeply submerged, there is little question but that forward
hydroplanes are redundant. Depth changes can
be accomplished much more rapidly at high speed
by manipulating the path angle via the stem
planes than by applying a downward force
via the bow planes acting close to the center of
gravity. Even when the forward planes are
operated directly with the stern planes in some
ratioed manner, the improvement in depth keeping or depth changing is marginal compared to
using the stern planes alone. As far as emergency
control at high speeds is concerned in the event
of stern-plane jam, the bow planes are incapable
of relieving this serious condition. Emergency
backing and blowing are more effective in this
situation by an order-of-magnitude difference although even these measures are inadequate for
many situations.
The main reason then for the survival of the
bow planes is that they seem to render the depthcontrol problem at low speeds somewhat easier,
particularly when operating at periscope depth
in rough seas or in restricted shallow waters.
Although carefully controlled tests have not, in
fact, entirely confirmed this advantage for bow
planes there nevertheless exists some definite
operator preference for the retention of some
form of forward hydroplane.
There is one other circumstance that arises occasionally where forward hydroplanes are desirable. All submarines are unsymmetrical in the
vertical plane to a greater or less extent, partienlarly because of the presence of the topside sail.
This asymmetry creates a hydrodynamic (speed
dependent) moment in the vertical plane called,
M . , and a hydrodynamic vertical force Z,, that
act on the submarine even if the x-axis of the submarine is colinear with its velocity vector, V.
(~ ~
STRUCTURE
0 PreSs.u,, m ~ o ~
-~- MACHINERY
ONLY
FLEETBOAT GUPPY (~RTER BARBEI. P&~UTILIJSSKATE SKIPdACKIHRESHER

1940
SSS76 SS580 SS(N)STIS~laT8 SSNm8 SS(N}593
OiES[L -VEu[GTRIC
.~.~
PRESSURIZEDWATER
I~
SUBMARINE NUCLEAR
POWERPLANTS
LIGHT SURFACE SHIP
STEAM PLANTS
LIGHT SURFACESHIP STEAM ~PLANTS PLUS FUEL
TYFIC~L
OlES~L-~,~-GTR:C
SUBMARINE
TYPICAL DIESEL- ELECTRIC

SUBMARINE WITH FUEL
,T
NU~'l.[~
Hg. 43 Percentage of light-shlp displacement devoted

to hull structures and to machinery
These, as explained earlier, become nonspeed

dependent in coefficient form, Z . ' and M . ' .
In order to maintain constant depth (V horizontal at all times), it is necessary to compensate
for Z . t and M . ' by introducing both a hull angle
of attack, a, and a stern-plane angle, 8,. These
values of a and 8~ are called neutral angles.
These, in turn, introduce the nonspeed-dependent force and moment coefficients, M~'a, Ma,'8,,
Za'a and Za,'8,. In addition since V is maintained horizontal at all times, a pitch angle, 0, is
introduced that is at all times equal to a. The
introduction of 0 in turn introduces the speeddependent metacentric-moment coefficient Mo'0.
For constant depth then the neutral angle values
of 8, and a (or 0) must satisfy the following two
equations:
M.'+
Ma~'8,+ M ~ ' a +
MoO
- 0
(p/2 )L s V 2
Z , ' + Z~.'$. + Z d a = 0
(17)
(18)
Because of the presence of the M~-term, ~ and

a will vary with speed If the asymmetries are
large, 8~ and a will be large, particularly as speed
is decreased. In fact, at a very low speed it may
be impossible to satisfy the force and moment
equations simultaneously with any combination
of 8, and a. At this critical speed (which is between 1.5-4.0 knots on most submarines) maintenance of constant depth is impossible with
stern planes only and the use of forward hydroplanes is mandatory. Use of forward planes
would also tend to reduce the magnitude of 8,
"
TOTAL SHAFT HORSE POWER
Fig. 44 Engineering plant weights
and a needed to maintain constant depth at any

speed. Therefore, for submarines that are very
unsymmetrical in the vertical plane, retention of
some form of forward hydroplanes is quite desirable.
Stability and Control in the Horizontal Plane

Where appropriate, many important concepts
concerning motions in the horizontal plane were
introduced in the preceding parts of this section.
Furthermore, many concepts developed only .in
connection with motions in the vertical plane apply with equal validity to the horizontal plane,
particularly if one is interested in motions in restricted waterways. For "example, the four desirable performance criteria for motions in the
vertical plane also apply to the horizontal plane,
if "course" is substituted for "depth," "yaw angle," for "pitch angle," and "rndder'"for "plane."
Even the concept of "depth overshoot" has an
important counterpart in restricted waters in the
horizontal plane. It is called overshoot width of
path in reference [28]. However, there is' an
additional desirable performance criterion that is
very important in the horizontal plane in' the
open sea that has no application in the vertical
plane:
667
,/
/
Table 4
Stability and Control Parameters for Motions in the Vertical Plane

Metacentric
Ship
A
B
C
D
E
Dynamic stability index

--~.,
(R)-----~
@10 knots
@20 knots
(sec)-l
Unstable
Unstable
Unstable
Unstable
-0.13
-0.05
--0.05
--0.04
--0.05
--0.03
Control index
MS,/I~
@10knots
--4.67
The ability to execute a steady-turning maneuver with minimum tactical diameter, advance,
transfer, loss of speed, and with minimum crosscoupled motions such as roll.
This criterion is important to submarines both
submerged and on the. surface. On the surface
additional criteria are applicable t h a t relate to the
submarine's ability to maneuver ahead and astern
in close quarters. However, this section will be
limited to maneuvering in the open sea and to
those items t h a t have not been treated adequately
in earlier sections.
One of the practical differences between motions in the horizontal and vertical planes is t h a t
full-scale motion stability is qualitatively evaluated by different means in the two planes. In
the vertical plane a simple test, called a meander
test, can be used to evaluate whether a ship is directionally stable or not. In this test the stern
planes are deflected to a specified angle for a very
short time and then returned to their neutral
angle. If the subsequent path followed by the
submarine in the vertical plane is a decaying oscillation, the submarine is directionally stable.
If the path is an increasing oscillation, the submarine is directionally unstable. No such simple
test applies to the horizontal plane because there,
as mentioned earlier, directional stability with
controls fixed cannot exist and only straightfine stability is possible. For this kind of stability
t h e Dieudonne spiral maneuver described in [28]
and shown in Fig. 42 is appropriate. If the rate
of change of course versus rudder angle is a single
continuous curve from right rudder to left rudder
and back as shown by the dotted line in Fig. 42
the ship is stable. On the other hand, if this relationship splits into two parts depending on
whether the ship is initially swinging to the left or
t o the right as shown by the solid curves in Fig.
42, then the ship is unstable. The degree of instability is indicated both by the height of the
"hysteresis" loop, measured in degrees/second
and by the width of the loop measured in de668
~,
stability
index
rates
@1o
knots
&'
Me
@20 knots
@20knots All speeds deg/l/4 ship length of All speeds
deg/sec 2
--1.69
--1.92
--2.25
--3.28
--Plane
--6.76
--7.69
--9.01
-- 13.1
--18.7
deg/sec
3
14
travel
ft-tons/deg
--31.4
7
6
28
24
14
12
-- 18.4
--81. i
15
7x/2
--33.2
15
71/,
--32.5
grees of rudder angle, The characteristics of the

Dieudonne spiral will be used as a stability index
in this section.
Data from both Dieudonne spiral tests and
overshoot tests in the horizontal plane are s h o w n
in Table 5 for three of the submarines discussed in
Tables 3 and 4. It is seen t h a t two of these three
submarines are unstable in the horizontal plane
although they were stable in the vertical plane.
Apparently, this degree of instability is tolerable
in the horizontal plane where the restrictions on
movement are not as severe as in the vertical
plane. Comparison with Table 3 indicates t h a t
these submarines enter a maneuver in the horizontal plane more rapidly than in the vertical
plane, but t h a t they suffer much larger overshoot
yaw angles than overshoot pitch angles. Both of
these characteristics are manifestations of instability although the absence of metacentric stabifity in the horizontal'plane is of some importance. The absence of the M0-term is also evident in the fact that, in general, t / t e n d s to increase with increasing speed on the horizontal
plane whereas it tended to decrease with increasing speed in the vertical plane. T h a t the overshoot angles of all of the submarines shown in
Table 5 are exceptionally large is evident by
comparison to the criteria for overshoot angles
suggested in [28] which are also included in Table
5. The latter criteria were tentatively estabfished on the basis of surface-ship performance.
It seems evident t h a t an improvement in motion
stability in the horizontal plane would be desirable for these submarines, particularly if this improvement was achieved by means of larger all
movable rudders. This would insure t h a t neither
the small turning diameter, nor the quick entry
and exit characteristics of these submarines would
be impaired as their stability characteristics were
improved.
Considerable doubt exists as to whether the
bridge fairwater (sail) t h a t exists on all submarines exerts a stabilizing or destabilizing influence
Table
Performance Data for Motions in the Horizontal Plane

Submarine.
Item
Dynamic s t a b i l i t y
Loop height,
(a) Stability
deg/sec . . . .
index
(submerged) Loop width,
deg . . . . . . . .
Loop bt and
(b) Stability
width . . . . . .
index
(surface)
Overshoot 'tests (submerged)
(a) Ship-lengths of travel to execute yaw angle, t,' . . . . . . . .
Rudder Execute
Speed, angle, yawangle,
knots
deg
deg
. . . .
0.6
1.1
1.7
. . . .
0.8
1.5
. . . .
0
Criteria from
reference [28]
10
15
20
15
15
15
20
20
20
10
20
30
20
20
20
15
15
15
10
15
20
15
15
15
20
20
20
10
20
30
20
20
20
15
15
15
12.0
15.0
22.0
10.5
15.0
20.5
Angle of heel in turn (submerged)

(a) Snap roll, deg . . . . . . . . . . . .
20
(b) Steady, deg . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
20
35
35
..
..
14.5
7
(b) Overshoot yaw angles, ~0,

deg . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
~. W/O
sail)
/~
(model
(with sail) data only
1.32
1.39
1.60
1.60
1.18
1.04
i:71
1.21
1.17
...
...
...
1.30
...
i:46
1.29
I. 23
1.01
0.90
...
...
...
17.2
...
22.5
...
29.8
...
14:4
...
10.5
20.5
37.5
...
...
...
20
10
39
11.3
12.5
2.5
fi:~
..
2.0
2.0
2.0
6.3
8.0
10.0
initiation of a turn, a s u b m a r i n e heels i n b o a r d

in the horizontal plane. T h e usual sail is located
t h r o u g h o u t t h e d u r a t i o n of a turn. While a small
somewhere between 10 and 25 per cent of the subangle
of heel i n b o a r d would correspond to the
marine length forward of the center of g r a v i t y of
the submarine. A t this location t h e horizontal . n a t u r a l b a n k angle in a turn, t h e a c t u a l roll anh y d r o d y n a m i c force on the sail caused b y an angle gles of a s u b m a r i n e in a t u r n shown in T a b l e 5
of a t t a c k on the s u b m a r i n e would always be a are, in some cases, a l t h o u g h t h e y are well within
stabilizing force since it would be directed in such safe limits, still large enough to create some apprea w a y t h a t it would tend to reduce the angle of hension on the p a r t of the operators. This is
a t t a c k . However, the m o m e n t of this force particularly t r u e for high-speed, t i g h t - t u r n i n g
would be destabilizing. Model d a t a in T a b l e 5 submarines. W h a t is designated as snap roll in
T a b l e 5 corresponds to the a m p l i t u d e of t h e first
for s u b m a r i n e E shows greater instability witho u t the sail t h a n with the sail. However, in the half cycle of roll t h a t takes place a l m o s t immediately after deflecting the r u d d e r to initiate the
surface condition where the sail plays no role at
all, all of the submarines in T a b l e 5 are stable even turn. T h e s t e a d y roll is the average angle of
a t low speeds where w a v e action m a y be dis- heel t h a t exists after t h e s u b m a r i n e has settled
d o w n in a s t e a d y turn. Fig. 207 of [29] shows
c o u n t e d a n d where the h y d r o d y n a m i c s of the
situation are n o t too different t h a n in the deeply t h a t the difference between snap roll a n d s t e a d y
submerged condition. Thus, some contradic- roll can be quite large even on a surface ship alt h o u g h there the m a x i m u m a m p l i t u d e of roll
tory evidence of the effect of the sail on stability
(which is o u t b o a r d ) takes place during t h e second
exists even in T a b l e 5.
T h e r e is little question, however, a b o u t the ef- half cycle of roll after the ship has slowed apprefect of the sail on the d i a m e t e r of t h e t u r n i n g cir- ciably. This ameliorating circumstance does n o t
occur on a s u b m a r i n e because the heeling m o m e n t
ele. B o t h the force and the m o m e n t i n t r o d u c e d
is i n b o a r d from the v e r y i n s t a n t of the initiation
b y the presence of the sail a c t to reduce the t u r n ing diameter: Model.tests.with s u b m a r i n e . E in- of a turn.
T a b l e 5 shows t h a t removal of the sail on t h e
dicate t h a t r e m o v a l of the sail increases the t u r n model of s u b m a r i n e E effected an appreciable reing d i a m e t e r b y a b o u t 25 per cent.
C o n t r a r y to m o s t surface ships where the heel- duction in snap roll and a still greater reducti n
ing m o m e n t reverses direction shortly after t h e in s t e a d y roll along with t h e d i s a d v a n t a g e previ-
669
2/)OO
,,
,~OO0
\
,O~OO
MEAN DEPTH
_z
64:0O
~, ,~o
~ ,o~o!
12,000
i*,jooo
0
I
I
I
iO
20
30
40
50
60
70
PERCENT OF OCEAN LESS THAN INDICATED DEPTH
80
I
90
io0
Fig. 45 Variations in ocean depths

ously mentioned of an increase in turning diameter. The fact that the snap roll is still sizable
~ i t h sail removed indicates that the net centripetal force is still acting at a point above the center of gravity of the submarine. This is not surprising since submarine E has a modest deck
structure and in addition, ~ e vertical center of
gravity of all submarines must lie below the axis
of symmetry in order to possess metaeentric stability. Furthermore, the snap roll is largely an
overshoot phenomenon and hence can be very
large even with small excitation if the damping
is low. The difference in the ratios of snap roll to
steady roll between submarine E with sail and
submarine E without sail suggests that roll-damping is greatly reduced by removal of the sail.
Therefore, it can be concluded that the very appendage that causes an increase in roll excitation
in a turn also results in an increase in roll:damping and that removal of that.appendage does not
reduce the angle of roll as much as might Otherwise be anticipated.
A summary o f the more important design information concerning stability and control in
both the vertical and borizontal plane contained
in the previous sections is as follows:
(a) Minimum submarine length for any fixed
displacement is conducive to minimum exit and
entry time into any maneuver, and to minimum
turning diameter, with only a small penalty in
required stabilizer area.
(b) The X-configuration of stern control surface appears to offer the possibility of reasonably
dealing with the emergency situation that would
arise in the event of stern-plane jam at high
speeds. It also provides greater control forces
670
in both the horizontal and vertical plg.ues without extending the span 6f the stern control surfaces beyond the maximum block dimensions of
the submarine.
(c) Forward hydroplanes are far less effective
than stern planes for both control and stability
in the vertical plane. They are redundant for
high-speed operation. However, there is some
operational preference for them for slow-speed
control at periscope depth or in restricted shallow
waters. Forward hydroplanes are also needed
on submarines that are very unsymmetrical in
the vertical plane for adequate depth control at
low speeds.
(d) Forward hydroplanes located on the sail
offer several strong advantages over the more conventional bow location with no concomitant hydrodynamic difficulties.
(e) It has been shown that at least two of the
submarines discussed do not possess straight-line
stability in the horizontal plane whereas they are
direetionally stable in the vertical plane. As a
result their overshoot angles in the horizontal
plane are very large.
(f) The presence of the bridge fairwater (sail)
on submarines produces an uncertain effect on
stability in the horizontal plane, decreases the
diameter of the turning d r d e and causes a very
large snap-roll angle on tight-turning, high-speed
submarines.
(g) 1~emoval of the sail decreases the roll excitation in a turn, but also decreases the roll
damping. As a result the reduction in snap roll
caused by removal of the sail is not as dramatic as
might otherwise be expected.
Possible Trends in Displacements and Operating

Depths
Any discussion concerning trends in submarine design is bound to place considerable emphasis on displacement. Size has been a considerable fetish with submariners in part because they
have been accustomed to small ships which they
have customarily operated out of small relatively
shallow-water ports. Whereas surface-ship sailors associate maximum performance with large
ships because of their better speed-power relationships and their better seaworthiness, which
enhances their capabilities either as platforms for
launching missiles, handling aircraft or cargo,
submarine sailors associate small size with better
submerged maneuverability, and in the case of
battery-powered boats with better submerged
speed. In addition, smaller size generally connotes lesser shipbuilding costs.
L. Y. Spear [30] in 1902 was not a very good
prophet when he stated: "The development of
the best all-round boat to meet the conditions is
likely here also to lead to some increase in total
displacement, which, eventually however, will
probably not exceed 200 tons." Today there are
some who would like to see future attack submarines built to a size not much greater than
double that stated by Spear and who consider
that our latest high-speed attack submarines are
too large. The sacrifices that would be necessary to even approach such a size reduction today
without the benefit of a very elaborate and costly
research and development program would indeed
be formidable. For example, present-day sonar
equipment in itself requires more displacement
than the total displacement mentioned by some
as a desirable goal. If one considers all the equipment that it is necessary to install to obtain the
characteristics of today's high-performance submarines, one might rather wonder about not how
large these submarines have become but rather
how it has been possible to keep them so small.
This point becomes clear if one compares the size
of a Polaris submarine with that of a presentday destroyer. The entire volume of the Polaris
submarine is substantially less than that of the
destroyer and the former certainly packs a
greater "deterrent punch." This is not to say
that the submarine cannot be reduced in size.
With the benefit of hindsight one could almost
invariably rework the design of a completed submarine and either achieve the identical results on
a little less total displacement or improve the
ship's characteristics while retaining the same
displacement. However, if present characteristics are maintained, then it is highly unlikely
that a major reduction in size will be achieved
.2
\
\\
i1
Fig. 46
\
\
WEIGHT OF PRESSIJRI[HULk
WElaHT OF DISPLAGEMI[:NT
iNGREASING
Collapse depth versus ratio of hull weight to

displacement for various material#
within the present state of knowledge. Extensive

research and development programs are required
if a real reduction in size or increase in speed is to
come to pass. Such programs would have to be
directed towards reducing hull weights, machinery weights, and a comparable reduction in
machinery volumes, manpower requirements and
weights, and volumes required for military features; e.g., weapons and communications equipment.
Fig. 43 shows in percentages of light-ship displacement the weights devoted to hull structures
and to machinery for various classes of attack
submarines. These two groups of weights constitute more than two-thirds of the ship's light
displacement. It can be seen that with the single exception of the Skipjack the percentage applicable to hull structures is reasonably constant.
In Skipjack's ease HY-80 steel was employed not
to increase operating depth but to permit the installation of a heavier machinery plant in proportion to its size (as can be seen by the machinery
percentages) than had been possible in previous
designs.
It is of interest to consider that portion of the
hull structure that would be required to form only
the hull envelope to withstand the required sea
pressure. Based on the weight of structure per
unit volume shown in Yig. 38 and using the sur8 Taken from a DTMB report by Heller, Willner and
Krenske.
671
face displacement as a determinant for the volume that must be buoyant when submerged, a
weight of pressure-huH envelope structure, admittedly tenuous, was determined and has been
plotted in Fig. 43 as a percentage of fight.ship
displacement.. It can be seen that total hullstructure weights are about double those for the
pressure-hull envelope alone. This is an important point since one is prone to look only at the
pressure-huH structure itself in assessing possibilities for increasing operating depth with new
stronger materials or for reducing the ship's size.
In such studies one is apt to neglect the many
items such as machinery foundations, pressuretank structures, nonpressure structure, internal
bulkheads, bridge structures, and others that in
total are equally important with the pressure-huH
envelope itself, at least at present operating
depths.
"Based on the relationships shown in the nomenclature the speeds for geometrically similar submarines deeply submerged possessing identical
propulsive coefficients vary in accordance with
the following:
V ~-, SHpZlS/v2/9
It can be seen that power is considerably more
influential on speed than is displacement. Doubling power while holding displacement constant
will increase speed submerged by about 26 per cent
whereas decreasing displacement to 50 per cent
of the original while retaining the same power will
only increase submerged speed by about 1 6 ~ per
cent. The first case while not always easy to
achieve has far greater engineering possibilities
than the latter. One is generally interested in
realizing gains in both these aspects; i.e., by obtaining more powe2 out of a lighter machinery
plant that can be installe.d in a smaller ship.
Machinery Weight-Power Relationship

The machinery weight-power relationship is
vital information ill designing a new ship and it
is also a relationship that serves to compare different propulsion plants. Fig. 44 shows this relationship as a function of total power for several
types of plants. In this figure the specific weight
per shaft horsepower for pressurized-water nu"clear power plants is shown. There are indications that this curve is asymptotic at Both low
and high-power ranges. Two points are shown
for typical diesel-electric submarines. Without
fuel the specific weight for the diesel submarine is
slightly less than that .for the nuclear submarine
and with fuel it is considerably greater. As may
he noted the total power range for diesel submarines has been quite limited. It would, of course,
be possible to increase their power somewhat but
672
in such cases there would be no appreciable reduction in their specific weights. Furthermore,
the increased power would only be available on
the surface or at snorkel depth. Battery power
would still limit deeply submerged performance.
In so far as submerged endurance at high power
is concerned there is no present or prospective
competitor for nuclear power. It can be seen
from this chart that at the desired higher power
outputs the present pressurized-watcr nuclear
power plants are greatly superior to diesel-electric submarine power plants from a weight viewpoint. Also plotted is a band representing specific weights (without fuel) for light surface-ship
steam plants, obtained from the curve shown in
Fig. 2 of reference [31].
In determining what power level should be employed in a new design, one of the important considerations is the total weight. On this basis the
knee in the specific-weight curve is of importance.
The machinery plants for Nautilus and Skipjack
are well to the right of the knee in this curve and
hence are working in the optimum section. The
curves in the upper part of Fig. 44, representing
the first integral of the specific-weight curves or
total engineering weight, are also illustrative of
this point. Here it can be seen that the weight
of relatively low-power-output nuclear plants is
nearly asymptotic at a figure somewhat greater
than that for a typical diesel-electric submarine
without oil. With somewhat increased power
outputs (the range in which Nautilus and Skipjack are located) the slope of the total-weight
curve is virtually constant. As in the specificweight plot a total-engineering-weight plot is also
shown for light surface-ship steam plants.
Another range of total machinery weights has also
been shown for light surface-ship steam plants
which includes the fuel required to provide reasonable endurance. The gap between this curve
and that for present-day pressurized nuclear
plants is at least a crude means of showing desirable goals for possible machinery-weight reductions.
While there is little basis in fact for believing
that such a reduction in machinery weight with
present type plants is possible, it is naturally quite
intriguing to consider recognizing the improvements in submarine performance or reduction in
submarine size that could be made if a sizable
portion of this gap could be eliminated. The authors fullyrecognize that they could be in the same
position today concerning these statements as was
Spear in 1902 when in [30] he stated: "The storage
battery and motor are admirable in some respeets~
but exceedingly inadequate in others, the principal
objection being the well-known one of excessive
weight and space in proportion to the power developed. When it is stated that a weight of 370
pounds per horsepower hour is a fair average for
a suitable installation it is readily seen that there
is much room for improvement."
The authors do not know precisely what items
Spear considered in establishing his weight figures
but believe that at best a reduction in weight of
35 per cent is the most that has been obtained
in this type power plant in nearly 60 years. In
short, the present-day pressurized-water nuclear
power plant represents a tremendous achievement
and has made possible the true submarine with
characteristics barely dreamed of 20 years ago.
Nevertheless incentives for step increases in power
fdr the same weight and with it large gains in
speed or for reductions in ship size and costs are
still extremely great. Hence, every reasonable
approach towards radical reductions in powerplant specific weights should be investigated exhaustively.
greatly compounding detection problems. However, among the disadvantages of deeper depths
the following should be recognized:
1 Present lack of suitable materials in sufficient quantity to exploit all reasonable depths.
2 Rapid growth in size with increased depth
unless drastically decreased capabilities in other
respects are accepted.
3 Increased costs associated with more costly
construction materials and further increased fabrication problems.
The first disadvantage may be subject to solution bY a materials development program. It is
certain that the other two disadvantages will be
serious but just how much depends in part on the
outcome of development programs associated
with materials and other submarine components.
How deep might one eventually want to go in a
military submarine? Fig. 45, a plot of the percentage distribution of the ocean depth is of interest in a qualitative sense. Here, one notes that
a submarin~ capable of 15,000 ft could reach the
bottom in 60 per cent of the ocean and 18,000 ft
could blanket all but 10 per cent of the ocean. It
would appear that 18,000 ft might represent the
deepest depth of real interest to a military submarine
Ocean Depth Exploration

In the past year considerable progress has been
made in exploring the depths of the ocean. The
bathyscapth "Trieste" reached the bottom of
the Marianas Trench. The bathyscapth is essentially an underwater dirigible dependent on the
use of bulky, inflammable, lighter density fluids Deep.Depth Submarines
The Taylor Model Basin has conducted a presuch as gasoline for flotation. The bathyscapth
also has practically no horizontal maneuvering liminary investigation as to suitability of various
capabilities and hence has a most limited use. Of materials for constructing deep-depth submarines.
much more interest to the submarine designer was Using Lunchick's plastic-hinge analysis and sethe development of a design for an oceanographic lecting geometries to ensure against failure by inresearch submarine of aluminum for operation stability, a series of computer calculations was
down to depths as great as 15,000 ft. Wenk, made for reinforced cylindrical structures. OverDehart, Kissinger and one of the present authors all results of these studies are shown in Fig. 46. A
read a paper describing the development of this similar plot is shown in reference [4]. In Fig. 46
design at the March 1960, meeting of RINA [4]. are shown the percentages of displacement that
Based on recorded history., where research vehicles would have to be devoted to the pressure hull
have gone, military vehicles have almost inevi- for various materials at different depths. The
tably followed. Whether or not this case will materials considered encompass steel of various
fall into the same pattern only time will tell but yield strengths, aluminum, titanium, and berylin any event deeper depths of operation should Hum. While all points on this chart might reprebe a constant goal in submarine design. Deeper sent possible solutions, it is probable that in most
depths appear to promise enhanced sonar capa- cases lying to the right of the third ordinate the
bilities. Deeper depths, will add to the sub- submarine would become much too large because
marine's maneuvering room both for attack and of the low pay-load ratios.
On several previous occasions in this paper it
evasion. Deeper depths will enable submarines
to exploit to the maximum the high speed and has been mentioned that submarines have genexcellent submerged maneuverability of the lat- erally been "volume-limited." In such cases it
est body of revolution submarines. Deeper should be possible to redesign the repeat ship(s) of
-f.-. depths will further compound the already, dif- a class-with the purpose of obtaining a modest infie~t problem of locating and destroying a sub- crease in its operating depth by converting excess
marine. To go further in this aspect it should be lead ballast into increased scantlings for the hull
noted that over much of the ocean a really deep and components that are subjected to sea presdepth submarine could sit on the bottom thereby sure. As mentioned earlier, such a procedure,
673
combined with employing a higher strength steel,

was adopted in the construction of the later fleet
boats. Once the excess lead ballast has been
used in this manner further depth increases with
the same structural material can only be obtained
at the cost of increased size needed to obtain the
necessary buoyancy for the payload. Higher
strength steels than those presently employed
for submarine construction could undoubtedly be
developed which would tend to delay to a greater
depth the point at which the ship becomes
"weight-limited." Whether or not t h e y could be
fabricated into a .shock-resistant structure like
present submarine pressure hulls and whether or
not they would have adequate notch toughness
is most questionable. Even should a 200,000psi yield-strength steel be developed and be satisfactory in all these aspects it would still limit a
practical submarine to depths not much greater
than about half the depth that might have real
military interest.
Aluminum holds considerable interest for this
purpose and the construction of the A luminaut
would certainly be a pioneering achievement in
this respect. However, some means for fabricating very high-strength aluminum other than
welding would seem to be required and such
means might negate a possible military usage
where the vehicle should be able to survive certain
explosive attacks. There also lingers the question
of electrolytic corrosion when aluminum is used
in proximity to other metals. Possibly both of
these potential difficulties could be solved by
means of a composite structure where the basic
aluminum strength hull was completely shrouded
by less electrolytically active, easily fabricated
material. 9
Beryllium which appears to surpass all materials shown in Fig. 46 can be considered only ina theoretical sense at the moment because of its
scarcity and of an inability to conceive of fabrication methods in a size of any practical usage.
Titanium appears to possess many of the properties needed; namely, high yield strength (possibly developable to 200,000 psi), good resistance
to salt-water corrosion, and reasonably low density. This material, if it could be developed in
adequate quantities at a much lower cost than
at present and if an effective means of fabricating
a shock-resistant structure could be devised,
would permit building a military submarine capable of the maximum depth of interest.
pears that any increase in depth will force certain

changes in concepts and in submarine structures.
One worthy of note involves the types and methods of employment of the variable ballast tanks
which have been customarily designed to accept
full submergence pressure. On all present submarines both a trim pump and a drain pump when
properly cross-connected are available to add or
remove ballast water between these tanks and
the sea or to transfer ballast water between
tanks. It has also been customary to design this
entire systefn to be capable of withstanding sea
pressure at maximum submergence so that, in the
most unlikely case of failure of both these pumps,
it would be possible to transfer liquids by blowing
with air at pressures in excess of maximum operating depth sea pressure. Most of these tanks are
essentially of flat-plate, box-type construction
and, as design depths have increased, their panel
sizes have had to be made smaller and the construction problems associated with them have
greatly increased. These tanks also create
stress-concentration problems and may contribute to fatigue problems particularly with highstrength materials. Seemingly some of this practice could be terminated since experience has not
demonstrated the necessity for all of these features.
For deeper depth submarines the compensation system should consist primarily of low-pressure structure contained within the pressure hull
that would never be exposed to sea pressure.
With such a system it is still easy to conceive of
the necessity for having to discharge such large
quantities of water at deep submergence, that
pumping would be entirely out of the question.
To take care of this contingency it appears reasonable to eliminate the present negative tank,
since with the development of the nuclear submarine its primary purpose of decreasing the time
to submerge has become academic. Then a tank
of approximately equivalent capacity could be
incorporated fully in the ship's variable tankage
system. This tank should be fitted with large
flood valve(s) to allow for rapid blowing or flooding at any depth. This tank might be located
near the ship's longitudinal center of buoyancy
but at that location it would be difficult to accommodate its shape which for very deep operating
depths should be spherical. Perhaps a better
solution from a structural viewpoint would be to
install two tanks instead of one and locate them
at the forward and after ends of the ship, between
ellipsoidal or spherical heads.
Present Design Approach
Transverse bulkheads are also very costly in
To return to a period closer to the present it ap- weight. A reduction in their number or their
elimination would permit redistributing a cons StudyofofDTMB
composite huU believed undertaken first by siderable amount of weight to the pressure huh
Krenske
674.
and thus provide a modest increase in operating

depth without any increase in ship displacement.
While in most cases elimination of the bulkheads
would require instifllation of some deep frames to
prevent premature failure from general instability, the over-all weight savings transferred to
pressure-hull steel would increase the maximum
safe operating depth by from 7 to 10 per cent.
Unfortunately because of the shielding problems
presently associated with pressurized-water nuclear reactors any savings in the bulkheads surrounding the reactor compartment would have to
be placed back in the form of lead shielding, hence
with present concepts only minor over-all gains
are obtainable with changes in bulkhead installations on nuclear submarines.
Another potential source of we.ight reduction
would be to eliminate the sail. Admittedly this
item has already been greatly reduced on Thresher
with over-all improvement in her submerged capabilities. Furthermore, its retention at the present is dictated by operational requirements. Yet
its complete elimination would still further enhance her submerged capabilities and provide
both a direct savings in the weight of the sail as
well as a considerable indirect savings by reducing
the amount of lead ballast required for stability
purposes. Transferring both these savings into
increased pressure-hull scantlings would give an
increase in maximum operating depth of about
four per cent.
This part of the discussion was not meant to
be all inclusive but rather to indicate some trends
*Jaat appear well worth pursuing. Since nuclear
power has made possible the severance of the submarine's ties with the surface, it is well to examine.
in the minutest detail all submarine features that
have evolved over the years and determine
whether or not they are absolutely essential for
tomorrow's usage. Perhaps in this manner size
can be reduced further or other important ship
characteristics can be improved.
C. A. Larsen, O. H. Oakley, C. R. Olson, D r .

Leonard Pode, George T. Sparks, Walter L.
Stracke, Z. G. Wachnick, H. Weiner, R. Wermter, Dr. E. Wenk, Jr., C. J. Wilson.
The authors gratefully acknowledge the assistance of the Portsmouth Naval Shipyard in supplying photographs and in preparing many of the
graphs and figures used in this paper. The
willingly rendered services of Mrs. K. L. Worthington and Miss Mary F. Doran are also gratefully acknowledged.
The photograph of USS Skipjack SSN 585 was
supplied by Electric Boat Division, General
Dynamics Corporation.
Most important of all, the authors want to pay
tribute to the Preliminary Design Branch of the
Bureau of Ships, where both of them, in recent
years, were able t o achieve the breadth of experience necessary to write a paper of this kind.
They also owe a debt of gratitude to Massachusetts
Institute of Technology for bringing them together
in a very favorable environment most conducive to
endeavors of this kind.
References
1 A. 1. McKee, "Recent Submarine Design
Practices and Problems," TRANS. SNAME, vol.
67, 1959.
2 If. A. Schade, "German Wartime Technical Developments," TRANS. SNAME, vol. 54,
1946.
3 L. Landweber and M. Gertler, "Mathematical Formulation of Bodies of Revolution,"
DTMB Report 719, September 1950.
4 E. Wenk, Jr., R. C. Dehart, P. Mandd,.
and R. Kfissinger, Jr., "An Oceanographic Research Submarine of Aluminum for Operation to
15,000 ft," RINA, March 1960.
5 A. I. McKee, "Development of Submarines in the United States," S N A M R Historical Transactions, 1943.
6 A. I. McKee, "Buoyancy and Stability of
Submarines," Bureau of Construction and Repair
Technical Bulletin No. 8-29 of November 1929.
Acknowledgments
7 A. I. McKee, "Submarine Naval ArchiThe matter of acknowledgments in connection tecture," New England Section of THE SOCIETYOF
with a work of this kind is of more than usual im- NAVAL ARCHITECTS AND MARINE ENGINEERS~
portance. The authors have utilized the work of April 1948.
8 Chapter 29, Bureau of Ships Technical.
many individuals and in many instances proper
reference was not made because the original work Manual (NavShips 250-000).
9 D. F. Windenburg and C. Trilling, "Coltaken as a whole was classified. The efforts of
the following individuals are in. this category and lapse by Instability of Thin Cylindrical Shells
are hereby gratefully acknowledged: Louis J. Under External Pressure," EMB Report 262,
Belliveau, J. L. Beveridge, G. D. Brown, James June 1930.
10 K. Von Sanden and K. Gunther, "The
W. Church, P. C. Clawson, Morton Gertler,
A. J. Giddings, Alex Goodman, Franklin Hawk- Strength of Cylindrical Shells Stiffened by Frames
ins, James A. Heffner, W. Kepke, E. R. Lacey, and Bulkheads under Uniform Pressure on ALl
675
Sides," Werft and Reederei, vol. 1, 1920, and vol. 2,

1921; see also DTMB Translation No. 38, March
1952.
11 C. Trilling, "The Influence of Stiffening
Rings on the Strength of Thin Cylindrical Shells
Under External Pressure," EMB Report No. 396,
February 1935.
12 V. L. Salerno and J. G. Pulos, "Stress
Distribution in a Circular Cylindrical Shell under
Hydrostatic Pressure Supported by Equally
Spaced Circular Ring Frames," Polytechnic Institute of Brooklyn Report 171-A, 1951.
13 M. E. Lunchick, "Yield Failure of Stiffened Cylinders under Hydrostatic Pressure,"
Proceedings of Third U. S. National Congress of
Applied Mechanics, 1958, pp. 589-594; see also
DTMB Report 1291, January 1959.
14-S.. Kendrick, "The Buckling under External Pressure of Circular Cylindrical Shells with
Evenly Spaced Equal Strength Circular Ring
Frames, Part I," Naval Construction Research
Establishment Report R. 211, February 1953.
15 S. Kendrick, "The Buckling under External Pressure of Circular Cylindrical Shells with
Evenly Spaced Eqhal Strength Circular Ring
Frames, Part III," N C R E Report R. 244, September 1953.
16 E. L. Kaminsky, "General Instability of
Ring-Stiffened Cylinders with Clamped Ends under External Pressure by Kendrick's Method,"
DTMB Report 855, June 1954.
17 T. E. Reynolds and W. F. Blumenberg,
"General Instability of Ring-Stiffened Cylindrical
Shells Subject to External Hydrostatic Pressure,"
DTMB Report No. 1324, June 1959.
18 T . E . Reynolds, "A Graphical Method for
Determining the General Instability Strength of
Stiffened Cylindrical Shells," DTMB Report No.
1106, September 1957.
19 G. D. Galletly and R. Bart, "Effects of
Boundary Conditions and Initial Out-of-Roundness on the Strength of Thin-Walled Cylinders
Subject to External Hydrostatic Pressure,"
DTMB .Report No. 1066, November 1957.

20 S . R . Bodner and W. Berks, "The Effect of
Imperfections on the Stresses in a Circular Cylindrical Shell under Hydrostati6 Pressure," Polytechnic Institute of Brooklyn Report 210, December 1952.
21 S. R. Heller, Jr., and P. M. Palermo,
"Methods of Elastic Analysis of Circular Bulkhead Stiffening Systems, DTMB Report 1336,
November 1959.
22 R. D. Short and R. Bart, "Analysis for
Determining Stresses in Stiffened Cylindrical
Shells Near Structural Discontinuities," D T M B
Report No. 1065,-June 1959.
23 R. F. Keefe and J. A. Overby, "An Experimental Investigation of Effect of End Conditions on Strength of Stiffened Cylindrical Shells."
DTMB Report No. 1326, December 1959.
24 E.A. Wright, "New Research Resources at
the David Taylor Model Basin," TaANS.
SNAME, vo]. 66, 1958.
25 "Nomenclature for Treating the Motion of
a Submerged Body Through a Fluid," S N A M R
Technical and Research Bulletin 1-5.
26 E . D . Hoyt and F. R. Imlay, "The Influ~
enee
of Metacentric Stability on the Dynamic
Longitudinal Stability of a Submarine," DTMB
Report C-158, October 1948.
27 R . T . MeGoldriek, "A Vibration Manual
for Engineers," second edition, Department of
Commerce Publication, PB 131785.
28 M. Gertler and S. C. Gover, "Handling
Quality Criteria for Surface Ships," Chesapeake
Section SNAME, M a y 1959.
29 W . P . A . Van Lammeren, L. Troost, and J.
G. Koning, ."Resistance, Propulsion and Steering
of Ships," Technihal Publishing Company, StareHaarlem, Netherlands, 1948.
30 L.Y. Spear, "Submarine Torpedo B o a t s - Past,, Present and Future," TRANS. SNAME,
1902.
3 1 " C . H. Meigs, "Recent Naval Steam-Plant Design," TRANS. SNAME, vol. 62, 1954.
Discussion
Cdr. S. R. Heller, Jr., USN, Member: The authors
have done an admirable job in providing such
broad coverage on a timely topic. Asmight have
been expected because of the backgrounds of the
anflaors, the presentation is a happy marriage
of techniques used in the design office and in the
classroom.
Under ordinary circumstances in discussing a
paper of this breadth I would confine my remarks
676
to a single category, and usually this would deal

with structure. The authors, however, have cited
structural developments made at the Taylor
Model Basin with which I am intimately familiar
and with which I wholeheartedly concur. In
particular, I am pleased to note that the a p praisal by the authors of the "one-hoss shay"
concept pressure-hull structure eoincides with my
own as presented in discussion of Admiral MeKee's
Naval Architedural Aspectsof SuEmarine Design
Fig. 47
Quarter-scale mock-up of engine room with movable sections closed
1959 paper [1] (references at end of the paper).

I t may be of some interest to know that Mr.
Palermo is now engaged in extending the elastic
analysis of bulkhead stiffening systems [21] into
the plastic region. There are indications that
some weight reduction is possible without endangering performance. Even more encouraging
than this possible weight reduction is a distinct
trend (on paper at least) toward the elimination
of bulkheads just as the authors recommend.
Buried in the authors' commentary on highstress, low-cycle fatigue is an oblique reference to
areas of high stress concentration coupled with
high restraint and appreciable residual tension.
These undesirable details can and are being "designed out" by the same sort of meticulous care
and ingenuity that are required to resolve k n o t t y
arrangement problems.
Since arrangement problems have just been

mentioned, it seems pertinent to add a note on a
recent development in the construction of mockups. After much study of the over-all arrangement problem in modern attack submarines which,
of course, result from the ever-increasing competition for space, the Arrangements group of
Portsmouth Naval Shipyard's Design Division
concluded that mock-ups prepared with the conventional "centerline" cut did not serve adequately as a three-dimensional design tool.
Their recommendations were to "cut" the mockup by planes 45 deg of centerline-the same configuration referred to by the authors as the
" X - s t e r n " ; make the outboard and overhead
sections portable on overhead tracks; and make
certain key sections of the lower segment portable on casters. These cuts are shown in Fig.
677
Fig. 48 Quarter-scale mock-up of engine room with movable sections open
47 of this discussion. Fig. 48 shows the same

mock-up but with movable sections open. This
type of construction has tile added advantages of:
1 Permitting more people to work simultaneously.
2 Providing better over-all access.
3 Eliminates frequent removal of mocked-up
equipment.
4 With better access, better and more accurately detailed plans result.
Finally, I am extremely pleased to note that the
authors did not neglect recommendations for deletion of features that are as anachronistic to the
modern submarine, which operates at high speeds
and deep depths, as a muzzle-loading blunderbuss is to a m o d e m infantryman. All too often
tradition perpetuates what need cannot. The
678
searching examination of every detail no m a t t e r

how minute and the surgical excision of the unessential is concurred in.
Capt. H. E. Saunders, USN (Ret), Honorary Member:

Now that more and more papers concerning the
modern military submarine are finding their way
into our Transactions, I feel that it is most necessary to keep the record straight, especially as far
as its development is concerned.
I t has always been fashionable to poke fun at
someone else's ship design, especially of an earlier
era. I have done it m y s e l f - - m u c h of it, in faef,
in m y earlier d a y s - - s o I suppose I can excuse
myself by saying that it is also natural. I would
like to think, however, that in an era in which we
pride ourselves on our scientific achievements, we
are learning to be more scientific in our analyses.
This means t h a t when we undertake to analyze

some design of the past, we do it only after we
know what requirements of the past led to t h a t
design.
Noah's Ark is a favorite target of this kind,
even after several millenia. Yet with Noah's
resources and materials, I am not so sure t h a t we
could do much better today. Certainly the Ark
served its intended purpose and served it extremely well. T h a t is all we ask of any craft.
If we are to believe the written record, we might
not otherwise be here today.
T h e large, long-range U. S. submarines of the
period following World War I were designed and
built to operating requirements and specifications
t h a t have changed greatly in the intervening years.
Contemporary submarine, force, and fleet commanders felt t h a t they .met these requirements
very well. Again this is all we can ask of any
designer and builder. Incidentally, these huge
craft had submerged speed and endurance equal
to those of smaller craft. Their handling submerged was, in the words of an experienced commander of t h a t time, superior to t h a t of any
pre~Hous U. S. submarines.
Despite the changes in submarine tactics, and a
return to the general configuration of the Holland
of 60 years ago in the modern pure submarine,
certain requirements of the 1920-1940 period are
considered to be good ones for any submarine.
With respect to some of these requirements the
m o d e m craft is glaringly deficient.
One last item with respect to the shadow of
German influence mentioned by the authors, so
as to set the record straight in this respect:
Although it is but tittle known, m a n y features of
German submarines of the World War I and
World War I I periods came directly or indirectly
from the submarine designs of an American,
Simon Lake. He had one of the first, if not the
first snorkel devices on a submarine, as far back
as 1902. He was the inventor of the high-pressure air main-ballast blowing system, taken b y
the Germans and later restored b y us to American
craft. Lake had the original equivalent of bow
and stern buoyancy tanks, and other features
devised initially by Americans. We had multiple
hulls built into our submarines m a n y years before the G e r m a n s - - a n d the Japanese--adopted
them. Finally, the Albacore project was entirely
of American conception and execution. Let us
not forget, therefore, t h a t periods of American
dominance in the submarine fiead go back to
Holland--as the authors have mentioned--and to
Lake and to others. This dominance is not
necessarily something that we have recently
acquired.
Lt. Cdr~ J. R. Baylis, USN, Associate Member:

In
this country a lot of professional people are involved in submarine desigm a n d construction b u t
very few can speak with authority on the broad
naval architectural aspects of submarine design.
I am very glad t h a t two of these authorities,
have written this comprehensive paper, for it has
helped me understand m a n y of the recent design
decisions which had not been clear to me before.
I am very glad they invited a reexamination of
accepted ideas and I propose to reexamine a few
ideas on control and directional stability. I am
certain t h a t the idea t h a t straight-line stability
with the controls fixed must be provided is widely
held, but it is really not a sufficient criterion to
insure "stable" submarine behavior. T h e controls system, including the man in manual control, is equally important in the stability and
control of the submarine. In our present design
method we have separated the problem into its
naval architectural and servomechanism components. We then find t h a t the naval architect
must fix some standards of performance for the
controls, and if an automatic control is to be installed, the naval architect must provide the equations of motion for the design of the control
system.
This is a safe way to divide responsibilities and
no harm is done so long as both controllability
and stability can be provided b y the naval architect without undesirable effects. Experience has
shown that for short hulls controllability can be
provided with less control-surface area or controlsurface span width than is required for stability.
W h y can't we stabilize a controllable b u t unstable ship in the control circuit? We can, of
course. Ships A and B of Table 4 of the paper
must have been stabilized at the cost of some
exertion by the planesrnen. Saving this exertion
is the only good reason for "controLs-fixed"
stability, but this is a good reason only when
manual control is mandatory. T o d a y we make
no claim t h a t manpower is adequate for the job,
but we limit the help for the man to a power boost.
There is no good reason why we cannot use the
control system to avoid "excessive" span on submarine control surfaces.
The separate consideration of the naval architectural portions of the stability and control
problem is now beginning to c r e a t e ' p r o b l e m s
that can be avoided by a broader viewpoint.
Dr. Edward Wenk, Jr.,6 Visitor: While the occulted nature of submarine warfare has earned for
that naval arm the piquant caption of "silent
6 Library of Congress, Washington, D.C.
679
"
service," there has been a corresponding stillness in the technical literature concerning the
design of the submarine itself. The recent paper
by A.I. McKee and this current paper are thus
exceedingly welcome contributions, and are substantial landmarks in illuminating the complex
relationships that underlie the design of selfbuoyant submersibles.
On the m a t t e r of hull strength, the authors have
provided a clear exposition of fundamental principles and of the mechanism of failure underlying
rational design. Consequently, this discussion
will be confined to the broader concepts of structural analysis within the scope of the paper r d t h e r .
than to the supporting mathematical:yand e x - "
perimental r e s e a r c h . . - .
In essence, the discussion focuses on one question: W h a t would the authors propose in the way
of a basic concept or philosophy that would guide
proportioning of hull structure ?
In this regard, the authors strike a melancholy
note in stating, "there has been little real gain
in structures .in the past two decades and t h a t in
fact in one recent case there was a considerable
reduction in the modified pressure factor."
This statement suggests either an unduly conservative design procedure, or the absence of
necessary research data. While the writer would
agree t h a t at times progress seemed slow, still
facts in the paper itself show that by no means
were these two decades so unenlightened.
Perhaps the authors are unnecessarily dismayed
in this regard by their own unexplained prediction t h a t about 30 per cent improvement in structural efficiency is possible. Such would be the
case if the phi value of 0.89 for 1954 vintage submarines were evaluated in terms of the authors'
assertion t h a t "one can establish a theoretical
maximum .value for phi . . . . of 1.16."
The writer has strong doubts t h a t the efficiency index, phi, can be as high as 1.16, except
as noted later, for deep-diving submarines.
On the first point of slow progress, the authors
themselves note a gain in efficiency factor, eta,
accompanying the transition from H T S to H 8 0
steel. Also, though somewhat blurred by the
authors' selection of scales, Figs. 34 and 35 suggest a further "high-phi" benefit b y designing for
"Iow-lambda." In fact, the phi increased from
0.78 in 1940 to 0.89 in 1954. This improvement
of about 12-15 per cent contradicts the authors'
contention t h a t little real gain occurred. On
the other hand, the authors would be correct,
if they are referring to the 1959 design having a
phi of 0.73 in contrast to the 1940 value of 0.78.
This retrogression is rather striking and deserves
amplification by the authors.
680
Still another reason for inviting the authors to

state their own philosophy for structural design
is their apparent ambivalence in associating themselves with existing concepts. T h e y take issue
with the "one-boss shay" approach and, in citing reference [4] as both supporting and refuting
it, they appear to have misunderstood its implications. Moreover, they seem to fence-straddle
"low-lambda" design b y stating in one sentence
t h a t it produces gains, and in the next t h a t certain
situations preclude its application. Could the
authors be more specific in outlining those situations exempted?
" .- T h e atithors,~Iso~'seem, vaguely, uncertain about
"the-weakening effects--of out,of-roundness.--At ..
one point in the paper, .they state:- " U n d e r these
circumstances (of existing construction practices)
test results indicate t h a t there is no appreciable
reduction in collapse strength of submarines."
Could they cite a reference or be more specific
regarding these test results? In apparent contradiction, earlier in the paper they state: "such
failures (interframe and over-aU instability) are
also markedly susceptible to imperfections in
construction," a m a t t e r well substantiated" by
both theory and tests, particularly for frame imperfections. 10 As noted later, this point regarding
imperfections vitally influences selection of design
concept. W h a t position do the authors take, and
why ?
The authors note t h a t recent submarines have
been volume rather than weight-limited. T o
be sure, minimum weight is not the only criterion
with which the structural designer is confronted.
Minimum cost, ample resistance to attack, ease
of construction and repair and simplicity of hull
form for minimum drag and maximum convenience are other desiderata. Nevertheless, do not
the authors agree t h a t the alert designer will
always seek the tightest possible structure, even
in volume-limited cases ?
If the incentive for elegance in structural design
has been lacking, it will instantly reappear when
designing for deeper depth. In these cases where
structural weight m a y represent a larger proportion of the displacement, the penalties for redundant structure will become more severe, as
Table 7, herewith, shows.
Incidentally, the authors should, be congratulated on now taking a positive stand on the future
of deep diving submarines. N o t m a n y years ago,
the voices in the wilderness seemed few indeed.:
Returning to the m a t t e r of design concept"
.
Two yardsticks have been proposed for e v a l u a t - . "
10E: Wenk, Jr., "Feasibility Studies of Pressure Hulls
for Deep Diving Submarines," NAS-NRC Confidential
Report, August 1958.
L W A T E R i SURFACE
THESE
- t STRUCTURES
FLOAT
2000
THESE
STRUCTURES-kSINK
SOLID LINES REFER TO

WEIGHT OR OUOYANCY.
i
"~4000
4540
,o,o
\A
~ 6000
E
''
"-18200
sooo
,.oo
12000 I
1.0
0
0.8
20
0.6
0.4
0.2
0
-0. Z
-0,4
COEFFICIENT OF EXCESS BUOYANCY, p
40
60
SO
I00
120
140
PRESSURE HULL WEIGHT AS % OF SUBMERSED DISPLACEMENTI IJ
-0.6
160
-0.8
~300'
180
Fig." 49
Table 7 Showing reduction in displacement of deepdiving submarines by improved structural designs

Collapse
depth,
psi
Displacement,
phi-0.85
500
i000
Reduction in
Disdisplacement
placement, with improved
phi-1.10
design
1000
1000
1000
1000
0
2000
1172
1103
69
4000
2027
1596
431
6000
8333
2777
5556
Assume: Hull of HYO0; basic design of 1000 tons,
with volUme-limited design changing to weight-limited
at 1000 psi collapse.
~.
ing structural efficiency." The first, eta, reflects

the benefit of utilizing improved materials.
Here, as with most other structures, the index
of merit is the ratio of yield strength to material
density. This efficiency factor simultaneously
reveals the benefit of optimum proportioning of
scantlings. The second efficiency index (in this
paper, phi) shows, exclusively, the influence of
geometry.
T h e gain in structural efficiency by utilizing
HY80 instead of H T S is shown in Fig. 33. Further gain from other materials is suggested in Fig.
46. Although not mentioned, a significant relationship exists between the two plots; n a m d y ,
" E. Wenk, Jr., R. E. Stark, and D. E. Peugh," Tests of
the Yield Strength of Ring-Stiffened Cylindrical Shells
Models BR-2 and BR-2A Subjected to Hydrostatic Pressure," DTMB Confidential Report C-440, February 1964.
the slope of the curves in Fig. 46 is identical to the

efficiency factor, p h i . " These implications m a y be
more clearly revealed b y .the accompanying
graph, Fig. 49, similar to Fig. 1 of reference [4]
of the paper. Also not mentioned b y the authors
is the important fact t h a t because of the frames
required to defer instability, the efficiency factor
is not constant, b u t increases with those designs
for greater depth. The maximum theoretical
value cannot be reached at moderate depths.
Also, going twice as deep does not require a structure, t h a t is, nominally, twice as heavy, n
Fig. 46 of the paper also suggests improved
structural efficiency with materials other than
H 8 0 for moderate as well as deep depths. Do
the authors concur ?
However, much benefit is derived from material
characteristics, the writer strongly believes t h a t
t h e designer must seek the lightest possible structure by skillful choice of geometry. I t is at this
" m o m e n t of t r u t h " t h a t a design concept must
be adopted. T h e "low-lambda" and "one-hoss
shay" proposed by the writer are but two of innumerable possibilities; only experience can prove
their relative merits.
The "low-lambda" concept emerged from experimental observations in the course of verifying the von Sanden-Gunther theory./1 While
the "S-G" analysis was found valid for elastic
behavior, it was discovered unduly conservative
when predicting yield strength. The conservatism
681
arises from two assumptions; i.e., that collapse

occurs when the yield stress is reached locally,
and that yielding develops according to the
Rankine theory of failure. It was found that
yielding must propagate somewhat through the
shell before collapse so that some reserve of
strength exists over the pressure when yielding
initiates locally. Furthermore, the yon MisesHencky criterion was found applicable rather
than the Rankine. Thus, in a 2-1 biaxial stress
field, collapse occurs at 16 per cent higher than
if failure had occurred by the Rankine (principal
stress) mechanism. This bonus underlies the
theoretical limit for phi of 1.16 in an unstiffened
cylinder and has been a potential source of improved structural efficiency since 1954. That is,
it was proposed that the yield strength of the hull
be computed empirically by assuming collapse
when the elastic stresses mid-bay, mid-plane,
reached the yon Mises-Hencky value, a proposition substantiated by model tests. More rational analysis of thi~ plastic behavior was derived
by Lunchick and others, but experimental results suggest all theories substantially agree;
the plastic analysis seems more cumbersome to
apply. Recently, however, R. C. DeHart at
Southwest Research Institute has discovered
that materials having nonlinear stress-strain relationships, such as aluminum, demonstrate even
greater yield capacity, so that both of these
yield-collapse methods, one based on experimental
observations with steel and the other on idealized
plastic materials, are in prospect of further refinement.
This commentary leads lastly to the main thesis
of this discussion; namely, that some design concept must provide the backbone of the structural
analysis. The "one-hoss shay" approach would
provide for collapse in all three modes simultaneously. While the writer has stated in other
papers that achievement of such design is rare,
he does not agree with the authors that it is not
worth the effort. It must be emphasized, however, and this is a feature the authors may have
overlooked, that this concept .does not merely
assume that strength be equated for yield, shell
instability, and general instability strengths,
using theories for perfectly circular cylinders.
Rather, it is based on the calculation of strength
for al! three modes, including weakening effects
of out-of-roundness. (Imperfect shells fail in the
same three appearance modes as do perfect shells.
By providing scantlings to compensate for imperfect shape, the three collapse values for all
three modes of failure in perfect shells cannot be
equal.) Theoretical analysis does not seem yet
available, however, to permit this approach, par682
ticularly on the matter of shell-instability mode.

Thus, the recourse to alternate, arbitrary procedures, one of which is the establishment of shell
and general instability strengths for a perfect
cylinder 30-60 per cent above yield.
Because the writer believes that imperfections
somewhat weaken structure, scantlings should be
chosen that reduce the sensitivity to imperfections. Such a step was suggested with the "lowlambda" concept, by which frame spacing was
arbitrarily narrowed to compensate for unknowns
in effects of shell and frame noncircularity--a
proposal, incidentally, consistent with the "onehoss shay."
One last point. The writer would like to commend the authors' reference to composite construction. This system was believed first carefully studied by Krenzke of.TMB for two different materials-an inner thi~k hull for static
strength, surrounded by an outer weldable sheath
for Watertightness and dynamic strength. The
writer also suggests a variation of this system,
utilizing high-strength aluminum for the inner
hull, and a corrosion-resistant, weldable aluminum
for the sheath.
E. E. Johnson) ~ Visitor:
The authors are to be
congratulated for having assembled a very interesting and broad summary of the state of.
knowledge relating to the naval architectural
aspects of submarine design. This discussion is
intended to supplement some of the statements
in the section on "Structure."
Some additions and clarifications seem desirable to the authors' discussion of the three possible modes of failure of stiffened circular cylindrical pressure hulls. In the discussion of the shell
buckling mode shown in Fig. 28, no mention is
made of plastic shell buckling which is, in reality,
the mode of failure for submarine hull geometries
where the failure is by shell buckling. The authors
restrict their attention to elastic shell buckling
which never occurs in actual designs. Out-ofroundness could cause premature plastic shell
buckling to occur at greatly reduced pressures,
while its effect on elastic shell buckling would be
negligible. Theory for the asymmetric plastic
buckling of stiffened cylinders has been derived by
Reynolds at the David Taylor Model Basin and
is presented in TMB Report 1392.
With respect to failure by shell yielding in the
form of an axisymmetric pleat as shown in Fig.
29, numerous criteria have been suggested for predicting the expected collapse pressures of stir-
1~David Taylor Model Basin, Washington, D. C.
fened cylinders of geometries which will fail in

this mode. Both the Von Sanden and Gunther,
and Salerno and Pulos analyses provide methods
for determining the dastic strains or stresses in a
stiffened cylinder. Once the elastic stresses are
determined, a calculated collapse pressure can be
derived dependihg on the criterion of failure adopted. If failure is assumed to occur at the pressure
a t which the maximum stress calculated by either
analysis reaches the yield point of the material,
the collapse pressures predicted from these formuLations are usually conservative for externally
framed models. Collap.se pressures based on the
plastic-hinge analysis of Lunchick have been
closer to experimental collapse pressures for
externally framed models than those based on the
Von Sanden and Gunther, or Salerno and Pulos
analyses assuming failure to occur when the circumferential stress on the outside of the shell
a t mid-bay reaches the yield point of the material.
For a total of 13 externally framed models, with
slenderness ratios ~ from 0.41 to 0.79, which were
tested at the David Taylor Model "Basin the
average ratio of the theoretical plastic-hinge
collapse pressure to the observed collapse pressure was 1.007 compared with a ratio of 0.864
when theoretical collapse pressures were computed by Von Sanden and Gunther Formula
92a. However, it has been observed that internally framed models tend to have experimental collapse pressures about 10 to 15 per cent
lower than externally framed models. The
reasons for this difference have been analyzed
by Lunchick and Short and are discussed in
T M B Report 1150:
It is the opinion of the writer that this difference in collapse strength between internally
framed and externally framed structures is ap preciably less in full-scale structures than in
models since the distortions due to the welding
of the frames to. the shell, which are the principal
contributors to this difference in strength, are
less for the full-scale structures.
With respect to failure by general instability
as illustrated in Fig. 30, it should be pointed out
t h a t the importance of compartment length on the
general instability collapse of stiffened cylir/ders
was first recognized by Tokagawa who studied
the problem both analytically and experimentally
and reported his findings in 1929. A more rigorous analysis was originally carried out by Salerno
and Levine while at the Brooklyn Polytechnic
Institute. Errors in this work were corrected
b y Kendrick to achieve the final satisfactory
analysis."
A final comment seems in order with respect
to Fig. 34. I t will be observed flint the modified
pressure factors tend to fall off slightly for the

late 1950 and early 1960 years. This is apparently
due to the fact that the factors for these past
few years are based on results of tests of internaUy
framed models. Upon calculating the modified
pressure factor from model tests of the latest
completely externally framed submarine a modified pressure factor of 1.02 is obtained. It will
be observed that this is appreciably greater than
any of the other factors plotted and is indicative
of a gain in structures in the past two decades.
A. I. McKee, Member: The authors have made
a noteworthy contribution to that increasing
part of our industry which is engaged in the building of submarines, by bringing together and discussing in some detail so many aspects of the
problem of submarine design.
Some additional comments on the space assigned to living accommodations for officers
and crew and its effect on the design as a whole
might be in order. Until the early 1950's adequate living accommodations for the crew of a
new ship consisted of seating one third of the
crew at meals, providing a berth and a means
of getting into it,. sometimes with diffienlty, and
providing a locker of about 2 cu ft for each man.
It was acceptable although, in getting into his
locker, it was necessary for one man to disturb
another who was sleeping. Within the past 10
years, however, there has been a marked emphasis on the improvement of habitability. This
is shown in Fig. 18, the Skipjack having about
twice as much deck area per man as the World
War II fleet boats. This trend is continuing
and some of the ships now under construction
approach three times as much deck space per
man. This much space can only be provided
by making the ships larger than the old standards
of habitability would have permitted them to be.
This change in design requirements involves little
increase in weight, other than structural weight,
and permits nearly all of the increased displacement to be used for structure. This is the largest
factor in the growth of the percentage of the displacement used for pressure hull weights illustrated in Fig. 38.
Under the subject of "Present Design Approach" at the end of the paper, the authors "
suggest changes which would increase the maximum safe operating depth by 7 to 10 per cent.
The writer believes this estimate to be a conservative one. There are many areas other than
those mentioned which contain pay dirt. If
the desire for greater depth were to receive as
much emphasis as is now placed on habitability,
and if time were made available for more thor-
683
ough studies at the time of preparation of both

the contract design and of the working drawings,
the increase in operating depth might well reach
15 to 20 per cent with presently available material.
E. M. Uram, Associate Member: The authors most
assuredly have accomplished their goal of providing an account of modern practices in submarine naval architecture, and have done it extremely well. In view of the scope of this paper,
necessary limitations in various areas were imposed and I would like to direct my remarks to
just one of those areas; namely speed, and power,
in order to provide additional information and
avoid a possible mistaken impression.
Upon reading through the section on "Speed
and Power," one is likely to come away with the
mistaken impression that the problem of determining the resistance of the modern submarine
hull form has a rather simple, straightforward
solution which has consistent reliability and accuracy. I feel sure that the authors meant to
indicate recent data trends and did not intend to
convey such an impression. Perhaps it would
have been advisable to expand somewhat on the
treatment of the uncertainty apparent in incremental drag allowance and the multitude of
sins that it can be made to cover. Since much of
the discussion centers around the characteristics
of the residual drag, it may have been informative to refer to the critical discussion of Birkhoff,
et al (even though this was mainly a treatise
concerning surface vessels) concerning this parameter (SNAME Transactions, 1954).
The authors effectively point out the role of the
residual resistanee of. modern submarine hull
forms. However, the substantial roles that the
skin friction and incremental drag now play are
not emphasized. For these hull forms the accuracy of determination of the friction and incremental drag grossly affects tile prediction of
the total drag of the vessel and consequently the
estimated horsepower. These effects are even
more "important in interpretation of model
results. Since in the classical Froude approach
residual resistance is considered independent of the
Reynolds number, the frictional resistance accounts for a larger percentage of the model drag
than that of the full-scale vessel--irrespective of
the incremental drag. It can be demonstrated
that in constant-pressure flows, local skinfriction coefficients for axisymmetric flows can
be approximated closely by the Schoenherr flatplate coefficients in the Reynolds-number range
corresponding to full-scale submarines. However, axisymmetric-flow friction coefficients for
684
flows with pressure gradients and for Reynolds

numbers in the model testing range are quite different from the flat-plate values. Since residual
resistance is always obtained from model total
drag measurements by subtracting the Schoenherr
friction resistance, it is conceivable that the trends
depicted in Fig. 4 of the paper could possibly be
different if a more realistic determination of the
frictional drag were used.
The authors point out that the residual resistance is almost entirely shape dependent with
negligible dependence upon Reynolds number and
contend that the frictional drag coefficient is
dependent slightly and only upon speed and length
(Reynolds number). What is not pointed out is
that the frictional drag coefficient for the bodyof-revolution submarine hulls is also shape dependent to a degree which is not negligible. For
example, if one considers two bodies of the same
length, traveling at the same velocity but differing significantly in hull shape, the simple
Schoenherr-Reynolds number dependence would
yield exactly the same friction coefficient for
both bodies. However, we know that the body
shape and boundary-layer development dictate
the pressure distribution over the body, which
in turn governs the local skin-friction distribution over the body. Since the frictional drag of
the body is the integral over the surface of the
local skin-friction distribution, it is apparent that
the frictional drag must be expected to be shape
dependent. The error in friction drag appears as
an erroneous variation in the conventionally defined residual drag. In view of the dependence of
both the skin friction and residual-drag coefficients upon the shape of submerged bodies of
revolution it would seem that the authors'
suggested parameters of prismatic coefficient
and length-to-diameter ratio may be too gross
in their nature to provide a clear representation
of the drag picture. A weighted volume coefficient sensitive to the shape might be more illuminating.
In closing I would like to inject the idea, which
is by no means original, that in view of the recent
advances in boundary-layer theory and since we
are dealing with a very reasonable, completely
submerged hull form, would we not obtain more
realistic answers to the resistance problem if it
were approached from the boundary-layer-theory
point of view? This approach could also supply
the much desired in-flow velocity distributions to
propeller and con~ol-surface designers.
Capt. H. A. Jackson, USN, life Member: 2"his interesting paper on submarine naval architecture
is unusual in that it provides some basic design
information rather than items of general or historical interest as has been the case with many
previous papers. Historical information is important, however, and the authors recognize
that fact when they devote the first part of their
paper to laying the background by recalling the
development of submarines.
Early in the paper they imply that the Skipjack and the B~rbd were constructed at the same
time. Because of the emphasis being placed- on
nuclear submarines, this is true; however, the
preliminary design of the Barbd @as completed
some time before that of the Skipjack. Many of
the concepts and arrangements that have now
become standard on our modern submarines were
worked out for the first time on the Barbd. The
Barbd has outstanding submerged performance
characteristics. The conclusion of the official
BUSHIPS trials is that the submerged performance is near optimum.
Under the heading of deck areas the authors
make a very good case for the multiple-level type
of arrangement. If the width of the upper deck
level is restricted to a certain deck height there
will be a triangular space at the edges which is
ideal for ventilation, pipe ways and wire ways
on the outside.
Deck space is very important, as it is a fundamental requirement for arrangement; however,
bulkheads and the overhead are equally important
as they are both utilized to support equipment
which must be operated or seen. In addition,
great skill is ~equired hi arrangement of equipmeat to accommodate all of that required i n ' a
modern-day submarine and still have it habitable and maintainable. One of the primary
reasons for building quarter-scale mock-ups is to
insure that all of the equipment will fit into and
can be maintained in the submarine.
In addition to those items which the.authors
indicate one of the most effective areas in which
quarter-scale mock-ups serve the design program
is in the support of preparation of detailed working
drawings. This is done by design personnel developing their system arrangements such as
piping, wireways, and ventilation in the mock-up
from the schematic drawings. Rough sketches
dimensioned as necessary are then made from the
mock-ups for preparation of final working drawings. The mock-up thereby becomes a continuously growi..ng composite three-dimensionpictorial view of the progress of the design effort.
In this manner it furnishes up-to-date background
information as to the details of an area in which
the design personnel are to work. This prevents
design interferences by "locating some item in
a space which has been selected for some other use.
The Portsmouth Naval Shipyard has devoted

much effort to develop adequate quarter-scale
mock-ups to assist in the designing of submarines.
Many unusual systems have been developed to
minimize the cost and make a maximum effectiveness of the mock-ups themselves. There
are two important advantages t h a t ' a quarterscale mock-up has over a full-scale mock-up.
One can stand back and see the over-all picture
and thereby get a general concept rather than a
detailed concept. In close areas the quarterscale mock-up tends to magnify the tightness of
the situation and will provide more space than
would a full-scale mock-up.
Fig. 25 of the paper is a polygon for one of the
more recent submarines. The authors state that
the moments are generally taken about a point in
the middle of the auxiliary tanks. If this were so,
the line of the polygon describing the auxiliary
tanks would be nearly vertical. Actually, the
reference point of this particular polygon is the
longitudinal center of the ship. Since the auxiliary tanks are forward of.this point, the moment
changes as the level of the water in the tanks is
changed.
Under the heading of weight margins the
authors point out the object lessons of the USS
Tang. As a result of the Tang situation, better
weight-control methods have been established
so that now the weight of the submarine can be
kept under control at all times. It is interesting
to note that the Barbel, an entirely new design,
was ballasted on the building ways before launching and that it was not necessary to adjust this
ballast after she had conducted a trim dive and
operated at sea. As a result there is considerably
more margn available for future growth than that
specified by the Bureau of Ships. The object
lessons of the Tang are most interesting, as stability, fore-and-aft location of the lead, fuel capacity, definition of the polygon points, use of
tanks as well as over-all weight are involved.
Many possible solutions presented themselves,
and the decision as to which one to accept was not
easy. This situation would make an excellent
case study for those learning the art of submarine design.
Some very interesting factors can be obtained
from the information presented under the heading
of hull strength. One can obtain the relation of
t/D, LID and collapse pressure from Fig. 31.
Yor large Pc, the L/D becomes very large.
Some interesting observations can then be made
about the future deeper diving submarines.
Since the shell would constitute a majority of the
hull weight, a curve similar to Fig. 46 can be
made using only the simple formulas required to
68.5
rine material is the ratio of weight per unit volume

to the yield strength. This curve is for the shell
weight only. I t is interesting to note t h a t the ratio
of weight to buoyancy of the submarine represented b y this curve is almost independent of
length or diameter. T h e payload t h a t can be
carried is very much dependent on the size of the
submarine.
This paper covers a very large range of submarine design aspects and therefore touches only
lightly on the majority of the subjects. I t is
hoped that future authors will use this paper as a
starting point to develop further m a n y of the subjects covered herein. If this is done, the United
States can maintain a significant lead in the a r t
and science of submarine design.
\\
I0
_z
12
14
la
IS
\
0
.S5
R .~d
FLOAT ~
.50
IS
SINK
WEI(IHT
Fig. 50
determine hoop stress, weight, and volume:

Consider a hypothetical submarine hull made up of
an unstiffened cylinder, and two unstiffened hemispherical ends. The following relations will exist
for the spheres and cylinders:
Sphere
Cylinder
t / D - Pc
Hoop stress
t =
4 ~u
W
t / D = 6--w
3
w =TPc-
W -- weight
volume
P___~
g ~y
t
W
D = 4w
w
w = 2 P ~
0"//
-~
0"y
H = failure depth
R = -3H ~
2
ay
R -
W
O
R = 2 H wau
v = density of material
0 = density of water
The equations are the same except for the constants. If our submarine is very short, the constant would approach 3/2; if on the other hand
i t had a LID ratio of 3 or more, it would approach
2. Using the constant 2, a curve can be prepared
which indicates some interesting facts. Yig. 50.
The important physical properties of any subma-
686
Prof. Martin A. Abkowitz, Member: The authors

are to be congratulated for a clear and wellapportioned description of the design aspects of
one of the most interesting and important engineering systems of our time. I t is again m a d e
clear from this presentation t h a t naval architecture and ship design have always been the optimization of an engineering system through the
rendering of technological judgment in the selection of the specific values among the m a n y and
conflicting parameters. T h e paper stands as a
m o d e m text for the student of submarine naval
architecture.
During the initial stages of the evaluation of
the m o d e m submarine within the United States
just after World War I I , I shared the assignment
somewhat of the responsibility of this development program, the authors downtown at t h e
Bureau of Ships, and myself up the river at theTaylor Model Basin. Even at t h a t time, I a n d
several of m y colleagues hoped to dispense quickly
with bow planes and bridge fairwaters. T h e s e
items over the course of m a n y years are slowly
atrophying and perhaps the time m a y come when
they will no longer be part of the submarine.
Back in 1946 I was involved in the area of stability and control of submarines at a time when it.
appeared that these items could be the ones that_
limited the speed and operational capability of thesubmarine. T h e staff assigned to the problems.
of stability and control has greatly grown from
approximately one man at t h a t time to quite a
large group at the present.
Now I would like to direct m y remarks to t h e
area of stability and control as discussed in t h e
paper. T h e authors have done a remarkable job.
in so clearly explaining motion stability and con-trol in such a short presentation:'-,, I am glad to s a y
that I heartily agree with t h e material presented,
except for a few statements which appear to me t o
be in error, but I am sure have been made in order

to avoid numerous detail. For example, I was not
too happy with the words "positional motion
stability" to describe what is essentially stability
in depth keeping. I must admit, however, that
I could not think of any better word which would
cover in the general sense this type of stability
for motion both in the horizontal plane and in the
vertical plane.
It seems that the derivative Z# has been omitted
from equation (10) and likewise the derivative
Md has been omitted from equation (11). It
may be that these derivatives have been assumed
to be 0 by the authors. Although these derivatives may be small, if the origin is taken at the
center of buoyancy of the hull for the bare hull,
the existence of large bow and stern stabilizing
and control surfaces may contribute to significant values for these parameters. If the origin
is taken at the dynamic center of mass, which is
the center of mass for which both the actual and
added hydrodynamic mass are included, then
these derivatives can be shown to be O.
Again, the authors state that the sizable snap
roll with the sail indicates that the centripetal
force is still acting at a point above the center
of gravity of the submarine. I must disagree with
this statement in that the snap roll is experienced
when the rudder is first put over before a large
angular velocity is experienced by the hull and
therefore there cannot be large centrifugal forces
at this time. It is my belief that this large snap
roll is due to the fact t.hat the dynamic center of
mass, because of the sail, is relatively high above
the side force produced at the rudder and that the
inertial response from this produces a large inboard rolling moment. I also expect that without
the sail, Submarine E would be asymmetrical
with respect to deck and keel so that there still
remained a dynamic center mass somewhat above
the center of pressure of the rudder; hence, still
a recognizable inward snap roll.
If the Navy is proud of its recent accomplishments in the submarine area, then they have no
choice but to keep this momentum going by
continuing their efforts and their developments
to deeper operating depths by more efficient materials, to higher speeds by more efficient propulsion and by lighter energy conversion devices,
and smaller size requirements through automarion as has been mentioned by the authors.
Let us hope that developments in this field will
be rapid enough that these authors or others may
find it necessary to write another paper of this
sort in the not too-distant future because what
we now know and what is presented in this paper
would no longer be the current practice.
J. B. Hadler, Member: In this interesting paper

the authors have discussed many o.f the broad
aspects which are important in developing an
efficient submarine design. In the area of resistance and propulsion they have presented much of
the data that is available on modern, high-performance submarines. They have shown that the
propulsive performance of the single-screw design is quite high because of the high hull efficiency. This results from the ideal position of the
single propeller on an axisymmetrieal body to recover much of the energy imparted to the boundary layer. It is possible to achieve even higher
effieiencies by the use of counterrotating propellers. In this case, if properly designed, the
rotational losses of the propeller can be minimized. Efficiencies can be achieved which are
substantially greater than those .possible on any
type of surface ship or any single-screw submarine designed to date.
In analyzing the effect of the control surface
upon the hull-efficiency element, the authors have
assumed that the boundary-layer thickness on the
model is greater than that on the ship. This is
the classical assumption in most ship model-full
scale correlation work. Measurements made on a
single-screw submarine with a rather smooth
hull do not support this hypothesis. Boundarylayer measurements made on the stern of a singlescrew submarine have shown that the thickne6s
and velocity distribution on model and ship are
quite similar. Since it is impossible to make a
full-scale ship hull as hy..dranlieally smooth as that
of the model, it is probable that the hull roughness
counteracts the effect of Reynolds number on
boundary-layer thickness.
I would like to congratulate the authors for
their excellent paper which contains so much
information of v a l u e t o the submarine designer.
G. P. Weinblum, Member: The paper is one of
the most interesting contributions in the field
of ship design which the writer has had the opportunity to study. I wish to thank, the authors
for the inspiring information and would like to
dwell on a special subject only--resistance.
Although, apparently, because of security reasons
the most important results have been given in
abbreviated form only, the information contained
e.g., in Figs. 4-7, is extremely valuable.
The residual viscous resistance of the elongated
bodies of revolution is small. I am surprised,
however, by the large beneficial influence on resistante caused by the application of a suitable
parallel middle body. If I understand the authors
correctly, the drag of a form without parallel
middle body derived from the Landweber family
687
is by 20-30 per cent higher. This wouM mean

that the Landweber family was not suitable for the
development of bodies with such high prismatic
coefficients as 0.8 probably because of its comparatively low degree. We have investigated a
body of revolution cp = 0.8 generated by doublet
distributions expressed by a polynomial of higher
degree (up to 12). Although the resultant body
does not display a parallel part (in a rigorous
sense) its resistance properties in deeply submerged condition are excellent. I t would be interesting from a practical as well as scientific
point of view to settle the question whether the
cylindrical part is actually a minimum condition
for the viscous drag of full bodies.
I have studied with equal interest the sections
on strength and stability and control but, because of lack of experience, I feel unable to comment on these most important parts of the paper.
W. E. Crowell, 13 Visitor. The authors have done
a great service to the profession by providing a
co-ordinated story of the predomiflant naval
architectural problems in submarine design.
For the newcomer to this field, the presentation
is especially valuable because of its clarity and
obvious authority. I am particularly interested
in the authors' discussion of the stability and control problem and would like to make a few remarks concerning this, hoping that the authors
will be tolerant with me for daring to tread in this
area. Perhaps, however, a fresh viewpoint will
help to sharpen the focua on some of these problems.
Stability. Let me first discuss the subject of
straight-line stability and confine my remarks to
the dynamic forces and ignore the buoyant stability forces.
The need for some positive straight-line stability with controls fixed in the pitch (vertical)
plane appears to be recognized by most submarine
designers because accurate depth control is an
essential feature of submarine operation. Without straight-line stability plus a reasonable
amount of damping, the problem of accurately
controlling the depth becomes difficult or even
impossible for the operator to perform at high
speeds. However, there seems to be a reluctance
to recognize the similar need for straight-line
stability in the yaw plane. Possibly this is because the need has not existed for keeping the
submarine on a fixed path in the ocean. At any
rate, lack of adequate straight-line stability in the
yaw plane with high speeds results in oscillala Head, Vehicle Dynamics Department, Cornell Aeronautical Laboratory, Buffalo, N. Y.
688
tions which would be intolerable in automobile

or aircraft operation. Such large oscillations as
normally occur in a high-speed submarine attempting to hold a straight line would put an automobile in the ditch and make an airplane unsuitable for gunnery, formation flying, or even
landing on an air strip.
One might well argue: If there is no path to
be followed in the ocean, why worry? W h y not
tolerate such instability ? Today, this is probably
a reasonable answer. With adequate operator
effort and skill achieved by long training, the
situation appears to be under control for moderate
speeds; but, if one considers the near future,
we m a y foresee t h a t higher speeds, or traveling
under ice or at greater depths through ocean canyons can become routine. Under such conditions,
the need to follow a line accurately becomes
evident.
There are at least three ways of improving the
straight-line stability. These, listed in order of
increasing effectiveness, are:
1 Provide the operator with special displays
which allow him to better predict his controlling
motions. (Display quickening is a form of this.)
2 Provide an automatic control system which
provides the necessary stability but still allows
the operator to have full command. (A full
autopilot would be a version of the foregoing in
which the operator is replaced by a navigational
instrument such as a gyro compass or depthcontrol device.)
3 Provide adequately sized tail surfaces so that
the center of hydrodynamic pressure is aft of the
center of mass of the submarine. This provides
hydrodynamic straight-line stability (or, as it is
termed in aircraft practice, static stability).
Increased damping of the heading oscillations also
results from this increase in tail surface area.
Methods i and 2 require no modification of the
submarine hydrodynamic configuratio.n and consequently are applicable to existing submarines
which are generally hydrodynamically unstable
at least in the horizontal plane (yaw). Lt. Comdr.
Baylis has favored method 2 for providing
stability and, in fact, Cornell h a s proposed this
as an immediate, b u t interim, solution to the
problem.
However, is this really the best approach?
Is it true t h a t the smaller the control surface
the lower the drag? Consider, for the moment,
only the matter of control drag. In order to pro14 Jean Dieudonne, "Collected French Papers on the
Stability of Route of Ships at Sea, 1949-1950/' issued by
the Institute of Research and Naval Construction, Paris,
Translation No. 246, David Taylor Model Basin, January
1953.
vide a given control moment, it is necessary to

deflect the smaller surface to a larger angle than
would be required if a larger surface were used.
If we find, in normal operation, the smaller surface requires very large angles for a large part of
the time, then generally its control drag is higher
than that encountered with the larger surface,
which operates at smaller angles and more favorable lift-to-drag ratios. Dieudonne recognized
this problem in his historic series of papers t4 when
he stated as follows: "On a ship of large inertia
which only slowly assumes its proper angular velocity in steady-state turning, it is possible to steer
a practically straight course in spite of an instability of route, provided the rudder is set as a sufficiently large angle from the moment the ship
assumes an angular turning velocity. Such a
maneuver is tricky but practicable, particularly
when the ship is equipped with a gyro compass.
The only thing that can be done in that case is
continually to steer the ship with an appreciable
rudder angle. This is certainly not favorable
either to its speed or to its fuel consumption.
The same maneuver is not practically possible on
an unstable ship when it assumes its steady state
rapidly because the corrections cannot be made
quickly enough."
Larger surfaces, particularly since they extend
farther out of the boundary layer of the hull,
have an added benefit by becoming more ef'fective as the span increases. Consequently, for
a given aspect ratio, the improvement is likely to
be more rapid than if predicted from surface area
alone.
One concern which has been expressed in going
to larger surfaces is that the control-surface
hinge moments become larger. This, however,
does not have to be the case. With proper attention to design, the center-of-pressure of the
movable surface can be located close to the hinge
line so that the control surfaces are essentially
balanced. For a completely movable control
surface, there will be a center-of-pressure shift
with angle of attack. This shift is small, near
zero angle of attack, but changes more rapidly
at higher angles where flow separation takes place.
Thus those surfaces with the least angle-ofattack change (near zero) will have the least
center-of-pressure travel expressed in percentage
of chord length. If the chord length of the larger
surface is not appreciably greater than that of the
smaller, it is possible to end up with less hinge
moment for the larger control surface. Detailed
design would have to determine the amount of
such changes.
Maneuverability. T o one concerned with maneuverability of other vehicles, it'is often a.surpfis~
Wit"h Foils
Wi'thou~ Foils
Drag Coeff., D'

Fig. 51
to find how low the centrifugal acceleration is

"during maximum turns with present high-speed
submarines. These accelerations are far lower
than those occurring in racing automobiles or
aircraft. One must not confuse the ability to
change heading angle with ability to follow a
curved fl~ght path. If it is only heading change
which concerns us and not flight-path curvature,
then we can afford to permit the submarine to
spin like a top even though its flight path is only
slightly curved as a result. Certainly in some emergency situations, this may be a desirable maneuver
since it allows the hull cross-flow drag to effectively
reduce the forward speed. However, if efficiency
of maneuver is important, perhaps another
criterion should be used, such as minimum speed
reduction permissible in a turn of a given radius.
If this is the desired situation, then hydrofoils
should be applied to the submarine since they are
far more efficient (high L/D) in providing lateral
forces than is the submarine hull itself. In other
words, a submarine fitted with foils can maintain.a
higher speed in a given turn than one without
foils assuming both have the same initial conditions. Fig. 51 of this discussion illustrates a
typical polar curve for a submarine with foils
and one without.
The curves clearly show that, if large lift coefficients are required, then the least drag coefficient is obtained b y using a submarine with
foils. T h e y also illustrate the obvious fact that
the drag at zero lift is higher for the submarine
with foils. Therefore, we can justify the application of foils for purposes of (1) providing tight
,turns, (2) for handling maneuvers efficiently
(with little loss of speed) or (8) for reducing the
fuel consumption in the event that a large amount
of maneuvering is to take place during the mist
Naval Aichitectural Aspectsof Submarine Design
689
sion. However, for maximum speed, for fuel economy in straight-line running and for flight conditions where maneuvering efficiency is unimportant, the conventional nonfoil configuration
would probably be best. For any given craft,
the payoff between good maneuvering capability
and good cruise efficiency would have to be
studied carefully before any firm decision could
be made concerning the use of foils.
Incidentally, the addition of foils need not affect
the straight-line stability if the foils are located
so that their centers-of-pressure are located at the
center-of-mass of the submarine.
I t is interesting to note that the sail on a submarine such as Albacore contributes a lateral
maneuver force roughly of the same magnitude
as that provided by the hull. I t has been suggested that this structure should be removed in
order to eliminate the large roll cross-coupling
and lateral instability which it produces. While
this removal does have these advantages plus the
important one of reducing drag to a minimum,
it unfortunately eliminates the sail's considerable
contribution to maneuver force. To solve the rollcoupling problem alone, one might consider applying a keel to the submarine. This would reduce
or eliminate the roll cross-coupling, add further to
the available maneuverable force, and by proper
placement add to the static stability in yaw. It
might, however, increase drag so that this apprgach would have to be considered carefully.
In all of the foregoing discussion, no mention
has been made of the many size, weight, and
structural compromises and limitations which
must be imposed upon the submarine design and
consequently will temper the above remarks.
However, it is this writer's opinion that only by
carefully balancing these stability and control
considerations against their associated drag penalties and by weaving all these considerations into
the preliminary and detail design processes can
the optimum submarine design be achieved.
Suggested Criteria. With the submarine now
capable of operating at increasing speeds, it has
become a truly dynamic machine and there is
need for new and definitive criteria for evaluating
its stability, control, and performance requirements. I t is suggested that submarine control
systems be evaluated on the bases of:
1 Providing sufficient straight-line stability
to allow the submarine to maintain the specified
accuracy of holding to its flight path both during
straight-fine and in turning operations.
2 Providing the maximum required acceleration in a turn with a loss in speed no greater than
a specified value.
690
3 Providing the minimum control drag for a

specified mission. This should consider not only
the drag due to control surfaces alone but the
losses caused by wandering away from the desired path.
4 Permitting most effective use of the operator
in the control system consistent with a specified
level of skills developed through training.
5 Permitting compatibility with existing and
proi~osed automatic control systems which will,
in routine "flight," permit hands-off operation
of the craft.
Authors' Closure
Commander Heller has noted that our appraisal of the "one-hoss shay" concept on the
design of pressure-hull structure coincides with
his own as presented in his discussion on Admiral
McKee's 1959 paper [1]. 1~ We consider this
discussion as well as Palermo's discussion on the
same paper [1] well worth rereading on the part
of those interesteci in this particular aspect.
Throughout Commander Heller's discussion one
can note the prevailing healthy attitude throughout all present-day submarine activities; namely,
that all submarine features are being re-examined
with the intent of providing improvements which
in most cases will be evolutionary but in some are
bound to be revolutionary. Commander Heller's.
as well as Captain Jackson's amplifying remarks
on the use of quarter-scale mockups at Portsmouth Naval Shipyard are also in this category.
They illustrate how it is possible to improve a
device, continually, even one .that is already
reasonably efficient.
In response to Captain Saunders, we adhere to
our brief statements in the paper concerning the
poor submerged performance and maneuverability
of the V-boats. It should be noted that this
class of submarine was not repeated but that, as
related in the paper, later development led to the
much smaller Fleet Boats that were so successful
in World W'ar II. As further support for our
statement, a quote from The Submarine, a manual
of the Submarine School in New London, Conn.,
concerning the V-boats is pertinent: "Their extreme size made them valuable for transport even
though it was a drawback in warfare because of the
sacrifice of maneuverability to size."
There is recognition in the paper of the point of
philosophy raised by Commander Baylis. Directional stability in the vertical plane with controls
fixed is not mandatory. The human or the automatic sensor in the control Ioop can and does
Rderences in the paper.
make a direcfionally unstable submarine w~.th spect. Rather we consider that some of the ship's
controls fixed, directionally stable with controls weight, that would otherwise appear as lead
working.
ballast in a strictly volume-limited submarine,
However, the viewpoint expressed by Com- should be proportioned to increasing scantlings
mander Baylis, that perhaps we have gone too and so provide a stronger pressure hull and one
far in building in controls fixed stability in sub- that could withstand a longer period of service
marines and that it might be wiser to throw more before requiring structural repairs.
of the burden on other elements in the control
Dr. Wenk has questioned the authors' position
loop, is an unusual and interesting one. For that on the "one-hoss shay" concept. Our views
reason we heartily welcome his discussion. More on this concept are identical with those of Heller
often, the submarine stability and control engineer and. Palermo, which are ably expressed in their
is remanded by the aeronautical engineer for not comments on Admiral McKee's paper [1 ]. These
providing enough controls fixed stability in sub- comments are too lengthy to repeat in this closure
marines as Mr. Crowell has done. In support of but are well worth rereading by any still in d o u b t : ,
his views Mr. Crowell says that if an airplane or an on this matter. Further, Wenk's closing state-automobile, possessed the stability and control ments in this respect are identical with thecharacteristies of a submarine, they would be liter- authors' philosophy; namely, to establish the
ally unmanageable on the airstrip or highway.
shell and general instability strengths for a perAt the same time Mr. Crowell's excellent dis- fect cylinder at a sizable percentage above yield.
cussion does go a long way towards reconciling
In establishing 1.16 as the maximum theoretical
his and Commander Baylis' points of view. Only value for ~ in Fig. 34 the authors did not intend
.on one point is there disagreement with his thesis to imply any interpretation similar to that taken
and that is his implication that drag considera- by Dr. Wenk; i.e., unexplained prediction that
tions have limited the size of control surfaces that about 30 per cent improvement in structural effisubmarine designers have been willing to accept, ciency is possible. The authors'concur with Dr.
whereas in reality the reluctance to extend control Wenk that this figure could only be approached
surfaces much beyond the block dimension of the in the case of deep-diving submarines.
submarine has been a major consideration.
Mr. Johnson has provided some valuable ampli
Mr. Crowell, though, makes a telling case for the lying comments in connection with the section
advantages of being able to maneuver tightly on structures. Of particular interest are his
with smaller hull angles of attack. In that regard comments concerning interframe buckling in
our acceptance of the traditional ability to change which the authors concur. In the structures
heading angle rapidly as a maneuvering criterion section the authors noted that a satisfactory
leaves much to be desired. Unfortunately, analysis for general instability failure was finally
precise flight-path data in the horizontal plane in achieved by Kendrick, whereas Mr. Johnson notes
the early stages of turn are usually not available so that a rigorous analysis in this case was carried .
that it is not possible to convert the data of Table out by Salerno and Levine while at Brooklyn
4 to change of flight-path angle rather than of Polytechnic Institute and in advance of Kenheading angle. In any event, Commander Baylis' drick's solution. This is new information to the
and Mr. Croweli's discussions reveal important authors who are pleased to have the record corproblem areas still deserving attention in the field rected. In his discussion concerning Fig. 34,
of submarine stability and control.
Mr. Johnson apparently did not notice that the
Dr. Wenk has requested the authors to state ~b-factors plotted were based on the yon Sanden
their basic concept for proportioning hull struc- and Gunther (92a) formulation. Because this
tures. Succinctly stated it is: "The optimum formulation is generally conservative most of the
design of the pressure hull is one of minimum C-values in Fig. 34 are lower than model tests
weight for the required strength." In this con- would indicate.
nection there will be occasions when the material
Mr. Uram takes the authors somewhat to
selected to provide the minimum-weight solution task for not dwelling more on the inaccuracies.
cannot be worked to a high efficiency because of inherent in the Froude method of extrapolating
fixed restraints of design depth and hull geometry. model data to full scale. We are fully aware of
A case of this nature was noted by the authors the inconsistencies and unreliable predictions that
in their discussion concerning Fig. 34.
arise from the use of this method in predicting
Dr. Wenk has asked the authors whether they the drag of vehicles like submarines that have very
don't agree that the alert designer will always seek small residual drag. However, the annals of
the lightest possible structure even in volume- the naval arc .hitectural societies are filled with dislimited cases? We do not fully agree in this re- cussions of this very subject so that we felt i t
Naval Architectural Aspects. of Submarine Design
~t
was clearly outside of the scope of a paper of this

kind. The section on speed and power was therefore based exclusively on what is now current
practice in submarine design offices irrespective
of the inaccuracies that are inherent in that praeflee.
In connection with the polygon discussion,
Captain Jackson has correctly noted t h a t Fig.
25 was inconsistent with our statement t h a t
moments are generally taken about a point in the
middle of the auxiliary tanks. Captain Jackson
is correct. The polygon used for illustrative purposes, Fig. 25, was based on employing the ship's
longitudinal center as the reference point rather
than the more generally employed standard.
Utilizing simple formulas, Captain Jackson has
noted that for very deep-diving submarines the
ratio of weight of pressure-hull structure to buoyaney is almost independent of length or diameter,
In fact this statement could also be made coneerning submarine structures now used for relatively shallow depths, i.e. based on the same design eriteria a pressure hull enveloping X eu ft of
volume will within reasonable limits require the
same total weight of steel whether its diameter be
D or 2D.
The authors welcome Professor Abkowitz's
discussion on stability and control for he is reeognized as the author of the first comprehensive
work in this field which though still unpublished
is nevertheless sought after b y those deeply
interested in the subject. The Society Bulletin
1-5 containing the standard nomenclature in
this field is based on his work.
Professor Abkowitz is correct that we assumed
Z." and M=' to be zero. These m a y not be insignificant in the circumstances that he mentions
but they h a v e been relatively insignificant in all
submarines to date. I t would, however, add to
eompleteness to include these terms.
We also agree t h a t our identification of the
force directed opposite to the rudder force as the
centrifugal force can lead to misinterpretation.
In this respect Professor Abkowitz's description
is preferable and we subscribe to his interpretation.
Mr. Hadler's remarks concerning the efficieneies
692
of counter-rotating screws and full-scale boundary-layer measurements are welcome additions

to the paper. If it is true, as Mr. Hadler states,
that the full-scale boundary layer is approximately
similar to the model boundary layer, and his
reasoning is plausible, then it is possible t h a t the
control surfaces exert the same beneficial effect
on S H P on the ship as they appear to do on the
model. In this event the additional work on this
item suggested in the paper would seem to be even
more clearly warranted.
We are most pleased that Dr. Weinblum has
commented on this paper. At a Cp = 0.70, a
form derived directly from [3] without parallel
middle body has about 8 per cent more total drag
(residual plus frictional) than a form with parallel
middle body. The authors would expect t h a t
a twelfth-degree polynomial form could approximate the parallel-middle-body" form more closely
and hence would have less drag than the sixthdegree "polynomial form. However, we cannot
answer the question as to whether a precise
cylindrical portion is a necessary condition for
minimum drag but agree that this is an interesting
theoretical and practical question.
The comments of Admiral McKee who has
had such .a long and highly productive career i n '
submarine design are particularly valued. Admiral McKee has noted that an increase in habitability standards (which in effect adds volume to
the submarine with no real concomitant weight
additions) can be employed to increase the weight
of pressure-hull structure and so increase the
operating depth. One should note as a corollary
t h a t a revision to older habitability standards
would not permit a real reduction in size of our
present submarines unless the operating depth were
also reduced in some proportionate manner.
In discussing means of obtaining increased pressure-hull scantlings without increasing the size
of the submarine we did not consider every item
now on board present submarines in whieh a
weight saving might be possible. If these were
considered, in addition to those already discussed
in the paper, then Admiral McKee's estimate t h a t
the present operating depth might well increase
b y 15 to 20 per cent appears entirely reasonable.

Naval Arch Aspect of Submarine Design

Hochgeladen von

Dokumentinformationen

Copyright

Verfügbare Formate

Dieses Dokument teilen

Dokument teilen oder einbetten

Freigabeoptionen

Stufen Sie dieses Dokument als nützlich ein?

Sind diese Inhalte unangemessen?

Copyright:

Verfügbare Formate

Naval Arch Aspect of Submarine Design

Hochgeladen von

Copyright:

Verfügbare Formate

Naval Architectural Aspects of

Member, a n d Philip M a n d e l , ~ Member

phasis on recent developments might not only be

Within these limitations each subject included

In many respects the historical development

C~ ~= prismatic coefficient of ends of submarine =

R ffi mean radius of pressure hull

F (L/2 R)~]1/4( ~ ~1/I

~ modified pressure factor ffi _P~

~b = also angle of heel measured from the vertical

Naval ArchitecturalAspects.of Submarine Design

USS Skipjack SS(N)-585

Naval Architectural Aspects of Submarine Design

POST WW'I~ DIESEL*ELEC

Fig. 1 Variations of principal dimensions of representative U. S. submarines

Referring to Fig. 1, it should be noted that the

S-boat's length-to-beam ratio had increased to

This submarine, the largest t h a t had ever been

Naval ArchitecturalAspectsof Submarine Design

Outboard profiles of four U. S. s u b m a r i n e s

fective antisubmarine attacks, or else the Fleet

Naval Architectural Aspects of Submarine Design

Fig. 3 Outboard profiles of four U. S. submarines

were initiated in about 1948 t h a t the United

Naval Architectural Aspects of Submarine Design

ship's axis and the stern planes were also located

The submarine that developed was the Skipjack

In considering the subject of speed and power

Naval ArchitecturalAspectsof Submarine Design

CURVES THROUGH EXPERIMENTAL PTS.

Variation of residual-resistance coefficient with L/D and C~

Naval Architectural Aspects of Submarine Des/gn

1.08 (L/D)2/'(v/Cp) 'Is

T h e bar shown in Fig. 4 at Cp = 0.65 indicates

buoyancy, which would be expected to reduce the

Naval ArchitecturalAspects of Submarine Design

Variation in total resistance with LID and Cp for submarine forms

Naval Architectural Aspects of Submarine Design

mum residual drag, a C~, = 0.60 was empirically

In turn L/D can be varied for any C~ and L /

of 31.5 ft increasing C~ from 0.60 to 0.80 yields

Naval Architectdral Aspectsof Submarine Design

planes both forward of the propeller similar to

Barbd, (SS 580), shown in Fig. 3.

Naval Architectural Aspects of Submarine Design

ance with increasing fineness ratios; however,

Hull Efficiency Effect on Propulsion

"2 " ' l e4

Fig. 9 Variation of wake coefficient, thrust-deduction

Naval Architectural Aspects of Submarine Design

GUPPY DARTER BARBEL SKATE NAUTILUSSKIPJACK

Fig. 11 Volume assigned for payload

There is, of course, reasonable doubt that the

Naval Architectural Aspectsof Submarine Design

LOWER LEVEL NOT USED

Variation in useful deck area with pressure-hull diameter

comes a very large part of the total weight does

quired over the older submarine. Of the three

Naval Archifecfural Aspectsof Submarine Design

Effective deck area on representative

commodate added items of equipment. Of the

Naval Architectural Aspects of Submarine Design

Deck area assigned for officers and crew

marine and her diameter is near the minimum